The Princeton Theological Review

RAKt Duuko

Volume XXVI July, 1928 Number 3

The Prince
Theological
Review

CONTENTS

Christianity’s Finality and New Testament Teaching 337

Clarence Bouma

The Origin of the Regensburg Book 355

Hastings Eells

Wilhelm Herrmann’s Systematic Theology 373

Thos. Cary Johnson

Does the Roman Church Teach the Doctrine of

Religious Persecution? 394

An Ex Catholic Priest

The Rule of Faith and Life 423

R. D. Wilson

Reviews of Recent Literature 451

Survey of Periodical Literature 475

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINCETON

LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1928

The Princeton Theological Review

EDITED FOR

THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

BY

Oswald T. Allis

Each author is solely responsible for the views expressed in his article
Notice of discontinuance must be sent to the Publishers ; otherwise subscriptions will be continued
Subscription rate. Two Dollars a year, single copies Sixty Cents
Entered as Second Class Mail Matter at Princeton, N. J.

BOOKS REVIEWED

Akmentrout, J. S., Administering the Vacation Church School. ■■ ■ 469

Baillie, D. M., Faith in God and its Christian Consummation.... 464

Battenhouse, H. M., The Bible Unlocked 455

Billen, A. V., The Old Latin Texts of the Hexateuch 45i

Bradford, G., D. L. Moody, A Worker in Souls 467

Burroughs, P. E., Our Lord and Ours 468

Champion, J. B., More Than Atonement 466

Keller, A., and Stewart, G., Protestant Europe 472

Klotsche, E. H., An Outline of the History of Doctrines 456

Kunneth, W., Die Lehre von der Siinde 459

Macartney, C. E., Of Them He Chose Twelve 469

Macartney, C. E., Paul, the Man 471

Purinton, H. R., The Achievement of Israel 452

Rade, M., Glaubenslehre, Vol. III. 3, “Vom Geist” 457

Smith, G. B., Current Christian Thinking 461

Verkuyl, G., Qualifying Men for Church Work 468

Copyright 1918, by Princeton University Press

The Princeton
Theological Review

JULY, 1928

CHRISTIANITY’S FINALITY AND NEW
TESTAMENT TEACHING

Every intelligent adherent of Christianity sooner or later
faces the question as to the truth, the uniqueness, and the
finality of Christianity. We, Christians, have in most cases
imbibed Christian ideas and followed Christian standards
from infancy. Having been born into a Christian environ-
ment and having enjoyed a Christian training, we were led
to accept the system of Christian truth and to adopt the
Christian moral norm as true, final, and satisfying. Conse-
quently, Christianity has practically from infancy been our
standard of truth and of value.

But as we grow in intelligence we wish to know the reason
why. We discover that Christianity is not the only religion
in the world. We challenge ourselves as Christians. Such
questions as these involuntarily force themselves upon us.
If I were born in India from Hindu parents, would I not as
resolutely hold that Hinduism is the only true and satisfying
religion? Just what is there in Christianity that gives it a
claim to the allegiance of man? Is there really anything
fundamentally, unique, final, absolute about Christianity?
Granted that Christianity is true and has value, is such
truth and value relative or absolute? Are not perhaps all
religions true and satisfying in a measure, the one more, the
other less so, the only difference between them being one of
degree ? Does not possibly each racial group have the religion
best adapted to it and serving its needs best, so that the ques-
tion as to the finality of any religion ought not to be raised?
Is Christianity perhaps the highest form of religious de-

338 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

velopment so far attained by humanity but destined, from
the nature of the case, to be superseded by higher stages?
Jf all religion is essentially a matter of search after God,
what claim can any one religion make to the allegiance of all
men?

In present-day religious thought, which has been so deeply
influenced and determined by the historical method, this
question of the finality of Christianity becomes doubly
cogent. Since the days of the Aufkldrung, and especially
during the nineteenth century, the conflict between the his-
torical study of religion and the standpoint which maintains
the finality of Christianity occupies the very center of theo-
logical interest. Historical research ever tends in the direc-
tion of a certain relativism. The historian does not readily
accept any phase of thought or practice as final. To him all is
in a constant flux. History as such seems to have no norm.
It speaks the language of growth, development, creativity,
not of finality or absoluteness.

Until the nineteenth century the historical point of view
did not come to prominence in theological thought. The his-
torical approach was until that time quite subordinated to,
if not entirely suppressed by, the dogmatic. The nineteenth
century, however, became the age of historical research.
From one point of view the entire change which has come
over Christian theology in the previous century is the out-
come of the general application of the canons of historical
criticism to Christianity. The study of the non-Christian
religions was begun in the eighteenth and came to full de-
velopment in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This
study was greatly stimulated and furthered by the increase
in travel and intercourse between the nations. Countries here-
tofore closed to Western influence have been thrown open.
Also the missionary enterprise has been a powerful factor
in promoting this movement.

This historical standpoint and method applied to theology
and the scientific study of religion has found its focal point
and sphere of crystallization especially in the study of Com-

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

339

parative Religion. Not only the ethnic religions but also the
religion of the Old Testament and Christianity itself were
soon studied in accordance with the same historical method
and its canons of criticism. To all this study of the world’s
religions, of which the religion of the Old Testament is
held to be one and Christianity another, there has, moreover,
been applied the hypothesis of the evolutionary development
of all human life, religion included. All religions on the basis
of this hypothesis are held to represent various stages in the
evolutionary development of the religious instinct of the
human race.

It is clear that this genetico-historical attitude and method,
reinforced by the evolutionary hypothesis, as it prevails in
theological study today, forces the question as to the
uniqueness, the finality, and absoluteness of Christianity
upon us as intelligent twentieth century Christians. In this
way there arises what Ernst Troeltsch has characterized as
the “fundamental conflict between the spirit of critical
skepticism generated by the ceaseless flux and manifold con-
tradictions within the sphere of history and the demand of
the religious consciousness for certainty, for unity, and for
peace.”1 Can any historical phase of religion possess finality?
Can history offer a norm, a standard of religious truth and
value? Can the absolute enter into history?

How deeply this question cuts into our Christian faith and
practice is apparent. If we accept the standpoint that Chris-
tianity is not absolute, is not the final religion, but is to be
viewed as essentially on a par with all other religions even
though considered the most highly developed among them,
the implications are far-reaching both for theological truth
and for Christian conduct. If Christianity be not final, Christ
is at best one of many religious prophets who have emerged
in the religious evolution of the race. He may be ever so
great a religious teacher, He is not the divine Saviour as
claimed by the New Testament. Moreover, if Christianity

1 Ernst Troeltsch, Christian Thought, London, 1923, p. 8.

340

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

be not absolute and final as the true and saving faith re-
vealed by God, the nerve of the motive for the Christian mis-
sionary enterprise is cut. According to the Great Commission
Christianity is intended to supersede all other religions
because it is the only true and saving religion. But if the dif-
ference between Christianity and the ethnic faiths is only a
relative one, the whole missionary enterprise is undermined
or, if still carried on, it is placed on a radically different
basis and inspired by an entirely new motive. The only
motive left in that case for the Christianizing of the ethnic
peoples is the desire to impart a higher stage of civilization
to less developed races. It is not surprising that those non-
Christian races who enjoy a relatively high and possibly
ancient type of civilization raise the challenging question to
missionary representatives of the gospel of a liberalized
Christianity, why these should seek to impose their civiliza-
tion upon them. It would appear that the cultured pagans
easily have the better of the argument in this matter. ,

The need of the hour to set forth the meaning and impli-
cations of the finality of the Christian religion and -to main-
tain it over against various hostile forces both within and
without the bounds of historic Christianity is great indeed.
Here is a basic apologetic task for the Christian theologian.
Professor Mackenzie’s words written fifteen years ago are
becoming more true and significant every day:

No need of the hour is greater than that many attempts should be
made to define or describe the Christian Faith as it confronts the great
world with its claims and promises, its sense of universal authority, its
assertion that -in and through its own nature as a historical Fact and
its own message as a Divine Fact, the will of God is dealing with the
destiny of mankind. For the sake of the missionaries abroad and the
ministry in Christian lands, for the sake of all who are called upon to
support and promote in any way the work of converting the world to
this one Faith, these attempts are of essential importance. We must be
sure that our task is not the offspring of blind prejudice or Western
pride. We cannot go on with it intelligently and earnestly unless we are
in our own souls assured, not that Christianity is a better religion than
any other, but that it is the absolute religion, the one final way in which
God himself is concerned with the saving and perfecting of mankind.2

2 W. Douglas Mackenzie, The Final Faith, New York, 1912, Preface.

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

341

The problem of the finality of Christianity raises issues
which carry us to the very foundations of our philosophical
and theological assumptions. No one, for instance, can ade-
quately deal with this problem who has no appreciation of
the philosophical problem of the relation between historical
fact and eternal, timeless, truth. The scope of the present
article, however, excludes the discussion of any such phase
of the problem. We limit ourselves to the discussion of the
teaching of the New Testament on the subject. In view of the
fact that it is becoming increasingly common for many
Christian writers on the subject to interpret various New
Testament passages as supporting a conception of Christian-
ity which, according to the conviction of the present writer,
does violence to the real character of the Christian faith,
the task of interrogating the New Testament on this
question of the finality of our faith is anything but superflu-
ous. The import and vialue of this phase of the problem must
be apparent to anyone who realizes that the final vindication
of Christianity cannot be found outside of Christianity
itself— its effects in history and, especially, its authoritative
sources.

Throughout the New Testament the uniqueness, the Ein-
maligkeit, and the final character of Christ, His incarnation
and atonement, are taught implicitly and explicitly both.
This uniqueness and Einmaligkeit of God’s revelation in
Jesus Christ is also implied in the fact that Christ is pre-
sented as the goal and fulfilment of all Old Testament
prophecy. This lends the religion based upon the New Testa-
ment a finality such as the Old Testament religion did not
possess. Because of its anticipatory character the Old Testa-
ment revelation and the religion based upon it, though unique
and exclusive as based upon special supernatural revelation,
were not final.

Both Jesus and the apostles clearly taught the unique char-
acter, the Einmaligkeit, the absoluteness, the finality of the
Christian faith because based upon the Christian revelation.

Three crucial passages for the teaching of Christ on the

342

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

subject are John xiv. 6, John x. 30, and Matthew xxviii.
18-20. In the first passage Christ teaches that He is the true
and only living way to the Father. “I am the way, and the
truth, and the life : no one cometh unto the Father except
through me.” Christ not only has the true knowledge con-
cerning the way, but He is that way. Through union with
Him, one is in the way, knows the truth, and has the life. All
this implies a unique and most singular relation of Christ to
God. Though the prophets had spoken of the way, of truth,
and of life, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Brace in his work, The Unknown God, tries to eviscerate
this saying of Jesus in a fashion that seems to be popular in
certain quarters. He proposes that the passage, “No one
cometh unto the Father except through me,” be interpreted
to mean : “No one can come into union with God except
through the spirit in me, through self-sacrifice and love.”3
But, if Jesus meant to say that “the way” was love, moral
character, as exemplified in Himself, and not Himself as a
unique divine being, the whole passage would be an utterance
of the most intolerable kind of conceit, boastfulness, and
egotism. The use of eyed and epov and their emphatic position
in the text show what great emphasis Jesus is placing in this
passage on Himself. The following verses strengthen this
emphasis upon the uniqueness of Christ as a divine person.
As a unique, divine person, one with the Father, He is the
only way by which true life may be had.

That this oneness with the Father implies Jesus’ deity is
also clear from another Johannine passage. In x. 30 Jesus
says: “I and the Father are one.” Can this apply to mere
spiritual affinity? The meaning of the statement is exhibited
in the following verses. The Jews accuse him of blasphemy,
claiming that with the above words He has made Himself
God (x. 33). It should be noted that Jesus not only does
not repudiate the inference made by His enemies from His
words but clearly accepts the inference and defends it.

Another important passage for the teaching of Jesus on

3,C. Loring Brace, The Unknown God, London, 1890, p. 302, Note 2.

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

343

the subject of the uniqueness of the Christian revelation for
man’s salvation is found in Matthew xxviii. 18-20. This
great final commission of Christ to His disciples derives its
entire meaning, force, and thrust from the universally valid
and exclusively saving efficacy of the gospel of Christ. That
this is the underlying assumption of the commission, so much
so that it would lose all its meaning apart from this assump-
tion, is apparent upon a careful interpretation of the
passage and its context. It teaches that the basis for this
commission is the universality of Christ’s dominion. He has
all authority in heaven and on earth. The content of the
commission itself is also shot through with the assumption
of the universality of Christ. They must disciple all nations.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is by its very nature designed to
supersede all other faiths. Again, note the strain of univer-
sality in the guarantee of divine aid in the fulfilment of this
commission. “I am with you all the days unto the consum-
mation of the age.” Their task to bring the gospel has a
universal scope, universal in space (all nations) and in time
(all the days). The universal significance, the universal
validity, and the universal need of the gospel of salvation is
woven into the very fabric of this last commission of Christ
to His disciples. Whoever would take Christ seriously, mu$t
take this claim to universality seriously.

Just as the unique and final character of the gospel of
Christ is presupposed and affirmed in the great commission
of Christ to His disciples, so it is repeatedly affirmed in the
early apostolic preaching. This affirmation is the real point
of Peter's pentecostal sermon recorded in Acts ii. 14-36. The
same is true of Peter’s address in Acts iii. 12-26, and like-
wise of his discourse before the sanhedrin as recorded in
Acts iv. 8-12.

A very strong and solemn declaration as to the absolute
uniqueness and exclusiveness of Christ as the way of salva-
tion is found in the last-named discourse. It is Acts iv. 12:
“And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there
any other name under heaven, that is given among men,

344

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

wherein we must be saved.” One is impressed by the strong
negations and the solemn emphasis of exclusion throughout
the passage. The only God-designed way of salvation is
Jesus Christ.

Another significant utterance of Peter is that addressed
to Cornelius, the Roman, as recorded in Acts x. 34-35. Such
a passage as this might on the surface be taken to militate
against the claim of absolute uniqueness and finality for the
Christian gospel. Peter is there reported as making the state-
ment to Cornelius that God is no respecter of persons but
that “in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh right-
eousness, is acceptable to him.” This phrase is often super-
ficially quoted as meaning that anyone who, guided by the
light of general revelation, is religious and moral, is accept-
able, pleasing to God, just as well as others are who, guided
by the greater light of special revelation, have the full gospel
of Christ.

This interpretation, however, is a distortion of the mean-
ing of the passage. What is meant by “acceptable” ( SeKTo'9)
unto God? In every nation those who fear God and work
righteousness are acceptable un/to God in what sense? A
careful exegesis makes clear that the acceptability of these
people refers to them as candidates for the reception of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. Peter is here militating not against
the exclusiveness of the gospel, he is precisely asserting the
exclusiveness and absolute uniqueness of that gospel by mili-
tating against the exclusiveness of the Jewish Christians
who held that only Jews were entitled to the privileges of the
gospel of Jesus. This claim to exclusiveness of the Jews had
to be broken down. The great lesson that the early apostles
themselves had to learn as they preached the gospel was that
all special privileges of the Jews had been cancelled. The
Old Testament teaching was that outside of the chosen nation
there was no salvation, but the gospel of Christ is not to be
restricted to any one nation. It is universal in its scope. It
must be preached to all nations in accordance with Christ’s
final commission. The question in the mind of the early

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

345

Jewish Christians was whether the gospel should not be re-
stricted to the Jews only.

Now what Peter asserts in the passage before us must be
understood against that background. He states that the gos-
pel is not for the Jews only but for all nations. This truth
was the point of the teaching imparted to Peter by the vision
at Joppa, which vision immediately preceded his coming to
Caesarea and is closely connected with it. What God has
cleansed, Peter should not call unclean (x. 9-16). Peter’s
going to Caesarea is the putting into practice of the lesson
learned from this vision. The narrative clearly links up these
two events. Peter so explains the meaning of the vision both
at Cornelius’ house (vs. 28) and at Jerusalem when later
he is called to account for what he has done (xi. 1-18).

When Peter hence makes the statement that there are
among the gentiles those that are acceptable to God, he means
that they are acceptable candidates for the Christian church
to whom the gospel should be preached as well as to the
Jews. But what is the meaning and purpose of the reference
to such persons as fearing God and working righteousness?
This does not designate an acceptable ground for salvation
alongside of Christ and His redemption, but the fear of God
and the working of righteousness are recognized as psycho-
logically suitable soil into which the seed of the gospel may
be cast. People who are in earnest about their belief in God
and who strive to live a life acceptable to Him, are psycho-
logically especially fit to understand and appreciate the gospel
of Jesus Christ. Special redemptive revelation does not de-
stroy general revelation but is throughout based upon it.
The thought of declaring men acceptable to God by reason
of their fear of God and their good works, just as others are
acceptable to God by reason of their faith in Jesus Christ,
is hence foreign to this passage as it is foreign to the mind
of the apostle Peter and to the whole genius of the New
Testament.

That this acceptability to God is simply acceptability as
possible believers or as candidates for the acceptance of the

346 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

gospel, is conclusively proved by the fact that Peter, after
having made this statement, proceeds to preach the gospel
of salvation in Christ to the very people of whom he has
made this asseveration. Jesus’ death, resurrection, and great
commission constitute the content of his message (x. 36-
43). He baptizes them not because they believed in God and
did righteousness, but because they believed the gospel mes-
sage and receive the Holy Ghost (x. 44-48). The angel
told Cornelius that Peter would speak unto him “words,
whereby thou shalt be saved’’ (xi. 14). The company in Cor-
nelius’ house received the Holy Ghost as the disciples them-
selves did “when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ”
(xi. 17). And the judgment of the conference at Jerusalem
on this whole problem was : “Then to the Gentiles also hath
God granted repentence unto life” (xi. 18). All these state-
ments clearly show how foreign to the whole narrative is
the idea that the religious and moral sense of the best among
the non-Christian nations can ever render them acceptable
to God as such apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Most of the passages discussed so far assert the uniqueness
and finality of the gospel of Christ from the standpoint of
the gospel itself. There are also a number of instructive New
Testament passages which approach the question from the
angle of the significance and the value of the ethnic religions
with which early Christianity came into contact. A number
of Pauline passages deal more especially with this angle of
the problem, such as: Acts xiv. 15-17; Acts xvii. 22-31;
Rom. i. 18-25; Rom. ii. 14-15; Eph. ii. 11-12. From the
fact that these passages are written from the point of view
of the appreciation of the ethnic religions it is not to be con-
cluded that Paul in any way stresses the uniqueness and final-
ity of the gospel of Christ less than, say, Peter does, and
dwells rather on the positive value of the ethnic faiths in
distinction from him. This is far from being the case. The
fact that Paul does at times speak of the ethnic religions
and that in terms of relative appreciation is readily ac-
counted for by the fact that he, in distinction from Peter,

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

347

was the great missionary to the gentiles and consequently
came into daily contact with ethnic religions. For the rest, the
evaluation of the ethnic religions in a somewhat favorable
light as found in the Pauline passages in Acts is in perfect
harmony with the position maintained throughout the New
Testament, Paul’s writings and statements included, as to
the uniqueness and absoluteness of the gospel of Christ.

Acts xiv. 15-17 is one of the New Testament passages in
which we have a significant positive evaluation of the
heathen religions as given by Paul, the first great missionary
of our faith. A careful analysis of the passage shows it to
contain the following teaching on the subject. (1) There is
a revelation of God's goodness to all nations. “He left not
himself without witness, doing good.” (2) This revelation
imparts natural good, such as rains, fertility, food, and glad-
ness. (3) There is another, a more restricted or special, reve-
lation, which until the coming of Christ was not offered to
these nations. God “in the generations gone by suffered all
the nations to walk in their own ways.” (4) The content of
this special revelation apparently is the gospel of Christ
which demands repentence. “We bring you good tidings that
you should turn from these vain things.” (5) This special
revelation and its demand is apparently the thing that mat-
ters in the estimation of Paul, whereas the truth of the
general revelation of God to all men in nature is stated only
as a concession and is made to serve merely as a connecting
link for his gospel message.

Though God has remarkably revealed Himself to all na-
tions in nature, the passage by no means implies that these
nations therein have a true and adequate knowledge of God.
On the contrary, it is clearly stated that these heathen, who
enjoyed God's revelation in nature, were idolaters and
needed to “turn from these vain things to the living God.”
That in this passage Paul says more of God’s general revela-
tion than of the special is readily accounted for from the situ-
ation . In speaking to these heathen he takes his point of
departure in natural religion, proceeding pedagogically from

348 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the known to the unknown. Further, it should be noted that
the immediate occasion for these words was not found in his
desire to preach the gospel but in his effort to restrain these
heathen from making sacrifices to him and Barnabas, his
companion. One should also observe that verses 21-23
the same chapter imply that after this discourse based
chiefly upon principles of natural theology they gave these
Lycaonians further information concerning the revealed
gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul’s address delivered to the Athenians on Mars’ Hill
is valuable for the subject under consideration by reason of
its outspoken appreciation of features of Greek religion.
The entire passage (Acts xvii. 22-31) is deserving of close
study for a true understanding of the New Testament evalu-
ation of ethnic religion.

The great apostle in this address appreciates and takes
his point of departure in the general religious sense of the
Athenians. It is worthy of note that his approach to the
pagan Greek mind is not first of all one of condemnation
but one of adaptation and relative appreciation. Though he
had been provoked by their idolatry (vs. 16), he does not
begin by denouncing but by appreciating their religious sense.
The address throughout is marked by caution, moderation,
tact. He quotes one of their poets (vs. 28). He takes his
point of departure in the altar dedicated to the unknown
god. His terminology throughout is such as would appeal
to the Greek mind. He speaks well of their religious sense
and links his message to this phenomenon in the words :
“What therefore you unwittingly worship, this I set forth
unto you.” The word for worship ( evo-efieire ) designates
worship not in malam but in bonam partem. Significant in
this connection is the expression : “Men of Athens, I per-
ceive that in all things you are A? 8eim8cup.ov earepovs.”
This phrase is not to be translated “rather superstititous,”
but “very religious.” The word means “divinity-fearing,”
and may be used with a more favorable or a more
unfavorable connotation, as the case may be. In the favor-

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

349

able sense it would be translated “religious,” “god-fearing" ;
in the unfavorable sense, “superstitious.” Paul would
hardly use the word here with the latter connotation. It
would not fit into the situation nor would it be in keeping
with the spirit of the rest of the discourse. Some hold that
by using BeiaL8aL/j.ovea-Tepov<; he used a word with a neutral
meaning, wishing neither to offend nor to compliment the
Athenians. This is possible, but also in that case the trans-
lation “religious” would be closer to the sense than that of
“superstitious.” The particle may be taken as a comparative,
and in that case Paul says that he perceives they are “more
religious” (i.e., than the other Greeks, since Athens had
many temples). But also with this rendering the translation
“religious” would seem to stand.

The apostle teaches further in this passage either by ex-
plicit statement or by implication that this religious sense
is rooted in the fact that man is created in the image of God
and is by virtue of this creation akin to God. Man is the
“offspring” of God, bearing the divine image. God has made
man in order that he might seek after, worship, and glorify
his Maker. Man is hence a being with an ineradicable reli-
gious instinct. There is in him an urge to seek after God,
“if haply they might feel after him and find him.” The
apostle characterizes the relationship between God and man
in which this religious sense is rooted as one both of trans-
cendence and of immanence. Paul had encountered two
distinct philosophico-religious groups in Athens (vs. 18), the
Epicureans and the Stoics. The former held to a distorted
transcendence and the latter to a one-sided immanence. Over
against this Paul sets forth the Biblical and theistic view of
God’s relation to His creatures as one that is both transcen-
dent and immanent. God is the great Creator, who made the
world (vs. 24a). He is Lord of heaven and earth (vs. 24b).
He is the self-sufficient (vs. 25). That same God, however,
is not far from us. In fact, we live, move, and exist in Him
(vss. 27b, 28). The world is accordingly not a product of
chance (Epicureans) nor of blind necessity (Stoics), but of

350

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

divine providence and design (vs. 26). In this twofold rela-
tionship of immanence as well as transcendence is rooted
man’s religious sense, his search for God.

This general religious sense, however, is also presented as
perverted, darkened, and hence incapable of yielding true
and saving knowledge of God. Though these heathen, as
Paul recognizes, have a certain religious sense, this does not
mean that they have an adequate knowledge of God. He
practically tells them so in the expression, “what ye un-
wittingly worship” (vs. 23). Moreover he shows up the
poverty of their image worship (vs. 29) and points out
the true nature of God (vss. 24, 25, 29). Though Paul here
links his message to the religious sense, the general knowl-
edge of God, as found in the heathen mind, the conception
of God which he sets forth is far above and beyond any-
thing found in the pagan mind (vss. 24-26). He does not
accept their view of God but corrects it. It would accord-
ingly be a great mistake to suppose that by virtue of general
revelation the Greek pagans had the same belief about God
that Paul had and that they only needed to have the specific
soteric teaching about Christ and His redemption brought to
them in addition. Not only the true understanding of Christ
and the way of salvation, but also the true understanding
of God is had in the light of the New Testament revelation
alone. The knowledge of God left in the heathen mind after
the fall, though true insofar as it witnesses to the existence
of God and to certain of His attributes, is an extremely per-
verted and distorted knowledge, full of error. That Paul
recognizes an immanential relation subsisting also after the
fall between God and man, does not at all imply that man
in his present state, apart from supernatural revelation and
regeneration, could have true and adequate knowledge of
God. This is also suggested by the verb ^njXacpt^aeiav y “grope
in the dark,” “feel after,” indicating that, though God be not
far from His creatures, yet they grope after Him in their
attempt to find Him. The heathen are blinded.

One more important truth which the apostle presents in

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

351

this famous address on Areopagus forms the capstone of his
teaching on the relation of the Christian gospel to the ethnic
religions. He maintains that the only adequate and the
necessary revelation of Himself God has now offered in
Jesus Christ. God has clearly revealed Himself apart from
His revelation in nature. This revelation is a message that is
brought by men commissioned for that special purpose
cnrcvy/eWei (vs. 30). This revelation deals with sin and re-
pentance (vs. 30). It is a revelation unto judgment, a
judgment that is coming and in which Jesus Christ, the same
Jesus who is risen from the dead, will be the central figure.
The basis for man’s faith in this coming messianic judgment
lies in the historical fact of Christ’s resurrection (vs. 31c).
ttlcttlv 7 rapaa^cov nracnv avacnr)cra<; avTov e/e i >eicp<hv is to be
translated: “(God) having offered a guarantee (of this com-
ing judgment) (i.e., as an objective basis for faith in this
coming judgment) to all by raising him (i.e., the messianic
judge, Christ) from the dead.” From all these elements it
appears that Paul speaks of a supernatural, historical revela-
tion, not in any sense to be identified with God’s general rev-
elation in nature and man. And this is the revelation that is
all-important. It must be brought to all men everywhere
(vs. 30).

The question naturally suggests itself why the content of
Paul’s message in this passage is so predominantly of the
natural theology type and contains so little that is explicit
concerning Christ, His incarnation, death, and resurrection,
and concerning sin, repentance, and salvation. Apart from
the consideration mentioned above, that Paul adapts himself
to his audience, it will materially aid us in answering this
question to remember that in this address of Paul on Mars’
Hill we have undoubtedly only the first part of his proposed
message to the Athenians. Apparently his address was cut
short. He was interrupted. Verse 32 informs us that when he
mentioned the subject of the resurrection from the dead,
some scoffed, and others said that they would hear him again.
This can mean nothing else but that Paul never completed

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

his proposed address. Having already spoken of the truths
of general revelation and having come to the messianic
judgment, he was ready to take up the more specific positive
elements of the New Testament gospel. But apparently he
did not get beyond the messianic judgment. It seems to be
contrary to sound interpretation of this passage to suppose
that what we have in the verses 22-31 gives the complete
message (or even a complete synopsis of the message) that
Paul would have delivered had he been allowed the oppor-
tunity to complete his address.

After this discussion of the Pauline teaching as found in
the book of Acts on the subject of Christianity’s finality
and uniqueness, we can dismiss the discussion of the Pauline
epistles on the subject briefly. The entire structure of the
Pauline type of New Testament teaching rests upon the great
assumption of the absolute finality of the gospel of Christ.
In 1 Cor. xv. the force of the whole argument establishing
the certainty of the (future) resurrection of the believers
from the indiibitability of the fact of the (past) resurrection
of Jesus Christ, rests upon the absolute uniqueness and the
universal significance and efficacy of this great redemptive
event : Christ’s resurrection. This is also the presupposition
of the cosmical significance of Christ as set forth in Colos-
sians and Ephesians. For it should be remembered that this
cosmical Christ in Paul’s epistles is never viewed apart from
the redeeming, the soteric Christ.

Especially the opening chapters of Romans offer us a
definite conception of the finality of Christianity as con-
tained in the Pauline epistles. The teaching there may be
briefly summarized in the following statements. There is a
revelation of God to all mankind (i. 19, 20, 21a). This gen-
eral revelation is expressed both in nature (i.e., the physical
world) and in man’s moral consciousness (i. 19-20; ii. 14-
15). As such it exhibits God in His divine power and in His
holiness, the power to be adored by man, the divine holy
will to be obeyed. This general revelation man, by reason of
his corruption, not only cannot read properly, but he per-

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

353

verts it (i. 21-23, 25a, 18c). Mankind under this general
revelation, though morally accountable (“without excuse”),
is miserable and without hope. The divine displeasure rests
upon him. Man’s moral deterioration is the result of this
(i. 20c, 18a, 24-27; cf. Eph. ii. 11-12). This condition ren-
ders another and more adequate revelation necessary, which
revelation is found in Jesus Christ (i. 16-17 ; ii. 4; iii. 21-26).
In the pre-Christian era the Jew enjoyed God’s special re-
demptive revelation (iii. 1-2).

From the discussion of these New Testament passages
there emerges a dear and definite teaching concerning the
finality of the Christian revelation and the relative truth
and value contained in the ethnic religions. Let us summar-
ize this teaching in the following propositions :

All races and all men are religious.

All religions are the outcome of and are based upon divine
revelation, but not all in the same sense nor in the same
degree.

There is a general revelation, rooted in the divine-human
relationship of creation, which all human beings as bearers
of the divine image share, and which underlies all religions.

This general revelation has become impaired and distorted
owing to man’s fall into sin, so that his conception of God,
of divine things, and of human duty and happiness, though
not lost, has become impaired, distorted, full of error, and
in its practical religious and moral expression mingled with
sin.

The ethnic (or, non-Christian) religions are based upon
this impaired and distorted general revelation, and as a con-
sequence, though man’s innate search for God comes to ex-
pression in them, and though they may contain elements of
relative truth and goodness, they are fundamentally neither
true nor satisfying (i.e., saving) but false.

Apart from these ethnic religions, essentially false, there is
today and there ever has been the true religion, based upon
that special supernatural, divine revelation which super-
vened upon the general revelation distorted and impaired by
man’s fall into sin.

354

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

By reason of the aibnormalcy of man’s present state (in
consequence of the fall) this special revelation bears neces-
sarily a restorative and redemptive character.

This special, redemptive, supernatural revelation has
passed through a progressive historical development in the
Old Testament dispensation, a development having its goal
and culmination in the incarnation and the atonement of
Christ ; the Old Testament phase of this history of revelation
bears hence in relation to Christ and Christianity a prelimi-
nary, preparatory, anticipatory, and provisional character.

The revelation of God in the person and the work of
Jesus Christ was necessarily unique, einmalig, and final,
by reason of the fact that in Jesus Christ we have God be-
come man for the supernatural redemption of the race. His
person and His work, His teaching, His life, His death,
and His resurrection — these, by reason of His deity and
His perfect humanity, accomplished completely, finally, and
once for all the redemption of man according to the divine
purpose and promise.

