explains the miracles of the Gospels. He attributes to Jesus all the gifts needed for acting as a healer of physical and moral maladies-the charm of voice and look, "organo-electric power," and the medical knowledge in which the Essenes excelled. And so he rectifies and completes the history in the Gospels, and enables us to understand how Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, changed water into wine, exorcised demons, &c. The patience of many of his readers will be subjected to a severe strain by a perusal of this part of his book, but what he has to say of the resurrection of Jesus will disgust almost every earnest-minded reader. He denies the death on the cross. The wounds in hands, feet, and side, he asserts, were not fatal. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathæa, two Essenes (?), obtained the body from Pilate and restored it to consciousness and life! Will M. de Regla complete his narrative on some future occasion by relating the actual death of Jesus after His appearances to the disciples? The view, therefore, which we have here given us of Jesus is that of an Essene endowed with all the wisdom and skill attributed to that sect, the successor of John the Baptist, but divinely appointed to announce to the world a religion destined to secure the welfare of humanity, surrounded by disciples who often failed to understand Him, striving courageously against the errors and evils of His age, and falling apparently a victim to the animosity of the priestly caste, but in reality triumphing over it by His resurrection.

The social point of view from which our author regards the work of Jesus is apparent on every page of his book. He anticipates the coming of a time when society will be interpenetrated with the communism which he believes Jesus taught. Let the lessons of the Master be learned and put in force, and a new world will emerge from the old. "Europe," he says, "has been Pagan, Pauline, Catholic, Schismatic, and Protestant, but it has not yet been Christian." The optimism of the writer, an optimism shared by all socialists, has, in our opinion, its root in the famous sophism of Rousseau: that man is naturally good, but has been spoiled and corrupted by society, so that it is necessary to reform society to render the individuals that compose it happy. However that may be, society as Jesus is said to have conceived it would be as follows. Communism would certainly prevail, but a communism like that of the Essenes, based on the labours of each member for the benefit of all. The father of the family would be their physician and priest. The humblest, wisest, and most worthy would be chosen to rule. All would be equally subject to the laws, have equal rights and equal duties. Wealth would not be allowed to accumulate in a few hands. And on the front of the temple dedicated to the Father would be inscribed in letters of gold the words, "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity," surmounted by the words, "Duty, Responsibility, and Solidarity."

The idea of the writer is a noble and just one, that of leading his contemporaries to Jesus Himself, in whom he sees the revealer of true religion, the source of all progress and social prosperity. But for the moral and religious renovation of Christendom, is not a profounder, and therefore truer, knowledge of human needs and human ills required?

CURRENT DUTCH THOUGHT. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE APPRECIATION OF THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By DR. C. H. VAN RHIJN (Theologische Studiën).—The department of study which is named at the head of this article, Dr. van Rhijn frankly acknowledges, has never really come to its rights in his country. More than half a century ago

Professor Kist arranged some formal questions on the History of Doctrine in the Archives of Ecclesiastical History; and, apart from that, his example received extensive imitation in their periodical literature. The encyclopædias naturally defined the essence of History of Doctrine, its relation to the cognate departments of study, and its place in the cycle of the whole field. The Compendiums of Church History gave (as a rule, in an independent subdivision) the doctrine of Christianity so far as it was connected with the fortunes of the Church. During the last decades important contributions on interesting details have also appeared. But a comprehensive summary of the material in a separate hand-book has not been prepared. In Holland they have still no History of Doctrine of the National Church, and for the History of Doctrine of the universal Christian Church must still be content with the transla. tion of a hand-book from a foreign tongue.

The causes of this deficiency, the writer goes on to point out, it is not difficult to trace. When Kist and Rooijaards gave a new impulse to the study of Church History, one had reason to expect that this would turn out for the benefit of the History of Doctrine. The expectation, however, was disappointed. Their mode of dealing with Church History assumed a specially antiquarian character, and consisted principally in the collection of materials and in the tracing of old unpublished documents. By the industry of Moll the antiquarian tendency was made to assume a more archæological turn. In contrast with Kist, who rather traced writings and brought materials together, Moll dealt by preference with persons and facts. But to both a dogmatic tendency properly so called, an overmastering zeal in the study of Christian Doctrine, was really foreign, so that they were quite unable to inspire a love of doctrine in their pupils. Along with this drawback there came into play other influences that had an unfavourable effect on the study of Christian Doctrine. In particular, it was regarded and treated as a subdivision of Church History and of Dogmatic, by which view the full consideration of it was arbitrarily laid aside; and on the other, the tendency of the study of theology was unfavourable to this department of science. The modern tendency, so to speak, led theology on quite different lines. The life of Jesus, the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the authenticity of the books of the Bible, the integrity of the text, or, in other words, introduction and criticism, kept their national theologians much too busy to devote the necessary consideration to the History of Doctrine.

