He would however advert to the concluding remarks of the speaker who preceded him. The Venerable Archdeacon Churton directed attention to certain festivals, such as Good Friday, and the season of Advent, on which the spiritual weal of Israel might be thought of, and stimulate intercessory prayer in behalf of the Saviour's kinsmen after the flesh; the speaker thought that not only those solemn seasons afforded opportunities to the Christian to think prayerfully of Israel, but day by day is the opportunity furnished. The Bible, which the members of the Church Congress read and valued; the Psalms which they sang, the prayers which they offered up-modelled according to the Scriptures of truth, no matter who the compiler happened to be-were all Jewish. Whenever they contemplated a dying Saviour's love, a risen Saviour's power, an ascended Saviour's glory, a returning Saviour's majesty, they could not, they dared not be unmindful of that race from which after the flesh that Saviour sprang.

On Dr. Margoliouth returning to his seat, the Right Reverend President observed that the last speaker was inaccurate in interpreting the intention of the "Subject Committee," as regards the term "Modern Judaism." The Subject Committee meant to intimate by that term the difference between the present state of Jewish thought, and the old Rabbinical traditions. All we have to say to this ex cathedra explanation, at present, is that his lordship and the Subject Committee of the Church Congress just held, were cruelly imposed upon in re "Modern Judaism." We can assure both the Right Reverend President and the Subject Committee, that there is not the slightest difference between the present state of Jewish thought, and the old Rabbinical traditions. It is true that in the modern synagogues are found a very, very small percentage of free thinkers, but those very few, comparatively, "Jewish philosophers" have no more changed the present aspect of Jewish thought of the nation at large from that of the old Rabbinical traditions, than the few Tyndalls and Huxleys, who have seceded from the Church of England, have changed the present state of thought amongst English Churchmen, from the old reformed Christian faith in this land. There are about 80,000 Jews in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Search we ever so diligently, we cannot muster four hundred Jews in England who have discarded the thoughts which old Rabbinical traditions have given birth to during the dark ages of the Christian era, and which centuries of cruel persecution have nursed, bred, and developed. In foreign lands, where the Jews reside in far greater numbers than in this country, such as Russia, Turkey, Austria, the percentage of Jewish "free thinkers" may be reduced to a much smaller ratio than in this country. Does any one question our statement, then we would refer such a one to our articles on the Clifton Conference, as well as to our preliminary notice of the Hebrew Commentary of the Pentateuch, which appeared in our last issue. The Bishop of Chichester's explanation, therefore, must be ascribed to imperfect information derived from suspicious quarters, by this year's Subject Committee of the Church Congress. We hope for better things, and a more intelligible programme from the next, when moreover speakers on the subject, under our special review, will be selected not for their unacquaintance with the genius of the method in which they are to work. We

sincerely trust that the suggestion, that the English Jews be treated under the category of HOME MISSIONS, will be given heed to.

Reflecting on the papers read by Mr. Banning and Dr. Barclay, we were struck by the oft understated statement that upwards of a hundred Hebrew Christians were now ordained clergymen of the Church of England. We have reason to maintain that the real number of Hebrew Christian clergymen is about two hundred. However, we take, for the nonce, the statement of those two gentlemen. Both made an important point of the fact, and very justly so. But what perplexed us, under the circumstances, was the anomalous problem that one, at least, of those hundred Hebrew Christian clergymen was not selected to read one of the papers on "Modern Judaism." We saw ten Hebrew Christian clergymen at the Congress. We are positive that every one of them was better acquainted with the genius of the method of treating the theme than the selected readers. What is more, we think it unaccountably strange that Mr. Banning and Dr. Barclay, who read so feelingly and lovingly, and emphatically of the abilities of Hebrew Christians, did not themselves propose some Hebrew Christian clergyman for the work! How different from the late Dr. M'Caul, when the first Anglican Bishopric of Jerusalem was offered to him: he-like a genuine friend of Israel as he was-maintained that a Hebrew Christian should be the Bishop of Jerusalem. Able and worthy as that great man was to fill any Bishopric in Christendom, he persistently declined to accept the honour, and recommended the late Dr. Michael Solomon Alexander to the distinguished ecclesiastical post. We have long since given up to look for successors to him-except amongst his own sons-amongst modern professional "friends of Israel," or amongst the members of modern Committees of Jews' societies.