Whenever this special, supernatural, redemptive revela-
tion, objectively realized in Jesus Christ, His person and His
work, is through faith subjectively appropriated by anyone,
he enjoys the divine forgiveness of his sins and is restored
to true knowledge of and fellowship with God through one-
ness with Christ; all of which is contingent upon the divine
supernatural act of regeneration. Such a one is a believer, a
true Christian. The company of such believers constitutes
the Christian Church, and their Christ-centered religion is
Christianity.

Christianity then is the one true, final, and absolute reli-
gion because it is rooted in, derives its meaning from, and is
inspired by the unique, supernatural, einmalig, redemptive
revelation of God in Jesus Christ, His person and His work,
His incarnation, atonement, and resurrection. The unique-
ness, Einmalig keit, finality, and absoluteness of Jesus Christ
and His redemption impart to Christianity its unique, ein-
malig, final, and absolute character.

Grand Rapids, Mich. Clarence Bouma.

THE ORIGIN OF THE REGENSBURG BOOK

The Regensburg Book, so-called because it was first made
public at the Diet of Regensburg, 1541, is one of the most
important compromises in the history of the Christian
Church and yet its origin has always been clouded in mystery.
This mystery is no longer necessary, for within recent years
original documents have been published which make it quite
clear by whom the book was written, and under what circum-
stances.

In order to understand the importance of the Regensburg
Book, it is necessary to review briefly the background of the
German Reformation out of which it came. When the new
emperor, Charles V, came to the throne in 1520, he faced a
revolt in the church so formidable that it could not be ignored
like most of the religious revolts of the preceding centuries.
Something had to be done. Religious dissension was threaten-
ing the political unity of Germany. France, the Turks, and
other enemies were advancing and Charles needed all the
help which a united empire might afford him to resist them.
Consequently, he resorted to drastic means to suppress the
Lutheran revolt. First, he tried the method of force at the
Diet of Worms, 1521 ; but force failed. The central authority
was too weak, the Lutherans were too strong, and the en-
emies of the emperor kept him too busy outside the empire.
When the second opportunity to deal with the problem came
at the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, Charles added to force
another solution; conviction. He commanded the Protestants
to draw up a statement of their beliefs, and then had it offi-
cially refuted. But the rebels refused to be convinced. Al-
though threats were added to arguments, they became more
determined than ever, and Germany was divided and weak-
ened by civil strife.

By 1538 the situation for Charles and the Catholics had
become desperate. The Protestants, increasing rapidly in
numbers, had organized the powerful Smalkald League. In
1534 they had reconquered the duchy of Wiirttemberg, and

356 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

restored it to Ulrich, a rapacious noble, who robbed the
church under the cloak of religious reform. Duke George of
Saxony could not live many weeks longer, and was sure to be
followed by his Protestant brother Henry. The Turks were
threatening another invasion. Further attempts at force,
therefore, would mean war, and worse than that, war against
a superior foe. The Lutherans had developed a well-
established theology which they refused to desert. Conse-
quently there remained only one solution for the emperor,
compromise; and this solution he decided to employ, still
planning, however, to resort to force after he had weakened
the Smalkald League by compromise and trickery.

Several reasons made it a good time for compromise, in ad-
dition to the fact that Charles was too weak to do anything
else. The nationalists wanted peace, for only peace would
keep Germany united and enable her to achieve nationalistic
power. The nobles and the merchants had all kinds of selfish
interests which made them quite ready to welcome a cheaper
means than war of retaining their religious preferences.
Among the clergy on both sides there was a numerous body
of moderates who did not sympathize with the extremists
and were willing to make peace by half-way measures. To
these moderates peace was an end desirable in itself, for it
meant a legal security under cover of which gains already
made might be consolidated. Many Protestant clergymen saw
that progress must be gradual, and the reformers should
be content with half the pie rather than lose it by insisting
upon having the whole. Moreover, there were two sides to
this question of reform, and much injury had been wrought
by going too fast and too far, as, for instance, in the matter
of the confiscation of ecclesiastical property. Consequently,
they welcomed peaceful overtures from the emperor, even
though they did not fully trust him.

The first efforts at compromise were made not by Charles,
but by the moderates in the Catholic party. Duke George of
Saxony, feeling the hand of death laid upon him, sought, by

THE ORIGIN OF THE REGENSBURG BOOK

357

this means to mitigate the loss to his side which would come
when his Protestant brother Henry would inherit the ducal
throne. Througlh his chancellor George von Carlowitz he
proposed a conference at Leipzig, where, on January 2, 1539,
he met Melanchthon and Briick from electoral Saxony, Bucer
of Strasbourg and Feige from Hesse, and laid before them a
drastic program by which Catholics and Protestants might
lay aside their differences. No agreement was reached, but
the olive branch was waved, thus opening a new period in the
German Reformation when a series of religious colloquies
attempted the daring, but impossible feat of reuniting Pro-
testants and Catholics.1 These colloquies were not insignifi-
cant failures, as often pictured by historians, but vitally im-
portant to the future of Germany, for by demonstrating the
impossibility of peace, by failing to achieve a compromise,
they decided that the next century of German history was to
be a century of strife, not of nationalistic growth. When
there seemed to be so many reasons why they should succeed,
when the possibility of heaiing the schism was brightest,
these colloquies marked both the high water mark of con-
ciliation and also its end.

The conference at Leipzig was followed by another and
larger one in the spring of 1539 at Frankfort. There the
Protestants suffered a serious diplomatic defeat, but secured
the promise of another colloquy.® This took place by the call

1 On these special features of the Leipzig Conference see the follow-
ing authorities : M. Lenz, Bricfwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Gross-
miithigen von Hessen mil Bucer, I, 53, et ah; Corpus Ref or mat 0 rum,
III, 621-622, 624, 628; E. L. Enders, Dr. Martin Luther’s Bricfwechsel,
XIII, 269, note; M. Bucer, Wider Auff richtigung der Messen, preface;
M. Bucer, Ein Christlich Bedenken.

2 O. Meinardus, “Die Verhandlungen des Schmalkaldischen Bundes
Frankfurt 1539,” F orschungen zur dcutschcn Geschichte, 1882, XXII,
607; “Thesaurus Baumianus,” (a manuscript collection in the Biblio-
tlieque universitaire et regionale de Strasbourg ), XII, 23, 32, 45; A.
Blatter, Die Thdtigkeit M elanchthons bei den Unionsversuchen, 1539-
1541- Bern, 1899, P- 9; Enders, XII, 114, 134-137; Corpus Refomnatorum,
III, 650, 688-691, 698; T. Schiess, Bricfwechsel der Briider Ambrosius
und Thomas Blaurer 1309-1568, Freiburg i. Br., 1908, 1909, 1912, II, 22,

358

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

of the emperor at Hagenau in June and July, 1540. A dead-
lock occurred even before the colloquy was opened, but the
recess with which it closed called for yet another meeting of
the same kind at Worms on October 28, 1540.3

The colloquy of Worms was a dismal failure so far as
achieving a religious compromise was concerned. On Novem-
ber 25, the imperial minister Granvelle opened it with a
speech in which he called the Protestants seditious.4 On the
next day the presidents submitted the mode of procedure,3
but with this progress ceased, and for week after week the
papal legate caused delay after delay.6 It was at this juncture,
when all hope of a compromise through official action was
fast fading away; when something drastic had to be done,
that the Regensburg Book had its birth. It arose chiefly out
of the efforts of two leaders of the moderate party: John
Gropper, the representative of Elector-Archbishop Hermann
von Wied of Cologne, and Martin Bucer, the representative
of the imperial city of Strasbourg.

Bucer and Gropper had first met at Hagenau in the pre-
ceding July, and had exchanged opinions on theology.7 At
Worms they continued their discussions on how concord and
a reformation of the entire church might best be obtained.
When the official colloquy had dragged on for weeks without
even opening a discussion of theology, Gropper and the im-
perial secretary Gerhard Veltwyck suggested to Granvelle
that the deadlock was unbreakable and the only way to ac-
complish anything was a private colloquy between themselves
representing the Catholics, and Bucer and Capito, represent-

24; F. Hortleder, Von den Ursachen des Teutschen Kriegs, 1546-1547,
I, cap. XXXII; M. Bucer, Vom tag su Hagenaw, 1540.

3 M. Bucer, Von den einigen rechten wege, 1545, p. 38; M. Bucer,
Vom tag su Hagenaw, Liij ; E. Doumergue, Calvin, II, 605; Lenz, I, 222.

4 Lenz, I, 244. The whole speech is printed in LePlat, Monumentorum
ad Historiam Concilii Tridcntini . . . Collectio, II, 683.

5 J. G. Walch, Dr. Martin Luther’s Samnitliche Schriften, igoi, XVII,
417.

6 Kurtz, A History of the Christian Church, II, 89.

7 M. Bucer, Von den einigen, 56-62.

THE ORIGIN OF THE REGENSBURG BOOK

359

ing the Protestants.8 On Monday, December 13, Granvelle
summoned Bucer and his colleague Capito from Strasbourg
to an interview,9 and on the next day he officially proposed
that Bucer, Capito, Gropper and Veltwyck should engage in
a secret colloquy to attain the religious agreement which it
was evident the public colloquy would not. Granvelle himself
wanted it secret because many of the papists were so intent
upon war that they would leave if they knew peaceful nego-
tiations were carried on which might be successful.10 The
whole proposition was a complete surprise to Bucer and
Capito. They hesitated to consent, for a successful secret col-
loquy would make the public colloquy a mere farce, and they
were unwilling to assume so much authority. Before giving
any decision, they secured a solemn promise from Granvelle
that the secret colloquy would in no way interfere with the
public colloquy, or undermine its authority, and that their par-
ticipation would be kept absolutely secret.11 Next the two re-

8 M. Bucer, Von den einigen, 65; M. Bucer, De Concilio et legitime,
1545, p. 2.

9 Lenz, I, 269.

10 Ibid., I, 274.

11 M. Bucer, Von den einigen, 66; M. Bucer, De Concilio et legitime, 2.
As a result of an attempt by Bucer to lead a reformation of the diocese
of Cologne in 1542-1543, he and Gropper became enemies and engaged in
a polemic in which Gropper accused Bucer of having proposed the secret
colloquy at Worms. Bucer replied that he and Capito were invited to it
by Gropper and Veltwyck (M. Bucer, De Concilio et legitime, 2; H.
Schaefer, De Libri Ratisbonensis Origine, 1870, p. 25. This rare disserta-
tion by Schaefer is in the possession of Princeton Theological Seminary
Library). Gulick’s assertion that there is not enough evidence to tell
which was right is unreliable, for Gulick has made no use of the most
important evidence in the case, the letters published by Lenz (W. v.
Gulick, Johannes Gropper, 1906, 70-73; Lenz, 1,269, ff.). Bucer’s polemics,
written for the public years afterward in the heat of controversy might
lie open to the charge of partiality, but his letters, written before there
was any thought of strife, and to the landgrave, whom he had no desire
to deceive, are the most reliable evidence available. These letters show
plainly that the invitation was issued by Granvelle and Veltwyck at
Gropper’s instigation, and that Bucer was heartily in sympathy with the
idea. Three considerations make Bucer’s explanation of the origin of the
colloquy the only possible correct one. First, the secret colloquy was

360

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

formers consulted with Chancellor Feige of Hesse, and
James Sturm, the magisterial representative of Strasbourg.12
The statesmen were not favorably impressed, for, in spite of
Granvelle’s assurances, they believed that the success of such
a secret colloquy would mean the failure of the public one.
Bucer and Capito, they thought, had no right to take into
their own hands the formulation of a theological agreement,
and for that reason afone it would be unacceptable to the
Protestants. Whatever its contents, they would be so insulted
by such a procedure that they would oppose it. Bucer was dis-
pleased by their attitude, for the proposal was an exceedingly
attractive one to him. He hated delays and felt perfectly equal
to the task. Justifiably confident that the public colloquy
would not amount to anything, and conscientiously convinced
that he would be rendering a service to the cause of the Ref-
ormation, he decided to consent.13

Early the next morning, at six o’clock, Bucer went to
Granvelle. The wily minister repeated the threats of war with
which the emperor had gained so much ever since his corona-
tion, and promised again that he would not let the secret
colloquy be an injury in any way either to the public colloquy,
or to the Protestant states, or to Bucer and Capito personally.

opposed to his policy of a public colloquy. Second, it is doubtful if any
suggestion offered by Bucer to Granvelle would have been favorably
received ( cf . T. Wiedemann, Dr. Johann Eck, 1865, p. 312). Hergen-
rother states erroneously that the secret colloquy was arranged by the
landgrave, as will be shown below (Hergenrother, Handbuch der allge-
meine Kirchengeschichte, III, 438). Third, in every case, where there is
no doubt as to what happened during the negotiations, the Catholics took
the initiative.

12 M. Bucer, Von den einigen, 65; M. Bucer, De Concilio et legitime, 2.
Gropper joined in the secret colloquy because his lord, the Archbishop
of Cologne had already begun a reformation of his diocese in which
Gropper was the leader. Neither of them wanted this enterprise to go so
far as a break with the church, and so they resorted to the plan of a
compromise. If they could gain such a compromise, sanctioned by the
diet, then they could retain the reforms already instituted and yet occupy
a legal position. Otherwise they would have to retrench or else separate
from the Roman Catholic Church (Schaefer, 40, ff.).

13 Lenz, I, 274; cf. ibid., I, 244, 256, 517; Blatter, 68.

THE ORIGIN OF THE REGENSBURG BOOK 361

Bucer in reply assured him that the Protestants did not seek
strife but only a reformation. Though they would make no
concessions on the chief doctrines, they would satisfactorily
justify them, not only according to the Bible, but also ac-
cording to the teaching of the Apostolic Church and the
Fathers. He explained his attitude on ecclesiastical property,
and suggested, since the Protestants insisted on a reforma-
tion and the pope absolutely refused it, that the emperor
should take the lead. Though manifestly impossible, it was
not such a foolish suggestion as it appeared, for why should
the emperor desire a secret colloquy to formulate a doctrinal
compromise unless he wished to conduct a reformation. The
pope refused to undertake it, the Protestants threatened to
do it by revolution, and the only other peaceful method was
by imperial leadership. The difficulty, as Granvelle pointed
out, was that in conducting a reformation Charles would
arouse the antagonism of the Catholic princes, and bring
upon the movement the suspicion of dynastic ambitions.
Though the emperor could not lead a reformation publicly,
something could be done privately, and for this reason, Gran-
velle said, a secret colloquy was desired. Bucer was thor-
oughly aware that the emperor and minister were only seek-
ing to establish their power, but in order to gain religious
unity it was worth while to run the risk, and he consented to
join in the colloquy.14

The same day a trial conference was held, and a partial
agreement reached. The public colloquy, on the other hand,
went from bad to worse. The desirable Frankfort mode of
procedure, demanded by the majority, was blocked by a
minority of reactionaries. The latter group was so bitter and
disagreeable that even Roman Catholics complained. An at-
tempt to have the Protestant preachers dismissed was only
thwarted by Granvelle’s refusal to permit it. News of a per-
secution, not of common people, but of noblemen, in Besan-
qon, gave a touch of reality to the rumors of war. It was not

14 Lenz, I, 275-276.

362

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

strange, under these circumstances, that Bucer and Capito
were convinced that the public colloquy was hopeless. When
further secret conferences increased the hopes engendered
by the first one, Bucer was forced to admit that this was ap-
parently the only available way of reaching a peaceful re-
ligious agreement. Yet he was not satisfied to continue the
secret colloquy on his own authority, for he had no right
to represent the Protestant states in such an important way.
From the unreliable Veltwyck he exacted the most solemn
assurances that this was the only way in which the emperor
knew how to avoid war, that he would give a written promise
of secrecy with the emperor’s seal, and that the negotiations
should be revealed only to the Landgrave of Hesse. Because
Bucer placed no reliance on these promises, he sought to
protect himself by a similarly dishonorable method. He re-
quested the landgrave to write him a letter, dated about, or
before, December 10, 1540, authorizing him to enter into
such negotiations for the promotion of a Christian colloquy,
provided he did nothing contrary to the decisions adopted at
Hagenau, or disadvantageous to the Protestant states. This
letter he planned to show only to Feige and James Sturm,
but to use it as a protection for himself in case the secret
colloquy was discovered.

Though the landgrave was pleased with the secret colloquy
and agreed that the public colloquy was in a hopeless state,
he was just as unwilling as Bucer to assume the responsibility
for the negotiations. He sent the commission which Bucer
requested, but sought to throw the responsibility upon the
Catholics by requiring Granvelle to send him a letter request-
ing the document. In a pessimistic way he reminded Bucer
of the Scylla and C'harybdis, Luther and the pope, between
which any religious agreement must pass. In other words, it
would be useless for the little group at Worms to formulate a
compromise, however perfect, that the pope would not ap-
prove, for then no Catholic would accept it. Likewise with-
out Luther’s sanction such an agreement would be a mere

THE ORIGIN OF THE REGENSBURG BOOK 363

scrap of paper. There were only two solutions of this diffi-
culty, he thought, one, to formulate an agreement attractive
to so large a majority of influential persons that the approval
of Luther or the pope, or both, could be disregarded. The
other alternative was to gain the election of a “reforming”
pope, relieved of all powers except those of an ordinary
bishop. The first Bucer adopted, the latter, equally impossible
policy, was advocated by the landgrave. He cautioned Bucer
that in the secret colloquy he could speak only as an indi-
vidual and not as a representative of the Protestant party.
Moreover, that it would be useless to make a compromise on
ecclesiastical property that would not be acceptable to the
rapacious Duke Ulrich of Wurttemberg.16

The sessions of the secret colloquy were held in Groper’s
lodgings at convenient hours. In addition to an assurance of
strict secrecy it was agreed that each one should present his
own belief, and then state how he thought an agreement could
be reached on it, but should not be bound by any such con-
ciliatory statements.17 Gropper proved to be the leader in
conciliation, for he apparently accepted the dogma of justifi-
cation by faith, granted the necessity of worthy, faithful
pastors, and recognized that the liturgy of the church needed
purification to adapt it to the needs of the people.18 Bucer
and Capito demanded, in addition to these things, the true
dispensation of the sacraments and the establishment of
schools; and, for their part, conceded that the German
churches could reach a settlement only if these things were
granted and established by a council.19

The continuation of the secret colloquy revealed a possi-
bility of agreement on many of the chief doctrines where no
agreement had been reached before. It also showed the irre-
concilable attitude of the two parties on matters of practice,

15 Lenz, I, 276-279.

16 Ibid., I, 280-283.

17 M. Bucer, Von den einigen, 65-66.

1R M. Bucer, De Concilio et legitime, 2-3.

10 Ibid., 3.

364

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

for the papists demanded the permission of public masses, and
masses without communicants. Though Bucer was forced to
admit that his opponents acted at times as if they seriously
desired a reformation, his common sense told him that they
really desired aid against the Turks, and that to gain it they
did not scruple to raise false anticipations in the hearts of the
Protestants.20

Finally, during the last week of December, 1540, Gropper
composed articles on justification, the sacraments, and eccle-
siastical organization representing as nearly as possible the
doctrine to which both sides would agree.21 In addition the
papists added a statement of four points on which they would
make no concession. First, they demanded intercession of the
saints, which they said was practised by the Apostolic Church
and was not contrary to Scripture.22 Second, they insisted
upon prayers for the dead, because it was such an ancient
usage. Third, auricular confession should be practised at
least once a year, yet it need not be a minute narration nor
made to a priest of unsuitable youth. Fourth, transsubstan-
tiation and the reservation of the host ought to be allowed.23

On the other hand, Bucer and Capito put into writing, at
the request of their opponents, the methods which they ad-
vocated to gain the support of both parties to the articles :
namely, to send copies to the landgrave and the Elector of
Brandenburg; to submit them to the emperor; at the coming
Diet to have the Elector of Brandenburg lay them before the
Elector of the Palatinate and the ecclesiastical electors; to

20 Lcnz, I, 286-287.

21 M. Bucer, Von den einigcn, 84.

22 Gropper’s account of the secret colloquy was published in his
IVahrhafftige Antwort, 1545.

23 Lenz, I, 288-290, 532-533; Corpus Rcformatorum, IV, 94. These
articles thus displaced the Leipzig Articles as the proposed formula for
concord, but a comparison of the two shows that Bucer followed in gen-
eral the same program. While the two formulas differ in arrangement
they agree in details and the most important differences are explained by
the fact that in one case Bucer was dealing with Witzel, and in the other
with Gropper (L. Cardauns, Zur Geschichte der Kirchlichen Unions-
und Reformbestrebungen von 1538 bis 1542, Rome, 1910, pp. 16-23).

THE ORIGIN OF THE REGENSBURG BOOK 365

discuss with pious people the four disputed points; to seek the
appointment of favorable representatives to the next Diet;
and to demand an agreement on doctrine and organization
before a settlement on ceremonies and usages.24 There was
no discussion of ecclesiastical property,25 the one question
which was a greater obstacle to a compromise than any other.

The secret colloquy having achieved the formulation of a
compromise, the next step was to gain for it sufficient back-
ing to make it worth presenting publicly. This effort Bucer
began by seeking the approval of his patron, Landgrave
Philip of Hesse. At first, he planned to send the articles to
the prince, with the request that he show them to his three
trusted theologians, Melchior Adam, Pistorius and Lening,
in order to secure their assent.26 But, on December 31, 1540,
Veltwyck advised him to go and gain the landgrave’s ap-
proval personally. Although, as Bucer told him, Philip could
only give his individual assent, still he was an important
person, and without such an agreement, an understanding
between the emperor and the prince would be impossible be-
cause of the pope’s objections. Again the imperial secretary
threatened that the emperor could not resist those who ad-
vised him to resort to war, unless some compromise was
effected, and the landgrave’s approval was the next step.
Bucer, consequently consulted with Feige, planning that his
approval should appear like a call from the landgrave; and
then Sturm’s assent could be gained without giving any
reasons. Feige opposed the proposition. Bucer’s absence
would look suspicious, he said, and besides, what was the
use of gaining the landgrave’s approval when the other side
would probably reject the negotiations. James Sturm agreed
that Bucer should not leave Worms, especially because Gran-
velle had just proposed a more favorable mode of procedure
to the presidents of the colloquy, and it was important for

24 Lenz, I, 290.

25 Tbid., I, 292.

26 Ibid., I, 291.

366 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Bucer to be present when the decision was rendered. At a
conference with Granvelle on the next day, Bucer explained
the matter and persuaded him to write to Philip. But Velt-
wyck insisted so strongly that Bucer must see the landgrave
personally, that the reformer finally consented to make a hur-
ried trip for that purpose. It was neither the desire to avoid
war, nor to please the pope which made Veltwyck and Gran-
velle seek the landgrave’s approval so ardently. They knew
that the French were seeking an alliance with him, and in
order to make Philip favor an alliance with the emperor in-
stead, they offered this promise of a religious agreement.
Naturally it made a strong appeal to the landgrave, for, if
such an ecclesiastical compromise were effected, then an
understanding with the emperor to protect his recent big-
amy would not be an injury to the Reformation. In order to
make the most of this opportunity, Veltwyck assured Bucer
that the emperor was coming soon, and there was no time to
waste.27 Bucer understood their motives, but sought the
landgrave’s approval, because he hoped the compromise
would make further alliances relatively unimportant.

When Bucer informed Philip by letter of these negotia-
tions, the latter invited him to a conference at Rosbach, and
instructed Feige to aid him to make the journey.28 On Wed-
nesday, January 5, 1541, Bucer left Worms, first sending
ahead a message to the landgrave to meet him at Giessen,
several miles nearer, in order that he might return to Worms
on Sunday in time for the opening of the public colloquy on
Monday morning.29 On Friday they met at Giessen, and after
Bucer had explained the articles to Philip in German, the
prince gave him a written statement that he was “not dis-
pleased” with them. As for Granvelle’s other request, that he
promise to come to the Diet to meet soon in Regensburg, he
gave no definite assurances, for his presence there was a com-

2,7 Lenz, I, 297-300.

28 Ibid., I, 304-305.

28 Ibid., I, 308; Corpus Reformatorum, IV, 14.

THE ORIGIN OF THE REGENSBURG BOOK 367

modity that he was determined to sell at the highest passible
price.30 On the other hand, the emperor knew that Philip was
desperately in need of protection and he used this exigency
to gain his approval of a religious agreement, by which at
the next Diet the Protestants might be decoyed into un-
watchfulness and persuaded to give help against the Turks.

Bucer returned to Worms at io o’clock Sunday morning,
January 9, 1541. That evening he had a conference with
Granvelle, who was pleased with everything except a sug-
gestion by Philip that the emperor make some concessions
to Gulich to win the elector’s favor. This plan he rejected
completely. Again he insisted that Philip come to the Diet.31

The next prince to be approached was Elector Joachim of
Brandenburg. On January 1 1, 1541, Bucer sent to him a copy
of the articles, adding the misleading, though not strictly
untruthful, explanation that the public colloquy was hope-
lessly monopolized by reactionary papists, and that the em-
peror perceived that the unity of Germany was impossible
without ecclesiastical peace. This, he pointed out, was op-
posed by the pope. Consequently, certain princes and electors
had commissioned their scholars to compose a statement of
the articles in dispute, which had been confidentially shown
to Bucer and Capito at Worms. They had agreed that it
would be a good plan to submit this tentative compromise to
an assembly of scholars who should revise it until it was
generally acceptable. But before that was done it was neces-
sary to gain the support of influential princes and electors
for the plan, in order that the pope’s inevitable opposition
might be overcome. As in his earlier attempt at concord be-
tween the Protestants on the Lord’s Supper, Bucer asserted
that there were many misunderstandings which concealed the
fact that both sides were nearer together than they thought.
He requested Elector Joachim to inspect the articles and then
send them to Luther for his secret investigation and judg-

30 Lenz, I, 309.

31 Ibid., I, 310.

368 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

ment, explaining to him that it offered a compromise by
which many of the papists might be won to an agreement on
the chief matters, and a means of persuading the princes to
undertake a colloquy. He directed that Luther’s opinion and
the articles should be sent back to the Elector Joachim, and
then by the latter to the landgrave, who would return them to
Bucer. “This is the only way,” he declared, “by which the
favor of the lords and people may be won to help in a
Christian agreement and reformation of the German nation
at this time.”32 For Bucer the Worms Articles were a last
resort, not an ideal.

Bucer ’s letter to Elector Joachim, enclosing a copy of the
Worms Articles in Latin, was sent first to the landgrave
about January 18, with the request that they be copied and
then forwarded to the elector.33 On February 4, 1541,
Joachim sent them to Luther with a letter copied almost word
for word from Bucer’s.34 Luther and Melanchthon returned
them with an unfavorable opinion and then Joachim sent
them to the emperor with the information that there was
great hope they would settle the controversy. Granvelle then
laid them before Gropper, Contarini, Eck, and other Catholic
theologians, who added various emendations and returned
them to the emperor.35 On the way back from Worms Bucer
partially translated the Articles from Latin into German, as
the landgrave had requested.36 But he did not complete the
task, and when he arrived in Strasbourg so many other
things had to be done that he laid the Articles aside.37

The Diet of Regensburg was opened by the emperor on
April 5, 1541, with the statement that its primary purpose
was to attain religious unity, and, after that, to render aid
against the Turks. As a means for attaining the first aim

32 Lenz, I, 529-536, 311; Blatter, 58.

33 Ibid., I, 312.

3i Enders, XIII, 257; cf. Lenz, I, 535, II, 21.

33 Schaefer, 50, ff. ; Blatter, 58, ff.

36 Lenz, I, 312; cf. ibid., 305, 309.

37 Ibid., II, 7.

THE ORIGIN OF THE REGENSBURG BOOK

369

he suggested a secret colloquy between three theologians
from each side, who he nominated. The men he chose were
Melanchthon, Bucer and Pistorius from the Protestants and
Pflug, Eck and Gropper from the Catholics.38 At their first
discussion, on Wednesday, April 27, 1541, the emperor laid
before the collocutors as a guide for their deliberations a set
of articles which became known as the “Regensburg Book,’’
or “Regensburg Interim.”39 This was a bolt out of a clear sky ;
a surprise to all except the few who were on the inside. Me-
lanchthon was not only surprised but also offended, and gave
his consent to use the formula only after all the others had.40

There was much speculation as to the origin and author-
ship of the pamphlet, although the emperor announced that
it had been composed by certain pious men as a formula of
concord,41 and Granvelle declared that it had been composed
by certain Belgian scholars who had died two years before.42
This pretence deceived no one, for nearly everybody attrib-
uted it either to Gropper or Bucer.43 Morone wrote to Rome
that Gropper was generally regarded as the author,44 and Eck
wrote to Nausea, “Granvelle and Count von Mandersc'hied
have seen to it that Gropper wrote that book.”45 Later he

38 Corpus Reformatorum, Calvini Opera, XI, 195; LePlat, III, 8; M.
Bucer, Alle Handlungen und Schrifften, 1541, Bi, 12, 16; K. T. Hergang,
Das Religionsgesprach zu Regensburg, 1858, p. 10. ff. ; Corpus Reforma-
torum, IV, 156-163; 178-179; Walch, XVII, 578; Lenz, III, 18-19.

39 M. Bucer, Alle Handlungen, 30b; T. Brieger, De Formulae Con-
cordiae Ratisbonensis origine atque indole, 1870, p. 15. The text is
printed in a number of places, among them the following; M. Bucer,
Alle Handlungen, 31, ff., and its Latin edition, Acta colloquii in comitiis
imperii Ratisponae habiti, 1541, Bi ; C. W. Hering, Geschichte der
kirchlichen Reunionsversuche, 1836, p. 50, ff . ; Walch, XVII, 587; LePlat,
III, 10; Blatter, 96.

40 Corpus Reformatorum, IV, 253, 547; P. Vetter, Die Religionsver-
handlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Regensburg 1541, 1889, p. 1.

41 M. Bucer, Alle Handlungen, 30b.

42 Schaefer, 12; J. Eck, Apologia, 1542, I, ii. Gulich falsely attributes
this statement to the emperor (Gulich, 79).

43 Gulich, 79-82.

44 F. Dittrich, Regesten und Brief e des Cardinals Gasparo Contarini,
1881, p. 178.

45 Schaefer, 14.

370

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

asserted publicly that he knew the author was one of the
collocutors because one of them steadfastly defended the
book.40 The fact that Eck did not at the same time name him
shows that he had in mind Gropper, not Bucer, for he would
have been only too g^lad to have cast the blame upon Bucer, but
at that time he was defending Gropper and so he mentioned
no names.

That Bucer at least had a part in the composition of the
book was believed by Eck, Cochlaeus, Joachim, and others.47
Melanchthon happened to see several pages in Bucer’s hand,
which he afterwards found corresponded with parts of the
book, and suspected that his colleague was the author. His
suspicions were increased when he learned that Bucer had
given Musculus of Augsburg a manuscript to copy which also
corresponded to sections of the book. On this basis he spread
the report that Bucer was the author. As soon as the latter
heard it, he at once remonstrated with Melanchthon, telling
him that he was not the author of the book, but he had known
about the plan and discussed it with Gropper with good in-
tentions. The real authors, he said, were Gropper and Velt-
wyck. When the book was finished they had shown it to him
and Capito, and when they were not opposed to it, Granvelle
had sent it to the landgrave and Joachim, with Bucer’s com-
mendation.48 Melanchthon, who was sincerely sorry that he
had brought undeserved reproach upon Bucer, tried to re-
trieve his error. In the preface to his Acta in Conventu
Ratisbonae he wrote a few months later, “Who may be the
author of the book, I surely do not know,”49 Luther con-
demned the colloquy as hopeless almost before it had begun,50
and though he made no statement as to the author of the

46 T. Eck, Apologia, I, ii.

47 Schaefer, 17; J. Eck, Apologia, I, ii.

48 Corpus Reformatorum, IV, 578-579; cf. ibid., 475 ; Blatter, 59, n. 1.

49 Ibid., 190, note; Schiess, II, 86. Yet on April 8, 1543, he wrote
privately to the elector that “Gropper made the Regensburg Book’’
( Corpus Reformatorum, V, 88), and in many other places indicated the
same opinion (Schaefer, 16).

r,° deWette, Luther’s Brief e, V, 353.

