THE revival of theological discussion in this country, after the lapse of rather more than a generation, may be traced chiefly to three causes.

Of these the most direct and wide-spread is, manifestly, to be found in the growth of biblical and historical criticism. It was not to be expected or hoped that the critical spirit, so busy elsewhere, would be diverted from inquiry into the sources of the Christian faith. Indeed, there was abundant reason for critical inquiry in respect to the Bible, quite apart from the necessities of defense against merely destructive criticism. The science of interpretation demanded, as the condition of further progress, a more accurate and a more vivid understanding of the Scriptures in the light of their origin and historical setting. And it will doubtless be conceded that the results already obtained have justified the application of the historical method to the Bible. Better textual exegesis than appears upon the pages of Ellicott and Meyer could not reasonably be asked for, but no student of the New Testament would think of ignoring the work of Lightfoot and Weiss in historical interpretation. Historical criticism, however, as applied to the Scriptures, is more than an auxiliary to exegesis. And reference has been made to its work in this relation simply to indicate the spirit of its approach to theology. What it now asks of theology is a re-statement of the "doctrine of sacred Scripture" according to the historical facts which it has brought to light and according to the method which it has established. At present theological discussion, which affects the Bible, centres about this demand. But we may suppose that as investigation proceeds and the Bible becomes better understood, not only in its origin and

Copyright, 1885, by HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & Co.

structure, but in its motive and purpose, questions will arise in regard to the various doctrines, as to what in them is biblical and what is extra-biblical, and in regard to any existing system of doctrine, whether it was conceived in the spirit, and satisfies the intent of the Christian Scriptures.

Another cause, less general, but acting within its limits with great moral intensity, is to be found in the incompleteness of the last doctrinal discussion carried on in the Calvinistic schools and churches of the country, specially in those of New England. The large outcome of that discussion was the assertion of the principle of the universality of the atonement, the atonement, that is, was set free from the limitations of an arbitrary election. The divine sovereignty was declared to consist with the absolute freeness of the atonement. More than this. The divine sovereignty, as informed by the divine benevolence, was declared to be the motive and the guarantee of its freeness and universality. But the principle thus enunciated was not carried to its legitimate conclusion. For of what avail to take the atonement out of the grasp of an arbitrary election and leave it confronted by an arbitrary providence. Where is the real gain in believing that the death of Christ was for all, and, as such, is the only condition of salvation, if his death is to be to the many an unknown and unknowable event? And what is the consistency of affirming the universality of the atonement as an advance upon previous conceptions, and at the same time denying that the soul which is to meet Christ in judgment may first have the opportunity of knowing Him as an atoning Saviour? To some minds intent upon the relation of the atonement to law, it may be enough to say, that the death of Christ, because designed for all, is the ground upon which God can, according to his good pleasure, forgive the sins of all, and thereby justify himself in the eyes of the universe. But to other minds intent upon the relation of the atonement to law and also to life, it is not only practically inconclusive, but morally confusing, to hold the death of Christ chiefly to its work of satisfaction to law, and allow it no manifest and complete connection with the life of the race.

I have referred to the moral feeling which characterizes this phase of the theological problem. Thus far the presence of the moral element has been too much ignored or evaded. It has been said that the interest in the question is purely speculative. No greater mistake could be made. The same moral sense which in its time protested against the theory of a limited atonement is

to-day in protest against the theory of the limited application of the atonement. The present discussion inherits the spirit and purpose, as well as the unfinished work, of that which went before. I emphasize the fact that the discussion at this point is an inheritance an inheritance and not an importation. German theology has reached the idea of universality through its development of the doctrine of the person of Christ; New England theology has reached the same idea of universality through its development of the doctrine of the atonement. The two methods involve equally, - only, if it be possible, the latter, with more urgency, the whole question of the present and future relation of Christ to the race. It is now evident that the discussion cannot be arrested. The discussion will make sensible gains when the moral purpose which actuates it is recognized and appreciated.

A third cause, of which little public notice has been taken, which it will be the object of this article to set forth, is to be found in the growing influence of the pulpit upon theology.

