shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it. In that day shall the fair virgins and the young men faint for thirst" (Amos viii. 11-13). But our two writers do not merely pose as sentinels giving warning of the approach of danger; they profess to bring a remedy for the evil which they point out. This fact makes it worth while to examine carefully what they have to say.

M. Darmesteter's book is composed of a collection of articles which present, in an abridged form, the results of contemporary research in connection with the history of the religion of Israel. He has accomplished his task in the most brilliant manner, as might have been expected from the fact that in him we have a rare union of erudition, poetical imagination, and exquisite moral sensibility. It is this that gives his book its strongly marked and almost unique character. At first sight, the organic unity of the work is not very apparent; but, on closer examination, the leading thought it contains is seen clearly to bind together every part of it. That thought may be thus stated. In the beginning, Israel was simply one of a number of Semitic tribes. It was polytheistic in its worship of Elohim, and only rose gradually to the conception of a national God who was not the only God. All at once, about the eighth century before our era, when the empire of David was broken up into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and the hostile Assyrian monarchy menaced the national existence, there arose a series of extraordinary men-Amos, Hosea, the two Isaiahs, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. They brought to the Jewish world, and through it to mankind, a new and incomparable revelation. This, M. Darmesteter sums up in two words-absolute Divine unity and a Messianic hope. By the one of these he understands a unity of forces, and by the other the idea of progress and the realization of righteousness upon the earth. For a long time there was ardent, implacable strife between the old, national, and conservative priesthood, and the new, cosmopolitan, and revolutionary prophetism. The prophets, and in particular Isaiah and Jeremiah, denounced the practices of the traditional worship. They cried in the name of the God whom they bore in their consciousness, "What have I to do with your sacrifices?" Our author discovers a striking analogy between their attitude and that of the poet Lucretius, whose words he quotes. "No act of piety is it to be often seen with veiled head to turn to a stone and approach every altar and fall prostrate on the ground, and spread out the palms before the statues of the gods, and sprinkle the altars with much blood of beasts, and link vow on to vow; but rather to be able to look upon all things with a mind at peace." When Nineveh had finally triumphed, and the Jewish people were led captive to the banks of the Euphrates, this conflict ceased. The predictions of the prophets had been fulfilled to the letter. The Jewish state no longer existed. It was not now a question of defending the material heritage of David, and therefore there was all the more urgent need to preserve the moral heritage of Israel. It was on the basis of prophetism that this transformation was accomplished this necessary expansion of the Jewish nationality and religion.

It is some such compromise between catholicism and the vital 'spirit of prophetism, wherever that is to be found, that M. Darmesteter thinks will be equally efficacious in the present age. Thus, then, to repeat the thought which he so eloquently expresses, the modern world is in the grasp of an unnamed evil. For almost a century it has been in quest of a new God; it turns to every quarter to catch the sound of the coming glad tidings. He adapts the words of Amos, and says, "To-day, also, fair virgins and young men wander from sea to sea. No rock gives forth the water which will quench the thirst of the soul. The divine word is not in Ibsen; it is not even in Tolstoï; neither from north nor from east does light come." The cause of this inconsolable distress is, he believes, in the fact that religion is or

NO. VI.-VOL. I.-THE THINKER.

NN

ought to be the highest expression of science and of the human conscience. According to him, it has happened that the Church, discrowned in the region of science, has found itself discrowned in that of conscience also; and, not having been able to direct men in the way of right thinking, has not been able to continue to guard that of right action. It is in vain that science, as it at present exists, has been summoned to take the place of her rival. Science," he says, 66 arms man, but does not direct him. It fills the universe up to the remotest confines of the stars with light, but leaves his heart still in darkness. It is invincible, indifferent, neuter, non-moral."

66

It would seem, then, that either one should bury oneself in the gulf of intellectual and moral Nihilism, or kneel in the darkness and offer a prayer of supplication to the unknown God. But our author believes he has found a via media. According to him, science is only incapable of satisfying the cravings of the human soul when it presents itself directly in all its rigid baldness. It is only by passing through a foreign medium that it can satisfy the thirst of those who could not drink it pure from the spring. Let it play the part of the ancient prophetism, and infuse a new spirit into catholicism; then the Church will recover its beneficent vitality, not by returning to the eternal sources of pardon and holiness, but by consenting without any change of dogma or of ritual to announce the so-called results of modern science. This is the decision which M. Darmesteter comes to, though he does not express it quite so crudely.

M. Desjardins is a man of a very different order of mind from M. Darmesteter. He is a litterateur; but though his works are slighter in form, they appeal perhaps to a wider circle. He has courageously raised his voice at a time when it was not easy to do so, and in an unexpected quarter, against the relaxation of morals and the degradation of the ideal of life. We read with pleasure what he has to say in his present work on the melancholy contrast between the ideal still latent in the heart of humanity and the morals and dominant ideas of our own epoch. He notes with satisfaction the fact that the negative school-those who labour more or less consciously to destroy what has sustained man up to the present-are not altogether masters of the situation. He finds representatives of a positive school in the ranks of professed believers, in the adherents of new parties in philosophy and literature, and in the great army of obscure individuals who humbly obey the moral law and find liberty in self-sacrifice.