THE ORIGIN OF THE REGENSBURG BOOK

371

Regensburg Book, he called it the most harmful writing ever
composed.51

As a matter of fact the Regensburg Book was nothing
more nor less than the Worms Articles, drawn up during the
secret colloquy of Worms by Gropper with Bucer’s sugges-
tions, and emended by the landgrave and various scholars.
But the secret of its origin was carefully guarded, and as yet
the full story has never been told. Hergang ascertained the
correct author about the middle of the nineteenth century,52
but Schaefer was the first to prove the authorship of the
Regensburg Book by contemporary testimony and then to
show its identity with the Worms Articles by the similarity
in contents and the history of the articles.53 Lenz made a
careful study of the text and its genealogy54 and published
Bucer’s correspondence with the landgrave telling the story
of the secret colloquy of Worms. In addition to their conclu-
sive arguments with regard to the authorship of the book, it
should be noted that the differences between the Leipzig and
the Worms Articles is the difference between Witzel’s and
Gropper’s beliefs, thus indicating Gropper as the author of
the latter.55 Bucer wrote to Ambrose Blaurer in October,
“Nor am I the author of the book, and I wonder greatly why
some still assert it, since Philip both in person and in letters,
after he had inflicted this wound without cause, sought zeal-
ously to heal it.56

The Regensburg Book was a failure. Although the col-
locutors discussed it with great energy and the two sides
came nearer an agreement than ever before or since, only a
small part of it was accepted. Its importance lies not in its
contents nor in what it accomplished but in what it failed to
accomplish. When it appeared in 1541 there was a possibility

si Ibid., V, 388.

52 Hergang, 49, ff.

53 Schaefer, op. cit., see especially pp. 7, ff., 27, ff., 50.

34 Lenz, III, 31, ff., 1 17; cf. Corpus Reformatortim, IV, 190.

55 Cf. Cardauns, 18, ff.

56 ScHIess, II, 86.

372

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

that the Reformation might merely be another temporary
dispute like the papal schism. The failure of the Regensburg
Book showed that this hope was vain, at least so far as
Germany was concerned, and that agreement was impossible.

Delaware, Ohio. Hastings Eells.

WILHELM HERRMANN’S SYSTEMATIC
THEOLOGY *

Herrmann tells us that a systematic theology which aims
at making explicit for the Christian what is given him in
his faith, has two tasks : that it has to show ( I ) How a
man is inwardly renewed through the experience he may
have of the power of the Person of Jesus; (2) How the
faith— grounded in this experience and determined by it as
to content — expresses itself. He deals with these two tasks
in order.

Under the second head he expounds according to his
claim “the ideas which are the expression of the faith which
knows itself sustained by the power of the personal life of
Jesus.” He informs us, however, that, following this path,
we shall never obtain “a closed and entirely consistent sys-
tem of ideas; for faith itself grows, it changes daily, if it is
really alive (Rom. xii.2), and is continually producing ideas
which are in a state of mutual tension.”

With our Lord’s adage, “By their fruits ye shall know
them,” in mind, we shall consider first the fruits of Herr-
mann’s faith.

I. Theology Proper

Herrmann’s theology proper is not adequately grounded.
As to the evidences for believing in the existence, personal-
ity, and the attributes of God, he represents the evidences
from the adaptation and order pervading the universe as
unworthy of consideration, because, “we do not know the
totality of things,” and because, “we do not by any means
always find in the world, as we know it, a purposeful order,”
but “are often oppressed with a sense of the meaningless
events”; and because moreover, “if this argument were
sound, it would prove the existence not of God : i.e., a Being
of absolute wisdom and power,1 but only a Being of wisdom

* Systematic Theology by Wilhelm Herrmann. English translation by
Michlem and Saunders.

1 P. 71.

374

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and power higher than our own.” He represents the cosmo-
logical evidences for the being of God, as, of rational evi-
dences, “alone worthy of serious refutation”; he says of it:

The cosmological proof starts from the fact that everything to which
we can point is conditioned by other things. Had we, however, to imagine
all things as thus conditioned, we should be unable in the end to ascribe
existence in the full sense to anything whatsoever. We must therefore
conceive the notion of a Reality distinct from this world, a Reality self-
existent or absolute, on which all finite things depend, and from which
they derive their share of reality. . . . Now it is perfectly true that
science can only securely grasp the reality of things in time and space
when they can be conceived in relation to an eternal Being. But in the
work of science the eternal ground of all being is, as a matter of fact,
never expressed in terms of God, but always in conceptions of law. In
the attempt to substantiate the reality of a thing, the way of science is
always to seek to make good the proposition that this thing is bound up
with all other things in one uniform nature. The idea underlying the
hypothesis — that of an all embracing law — is that which for science ex-
presses the eternal ground of all that is in time and space.2

After disposing, in this easy way, of the evidences for
the existence of God, and after passing more or less just
criticism on the efforts of Eucken, Kaftan, Kant, and
Schleiermacher to reach validly the truth of God’s exist-
ence, Herrmann gives us his views of how it may be had —
namely, through experience. He says :

The experience out of which religion may arise, then, is the realization
on the part of any religious man that he has encountered a spiritual power
in contact with which he has felt utterly humbled, yet at the same time
uplifted to a real independent inner life. This is met with in ordinary
life, when in the society of our fellows we experience in ourselves the
awakening of reverence and trust.

If we have experienced the working of this power, through contact
with which a life, which is life in truth, a real human life, arises in us,
then we are in a position to settle the question whether God is a reality
to us. It simply depends on whether we remain loyal to the truth, that is,
whether we are prepared to treat the fact of such a power as what it
really is for us. The moment we desire dependence upon it, and submit
ourselves to it in reverence and trust, this spiritual power is really our
soul’s Lord. We can never again entirely forget the fact that we have
met with a power which had not only an eternal sway over us, but sub-
dued our hearts.3

2 See pp. 22 and 23.

3 P. 36.

HERRMANN S SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

375

( i ) So far, we have been restating in a compendious
way the method by which Herrmann supposes some men
become possessed of the truth that God is a reality to them.
“The method’’ seems to be by feeling, the cause of the feel-
ing being “utterly humbling” and “utterly uplifting.” The
cause of the humbling and uplifting feeling is most vaguely
grasped, apparently. It is described as putting us in a posi-
tion “to settle the question whether God is a reality to us.”
There is no guarding here against the view that this “Re-
ality to us,” may be only subjective ; and that corresponding
to this Reality to us, there may be no substantially existing
person or being. According to this view, only they who have
this marvelous experience can possess the truth, “that God
is a Reality to them.” This contradicts the history of the
human race and the views of men who' teach in a manner
far more convincing than Professor Herrmann. According
to a great number of reliable historians there has been a
widely prevailing belief amongst all nations in the existence
of a supreme Deity, and among vast numbers in these na-
tions who have in effect disclaimed any such experience as
that described by Herrmann as conditioning the ability of
a man “to settle the question as to whether God is a reality
to him.” Thousands and perhaps millions of men, who would
disclaim any such phenomenal experience as Herrmann makes
necessary to settle the question whether God is a reality to
one, have believed in the existence of a Lord absolute of
the universe. Paul teaches, in Rom. i. 19-20: “Because that
which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God
hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him,
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being under-
stood by the things that are made, even His eternal power
and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” These
words of Paul for saneness of thought and for philosophic
insight, are weightier than Herrmann’s and they show
amongst other things that men who have not religion, and
are not even “religiously minded” ought to see that God
exists and that He is of “eternal power and Godhead.” In

376

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

discussing the existence of God, Herrmann treats both the
Bible and the history of thought with scant respect.

(2) When about to cast away the cosmological argument
for the existence of God, Herrmann states it in no very
strong form — rather he misstates it — and then in order to
break its force indulges in some curiously inept remarks as
follows, “Now it is perfectly true that science can only se-
curely grasp the reality of things in time and space when
they can be conceived in relation to an eternal being. But
in the work of science the eternal ground of all being is,
as a matter of fact, never expressed in terms of God, but
always in the conception of law.”

One must ask, “The law of what?” “Law” and “ground”
are heterogeneous categories. “Law” properly expresses the
mode in which a cause acts, or, if the cause be moral, the
way in which it should act; whereas ground is but another
name for cause, efficient cause. If science seeks the efficient
cause of the universe regarded (as it properly is regarded)
as a begun thing it must seek a somewhat in the category
of force and ultimately in the category of Being. The phi-
losopher having refuted pantheism, and the doctrine that
the present world is “the product of an infinite series of
events,” and having stated the cosmological argument cor-
rectly, may draw a conclusion of vast weight notwithstand-
ing the cavil of Kant which that great thinker made because
of his misapprehension or misstatement of the law of caus-
ality. The argument never has been successfully overthrown.
Herrmann should recognize the fact.

(3) The teleological proof is of force notwithstanding
Herrmann’s assertion that it is “scientifically a quite inde-
fensible attempt to find a basis upon which to prove the
existence of God.” He is following a widespread modern
tradition in this assertion but a tradition itself “quite inde-
fensible.” Let the argument be stated : Every phenomena
must have an adequate cause; Adaptation and order pervade
the universe; Therefore the cause of this ordered world, of
this ordered begun thing, must be a thing of intelligence and

Herrmann's systematic theology 377

power of choice. Herrmann would object, indeed, that w?
do not know that order pervades the universe. But he win
not deny that every advance in science as far as it teaches
anything, shows that adaptation and order prevail in the
heavens above and in the elements of the earth. Order is
manifest to the naked eye, more widely manifest when tele-
scope, or microscope is used. With every advance of science
purpose becomes more manifest. We do not always know
what the purpose in some creation is. The purpose of the
spleen is not yet fully understood; but the man of science
shows that he believes it has a purpose. If he did not, he
would not labor to understand it. Granted that some events
are meaningless to us, men of science think that meaning-
lessness to us is due to the imperfection of our insight.
Professor Herrmann says, “Even if this teleological argu-
ment were sound, it would prove the existence not of God,
i.e., of a being of absolute wisdom and power, but only of
a being of wisdom and power higher than our own.” Surely,
however, this conclusion is unworthy. The being competent
to bring about the order and adaptation displayed in this
universe possesses wisdom and power not merely higher
than Professor Herrmann and his followers possess, but
indefinitely higher. He who contrived the order disclosed in
the movement of the heavenly bodies, and in the combina-
tions of the ultimate chemical elements, the adaptations ob-
servable in the eye, the ear, the hand, shows himself pos-
sessed of a wisdom and power so vast that no man who is
not a supreme egotist dares to say that God’s wisdom may
not be infinite. And, if on other solid grounds absolute wis-
dom and power may be affirmed of the Creator of the uni-
verse, the adaptations and the order which pervade the
universe, fall in with and support that truth in no mean
way.

(4) A miraculously given revelation, and in particular,
Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Son of the living God
settles the fact of the absolute wisdom and power of God.

The plausibilities of certain schools of false philosophy

3/8 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and of rationalistic criticism had been adopted by not a
few of the occupants of theological chairs in Germany,
whence once the truth had been taught. Their teachings
had occasioned confusion, dismay and rout; and, after a
little, enthusiastic hostility to Bible truths on the part of
many of their students. The Ritschlians, for whom Herr-
mann speaks had suffered the stampede, had retreated with
the rout, but later made a stand. They found a much less
tenable position, however, than that from which they were
stampeded.

Herrmann's treatment of the attributes of God is meagre
and unsatisfactory. He feels obliged to derive the knowledge
of His attributes from the inexplicably produced Faith,
which comes into being without a warrant. But according to
Herrmann himself this faith is a most imperfect guide into
the truth. Hear him,

But as trust in God produces in us the concept of His omnipotence,
our idea of God’s personality necessarily grows dim ; for an almighty
Being cannot possess either the knowledge or the will by which we recog-
nize personal life. An omnipotent power is for us quite an inconceivable
mystery. . . . Although the idea of omnipotence cannot be reconciled
with our conception of personal life, we still see that the absolute confi-
dence created in us implies both those ideas. It is when we consider the
wonderful fact of that real life created and stirring in us that God
Almighty is revealed to us as personal Spirit.4

To a man of common sense, a kind of sense by no means
to be despised, it is clear that Herrmann needs to revise his
view of the relation of omnipotence to knowledge, his view
of the relation of personality to power, and needs to recon-
sider the historical grounds for believing that God exists
and has certain attributes, instead of throwing himself on
the “faith” about which he is probably self-deceived. Possi-
bly, probably, he blindly calls on faith, as he defines it, to do
more than it can do.

Amongst the divine attributes Herrmann gives little, if
any, specific place to Justice. Hence we may look ultimately
for a more or less vicious ethical system following this
school.

Pp. 97-98.

Herrmann’s systematic theology 379

Herrmann’s scheme is anti-trinitarian. He holds to the
uni-personality of the Godhead. He says :

It is involved in the relationship to which our faith consciously owes
its life, that we can perfectly picture to ourselves the God who redeems
us in only these aspects. He is to us the Father to whom we may appeal
with confidence of being heard. He is similarly Jesus’ spiritual power
working upon us. But He is also to us the Spirit who overcomes the
overwhelming might of nature both in ourselves and in the fellowship
of believers. The doctrine of the Trinity must always start from the fact
that God reveals to us His single nature in this three-fold way (Eco-
nomical Trinity).5

The Holy Spirit is simply the uni-personal God working
in the life of the redeemed.6 In other words the Holy Spirit
is merely the name for God as He presents Himself in the
life of redeemed humanity. Christ also is divine in that in
Him no less than in the Father is the one personal Spirit
who is God alone.

It may be a little difficult for the reader who has not read
Herrmann to gather his view on the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit from what we have stated, though his own language
has been freely used to set that view forth. His doctrine is
that God is a uni-personal Spirit whose power works in
Jesus Christ in a wonderful way, and who because He hears
prayer, may with eminent propriety be called Father, and
who as dwelling in the hearts of His people may be called
the Holy Spirit.

Herrmann openly repudiates the Chalcedonian Christol-
ogy: “The only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus
Christ, who being the eternal Son of God became man and
so was and continueth to be God and man in two distinct
natures and one person forever.” According to Herrmann,
satisfaction could be felt with this Chalcedonian conception

5 P. 15.1. Cf. the statement on p. 148 :

“The briefest expression for the nature of the Holy Spirit is this :
God in us and Christ in us. The question therefore whether the Holy
Spirit is to be thought of as personally living or as impersonal force
indicates a complete failure to understand these conceptions of faith.
The Holy Spirit is simply the living God present and working in us.”

6 Pp. 140 and 145.

380 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

only because of “the vague idea of redemption which, as
early as Irenaeus, had driven off the field the Pauline Jo-
hannine recognition of the manner of our redemption
through Christ.” He says: “It had been forgotten therefore
that Christian faith, if it treats Christ as God, must have
before its eyes, without being able to comprehend it, a
wonderful fact which it recognizes as the source and foun-
dation of its own life.” 7

We are not concerned to vindicate the views of Irenaeus;
but Herrmann’s own view of the Pauline and Johannine
view of the manner of our redemption through Christ is
sadly defective. But, of that a word, later.

He makes much of the incomprehensibility of the doc-
trine of the Trinity; and yet he bases his whole doctrine on
a faith incomprehensibly produced in the heart of the re-
ligiously minded person, and which in an incomprehensible
manner determines everything else man is to believe. He
also talks at times as if he had a most inadequate idea of
the orthodox conception of the Trinity, or as if he were
careless to a degree in presenting views which he wishes to
overthrow. For instance, he talks as if “person” in the
Godhead were in the thought of the orthodox, the precise
analogue of person in the human sphere; whereas the in-
telligent orthodox think of the term “person” as applied to
the subsistences in the Godhead because they are more
nearly like personalities in the human sphere than any other
modes of subsistences with which we can compare them.
Our author is rather gifted in caricature. When he refers
to Scripture for confirmation of his views, he has a faculty
for selecting texts which superficially viewed seem to an-
swer his purpose, and conveniently passes by masses of
Scripture which run counter to the current of his teaching.
On the whole he seems to flee Scripture unless it approves
itself to his subjectivity. So much for Herrmann’s theology
proper.

7 P. 142.

Herrmann’s systematic theology

38i

II. Anthropology

Herrmann’s anthropology is very imperfectly developed.
He teaches by implication that only the Christian has any
right to claim that he is at all akin to God. He says :

Our consciousness that we are akin to Him is therefore, always at the
same time a consciousness that a transcendent life has begun in us.8

He also says :

The idea that man possesses a life akin to the divine is not derived
from such a source by the piety of the Old Testament. This difference
between the Old Testament and the New is linked with another. In
Genesis the image of God is clearly understood as shown in the powers
which man received at the creation. This idea persists in prejChristian
religion. On the other hand the saying of Jesus in Matt, v.45 shows
that, in His view, what connects man with God is not a power inherent
in man’s nature but a task which is set before him. According to this
saying man is to become God’s child by the exercise of that pure charity
which identifies itself with its object and is thus creative life.9

Herrmann also says :

The anthropological ideas which are to be found elsewhere in the
Bible can play no part in Protestant dogmatics ; for we are at a loss
to see how their appearance in us should be the outcome of the faith
created in us by the power of the person of Jesus.10

He holds that the human will is free. He says :

Necessarily, therefore, the consciousness of our free will arises in
faith not from logical deductions, but from actual surrender to God’s
universal life-creating activity.11

That is, it arises in an experience.

With reference to man’s immortality, he says :

The idea that after the death of the body the soul lives on as an in-
trinsically immortal entity, is not Biblical but Platonic, and it stands
in opposition to the fact that the inner phenomena of consciousness, are
in a manner beyond our ken, conditioned by the changes in the bodily
organisms.12

As to the goal of man, he says :

If we become conscious of the reality of God through the awakening

8 P. 89.

9 P. 00.

10 P. 91.

11 P. 92.

12 P- 94-

382 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

in us of pure confidence, that carries with it, too, a knowledge of the
goal to which God would lead us. God will one day bring mankind to a
perfect fellowship in which each individual will find inexhaustible tasks
and infinite increase of personal life.13

If a man’s anthropology is to be limited to truths deriv-
able from and ratified by the trust wrought in regeneration
and conversion— in regeneration even of a Biblical and
not merely a Herrmann type — it must necessarily be inade-
quate. A regenerate mind is an illumined mind, but one in
need of further light from without. It is absurd to limit
the materials to be used in constructing anthropology in any
such way. Certainly man has been conscious, indubitably
conscious, of other experiences than conversion, and the
appearance of trust in God. From these other experiences
he ought to be able to learn somewhat of anthropology.
There is a very respectable book, too, the Holy Scriptures,
on which the author should have drawn. There is a con-
sistency between the anthropology of the Old Testament
and that of the New Testament. Herrmann seems to have
only a superficial view of the Scriptures, and thinks that
the anthropological ideas of the Old Testament can play
“no part in Protestant dogmatics.” Moreover, he appears
to be unaware of the sonship of man as he comes from the
hand of his Creator and, in distinction from that, the
adoptive sonship of him who has believed on the Lord
Jesus Christ. Bearing the distinction between these two
kinds of sonship in mind and the difference between un-
fallen and fallen man, he will find little difficulty in seeing the
propriety of the Old Testament representing the image of God
as a part of man’s original endowment, and the New Tes-
tament representing the image as restored in regeneration
and sanctification.

His discussion of freedom is inadequate and faulty. He
confuses the freedom of man as a moral agent with his
ability for the good. He says that consciousness of freewill
arises in faith from actual surrender to God’s “life-creating

13 P. 96.

HERRMANN S SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

383

activity.” What God gives in this life-creating activity is
ability for the good — for the choice of His service. Free-
dom which is essential to responsibility is never lost. The
man of the world has it, as really as the saint of God.

He belittles the doctrine of the immortality of the soul,
as held in the Old Testament as the unsophisticated students
of the Old Testament have seen since the time of Christ,
and as Christ saw, according to the record, Matt. xxii. 31-32 ;
and he only feebly presents the New Testament evidence.
An American professor of theology has written : whatever
the Scriptures may be worth,

they unhesitatingly teach the immortality of man. This they do in four
signal ways: (1) By fundamental assumption; the Bible is delivered
to the world and issues all its instructions and warnings to man upon
the idea that human life and history do not end with the grave ; adopt
for one moment the doctrine that death is final and how meaningless
and silly the whole Bible becomes. (2) The Bible teaches the immor-
tality of man by pictures, such as the translation of Enoch, the trans-
figuration on the mount, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the
vision of Stephen, and the apocalyptic visions of the seer on Patmos ;
in these pictures the veil of the invisible world is drawn aside and we
are allowed to look in upon some who died on earth, and behold them
alive forever more. (3) The Bible teaches the immortality of man by
dogmatic assertions, as in such declarations as ‘This mortal must put
on immortality.’ (4) Finally the story of Christ, if it has a shred of
truth in it, demonstrates the hope of immortality.14

These words give a much fairer representation of the char-
acter of Biblical teaching on the subject of immortality
than do the words of Professor Herrmann.

As to what he says of man’s goal, the goal to which God
is moving him, Herrmann is vague and unconvincing. His
teaching can not validly come out of his mere confidence in
God, unless he has taken the measure of the Infinite in mind
and heart. He also leaves much to be said. Compare intima-
tions about the goal of a part of our sinful race intimated
in John iii.36 and other such passages.

Herrmann is singularly unconvincing in his attempt to
develop his doctrine out of his “faith,” or “confidence,” in
God.

14 See The Christian’s Hope by Robert Alexander Webb, pp. 35-36.

384 the PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

III. Sin and Its Consequences

This head comes logically to be considered under the gen-
eral head of anthropology; but for convenience it is given
a separate consideration.

Herrmann says, of the initial form of sin:

To comprehend the origin of sin is impossible to us; yet we can and
must make clear to ourselves the primary form of sin. The spiritual
attitude in which unbelief and selfishness are as yet only implicit, but
which is already in every case an indication of insincerity, is devotion
to the pleasures of sense, or sloth. Under the rule of God there should
be formed in us God’s image, that is, the power of a love which through
self-denial creates something new. This work of God is checked in us by
slothful devotion to pleasures of sense.15

Herrmann makes the slothful devotion to the pleasures
of sense to have been the incipient form of sin. This indi-
cates that he has looked in the right direction at this point.
“The fall of man occurred, apparently through a sin of
omission, through man’s failure to be everlastingly on the
alert to do duty. Created with a duplex end, of doing duty,
and being happy, and living in surroundings where every
prospect pleased it was easy for man to find delight in sen-
suous impressions and to slide into slothful devotion to the
pleasures of sense.” It should be noted that Herrmann gives,
in the latter part of the passage just quoted, a picture of
the first man which is unhistorical. He pictures man as not
originally created in the image of God, but as being in duty
bound to work out in himself that image. In thus picturing
man, he involves himself in a fanciful and false psycho-
logical view of “God’s image.” Like certain evolutionists
he makes a thing evolve certain other things, the very poten-
tial bases of which are not found in that “which evolves
them” — a claim that is self-contradictory. If man were not
given, in his very constitution the image of God he could
never evolve it. What is more, he runs counter to the word
of God in Gen. i. 26-27, et simil, which, rationalistic critics
to the contrary notwithstanding, is the testimony of a wit-
ness present and of absolute trustworthiness.

15 P. 102.

Herrmann’s systematic theology 385

Herrmann teaches also, that the term guilt is sometimes
used of the sinner’s relation to the power whom he has
wronged in the civil sphere, which relation may be swept
away by punishment; but he asserts that the “situation is
entirely different when a man recognizes his actions as a
transgression of the moral law, or of God’s command-
ment.” The moral consciousness which thus confirms the
truth of the moral law carries within itself the inevitable
necessity of self-condemnation, and thus forestalls the need
of any external judgment. This sense of guilt felt by the
moral consciousness is, however, still more intensified when
we realize that our sin has caused an inward separation
between us and those who are dear to us. This applies with
special force to the relations between the religious man and
his God.16

Through our sins, we all help to make the fellowship and organization
of society sinful. All the members of society are responsible for the sin
which thus arises. It is therefore corporate sin. . . . From the corpo-
rate sin of human society there issues also its inevitable inheritance.
Every man is influenced by the corporate sins of earlier generations
without the possibility of defense against it. For it is only through being
brought up in human society that we become men. Now all education
begins with a child’s accepting the ideas and the behavior of the adult
persons, but if these spiritual instruments of education have been spoiled
by sin, we imbibe sin in the course of our education.17

These considerations bring home to the modern man the inevitable
necessity of the inheritance of sin more forcibly than did the idea which
has dominated the church since Augustine, though it is incapable of
demonstration that sin is inherited by the mere fact of physical descent
from parents.18

Every individual is inevitably bound to be sinful from the beginning
of his conscious life, and is equally bound to condemn himself for his
sin as soon as his knowledge of the moral law creates in him the con-
sciousness of freedom. The incomprehensible thing in all this, however,
is not the fact of the inheritance of corruption, but the freewill which,
in spite of man’s dependence upon sinful humanity, assumes responsi-
bility for his disharmony with the moral law.19

The judgement or punishment of sin is executed in the earthly life of

16 P. 105.

17 Pp. 106-107.

18 P. 106.

19 Pp. io8f.

386 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the sinner: (1) In the inward compulsion to condemn himself. (2) In
the knowledge that it is impossible for him to deliver himself from sin
through his own efforts. (3) In the way in which it reacts to his lot in
life. The completed punishment of sin is fundamentally sin in its com-
pletion. Namely, a life actually lived for itself alone, or a life in utter
isolation. Herein the tendency to selfishness, or to lovelessness arrives at
its inevitable goal.20

In this group of quotations the position seems to be taken
that the sinner’s self-condemnation forestalls the need of
any external punishment, but this position is no necessary
inference from our own inner self-condemnation. If the
sinner’s conscience works correctly his self-condemnation
for an evil act — if it recognizes that the act was wrong,
and if it brings regret— this self-condemnation and regret
by no means vindicate the law adequately. The law had a
penalty. That penalty is not paid by the sinner’s saying:
“I have sinned.” Suppose the sinner has murdered his
brother, or has seduced his sister, or looted a bank, or be-
trayed a trust, his condemnation of himself for his sin is
not a satisfaction for it. True, self-condemnation and con-
fession were in order, but to confess is not to bring to life
the slain brother or to restore to purity his sister, or to
make good the injury inflicted by the stolen property. To
condemn oneself is not to undo the dishonor done to God
in the breaking of His moral law. If aught of punishment
be involved in the sinner’s self-condemnation, it is by no
means the whole of that punishment. It is indeed a small
part of it. Sin dishonors God. The sin of unbelief dis-
honors Him. “He that obeyeth not the Son shall not see
life but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Here is some-
thing outside the sinner, the wrath of God which must
needs have expression. If Herrmann has respect for the
Bible, the Bible shows that God’s external wrath comes
upon transgressors or on their substitute. It came on Cain,
came on the antediluvians, came on the cities of the plain,
came on Egypt, came on apostatizing Israel, over and over
again. It is to come on all who have not been covered by

20 Pp. iogi.

Herrmann’s systematic theology 387

the blood of the substitute. “The soul that sinneth it shall
die.” Death comes as judgment. God sends it now permis-
sively now efficaciously. If He is immanent in, He is also
transcendant to, man. If God be just He must see to it that
some of His rational creatures shall be punished. Some are
very wicked and repent not. Our argument is from Scrip-
ture, which Herrmann professes to have a measure of re-
spect for.

There is also a good deal said about “inherited sin,” but
the discussion is all about sin, induced on occasion of birth,
into sinful families, by education, so that we find ourselves
in company with an author out of sympathy with Calvin,
Augustine, Paul, John, and Christ — in company with one
who has not a little in common with Pelagians, Unitarians
et id omne genus.

In others of these quotations, Herrmann would substi-
tute for the old distinction between potential guilt and actual
guilt, that is, between ill desert for a wicked state or act, and
doomedness to punishment by the ruler for that act — would
substitute for this distinction the following: the guilt
“which is the responsibility of a man for his wicked estate
or act” and “the guilt which is the relation of the sinner
to the power which he has wronged, which, if punished, is
to be considered as removed.” He seems to teach, as we have
seen, that God never in any way punishes externally breaches
of the moral law.

To hold any such views he must have cast away as un-
worthy large portions of Old and New Testament history
and prophecy. He should read Isaiah, the fifty-first psalm,
and the whole Old and the whole New Testament. True
the most aAvful punishment of sin is the natural fruit of
sin. God as ruler of the universe ought to punish sin. He
provided in the very constitution of the human being and
the world that the sinner shall reap as he sows.

Herrmann takes no note of God’s laying all the guilt of
sins of the Christian on Jesus Christ, of Christ’s paying our
penal indebtedness, thus, bearing away our doomedness to
penalty.

388

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

On the whole his treatment of sin is inadequate and feeble
and unscriptural.

IV. SOTERIOLOGY

In the earlier pages in his chapter on “The redemption
through Jesus Christ,” Professor Herrmann reviews briefly,
and with more or less error, earlier efforts to set forth the
doctrine of redemption, including Ritschl’s which on the
whole seems to please him most ; and on Ritschl’s effort he
attempts what he regards as an improvement.

He teaches that Jesus Christ has the power to redeem us
by personally convincing us that God will accept us. If He
become our redeemer, Herrmann says :

We must have discovered in Him that one thing which awakens pure
love and pure fear in us, or which can have complete sway over our soul.
But our redemption by this experience of the power of Jesus always de-
pends upon whether we ourselves desire deliverance from sin; for we
remain in the power of sin, if we do not completely submit ourselves
to the power that is manifested in Jesus, but try to withdraw ourselves
from it. We recognize it to be the inevitable consequence of the sense
of guilt that the sinner avoids all that brings God near him — God whose
judgement he fears, hence the question arises how, in spite of this cir-
cumstance, it is possible for the power which touches us in the person
of Jesus to unite us to God, or how we receive through Him the npocr-
aywyrjv irpos rov Oeov (the access to God) to which Paul testifies (Rom.
v. 2, Eph. ii.18, iii.12).21

It is the quiet power of His person which produces in
certain sinners “profound penitence and therewith the cour-
age to trust Him.” 22

It is to be noticed that our redemption is, according to
this teacher, “by an experience of the poiver of Jesus ” by
having “discovered in Him that one thing which awakens
pure love and pure fear in us, or which has complete sway
over our souls.” It is to be noticed that “our redemption by
this experience . . . always depends upon whether we our-
selves desire deliverance from sin.”

From these words it appears that in Herrmann’s view
salvation is synergistic, that God and man must work it

21 Pp. ii5if.

22 Pp. ii7f.

Herrmann’s systematic theology 389

out together even in its initial stages. If he be correct, then
the natural man cannot be spiritually dead, and Paul’s talk
of man’s being dead in trespasses and in sins is an exag-
geration; and Christ’s teaching about the necessity of being
born again, must be incorrect.

From these words it appears also that, in Herrmann’s
view, if the natural man needs regeneration, that regenera-
tion must be by moral suasion. The Biblical view is that
regeneration is by recreation. Once more it is clear from
these words that Herrmann needs to make clear for him-
self the Biblical distinctions between regeneration, justifica-
tion, and sanctification and between these graces and their
fruits.

The confusion into which he frequently falls is almost
inevitable unless he make and keep clearly before him these
distinctions. That he cannot reach these distinctions merely
by the use of his experience of the power of the person
Jesus Christ is proof that he has endeavored the impracti-
cable in trying to deduce the doctrines of the Christian re-
ligion out of this “experience of the power of the person
Jesus.”

Herrmann teaches that the forgiveness of sins may be
obtained through the power of the person of Jesus; not by
His satisfying divine justice but simply by His showing
the infinitely loving character of God. He points to 2 Cor.
v.18, “And all things are of God, Who hath reconciled us
to himself by Jesus Christ,” and asserts that the “work of
Jesus is not to reconcile God, but the result of God’s own
working in order to reconcile sinners,” that, in the second
place, “it is a fundamental conception of Biblical piety that
God’s goodness comes to meet every sinner who would re-
turn to Him. . . . For Jesus Himself it must have been
inconceivable that His work was necessary to effect a change
in God’s attitude to sinners.”

