The reader feels as

the end, he has not himself been able to abide. if he were being committed beforehand to questionable views of history; and as for Harnack himself the conscience and the sympathies of the historian break through the limits he has prescribed. One does not see why he should not have defined his subject as a history of doctrine with special reference to the authoritative teaching of the Church or the Churches.

The first edition of the first volume (German) gave the impression in various quarters that Harnack regarded the whole dogmatic development as resulting from an entanglement of Christianity with the Greek mind and with the general culture of the Roman world,—an entanglement which simply burdened Christianity with alien material. In this view the doctrinal result was wholly foreign, and could only survive for a time, although the time has proved long. In the later editions Harnack repudiates this as a misconstruction of his meaning. He accepts (with a caveat) Weizsäcker's dictum, "Christianity as religion is absolutely inconceivable without theology. . . . As a religion it cannot be separated from the religion of its founder, hence not from historical knowledge and as Monotheism and belief in a world purpose, it is the religion of reason, with the inextinguishable impulse of thought." The objection, Harnack now says, is "not to all dogma, but to this dogma," and in conformity with this view some passages are inserted into text and notes to redress the balance. But the drift of the book follows the original impulse, embodied for example in p. 18. Here, it is said, that two things may be regarded as legitimate on the one hand practical faith in the Gospel, on the other, the historic-critical account of the Christian religion and its history. But a third element has been thrust in, viz., "dogma, that is, the philosophical means used in early times for the purpose of making the gospel intelligible, has been fused with the contents of the gospel and raised to dogma." In this last sentence three things come in view together—the doctrinal formula, the intellectual method by which it was reached (say, e.g., by Origen), and the peremptory ecclesiastical inculcation of it. But formula, method, and authorisation are all alike turned out of doors as intruders, though one would say that very different considerations apply to the three respectively.

Now it is a most legitimate historical question, how far the doctrines which found acceptance among the Christians during the first five or six centuries, fairly expressed the Christian Revelation, and how far elements were admitted due to erroneous methods, or to ignorance of the limits within which any methods are trustworthy. It is very fair to expect that the thinking of the early Christians, in its best forms, might bear marks of the perennial

But

weakness of man, and of the special infirmities of the age. Dr Harnack designates the Gnostic movement as the acute " secularisation and Hellenisation, and then the whole theological movement, up to Nicaea and beyond, is the "gradual" secularisation and Hellenisation of the Church. When he does this, does he not suggest that it was all, a perhaps natural, perhaps pardonable, perhaps inevitable acceptance of alien influence, but still an acceptance of alien influence, and a succumbing to it? Now why? Why, because the Church, which had to think, put in play the best methods of thought then existing anywhere in the world, and did the best she could with them. Probably the methods were imperfect; probably also the Church's thinking would not have been perfect, even if the methods had been better. But is it not likely also that the Church, providentially placed in those circumstances, did think to some good purpose? At any rate does history gain by a representation which suggests that there was some alternative course open? There was none. It is easy to conceive that the Church might have thought and acted more worthily than she did. But it is inconceivable and untrue that she could have any right to decline to use human thought in the best methods of it which the world had seen. It will be said then, perhaps, that the fault lies here:-The Church not only thought in Greek forms, but borrowed the results of extra Christian Greek speculation and turned that into Christian dogma. One replies, suppose that more or less of this might possibly befall, still, is this the main and characteristic account of the formation of early Christian dogma? And this brings us to the point.

Harnack is a disciple of Ritschl; one, indeed, who accents rather assuages his master's peculiarities. Ritschl, it may be said in passing, was no unfit master for one who is a great historian. He himself had remarkable historical aptitudes, disclosed, perhaps, in the second edition of the Alt-katholishe Kirche more than in his more laborious history of the Doctrine of Atonement. Waiving much explanation, one may summarily say that Ritschl and his followers found reason for limiting strictly the field of possible Christian knowledge, and of possible revelation. For example, as to the Saviour, what any Christian at any time has really known is that Jesus lived in a moral unity with God, of a wonderful and unique quality, and crowned that life by His death: that He preached and founded the Kingdom of God in which a new consciousness of God's love was to give a new meaning to human life that He proved able, and proves able still, to inspire into men the convictions and the impulses which His own life embodied; and that a life was realised in Him, and is made possible to believers, in which this refractory and stubborn world is overcome; for all its experiences become subservient to a spiritual faith and to spiritual aims.

This

is, of course, a bare statement; and however one may differ, it is not intended to suggest that the motives and the mood which characterise the school are to be treated otherwise than respectfully and thoughtfully. But the result is this-the first disciples knew what in substance has now been suggested, so have all true disciples since. Christ's life and words have made so much credible to them, and so much has been practically verified. But beyond this one does not know. Speculation beyond this as to who and what Christ was, either should not exist, or at least should not claim to be Christian truth. If any members of the School do not draw this conclusion, it is not wronging Harnack to say that he does.

