...

part in the blessing of salvation; or, in other words, of those whom He has made partakers of His Spirit; or again, of those who stand upon the power of His Word and Sacrament. . . . . This definition of the community at once implies that its unity, however essential and real, does not lie in the sphere of sensuous perception; but since it exists in like participation in spiritual blessings, exists only for eyes open to the spiritual." And yet unity does not preclude variety. The figures of a house and a body imply an organism, whose several parts are mutually dependent, and which only exists through the co-operation of all its separate parts. All partake in the same blessings and powers, but those blessings are reflected in every person in different shades, and those powers are exerted in different forms. Here Paul's doctrine of charisms applies. . . . . As every one has his peculiar outward appearance and peculiar psychical organization, so every one has his peculiar Christian individuality, and only by the co-operation of these countless gifts and powers does the community become what it should be. And what is this? The full sum of the Divine fulness existing in Christ. As the simple white light breaks into its several tints, so the inconceivable wealth of heavenly gifts and powers contained in Christ is reflected in countless rays in His Church; and the fact that the Church, in the sequence of different ages and the combination of different personalities, is the image of that fulness of Christ, makes it a united organism." "The community is thus the circle in which the Divine kingdom is realized, the sum of the persons to whom the spiritual gifts belong. Just then as the kingdom itself is spiritual, so the community, though living and working on earth, is in its essence a thoroughly spiritual phenomena."

What has just been described as the Biblical idea of the community is precisely what Protestantism, in distinction from Romanism, calls the Church. Luther and the Lutheran Church remain faithful to this meaning. The word "church" is not used at all in Luther's New Testament, always "community" (Gemeinde, not Kirche). Church is used only in his version of the Old Testament for a building, "and, indeed, characteristically of places of assembly of an evil kind." Luther wished, in opposition to Rome, to set the word "church" entirely aside in favour of "community." The merit of the Reformation is that it demonstrated that no particular form of organization is essential to the Church's life. Organization, indeed, is essential, but this has varied, as Dr. Haupt shows, both in Jewish and Christian times. At last, "the community was organized after the pattern of the Roman empire. This was not a national association, such as Israel or early Rome, but embraced the most diverse nations. State unity was secured by all these nations being united in one legal association. The case of Christianity was similar. It too wholly outgrew the form of a national association, and it was organized on the basis of analogy to the Roman empire after the manner of a legal association. It was this form of the Divine community which for above a thousand years bore the name of the Church. The perilous error was that no distinction was made between the Divine community in its Biblical sense as a spiritual phenomenon, and this outward worldly form which it had assumed, but the latter was regarded as an essential part of its nature." The business of the Reformation was to expose this error. It did so in two ways, first by going back to Scripture and showing that the essence of God's Church is independent of any and every outward form, and, secondly, that this particular legal form is inferior, because a return to an Old Testament standpoint which Christianity has left behind. "If we understand by the Church the actually existing organization up to the Reformation, we must say that the Reformation negatived and set aside the church-form of God's kingdom. But, of course, only in this sense. For even Protestantism could not live without outward form, nay, it could not dispense with

legal forms. Consequently the Reformation established a new church-order. The great difference is that we sharply distinguish this outward moulding of our religious life from the inner nature of the Divine community. Perhaps it would have prevented much confusion, and promoted clearness, if Protestantism had reserved the designation 'church' exclusively for all that belongs to the worldly form of the Divine community, using only the word 'community' for the Biblical idea, as Luther wished to do. Instead of this, we describe that which is called community in the New Testament by the phrase 'church,' and so use the latter in a quite different sense. When we speak of a holy Catholic Church, or call the Church the body of Christ, or distinguish a Church militant and triumphant, or declare the Church a communion of saints, the Biblical idea of the community is assumed as basis. When, on the other hand, we speak of different national Churches, or of the connection between Church and State, we mean the outward, visible organism clad in legal forms."