Dr. Charles Hodge takes a much more tenable view of
2 Cor. v.18.

To reconcile is to remove enmity between parties at variance with each

390

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

other. In this case God is the reconciler. Man never makes reconciliation.
It is what he experiences or embraces, not what he does. The enmity
between God and man, the barrier which separated them is removed by
the act of God. This is plain (i) Because it is said to be effected by
Jesus Christ, that is, by His death. The death of Christ, however, is
always represented as reconciling us to God as a sacrifice; the design
and nature of sacrifice are to propitiate and not to reform. (2) In the
parallel passage, Romans v. 9-10, “Being reconciled by the death of His
son,” is interchanged as equivalent with “being justified by His blood,”
which proves that the reconciliation intended consists in the satisfaction
of the divine justice by the sacrifice of Christ. In this case our reconcilia-
tion to God is made the source and cause of our new creation, i.e., of
our regeneration and holiness. God’s reconciliation to us must precede
our reconciliation to Him. This is the great Bible doctrine.23

According to Herrmann the willing surrender of His
life to death by powers of evil was the means required by
God of Jesus that He might bring help to sinful man, and
the love of God displayed in this infinitely tender way
brings at least some persons to Jesus in deep penitence. But
unless the suffering of Jesus can be explained as demanded in
justice of Him as the sinner’s substitute, then God appears to
be an unjust God.

Herrmann teaches in a sort of hazy fashion that “the
power of the person of Jesus Christ” in working faith in
us also works belief in Christ’s resurrection from the dead
and in His present exalted Lordship; both which teachings
he holds are confirmed by the apostolic traditions. Here
again he surrenders a strong historical position; he cannot
logically establish the position he has chosen.

Herrmann has in his book a caption : “The Eternal Elec-
tion of the Faithful.” He says “that the believer knows
himself to be eternally elected as indicated by Paul” (Rom.
viii. 28-30). He follows this pertinent citation with remarks
that weaken — though intended to strengthen the position.
He guards against his being misunderstood by saying, “On
the other hand, the doctrine of a double predestination
which, following Rom. ix-xi, Luther and Calvin developed
even more crudely than Augustine, has no basis in faith,

23 Charles Hodge, Commentary on II Corinthians, in loco.

HERRMANN S SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

391

but is an attempt to solve a problem which does not arise
from faith and for which faith has no solution.” 24

This is serious reflection on the Word of God as well as
on three great uninspired thinkers. It is followed by a para-
graph of confusion and assumption as to what Scripture
is, and as to his ability to interpret it :

But the fact that the Bible contains such a development of thought
as we find preeminently in Romans ix. 20-23 should also subserve our sal-
vation, if it brings us to the question whether we are prepared to follow
Scripture even in that which we can not understand to be a notion rooted
in our faith. If we decide to do this, we are treating the Bible as a law
book which requires from us external obedience. This is what the Roman
church does. This is its loyalty to Scripture. But in reality this marks
a falling away from the fundamental idea of Scripture ; for a faith that
repudiates such a law is thereby denied to be faith. There could be no
grosser misuse of Scripture than this, for Scripture was given us for
the awakening of faith, and so only is it a means to our salvation.25

Surely there is a great want of clarity of thought here.
“Are we prepared to follow Scripture even in that which
we cannot understand to be a notion rooted in our faith?”
he asks. He leaves us to suppose that he means by faith,
confidence or trust in God produced in us by the power of
the person of Jesus. Certainly John Smith may not be able
to see that trust in God would alone insure our belief in the
vital union of believers and Christ, and that God may yet
through inspired men teach us that such a union is possible.

We suppose Professor Herrmann would say, that there
is no infallible teaching unless it be in his school! He has
no warrant for most of his teaching save his subjective
view. The Bible has a certain value, but a very limited
value to him. He can not frame a convincing argument be-
cause his premises are too exclusively subjective.

If he wanted to make a stand for Christianity, he should
have given himself to a vindication of the historical trust-
worthiness of the Bible, or a part of it. Instead he has built
a fabric of dreams.

False philosophies, hostile to the supernatural, turned

24 P. 134.

25 P. 134-

392

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

rational critics into rationalistic, destructive critics. The
destructive critics have terrorized schools of Christians here
and there who would hold “Christianity” with the heart
whether, or not, they could hold it with the head. One such
school is that of the Ritschlians. For this school Herrmann
has spoken. Necessarily he has shown but little of the real
content of Christianity. Instead of this poor defense of
“Christianity” or stand for what the Ritschlian thought he
could hold, he should have gone back to the root of the
matter, overthrown the false philosophy, trampled down the
false higher criticism (there is, of course, a perfectly legiti-
mate higher criticism), vindicated a historically trustworthy
supernatural revelation of truth; and drawn the truth re-
vealed in our Holy Scriptures forth into a system. A system
so constructed, would probably be very like that drawn out
by the great reformers; but notwithstanding its lack of
amazing novelty, would have blessed the world as Rit-
schlianism never can.

Herrmann’s Theology cannot be much in the way of the-
ology. It has too little materials with which to build a the-
ology— only what faith, confidence in God, gives. He may
give the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments nominal
places as quarries for materials, but before his subjective
view the Scriptures are clipped away, or are metamorphosed
until their authors would not recognize them. He rejects
the doctrine of the Trinity found alike in the Romish,
Greek Orthodox, and Protestant churches and in the Scrip-
tures. He claims to hold an economic Trinity. He knows
nothing of three personalities of the Godhead existing con-
temporaneously. God, he thinks, can function in three dif-
ferent ways and so functioning can be described as three-
fold. He holds that the preexistence of Christ taught by
John, by Paul, and by the writer of the Epistle to the He-
brews is merely the subjective conception of those worthies.
He never seems to reflect that what they teach about those
religious concepts which he shares with them may be merely
subjective. He seems to have held with Ritschl, his master,

Herrmann’s systematic theology 393

that the only real preexistence of Christ was in the fore-
knowledge and predestination of God. He teaches that man
comes into existence without sin, that he becomes univer-
sally sinful owing to teaching and example; that he can
justify himself by enrolling in the body of Christ, subjec-
tively; but that what God is, what Christ, what the resur-
rection is, are of small importance; that Christianity is true
if it corresponds to the needs of men and they believe it;
that the feeling of personal worth demands that the world
be worthy of it, etc., etc.

Is this Christianity or is it, even if ingenious, nevertheless
a beggar’s basket of dreams, perversions of Scripture, and
empty assertions?

Richmond, Va.

Thos. Cary Johnson

DOES THE ROMAN CHURCH TEACH THE
DOCTRINE OF RELIGIOUS
PERSECUTION ?*

There are three sources of authoritative teaching in the
Roman communion, the pope, the bishops in a general
council lawfully assembled, the bishops (and priests) in
their character of theologians dispersed throughout the
world. It is not absolutely necessary, therefore, that one
should be able to produce a papal encyclical or canon or de-
cree of a general council confirmed by the pope in order to
prove that the Roman Church officially teaches the doctrine
of religious persecution; it is only necessary to show that
popes have issued persecuting bulls and that Roman theo-
logians have taught the doctrine with more or less moral
unanimity for centuries and have almost always put it in
practice wherever they have had political power to do so.
And as there is nothing of which Rome makes such capital as
the continuity and permanency of her own doctrine, there
can be no doubt of the permanency and official character of a
doctrine which, prevailing in the days of Saints Augustine
and Jerome, has continued in undiminished theoretical force
and approval, down to our own time, in spite of the fact that
under stress of particular circumstances some few Catholic
priests and Catholic laymen have boldly repudiated every
kind of persecution in the name of religion and conscience.
Numbers of saints worshipped by the faithful in special
masses dedicated to their honor by papal authority have
taught the doctrine of religious persecution. Religious perse-
cution is enshrined in the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas
and has not been eliminated from the English translation of
that work made expressly for Protestants and lay-Catholics
by the spiritual sons of St. Dominic. This fact is particularly
arresting, namely, that the doctrine of religious persecution
has been literally transferred from the Latin text of St.

* This article is by the same author as the one on “The Roman
Doctrine of the Sacrament of Penance” which appeared in the last issue
of this Review.

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION 395

Thomas to an English equivalent, when we remember that
Roman apologists try to empty the terms persequar and im-
pugnabo1 found in the oath taken by every Roman bishop
at his consecration, of their persecuting content, assigning
to them as they stand in the oath, only those meanings which
fall short of physical punishments. We find, however, that
persequar not only expresses the persecuting doctrine but is
adopted from the persecuting Psalms and is inserted in the
prayers of the Missal in the literal sense of inflicting physical
suffering and even death. We find persequar in the Introit of
the Mass in honor of St. Stephen, the proto-martyr, and in the
Introit of the Mass of FeriaSexta following Passion Sunday,
and in the title or heading of the Post Communion Prayer,
in the Introit of the Mass of Feria Sexta following Passion
Sunday, and in the title or heading of the Post Prayer,
Quaesumus, for Feria Quinta of the same week, and in the
prayer against the persecutors of the Church for the second
Sunday after Epiphany, and also in other places. One cannot
accept that kind of apology in emptying a word of its pri-
mary meaning w'hen we remember that the term has come
down to us in the episcopal oath from the time when their
lordships were veritable persecutors and therefore in the
sense that it then had.

Incontestable historical evidence warns Protestants, not to
accept by preference, much as charity would commend it to
them, the milder meanings which Latin dictionaries also give
to these terms. The law of self-preservation demands that
Protestants never forget that eternal vigilance is the price
which they must pay for liberty. Heretics, schismatics, and
rebels to the pope, and to his successors, are to be followed
up, assailed, attacked, and hunted down, as far as possible
not merely by argument, logic and sweet reasonableness,
and the truthful facts of history, but moreover, whenever
and wherever it can be done consistently with the salvation
of the state, the bishops must also use force. This is the only
sane, wise, and rational interpretation to be placed upon the

1 1 am quoting the terms of the oath.

396 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

oath, for an ounce of fact is worth more than a mountain
of assertion, or a volume of logic. We have only to look into
the Theologica Dogmatica et Moralis used as a text-book
in sixty-seven theological seminaries in France, to be con-
vinced of the unwisdom of accepting a mild interpretation
for the bishops’ oath. From that text-book was read in
the Parliament of France to the amazement of its mem-
bers the following: “The Church has received from God
the power to force or repress those who wander from the
truth not only by spiritual penalties but also, by temporal
ones. . . . These are prison, flagellation, torture, mutilation,
death.” Again: “If in a country the unity of Catholic faith
reigns, the state must not neglect anything to drive away
novelties of doctrines and sophistries. In such a state heresy
is a public crime because everything which is done against
the divine religion touches all the members of society.”2
“Toleration,” said Froude, “is the genius of Protestantism,”
and Father Tom Burke answered him by saying: “I am not
only a Catholic but a priest, not only a priest but a monk, not
only a monk but a Dominican monk, and from out of the depths
of my soul, I repel and repudiate the principles of religious
persecution for any cause in any land.” Father Burke did not
live to see the public libraries of America containing on
their shelves in an English text for the consumption of
American Protestants the persecuting doctrines of his mas-
ter, St. Thomas of Aquin, and the same developed at con-
siderable length by a host of Roman professors, theologians,
canonists and philosophers, and writers of tracts for Catho-
lic Truth Societies, of whom the Knights of Columbus are
the main support.

One might be impressed by the teaching on the supreme
independent authority of church and state in the encyclical
letters of Pope Leo XIII, were it not that when we look into
Rome’s approved text-books on theology, philosophy, and
canon law, we find it there taught that the state ought to con-
demn in doctrine and morals whatever the Roman Church

Bracqu, France Under the Republic.

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION

397

condemns and approve only what the Church approves. We
find it there taught that all teaching not in harmony with
the teaching of the Roman Church, is an evil in itself, which
the state can tolerate only to avoid greater evils. Wherever
and whenever the state can conveniently prohibit such teach-
ing it is bound to do so. We find it there taught that the
gravest duty rests upon the state to make the Roman Catholic
religion to be observed externally at least by all its citizens
when doing so will not menace the welfare of the state
itself. We find it there taught that liberty of conscience
founded on the individual reason and judgment is an impious
principle, self-contradictory, resting on political atheism, and
is especially destructive to society. It is there taught that for
Catholics to teach liberty of worship or liberty of conscience
is both absurd and impious. It is there taught that the
Church has the right of applying force. It is there taught that
the Church enjoys temporal as distinct from spiritual power.
It is there taught that the Church has external jurisdiction
to inflict temporal punishment, because not the souls only,
but also the bodies of the faithful, are under the jurisdiction
of the Church, and because spiritual punishment alone is not
sufficient to bring the unruly into obedience to her will. It is
there taught that temporal punishment embraces fines,
scourgings, tortures, imprisonment, and even death. It is
there taught that the authority enjoyed by the Church in
the Middle Ages and expressly or tacitly conceded by civil
rulers is not revocable at the will of the civil power. And
finally it is taught that all persons validly baptized, whenso-
ever, and by whomsoever, even by a Jew or pagan acting in
that capacity even unconsciously and unintentionally as min-
isters of the Roman Church, are thus made subjects of the
pope, amenable both to his temporal and spiritual authority.

This doctrine universally taught all over the Roman com-
munion essentially involves not only the spirit of persecution
but persecution itself, in its worst forms, wherever the same
is practicable. In the face of it, it is impossible for Protes-
tants not to doubt whether the official Roman Church rec-

398 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

ognizes any such thing as liberty of conscience in the best
and most orthodox sense. Persecuted heretics were people
who, obeying the counsels of the apostle, were persuaded
in their own minds of the truth of the doctrines which they
held. They lived up to the light that was in them, were always
prepared to embrace a higher and clearer light when that
gift should be vouchsafed them, and died, loving God above
all things, under the combined force of church and state.
Who is there that does not know that Rome’s theoretical
doctrine of the supremacy of conscience has always been
reduced to a nullity in practice so long as she has had politi-
cal power. There is nothing to be gained by retorting this
argument against the Protestant world, for the Protestant
world (of sectism) has never laid claim to any of the exclu-
sive attributes of the Roman Church, such as being the ex-
clusive Kingdom of Christ, having exclusive authority as
supreme and infallible teacher, having the exclusive treas-
ury of all Christ’s graces, exclusive administration of the
same, exclusive rights to the guardianship and interpreta-
tion of the Bible, and so on.

Protestants remembering all these claims and examining
them in the light of the history of the Roman communion in
every country through the centuries, fail to find anywhere
made manifest in the lives of Catholics, either in the past or
present, the superiority of the Catholic over the Protestant
religion. All history witnesses to the fact that the Catholic
clergy of all grades were the real authors of all the persecu-
tions which sullied the reigns of the wisest and best, as well as
the worst of Catholic rulers. The history of the papacy itself,
i.e., of the Court of Rome from the ninth to the eighteenth
century inclusive, constitutes some of the most painful read-
ing in all history. Decree after decree of intolerance and per-
secution issued from the Chair of Peter during that period
which drenched the earth with the blood of martyrs. Buckle
tells us that for one intolerant passage in Protestant theology
it would be easy to point out twenty in Catholic theology.3

3 Buckle, History of Civilization, p. 314.

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION 399

If that was true when Buckle wrote, it is still more true
today. There are now no writers in the Protestant churches
corresponding, in their teaching on intolerance to heretics,
to those in the Roman communion of recent date, such as
Vincent and Perrone and Lepicier and Palma, and de Luca
and Baudillart and Schraedar and Schneeman and Zigliara
and Ryan and Knox. I am naming only a few and these
men in the highest repute in their respective religious orders
where the real spirit of Romanism is to be found, all of
whom have written in our time and make known to us, with
startling and amazing boldness, the intolerant and persecut-
ing doctrines of their church. And let the reader not forget
that the works in which these doctrines are taught are used
as text-books in almost all seminaries where men are edu-
cated for the Roman priesthood. Their influence is seen even
upon the minds of such Catholic lay-writers as O’Rahilly in
Ireland, Hilaire Belloc and G. Elliot Anstruther in England,
not to go to Europe, where there is an army of them. Pro-
fessor O’Rahilly defends assassination in Ireland by appeal-
ing to the theological teaching of the Middle Ages. Hilaire
Belloc4 tells us with extreme nonchalance that all the evils
of the present industrial system will “slowly indeed but
effectually” disappear as soon as society will adopt the Ro-
man system of doctrine and government “with its full con-
sequences, conscious and sub-conscious, upon every human
action and upon the framing of laws.” He tells us that “the
erection of society upon Catholic lines makes for the destruc-
tion of servitude in every form”; while Mr. Anstruther
admits that the Inquisition was “a joint tribunal of Church
and State,” and that the Roman Church “has claimed and
exercised the right to punish those who deliberately for-
sook her communion.”5 And Mr. Anstruther leaves his
readers to reconcile that proposition with another assertion
— “The Catholic Church is not and never has been a perse-
cuting body. Persecution in history has characterized the

4 The Church and Socialism, pp. 12-13.

5 Catholic Answers to Protestant Charges, pp. 16-28.

400

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

official life of Catholic countries, the acts of Catholic kings,
prelates, and individuals, but this is equally true of Protestant
states and rulers.”

The camouflage in those words of the pamphlet of the
“Catholic Truth Society” is amazing. Protestants are asked
to believe that the Roman Church was never a persecutor be-
cause possibly they cannot point to a canon of a General
Council decreeing persecution and confirmed by the reign-
ing and subsequent popes, even though one may truthfully
charge the official life of Catholic countries, Catholic kings,
prelates and individuals with persecution. Truly this must
have been a consoling doctrine to the countless thousands
who suffered from time to time. One can imagine them cry-
ing aloud in the midst of their agonies and asking the ques-
tion : “What in the name of God is the use of an infallible
pope enjoying the plenitude of jurisdiction over the whole
Church if he cannot put an end to these fanatical bishops of
his, who have corrupted kings, parliaments and peoples, by
their false and wicked teaching? And wffiy is the Holy Father
silent in the midst of our sufferings? Has his silence no
meaning for us, nor for them ? Are we asked to be thankful
to Providence and to his Holiness in our humble prayers be-
cause he has not come boldly out in an encyclical letter
confirming the persecuting doctrine of his Catholic kings,
parliaments, and peoples? What in the name of heaven
would it have mattered to us if he had done so; and what
did it matter to us that he did not do so, except that we
had reason to believe from his silence that he was on the side
of our enemies?”

But the “Catholic Truth Society” does not blush to say
the Roman Church still claims that those who leave her
from time to time, or who may possibly leave her at another
Reformation tomorrow, are liable to any punishment includ-
ing death in any manner, which the Church combining her
forces with those of the state, may choose to inflict upon
them. This is certainly a modest demand to be made upon
Protestants by the “Catholic Truth Society.”

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION

401

The statements of writers like Belloc and Anstruther let
us into the real, if sometimes, disguised purpose of the whole
policy of the Court of Rome and its political and theological
machinery. Times without number her theologians have
said that they had no apology to offer for the Church’s con-
nection with the Inquisition in any country whatever. This
attitude is the only consistent one for men to assume who
hold that the Church has a temporal, as well as a spir-
itual sword, of divine right. It does not at all detract from
the doctrine to say that the Church can only exercise the
temporal sword when the state permits her. For the same
people are the subjects both of the Church and of the state,
and although these two powers are independent, so it is
said, there can be no doubt whatever that if ever Hilaire
Belloc’s dream comes true, when the Church and state will
again be a moral unit in their system of doctrine and govern-
ment, there will be no place in such a state for the public pro-
fession of heresy. The distinction which some Roman casuists
now make between those born or baptized into the Roman
communion, and those born and baptized out of it, will then
find no support whatever. Given the same conditions as in
the past and the same results must follow from the same
doctrines, for it would be folly to accept, in a matter of this
nature, Macaulay’s dictum, namely: We cannot conclude
from a man’s beliefs to a man’s actions.

The intolerant and persecuting doctrines of Protestants
have long since been repudiated by them in theory and in
practice in almost every country of the world. But the intol-
erant and persecuting doctrines of the Roman Church not
only have never officially been repudiated, nor even unoffi-
cially, except by a few brave individuals here and there
among clergy and laity, but are proclaimed as vigorously as
ever in our time with startling and amazing frankness.

When Catholics were struggling for emancipation in Great
Britain it was the policy of the bishops to let Daniel O’Con-
nell express himself at great public meetings as follows : “I
owe it to my religion as a Catholic and a Christian, to my

402

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

country as an Irishman, to my feelings as a human being, to
utterly denounce the abominable doctrines contained in the
Notes of this edition of the Rhemish New Testament. I am
a Catholic upon principle, but I would not remain a Catholic
one hour longer if I thought it essential to believe it was
lawful to murder Protestants, or that faith might be inno-
cently broken with heretics.”6 Yet such were the doctrines
to be deduced from the Notes to this Rhemish New Testa-
ment.

Now let it be remembered that the Notes to this Rhemish
New Testament were the work of theologians and com-
mentators who must be supposed to know the doctrines of
the Roman Church much better than O’Connell did. They
had moreover the imprimatur of those who were set up in
the Church by the pope himself as the teachers of doctrine
and the guardians of the morals of the people, and it cannot
be denied that the doctrines contained in the persecuting
Notes of the Rhemish New Testament were in perfect accord
with the doctrine and practice of the Church in the past and
with the doctrine of the Church in the present, as that doc-
trine is imbedded in the works of numbers of her approved
theologians, canonists, and philosophers. That is what one
would understand by the continuity and uniformity of doc-
trine in the same sense precisely as Roman Catholics under-
stand the continuity and uniformity of the doctrine of the
personal infallibility of the pope. Catholics admit that the
personal infallibility of the pope was denied here and there
all over the Church before a.d. 1870, but they hold that
those who did so deny it, bishops, priests, and laymen, were
unconscious heretics. Dollinger in a famous letter declared,
that he had taught to his students for forty-seven years the
personal fallibility of the popes in their capacity as doctors
and pastors of all Christians.

It was the same with the doctrine of religious liberty, or
the toleration of heretics. The Church never officially held
or taught any doctrine of the toleration of heretics except as
6 Speech of Dec. 4, 1817.

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION

403

a matter of political expediency, and those who, like O’Con-
nell and Father Tom Burke, denounced intolerance and the
Inquisition, were unconsciously proclaiming a false doc-
trine. And the doctrine of political expediency we may
indulgently express in Macaulay’s words: “I (the Church
of Rome) am in the right: You Protestant heretics are in
the wrong. When you (Protestants) are the stronger you
ought to tolerate me (the Church of Rome) for it is your
duty to tolerate truth : but when I am the stronger I shall
persecute you for it is my duty to persecute error.” And in
fact such is the gospel proclaimed to his countrymen almost
in the same words by Louis Veuillot who was acclaimed as
a great “leader” among the orthodox lay-folk of France.
Was the late Joseph Chamberlain merely a religious bigot
or playing the game of the politician when in his speech at
Cardiff, Wales, July 6, 1886, he said: “The Protestant
Church is founded upon the principles of toleration. ... It
admits the principle of religious equality. The Catholic
Church by the necessity of the case is opposed to toleration
and repudiates the doctrine of religious equality. Conse-
quently, if the Catholic Church is anywhere in the majority
it must try ... to obtain supremacy.”

The first generation of Protestants were born and edu-
cated in the Roman communion. In that communion they
were of necessity influenced by the evils attaching to their
religion. It was then that under the teaching of priests they
learned to hate and persecute those whom they called witches
and heretics. They unfortunately brought this and many
other superstitions and unchristian doctrines out of the
Roman communion when they formed themselves into Pro-
testant or protesting churches and fiercely propagated them
for a time amongst their followers. But the genius of Pro-
testantism was antagonistic to their permanency and devel-
opment and in time produced such clashing of minds, initia-
tive, and independence of thought and investigation, that to
these the world of today is indebted for freedom from reli-
gious persecution by law, and in theory, if not always in

404

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

practice, the recognition of individual liberty of conscience.
Protestants hold to the principle that each one is bound to
obey his enlightened reason, which means his conscience, and
to believe what under its dictation, is to him the truth. But
when the enlightened reason or conscience of the Catholic
is in conflict with that of his Church which in any particular
spot in the world may be represented to him by the local
bishop, his only course is submission, or rejection of the
papal communion. To stand by your conscience, when your
judgment is in practice a very unpopular one, demands the
highest degree of virtue, but it is a virtue which the Roman
ecclesiastics have through the centuries punished with the
utmost severity. Their doctrine was and still is, to crush
conscience by force of law and punishment. That is the teach-
ing contained in the works of all the modern theologians,
canonists, and philosophers of the Roman Church herein
before named.

The world is still staggering under the shock of this fear-
ful code. The world of today is not supposed to be very
honest in any department of life, and the memory left to it
as a legacy from the past and still cherished by Roman theo-
logians, is hardly calculated to make it otherwise. For cen-
turies the utilitarian principle was employed by the Roman
Church and state in defence of religious persecution. The
poison of heresy must not be allowed to spread for the sake
of the individual himself and for the sake of the body politic.
The theologians and jurists of the Middle Ages, who were
also clergy, made heresy and high treason equal crimes be-
fore the law, and then settled all penalties by their syllogisms.
But what at once both amuses and astonishes intelligent Pro-
testants is the character or quality, if I may so express it, of
the arguments employed, all of them in many several books,
by many different authors, exactly of a piece, and apparently
fashioned to order. They are all dishing up to us in shameless
fashion the same old vegetable of religious persecution, re-
cooked and re-hashed, in, if possible, a worse form than it
had in the Middle Ages. We are told that excommunication

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION

405

is a greater punishment than death and if the greater may be
inflicted so may the lesser. We are told that the death penalty
is sometimes the only remedy, because men will not cease to
think and to propagate their thoughts on religion, morals,
and doctrine, by speech and writing; and as all that is con-
trary to the teaching of the Roman Church on faith and
morals, a region of doctrine within which theologians in-
clude almost everything, therefore all those who pertina-
ciously propagate such opinions are worthy of the death pen-
alty. If forgers were once punished with death, so should
heretics, for heretics are forgers of God’s word. If men
were once put to death for adultery, so should heretics, for
heretics break faith with God and that is worse than break-
ing faith with one’s own wife. Heretics should be put to
death to prevent their doing harm to the good and innocent,
and so by the execution of a few, the many would be cor-
rected and saved; and lastly out of charity to the heretics
themselves, to prevent the accumulation of their sins by
cutting short their lives; “for these,” says Father Marianus
de Luca, S.J., “being utterly obstinate would only become
worse the longer they lived and would suffer still more ex-
cruciating torments in the flames of Hell.”

St. Thomas, their “greatest theologian,” says: “Heretics
in Scripture are known and described under the terms,
wolves, thieves, and sons of Satan.” Now in those days
thieves were hanged and we still pay bounty for the head of
a wolf, and the sons of Satan are in hell fire; is it not there-
fore manifestly clear from God’s holy word that heretics
should be put to death in some form or other? Again, the
Scriptures teach us that a heretic should be shunned after
one or two admonitions, and what easier way of shunning
him than by quickly putting him out into the other world
from whose bourne no traveller returns.

But the modern Roman Jesuit professor does not stop
there. To the plea that Protestants born of Protestant parents
are not in the Roman Church, Father de Luca replies: “I
answer that though heretics be not in the Church yet they

406

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

ought to be, and therefore they pertain thereunto as they per-
tain to the fold whence they have fled. . . . The Church has
in fact decreed many penalties against heretics. . . includ-
ing that of death which no man may escape who has been
given over by the Church to the secular arm. To this penalty
not only are those subject who, after the age of reason, have
fallen away from the faith, but those also, who, once bap-
tized and growing up in heresy, defend pertinaciously that
which they have sucked in with their mother’s milk.”

In the presence of these statements it becomes impossible
for Protestants any longer not to believe that a reactionary,
ultramontane Catholicism does exist, whose ideal in spite
of the encyclical letters of Leo XIII, on the independence
and sui juris character of the state, is a universal empire,
spiritually and politically representing, and ardently desir-
ing, a combination with the civil state, and the rule of force
and oppression in all matters not pleasing to the Church. And
as a matter of fact that is the doctrine taught in the ency-
clicals, Arcanum Diznnae and Immortale Dei. In the former
we are told that “matters which affect the temporal as well
as the spiritual power should . . . depend on the other
which has in its charge the interests of heaven.” And in the
latter we are informed that it is the duty of the state to
establish, when possible, Roman Catholicism as an exclusive
religion. And what else could we consistently expect from a
church, which, in her authorized Notes to Matt, xviii. 20,
appended for the instruction of her own layfolk, has these
words : “This is understood of such assemblies only as are
gathered in the name and authority of Christ, and in the
unity of the Church of Christ.”7 Here the claim is that the
Church of Christ is the Roman Church exclusively, and the
implication clearly is, that only assemblies in the Roman
communion gathered together for worship have the prom-
ise that Christ will be in their midst. We should not therefore
be surprised to find it taught in the encyclical on the Chris-

7 See Catholic New Testament, imprimatur Archbp. Farley, New York,
Dec. 8, 1905.

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION

407

tian Constitution of States, that the state is bound to the
“public profession of religion . . . not such religion as it
may have a preference for but the religion which God en-
joins and which certain and most clear marks show to be
the only true religion.” “Now,” continues the encyclical let-
ter, “it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true reli-
gion if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased
mind. . . . From all this it is evident that the only true
religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself and
which He committed to his Church to protect and to propa-
gate. . . . The Church has the two-fold right of judging
and of punishing. ... A civil sovereignty is the surest
safeguard of her independence. . . . The Almighty, there-
fore, has appointed the charge of the human race between
two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being
set over divine, and the other over human things. . . .
There was once a time when states were governed by the
principles of gospel teaching; then it was that the power
and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself
throughout the laws, institutions and morals of the people,
permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too,
the religion instituted by Jesus Christ . . . flourished every-
where by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection
of magistrates : and Church and state were happily united
in concord and friendly intercourse of good offices. ... A
similar state of things would certainly have continued had
the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More impor-
tant results even might have been justly looked for had obe-
dience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of
the Church, and had this submission been specially marked
by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be
regarded in the light of an ever changeless law which Ivo of
Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II : ‘When kingdom and
priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well
ruled and the Church flourishes and brings forth abundant
fruit. But when they are at variance not only small interests

4o8

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into
deplorable decay.’ ”

There can be no possible doubt of the meaning of this
encyclical of Leo XIII. The Church here referred to, and the
authority to which submission, obedience, and loyalty, are
due, is the Roman official Church which means the pope and
the papal curia, and the unswerving aim and purpose of the
pope and his cardinals at all times is their supremacy over
the state.

The state is bound to make public profession of the one
true religion — the Roman. The state is bound to inquire
concerning the many religions; which is the true one? The
state is bound to prefer one religion to all the rest and that
one religion the Roman. The state is bound to show to this
one true religion, special favor. The state ought not to grant
equal rights to every creed even so long as public order is
not disturbed by any political form of religious belief. The
pope denies that all questions that concern religion are to be
referred to private judgment — denies that every one is to be
free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all, if
he disapprove of all. The pope denies the right of liberty of
expression of opinion regarding the practice or omission
of divine worship. The pope maintains that the Roman
Catholic religion should have superior rights in the state over
every other religion. And in addition Leo XIII maintains
that the Mirari Vos of Pope Gregory XVI taught also all the
above doctrines.

Now honest Protestants contend that to a mind free from
controversial quibbling the doctrine in this encyclical neces-
sarily involves the spirit and the practice of religious in-
tolerance. If the Catholic principle of private property and
its inherent exclusive prerogatives necessarily involve the
condemnation of the principle of Communism, the exclusive
claims of the Roman religion necessarily involve the con-
demnation of all heresy, and, given the proper conditions
under the Roman system, the condemnation of all heresy

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION

409

involves at the same time the condemnation of all those who
profess it.

The doctrine of those encyclicals and that of the Syllabus
of Pius IX, is simply the continuity of the doctrine of the
Roman Church from the days of Saints Augustine and
Jerome and logically calls for the practice of the Inquisition.
In fact Protestants commit a great mistake who do not see
that there is an essential difference between religious liberty
as understood by Protestants and as understood by Roman
Catholics.