Much greater was the interest in this study in other countries. In France there appeared the book of Haag (1862), and the devoted followers of Professor Bonifas gave his annotations on the History of Doctrine in two large volumes (1886). Courdaveaux endeavoured to answer the question, "How are dogmas formed?" and Professor Sabatier enriched theological literature by the publication of an address, a model alike in form and contents, entitled, "The Inner Life of Doctrines and their Power of Evolution." "In England," adds Dr. van Rhijn, "there has appeared the work of Hatch (the Hibbert Lectures), which, with its noteworthy results concerning the influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian Church, has also opened up for the History of Doctrine all manner of new points of view; and in Germany this branch of study in recent years has extended as never before. To describe and criticise this development is the aim I have set before myself; and in endeavouring to attain it I shall take special cognizance of the conclusions of Harnack, in whom the study of the History of Doctrine in our day has reached its zenith."

As this subject is likely to occupy several papers in the Studien, I content myself now with a sketch of the first.

The History of Doctrine has been very long in attaining the importance which

it enjoys at this moment. The Christian Church before the Reformation did not grasp the idea of this study. In truth, it had no inducement to give itself any account of the origin and historical development of its doctrinal concepts. The dogmatic principle of the stability of the Church excluded the thought that doctrines should be subject to change and development—in other words, should have a history. The Church was unchangeable; doctrine was the expression of the Church: thus doctrine was also unchangeable. What we call the History of Doctrine was nothing more than an enumeration and confutation of the errors condemned by the Church, the first attempts at which were given by Irenæus, Epiphanius, and Theoderet, and the later, in the middle ages, by Petrus Siculus, Photius, Alanus de Insulis, and others. Before the Reformation the History of Doctrine was the history of heresy, and it was dominated by dogmatic polemic.

The Reformation introduced a new principle, but it did not at once give a new direction to the treatment of the History of Doctrine. Scholasticism had conceived and consequently developed more deeply the definition of doctrine in absolute dependence on ecclesiastical tradition. In opposition to this, the Reformation presented man's independence of ecclesiastical tradition, and his subjection to the Holy Scriptures. The Reformers were impelled to historical researches, because they had to exhibit evidence that the Reformation was the representation of primitive Christianity, from which the Roman Catholic Church had deviated alike in doctrine and life. With that aim the Magdeburg scholars issued their "Centuries," dealing with their conception of doctrine in a separate section of each part; and the Scottish theologian, John Forbes, of Corse, almost a century later, endeavoured, in his dogmatically-arranged text-book, to exhibit the harmony of the Protestant conception of doctrine with that of the Fathers. Regarded from the standpoint of the History of Doctrine, both writings were, nevertheless, little more than attempts, which also made it clear that this study had still maintained the dogmatic polemic cast that had characterized it before the Reformation. Its treatment was polemical, for the history was made subservient to the controversy with Rome, and the historic personages figured as witnesses of the truth. It was dogmatic, not only because the writers endeavoured to show the harmony of the Protestant views of doctrine with that of the ancient Church, and, along with the review of persons and events, brought forward the substance of their personal confession of faith; but also, in so far as, amongst others, Gerhard and Quenstadt presented the History of Doctrine in dogmatic writings. At a purely historic treatment of this subject, theologians were as far from arriving in this period as in that of rationalism. In the case of Planck, for example, there was indeed an effort to attain to more objectivity; but, on the whole, the dogmaticrationalistic opposition to the dogmas of the Church led to a misunderstanding of the History of Doctrine, and the fact that this study was bound up partly with Church History and Dogmatic, and was worked up also in dogmatic text-books, operated towards the great loss of both, of the History of Doctrine as well as of Dogmatic.

The first writer who handled the History of Doctrine independently was William Münscher. His "Hand-book" bears entirely the character and impress of his time: a pragmatic rationalistic spirit and a defective arrangement of the materials. Since then better days have dawned for this study. Rationalism expired in the midst of its exegetical absurdities and its lack of the historic sense, and gave place to more objective views. The three theological schools that succeeded in interchange with rationalism gave each its text-books or hand-books, in which the History of Doctrine was treated historically as an independent science. All endeavoured to understand the past, to conceive the essence and the significance of Christianity more deeply than

rationalism had done; but they differ from one another in the determination of the conception and limits of the science. This may appear from the following scheme :—

A. The School of Schleiermacher and Neander. To this belong A. Neander (1850), L. F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius (1843), K. R. Hagenbach (1874), F. K. Meier (1841). The dogmatic conceptions are the development and unfolding of the new life. bestowed by Christ on mankind.

B. The Tübingen School, under the influence of Hegel: F. C. Baur (1860). The History of Doctrine is the scientific representation of the idea of Christianity developing itself in accordance with the law of internal necessity.

C. The Confessional or New Orthodox School. To this belong Th. Kliefoth, H. Schmid, K. F. A. Kahnis (1888), and G. Thomasius (1875). The History of Doctrine is the process of development of "the truth revealed in the Holy Scrip. Scriptures," and is completed in the settlement of the conception of doctrine in the different Churches.