THE MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By DR. VON STRAUSS UND TORNEY, Dresden (Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1892, Second Part). This long and able paper contains both a negative and positive defence of the miracles. The negative one, consisting of a reply to the various critical explanations of them, is brief. The positive defence is conducted on a somewhat novel line. In the first place the miracles are placed in subservience to the crowning miracle of revelation-the Divine Incarnation in Christ. This was the only means by which the moral restoration of the world could be effected. And yet it was at first sight so strange, so incredible, that it could only be attested by supernatural signs. It must be announced to the world by those who were immovably convinced of its truth and acquainted with its meaning. How could such faith be produced but by miracles? The author then reviews all the miracles in succession for the purpose of showing how exactly they were fitted to serve this end. Their probative force lay not merely in their supernatural character, but in their adaptation in time, in meaning, and immediate effect to teach and prove the Divine power of Christ. They are classed as Voices of God from Heaven, Angelic Appearances, and Christ's own Miracles.

The Voice is heard on three occasions-at the Baptism, the Transfiguration, and on Christ's last public appearance in Jerusalem, i.e., at three decisive points in His ministry-beginning, middle, and end. What is said in the last case is perhaps true of the others, namely, that only Jesus and those immediately concerned heard the words. In all three cases, too, God seems to have used natural occurrences in a supernatural way. In all three, also, the moral teaching referred both to Jesus and others. In the first, for example, Jesus was so to speak divinely consecrated to His work, while John was dismissed from the scene of his completed mission. In each case a great moral purpose is answered.

The Angelic Appearances in Christ's life justify themselves in the same way, for they occur at decisive moments in the Gospel history, to Zachariah, Mary, the Shepherds, at the Temptation, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension. "It is to be noticed that five passages speaks of an angel of the Lord, whilst the angel of the Lord, who is referred to in the Old Testament under this designation and then speaks as if he were God himself, is not mentioned." In the Acts also angels are sent for the deliverance of Apostles from prison; but in the case of Philip and Cornelius the communication was made, not through an angel, but by vision or voice. Two other great events the appearance of the star to the Magi and the darkness and earthquake at the crucifixion—the author explains as natural in themselves, but supernatural in their coincidence in time with events in the life of the God-man.

Christ's own Miracles will appear the less strange the more they are viewed in connection with Himself, the greatest of all miracles. Much perhaps which Christ did would have been in the power of unfallen man; what that is, however, we cannot know. The bulk of His works can only be explained by a Divine power dwelling in Him. These works formed a part of the Divine order of the world, which was, so to speak, arranged from the beginning with reference to them. The Incarnation corrected or supplemented the intensely transcendent conception of God given in the Old Testament, revealing His immanence in the world of man; hence the importance of confirming it in men's convictions in every possible way.

The miracles are considered as miracles wrought on nature and on man. As to the first-class, "No disturbances or violation of the fixed order of nature is to be supposed. In the exercise of Divine power He used that order in a way which our knowledge of it does not explain. For nature, its forces and their laws, are infinitely greater than our experience of them and conclusions from them; God knows them better than the acutest physicist, and where He causes them to act as they do in the works of Jesus, man, indeed, sees the natural effect, but not the natural cause, which is, of course, hidden from his search. Moreover, the purpose of such acts had no reference to nature and the knowledge of it, but to the higher moral world. Here they accomplish their purpose, convincing those for whom they are intended that in Jesus a higher power was present than in other men." The miracles of Cana, the stilling of the storm, the feeding of the multitudes, &c., are then briefly noticed as revelations, especially to the disciples who were to be the witnesses to the Incarnation of God in Christ. The writer dwells often on the notion of the miracles forming part of the Divine plan of the world from the beginning. "They were always works of mercy, of beneficence and love; not once do we hear that He ever inflicted suffering."