No pope, no Catholic Church. No Catholic Church, no
true Christianity. No true Christianity, no true religion. The
papacy is the keystone of the arch of the Christian temple.
In that temple no one may determine truth of his own judg-
ment; the pope, alone infallible, declares it, either directly
and immediately, speaking by himself and for the whole
Church, or speaking through the mouth and confirming the
utterance of a general council, or the opinions of theolo-
gians throughout the Church. For those outside the temple
there is no salvation except through invincible ignorance and
repentance for sin rooted in the love of God above all things,
and these two principles stand or fall together. As for those
who, being enlightened and dwelling within the temple, go
out, as did Renan and Father McCabe, for instance, under
protestation of religious and conscientious convictions, there
is no hope for such people, says Perrone, for they are in bad
faith and are all damned; and Catholics under the system
dare not stop to ask him, how and by what means he got this
mysterious information. It is enough for them to know that
the Church has officially spoken, or when the Church has not
officially spoken, that the theologians with her approval,
have said so. Therefore, all the Luthers, Cranmers, Calvins,
Dollingers, Hyacinths, Lamennaises, Tyrrells, O’Keefes,
and all other ex-priests, ex-nuns, and ex-Catholic lay-folk
who were once Romanists, and are Romanists no longer, are
all damned.

Let no one be shocked, this is the common belief among

4io

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Catholics, and from this belief, rooted in their hearts and
nurtured by their religion, springs up their incessant perse-
cution of all who leave their communion under the combined
pressure of reason and conscience. It is not only their com-
mon belief, but is times without number expressed with
complacency in their press. It has so engrafted itself upon
their lives and got such a hold upon their hearts and rendered
them such shameless prigs that they invariably see in the
face of one whom they regard as an apostate — priest or lay-
man— the brand of damnation in life, not to talk of his ap-
pearance after death. Go where you will all over the Catholic
world the common remark of priest and layman in referring
to a so-called apostate is: Hasn’t he a most unhappy face?
Isn’t the mark of Cain, or Judas upon his brow? And so on.

All that is the result of the system. It has driven out of
their inner lives all at once both the love and the fear of God.
They are so utterly conscious of their own superior spiritual
advantages in the Roman communion and of the security of
the salvation of their souls, that they have become uncon-
sciously, the very Pharisees whom Christ so scathingly de-
nounced. They are always in a frame of mind, even when
they have not for years troubled the priest at his throne in the
“Confessional Box,” to thank God that they are not as other
men are. Why should these saints have any hesitation in say-
ing that an apostate priest, or lay-Catholic is damned, and
may be persecuted even to death? Such judgments are in
fact a source of amusement to them. They afford them abun-
dant topics of conversation and laughter. How can their
souls be lost for is not Father Converse there to give them
Absolution ?

Protestants believe that Catholics are in many instances
better than the spirit prevalent in their Church, and at the
worst are what corruption of religion has made them. But
the great bulk of cultured Protestants believe and even know
that Catholics are lacking wholly in charity to those Catho-
lics, lay and cleric, who, for the most part, as Protestants
believe, leave the Roman Church in good faith, and that they

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION 411

are lacking in this charity because their religion is herein
defective. Protestants believe that Catholics are even posi-
tively hostile and malevolent to such people and that the con-
tinuous personal warfare which Catholic writers never cease
to carry on against reformers of all kinds and of all times
is almost demonstrative proof that the spirit which gave birth
to the Inquisition, is still abiding in the Roman Church and
affecting the minds and hearts of the great bulk of Roman
Catholics. Protestants think they rightly and logically con-
nect Catholic practice in this particular with Catholic doc-
trine. If Catholic priests and people, almost without excep-
tion, persecute every ex-priest and ex-nun and every con-
verted lay-Catholic, man and woman, and their families and
friends, Protestants believe that this is due to the Roman doc-
trine that no one can leave the Roman Church in good faith.
If Protestants accepted that Roman principle they would
be forced to admit that all the Reformers were rogues and
hypocrites. But if it was possible for the Reformers to be
honest men in their days, it must be equally possible for con-
verted Catholics — priests and lay-folk — to be honest people
in the present time. Protestants who believe the Roman con-
gregation to be only one of the multitude of Christian sects
and that too a very defective one, having no more Scriptural
foundation or right than their own, would be as much jus-
tified in believing that those who went from Protestantism
to Romanism were in bad faith as Romanists unhesitatingly
affirm those of their own communion to be in, who become
Protestants. But Protestants assimilating the religion of
their New Testament do not believe that either party is jus-
tified in so thinking. Protestants are fully aware that not only
Catholic priests baptized and educated in the Roman com-
munion and renowned as scholars and educators, have left
that Church and become Protestants, some of them, and
agnostics others, but that a number of Protestant ministers
have gone over to Rome and become priests, and later pro-
fessing to have become utterly disillusioned, have returned
again to the various Protestant bodies to which they for-

412

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

merly belonged. Shall Protestants be asked to believe that
these men were hypocrites and double-minded, and therefore
unstable in all their ways? And these things are happening
all the time. There is a constant going over to and coming back
from Rome. Shall those going over to Rome be classed as hon-
est and those leavingorcomingback from Rome be denounced
as hypocrites? Protestants know that such judgments are
positively forbidden by Christ; and therefore their conscience
does not allow them to condemn converted Catholics. Why
should not the arguments which appeal to Protestants and
which not only keep them out of the Roman communion and
put them on their guard against it but in some instances,
make them positively hostile to it, appeal to Catholics of
intelligence and honesty of purpose as well? They many
times have appealed and successfully to such Catholics in the
centuries gone, and why should any one think this to be
impossible today? Or shall Protestants accept the doctrine
of Roman theologians — that no Catholic can honestly leave
the Roman communion for membership in a Protestant con-
gregation ? Shall you acknowledge a Catholic to be honest, if
like Renan and Father McCabe he professes himself an
agnostic, or an atheist, but dishonest and a scoundrel, if he
become a member of some Protestant and Christian sect?
But this is the persecuting attitude Romanists would have
Protestants adopt, and which, unhappily, cunning and selfish
Protestants very commonly do adopt. Their Protestantism
has a marketable value; it is always measured in dollars and
cents. Do these Protestants dare to pretend that Catholics
may not, like Protestants, be also honestly affected by the
same arguments which bring conviction to themselves?

But Catholic editors deny that Catholics are a persecuting
sect. The trouble with such men is, whenever they are honest,
that they are prejudiced and have a very limited experience
and take refuge in their personal knowledge. But let those
gentlemen not forget that Protestants are ubiquitous, are in
the normal enjoyment of their senses and reason, and are
therefore in a position to testify of what happens all over

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION

413

the Roman communion. Rome let loose the forces of perse-
cution centuries ago and science tells us that a force once let
loose never ceases thereafter to produce its effects. Rome
not only let loose the forces of persecution centuries ago but
built up a system of theology and canon law to justify those
forces; and that system of theology and canon law has
engendered in the Roman communion a persecuting spirit
which becomes quiescent under pressure of political and eco-
nomic conditions but never goes to sleep and never ceases to
watch its opportunities. Protestants can everywhere testify
that wherever there is an ex-priest, however respectable he
may be, he is persecuted either openly, or secretly, or in both
ways directly and indirectly.

But however that may be, they are certain that while we
are bidden in Scripture to mark the heretic and avoid him
or have no communications with him in things divine, we are
not only commanded not to persecute him, but on the con-
trary, to love him, serve him, and pray for him. And when
Roman Catholics appeal to the persecutions levelled against
them everywhere and from the beginning, first by Jews, then
by Gentiles, next by schismatics and heretics of all kinds, as
a proof that they are the dear children of God and constitute
his true Church, the appeal might have force, if Protestants
did not know that whenever and wherever these dear, perse-
cuted children of God had sufficient political power, they
persecuted every one of the persecutors in turn, and forgot
the doctrine of owing no man anything save to love one
another. As practised by Catholics love did work much ill to
his neighbor and did not do unto others as Catholics wished
that others should do unto them. And Protestants believe that
this is very largely the spirit of Catholicism still. For that
reason Protestants are convinced that eternal vigilance is the
price of their liberty. And the reason why Protestants believe
that this persecuting spirit still abides in the Church of Rome
is because they see it in practice necessarily arising out of
fundamental Roman Catholic theology.

Perrone was a leading Jesuit theologian in the Council

414

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

which decreed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of
the Blessed Virgin. One of his works was written expressly
for the common people whose title is, Popular Catechism,
Dealing with Protestantism, and this work received official
approbation in 1854. Here is a specimen from Chapter XV :

D. Can those who pass from the Catholic Church to Protestantism
have this [excuse of] invincible ignorance?

R. The mere thought is absurd. ... It is a contradiction and an
impossibility that any Catholic should turn Protestant through honest
motives.

D. Would you therefore say that no Catholic who turns Protestant
can ever be saved ?

R. I say that it is certain with the certainty of faith that all Catholics
who turn to Protestantism are damned except those cases where a man
repents sincerely before his death and abjures the errors he has pro-
fessed. Except for such a case as this, it is an article of faith that all
Catholics who become Protestants are damned immediately for all
eternity.

D. Why do you say that this damnation is one of the certainties of
faith?

R. Because it is a plain revelation of God.

I am sure it must be far less revolting to Protestants gen-
erally, to be told that an anthropoid ape is their physical an-
cestor than to be informed that they are the spiritual children
of people now buried in hell. Yet according to this official
doctrine of Perrone, all the Protestant Reformers, that is to
say, the founders and builders of their denominations, and
their millions of quondam Catholic followers, are in hell
for all eternity.

Now how can any people accepting and assimilating these
doctrines be expected to abstain from persecuting their neigh-
bors whom they believe to be already marked with the brand
of hell upon their souls, put there by a church’s official teach-
ing whose disciples believe it to be infallible? Is not such
doctrine worse than sedition? Is it not calculated to engender
the most profound hypocrisy and distrust and to disrupt the
whole peace of the state? If it does not do so, is it not because
Protestants are utterly ignorant of it, or because Catholic
duplicity puts them asleep, or because they have no higher

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION 415

interest in life than money and subordinate everything else
to it?

Perrone and his Roman followers profess to know with the
certainty of faith that Luther and his fellow Reformers are
all in hell. But Lingard8 the great Catholic historian tells us
with what noble constancy “the Protestant martyrs suffered
in Mary’s reign under the cruel statute De Haeretico Com-
burendo” He says, that “though pardon was offered them to
the last moment, they scorned to purchase their lives by
feigning an assent to doctrines which they did not believe.”
Now let it be remembered that all of those martyrs had been
baptized into the Roman fold and had conscientiously left it
and died in agonies for their convictions. What is the value
of Perrone’s impious guesses in the face of that fact? Is it
possible to doubt the integrity of the bishops, Hooper, Rid-
ley, Latimer, and ever Cranmer at the last? For if they be-
lieved in it the salvation of their souls depended on their
public profession of the Roman Catholic religion. But at the
very moment when it was most essential for him to profess it
Cranmer “recalled his former recantations, declaring that he
had never changed his belief, and that his recantation had
been wrung from him by the hope of life.”9 I do not envy
the man who is bold enough to say that Cranmer and his
brother-bishops chose to go straight into hell with their eyes
wide open and with a consciousness of their privilege to go
to heaven instead through the abounding mercy of Jesus
Christ.

Truth lives by being tested and experienced as does what-
ever is good, and error dies by being found out as evil. Each
may be forced to hide itself for a time under pressure of per-
secution but in the struggle for existence truth will eventually
prevail over error, as Gamaliel well understood and fore-
told. Only in the domain of faith and morals as expounded

8 Dom. Birt’s Lingard, pp. 355, 356-

9 Ibid.

416

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

by the Roman Church is there no choice between toleration
of error and the expression of intellectual activity.

The Constitution of that ideal Christian-World-Empire
started by Constantine with the pope as Lord of all lords
was briefly summarized by Pope Nicholas V, October n,
1451, as follows : “One of the principal articles of the Chris-
tian faith is the unity of the Church. The constitution of this
unity is the existence of a unique and visible head represen-
tative of a great, eternal priest, whose throne is in heaven,
and the obedience of all members of the Church to this
unique head. Where two masters command there is no unity
of empire. Outside the unity of the Church no salvation;
every man not in the ark of Noah perished in the deluge.”

Now the history of the papacy and the claims and deeds
of the popes in deposing rulers and bestowing kingdoms at
will clearly prove that the ideal of this constitution was not
that of a spiritual kingdom only, for if so it would have been
a new interpretation of papal documents.10

When Catholic barons and Catholic bishops wrung from
a tyrant king of England the vaunted Magna Charta, Pope
Innocent III rejected it in a bull of date, August 15, 1215,
in the most vigorous language of thorough reprobation and
condemnation, forbidding the king to observe it, or the barons
and their accomplices to demand its observance, and all be-
cause the proud pope had not been consulted on the matter.
Innocent X condemned the peace of Westphalia in 1648
because it secured to Protestants the free exercise of their
religion and admission to civil offices, and the popes have
condemned every constitution since then in every Catholic or
so-called Catholic nation which has granted freedom of
conscience, public worship, and freedom of the press, to its
subjects. And no matter how Roman theological interpreters
may attempt to explain or explain away papal encyclicals,
Protestants are compelled in justice to themselves and as a
matter of prudence and vigilance, to understand them only
in that logical sense which will bring them into harmony
10 See Jannsen, Hist. Germ. People, V. 2.

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION 417

with the whole doctrine and political history of the papacy.
Protestants must not forget that Paul IV, the year before
Queen Elizabeth’s accession to the throne, issued his bull,
Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio “out of the plenitude of his
apostolic power,” declaring that all civil rulers were subject
to his will, and would forfeit their dominions for heresy, — no
other doctrine than that of the Unam Sanctam of Boniface
VIII. They will then be in a position to understand why
Elizabeth for reasons of state and her own security, pre-
ferred ultimately the Protestant to the Roman Church. Some
English Catholics and Seminarists professed to reconcile
allegiance to Queen Elizabeth with their conscience, but
they evidently did so, with a mental reservation, for the
whole doctrine then taught by the entire school of theolo-
gians and canonists, made it certain with the certainty of
faith, that any Christian prince who had openly or manifestly
fallen away from the Catholic religion,11 and wished to per-
vert others, ipso facto , by force of law divine and human,
had lost all authority and dignity, and all this antecedently
to any sentence of condemnation by the pope or other su-
preme power, and that his subjects were freed from all their
oaths of allegiance and that they should and ought, when-
ever and wherever they had sufficient power to do so, to cast
him out as an enemy and deserter of Christ, as an apostate
and a heretic.12 That too, is the meaning of the bull of Pius
V as given by Gregory XIII. That bull was to be considered
always in force against heretics but should only be binding
on Catholics when due execution of it could be had. Let
therefore Catholics be in sufficient numbers to control our
armies, navies, congresses, and parliaments, and all the
machinery of the Inquisition will once more be put in force,
if Catholics obey the doctrine of their Church. The whole
experience of Protestants everywhere reveals the fact that
the conscience of Catholics responds to the teaching of the
Church when the head of that Church and the rulers of the

11 Alzog, Church History, V. 2, pp. 496-97.

12 Hallam’s Constitutional History, p. 115, note 2.

418 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

state are living in peace with each other. Voltaire tells us that
the clergy were the authors of all the persecutions which
sullied the reign of Louis XIV and history tells us that in
the war between Prussia and Austria, which ended in
Sadowa, French and Austrian ecclesiastics proclaimed to
superstitious people that Austria must win for the Church
must triumph over heretics.

The Inquisition at its roots was a spirit of hatred against
heresy; and non-tolerance of heresy meant then and means
now, non-tolerance of the heretic when the supreme will of
the Church and that of the state are one, or in agreement,
which is the aim today as since the days of Constantine ; for
the Curia which is the pope in operation, never swerves from
its fundamental doctrine and purpose. The heretic will ever
be a pestilential weed that must be dug up and rooted out of
the gardens of the Church, which, in her purpose, is to be
made coterminous with the state.

“The Church established by Christ as a perfect society
is empowered to make laws and inflict penalty for their
violation. Heresy not only violates her law, but strikes at
her very life, unity of belief : and from the beginning the
heretic had incurred all the penalties of the ecclesiastical
courts. When Christianity became the religion of the Em-
pire . . . the close alliance of Church and state made unity
of faith essential, not only to the ecclesiastical organization
but also to civil society. Heresy in consequence was a crime
which secular rulers were bound in duty to punish.” This is
the doctrine of Rome laid down in the American Catholic
Encyclopedia 13 and it means that heresy is to be punished
by making the heretic an outlaw. This is precisely what will
happen if ever Rome attains her ideal of Church and state.

And that we may have no doubt, who, or what, a heretic
is, we are given the definition of St. Augustine in De Civitate
Dei, xviii, approved by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa
Theologica, namely: “Those are heretics who hold mis-
chievous and erroneous opinions and when rebuked . . .

is Vol. VOI, p. 36, col. 1.

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION

419

after a stubborn resistance, and refusing to mend their per-
nicious, and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.”
And St. Thomas tells us that pernicious and deadly doctrines
are doctrines contrary to the dogmas of faith, and they may
be so directly or indirectly, either by contradicting an article
of faith or by denying matters the denial of which leads to
the corruption of faith. What heretics intend, he tells us, is
the corruption of the faith, and although they do protest the
contrary and proclaim their zeal for the purity of doctrine,
St. Thomas will give them no credit for any professed good
intentions in order to cut away all ground for tolerating
them. Whatever, if any, profit ensues to the Church from
heresy, is outside the intention of the heretic and should in
no way extenuate, t palliate, or mitigate his crime, or its
punishment, for it is not contrary to our Lord’s command to
“uproot heretics altogether from the earth by death whenever
the cockle can be destroyed without destroying the wheat.”
This holy doctor has no difficulty in getting over 1 Cor.
v. 5, or 1 Cor. xi. 19, or 1 Cor. xiii., or 2 Tim. ii. 24-5. What
a parody it all is upon the Sermon on the Mount and upon
all other discourses of Christ contained in the New Testa-
ment and above all on the reports of His daily practice in
all relations with obstinate heretics, and with all penitent
sinners. Oh, those dear canonized saints of the Roman
Church, supposed to have their natural intellects superabun-
dantly aided by supernatural light ! What a demonstration do
they not present of the apparent impossibility of men rising
above their environment and the spirit of the age in which
they live and of the education they have received. One would
suppose that their principles of hermeneutics would lead
them to interpret bitter, harsh, or persecuting texts of Scrip-
ture, by the loving and tender appeal and promises contained
in those of an opposite character. On the contrary these per-
secuting saints are continually telling us that “the good of
the many is to be preferred to the good of the one,” forgetting
that in the New Testament the emphasis is always put on the
one rather than on the many, as in Ephes. iv. 7 ; Gal. vi. 5 ;

420 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

I Cor. iii. 8; Matt. xvi. 27; Rom. ii. 6; Colos. iii. 9, 13, and
so on.

The teaching of St. Thomas is also that of the great con-
troversialist, Bellarmine, who builds his arguments on Matt,
xviii., on the decrees and laws of Roman emperors approved
by the Church, on the laws of the Church herself, and on the
testimony of the Fathers. Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran
Council (a.d. 1215), decreed that heretics are everywhere
to be sought out and handed over to the secular arm and that
princes who refuse to exterminate them from their terri-
tories, are to be deposed, and their lands given to others who
are more faithful. It is in fact beyond doubt that all the
popes from Leo IX to Gregory XIII inclusive, a period of
nearly five centuries, claimed the right to depose all civil,
political rulers for cause of which the Church was judge,
and pass their kingdoms on to others. This claim it was
which constituted then, and still constitutes, the binding
force of all laws against heretics. Every prince forfeited his
crown to the pope, the vicar of Christ, by reason of his
heresy. The later divine right of kings, assigned to them by
Protestants, was then the divine right of the popes. Protes-
tants are told even today under the patronage of the “Catho-
lic Truth Society” with a degree of boldness almost surpass-
ing belief that their lives are secured to them only because the
children of the pope are wanting in physical and political
power to destroy them. The distinction made by Mr. Anstru-
ther between the official life of Catholic countries, the acts
of Catholic kings, prelates, and individuals, and the Catholic
Church itself, is only sophistry.14 Has he never heard of the
bull of Pope Urban II decreeing permission to kill an ex-
communicated person ? Has he never heard that Innocent IV
inserted in a bull of 1254, the cruel constitution of Frederick
II, in particular the edict of Ravenna, and the Sicilian Con-
stitution, Inconsulitam Tunicam which expressly decreed
death by fire? And has he never heard that Clement IV and
Nicholas IV and Calixtus III confirmed the decrees of Inno-

14 Cf. Anstruther, as cited, p. 6.

THE ROMAN DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION 421

cent? Has he never heard of the documents Ad Abolendcmi,
De Heretico C omburendo and U nam Sanctam ?15 Has he never
heard that Louis IX of France was scarcely fourteen years of
age when papal legates practically compelled him to make a
law decreeing death against heretics? Has he never heard that
the unfortunate Louis XVI of France was forced by the ec-
clesiastics of his kingdom to take the following terrible oath
against his own most loyal subjects: “I swear that I will
apply myself most sincerely and with all my power to exter-
minate in all lands under my dominion the heretics particu-
larly condemned by the Church.”

Monks, priests, and confessors, had made it their busi-
ness to poison the minds of kings, nobles and peasants
against heretics, that is to say, against Protestants. Francis I
of France declared he would cut off his right hand if it were
a heretic, and advised Charles V to expel all Mohammedans
from Spain. His son, Henry II made the extirpation of here-
tics his principal business and issued a circular to his parlia-
ments and judicial tribunals commanding them to extirpate
the Lutherans. Henry III was such an arch-enemy of Protes-
tants that he was convinced he could not find a prouder grave
than amidst the ruins of heresy. The great King Henry IV
was murdered by an assassin, confessedly driven to do the dark
deed by what he regarded as a religious impulse like those
two men who murdered Sir Henry Wilson in our time and
gloried in the deed, even after having made their confession
to a priest.16

“No religion,” says Turgot, “has the right to demand any
other protection than liberty, and it loses its rights to this
liberty, when its doctrines of worship are contrary to the in-
terest of the state.”

This proposition Catholic theologians will only admit on
condition that it is conceded that no doctrine of the Catholic
Church is contrary to the interest or welfare of the state.

15 The bull Unam Sanctatn is an exposition of the relations between
Church and state, Alzog, V. 2, p. 624.

16 The murderer of the President-elect in Mexico is another instance.

422

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Protestant governments and Protestant peoples have never yet
formally made this concession and so their modus vivendi
when it is not open warfare is to keep silence and call it
peace. It is only the peace of the volcano before it breaks
forth upon a sleeping world.

What then is the difference between the policy of Protes-
tant and Catholic countries? It is this: Protestant doctrine
does not today as it once did, advocate union of Church and
state, either as a doctrine or as a policy; while Roman the-
ology does still advocate union of Church and state both as
a doctrine and a policy of the Roman Church. Again, Protes-
tant doctrine teaches absolute liberty of conscience in all
matters not destructive of the state itself, for all citizens,
irrespective of creed, class, or color. But the Roman Church
has not only no such doctrine of absolute liberty of con-
science in the premise but has formally condemned it in prin-
ciple. The Roman system of doctrine and her claims as the
only divinely appointed and infallible teacher of mankind in
matters of doctrine and morals absolutely demand the con-
demnation of liberty of conscience in the Protestant sense.
Many Roman documents are clear on that matter before the
Syllabus of Pius IX; and the Catholic Dictionary (a.d.
1917) tells us that “the pope’s power is limited by a multi-
tude of previous definitions, due to his predecessors, to the
councils, to the ordinary exercise of the Church’s Magiste-
rium, through the pastors (bishops) united to the Holy See.”

Here then is where the Protestant world stands in rela-
tion to Rome ; it is an outlaw and there is no reconciliation
to be expected from any future pope except on his own
terms, for he is bound hand and foot by the traditions, bulls,
decrees, and definitions of his predecessors.

An Ex Catholic Priest.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

There is no use of discussing the subject of a divinely-
given rule of faith and life with one who really believes that
there is no God. It is doubtful, however, if there is anyone
in a Christian country so unreasonable as not to believe in a
Creator and Upholder of the universe. And to one who be-
lieves in a Creator, the questions inevitably come: Can I
know Him? How can I know Him? How much about Him
can I know ? Why did He make the universe, including man-
kind and me — with all my longings after perfection and im-
mortality and Him?

The great Apostle in the second chapter of First Corin-
thians rightly argues from the analogy of man that no one
can know the things of God save the Spirit of God that is in
Him. Again, he agrees with Isaiah that “Eye hath not seen,
nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man,
the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit; for the
Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God.” The
Old Testament claims to contain a series of revelations from
God and the whole New Testament is full of statements de-
claring that the Old Testament contains a reliable record
of revelations of God and that all the Scriptures were in-
spired by Him. The Lord asserts that the Scriptures cannot
be broken and Christianity rests upon this belief. All the
Churches and Creeds of Christendom are based upon the
supposition that the Scriptures are true.

In the present article, I shall consider some of the objec-
tive, or evidential, grounds for concluding that this opinion
of the Church semper et ubique et ab omnibus is correct and
especially that the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament
are reasonably to be considered as a part of the God-given
Rule of Faith and Life.1

And first, let us look at the reasonableness of this belief
to one who acknowledges that there is a God and that He

1 Cf. Westminster Confession, Chap. I.

424

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

alone can reveal His will to us as a rule, or canon, of faith
and life. It seems to me that it is no more than what we, in
the case of men, call commonsense for God to provide that
any revelation that He might make to the human race for
all time to come would be correctly written and preserved.
Just as you may be sure that a royal proclamation of King
George of England, or a presidential proclamation, will be
correctly published and transmitted to the persons for whom
it is designed ; so you may be sure, that God, when speaking
to and through the prophets for the instruction and benefit
of the whole human race, would see to it that what He had
to say was correctly recorded and transmitted to that race.
Further, it would inevitably follow that these records would
at some time be collected in proper form and that this col-
lection would be handed down in a sufficiently correct condi-
tion to those for whom it was intended. It is a surprising
fact of history that not merely the Jewish people but, with
possibly one exception, all branches of the Christian Church
always and everywhere, have agreed in accepting all the
books of our Hebrew Bible as constituting a part at least of
the inspired word of God. This gives me great confidence
in undertaking my task of defending the position that the
right books were selected and handed down. And most of all
do I undertake my task with a feeling of joy that I may do
something at least to remove the doubts of honest believers
in the teaching of the New Testament, when confronted with
the assertion, said to be the result of scientific investigation,
that the Old Testament is not what Christ and the Apostles
thought it to be.

In this article, I shall restrict myself to a statement of
some of the direct evidence calculated to show that the indi-
rect evidence alleged by many critics of the Old Testament
to prove that the completion of the Canon was not made till
about a.d. 90 is inadequate. The evidence to be given bears
especially upon seven allegations.

The Seven Allegations

1. That the Samaritans accepted as canonical the Penta-
teuch alone.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

425

2. That the term “Law” being used at times in the New
Testament and in Jewish writings to denote the whole Old
Testament and the phrase “Law and Prophets” at other
times, shows that there was a time when the Law constituted
all of the Canon and later when it consisted of the Law and
the Prophets alone.2

3. That several books in the present Bible were not written
until after the time of Ezra and even as late as Maccabean
times.

4. That the canonicity of certain books was not finally
decided among the Jews till the Council of Jamnia about

A.D. 90.

5. That the synagogue lessons were taken exclusively
from the Law and the Prophets because the canonicity of the
other books was not acknowledged when these lessons were
selected.

6. That there are indications in the order of the books in
both the Prophets and the third part of the Canon tending
to show that these divisions of the Old Testament were
formed gradually.

7. That the “three-fold division of the Canon itself affords
a clue to the mode of its formation.”3

Discussion of the Allegations

When and by whom the present divisions in the Old
Testament Hebrew Bible were made, we do not know. We
do know, however, that many of the books of the Old Testa-
ment were written centuries before their canonicity was
generally acknowledged. The Church has always held that
these books were canonical from the time that they were
written and that their authority depends upon the fact that
they were written by inspiration of God. They are a rule of
faith and life for all men, whether these men accept them as
such, or not. But, as to many of them, we are ignorant of
their authors, the time when they were written, and the

2 Cf . W. H. Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament: The
Canon (1899), P- I0°-

3 Ibid., pp. 22-25.

426

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

time when they were accepted. We do not know what were
the divisions in the earliest collections, but we do know
that there must have been divisions ; because the whole Old
Testament could not have been written on one portable
leather or papyrus volume nor on less than numerous tab-
lets. Whether these divisions were consciously made or
commonly received, we do not know ; nor, what was the
number or order of the different books in these divisions.
We do know, however, that in our Hebrew Bible, we have
the books that were acknowledged by the Jews of the time of
Christ as canonical and that Christ and the Apostles recog-
nized the same canon of Holy Scripture.

This whole matter of the order and divisions of the books
of the Old Testament might be considered one of minor
importance, were it not for the fact that many critics write
as if they knew when these divisions were made and the
content of them, and are using this presumed knowl-
edge to cast suspicion upon the date and reliability of many
of the books. I think, therefore, that it may guard the faith
of believers, if I state the main evidence on the ground of
which I am convinced that the critics are wrong in their
view as to the formation of the Canon of the Old
Testament.

In the first place, the Bible itself is not so devoid of infor-
mation on this subject, as some would have us conclude.
Long before the time of Moses, Adam and Noah and Abra-
ham had received commandments and visions from God that
were the rule of their faith and life, and were handed down
for the guidance and observation of future generations. The
code of the Covenant was accepted by the people at Sinai*
and the whole law at Shittim5 and re-adopted at Shechem.6
The books of Joshua,7 Judges,8 Samuel,9 Kings,10 and

4 Ex. xx-xxiv.

5 Num. xxv. I.

6 Josh. xxiv. i.

7 Josh. xxiv. 26.

8 Jud. ii. 20.

9 Passim. Cf. Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, p. 52.

10 Passim. Cf. op. cit., p. 53.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

427

Nehemiah11 show that the Law of Moses was accepted by
the people of Israel and their only rule of faith and life.
This rule was to be taught by fathers to their children12 and
by the priests to the people13 and the king was expected to
observe it.14 The prophets, also, encouraged and emphasized
the obligation and beneficient results of the keeping of the
Law, and enforced their preaching by new messages of
threatening and grace from the God of Abraham and Israel,
and their messages were accepted by the faithful as the
rule of their faith and life. Filled with the Spirit of Jehovah
the poets and wise men of Israel wrote psalms and idylls
and proverbs and philosophies of life in praise of God and
of His law and in commendation of the godly life and con-
demnation of the wicked. What men were to believe concern-
ing God and sin and death and judgment and the necessity
of a God-wrought redemption was repeatedly and in many
ways set forth ; so that the Scriptures of “divine origin and
excellence” and “inspired of God” were “profitable, for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction
which is in righteousness.” “At sundry times and in divers
manners, God spake unto the fathers by the prophets” and
what He spake was for them and their descendents a rule of
faith and practice and life. God’s law given at Sinai was the
Magna Charta of Israel’s rights and obligations. The Pro-
phets and the other writings that were added to this law
must be in harmony with it and must serve the purpose of
showing its most profitable use and the danger of its neglect.

Such works written by men inspired by the Spirit of God
needed no council, nor senate, of great men to cause their
acceptance. The people of God themselves recognized the
works of the prophets and wise men as a part of the infalli-
ble rule of faith and life which God designed for them;
and by selection and elimination the present Canon of the
Old Testament was formed under the special guidance of

11 Neh. viii.

12 Gen. xviii. 19, Ex. xiii. 11, Deut. vi. 20, et al.

13 2 Chron. xv. 3, xvii. 7-9.

14 Deut. xvii. 18.

428

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the prophets and the enlightening influence of the Spirit of
God. The Jews have taught that a book to be canonical must
be in harmony with the Law and have been written before
the succession of the prophets ceased. This seems to be rea-
sonable and, as far as anybody knows, it is agreeable to the
evidence.

