But mere opinions cannot settle such a question. However great our respect for the judgment of distinguished men, the time has gone by when their opinions are to settle the convictions of others upon any question open for critical investigation. Thoughtful minds do not care to believe a thing because somebody else thinks so. The demand is now, not for opinions, but for the reasons for the opinions, because an opinion is not evidence, and often is the merest conjecture.

The doctor thinks that the sentences, "He was the Christ" and "He appeared to them alive again during the third day," etc., are spurious. Nearly all the rest of the paragraph he admits as genuine. Now, will the doctor kindly furnish us his reasons, not opinions, for branding these two sentences as spurious, while he admits most of the remaining part of the paragraph as genuine? He should do this in the light of the following facts: (1) That there was no division of opinion touching the genuineness of this whole paragraph until the sixteenth century; (2) that it appears in full in every manuscript and version of Josephus's works; (3) that the usus obtained then, as now, to mention as a fact, not that which the writer himself believed, but that which was cognized and accepted as public opinion, as is illustrated in the case of Pilate when he wrote as the superscription on the cross, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews," when at the same time the Jews had no king, but were ruled by himself as the Roman procurator, or as is illustrated in the case of Mary, who, on finding Jesus at the age of twelve disputing with the authorities in the temple, said, "Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing," when Mary knew better than any one on earth that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, except in the adopting and reputed sense, as explained by Luke in the very next chapter-"Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph." It is easy to understand that, among the many pretenders who arose calling themselves Christ, this one was the one cognized and accepted by the many by way of preeminence, precisely as Pilate wrote that Jesus was King of the Jews in the esteem of the people.

It would be an immense contribution to historical science if the learned doctor should furnish convincing reasons, not mere opinions, why he particularly excepts these two sentences out of this famous paragraph and holds them to be spurious, especially if he should refute the reasons based on the points enumerated in the last paragraph. Truly, in historical inquiry, as in other affairs, one has not the right to believe a given proposition without the sufficient reason; but, having the reason, he has no right to disbelieve it. Touching the relation of Josephus to Jesus in his testimony, Edersheim gives expression to the following conjectural opinion: "Josephus always carefully suppresses, so far as possible, all that refers to the Christ-probably not only in accordance with his religious views, but because mention of a Christ might have been dangerous, certainly would have been inconvenient, in a work written by an intense self-seeker mainly for readers in Rome." * S. L. BOWMAN.

Newark, N. J.

*Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 1, p. 215.

THE ITINERANTS' CLUB.

THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND THE CHURCH.

It is not the province of the "Itinerants' Club" to comment in any critical way upon the actions of other denominations of Christians engaged in advancing the welfare of mankind. The controversy, however, now going on in the Presbyterian Church, and which has been going on for years and has reached a crisis, if not a final settlement, through the action of the late General Assembly, cannot fail to attract the attention of all ministers of the Gospel, and especially of young ministers. The action was the outcome of the discussion as to the relation to be observed between the General Assembly and the theological seminaries of the Church. It was decided that the students of no theological seminary out of harmony with the General Assembly should be received as ministers in the Presbyterian Church. It is no secret that this action was directed against one particular school; yet, in the absence of any direct statement on that point, it is rather the principle underlying the action which we shall here consider.

A discussion of the matter necessarily involves several elements. There is a distinction to be observed between the reception into the ministry of persons coming from other denominations, and the reception of those who have been trained in the denomination whose ministry they propose to enter. It is an accepted practice of all Churches to examine those who come from other denominations as to their faith and their harmony with the doctrines and discipline of the Church which they desire to enter, and, also, to demand an assurance of their good standing as ministers in the Church from which they come. The Church receiving them assumes no responsibility beyond the examination. The question, however, before the General Assembly was a different one. It was whether the Church itself should train the students who are to enter its ministry or should formally approve the teachings of those not in harmony with its doctrinal creed. When one is received under the control of a presbytery the latter assumes the management, or at least the responsibility, of the training through which he is to pass. It is hardly supposable that any denomination should allow its theological students to receive instruction inconsistent with beliefs of the Church. This seems to be the vital principle involved in the discussion, and is mentioned here, not for the purpose of approving or disapproving the action taken, but to call attention to what is essentially concerned in the relation of a Church to her theological seminaries. These are the creation of the Church, are supported by the Church, and exist for the maintenance and defense of the Church.

The point to be specially noted is the important position which theological seminaries hold in the estimation of the Church. Much of the controversy has gathered around two names-those of Professor Briggs, of the Union Theological Seminary, and Professor Smith, of the

Lane Theological Seminary, who have been held by a majority of the General Assembly to have taught doctrines not in harmony with the teachings of the Presbyterian Church. The action of the majority was based on the view that the instructors of the ministry shall be in harmony with the doctrinal standards. It is not the usage of the Presbyterian Church to require of its membership an adherence to its entire Confession of Faith; but it does require this of the candidates to its ministry, emphasizing the idea that, while liberties of belief are to be allowed to the laity, they cannot be permitted in those who are to guide and instruct the Church in sacred things. This is certainly a very interesting difference, which would be held by many to be inconsistent. Our own Church requires alike of ministry and membership that they shall avow adherence to the doctrines and discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and a layman, as well as a minister, may be excluded for violating the compact. No such compact is required of the laity in the Presbyterian Church, but only of candidates to the ministry.