Apropos of the modern Committee of the London Jews' Society. We should very much like to examine the members of that board--secretaries, past and present, included-in Hebrew and " Modern Judaism." It is, indeed, an amazing anomaly that a set of men thoroughly unacquainted with the genius of the language and creed of modern Jews should think themselves fitted to appoint missionaries to the Jews. It was well observed to us the other day, "Such a thing would be scouted in the commercial world." Hence some of that Committee's appointments of late years!!! We do not wish to hurt any person's feelings; but a solemn sense of duty to our brethren of the House of Israel, and to the truebut ill-informed in this matter-lovers of our nation, constrains us to ask, For what peculiar acquaintance with the genius of the method in which they were expected to work were the Chaplain of the Episcopal Jews' Chapel and the Superintendent of the Operative Jewish Converts' Institution in Palestine Place selected? It is not because a curate happens to be gifted as a speaker on missions to the Jews, or because a certain incumbent has shown talent in ministering to a congregation of negroes, that he is therefore qualified to deal with the peculiar characteristics of modern Jews and Judaism. We feel constrained by the attributes of Truth -Truth without fear or favour; Truth against synagogues; Truth against churches; Truth against societies; Truth against Committees; TRUTH AGAINST THE WORLD-to put on record that it is our conscientious conviction that the present Committee of the Jews' Society, with the

staff of secretaries, chaplain, and superintendent, are in duty bound to resign their respective offices and posts into the hands of men who are thoroughly acquainted with the genius of the method in which the peculiar work is to be conducted. We have much more to say anent to this solemn question, but we forbear at present. We only add now our earnest supplication that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, may so quicken the consciences of all those whom the subject concerns, whether in Committees, Convocations, or Church Congresses, that they may deal with it with a single eye to the promotion of God's glory and the salvation of immortal souls.

THE LORD'S PRAYER.--NO. IV.

Postponed to the next issue, to make room for the preceding article.

PREACHING THE GOSPEL.

BY THE REV. G. WILDON PIERITZ, M.A.

WHEN St. WHEN St. Paul says "It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe," he speaks only ironically, and as preaching might be regarded by the mocker, who would exclaim, "What will this babbler say ?"† for, in truth, preaching is a most powerful means, fully equal to the end for which even St. Paul himself employed it. Classical literature abounds in illustrations of the powerful effect which an inspired oratory has often produced upon assemblies of men,‡ of the sudden change of sentiment it has often effected in the sphere of political life, and in the judicial forum. And what wonder that it is even more effective in that which concerns man's interest throughout the ages of eternity! Here there is a material to work upon, a raw material, which God has deposited in the heart of every man, without which man could not be, but with it is capable of being, compelled to be, a religious animal - if we must so call him, of some sort or other; if nothing better, at least the slave of some base superstition, or a spiritualistic unbeliever, or sceptic, even though "having no hope, and without a God in the world;" or the material remains in its raw condition, unmanufactured, and then becomes "religion without dogma;" or it is used up unskilfully, and so becomes heresy. This raw material itself testifies to the being of a God, whom to worship must be man's first duty, and his highest privilege; and by the agency of sacred oratory, this material is woven into a robe of righteousness and true holiness, unless the preaching become " a savour of death unto death."

The preacher then must be very earnest.§ A clergyman once asked Garrick, "How is it that you always fill your theatre, while I cannot fill my church, though we both use the same means ?" "Because I," re

* 1 Cor. i. 21.

† Acts xvii. 18.

And compare Shakespeare, Julius Cæsar, act iii., scene ii.; Hamlet, act ii., end of scene ii, § Acts xiv. 1.

plied the great actor, "tell a lie as though it were the truth: you tell the truth as though it were a lie." Earnestness alone, however, is not all the preacher needs. All that a Garrick has to do is, to entertain an audience for an evening, not to convert men from inveterate superstition to Divine truth; from being enemies to Christ the only Saviour, to become worshippers of Him. To produce a lasting effect, so as to convert and save, apart from what is supernatural,-for the true preacher can be no Pelagian,-the preacher must deposit something in the hearts of his hearers, which must convince, sooner or later compel assent to the truth of his preaching. God Himself says to man, 66 Come, and let us reason together;" and of all the books probably in the world, there is not one so full of reasoning, often most subtle, as the New Testament. The notion of a "Religion of the heart" without the head, is as foreign to the New Testament, as a Religion of the head without the heart. God will have the whole man to be sanctified, the head not less than the heart. It is just in the matter of religion that the affections can no more go without the understanding, than can the left foot travel without the right. Even the pious rustic under wise teaching,* may know why he believes, though he might not be able to reproduce the argument. Wherein the infidel reasoner fails is, first, in not recognising the marvellously conclusive argument which the Bible involves; secondly, that he wants matters of faith, which can rest on the authority of Divine revelation only, to be proved to him à priori, independent of Divine revelation. When Tertullian says, Credo quia impossibile (I believe because it is impossible), he only expresses in a provoking, combative form what others have said in words of reason, without defiance, as, "A God understood, would be no God at all;" or more harshly, "To think that God is as we can think Him to be, is blasphemy," &c. And what is true of being is also of working.