The miracles wrought by Christ on men, in healing sickness and infirmity, casting out devils, raising the dead, are considered in the same light. "All the many and varied miracles which the Lord worked in public before many witnesses were a preaching, so to speak, by acts, attesting His Divine mission. Yet it was in comparatively few cases that they produced faith; and even in the case of the disciples, who had also the benefit of Christ's teaching, it took much time before Peter confessed: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God! The crowd wondered, as at everything they could not understand, brought their sick to be healed by Him, praised the Wonder-worker without retaining any further impression, and, at most, saw merely a prophet in Him. The Pharisees and Church authorities wilfully hardened themselves against Him, and when they could not deny His wonderful works, ascribed them to the devil. Another kind of Messiah was universally expected in Israel; and the disciples themselves, just before the Lord's ascension, asked about the restoring of the kingdom to Israel. In addition, there was the new unheard-of character of His teaching. All this explains sufficiently why the Lord's miracles and signs at first only won a few to confess: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God!"

The transfiguration, even the death of Christ as voluntarily undergone, the resurrection, the subsequent appearances of Christ, the ascension, the sending of the Holy Spirit, the manifestation to Saul, are all shown to be in keeping with the miracles before mentioned, with each other, and with the entire life and character of Christ. "All the miracles related in the New Testament are related simply to the God-man Jesus, His revelation, His work and its establishment among mankind. To strip the Lord's history and the beginning of His Church of those facts would be to make them unthinkable. Still, we must distinguish between those facts which had,

and have, and always will have, imperishable, spiritual significance, and those which were necessary to lead contemporaries to faith in Christ. To the former belong the incarnation of the Son of God, His death, His resurrection and ascension, and the sending of the Holy Spirit-facts whose continuous effect we may daily experience in ourselves. The others have historical value for us, and we can picture them in thought, but only as past, as having fulfilled their end, such as we can no longer have experience of like the first believers. If we are in Christ, and Christ in us, we owe it to the former, not to the latter. We do not believe the former because of the latter, but conversely, for they merely complete the beloved image of our Lord during His earthly life. Whoever believes with full confidence in Jesus, to him all miracles done on account of Him and by Him are so self-evident and natural, that he does not dream of doubting them because they no longer occur in his own experience. If Scripture did not relate them he would not regard them as credible. For in the great miracle of the God-man all other miracles are to him wrapped up."

The writer goes on to show how supernatural action is still continued in the Church in miracles of grace, regeneration, and the like, not omitting the Lutheran doctrine of regeneration in baptism. In connection with answers to prayer he repeats a suggestion referred to before. He says that while we pray for future blessings, we must not bring temporal notions into our thoughts of God. Present, future, and past only exist for us. "God grants our prayers not because He had previously willed something else, but because in His plan of the world, including the least as well as the greatest things, the answer was connected with our prayer from all eternity. With all its conditions, it was present to Him from the beginning and was part of the world-order. We are not to think of God as separate from His work as a mere beholder. Although He sees the universe complete from eternity, it is guided at every point by Him, timelessly as to Him, in time as to us. When therefore what we ask is given, it is given because in the Divine system of the world the gift had our prayer for its condition, although it is God Himself who just now produces the same and hears the prayer." We have given the substance of the theory, which is far from being a

new one.

THE DISCOURSE Of Stephen, Acts vii. By K. SCHMIDT, Pastor at Sternberg, Mecklenburg (Beweis des Glaubens, 1892, February).—The discourse is full of interest, not only from the character and position of the speaker, but also because of its contents. It is nothing less than a comprehensive review of the history of Israel from a New Testament standpoint. Paul's address in Acts xiii. is only a partial parallel. The discourse presents certain difficulties not only in regard to details, but also in regard to its general scope. It is, or should be, a vindication of the speaker against the "false" charges specified in chap. vi. 13, 14. Some expositors fail to discover the relevance of the reply; and it is to this point that the essay addresses itself. The charge, described as "false" by St. Luke, is that Stephen had blasphemed the temple and the law in declaring that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the temple and do away with the ordinances of Moses. Stephen's defence deals with this accusation point by point. "He blasphemed the temple." The whole discourse leads up to the position that the building of the temple (ver. 47) was the divinely-appointed end of Israel's early history. "He blasphemed the law." The authority of the law is acknowledged throughout the discourse (ver. 38). "He blasphemed Moses." The large section, vers. 20-40, asserts the Divine mission of Moses in the clearest terms. Stephen skilfully retorts the charge by showing that it was the nation of Israel that had disobeyed Moses and God's law given by him. "He had said that Jesus