The idea, however, that those who represent the Church as instructors of its ministry shall be in harmony with the doctrines of the Church is well grounded. The theological seminaries are created by the Church for the specific purpose of training young men who shall be teachers and promoters of those beliefs and usages on which the Church was founded and for whose advancement it exists. She has a right to expect that her agents shall truly represent her, or, if they do not so represent her, that they shall give place to those who will do so. Anything else would be subversive of Church order and might even become destructive of her existence. Suppose, for instance, that the Trinity be recognized, as it is, as an accepted doctrine of evangelical Christianity. One may call it a dogma if he will, a mere abstraction without bearing on practical life, an intellectual, and not a moral, conception, and may say that it is a matter of indifference whether he teach it or not. But suppose such a person to be a professor in a theological seminary. Could he consistently remain there while the dogma was recognized as an essential part of the creed of his Church? The questions would arise as to how far the variance from doctrine was a vital onc, and whether such variance was a proper subject for Church action. With this question, as it relates to the Presbyterian Church, we have nothing really to do. Whether the teachings of Professor Briggs and of Professor Smith are in harmony with the Presbyterian Confession is a matter for that denomination, through its highest representative body, to decide. The point in which we are specially interested is the bearing of the recent decision of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church on theological seminaries in general. Their relation to the Church is so intrinsic and so important that all denominations appreciate the necessity of throwing around them such safeguards as shall promote or defend the interests of the denomination they represent, without hindering a free and full discussion of all those great and momentous topics which from time to time confront the Church concerning her doctrines and her polity.

42-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. X.

SOME CONDITIONS OF EXTEMPORANEOUS DISCOURSE. MANY books have been written on the art of extemporaneous speaking. It is universally conceded that the power of accurate and forcible extemporization is a very desirable one, and young speakers are earnestly urged to cultivate it. By speaking extempore is not meant speaking without previous thought, but without having previously clothed the thought in language. How far one can have precise thoughts without formulation in words is an open question, and one we do not raise here. For our present purpose it is sufficient to say that extemporaneous speaking means the employment of language which occurs to one while speaking, to convey thoughts which have been previously considered. It is distinguished from the memorized recitation of something previously written. Memoriter preaching cannot be considered as belonging to our subject. It is rather the reading of a discourse, with the notes concealed from view. The method of preparation for preaching without manuscript is, in a measure at least, different from that for discourse intended to be read. There are very few persons who can develop a thought closely on their feet. An ethical discourse in which fine discriminations are made is more difficult of development than a logical discussion in which the mind moves forward by the ordinary processes of argument.

The first requisite for extempore speaking is a mind trained to logical processes. Men differ greatly in this particular, some minds grasping matters in groups, or pictorially, rather than logically. One of the most important studies, therefore, especially for one who would follow consecutive trains of thought, is that of pure logic. This study shows how the human mind normally acts. Some one has divided our reasoning processes into two classes-formal and informal. We reason formally when we are conscious of our processes and give attention to them. We reason informally when we express conclusions without recognizing or giving attention to the order of logical procedure. All persons are constantly engaged in logical processes, whether they note them or not. The study of pure logic develops and trains the mind to move forward from step to step by natural laws; and thus cach thought, as it arises, is the nexus or bond which is essential to extempore address.

Another element in this style of address is an orderly arrangement, or what is technically called the plan. Great extempore speakers are accustomed to prepare clear outlines of what they wish to say, and can scarcely get along without them. They are the signal lights which keep them from losing their way, and they direct their course from one to another with great care. If the faculty of development fails in one point it may appear in another, and the effect of even a moderate discussion of each point will not seriously impair the effect as a whole. The plan, independently of the fullness of the discussion, will convey its impression. It is remarkable how a series of well-arranged propositions or points, logically dependent on each other, will produce a profound impression by their mere statement, without any elaboration whatever. A well-arranged

and well-digested plan is, in the nature of the case, most favorable to free address.

The supreme qualification for this kind of address is a thorough familiarity with the subject under consideration. One needs to be so familiar with it that he can touch it at any point and understand all its bearings. One of the most effective speakers of this kind was in the habit of spending the entire week on the theme he proposed to discuss, omitting all consideration of the analysis of the subject or the language to be used. When the discussion of an extended passage of Scripture was before his mind he did not even give precise form to his topic until Saturday night or Sunday morning. Perhaps the passage to be considered was the ninth chapter of Acts. The topic of the chapter is the conversion of St. Paul. The week previous to the Sabbath was devoted to a critical study of the whole passage, with grammar, dictionary, and commentary. The topography of the country, the force of the words and their grammatical connection, the doctrinal and practical bearings of each part were considered until the whole subject was before the mind in all its breadth and fullness. When this has been done two or three lines of thought open before the preacher, one of which he may select. The preacher above referred to said that with the material thus collected he could preach three or four sermons, each distinct from the others. Having selected and studied his topic and constructed a general outline, he allowed his mind to do its thinking in the pulpit, in accordance with logical processes and without any previous preparation of the language to be employed. It is conceded that the ability to do this with success is a rare attainment, but it is one much to be desired.

DEVELOPMENT IN SERMONIC COMPOSITION.

THE literary style of a sermon will be largely dependent upon its purpose; if the object be to reform some evil or advance some concrete interest the general style will differ from that of a discourse purely ethical and spiritual. A style clear, full, and adapted to the subject is difficult of acquisition, and yet very important to the successful preacher. The late Dean Stanley, of Westminster Abbey, London, is regarded as a master of English style. His mode of preaching was by written discourse, which was closely read. The interesting character of his subjects and his felicity of expression and illustration made his discourses exceedingly attractive to his hearers, and Westminster Abbey was crowded by those who came to listen to him.

A typical selection will illustrate. His sermon on "Science and Religion," in memory of Sir John Herschel, was founded upon Gen. i, 14, 15: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." He speaks of the "two characteristics of the biblical accounts of the sun and moon and stars that contain the first