But, notwithstanding the fact that the critics admit there
is no direct, nor explicit, evidence that any of the books
were written after 400 b.c., nor that the divisions of the
Canon recognized in our Hebrew Bible as Law, Prophets
and Hagiographa (or Writings), were constituted and
closed one after the other by enactment of some body of
men in authority, they all persist in affirming that the Law
was first officially declared to be canonical by Ezra and his
contemporaries, the Prophetical Books, consisting of Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the
Twelve Minor Prophets by some unknown authority about
200 b.c., and all of the books at the council of Jamnia in
a.d. 90. With all due deference to the learning of the lead-
ers of these critics, it is my judgment that the prima facie
evidence of the documents bearing upon the matter, as well
as of the traditions of the Jews, is against the critics’ affir-
mations and conclusions in reference to the origin and
formation of the Old Testament Canon.

And, first of all, this judgment of mine is based upon the
consideration that, in order to accept the allegations of the
radical critics as correct, we will have to conclude that almost
every document of the Old and New Testaments rests upon
false assumptions and is itself a witness in favor of what
should have been known to be false. It is only as we conceive
of the Bible as written by the inspiration of God that we
can speak of it as one book with a single author. If we be-
lieve that it is such a book, it would be impious, or blas-
phemous, for us to think that it was full of errors and
misstatements as the critics allege. If on the other hand,
we look at the human authors, we will find at least forty dif-
ferent men involved in a general accusation of forgery and

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

429

falsehood, or of a blameworthy and inexcusable assumption
of a knowledge and piety which they did not possess. Be-
sides, the men who wrote most of the Old Testament were
not the mean and unknown and uneducated men of their
day and generation. One author alone of all the writers of
the Old Testament disclaims any special preparation for his
work, except the call of God. Only two authors of books of
the New Testament can possibly be charged with a lack of
literary education; yet those two who wrote three of the
smallest letters had been specially trained by the Lord Him-
self. But all the other authors, both of the Old Testament
and of the New, had the finest education which the times
afforded. God chose the brightest and the best to do His
work of providing a divine library for the world of men in
all time and in every land. Egypt furnished the adopted son
of Pharaoh’s daughter, trained in all the wisdom of that
land of letters and arts, to be the mediator of the old cove-
nant and the founder of the Israelitish government and reli-
gion. Assyria bowed before the threats of Jonah. Daniel was
taught the letters and science of the Babylonians; and Mor-
decai, Ezra and Nehemiah were prime ministers of the
kings of Persia. Isaiah and Jeremiah directed the policy of
Judah. And what shall one say of Samuel, the king-maker,
and of David, the sweet singer of Israel, and of Solomon
in all his glory? And how can we depreciate John, the be-
loved, and Paul, the matchless proclaimer of the mysteries
of God ? And where in all history and literature can we find
a body of writers who make the burden of their themes the
highest thoughts and noblest deeds that ever entered the
mind of man? Men of such character and intellect and high
sense of sin and reverence for God can be safely trusted not
to have been false in the solemn and reverent statements
which they have made about the will of God and the duty
of man.

Besides, we are met by the astounding and inexplicable
fact, that Israelites and Christians alike, scribes, rabbis,
Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, Calvin, Melancthon, Heng-

43°

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

stenberg and scores of other scholars as learned and brilliant
as any whom the critics can muster, have recognized these
records as true and trustworthy.

And there are five great items of evidence that are existing
today and which nobody can deny or fail to recognize which
support the trustworthiness of the Bible. The first is the
Jews. The second is the Christian Church. The third is the
Bible itself. The fourth is the appeal which the Bible still
makes to the millions of believers. And the fifth is the effect
which ft has produced and still produces on the peoples who
have accepted the Bible and have tried to obey its precepts,
to fear its God, and to follow in the footsteps of the strong
Son of God whom it portrays.

When, then, we come to investigate these literary pro-
ducts, let us admit at least that we are coming in contact with
the thoughts and descriptions of men who have never been
surpassed in the exaltation of their ideals and in their fitness
for their task. And, if we are Christians, let us not hesitate
to adopt as true to fact the accounts of miracles and the
prediction of future events, inasmuch as the whole Christian
system is itself a miracle from the creation to the constitu-
tion of the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth
righteousness.

Of course, we freely admit that, if the critics could prove
that the books of the Old Testament are unreliable, we
would be obliged to revise our views of it. But, we do not
know of any valid proofs the critics have to offer. In our
judgment the religions outside the Bible present no litera-
ture that can rival that of the Old Testament merely as
literature; and when it comes to religion, they fail to satisfy
us on the main points of what God is and what He requires
of man. Further, the history of all other nations outside of
Israel shows us that they were without the knowledge of the
true God, except as they had derived this knowledge from
Israel itself. Besides, in our opinion, the history of Egypt,
Assyria, Babylon and Persia, so far as it is known, corrobo-

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

43 1

rates and harmonizes with the facts recorded on the sacred
pages of the Bible.

Again, in the second place, not merely is the theory of the
critics out of harmony with the prima facie evidence of the
Scriptures themselves and, also, entirely unsupported by com-
parative religion and history ; it is contrary, also, to the facts
as revealed in the language in which the books of the Old
Testament are written. This I have sufficiently and, I think,
conclusively shown in three articles already published in this
Review. In the first of these,15 I endeavored to show that the
use of Aramaisms in the Old Testament literature corresponds
exactly to what we would have expected, if the records are
true. In the second,16 I answered the objections to the prima
facie and traditional account of the origin and age of the
Old Testament documents so far as these are affected by the
alleged presence in some of them of so-called New Hebrew
words. In the third,17 I took under consideration all the
Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian and other foreign words and
found that their occurrence in the literature of the Old
Testament is such as we would have found only if that lit-
erature is historically correct as to the time and place of
its origin.

In the third place, my readers must notice, that the canoni-
cal authority of a book of the Bible does not depend upon
the time when all the books were collected into one. God
made the books canonical, not man. But, neither does the
canonical authority of a book depend upon the time at which
it was acknowledged as such by the church at large. The
failure of the Jewish church until a.d. 90 to acknowledge
finally that Ezekiel and Ecclesiastes were canonical would
not prove that they had not been a part of the Canon until
that time. Much less would it show that these books had not
been written before the first century a.d.

15 “Aramaisms in the Old Testament” (Vol. XXIII, pp. 234-266).

16 “Evidence in Hebrew Diction for the Dates of Documents” (Vol.
XXV, pp. 353-88).

17 “Foreign Words in the Old Testament as an Evidence of Histo-
ricity” (Vol. XXVI, pp. 177-247).

432

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

In the fourth place, let me refer my readers to my Scientific
Investigation of the Old Testament 18 and my articles on the
Psalms in this Review19 for an answer to the assertions of
the critics that several books of the Old Testament were
written after the time of Ezra.

In the fifth place, the term “law” was used in two senses:
to denote the whole rule of faith and life, i.e., the whole
Canon of the Old Testament; and, also, in a narrower sense
of the books of Moses alone. This double sense and use of
the word “law” is true, also, of the words “prophets” and
“scriptures.” Since, therefore, every one of these was em-
ployed at times to denote a part and at times to denote the
whole of the Old Testament, it is hard to see how the men-
tion of one of them alone should have anything to do with
the question of their order when taken together; much less
how it could show which was written first and which last.

In the sixth place, we must remember that books consist-
ing of folios, as ours do, did not come into existence until
the second century a.d. Before that time, they were written
on rolls (hence the word “volume”), or tablets, and every
man’s collection might be arranged by himself into what
divisions and order he saw fit. This will be apparent from
the evidence given under the next section.

Lastly, in proof that the order and divisions of the books
were never fixed by law and that the age and authorship
did not necessarily determine the position of a book in the
Canon, but that they were arranged to suit the convenience
or the whim of the owners or users, I present the evidence
found in the ancient documents bearing on the case.20

I am aware that the fact that the Law of Moses always is
put first is likely to seem to be against this statement. But

18 A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (The Sunday
School Times Co., 1926).

19 “The Headings of the Psalms” (Vol. XXIV, pp. 1-37, 353-395).

20 Most of the evidence from Greek and (Latin sources given below
will be found in my article, “The Book of Daniel and the Canon,” in this
Review, Vol. XIII, pp. 352-408. In that article the lists of Jerome were
inadvertently omitted.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

433

it is not, for the good and sufficient reason that frequency of
use as well as the fact that its contents are the natural and
preliminary requirement for a correct understanding of all
the other literature and history render its right to the first
place a necessity for any principle of division. We shall find,
however, that the order of books in this division is not
always the same.

The order of the books in the Pentateuch is not mentioned
in the Old or New Testaments, though the references to
events recorded in Exodus succeed those mentioned in
Genesis in the various psalms where they occur as they do in
the speech of Stephen and in the eleventh chapter of He-
brews. No reference to any one of the five books by name
and no order of the books occurs in any place until after
the time of Christ.

It is a fact not dwelt upon by the critics that MS 124 of
Kennicott gives the order of the books of the Law as Gene-
sis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Numbers; and that
the list of Melito and that of Leontius give the order as
Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy. This
is especially noteworthy in the case of Melito, who was
bishop of Sardis in a.d. 180 and gives the earliest complete
list of the books of the Old Testament that we possess; and
further, because he expressly says that when he came East
“he learned accurately the books of the Old Testament”
and sent a list of the books to Onesimus who had “de-
sired to have an accurate statement of the ancient books,
as regards their number and their order.” Thus, it is evident,
that the order of the books of the Pentateuch was not fixed,
seeing that, counting the usual order, there are three orders
known from ancient documents.

The fact that both the Hebrew and Aramaic recensions
of the Samaritan Pentateuch have the common order is, we
think, decidedly in favor of its being the most original. For,
whether the Samaritans received their copy of the Penta-
teuch in the time of the Assyrians21 (seventh century b.c.)

21 Cf. 2 Kgs. xviii.

434

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

or in the time of Sanballat22 (fifth century b.c.), it repre-
sents its condition centuries before any other source of
information.

Ben Sira, in his great work Ecclesiasticus, speaks many
times of the T ora, or Law ; but he does not give the order of
the books, nor even refer to a five-fold division of them. He
cites his heroes of Israel in chronological order without
regard to where they are described. His order of citation is,
for the books outside the Law, Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Kings, Isaiah and Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job
(whom he calls a prophet), the Twelve (without defining
who they were)23 and Nehemiah. It is to be noted that he
makes the order of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Job and the XII.

In the prologue to the translation of Ecclesiasticus into
Greek, made by Ben Sira’s grandson about 130 b.c., the
latter three times speaks of three divisions of the Old Testa-
ment, as follows : the first division he three times calls “the
Law”; the second division, three times, “the Prophets”;
and the third division, first, “the other books which follow
them”; secondly, “the other ancestral books”; thirdly, “the
rest of the books.” It is to be noticed that he does not give
the name of anyone of the books, nor the number in any
division, nor, the order, nor the time nor place of composi-
tion, nor, the time when they had been acknowledged as part
of the Canon, nor why.

The First Book of Maccabees represents Mattathias, the
father of the Maccabees as making a speech in 169 b.c., in
which he calls “to remembrance the acts which their father
did in their time.” In his speech (ii. 49-61) he mentions in
order the deeds of Abraham, Joseph, Phinehas, Joshua,
Caleb, David, Elijah, Ananias, Azarias, Misael and Daniel.

22 Cf. Nehemiah (passim).

23 At this time, Jonah may have been a part of the book of Kings; or
Zechariah and Malachi may have been counted as one; or Daniel may
have been included among the Twelve, as the use of the word comforted
(oSnn, literally, to cause to dream, or “see dreams”) might indicate.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

435

It will be noted, that he follows the chronological order of
the canonical books and that he seems to consider the ac-
counts of the three children and of Daniel just as reliable as
what is said about Abraham, David and Elias.

The Second Book of Maccabees, written in 124 b.c., tells
of “the records and commentaries of Nehemiah and how,
founding a library, he gathered together the books concerning
the kings and the prophets and those of David and epistles
of kings concerning votive offerings” (ii. 13). The Syriac
translation says that he “collected and arranged in order
these books.” Unfortunately, the author of this book does
not state what this order was nor what books were included
in the various divisions. Counting the Law, which all of
these divisions cite, this would make five divisions in all in
the collection of Nehemiah : his books of “Kings” would
include Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, and probably
Chronicles, Esther and Ezra. “David” would probably be
the Book of Psalms. “Prophets” might embrace Job and
Daniel, so that Solomon’s three books alone would be
omitted from this collection.

Philo of Alexandria (1st cty. a.d.) says in his De Vita Con-
templativa that the Therapeutae received “the Law and the
oracles uttered by the prophets and the hymns and other
(writings) by which knowledge and piety are augmented
and perfected.” Here are three, or possibly four, divisions,
but no indication of the books in each division, nor of the
order in which they were arranged, nor of their number, or
names. The phrase, “the other” (writings, or books, or
poems) by which “knowledge and piety are augmented and
perfected” probably were the same as are meant by Josephus
when he says, after mentioning the Law and the thirteen
books of the Prophets, that the remaining four books contain
“hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.”

In Luke xxiv. 44 the Lord speaks of those things that
were written concerning Him “in the Law of Moses and in
the Prophets and in the Psalms.” There is no doubt from
this statement that the Psalms might be put in a division

436

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

separate from the Law, or the Prophets. Nevertheless, there
is no warrant elsewhere for supposing that “Psalms” was
thought to be a suitable designation for a division containing
Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles and Daniel. The word
“Law” might include and often did include the prophets and
all the other sacred literature, since it was all looked upon
as canonical, that is, as a rule, or law, of faith and life. The
word “Prophets” might be used for all the Old Testament
and, as a matter of fact, was so used; for the Law was writ-
ten by Moses, the greatest of the prophets, and it was a
principle of the Jews that a book to be canonical had to have
been composed by, or sanctioned by, a prophet. But, the
word “Psalms” is never elsewhere used for the whole divi-
sion; nor, anywhere else but here, as a possible heading of a
third division. But, in view of the fact that Philo and Jose-
phus use the synonym “Hymns” to denote the third divi-
sion, let us wave this evidence aside as being hyper-critical.
Remember, however, that neither Philo nor Josephus classed
Esther, Ezra, Chronicles or Daniel under the heading
“Hymns.” Let us remember, also, that both Ben Sira expressly
and Josephus by implication put Job among the Prophets
and that the Lord speaks of “Daniel the prophet” and Jose-
phus calls him the greatest of the prophets. The common-
sense view, then, seems to be, that by “the Psalms” the Lord
meant the same as we do when we use the designation. He
probably singled them out from the “other writings,” be-
cause they of all the books of the Old Testament say the most
concerning Him and His kingdom. In conclusion, let it be
noted, that this passage in Luke, while recognizing three
divisions, does not give the order nor the number of the
books in anyone of the divisions; nor does it mention the
name of any book, except the Psalms.

In Luke xxiv. 27, we read that the Lord, “beginning from
Moses and out of all the Prophets expounded in all the
Scriptures the things concerning himself.” As “all the Scrip-
tures” evidently means the whole Old Testament, it is most
natural to suppose that “Law and Prophets” here denotes the

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

437

same; though it is fair to grant, that there is a possibility
that other books in a third division may have been in the mind
of the writer. However that may be, in John i. 45 we find
Nathanael saying that Jesus of Nazareth was “he of whom
Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write,” mentioning
only two divisions, Neither number, order, nor names of
books are given in these two passages.

In Mt. xxiv. 15 a prediction is cited by the Lord as having
been “spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” In Mt. xiii. 55, the
78th Psalm which in the heading is called “a maschil of
Asaph” is said by Matthew to have been spoken by “a
prophet.” In Acts ii. 29-36 David, as author of the noth
Psalm, is by Peter called a “prophet.” In Mt. iii. 3, Isaiah;
in Mt. xii. 39, Jonah; in Acts ii. 16, Joel; and in Mt. xxvii.
9, Jeremiah are respectively called “the prophet.” From these
passages, we see that Jesus and the Apostles, Matthew and
Peter, designate Daniel, David and Asaph as “prophets,”
and this in formal addresses where they must have known
that their audiences agreed with them in their use of the
designation. This should teach us all to be careful about
accepting, without any direct evidence in its favor, the asser-
tion of the critics that the Prophetical, or second, division of
the Old Testament Canon was closed about 200 b.c. For we
see that writers, whose works are in what later constituted
for the Jews the Hagiographa, or third part of the Old
Testament, were cited in the first century a.d. as prophets
just in the same manner as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, and
Jonah; and that the whole Old Testament was designated
by Luke and by Nathanael (on the authority of John) as
the Law and the Prophets.

This caution appears to be more necessary, when we come
to consider the testimony of Josephus, our other great wit-
ness from the first century a.d. Josephus says, “We have only
twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past
times, which are justly believed to be divine; and of them
five belong to Moses . . . but as to the time from the death
of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who

438 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

reigned after Xerxes (i.e., from 466 to 424 b.c.), the
prophets, who came after Moses, wrote down what was
done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four
books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct
of human life. It is true, our history has been written since
Artaxerxes, very particularly, but hath not been esteemed
of like authority with the former by our forefathers, because
there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since
that time ; and how firmly we have given credit to those books
of our own nation is evident by what we do ; for during so
many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as
either to add anything to them or take anything from
them.”24

1. It will be seen that Josephus states expressly that the
Jews of his time had only twenty-two books “justly believed
to be divine.” Of these, five constituted the Law, or first
division. The four in the third division are said to “contain
hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.”
These are probably the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and
the Song of Songs. The thirteen books of the Prophets, or
second division, would be Joshua, Judges (including Ruth),
Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Job,
Isaiah, Jeremiah (including Lamentations), Ezekiel, Daniel
and the Twelve Minor Prophets (all in one volume).

2. He limits the time in which the authors of the Prophe-
tical Books lived by the year 424 b.c. when Artaxerxes I
died.

3. He further limits the time at which the last of the Old
Testament books was written by the “exact succession of
the prophets,” i.e., by the time of Malachi.

The greatest list from the second century a.d. is that of
Melito, bishop of Sardis about a.d. 175 in his “catalogue of
the books of the Old Testament which it is necessary to
quote.” We have two copies of this catalogue, one preserved
in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius;25 the other, in the

24 Contra Apion, I. 8.

25 IV. 26.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

439

Syriac Fragments of Cureton. The list of books given by
Melito in the Greek recension is as follows: Genesis, Exo-
dus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, five books, Jesus
Nave, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles,
the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon (which also
is Wisdom), Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets;
Isaiah, Jeremiah, the XII, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. The
Syriac recension agrees with this, except that it speaks of
“the book of Judges and Ruth,” “the book of four Kings,”
“the book of two Chronicles.”

Further, Melito, in his letter to Onesimus from which this
list is taken, says in the former part of the letter : “Melito to
his brother Onesimus, Greetings ; since thou hast often, in
thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts
made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour
and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have
an accurate statement of the ancient books, as regards their
number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the
task. . . . Accordingly, when I went East and came to the
place where these things were preached and done, I learned
accurately the books of the Old Testament and sent them to
thee as written below.”

Notice, that this is the first attempt known to give the
books of the Old Testament in their number and order.
Notice, further, that MelitO' says that he endeavored “to
make an accurate statement of the ancient books as regards
their number and order.” Again, he says that he went to the
East, to the place where these things (recorded in the Old
Testament books) were preached and done; and that he
learned accurately the books of the Old Testament and sent
them to Onesimus as given in the list.

Lastly, notice that this list contains at least four divisions :
Law, Historical Books, Poetical Books and Prophetical
Books, Esdras being counted as among the Prophets. If,
however, we separate Esdras from the Prophets, it would be
all alone in a fifth division. Job is placed among the Poetical
books; Ruth and Chronicles, among the Historical; Daniel

440

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and perhaps Esdras among the Prophetical. Numbers pre-
cedes Leviticus, and the order of the Prophets is Isaiah,
Jeremiah, the XII, Daniel and Ezekiel.

The next witness we shall produce is Origen, who died in
a.d. 254. He was the greatest critical scholar of the ancient
Greek Church and certainly one of the most conversant with
Hebrew. His list of the books in the Hebrew Bible is as fol-
lows: “Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., Deut., Joshua, Judges and
Ruth (in one), Kings a-d, Chronicles a-b, Esdras a-b, Book
of Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Song of
Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Lamentations and the Epistle
in one, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Esther, and besides these is the
Maccabees.” Several features of this list are specifically
important :

1. He certainly places Daniel among the Prophets and
perhaps Job and Esther.

2. He seems to agree with Josephus in having four books
of poetry, though he puts them into a different place.

3. He has no division corresponding to the Hagiographa,
since he puts Ruth in with Judges and Chronicles and Ezra-
Nehemiah (1 &2 Esdras) along with the Former Prophets,
or Historical works.

4. He adds Lamentations to Jeremiah, instead of putting
it among the Hagiographa, or Megilloth.

5. Job and Esther, also, seem to be classed as Prophets
instead of being put among the Hagiographa.

6. In short, he recognizes neither the divisions, nor the
order, of books as given in any known Jewish list, or manu-
script ; yet, it is hard to see, how he can have been ignorant
of the divisions and order existent among the Hebrews of
his time, especially if these had been fixed by the authority
of the Jewish Church.

Next, let us look at the testimony of Jerome, the greatest
scholar of the early Latin Church and the author of the
Latin Vulgate. Jerome wrote these lists about a.d. 400; but
we know that he prepared himself for his work of trans-
lating by going to Palestine and studying Hebrew with the

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

441

best Hebrew scholars of his time. He has left us two lists.
The first, in the letter to Paulinus, is as follows: Gen., Ex.,
Lev., Num., Deut., five books = Pentateuch; Joib, Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel,
David, Solomon, Esther, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah.

The second list, in the so-called Prologus Galeatus, is as
follows: I. (Gen., Ex.), Lev., Num., Deut. = Books of
Moses = Thora, Law; II. Joshua, Judges-Ruth, Samuel,
Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the XII; III. Job, David,
Solomon (Prov., Koheleth, Song), Daniel, Chronicles,
Ezra, Esther — 22 books; IV. Apocrypha: Wisdom of Solo-
mon, Jesus ben Sirach, Judith, Tobias and Pastor, 1 Macca-
bees, 2 Maccabees.

Regarding these two lists the following points are to be
noted :

1. The first list has five divisions, to wit: The Law (5
books); 6 Historical Books; 16 Prophetical Books; 2 (or
by counting 3 for Solomon, 4) Poetical Books; and lastly
3 or 4 Historical Books. In the second list there are four
divisions counting the Apocrypha.

2. Neither list agrees with Baba Bathra.

3. In the first list Job heads the second division: in the
second list it heads the third.

4. In both lists Ruth follows Judges.

5. In the first list the order of Prophets is: The Twelve,
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. In the second list it is:
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve.

6. The fact that Daniel follows Ezekiel in the first list
indicates that it is classed with the Prophets. Otherwise it
must be regarded as standing by itself or grouped with the
Poetical Books (David and Solomon). In the second list
Daniel follows the Poetical Books.

7. Ecclesiastes and the Song are both ascribed to Solomon.

8. In both lists, Jerome evidently included Lamentations
under Jeremiah.

442

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

The testimony of the four great Greek Uncials — Vaticanus
(B), Alexandrinus (A), Sinaiticus (S) and Basiliano-
Venetus (B-V) — of the fourth and fifth centuries a.d. is
noteworthy :

1. All place Joshua immediately after Deuteronomy.

2. Judges and Ruth follow, but the Basiliano-Venetus re-
verses the order.

3. Next come Kings followed by Chronicles, but S re-
verses the order.

4. B, S and B-V put Esdras a & b next ; but A puts them
between Judith and Maccabees.

5. In S and B-V, Esdras b is followed by Esther; but in
B and A, it is put after the Prophetical and before the
Poetical Books.

6. The order of the Poetical Books may be represented in
a table as follows :

B. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song, Job.

S. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song, Sirach, Job.

A. Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song.

B-V. Psalms (?), Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song,
Sirach.

7. In all the MSS., the order of the Minor Prophets is
the same, except that in B-V, Micah is placed after Jonah.

8. In all the MSS., Isaiah is put at the beginning of the
list of Prophets and is always followed by Jeremiah.

9. Baruch is omitted from S, but occurs in the others
immediately after Jeremiah.

10. In B, A and B-V, the list of Prophets ends with
Ezekiel, Daniel.

When we recall that the version of the Law and the
Prophets was certainly made before the Prologue to Ecclesi-
asticus was written (i.e., before 130 b.c.), it seems clear that
the translator would have followed the divisions and order
of books in the original, if these had already been fixed by
the authorities of the Jews. For the sake of convenience in
the services of the temple and synagogues, the Jews after-
wards put together the Prophets from which selections were

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

443

read every Sabbath day; but there was no necessity for the
Christians to make a fixed arrangement, since they made a
like use of all the Scriptures in their services and esteemed
them all alike. The Greek, Aramaic, Syriac and Latin ver-
sions from the Hebrew were all made by scholars who knew
thoroughly the Hebrew language and laws ; and yet, in none
of these is there the slightest inkling that the divisions
of the Old Testament were fixed by law when they were
made, nor that the books were to be placed in a certain fixed
order.

The testimony of the lists found in the works of the old
Greek and Latin Fathers and in the decrees of the early
Councils corroborates what we have just said with regard
to the manuscripts of the Septuagint. From these lists we
conclude :

1. That there were no fixed divisions recognized through-
out the Church Universal, nor even in any particular Church.
The divisions range from two to seven, four or five being
the most common.

2. Melito and Leontius give the order for the Pentateuch
as Gen., Ex., Num., Lev., Deut.

3. In the order for the other divisions no two MSS. are
exactly alike.

4. They all place Daniel among the Prophets.

5. Job is found in 13 different places in 32 lists, ranging
from immediately after Joshua to the last but one of all the
books. It is put among the Former Prophets, Latter Proph-
ets, the Poetical Books, the Historical Books, the Apocryphal
Books, and sometimes apparently in a class by itself.

6. It is passing strange that no one of these great writers
should ever apparently have heard of a fixed order and of
the three fixed divisions alleged by modern critics to have
been fixed among the Jews two centuries before the time of
Christ.

We shall next consider the testimony of the Syriac manu-
scripts. It is generally held that the Peshitto Version was
made about a.d. 200. The evidence presented in the accounts

444

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

of the early bishops of the Syrians edited by Professor
Sachau of Berlin and published by the Prussian Academy27
would favor an earlier date for this translation. But what-
ever its date, there is no doubt that it was made directly from
the Hebrew text. We would expect it, then, to give the order
and divisions of the books found in the Hebrew original
from which it was translated, if the order and divisions had
been fixed before the version was made. That this was not
the case is shown conclusively by the following evidence
which I have gleaned from the catalogues of the libraries of
Oxford, Cambridge, the British Museum, and elsewhere.

1. Ebed Jesu:28 Law, Josh., Jud., Sam., Kings, Chr.,
Ruth, Pss., Song, Ecclus., Great Wisdom, Job, Is., Hos.,
Joel, Amos, Obad., Jonah, Mic., Na., Hab., Zeph., Hag.,
Zech., Mai., Jer., Ek., Dan., Judith, Est., Sus., Ezra, and
Dan. the Less, and the Letter of Baruch, and the book of
the Traditions of the Elders and that of Josephus the Writer.
The Proverbs and Tales of the Sons of Samona and the
books again of Macc. (3) and the Tale of Herod the King
and the Book of the Second Destruction of Jerusalem
through Titus, and the Book of Asyath the wife of the up-
right Joseph, the son of Jacob, and the Book of Tobias and
Tobit the righteous Israelites.

2. Bar Hebraeus: (Cambridge Add. 2009) Law, Jos.,
Jud., Sam., Pss., Kings, Ez., Prov., Ecclus, Ecc., Song,
Wisdom, Ruth, Sus., Job, Is., XII, Jer., Ek., Dan., Bel and
the Dragon, id. Brit. Mus. XLV.

3. Brit. Mus. MSS. V, VI, VII : Law, Jos., Jud., Sam.,
Kings, Wisdom, Koh., Ru., Song, Ecclus, Job, Is., XII, Jer.,
Lam., Ek., Dan., Bel and the Dragon.

4. Bodleian, I (year 1627) : Law, Job, Josh., Jud., Sam.,
Kings, Chron., Prov., Ecc., Song, Great Wisdom, Ru., Sus.,
Is., XII, Jer., 1 & 2 Bar., Ep. Jer., Ek., Dan., Bel and the
Dragon, Est., Judith, Ezra, Ecclus, 4 books of Macc., Es-
dras, Tobith.

2,7 Kgl. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. for 1919.
2S According to Assemani (Cat. III. 5).

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

445

5. Bodleian, II: Same as last as far as Susanna; then
Little book of Daniel, Est., Judith, Ezra, Ecclus, 4 of Macc.,
Esd. and Tobith, Is., XII, Jer., Lam., Ep. of Baruch, Ep.
Jer., Ek., Dan., Bel and the Dragon.

6. British Mus., I: Same as Bodl. I except that 1st and
2nd Baruch are put at the end of all.

7. Brit. Mus., XVI : has the order Josh., Jud., Sam.,
Kings, Prov., Ecclus, Koh., Ru., Song, the righteous Job.

8. Cambridge, Oo 1. 7; Is., XII, Jer., Lam., Bar., Ek.,
Dan., Song of the Three Children, Sus., Bel and Dragon.

9. Cambridge, Oo 1. 10: Same as No. 7 above except be-
gins with Judges.

10. Cambridge, Add. 1963: Same as No. 7 as far as
Prov. ; then Koh., Ru., Song, Ecclus., Job.

11. Cambridge, Add 1969 : Jos., Jud., Ruth, Sam., Kings,
Prov., Song, Ecclus, Job.

12. Cambridge, Buchanan MS : Pent., Job, Jos., Jud.,
Sam., Pss., Kings, Chron., Prov., Koh., Song, Wisdom,
Is., Jer., Lam., 1 & 2 Bar., Ep. Jer., Ek., XII, Dan., Bel
and Dragon, Ruth, Sus., Est., Judith, Ezra, Ecclus., 4 books
of Macc., 1st Esd., Tobit.

13. Wilson MS. A manuscript in my possession begins
with Is. xliii. 10 and continues : XII, (Hos., Joel, Amos, Ob.,
Jon., Mi., etc.), Jer., Lam., Prayer of Jer., Ezek.

14. Codex Florentinus has the order Lev., Num., Deut.,
Jos., Jud., Sam., Kings, Chron., Psalms.

15. Cambridge LI. 2. 4 has the order: Is., XII, Jer., Lam.,
Ek., Dan., Song of Three Children, Bel and Dragon.

Codex Ambrosianus (at Milan) : Pent., Job, Jos., Jud.,
Sam., Pss., Kings, Prov., Wisdom, Koh., Song, Is., Jer.,
Lam., Ep. Jer., 1 & 2 Bar., Ek., XII, Dan., Bel and Dragon,
Ru., Sus., Est., Judith, Ecclus, Chr., Apoc. of Baruch, 1st
Esd. (= 4th in Latin), Ezra, 5 books of Macc.

1. It will be seen that all of these documents put Daniel
among the Prophets.

2. That most of the Jacobite MSS. put Job immediately
after the Pentateuch.

446 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

3. That three of the most important witnesses — the Cam-
bridge Buchanan MS., the Ambrosian Codex, and Bar
Hebraeus — put the Psalms between Samuel and Kings.

4. That Isaiah is always placed first among the Prophets
and that it is followed commonly by the XII.

5. That Chronicles is placed by some of the best wit-
nesses immediately after Kings.

6. That the Ambrosian and Buchanan Manuscripts put all
the books about women together and others have two or
more together.

7. That there is no evidence outside the Pentateuch of
any fixed division or order of books, such as would indicate
that the version was made from a Hebrew Bible with fixed
divisions and a definite order.