The preacher then, and above all, the missionary preacher, must have knowledge as well as earnestness; and of this knowledge he can never have too much, especially if he will labour among Jews; for among Jews, while you find some of the very highest attainments, and especially well-versed in those very Scriptures which are ultimately the missionary's sole reliance, you find none so ignorant as the masses in any heathen country,-as the Jew excels the heathen also in virtue. But in this we speak only of acquired knowledge, which is within the reach of every man of sound mind; for in other respects you can no more train a missionary, than you can a poet.

That such attainment is not beyond the reach even of an ordinary, duly qualified Christian pastor, the following anecdote will show. Early in the eighteenth century, one Rabbi Herschel, being engaged in writing a commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures with the express design of forestalling all Christian arguments based upon them, made a journey through Europe, for the purpose of consulting with the most distinguished Jewish scholars about his important undertaking. In Saxony he was attacked by a set of highwaymen, stript, and left half dead. He was picked up, and carried to the nearest village, in the inn of which he remained for his recovery, meeting with all the sympathy that might be

* Jer. iii. 15.

PREACHING THE GOSPEL.

expected under such circumstances. Among those who visited him was the village pastor, who, like the generality of German pastors, knew Hebrew; and having learned what enterprise the Rabbi had in hand, begged of him to tell him how he would interpret certain prophecies which he specified. The Rabbi tried his best, but the Christian pastor stopped him at every turn. This Rabbi was baptized in the year 1722, by the name of Fried. Alb. Augusti, having before his baptism had to encounter a number of learned Jews who had been invited to meet him in public discussion. He died a Christian pastor, leaving behind him a son who became a distinguished theologian, who was, however, far excelled by a son* of his. And such conversions, not effected by professional missionaries, have been going on in Germany ever since.

Incompetent missionaries, on the other hand, only expose themselves to ridicule, and their very faith sometimes even to shipwreck.

A knowledge of the religious literature of a people amongst whom a missionary labours, if they have such a literature, is always of great advantage, and especially is this the case for a missionary labouring among Jews, who have a very extensive religious literature; among the rest there is this advantage, that there is hardly a Christian interpretation of any Messianic prophecy, which is not to be found in some Jewish authority or other, often in many, though rejected by modern Jews. Here, however, one caution is very necessary. I was once, many years ago now, present at a public discussion, when the best qualified missionary to Jews that England has ever produced, expatiating at some length on some of the uglier features in the Rabbinical literature, met with the following smart 66 you Christians retort: "According to your account," a Jew replied,

are a great deal worse than your religion is calculated to make you; while we Jews are a great deal better than ours could have made us." There is much found in Jewish writings which is silly, superstitious, extravagant, even heathenish. But this has not all been assimilated; does not really enter into the essence of their religion, or their life. With regard to such matter generally, they have a saying: "The light talk of

שיחת חולין של תלמידי חכמים צריכין) ".the wise requires study

7), as if those ugly parts had some mystery, some hidden meaning in them, and were not always to be taken literally. The Talmud, in particular, is not what some people fancy, a work of reference, to which the learned Jew goes to find what is the traditionary law upon any subject of inquiry; but has rather the character of a series of bulky journals, as if it consisted of the minutes of all the daily talk and discussions of a number of scholarly men who assembled together for years in succession. Sometimes laws are discussed, laws of every possible kind, on which different opinions are given; sometimes anecdotes are related, grave and gay; sometimes there is a bit of history; often verbal criticisms; nor is the jest and the joke wanting.-And something like this the Bible would have been, were it what Rationalists delight in representing it, the fruit of the Hebrew genius. For practical laws actually required, the Jews have a number of Digests,-and here it is not a little remarkable, that one of the most famous of these Digests is by a man, Moses Maimonides, whom the Jews regard as far from ortho

* Joh. Chr. Wilh. Augusti, who died 1841.