This summary, Dr. van Rhijn is careful to explain, makes no claim of completeness. It simply indicates the leading stages in the historiography of Christian Doctrine, to show how this science has at last obtained an independent place. Hence there is no reference to the Roman Catholic theologians, who have not exercised any influence on the course of this science. No mention is made of Harnack as yet, because, though allied to Thomasius and Nitzsch, he cannot be assigned to any one school. He unites in himself all the conditions necessary for being ranked as the head of a school.

How Dr. von Rhijn justifies such high praise of this rising German professor, I shall endeavour to show in a succeeding number.

IN WHAT RELATION DO THE TWO APOLOGIES OF JUSTIN MARTYR STAND TO ONE ANOTHER, AND WHEN WERE THEY PREPARED ? By DR. J. A. CRAMER (Theologische Studiën).—There is no more striking phenomenon in the study of Church history in our day than the sifting to which our earliest Christian literature is being subjected. Round almost every ancient writing that stands in connection with the origin and progress of Christianity, there is gathering a long series of discussions on its genuineness or integrity. The works left by Justin Martyr are no strangers to this process. The traditional view of them has mainly been that, along with his "Speech to the Greeks" and his "Dialogue with Trypho," Justin wrote two Apologies, the one composed at Rome and addressed to Antoninus Pius; the other written also at Rome, but addressed to Marcus Aurelius. Within the past half-century, however, this opinion has often been called in question. In 1842, Boll contended that one could no longer follow Eusebius in speaking of two Apologies, but that they clearly formed one; since in the so-called first there was no real conclusion, and in the second no real beginning. From that time opinion has veered round in many directions, but the main drift is now against the idea of two Apologies. To this opposition Dr. A. Harnack has now lent the weight of his high authority, asserting that the first and second Apologies originally constituted one whole, and that Justin never wrote a second Apology.

The last two numbers of the Studien are distinguished by a very vigorous and acute attack on this position in the shape of two articles by Dr. J. A. Cramer, entitled "In what relation do the two Apologies of Justin Martyr stand to each other, and when were they prepared?" The details of the argumentation are too numerous to be mentioned, every scrap of evidence that can be obtained being brought to bear

NO. IV.-VOL. I.-THE THINKER.

AA

on the question. But I may briefly state the conclusions reached on the two questions started in these papers.

On the question as to the relation of the so-called two Apologies, Dr. Cramer sets forth these results :

1. We have no reason for doubting the account of Eusebius, according to which Justin wrote two Apologies.

2. These two Apologies had already been joined in one whole before the time of Eusebius, who knew that whole as the Apology of Justin to Antoninus Pius.

3. Only thus can we explain that he simply quotes from the Apology to Antoninus Pius, but says of the portion that deals with Crescens that it is found in the second Apology.

4. Only thus can we also explain why the Supplicatio of Athenagoras is ascribed to Justin.

On the second question, namely, the respective dates at which they were prepared, the writer, after a very careful examination of the course of thought in the two Apologies, comes to the following conclusion:

The first Apology was written about the year 140, and the second about 152, a result that is entirely in agreement with that which we at once obtain when we let the Apologies speak for themselves. It is also in accord with the exact explanation of Eusebius (H. E. iv. 8), and the notice of the years between which Urbicus was city prefect (144 and 160).

The results, then, are these:

1. After the union of the two Apologies, interpolations were introduced into the second, which had the effect of making the two Apologies one whole.

2. The epistle of Hadrian (Apol. i. 68) was invented by a Christian after the preparation of the first Apology, and attached to the first before the union of the two Apologies.

3. Antoninus Pius followed the line of conduct exhibited by Trajan, which we come to learn from his letter to the Governor Pliny. The Christians were not persecuted, but, when they were accused, they were pronounced guilty on the ground of their confession.

4. The process under Urbicus (who was city prefect between 144 and 160) is thus entirely in harmony with the military arrangements of his rule.

5. To judge from the description of the Christian community, so far as this comes before us in the first Apology, this writing must have been prepared not very long after Antoninus Pius' ascension of the throne.

6. The second Apology is in no respect connected with Justin's martyrdom. 7. It can most probably be placed about the middle of Antoninus' reign.

8. The chronicle of Julius Africanus is entirely in agreement with this determination of time. J. P. LILLEY, B.D.

SUNDAY IN CHURCH.

THE MORNING LESSONS.

FIFTH SUNDAY IN LENT. THE SUMMONS TO SERVE; DIFFIDENCE AND CAPACITY.

Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh. Who am I that I should

....

go unto Pharaoh? Certainly I will be with thee.-EXOD. iii. 10, 11, 12,

Two things must have astonished Moses-an extraordinary sight and a startling summons. That burning bush which was not consumed