The contemporary pulpit is often charged with the lack of theological preaching. There are some reasons which, while they support the charge, explain it; such as the rapid incoming of other than purely theological subjects within the range of the pulpit, and the partial change in the method of preaching from the forensic to the more literary habit. And, to any one familiar with the recent literature of preaching, signs are not wanting of a return to the theological impulse. It is noticeable that as theology becomes more vital and creative the sermon shows it. Still I am not disposed to call in question or to qualify too much the current opinion that preaching is less theological than in former times. I admit that the pulpit of the past twenty years has not been the exponent or the servant of technical theology, and also that it has not accomplished anything of moment in the re-formulating of theology. But to admit this is very far from admitting that the pulpit has ceased to be an influence upon theology. On the contrary, and for the reason that it has been less theological in purpose and method, its reflex influence has been the greater. Working under the inspiration of motives drawn from the marvelous activities of the church, working also under exposure to the intellectual temptations of the age, and confronting its grave social problems, it has been obliged to take serious account of influences of which theology needs the constant reminder. The modern pulpit has not been a critic of theological systems. It has simply

L

submitted them to its working tests. Its only criticism upon them has been in their disuse at points where they have failed to work. Some doctrinal statements it has ignored, others it has modified, others still it has made more emphatic. Whether its negative or positive influence has been the greater it might be difficult to determine. All that I wish to affirm is that according to the ability and earnestnesss with which the pulpit has endeavored to fulfill its own proper functions it has become most influential in theology. Not that its influence has been, or ought to be, in exact proportion to its work, the question is not at all one of quantity, - but that its work has been of such a nature as to make it necessarily a reconstructive force in theological opinion and belief.

We may consider the work of the contemporary pulpit in its theological bearings under several aspects. One is its relation to the Christian experience and belief; another, its relation to the spirit of inquiry without but within reach of the church; another, its relation to morals; another still, its relation to the evangelistic and missionary movements of the time.

I. One very considerable part of the work of the contemporary pulpit has been to give reality to the Christian experience and the Christian belief. If it be asked if this has not always been a considerable part of the work of the pulpit, I answer, Yes; but not always by the same necessity or to the same degree. Probably few are aware of the vast increase in church membership throughout the country during the past generation, or, if aware of the increase, have fully considered its effect upon the responsibilities of the ministry. According to Dr. Dorchester, there were, in 1880, over ten millions in the membership of evangelical churches in the country, an increase over the year 1850 of more than six and one half millions. One result of this unprecedented increase has been to create congregations made up almost entirely of Christian believers. This is specially noticeable in the larger churches of the cities. Any special service of these churches, as in connection with the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, will show a congregation nearly as large as that of the morning service. Not that it is altogether the same. The entire membership of a church is never in attendance at any given service, but it is always, in such churches, the preponderating influence. Some time ago there was a discussion, in one of the religious papers, of the question whether conversion was one of the lost arts. The discussion opened with the charge, supported by statistics, that many of the larger churches were not making proportionate

gains to their membership through conversions. To which the reply was made, admitting the facts given, but unfolding the work of such churches in other directions. It would have been pertinent to the discussion to have called attention to the fact now under consideration, namely, the want of material within the congregations specified for large annual additions to the church. This fact does not excuse any lack in evangelistic effort without, but it does suggest the limitations under which some congregations are placed in respect to conversions from within.

What, now, has been the object of the preacher who has found himself confronted Sabbath after Sabbath by a Christianized ccngregation? What has he been able to place before himself as the equivalent, in moral and spiritual urgency, to the endeavor of the evangelist for the conversion of men? I answer in one word - reality; the endeavor to make the beliefs which take up the life and lead it on after conversion as real in their power as those which lead up to the act of conversion; to make the experience which follows as real as that involved in the act itself. Observation has shown that mere activity in Christian service is not a substitute for reality in Christian believing. Work cannot often be prescribed as a remedy. It may cure morbidness, but it will not cure doubt and unreality. Neither is it a sufficient treatment for immaturity. The young life must have its growth in grace and in the personal knowledge of Jesus Christ. Every pastor knows that there is an increasing necessity for doctrinal preaching, only it is not of the precise sort for which the formal call is apt to be made. Where doctrinal preaching is called for, the call usually comes from those who wish to revive the circumstances and experiences which attended their own conversion. The sermon which gratifies this desire generally accomplishes little more. It is merely an exercise in "the pleasures of memory." The doctrinal preaching which invigorates and inspires the Christian believer is that which addresses itself to the Christian believer, and to his present, not to his past experiences. It recognizes the Christian life, even in the immature, as begun, not always in the most satisfactory way, yet as begun,—and proceeds to unfold and urge those truths which were designed to give it assurance, development, reality.

The ministry of to-day, according to my observation, is very much in earnest in its endeavor to satisfy the true conditions of the Christian experience and faith. Perhaps the most serious preaching of the time, that which has the most spiritual power