The next item of evidence, which we shall consider, is the
testimony of Baba Bathra.29 This tract is an extra-canonical
part of the Mishna, written by some unknown author at an un-
known date, somewhere between a.d. 200 and 850. 30 It con-
tains among other matters a list of the Prophets and Hagio-
grapha and a statement as to who wrote the books of the Old
Testament. The list is as follows: “The Rabbis have taught
the order of succession in the books of the Prophets runs
thus: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Isaiah and the Twelve. The order of succession in the Hagio-
grapha is: Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job and Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, and Lamentations, Daniel
and the Book of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles.” The state-
ment about the authors is : “Moses wrote his own book and
the chapter of Balaam and Job, Joshua wrote his own book
and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch, Samuel wrote
his own book and also Judges and Ruth. David wrote the
Book of Psalms through the ten elders Adam, Melchisedek,
Abraham, Moses, Heman, Juduthun, Asaph and the three
sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote his own book, as also the
Kings and the Lamentations. Hezekiah and his company

29 14 b.

30 Margoliouth puts it at the latter date.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

447

wrote the books of Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles and Ecclesi-
astes. The men of the Great Synagogue wrote Ezekiel, the
twelve Minor Prophets, the book of Daniel and the book
of Esther, Ezra wrote his own book a genealogy which
belongs to the Chronicles.”

1. It will be remarked that these two citations are from
the same section of Baba Bathra. They are presumably by
the same author and from the same time. But the author is
not known nor the time specified.

2. The critics generally deny almost every statement of
the second citation, thus impeaching the reliability of their
witness as to the veracity of the first citation. Thus, they
deny even the existence of the Great Synagogue. They deem
absurd the authorship of Psalms by Adam, Melchisedek,
et al. They reject the statement that Moses wrote Job, and
that Hezekiah and his companions wrote Canticles and
Ecclesiastes. Why, then, should they accept the statement as
to the order of the books ?

3. Especially noteworthy is it that there is no evidence
to prove that the Jews in general followed this alleged teach-
ing of the Rabbins with regard to the third division of the
Old Testament; and it was certainly not considered obli-
gatory with regard even to the second, inasmuch as about
half of the manuscripts of Kennicott, which give the order
of the Prophets, differ from the order given in Baba Bathra.
If this section of Baba Bathra had been thought by the Jew-
ish scribes to be genuine and binding, they would probably
all have followed this order. The order of the books in the
MSS. of Kennicott will bear out this statement. An exami-
nation of the lists of books given by him in his Vetns Testa-
mentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus, Vol. II, shows,
in fact, that only 23 out of 40 lists which give all
the books have the order of Baba Bathra both for the Penta-
teuch and the Prophets and that only two (Nos. 228 and
252) agree with Baba Bathra in the order of the books of the
third division. Fourteen of the MSS. have in the Prophets
the order Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. The orders of books in

44§

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

the Hagiographa in the 40 MSS. are almost as numerous
as the MSS., making for the whole Old Testament 39 dif-
ferent orders out of a possible 40.

The last item of evidence to be now considered is the
allegation that the closing of the second part of the present
Old Testament Canon about 200 b.c. is proved by the fact
that all of the Haftaroth, or lessons from the Prophets to
be read on the Sabbath days, have been selected from the
eight books now constituting the Prophets. The critics argue
from this present content of the second part, as if it were
always the same as now; and hence that Daniel was never
among the Prophets. This is a stupendous non sequitur.
For first, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the
selections of the Scriptures outside the Law to be read every
Sabbath day was fixed until long after the time of Christ.
Wildeboer affirms that “the annual cycle was not adopted
universally till the fourteenth century a.d.”31 Zunz and
Konig say that Haftaroth were read from the time of the
Maccabees on; and certainly, Luke iv. 17 and Acts xiii. 15
show that they were read in the first century a.d. But the pas-
sage in Acts speaks merely of “the reading of the Law and
the Prophets” on the Sabbath day; and the selection which
the Lord is said in Luke iv. 17 to have read is not found
among the selections now read by the Jews. Thus, Bloch32
finds only two references to the Haptaroth in the Talmud.33
No copy of these selections is certainly of earlier date than
the twelfth or thirteenth century. Biichler34 mentions 62
Haptaroth which were used by the early Jews and Karaites,
but are not among the ones now in use. No one knows that
the early Jews did not have selections from Daniel.

2. The principles upon which the selections now in use
were chosen are clearly shown in the prayers which precede
the reading of them in the Synagogue. These prayers, or

31 Canon, p. 8.

32 Studien sur Geschichte der Sammlung der althcbrdischen Literatur,
P- 5 7-

33 Megilla, 24a, 25a.

34 Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. VI.

THE RULE OF FAITH AND LIFE

449

blessings, show that the selections were meant to exalt the
glories and privileges of the people of Israel. They turn
about the words “Jehovah our God,” Law, service, temple,
Sabbath, Zion, Israel, Moses, David, Elijah, etc. They are
and were meant to be, extremely nationalistic rather than
universalistic, exclusive of the rights of the Gentiles rather
than embracing all men in the promises to Adam and Abra-
ham. An argument can be made from them as to the narrow
views of the mediaeval Jews who determined the present
selection, but not as to the age of a Biblical document written
more than a thousand years before they were determined.

General Conclusions

Summing up the evidence of the Jews of the early centuries
up to a.d. 400, we conclude that the Law was closed as
early as the time of Ezra at the latest, but that the other
testimony including Ecclesiasticus, Jesus in Matthew and
Luke, Josephus, Melito, Origen and the Greek and Syriac
versions and lists and the Haptaroth is all in favor of a
varying content and order and number of books for the
other divisions of the Old Testament; that in the complete
Hebrew MSS. listed by Kennicott the order and number of
books in the Law is always the same, but that in the Proph-
ets, while the number is the same, there are at least three
orders; that in these same MSS., the order is the same as
that in Baba Bathra in only two cases, making 39 orders in
all out of a possible 40; that the MSS. in Syriac and in the
Greek and its versions differ not merely from every known
Hebrew original but also differ among themselves, so that
no two are exactly alike in order or division and many
of them not even in numbers; that Matthew and Josephus
and Melito and the Syriac and Greek versions and one of
the lists of Jerome all put Daniel among the prophets;
that Ecclesiasticus and Josephus and many of the best of the
Syriac MSS. put Job and Lamentations among the prophets,
immediately after the Pentateuch; that the order of books
in Melito, the oldest of the witnesses to give a list of the

450

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

books in order, puts Numbers before Leviticus; and that
Ecclesiasticus, 2 Maccabees, the New Testament, Melito
and Origen give from two to four different divisions, and
the Greek and Latin sources from two to seven. We con-
clude, then, that the theory of the critics as to the three-fold
divisions of the Old Testament and all the conclusions based
upon the assumption of the same are without foundation in
fact and evidence. The prima facie evidence of the books
themselves and the traditional view of the Jews and of all
the Christian Churches stand confirmed by the evidence in
our possession ; and thus, another attack upon the historicity
of the Old Testament Scriptures should be eliminated from
further serious consideration.

Princeton. R. D. Wilson.

REVIEWS OF

RECENT LITERATURE

EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY

The Old Latin Texts of the Heptateuch. By Rev. A. V. Billen, M.A.,
D.D., (Oxon.), Ph.D. (London), Headmaster of Ellesmere Col-
lege, Shropshire, formerly Scholar of University College, Oxford.
Cambridge, at the University Press, 1927, 8vo, pp. 234.

Dr. Billen has given us in the present volume the results of his
studies of three well-known texts of the Old Latin Heptateuch : the
Lyons Manuscript, the Munich Fragments of the Pentateuch, and the
Wurzburg Palimpsest. The four chapters deal with the following sub-
jects; The Vocabulary of the Old Latin Heptateuch; The Relations
of the MSS to the Quotations in the Fathers ; The Greek Text Under-
lying the Old Latin Version; The Style of the MSS and their Place
in the Old Latin Version. A rather lengthy List of Noteworthy Words
in the Old Latin Heptateuch completes the volume.

Dr. Billen believes that these MSS are “apparently all of the fifth or
sixth century, but of course represent Latin texts which were current
before the Vulgate gained general acceptance in the West, that is to
say rather in the fourth or (as will be shown in the case of one of
them) in the third century a.d.” (p. 1). Since this study is essentially
a study of vocabulary, Dr. Billen has made extensive use of “word
lists,” both those already provided by Prof. Sanday and Prof. Burkitt,
and others which he has made himself. “Such lists,” he tells us, “have
been made for use in the present work for each of the Old Latin MSS,
and for the Heptateuch quotations of some of the Fathers; and on
account of the extreme importance of Cyprian the list of words in his
case was made for all his Biblical quotations and not for those from
the Heptateuch only” (p. 3). The terms “African,” “Cyprianic,” and
“primitive” are used as synonymous, while “late” and “European” are
treated as nearly equivalent.

It is to be regretted that the problem is such a complicated one that
satisfactory results could hardly be expected. The reader will be im-
pressed with the fact that the text of the Itala early fell into such
“inextricable confusion” (Schaff) that as Jerome said each codex was
practically a law unto itself (tot sunt exemplaria paene quot codices).
Regarding the Lyons MS, we are told by Dr. Billen that it “is far
from homogeneous in its vocabulary and diction” (p. 7), that “not only
the MS as a whole, but even two of the separate books (Lev. and
Deut.) cannot be regarded as homogeneous throughout” (p. 13), and
finally that “the general impression received in passing from one book
of the MS to another is that the difference in the texts is as great as
that which exists between any two of the Old Latin authorities”
(pp. 15 f.).

452

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Dr. Billen makes no claim that the conclusions which he reaches will
prove final, but he expresses the hope that they will be found “incom-
plete rather than erroneous.” His method seems to be a thoroughly
sound one, and the labor expended upon the preparation of this volume
must have been very great. We hope that Dr. Billen will continue his
studies in this intricate but interesting field.

Princeton. Oswald T. Allis.

The Achievement of Israel. By Herbert R. Purinton, Professor of
Biblical Literature and Religion in Bates College. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927. Pp. viii, 218.

Dr. Purinton belongs to that considerable group of teachers in
schools, colleges and seminaries who have undertaken to popularize
the conclusions of the at present dominant school of higher criticism,
by preparing textbooks which can be used in institutions of various
grades. To the orthodox reader who has some acquaintance with the
literature of Criticism these books are far from satisfactory, indeed
they are at times very irritating, reading. There are two reasons for
this. The first is that the authors of these books quite generally pro-
ceed upon the assumption that the conclusions of the critics have been
conclusively proved and are to be accepted as established fact. The bibli-
ographies which they furnish the reader represent only the critical side,
and it is customary to state that the J, E, D, P analysis of the Hexateuch,
for example, is accepted by all scholars. The second reason is that
these authors very often make positive statements which are not gen-
erally accepted even by the higher critics themselves. The author may
justify his dogmatic presentation of matters which are in dispute not
merely between conservative and higher critic but even among the
critics themselves on the ground that these popular textbooks are no
place for the discussion of technical matters. But all the same the
reader who knows his Bible and who knows something of the pre-
cariousness of the foundations upon which the whole higher critical
reconstruction of the Old Testament rests, and who is also aware of
the differences of opinion which exist in critical circles, is constantly
annoyed at the positiveness with which questionable theories are stated
in the place of the plain and straightforward statements of the Scrip-
tures themselves. A couple of examples will serve to illustrate what is
meant.

Dr. Purinton like most of the critics has, to say the least, a low
opinion of the pre-prophetic period in Israel. Thus he tells us : “It
reminds us of the low state of civilization to read that when Elijah
was in the desert at the time of his flight from Jezebel, Jehovah is
said to have commanded him to anoint Jehu and Hazael to carry out
his purposes by deeds of violence” (p. 67). This statement is made at
the conclusion of the chapter which deals with Jeroboam and carries
the history of Northern Israel down to Ahab and Jezebel. The next
chapter is entitled “Revolution and Reform.” The first section bears
the title “The Folly of Violence.” There we are told that Elisha, the

RECENT LITERATURE

453

successor to Elijah, “adopted strong tactics to do away with the power-
ful influence of Jezebel” and even went so far as to plan for a new
king not only over Israel but also for the throne of Damascus. As an
illustration of the ruthlessness of these early prophets the story of the
murder of Benhadad is told in the following form :

The story of the conspiracy is told in two dramatic scenes, the first
contained in II Kings 8:7-15. Elisha went to Damascus and took lodg-
ings there. On hearing that the famous man of God was in the city,
Ben-Hadad, the king of Syria, who was very ill, sent to him forty
camels loaded with presents. Hazael, an officer of the king, was in
charge of the gifts. When in the presence of the prophet, Hazael said:
“My master wishes to know if he will recover from his illness.” Elisha
replied, “Tell your master that he will recover,” and then, in a low
voice, “but I know he will not, but you will be king in his stead.” Then
Elisha looked steadily at Hazael for a long time in silence. Hazael
understood. He went back to the palace and put a wet cloth over the
face of the king and choked him to death. Thus the first step of the
programme was accomplished (pp. 69-70).

The only explanation, we do not say justification, of such an outrageous
misinterpretation of a Biblical narrative the true meaning of which
would seem to be perfectly obvious, is to be found apparently in the
attempt of Dr. Purinton to paint as dark a picture as he can of the
pre-prophetic period. This is intended to prepare the way for the in-
troduction of Amos. Amos, we are told, was “the first of a galaxy of
prophets that transformed the religion of the world. He announced two
thoughts that have become the basis of civilization : there can be no true
religion without high moral standards, and there is a God who enforces
these standards” (p. 75). Now we cannot help wondering how, if Dr.
Purinton is so ashamed of the violent measures used by Elijah and
Elisha, he can speak in such enthusiastic terms of Amos. Certainly the
eight denunciations with which the book of Amos begins are far from
“pacifist” in their content and the woe pronounced upon Damascus by
Amos is hardly less violent than that which was decreed through Elijah
and Elisha. We are almost tempted to wonder whether Dr. Purinton
had the text of the book of Kings before him in English, not to say
Hebrew, when he wrote his account of Elisha’s visit to Damascus, or
whether, drawing largely on his imagination for his facts he was giving
a free adaptation of it which would accord more fully with his idea
of the development of the religious history of Israel than the one
which has actually come down to us.

As an example of a dogmatic statement as to which the critics
would differ among themselves we may cite the following: “One officer
in David’s court, the scribe Sheva, is noteworthy because he was a
Babylonian” (p. 51). Anyone reading this statement would naturally
suppose that the Old Testament record plainly states that Sheva was
a Babylonian. But this is not the case. The nationality of Sheva is
quite uncertain. The fact that his father’s name is not given and that
one of his sons has a foreign sounding name has been interpreted to
mean that he was of foreign extraction. It has been argued that he may
have been an Aramaean (cf. article “Shavsha” in the Hastings and the

454

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

New Standard dictionaries). On the other hand it has been conjectured
that the name Sheva, which is assumed to be identical with Shavsha,
may be Babylonian or possibly North Arabian (cf. article “Sihavsha”
in Encyc. Bib.) which raises the interesting question, according to
Cheyne, which country influenced David most — Babylonia or North
Arabia. It is clear that the critics are agreed only in this, that Sheva
was a foreigner. That he was a Babylonian as Dr. Purinton asserts
would seem to be, to say the least, far from certain. But why is the
nationality of Sheva a matter of such interest to the critics and to
Dr. Purinton? The reason has just been hinted at. Dr. Purinton states
it as follows : “His business was to keep records of the affairs of the
state. As a Babylonian he would be familiar with writing. Among the
Hebrews writing was a new art. Until the tribes had united in support
of David and had a central capital city, there was no Hebrew national
spirit which found expression to any large extent in writing. Poems
like Deborah’s Song and David’s Lament did not reach their final liter-
ary form before the time of Solomon. They were kept in memory or
preserved in rough notes until the growth of the Hebrew language had
furnished a finer medium of expression.” Here we have the explanation,
the real explanation, why Sheva must, in the opinion of the critics, have
been a foreigner : the Israelites, even the royal court itself, must have
been illiterate, as late as the time of David. The El Amarna letters
prove conclusively that several centuries before the time of David the
princelings of Palestine wrote letters in Babylonian script to the king
of Egypt. Recently a sarcophagus has been discovered at Byblos (that
of Achiram) with an inscription written in a well developed form of
the old alphabet script (this inscription is dated by archaeologists in
the thirteenth century, b.C.). Yet the critics are still holding on to their
theory that writing was practically an unknown art in Israel before the
first millennium b.c. If archaeology has proved anything, it has proved
conclusively that the literary period among the nations of antiquity
goes far back of even the patriarchal period in Israel. The critics no longer
dare to deny that writing was known in the days of Moses. They even as-
sert quite positively that no reputable critic ever maintained that position.
But they still persist in asserting that Israel, this nation whose achieve-
ments in the field of religious literature fill them with admiration and
amazement, could not even have adopted from their neighbors, Babylon
or Egypt, by whom they are supposed to have been influenced in many
ways, the art of writing until a date so late that a Babylonian or Ara-
maean ancestry for Sheva must be invented in order that King David
may have records kept of the affairs of his kingdom.

In what we have said above we would not imply that Dr. Purinton
has gone farther than many others in his reconstruction of the re-
ligious history of Israel. This little volume may be regarded as we
have said as typical of the attempts which are being constantly made to
popularize a theoretical reconstruction of the Old Testament along
lines, which, however widely accepted they may be at present, are
clearly out of harmony with the teachings of the Bible itself and are

RECENT LITERATURE

455

being discredited more and more by scientific study and archaeological
research.

Princeton. Oswald T. Allis.

The Bible Unlocked: A Study of the History, Literature and Religious
Teachings of the Bible. By Henry Martin Battenhouse. New
York and London: The Century Co. Pp. xiv, 553.

The publishers say this book is not primarily for scholars, but for
amateurs and laymen, students, teachers, etc. The author says his aim
is to furnish historical background, guide analysis, awaken desire, and
lay the foundation for Bible study and appreciation.

The book claims to cover the entire Bible. It is very general and not
a Bible study. The viewpoint is that of extreme critical conclusion. The
Bible is “the product of the creative intelligence of religiously inspired
writers.” The oldest fragments of the Old Testament are dated from
1200 b.c. to 1000 b.c. The Hexateuch is a late compilation, presumably by
Ezra (c. 400 b.c.), of J (850 b.c.), E (750 b.c.), D (shortly before 621)
and P (about 450 b.c.). Isaiah is from several hands through several
centuries. Daniel is placed about 168 b.c. The Pauline writings are from
a.d. 50 to 64, Mk. c. 70, Matt. c. 80, Luke and the Acts after 80, and John
c. 95 ; 2 Peter is dated c. a.d. 115, — hence not by Peter at all.

The book is not controversial, only because Dr. Battenhouse writes as
though his views had -been fully established. He writes “about” the
Bible but fails to “unlock” any of its mysteries. He sees no difficulty in
placing Abraham after 1500 b.c., Joseph c. 1350, and having the great
people of Israel by 1200 b.c. When he deals with the text of the Bible,
it is just to mention the narrative. He states that Israel was in Egypt
150 years. In a note he calls attention to the 400 years, as given in Scrip-
ture. The study of Samuel-Kings is a setting forth of the leading
events. He does not appreciate the relationship of Amos, Hosea, and
Isaiah to the two kingdoms. Nor does he grasp the religious significance
of the writings of these prophets. He seems to believe that Israel’s reli-
gion came from a later time and was credited as coming fron an earlier.
Even the Passover seems to be a late retrojection. 1 Esdras is followed
instead of the Biblical Ezra. Ezra is placed a half century later than
Nehemiah.

The author investigates everything outside of the Old Testament,
speculates much, and yet finds little, seemingly, of God within it. In his
chapters on Prophecy and on the Rise of Judaism, the revelation of God
is submerged in the historical.

The study of the New Testament is so largely hit and miss, lacking
in definiteness of conclusion and the fire of conviction that a review is
scarcely possible. As in the Old Testament study, the author writes
“about” the Bible. He writes on subjects. The life of Christ is divided
into periods such as are usual. Yet the great events in His life do not
have their rightful place. The study of the early life of Jesus is inade-
quate in every way. It is evident that Dr. Battenhouse does not believe in
the Virgin Birth. The disciples, we are told, came to believe in His
“divinity,” as attested by “his perfect revelation of the nature and

456

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

character of God.” “Its only adequate explanation lay in the field of the
biological.” The author’s interpretation of the New Testament develops
from this understanding. He speaks of the ‘divinity’ but not of the
‘Deity’ of Christ. “God had chosen him for a special and supreme son-
ship.” He misinterprets Heb. iv. 15 when he says, “We learn that the
divine character of Jesus was the outcome of victory over temptation
. . . ” instead of following his text which states that the victory was
due to His character as “the Son of God” (vs. 14).

The miracles of the Old Testament play little part in this book. Moses,
we read, saw in the “terrifying event” (the plagues) “a providential
opportunity.” Some considered the parting of the Red Sea as a “provi-
dential miracle,” others as a “supernatural intervention.” “Both interpre-
tations are correct. The choice between them depends upon the experience
and temperament of the individual reader.” The quail and the wax
of trees or tender lichens on stones for manna are described as provi-
dential appearances. Consequently we are not surprised to find the
miracles in the New Testament practically omitted. Jesus, in the sight
of the people is a divine healer, wonder-worker and miracle man. The
writer seems to accept miracles, yet his descriptions detract from the
Gospel narratives. He studiously evades such miracles as the raising of
Lazarus. The real Messiah is lacking, as well as the atonement. The
Synoptics, we are told, stress “the bodily resurrection of Christ,” but
Paul “committed himself” to the Platonic theory of a “spiritual resur-
rection or immortality.”

The title of the book is a misnomer. It is no book for “amateurs and
laymen.” The reader needs to be well acquainted with the Bible and con-
temporaneous history. It lacks the accuracy of first hand investigation
in the original languages. Cross references are insufficient and the index
inadequate. It lacks definiteness of conclusion, and belongs with a class
of books recently written that deal with the Bible as a human book.
It neither unlocks the Bible nor is it faithful enough in dealing with the
text to interpret it.

Geneseo, III. Willis E. Hogg.

HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

An Outline of the History of Doctrines. By E. H. Klotsche, A.M.,
Ph.D., D.D. Professor of Exegesis and Symbolics in the Western
Theological Seminary at Fremont, Nebraska. Burlington, Iowa:
The Lutheran Literary Board, 1927. Pp. 261.

The History of Doctrine is a branch of Historical Theology. Works
upon this subject are of a comparatively late date. The Ancient Church
was productive of the contents of the doctrinal system but had a dog-
matic rather than historical interest in the development of Christian
doctrine. The Church of the Middle Ages merely received the trans-
mitted doctrines as part of the belief of the Church and therefore had
no real interest in writing the history of the development of religious
thought.

RECENT LITERATURE

457

During the Reformation, the controversies which arose tended to
settle certain beliefs as the doctrines of the Church, but it was not till
the middle of the seventeenth century that the first genuine attempt was
made to give an account of the development of doctrine. This was done
by the Jesuit scholar, Dionysius Petarius in his work: De theologicis
dogmatibus (Paris, 1644-50). The Magdeburg Centuries attempted to
give the history of the doctrines in dispute during the Reformation
period. Since that time there have been many histories of the develop-
ment of doctrine; some being confined to the history of a certain doc-
trine and others more general in' their scope.

In the historical development of Christian doctrine there may be dis-
tinguished three chief periods parallel with those of Church History:

(1) The origin and development of doctrine in the Patristic age;

(2) Development of doctrine in the Scholastic period; (3) Develop-
ment of doctrine through the Reformation and completion of doctrine
in the post-Reformation period. Dr. Klotsche has given us a volume,
brief and comprehensive for theological students, by the aid of which
they will be able to gain a general view of the historical development
of doctrine. It is very important that the student of theology and the
minister in active service should be acquainted with the history of each
doctrine and its development. The guidance of the Church requires a
correct understanding of the state of doctrinal beliefs at the present
time. But in all cases, the life of any age can only be understood by
viewing it in its historical relations and developments. To know the
errors and heresies of the past ages will enable the scholar to distin-
guish truth from error in the present time. The history of Christian
doctrine thus conceived and studied will constitute one of the strongest
defences of Christianity. A powerful statement is a powerful argu-
ment. Butt there is no statement of Christian truth more clear and con-
vincing than that which is obtained in the gradual and connected be-
lief of a doctrine by the Church, from century to century. Every his-
tory of doctrine will be stronger in its emphasis upon some phase of
truth than any other. Thus some stress Nicene Trinitarianism, some
the Augustinian. anthropology and some the Anselmic soteriology, but
on the whole the student of this branch of historical theology will be
well repaid by a thorough acquaintance with the history of doctrines.

Princeton. Benjamin McKee Gemmill.

SYSTEMATICAL THEOLOGY

Glaubenslehre. Vol. II, 3: " Vom Geist.” Von Martin Rade. Gotha;
Leopold Klotz Verlag, 1927, pp. 305.

This third book of Martin Rade “On the Spirit,” concludes his Dog-
matics or Glaubenslehre. He states in the Preface that he is more con-
cerned with the subject matter ( Sache ) than with its “proof.” There
is a notable increase in fulness of treatment as compared with modern
dogmatics since Schleiermacher, such for example as those of Kaftan,

45§

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Wendt, Luthardt, and Seeberg. In fact Rade repeats practically all of
his theology this time from the standpoint of the Spirit.

The first volume treated of God; the second of Christ and His sav-
ing work ( Wohltat ), and the question remains — “What is there (i.e.,
for Christian faith) since God and Christ are (i.e., realities) ?” and
the answer is the Holy Spirit is here, transcendence becomes imma-
nence.

With a wide outlook Rade expounds the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
in the dogma of the Church, in its hymns and liturgies, and in the
Bible. This constitutes the first chapter. Rade then proceeds to treat
of the Holy Spirit as “Teacher of Doctrine” (Glaubenslehrer) , as
“Preacher of the Word” and as “Creator of the Bible,” as Founder
of the Christian Church (Gemeinde) , as the “Supporter of the Christian
Life of Prayer,” as the Revealer and Judge of sin, as the Cause of
Righteousness (a chapter on the Ordo Salutis), as the Giver of a new
world-view (Christian view of the world), and as the Spirit of hope
(Christian Eschatology), a separate chapter being devoted to each of
these topics.

To such an extent does Rade carry his idea of divine immanence
that faith appears no longer as an act of the soul, but as the Holy
Spirit in man. He says (p. 51) that “the theology of crisis” (Barth
and his group), which asserts that faith is a “vacuum,” leaves out of
account its positive significance as the “saving and fulfilling power
of the Holy Spirit” and “the wholly other” (gam andere) thus be-
comes man’s possession.

In this part of his work Rade gives no adequate exposition or criti-
cism of Barth’s views, and on his own part fails to do justice to the
transcendent character of the Holy Spirit which is a chief character-
istic of the Biblical doctrine on the Spirit.

The chapters on the Holy Spirit as “the Preacher of the Word” and
“the Creator of the Bible,” are occupied largely with Luther’s views,
but for a real understanding of the nature of the Word of God, we
cannot derive much knowledge from Rade’s treatment.

Much theological literature of recent years is passed over without
comment. It is no fault of this book, however, that philosophical and
non-theological literature is not dealt with, because Rade is intention-
ally writing a Christian Doctrine of Faith (Glanbenslehre) .

The author’s method of treatment is similar to that in his two former
volumes. He is influenced strongly by Luther, but one is compelled to
raise the question whether he does not look at Luther through spec-
tacles prepared by Schleiermacher and Ritschl. Rade, though one of the
older generation of Ritschlians, shows an eclectic tendency and an in-
creasing independence of view over against an out and out “Ritschlian
theology.”

He has a wide acquaintance with recent and current theological
opinion, but it is doubtful whether he fully comprehends it or comes
to grips with it. We can readily imagine, for example, that Barth and

RECENT LITERATURE 459

his friends would say that while Rade sometimes adopts their termi-
nology, he does not fully understand what they mean.

In his discussion of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Rade includes
a treatment of sin, of miracles, and of eschatology, from the point of
view which we have indicated.

The book is easy and pleasant to read, abounds in quotations from
theological literature, but is not compact and systematic enough to con-
stitute a satisfactory dogmatic treatise on the Holy Spirit.

Its fundamental defect, in our judgment, is its failure to draw the
sharp Biblical distinction between the transcendent God the Holy Spirit
and His effects in the human soul. Thus (p. 30) we are told that the
Spirit is just personal fellowship (i.e., of man) with God, but later on
the Spirit is identified with God. This is not the doctrine of the Bible
nor of the Reformers who based their theology on the Bible as the
Word of God. It shows a fatal deviation, caused apparently by Schleier-
macher and Ritschl.

Princeton. C. W. Hodge.

Die Lehre von der Siinde dargestellt an dem V crhdltnis der Lehre Sdren
Kierkegaards zur neuesten Theologie. Von Lie. Dr. Walter Kunneth.
Giitersloh, 1927, Druck und Verlag, C. Bertelsmann. Pp. 274.

This monograph on the doctrine of sin is not an attempt to give the
author’s views or a constructive statement of the doctrine. It is an attempt
to prepare the way for such a work by a critical analysis of the view of
sin in the writings of Kierkegaard, and to estimate his influence on “the
most recent” theology, i.e., the dialectic theology. By “dialectic theology”
Kunneth quite correctly does not mean exclusively the theology of Barth
and his group, but includes such theologians as Karl Heim and Althaus.
He sets forth clearly the protest of recent theology against the views of
Schleiermacher and Ritschl on the questions of the nature and origin of
sin, of the Fall and original sin, and the general problem of evil.

Kunneth dissents from Schleiermacher and Ritschl, but cannot agree
with “the newest theology,” and in a few concluding pages, he sets forth
very briefly the general lines along which he thinks the true statement of
the doctrine should be made.

Kunneth limits his investigation of the relation of Kierkegaard to the
“newest theology” to the questions concerning sin. Kierkegaard had
two apparently conflicting views of the nature of sin — “a spiritual, per-
sonal, and voluntaristic view,” and a “metaphysical-cosmical” view. So
also “the most recent theology” shows a similar two-fold view of sin, a
“spiritual” and a “metaphysical” view. In Kierkegaard, however, the
former view is dominant, whereas in “the newest theology,” according to
Kunneth, the latter view predominates. This would seem to have as its
consequence that the “dialectic” of Barth is logical and metaphysical,
grounded in a cosmic dualism, whereas it seems to us that it is not
theoretic, but practical and “existential,” i.e., involved in the relation of
faith to revelation. Barth expressly says that revelation is not “dia-
lectic” but rather “our seeing it.” So also Bultmann strongly emphasizes

460

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

this point in his articles in Zwischen den Zeiten. At this point we should
also note that the term “ existentiel” is used by Kiinneth to describe the'
metaphysical point of view, whereas in Bultmann and Brunner, it is used
in the sense in which we have taken it.

Returning, however, to the doctrine of sin, Kiinneth’s criticism is
directed against the mingling of these two contradictory points of view
in Kierkegaard, Barth, Brunner, Gogarten, and Heim. In this critical
exposition, he is careful to discriminate between Barth and Gogarten on
the one hand, and Heim on the other hand, and also to indicate the
differences between Barth and Brunner, though the latter is in general
assigned to the group with Barth. The “dialectic” or contradiction which
Kiinneth finds in these theologians between sin as a voluntary act and
sin as a racial condition — original sin, and which these theologians
attribute to an “ Urfall ” — outside of our temporal history, Kiinneth seeks
to solve. He rejects Ritsahl’s idea of a Kingdom of Sin, as essentially
Pelagian. He rejects the idea of a timeless “Urfall” as an unreal ab-
straction. He rejects the Biblical-Reformation, and Romish doctrine of
the historical Fall as demanding a “causal-mechanical” philosophy. He
substitutes the view of a “universal spirit” of mankind, which somehow
fell from allegiance to God, and in which Fall each individual somehow
voluntarily partakes. Kiinneth’s view appears to us to suffer from the
fundamental difficulty of the old fashioned Realism, i.e., it seeks a
ground for personal responsibility in an act of which each individual
is totally unconscious, and in which he had no voluntary part. Moreover
the idea of the “universal spirit” of mankind (Gesammtgeist) , is an
abstraction and has no concrete existence. We do not, however, advocate
the view of an Urfall in Barth’s sense, but adhere to the view of federal
responsibility which we believe to be the Biblical view, and we believe
that Charles Hodge, to take but one example, in his Commentary on
Romans, gives Paul’s thought more adequately than does Barth in
his Romerbrief.