would destroy this place and abolish the Mosaic constitution." Stephen shows that it was the sin of Israel that would have this effect. The pertinence of the selection made from the history is striking. The period of the Israelitish kingdom is passed over. The emphasis is thrown on Moses and the temple, i.e., the points that were challenged. Some expositors have thought that Stephen was not allowed to complete his address, but there is little ground for the idea. The address stops at the building of the temple by Solomon, because the purpose in hand required no more. At the same time these points are taken up and dealt with in a connected view of the religious history of Israel. Let us look at a few details.

Vers. 2-8 serve as an introduction, going back to the foundation of the nation in the call of Abraham, and the promises made to him. This foundation is unreservedly acknowledged to be God's work. "The God of Glory appeared." He who was accused of traducing Mosaic "customs" makes "circumcision "a Divine command to the patriarchs (ver. 8). Herr Schmidt suggests that vers. 6 and 7 form the text of the discourse. The captivity in Egypt, oppression and deliverance, are treated more fully in the story of Moses (vers. 20-40). The words, "they shall serve Me in this place," are an addition by Stephen, though quite in the spirit of the passage; they are the theme of the part ending with ver. 47. The 7th verse is made emphatic by the direct form of speech, as if to refute the charge of want of reverence for the temple. From the first God's purpose was that Israel should serve Him in the land of promise. Vers. 9-16 relate the beginning of the fulfilment of the promise, but in a remarkable manner. God's way to the end seems to our eyes to lead away from the end. Yet it was not so. The Egyptian slavery was a part of the nation's training, and even in foreign captivity the people kept a hold on the land that was to be theirs (ver. 16).

Vers. 17-36 tell the story of the promise fulfilled, by strange means again. Moses in enforced exile does not look much like a deliverer; yet, as in Israel's case, was not the exile the necessary training for the deliverer's part? The words in ver. 36, "He brought them out," correspond to the words of promise in ver. 7, "they shall come forth." Is there any allusion in the rejection of Moses (ver. 27 and 39) to a greater rejection ?

The reference in ver. 37 to the prophet foretold by Moses, while interrupting the course of the story, must have had a powerful effect on the council. Stephen did not apply the words; he did not need. Who could the "prophet " be but the Messiah?

The section, vers. 38-53, is in another strain. Stephen shows by undeniable facts that the disobedience to God which he so boldly charges on the nation in regard to "the Just One" (ver. 52) is no new thing in its history. The same thing was seen in the days of Moses (vers. 39-41), and was the burden of the prophets (ver. 42). It was owing to the nation's rebelliousness and obstinacy that the Divine promise had failed of its full effect. On the substitution in this section by Stephen of "beyond Babylon" for "beyond Damascus" (ver. 43), the writer suggests that Stephen, taking into account the facts of the historical fulfilment, refers to the fact that many of the Jews did not return from Babylon, but were scattered thence in all directions. Yet, according to vers. 44-47, the nation's disobedience was not allowed wholly to frustrate the Divine plan. The tabernacle and temple, as witnesses for God, were visible evidence to the contrary. And is there not hope for the future of Israel in this fact? If God did not allow Israel's disobedience entirely to frustrate His plans in the past, may it not be so again? And thus may not even the rejection of the Messiah lead, although by another strange, circuitous path, to an end that shall yet be a glorious fulfilment of the original promise to Abraham, which was the