though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich." Here is a clear assumption that the Corinthians had been instructed concerning the preexistence of Christ and his glorious state prior to his incarnation. Again, in writing to the Philippians, exhorting them to self-abasement in the interest of others, he says: "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself." This is somewhat more direct, and the meaning of the language, upon any fair interpretation, is unquestionable. Still it does not sound as though the apostle was announcing a doctrine new to his readers. When he does announce new doctrines it is his wont to give the proofs in support of them. Here he uses as a familiar illustration of self-abnegation the example of Christ, and only indirectly, though unmistakably, refers to the essential duty of Christ as a fact well known to his readers. All this means that, so far as the preaching of Paul was concerned when he was in Philippi and Corinth, he taught the deity of Christ to his hearers. It is possible, therefore, to trace this doctrine back to the primitive apostles, whom Paul certainly did not contradict on this point. So that we may, from this line of argument, definitely conclude that the earliest conception of the person of Christ included his deity.

The same result is reached when we look at other phenomena of the New Testament. In fifty-two places the word "Gospel" is used without any qualifying word or phrase. In thirteen others it is the "Gospel of Christ," and in eight others still it is the "Gospel of God." This use of the phrases in question is chiefly found in Paul's letters to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (First). It is clear, therefore, that whether we think of Christ as the subject or as the author of the Gospel, to Paul's mind God was equally its subject or its author. In other words, God and Christ were interchangeable names in this connection. The Gospel is to Paul indifferently either the Gospel of Christ

or the Gospel of God. Again, out of twenty-five times in which the word "Saviour" is used in the New Testament it is connected nine times with "God" and sixteen times with "Christ;" and these combinations occur promiscuously in the same documents, as though the Saviour was, in the mind of the writer, true Deity, and might be called either God or Christ. These references are about all found in the pastoral epistles, the early dates and Pauline origin of which are questioned by some. But his reference of the Gospel indifferently to God or to Christ shows that, whether Paul did or did not pen the references to the Saviour as God or as Christ, they are in perfect harmony with his accepted writings. In the fourth gospel, which was probably written late in the first century, and which, according to Harnack, cannot be placed later than 110, we have essentially the same phenomena. In some respects this gospel seems more directly than the synoptics to teach the deity of Christ. But this is appearance rather than reality. For it is only the Logos of whom it is said he "was God." After the writer of that gospel has declared that the Logos was made flesh and has identified this incarnate Logos with Christ he does not call him God directly. Yet indirectly he assumes his deity. For he declares that the Jews sought to kill him because he made himself God or equal with God by calling himself the Son of the Father (John v, 18; x, 33, 36). Evidently the fourth gospel assumes that the Son of God must be true Deity. But if the term Son of God was taken by the people of the time to indicate the true deity of Christ, then we must affirm that the synoptics as clearly, though not as frequently presuppose his true deity as the fouth gospel. For they make Christ call himself the Son of the Father (for example, Matt. xi, 27), and allow that he was accused of blasphemy for not denying that he is the Son of God, if, indeed, they do not make him assert that he is the Son of God (Matt. xxvii, 43; Luke xxii, 70, 71).

The underlying assumption of the whole New Testament, then, is that Jesus was very God. Yet that he was very

God is, perhaps, nowhere directly asserted. The only explanation of this peculiar combination of facts is that the claim of divinity on his own part and for him on the part of the early disciples was so well understood as to make direct assertion superfluous. The purpose of all this is not so much to prove the divinity of Christ as to show that the early Christians thought of Christ as truly God. And it was this which gave the Gospel its value in their eyes. Paul was not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, because it was the power of God. Luke tells us that when on the plains of Bethlehem the angel of the Lord (kúpιoç) stood with the shepherds the glory of the Lord (kúpios) shone round about them; and that the angel preached the Gospel-brought the good tidings of great joy in that he told the shepherds that the Saviour who was born unto them was Christ the Lord (κύριος). What does κύριος mean here if it does not mean that Kúpos whose angel stood with them and whose glory shone round about them? The Saviour was the Lord. That was the strength and greatness and joy of the message. This was the thought of Luke about the year 80 concerning the original conception of Jesus as it lay in the minds of the earlier disciples. And he tells us that he had carefully traced out all these things from the beginning.

