swine, and further the fact that also among other Semites the swine is a demonic animal, as in the Adonis cult of Byblus. Here too the motive is then apparently cultic or religious; thus the possibility that the "unclean" animals are demonic or totemic becomes apparent.

Let me remind you that a totem is an animal that is reverenced by a body of primitive men and women who call themselves by the name of this animal, believe themselves to be of one blood, descendants of this same animal as a common ancestor, and bound together by common obligations to each other and by a common faith in their supposed common ancestor. To enter more fully upon a discussion of this subject of totemism is not necessary for our immediate purpose. In addition to what has been said it is enough to know that the totemic animal as a rule was never eaten by the clan whose totem it was, while on the contrary the totem of a hostile clan frequently was taken to provide a sacrificial meal. Apart from these prohibitory food laws, I may perhaps further remind you, there are other traces in the Old Testament, survivals of this primitive totemic practice. That this practice was early and pre-Yahwistic is evident from the fact that the conception "clean" is more comprehensive than the conception "sacrificial"; the gazelle and the antelope and similar animals that chew the cud are "clean" and consequently are allowed to be eaten, but they are not sacrificed. On the other hand we read of totemic practices in a comparatively late period of Israel's historical development, so, for instance, as late as the final chapters of our present book of Isaiah, as we also read of them in Ezekiel, notably in the eighth chapter.

The large number of these forbidden animals is due to the fact that the dietary practices and habits of the various clans passed to the collective body after the union of the individual clan and tribal elements. Here you must remember as always as remains of sacrifices, indicating that the pig was a sacrificial animal among the cave-dwellers of ancient Gezer, a pre-Semitic Palestinian race, see R. A. STEWART MACALISTER, Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer (1906), p. 48.

that Israel, the collective body, grew out of a conglomerate mass of tribal elements having a more or less heterogeneous character.

It is apparent, I take it, that these prohibitory food laws are not of a uniform character or origin, and further that all of them may be traced back to primitive cultic motives. In our chapter (Dt. 14) and by the Priestly Writer (not to mention the differences between the list of animals in Deuteronomy and that in the Priestly Writer*) these primitive customs are thrown or brought together into one class and are given a new meaning which rendered its service in its day. The people by these laws were to be weaned away from their former polytheistic practices and brought over to a monotheistic Yahwism; they were to be different from other nations, a people holy unto the Lord.

Together with the influence of other laws, the influence of these prohibitory food laws gradually brought about a state of affairs which was hardly dreamt of by these early legislators. The product of this legal influence was: (a) A striking one-sidedness in the development of Jewish civilization, (b) the externalization of religion, and (c) the exclusive and separatistic and nationalistic character of the religion of Judaism.

This was a mighty bulwark against the inroads from without of the Greek intellect and of the Roman force of arms; and within it cost early Christianity, which appeared in the garb of this Judaism, considerable effort to break the powerful influence of these laws. It was only or largely due to the strenuous and persistent efforts of Paul, who in addition

"In hoofdzaak komen de spijswetten van Lev. 11 geheel met die van Deut. 14 overeen. Alleen mogen volgens Lev. 11" ook vier soorten van sprinkhanen gegeten worden, eene uitzondering in Deuteronomium onbekend. Onder de verboden vogels wordt daarentegen in Lev. niet, zooals in Deuteronomium, de wouw genoemd. Eindelijk wordt het gedierte, dat kruipt en over den grond sluipt, waarover Deut. zich niet uitliet, hier uitdrukkelijk als verboden waar beschouwd en daarvan een achttal soorten met name genoemd, namelijk het wezeltje, de muis, de pad, de egel, de salamander, de muurhagedis, de slak en de mol."

to his Jerusalem training was trained abroad in the Hellenic schools and consequently was less provincial, more cosmopolitan, and enjoyed a wider outlook than his fellow-Jews, that the influence of these laws was finally broken. The principle of opposition appears already in Jesus: "Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man." (Matt. 15: 11, compare Mk. 7: 15 ff.) The principle was however, more vigorously enforced by Paul who when meeting with Judaizing Peter at Antioch had the boldness to swing his fist into the chief apostle's face, and to withtand him to the face. He declared he was not willing to be held under the bondage of the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. Peter would have made a Jew of every new convert with perhaps little more than a slight Christian varnish. The whole Jewish cult, ritual and all, including circumcision, might rest upon us had not Paul so vigorously opposed this Judaizing tendency. Paul, the apostle, stepped in and tore away from the bosom of Judaism infant Christianity and transferred it into the arms of the fostermother humanity. There it grew in wisdom and stature, growing in favor with God and man. There, to change the

figure, the sapling grew and became a mighty tree towering high and is now spreading its branches far and wide. The nations of the earth, barbarian, Scythian, bond and free, all of them may find shelter under its branches and refreshment of soul in its benign shadow.

We, who believe that religion is a thing of the heart, and find a solace in the fact that it is a life, rather than the subjection to a ritual, or even rather than a performance of an external cult, can hardly feel too grateful to Paul for his vigorous opposition against the Judaizers in his day. With an exultant triumph we exclaim with Paul when he says: "I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."*

*The above exposition was delivered in Santee Hall, Theological Seminary, at Lancaster, Pa., Thursday morning, January 17, 1907.

V.

THE PREACHER'S MESSAGE.

BY THE REV. C. E. CREITZ, A.M.

The problem of the preacher must ever be: How can I make my preaching most effective in the service of the Kingdom of God? In the study of this problem he will naturally seek light from the Scriptures. He will carefully ponder the preaching of the prophets and of the apostles to discover the secret of their power. He will make himself familiar with the masterpieces of pulpit utterance in ancient and modern times. He will become a diligent student of the best that has been written on the science of homiletics. But above all he will go to Jesus and inquire of Him and seek to learn from Him the essentials of the preacher's message.

When the Lord preached His matchless sermon on the Mount, the people were astonished, because He taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes. The effect produced by this sermon was due largely, no doubt, to the unique character and personality of the preacher. This is true in a measure of all sermons. The preacher should always be greater and more than his message, for though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal. Any message will be empty, hollow and soulless that is not full of the life and character of the preacher.

It is possible, however, in our thought, at least, to study the message apart from the messenger, for even the best of men must have something worth saying and worth hearing if people shall listen to them with profit.

There are at least two elements of fundamental importance to the preacher's message.

I. It must be a declaration of things definitely and positively known by the preacher, and

II. It must be a testimony or a witness to things which he clearly sees.

"We speak that we do know and testify that we have seen." Is this not the secret of Christ's power as a preacher? He spoke from knowledge and insight. Take a single illustration. In the Sermon on the Mount, He uttered those familiar and difficult words: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love they neighbor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

Here we have, first, a statement of facts, and then, their correct interpretation. It might be assumed that any one could see for himself that the sun rises on the evil and on the good, and that rain falls impartially on the just and on the unjust. As a matter of fact, however, this was not the case. The Hebrew mind was thoroughly grounded in the philosophy of life which taught that material prosperity was an unfailing sign of uprightness of character, and that misfortune and suffering were always indicative of wickedness. Christ saw the facts clearly and stated them boldly. He never hesitated to accept the facts of existence as He found them, and He dealt with them irrespective of the theories which men had set up in regard to them. A man has achieved no small victory when he can look facts squarely in the face.

But Jesus not only knew these external phenomena of nature and stated them boldly and broadly. He also saw behind and beyond them. He gave them their true interpretation. This," He said in effect, "is how the Father in heaven treats His children, and if you want to be like Him, you must treat one another likewise. You cannot be the children, even,