The great argument of M. Desjardins is a very simple one. We must live our life, and remember that it has its laws and obligations, its conditions, which cannot be violated with impunity. This is very true, but it loses its power if it is repeated after the manner of those chorus-singers on the stage who repeat over and over again with full strength of voice, "Let us go, let us go, it is time to go," and never budge an inch. We are afraid that M. Desjardins is guilty of this great defect, because there is in his teaching no inspiring power of faith as an incentive to action. It is absurd to exhort men to live and to afford them no aid to pass from death to life. It is faith that inspires life and action. True faith is impossible without penitence, and the need of penitence

and pardon scarcely seems to be recognized by the new school. They seem also to be afraid to associate their enterprise with the Church or with Christianity, as if that would be binding the living to the dead. M. Desjardins, indeed, speaks boldly of sin, grace, redemption, and peace, but he needs to beware lest the words he has borrowed from the Christian vocabulary have not, as he uses them, lost all their distinctive meaning. Many in our age maintain that to inhale the perfume it is necessary to

break the box containing it, and even quote in a very edifying manner the example of Mary of Bethany. But they forget one thing, that her action escaped blame because she did it to pour the spikenard on the feet of Jesus.

The new movement may be abortive, or it may lead to a further and higher end than appeared to be in view at its opening. There are degrees of grace; preparative grace comes before efficacious grace. It would need overwhelming evidence to convince me that the former is not now at work among so many well-disposed men. It is for the Church to offer with fresh ardour, and with the enthusiasm of her early days, the everlasting Gospel to the new age. If she does so, she will have the right to say to M. Darmesteter, "Yes, we wish to go back with you to the prophets, but not to the prophets robbed of strength and power. With St. Paul we wish to build on the foundation of prophets and apostles, but with Jesus Christ as the chief corner-stone." And to M. Desjardins, "You wish to substitute for the historic Christ a spiritual force which is borrowed from Him, but which does not bear His name. This we cannot do. Has He not Himself said, 'Without Me ye can do nothing'? It is by His cross, now and to the end of time, that the victory is to be won, as it was in the days of His Apostles."

CURRENT SWISS THOUGHT.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICES OF THE SAVIOUR. P. LOBSTEIN (Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie).—It has long been customary with theologians of various schools to recognize the threefold office of prophet, priest, and king, as setting forth in an exhaustive form the whole mediatorial work of Jesus Christ. I wish to consider in this paper the value of this famous division. On its side are invoked the authority of the Scriptures, the testimony of tradition, and the intrinsic value of the statement itself.

M. Gretillat, one of the most recent of our writers on dogmatic theology, says, "The three titles that come down from the Old Testament are applied in the New to the Messiah, both by Jesus Himself and by the Apostles. That of prophet, ascribed to Him beforehand by Moses (Deut. xviii. 18) and by Isaiah (lxi. 1), is given Him by John the Baptist (John iii. 31), by Peter (Acts iii. 22, 23), and is claimed by Himself (Luke iv. 21; xiii. 33). That of priest is spoken of in Ps. cx. 4, and Zech. vi. 12, 13, and is claimed by Him (Matt. xx. 28; John xvii. 19), and ascribed to Him by the first disciples (Heb. iv. 15; vii. 26-28). And that of king is the title given Him beforehand (2 Sam. vii. 12; Ps. ii. 6, &c.), is used by the angel at the annunciation (Luke i. 32, 33), and adopted by Himself (John xviii. 37)." We are of opinion, however, that the position cannot fairly be established by selecting a number, large or small, of isolated texts, and by interpreting them in a rigidly literal manner, as a judge would interpret the text of a law. But if the doctrine is stated in general terms, and is based upon the underlying unity of the Old and New Testaments, no serious objection can be taken to it. Thus Pressensé says, "The Old Testament expressed in all its institutions a desire for salvation, and in the New this desire has been completely realized. The Redeemer is the bond of connection between Old and New; and everything which brings to view this aspect of His mission redounds to His glory." But to turn religious typology into hard and fast doctrine, to seek to obtain from prophetical texts a complete and minute description of Him who was greater than the

temple and the law, the kings and the prophets of the Old Testament, is to fail to recognize the sovereign greatness and incomparable originality of the new revelation, is to imprison the Christian principle within the limits of Jewish Messianism, to subject the spirit to the letter. This is what the defenders of the ordinary doctrine in question generally do. They follow a literal and superficial method of interpretation, and wherever they find Christ spoken of as prophet, priest, or king, they believe they are authorized in framing a dogma out of these designations. Such procedure is fatal to their very system of literal interpretation; for the titles in question have a historical signification in the one case, and a figurative in the other. It is in a moral and religious sense that Christ is prophet, priest, or king; and far more is involved in the spiritual ideal of these offices than in their historical realization. We should look on these designations not as dogmatic formula, but as popular figures, descriptive of the work of Christ-as some of a number applied to Him, as, e.g., that of the Shepherd, and many others contained in His parables. The mere fact that some modification or change has to be made in order to apply these figures to the person and work of Christ deprives them of value as dogmatic statements referring to Him.