If these things be true the preaching of the Gospel is the preaching of Christ the Lord. If the Gospel is to be effective it must not omit, ignore, or minify him. He must be preceded as the angel of Bethlehem, that first evangelist, preceded him; as Christ preceded himself; as the apostles and other early Christians preceded him. Well does Professor Harnack say that if we will understand the Gospel we must first understand Christ; and that Christ does not belong to the Gospel as a part of it, but that he is the personal realization and inner power of the Gospel and must always be felt as such.

Charles W. Rishell.

ART. IV. THE PIPE ORGAN IN CHURCH WORSHIP,
FROM AN ORGANIST'S STANDPOINT.

In the year 1709, at a meeting of the officiary of the Brattle Street Church of Boston, Hon. Thomas Brattle, a prominent citizen and a gentleman of progressive spirit, offered to donate a pipe organ to that society; but the offer met with serious opposition, and instead of adding to the popularity of Mr. Brattle it brought upon the donor the severest censure.

The prejudice against instrumental music in churches, "praising God by machinery," was an inheritance from the days of Puritanism, when the reaction against the formal service of the Established Church reached such a height that the government was petitioned to put down all cathedral churches-wherein the service of God was most grievously abused by the piping of organs-as such abomination was undoubtedly an offense to the Lord. By constant agitation the question was seriously considered, even by the Established Church, whether or not the pipe organ in their houses of worship was a means of helping on the cause for which the church stood. Many of the people claimed that as the New Testament says nothing regarding instrumental music in the worship of God, and God rejects all he did not command, to make use of such an instrument in the church was displeasing to the Almighty. It is but little wonder that our ancestors, coming to these shores with such a prejudice, should object to this innovation, their real object in crossing the sea being to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. Even at Harvard College the question, "Do organs excite a devotional spirit in divine worship?" was discussed and decided in the negative. But in 1762 that decision was reversed, and although the prejudice has not yet been fully outgrown, the tide has turned, and now almost all churches, financially able to do so, possess a pipe organ. But the instrument was long in meeting

with general approbation, and even to-day the Quakers, the large majority of churches of the United Presbyterian faith, and part of the denomination known as the Disciples of Christ will not tolerate the king of instruments.

In the organ are embraced all other instruments. In fact, a large organ is a symphony orchestra under one keyboard; for it is so constructed that thoughtfulness, reverence, tenderness, submission, adoration, yearning, aspiration, joy, courage, remorse, strength, and triumph are a few of the abstract terms that may be directly suggested and definitely induced by its varied tones, and when manipulated by a Christian artist it may at times be even more effective than some of the more intellectual processes of literature, rhetoric, or homiletics. If you wish, you may compare it to the colors of the rainbow, for the variety of tone is almost unlimited. If the artist puts two colors together he will get another color. So it is with the organ; one stop will give you one quality of tone, and another stop added will materially change it. This is what is meant by tone color. It might be asked, "Cannot tone coloring be produced by other instruments?" Yes, but only to a limited extent; and that simply by the means of crescendo and diminuendo. With the organ you have not only that means, but you have the several stops, and each stop stands for a different quality in tone, the same as a different color to the artist. For example, take the piano. If Paderewski, or any other performer equally great, goes to the piano and plays one tone, and the little five-year-old boy plays the same tone immediately after, you could not possibly tell whether it was the pianist or the little boy. Why? Simply because the manufacturer placed the tone there. It was a piano tone, pure and simple, when it left the factory. It is a piano tone now. It will always remain a piano tone until it is worn outand then it might change its qualities somewhat so as to suggest to you a certain kitchen utensil commonly called a tin pan. But with the organ how different! The organist who has studied registration can imitate almost any wind or