Now the question of the early ages was the question of Christ, who and what He was. The movements of thoughts upon that question occupy the larger part of Harnack's history, and are very instructively reproduced. For Harnack is never supercilious, and never careless. Still, for him, all these developments up to Nicaea, or rather up to Chalcedon and beyond, were a mistake. Those, indeed, whom he calls Adoptionists (others call them dynamical Monarchians-Paul of Samosata may serve for a specimen) were upon a track of truth which might have been successfully followed up. But all forms of Logos doctrine, every doctrine, indeed, which ascribes to Christ subsistence in a higher nature before He appeared on earth, is inadmissible, and has led to self-contradiction. Yet, it may be said in passing, the reader will not readily find a more appreciative estimate of the service which Athanasius rendered to Christianity than that which Harnack supplies. Assume that the Logos doctrine must be present in some form, then the Athanasian form is that which saves the great Christian interests. But the assumption itself is the questionable element. The whole story therefore is the working out through ages of a fundamental mistake. It is not merely that the dogma was too confidently handled, too dialectically discussed, too peremptorily imposed, allowed too much to supplant and replace faith, or works, or worship. That in it which was reckoned most fundamental and most important was wrong all through.

Once more, if the Ritschlian canon as to the limits of possible or knowable truth is to prevail, then the chief New Testament writers, Paul, John, the writer to the Hebrews-are in the wrong no less than Irenaeus and Athanasius. For they have all asserted the preexistent glory of Christ. Accordingly it has to be shown how they first went astray. It has to be shown that this pre-existence is an idea which innocently enough grew up in all their mindsinnocently enough, but in such a way as to deprive the idea of authority, and to annul its claim to be part of genuine Christian1 In a chapter not yet translated.

ity. Harnack's case on this point is in the appendix on Preexistence in the volume before us. Briefly, these apostles dwelt on Christ as specially foreordained, and gradually that thought solidified, as it were, into the ascription to him of pre-existence. Harnack then may say what he will about Hellenising; but to these Biblical writers the misleading influence must be traced. It would be unjust to pretend to discuss this theory on so meagre a statement of it. But probably the reader will consider whether the matter was not too weighty, the time for gradual self-deception too short, the men concerned too many and of too sane a judgment, to comport with such a solution. He may as well remember also that if an angel from heaven were to preach the doctrine of pre-existence to a consistent follower of Ritschl, that angel would be sent about his business, with the information that his theory of knowledge was wrong, and that he ought to keep clear of metaphysics.

But one would not like to pass from this without reminding our readers that some followers of Ritschl, while they appear to be precluded from saying more of Christ, than that He was a man in the most intimate moral relations with God, still seem to retain a profound impression of the unique character of His interposition as the sole revealer of the Father, ascribe to Him a most wonderful significance for men, and contrive to gather round Him vivid impressions of reconciliation, redemption, and victory. One would think that if they have no more to say of Christ, they must yet feel that an unspoken and undreamt of wonder lies behind what they claim to know, and feel free to say. Whether this richness of professed faith and experience can long continue to ally itself with so meagre a doctrinal scheme is quite another question. But, meanwhile, one may gladly acknowledge the case as it stands. And in Harnack's case, this can be said, at all events, that he betrays no wish to conceal anything in the history which suggests the unique character and the unique power of Christ. We are not probably to ascribe to Harnack the religious glow of Hermann. Still, passages like the following, are interesting.

"Men had met with Jesus, and in Him had found the Messiah. There was no hope that did not seem to be certified in Him, no lofty idea which had not become in Him a living reality. Everything a man possessed was offered to Him. He was everything lofty that could be imagined. Everything that can be said of Him was already said in the first two generations after His appearance. Nay, more, he was felt to be the ever-living one, Lord of the world and operative principle of one's own life. 'To me to live is Christ.' He is the way, the truth, and the life. One could now for the first time be certain of the resurrection and the eternal life; and with that certainty, the sorrows of the world melted as mist

before the sun, and the residue of this present time became as a day. The group of facts which the history of the Gospel thus discloses in the world, is at the same time the highest and the most unique of all that we meet in that history; it is its seal, and distinguishes the Gospel from all other universal religions. Where in the history of mankind shall we find anything resembling this, that men who had eaten and drunk with their Master should glorify Him, not only as the revealer of God, but as the Prince of Life, as the Redeemer and Judge of the world, as the living power of its existence; and that a choir of Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish, should, along with them, immediately confess that out of the fulness of this one man they have received grace for grace?" p. 76.

Our notice has dealt mainly with one point, to be aware of which, is useful to the student. We repeat, however, that while this point of view is the key to much, Harnack's pages are by no means filled with debate on that point. Mainly they are occupied with a keen and instructive scrutiny of facts and forces. Most of those who follow his teaching will be conscious, we think, of a fine sincerity of mind, which contributes in quite a special way to the worth of the book. We would point, for instance, to his study of Augustine, which will appear in a future volume. It is not quite easy reading. It is confessedly imperfect-a series of attempts, from various sides, to get into the heart of Augustine's contribution to the life and thought of the Church. And yet, just because it is confessedly tentative and approximate, it leaves on the mind a far more effective impression-though, on some sides, a vague impression of what Augustine was, than if Harnack had pretended to take his measure, and to delineate it in definite and confident outlines.

The translation is good. The German rhythm of Harnack is not always replaced by the rhythm of native English style. It is certainly difficult to do this in translation without taking too much liberty with the sense. But the book is creditably free from the barbarisms so common in translations, and can be read with pleasure. ROBERT RAINY.