But again, the history of doctrine proves that this conception of the threefold office of the Saviour is not part of primitive and essential Christian teaching. There is not a single theologian of the patristic period or of the Middle Ages who has made use of it in treating of the work of Jesus Christ, although passages may be quoted which show that some of these theologians allude to some such conception in a vague manner. It is only in the sixteenth century and the works of Calvin that it first comes into definite shape. According to him, the three offices of Christ do not represent three distinct kinds of activity, three successive acts in the drama of redemption, but designate three different aspects of the one work of redemption. In other words, it is not a chronological division of the life of Jesus, but a threefold manner of regarding and estimating His unique and complex work. The influence exercised by the greatest theologian of the Reformed Church was so deep and wide as to affect for a time the whole of Protestant theology on this question. The searching criticism of Ernesti (1773) resulted in the doctrine falling for a time into discredit. It was revived by Schleiermacher in a modified and limited form, but has been abandoned by many of his followers. At the present day there is no general agreement in the matter. Some theologians of the advanced school accept it, and on the other hand some of the most conservative and orthodox reject it. And in the statement of it there has been extreme variety. Some have held it as descriptive of three distinct aspects of the same mediatorial work; others as representing various stages of that work. Some have viewed it as applying simply to the earthly life of Jesus; others as applying also to the period since His resurrection and ascension. The defenders of the doctrine are forced to make so many concessions, and distinctions, and restrictions, that they virtually compromise or surrender their position. The place which the doctrine has had in various catechisms and in popular preaching explains why it is so widespread. But this surely does not entitle it to control authoritatively scientific statements of Christian truth.

But has the idea of a threefold office as applied to the work of redemption intrinsic value ? One might, in passing, object to the word "office," as incompatible with the liberty and spirituality which characterize the ministry of Christ. It belongs rather to the domain of law than to that of religion. It is better to speak of the "mission 66 or calling" of Jesus, than of the "offices" or "functions" He discharged. "He came," " was manifested," ,"" was sent," are the phrases which are used to describe the origin and form of His Messianic activity. But apart from this there are other

and more serious objections to the doctrine. It is exposed to two dangers, and only escapes the one to fall into the other. If you insist on the relative independence of each of the three offices of Christ, you incur the danger of breaking up the living and profound unity of His work. But if, on the other hand, you affirm that these offices are intimately connected together, you come near effacing all distinction between them, and the division into three becomes a merely verbal distinction of no positive value or practical significance. On one or other of these rocks Lutheran and Reformed theologians have come to grief.

The difficulties raised by this division of meditatorial functions appear in the efforts made to group the three parts or aspects of redemptive work. The majority of theologians do not represent them as co-ordinate, but generally fix on some one of them which absorbs the other two or predominates over them. Thus in the orthodox system it is the priestly office, which by itself almost exhausts the whole contents of the work of redemption. Socinianism and rationalism bring into prominence the prophetic ministry of Christ. Then, too, the theologians who are confined within the limits of traditional orthodoxy find themselves entangled in other complications. It is well known that in the older Protestant theology stress is laid on the existence of the Son of God in two different states-that of humiliation in His earthly career, and that of exaltation to heavenly glory. How is this twofold state to be reconciled with the threefold office of Christ? The simplest resort is to identify the prophetic ministry with the earthly life of Christ, the priestly with His passion and death, and the kingly with His exaltation to the right hand of God. But this is an unsatisfactory solution of the problem. It not only breaks up the united and harmonious work of Christ, but it overlooks some of the most important elements of the question. If there is an organic and permanent relation between the Lord and His Church, the three offices of Christ must be continued from His earthly life into His heavenly. The prophetic and priestly functions must still be exercised in His exalted state. But what form or substance can we attribute to them? How is the prophetic ministry of the glorified Saviour to be distinguished from the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church or in the individual? How is the priestly work-that is, the expiatory sacrifice He offered to be conceived as perpetuated in heaven? It is not enough to say it is perpetuated in the form of intercession, for the work of intercession is essentially different from the sacrifice accomplished by the Saviour on earth. Again, it is quite contrary to the declarations of Christ Himself, and to the whole bearing of His Messianic work, to confound His kingly office with His ascension to heaven. He was a king during His earthly ministry; He declared Himself to be then a king: during His life on earth He exercised spiritual sovereignty, and made Calvary the throne of His glory.

In short, the kingship of Jesus Christ, as His followers believe, includes the whole of His work, and sets forth the true character of His person. It is impossible for us to attribute to Him a title which is not expressed or implied in that name which He bears above every name (Phil. ii. 9, 10). It includes within it both what is called His prophetical and His priestly office. If He has established a spiritual and universal kingdom, if He has been the creator of a community animated by His spirit and life, if He has been the head and founder of a new humanity, it has been because He has revealed God in revealing Himself, it has been because He has given Himself to us, in offering Himself upon the cross. Is it not evident that—to use technical terms-the prophetic and priestly functions both form part of the kingly, which includes within it all the attributes and energies of Jesus Christ? This is the complete and authoritative interpretation of the names Xplorós and Kúpios—the only formula, as we believe, which