Any adequate criticism of Barth, would have to expound clearly his
view of Urgeschichte, which Kiinneth is mistaken in calling “super-
history,” for Barth in his Dogmatik expressly says that “super-historical”
does not express his view of Urgeschichte which he took over from
Blumhardt and modified.

This conception, so difficult to understand, leads, in our judgment,
into the heart of the problem of Barth’s position as far as it concerns
the all-important question of the relation of the Christian Revelation to
historical facts. We do not pretend fully to understand Barth on this
point, but we think that Kiinneth has not grasped his meaning.

Finally, to return to the problem of sin, we do not believe that there
is any solution of its three main problems. The ontological problem or
the problem of the ultimate cause of sin, we believe, to be unsolvable.
Dualism and Pantheism explain sin away; they do not explain it. The
psycho-genetic problem, how the first man, created good, ever sinned,
is also an unsolvable problem. The dispensational or “teleological” prob-

RECENT LITERATURE

461

lem as to why the good God decreed sin, we also regard an unsolvable
problem. These problems are not solved for us by the Bible, and no
“solutions” of human philosophy seem to us satisfactory. We are
ready to go with the “newest theology” in calling sin irrational, but so
much as is revealed in the Bible we believe is best expressed in the
Biblical Reformation doctrine, especially as that doctrine has found
expression in the Confessions of the Reformed Church.

Princeton. C. W. Hodge.

Current Christian Thinking. By Prof. Gerald B. Smith, Professor of
Theology in the University of Chicago Divinity School. Chicago :
The University of Chicago Press, 1928. Price $2.00. Pp. 205.

This little volume is popularly, clearly and compactly written, and
affords a very direct and accessible means of getting quickly and easily
to the heart — if there indeed be a heart — of the so-called Chicago
position (which is, forsooth, that there should be no position, at least
a stereotyped position). The book is a worthy representative of the
pragmatizing theology and the religion of functional psychology and
of experience, for wdiich this school stands.

The University faculty is the most consistent and effective force
for the promotion of general pragmatic psychology, ethics, and philoso-
phy in the country. Professor Dewey founded the pragmatic school there,
and Professors Tufts, Moore and others have continued the tradition
with effect. It is natural that the Divinity School should carry out and
champion this University tradition. And it has for years conspicuously
done this in the persons of Professors George Burman Foster, that
radical spirit (the author of The Finality of the Christian Religion),
who was later expelled from the Divinity Faoulty for his atheistical
radicalism, E. S. Ames in the department of Psychology of Religion,
Shirley Jackson Case, J. Merlin Powis Smith, Shailer Matthews, and
Gerald Birney Smith.

Backed by a large University and great affluence, this faculty has
made a definite impact upon American religious life and thought that
has not diminished with time. The Journal of Religion is its literary
organ. In fact it is greatly due to these external considerations of afflu-
ence, large faculty, effective personnel, and literature-producing power
rather than inherent depth and impressiveness of thought that this
type of American anti-philosophical affection has had its measure of
recognition. It still remains to be seen whether this type of religion and
theological thought is permanent and representative of that which it
most moots and desires itself to be, modern American religious think-
ing, or whether it is not merely a moment in the dialectic of changing
American religious opinion and sentiment, and destined, like a rising
and ascendant star, to have its apogee and decline. Mere floods of lit-
erature and imposing external power are not adequate to prevent a
school of thought from becoming effete, especially when its modes of
conception are radically superficial. That which so assiduously can-
vasses “everyman,” propagandizes the public, purports to be popular,

462

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

seeks the favor of the social consciousness, so studiously adapts its
message to the same, and bends the towers of truth to human egoistic
ends does not manifest those easily discernible earmarks of finality
which make a man or movement prophetic.

This constituting the background and setting of the book, it is of
further significance that the present volume is, as the preface states,
one of a “series of handbooks” edited by Professors Shailer Matthews,
T. H. Soares, and W. W. Charters, under the caption, The University
of Chicago Publications in Religious Education, with the sub-title,
Handbooks of Ethics and Religion. Cooperative or co-departmental
literary production is a highly commendable method. Chicago is effec-
tually employing it for phalanxing its attack upon colleges, semi-
naries, and the general reading public, to all of which the series is
specifically addressed. The method employed in the series is the critical
and the “historical,” by which it is intended to avoid and discredit the
normative traditionary and dogmatic method. “It is hoped,” the joint
authors conclude, “that the series will help to show that the method of
experiment and criticism contributes to stronger religious faith and
moral idealism.”

The specific place of this book and author in the series is to discuss
“some of the crucial issues presented to religious thinkers today.”
These issues are of an entirely different classification, it is contended,
from those of the past several centuries, which were denominational or
sectarian in nature. The strife between Calvinism, Arminianism and
Pelagianism has become obsolete, and problems which cut cross-section
wise across Protestant denominational lines have totally replaced, them.
The author declares these to be the problems of modern empirical
science, of society and the social consciousness, the problems of re-
ligion and its psychological analysis as opposed to doctrinal problems,
and the problems of historical criticism. Appealing for its support and
following to the American populace, as Chicago theology character-
istically does, the author does not attempt to deal with the theological
movements of Europe.

The advantage which the work may be said to possess consists in
(1) its exposition in lucid terms of radical modernism, (2) its touch-
ing in a fairly complete way on all of the very most important cruces
of theology in their bearing upon the issue between conservatism and
radicalism, and (3) the useful bibliographical lists at the end of each
chapter which give to those interested a survey of the recent literature
— practically all modernistic — on the subjects discussed.

The following subjects are treated, I. Roman Catholicism, II. The
Significance of the Protestant Revolt, III. Modernism. In this chapter
Modernism is made virtually coterminous with scientific inquiry, dis-
covery and method which arose with Galileo nearly a century after the
Protestant Reformation. From the scientific viewpoint the author de-
clares that “Catholicism and Protestantism alike . . . embody essentially
medieval ways of thinking.” The recollection of Celsus, Marcion, Arius,
Pelagius and Julian may help to repulse the epithet “medieval” with

RECENT LITERATURE

463

which Protestantism is so strangely execrated, and force the author to
stamp Modernism in turn as />rcmedieval. Modernism, after the manner
of the above usus loquendi, may be said to “embody essentially ANCIENT
ways of thinking.” And to assert that Protestant theology was de-
stroyed by scientific inquiry is to forget that scientific inquiry is not per se
inimical to theology. It is the agnostic philosophical constructions put upon
the laws and results of scientific inquiry by biased scientific minds which
converts Science into a foe of theology instead of its ally. The question
begging conception that Science is by nature irreconcilably anti-theological
runs all through nearly every page of the book, and gives to all of the
author’s very trenchant positions their effect.

Again, the stock and favorite non-sequitur of scientific religious writ-
ers is virtually revamped (p. 36), that the Protestant theologians con-
demned the Copernican theory which ultimately became established
fact, therefore all modern Protestant theologians who assume to con-
trovert the more recent scientific theories of the day are trespassing on
forbidden ground, and their statements null and void. The outworn
appeal to this admitted limitation in the scientific knowledge of Luther
and Calvin never seems to lose its place among liberal writers. “If it
proves anything it proves that all conservative theological dogmas are
invalid simply because the Bible seemed to teach that the sun goes
around the earth” (which the Bible does not teach) — so the reasoning
usually goes. Prof. Smith sharply excludes the Bible from the preroga-
tive of having anything decisive to say about astronomy, geology, bi-
ology, and the other sciences : “The fact is that the modern world has
ceased to look to the theologians for its interpretation of nature.”

The critical historical method has likewise “set religious thinking to
a considerable extent free from the requirement to conform to biblical
norms” (p. 42). Similarly, Modernism is stated to conform to no
authoritative creed. It is loyal to truth only in the reserved form of
possessing the spirit of inquiry rather than any fixed content as the
result of that inquiry, and of a willingness to constantly revise think-
ing. On the other hand it is distinguishable from radicalism the writer
contends in that it positively adheres to “historic Christianity,” an ex-
pression which is more conservative sounding than it really is. Viewed
from the standpoint of “historic Christianity” as Luther and Calvin
conceived it Prof. Smith’s position is none less than that from which
he seeks to differentiate himself by use of the deceptive term “histori-
cal Christianity,” namely, radicalism. Radical he is and remains to all
evangelical Christians.

Chapter IV, The Catholic Church and Modernism follows.

The treatment of Fundamentalism, Chapter V, is characterized by
the familiar habit of such writers of assimilating Fundamentalism to
the Roman Catholic Church in respect to one point which is rather
unfairly selected out and made too much of, namely, authoritarianism
and the religious duty of “accepting” and “submitting.” To the Funda-
mentalist “accepting’ ’and “submitting” to authority is not an onus : to
the Modernist it is. To one it is an act of humiliation ; to the other it

464

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

is not. There lies the real difference. For the Fundamentalist Funda-
mentalism is much more than, and other than this negatively put
psychological attitude. “Submission” is a corruption for “love of the
truth.” It is therefore a constantly irritating injustice to have Funda-
mentalism so inveterately described from the viewpoint of only one,
and that an external one, of its characteristics. The very terminology
is offensive and prejudicial. Instead of “authoritarianism” Biblicism
would better describe the characteristic of Fundamentalism. It is a
further injustice to so invidiously compare this authoritarianism and
“submission” to that of the Romish Church, with its fides implicita and
stifling of the right of private judgment, without delineating with equal
care, the big differences involved.

Chapter VI, on The Appeal to Christian Experience, brings into
strong relief the pragmatic and subjectivistic turn of the author, who
rejects all doctrines, from the Trinity and Angels to Miracles because
they are not capable of being experienced. The question “whose experi-
ence is true and authoritative?” always mutinously raises its head in
such theological empiricism, and the author dares to face it. Suffice
it to say that the writer fails to give either a clear or a satisfactory
answer to this question.

The remaining Chapters are VII, The Appeal to Christ, VIII, The
Theological Interpretation of the Natural World, IX, The Modern
Quest for God, X, The Controversy Over Evolution, in which the un-
broken continuity of nature is set forth against opposing views as the
only adequate theory for evolution, and XI, The Spirit of Evangelical
Christianity.

Princeton. F. D. Jenkins.

Faith in God and its Christian Consummation. By D. M. Baillie, M.A.

Edinburgh : T. and T. Clarke. 1927. Price $3-25-

The critical estimate of this book is to be gauged, in all fairness, by
the self-stated admissions in the preface. Also, when any deep theme
is approached in a spirit of modesty and humility the sharpness of
criticism is removed if the development should fall short of the mark.
“In putting forth my book I cannot but feel how inadequate it is to the
greatness of its theme, especially in the second part, which is a little more
than a groping after truth in the face of acute modern problems. But I
venture to hope that the work may be useful to students as a guide
through the mazes of controversy, and that it may be found to make
some slight contribution at one or two points which are among the grow-
ing points of religious thought at the present time.”

Thus the method is heuristic and the attitude that of one who regards
the subject as a problem, with no necessarily certain or final solution.
Such is the method adopted by modern science and philosophy which
is divorced from Biblical and religious authority. But when, in Biblical
and theological research this modern attitude becomes reduced to a
“little more than a groping after truth in the face of modern problems”
the attempt does not seem to commend itself to the theologically minded

RECENT LITERATURE

465

reader’s confidence at the very outset. To the systematic theologian, at
least, this attitude is that of a theological experimenter or beginner still
wrestling with the inductive method which constitutes the approach to
the formulation of doctrines. The doctrine itself seems never to be defin-
itely and securely arrived at. The characteristic of Revelation is the note
of certainty in all of its teachings, no less in the doctrine of faith than in
its other doctrines. But we do not here find this characteristic. The work
partakes of the nature of a speculative investigation whose final con-
clusions seem colored and conditioned by the opinions of the many
religio-philosophical theorists through or between whom the author in
dialectic fashion steers his course. So it may justly be said that the
method is inadequate, for it is patently the speculative one. It suffers the
limitations of such.

A further criticism appears in the consideration that the author keeps
the discussion confined to the religio-philosophical and religio-psycholog-
ical spheres to the marked exclusion of Biblical theology and exegesis.
Christian faith appears to be connected primarily with suffering and evil
in their antithesis to good. While the author is quite balanced in his
rejection of the contentions of modern psychology on the nature of
faith (e.g., W. James’ Will to Believe, etc.), he does not on the other
hand fill it with enough objective content to lift it out of the realm of
psychological analysis and religious speculation. Faith is rightly defined
and qualified much more by the nature of the object on which it ter-
minates than by the introspection of the believer’s states of consciousness.

Had the writer discussed the Biblical data and kept subjeotive analysis
to a greater extent out of consideration his constructive views would
have been more certain and objective. But, he states in his preface,
“discussion of the idea of revelation” is “excluded by the whole plan of
the book.” Both the idea of revelation and its teaching upon this high
theme are irrespectfully glossed over. Of course, in Part II on “Chris-
tian Faith,” where the self-alleged “groping after the truth” is enacted,
particularly in its two chapters “Faith and the Historical Jesus” and
“Faith and the Gospel of Jesus,” the writer goes through the form of
citing many texts (or shall we say pretexts). But neither the historical
Jesus nor the Gospel of Jesus are found in their fulsomely expressed
divinity and purity. Without either of them there can be no satisfactory
conception of Christian faith. The conception of fides salvifica involves
the elements of sin as guilt and power, Christ as a divine Mediator,
justification as forensic, the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and the doc-
trine of prevenient grace. None of these, as a matter of fact, are found
depicted in their integrity and purity. Christ Himself is not made the
specific object of faith par excellence. The somewhat Ritschilianizing
emphasis of God in Christ as opposed to Christ as God is made in speak-
ing of the object of Christian faith.

The best part of the work is not therefore the constructive one (Part
II particularly) where the writer embarks on a voyage of discovery
for personal originality, but Part I where the various religio-psycholog-
ical views are exploited and critically analyzed.

466

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

The variety of modern views introduced and discussed makes the work
very interesting and informing and up-to-date. And the critique of the
current generic theories of faith is at most points very balanced and
helpful so long as we remember that it is merely the general psycho-
logical nature of faith that is before us for consideration in the author’s
treatment. This review and criticism of modern viewpoints, the nega-
tive rather than the positive treatment, will be found by the evangelical
reader to be the most valuable part of the book.

The style is free, rather conversational, and easy to follow throughout.

Princeton. F. D. Jenkins.

More Than Atonement, A Study in Genetic Theology. By John B.
Champion, Professor of Christian Doctrine, Eastern Baptist Theo-
logical Seminary. Harrisburg: The Evangelical Press. $2.50 net.

More than ordinary interest attaches to this volume, which will gen-
erally be regarded as setting forth the doctrinal platform of the
institution recently founded in Philadelphia to offset the drift to Modern-
ism in the Northern Baptist Church — a school, it ought to be added,
which has been growing by leaps and bounds. As might have been
expected, the general presentation is profoundly evangelical. “To seek
the origin of Christianity in modern ideas rather than in historic facts,
would not be scientific procedure. Manifestly, the original facts are the
originating facts” (p. 28). Salvation from sin is of course the central
theme of the book, but this salvation is presented not so much as devised
and offered by a sovereign God of infinite holiness and love, as flowing
by inevitable necessity from the sacrificial nature of Jehovah, Who
thus fulfils the highest possibilities of His being. Thus the fulfilment
of the nature of God becomes the substance of Calvary’s redemption.

In the development of this soteriological conception there appears
much that is illuminating and instructive. Professor Champion’s angle
of approach has unquestionably been too much neglected. And the stress-
ing of sacrifice in the Christian life as the outcome of the dawning and
ever-deepening apprehension of the unutterable cost of redemption
deserves the profoundest study. The treatment of sin, a vital point in
any system, is decidedly satisfactory. And again and again the reader
is surprised by flashes of deep insight, as in the handling of the sacrifice
made by God in the giving of His only-begotten Son. Moreover, what-
ever value may be attached to the discussion of such themes as Christian
Personality (growing, as they do, out of the application of the author’s
special presentation), one finds at least a wide acquaintance with phi-
losophy and modern psychology.

The most serious defect of the book consists in the treatment of the
forensic aspects of the Redeemer’s work. His effecting of a representative
righteousness is freely admitted, indeed almost overstressed; but He
would seem to bear the sin of the world only in the sense that on Him, as
the God-man, the murderous power of sin was exhaustively expended.
Only in this sense was He identified with human sin ; we are not to

RECENT LITERATURE

467

think of Him as bearing the penalty imposed by an inexorable Lawgiver.
But without referring to such special passages as Isaiah liii. 10 or
2 Corinthians v. 2, a large part of the evangelical family will feel that it
is quite too late in the day to attempt to set aside the exegetical results
of a long succession of the ablest scholars in Christendom in the interest
of a real but subsidiary truth. One feels, too, that in less evangelical
hands the side-stepping of our Lord’s actual, if forensic, identifica-
tion with the guilt of humanity would pretty certainly lend itself to the
idea that atonement consists in the implantation of a new, sacrificial
spirit — which would assuredly eviscerate and nullify the Gospel of
Grace.

Nor can we follow Professor Champion in his references to the Keno-
sis. “Christ was living within the limits of the human way and capacity
of apprehension. For this reason, He was no more omniscient about
the infinite meaning, infinite purpose, infinite process going on and
centering in His Cross, than He was omniscient about the program of
the Parousia,” etc. (p. 181). This takes us back to the old problem of the
ofSev of Matt. xxiv. 36. Certainly if the Hiphil force of this verb, main-
tained by some, be admitted, the generally-accepted kenotic ignorance
will have to be surrendered. At least, those disposed to disparage the
idea of an occasional causative shading of olSev would do well to con-
sider John xix. 35. Will this passage with its Iva interpret at all without
such shading?

In discussing the meaning of the name Jehovah, Professor Champion
follows Davidson in translating it “I will be,” and hence sees in it not
ontology, but the promise of revelation. Both the LXX and the Vulgate,
however, render “I am what I am” (the LXX 6 iov). The American
Revision, with its ample learning, gives this rendering the preference,
while the notable Jewish Version of 1917 translates in the present, with-
out offering any alternative. Doubtless eternity is the real thought con-
tained in the Ineffable Name, with the consequent insuring of an eternal
covenant.

Lincoln University , Pa. Edwin J. Reinke.

PRACTICAL THEOLOGY

D. L. Moody, A Worker in Souls. By Gamaliel Bradford. New York:
George H. Doran Co. Cloth. 8vo. pp. 320. Price $3.50 net.

This is a piece of brilliant biographical composition. Its fascination,
its pungency, its color, its vividness have been widely recognized and
justly praised. However, it is the product of one who had no personal
acquaintance with the great evangelist, who does not accept his Gospel
message, and who does not know the real secret of his extraordinary
power.

The author, however, has worked with earnestness and patience.
He has acquainted himself with all the facts to which he had access.

468

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

He has carefully read the printed sermons and addresses of Mr. Moody,
and has studied the existing reports of his historic evangelistic cam-
paigns. The very fact that he has so little sympathy with the message
enhances the value of his frank and eloquent tribute to its appeal and
its power. There is too something wistful in his attitude toward the
mystery of the hidden sources of strength which alone can adequately
explain the influence which Mr. Moody exerted on the men of his
generation and is exerting still.

The book does not follow the usual method of biographies, and
record the events of a life in the order of time. It consists of a series
of sketches. There is a picture of “The Growth of a Soul,” a state-
ment of Mr. Moody’s doctrinal beliefs, an analysis of his power as a
preacher, a description of his singing associate, Mr. Sankey, and an
estimate of the evangelist as a man, as a business organizer and as a
“Molder of Souls.” One cannot deny that there are passages in the
book which appear flippant, irreverent, even offensive. However, the
general effect upon the reader is an impression that the author has
pictured a great man, whose career was mighty in its influence for
good, as he addressed himself to the world’s supreme need and labored
with unparalleled success in bringing men to God.

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman.

Qualifying Men for Church Work. By Gerrit Verkuyl. New York:
Fleming H. Revell Co. Cloth. i2mo. pp. 204. Price $1.50.

As in his volumes previously published Dr. Verkuyl gives in this
volume a clear, simple and Scriptural treatment of the problem of se-
curing a sufficiently well-equipped body of men who can serve as lead-
ers in the work of the Christian Church. He deals with the demands
which the present time is making for such leaders. He shows the vast
undeveloped resources of the Christian Church. He specifies the quali-
ties which are found in the leaders whose lives are recorded in Scrip-
ture. He then turns to the discovery and the instruction of Christian
workers, showing that all real leadership must be turned in the direc-
tion of bringing men into a vital fellowship with Christ. Each one of
the ten chapters closes with suggestions for private study and class
work, the entire book being designed for the use of Sunday and week-
day classes in local churches, and also for training schools and summer
conferences.

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman.

Our Lord and Oms. By P. E. Burroughs. Nashville, Tenn. : Sunday
School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, iamo. pp. 148.

This volume is a study in Christian stewardship. Its particular pur-
pose is to consider the principles of stewardship in relation to the
evangelization of the world. As a sub-title the author employs the
phrase “Stewardship in Missions.” It is a book which is especially de-
signed for the use of Sabbath Schools. The writer is himself Secre-
tary of the Department of Church Education of the Baptist Sunday

RECENT LITERATURE

469

School Board. He deals with the problems of proportionate and sys-
tematic giving and with the questions involved in church finance. It is
to a very large extent a book designed for use in the Southern Baptist
denomination but embodies principles applicable to all Christians.

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman.

Administering the Vacation Church School. By J. S. Armentrout.
Philadelphia : The Westminster Press. Cloth. i2mo. pp. 208. Price
$1.00 net.

The successful career of the Vacation Church School, formerly
known as the Daily Vacation Bible School, makes any treatment of
the subject interesting and valuable for ministers and Christian work-
ers of the present day. The volume by Mr. Armentrout is of particular
interest and helpfulness because of his careful study and exact knowl-
edge of the subject which he treats. His position as Director of Lead-
ership Training and formerly Director of Vacation Church Schools of
the Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the
U.S.A. has equipped him fully for the task he has here accomplished.
He deals with the development of the Vacation Church School with
its relation to the aims of religious education, with the place of wor-
ship, of knowledge and of Christian service in the development of char-
acter and then deals with the more practical problems of the organ-
ization, conduct, curriculum and equipment of the Vacation Church
School. This volume is a text-book in the Standard Leadership Train-
ing Curriculum outlined and approved by the International Council of
Religious Education. It will be found of great value to all who are
concerned with this important phase of modern church work.

Princeton. Charles R. Erdman.

Of Them He Chose Twelve. By Clarence Edward Macartney, D.D.
Philadelphia: Dorrance & Company. 1927. Pp. 181.

Dr. Macartney has written another fine book. It is a study of the
Twelve Apostles, including also chapters on Paul and John the Baptist.
Basing his statement on the sources, the author gives a brief and pene-
trating characterization of each of these men, showing their psycho-
logical characteristics, their historical significance, and drawing prac-
tical lessons from each of his studies.

On the publishers’ paper cover we read : “Those to whom the Apostles
are rather vague historical characters imprisoned within the covers of
the Good Book will find this straightforward, human analysis of their
different temperaments and characters both stimulating and provoca-
tive of further study. Dr. Macartney has the gift of warming his material
into something vital and appealing and as we read of the lives and
manners of this group who followed the Master we realize that human
nature changes very little.”

This statement about this book is true as far as it goes, but it misses
the point of the book. It is not the fact that the author “has the gift of
warming his material into something vital and appealing” — he undoubt-

470

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

edly has this — which gives the book its value, nor do these words express
his purpose. The value of the book lies in the fact that the author does
not content himself with historical and psychological matters, and has
apparently little concern in “warming up his material into something
vital,” but is deeply concerned with the message of the Apostles — the

Divine revelation of which the Apostles were the organs and to which

they bore witness. “If we know the Apostles better we shall be rewarded
by knowing better Him, whom to know aright is Eternal Life” — so
writes the author, stating in a sentence the purpose and main content
of his book: Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, Christ the Messiah as the
eternal Son of God, the redemptive significance of the Cross, in a word
the Gospel of salvation from sin, revealed by God to man. “God, who at
sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers
by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son,”

— here we have the theme of this book. And since this is the Word

of God, no human mind or eloquence can make it “vital,” but only
the Spirit of the living God. This author does, however, rise at times
to eloquence, an eloquence born not only of conviction but of insight
into the essence of the Gospel. We have space but for one instance, and
with it we close. In the last chapter, the one on John the Baptist, after
stating several of the sources of his power, Dr. Macartney adds as
the last, the greatness of John’s message:

Shortly before His passion, Jesus went back to the Jordan country
where He had been baptized by John and by the Holy Spirit. The dis-
ciples of John, now dead, gathered about Him and listened to Him and
saw His miracles. This was their verdict, “John did no miracles.” He
never stilled the tempest, nor opened the blind eyes, nor raised the
dead — “but all things that John spake of this man were true.” What was
it that John said about Jesus? Did he say, “Behold the man who did
no sin and whose blameless life will leave the world a great example
of how to live”? Did he say, “Behold the man, the carpenter’s son who
never wrote a line save in the dust, and yet the man whose words have
done more to temper and soften and regenerate mankind than all the
sayings of the philosophers and all the books of the ages”? Did he say,
“Behold the man whose birth will be the watershed of history, dividing
it into two parts, Before Christ and After Christ”? Did he say, “Behold
the man whose life shall be a fountain of compassion whence shall flow
has brought life and immortality to light”? Did he say, “Behold the man
who was in the world and yet not of it and who more than any other
has brought life and immortality to life” ? Did he say, “Behold the man
whose death on the Cross will be the supreme example of that vicarious
suffering which runs like a scarlet thread through all creation”? Was
that what John said of Jesus? If so, oblivion’s sea had long ago swept
over him. No, not that, but this, this which takes all that in, this which
left out, Christianity is left out : “Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh
away the sin of the world!”

It is that witness of John to Jesus that men today are trying to
muffle and silence. The world will let you talk about Jesus as beauti-
fully as you please. It will let you heap high the flowers of your eulogia,
but there is one thing that the world cannot tolerate, and this is that
you should say of Jesus what John said, “Behold, the Lamb of God that
taketh away the sin of the world,” God’s eternal sacrifice for sin. Utter
these words and you will find that the Cross hath still its ancient offense.

RECENT LITERATURE

471

Leave them out and you will find that then has the offense of the Cross
ceased. This is the question before the Church today : Shall the offense
of the Cross cease? Shall the Gospel cease to be good news and become
only good advice? Shall the Churches which have been entrusted with
the Gospel become lighthouses whose light has been quenched, or, stiff
worse, lighthouses which burn and flash with false lights which allure to
destruction voyagers on the sea of life?

“Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!”
Wherever that is left out Christianity is left out. Wherever it is spoken
and honored there the Gospd is preached, whether from the incense-
laden altars of Greek and Roman Churches or in the severe dignity of
our Reformed Churches, or in a Gospel mission, or to the accompaniment
of a bass drum on the street, or when at eventide a mother tells her
little child of the love of God in Christ. Man is still a sinner, and still
his great need is redemption from sin. Calvary has no successor, the
Lamb of God has no substitute. He is the sinner’s only hope. He is the
power and glory of the Church here, and hereafter it is the Lamb of
God, no longer upon the Cross but upon the throne of the universe, to
whom redeemed sinners will pay their grateful homage.

These are not only eloquent but weighty words. Here is the center of
the Gospel. Here is still the offense of the Cross. All of the so-called
modern theories of the Atonement are but efforts to take away from the
Cross its offense. The offense of the Cross has never ceased, and the
cause of its offense has always been the same. The Greeks among
modern men are still seeking human wisdom and the Jews among modern
men are still seeking a legal righteousness, no matter how subtle or
refined its form. But unto those who are effectually called, the preaching
of Christ crucified for sin is still the power of God unto salvation.

We commend this book. God give the Church more preachers like this.

Princeton. C. W. Hodge.

Paul the Man. His Life, His Message and His Ministry. By Clarence
Edward Macartney, D.D. Author of “Putting on Immortality,"
“Twelve Great Questions About Christ,” etc. New York, Chicago,
London and Edinburgh : Fleming H. Revell Company. 1928.

This latest book, which Dr. Macartney has added to the notable series
already bearing his name, deals with Paul the man, rather than with
Paul’s message. But unlike some recent books on the same subject it is
written by one who not only admires the man but also has himself under-
stood the message. No more important qualification could be found for
a book on such a subject. Paulinism is greater than Paul. So Paul thought
himself, and so they must think who would understand Paul.

It is refreshing, therefore, to read this simple and vivid account of
Paul’s life by a preacher who with at least as great power as any other
man of our day is proclaiming to a lost and needy world the gospel of
salvation that Paul was the chief instrument of God in giving to the
Church. It is a noble figure of a man that stands out for us again in the
pages of Dr. Macartney’s book. We see the Apostle to the Gentiles in
his physical weakness but also in his true greatness. By contrast with
Roman governors and Jewish mobs, we obtain some impression of the
moral grandeur of this greatest hero of the Faith. What is better still,

472

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

we come to understand anew that the true secret of Paul’s life was
found in the message that he was commissioned to proclaim.

Dr. Macartney is not concerned in this book to discuss mooted ques-
tions about the order of events in Paul’s life or about the time and place
and addresses of the Epistles. The outline that is here given is not alto-
gether complete ; we miss, for example, any mention, in the regular place
in the narrative, of the “famine visit” of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem,
though that visit is later mentioned in the enumeration on p. 127. Some-
times one may hold a different opinion about disputed points. We are not
so certain as Dr. Macartney is about the correctness of the South Gala-
tian theory of the address of Galatians ; and we hardly -think that on that
theory the date of the Epistle can be put so late as apparently Dr.
Macartney puts it. We think that it would have been well to make a little
plainer the sharp separation that undoubtedly existed between the
Judaizers on tire one hand and both Peter and James on the other. So
the term “Judaic” and not the term “Judaistic” should have been used
on p. 45, where the “Judaistic childhood” of the gospel is spoken of,
though it is plain enough from the rest of the book that the infelicity
there is one of terminology merely and not of thought. It might have
been well also to distinguish a little more sharply between the law of
Moses, which even in its ceremonial aspects Paul believed (and our
author also unquestionably believes) was the law of God, from the
misuse of that law in the new dispensation by the Judaizers.

But it wTould be unreasonable to demand completeness of discussion
in a book such as this, which has admirably accomplished its true pur-
pose. Dr. Macartney has here unquestionably helped to make the
Apostle Paul a living figure for modern readers ; the wonderful dramatic
quality of the life of Paul is well brought out. We have exemplified in
this book the noble simplicity of style which helps to make the author
so powerful as a preacher. Thus when the account of the conversion
of the jailer at Philippi is closed with the words: “At midnight this
jailer was a lost pagan; in the morning he was in the Kingdom of
Heaven,” we feel that the true significance of the incident has been
presented in the fewest possible words and with the greatest possible
vividness and power. Or when we read on p. 136 that whereas those
disciples at Ephesus “had not heard of the Holy Ghost, the disciples of
today have heard of Him, and that is about all,” we can well understand
that under the preaching of Dr. Macartney men are “pricked in their
hearts.” Best of all, such writing as that which appears in this book
does not try to be a substitute for the Bible, as do many books on
Biblical characters today, but it will send men back again, with new
interest and understanding, to the reading of the Word of God.

Princeton. J. Gresham Machen.

Protestant Europe: Its Crisis and Outlook. By Adolf Keller, D.D.,
LL.D., and George Steward, Ph.D., F.R.G.S. New York: George
H. Doran Company. Pp. 371. Price $3.50

This book consists of two parts : Part One under the caption of

RECENT LITERATURE

473

“Europe’s Cultural Maelstrom,” treated in nineteen chapters, as fol-
lows : The Path of the Four Horsemen ; The Roots of Continental Pro-
testantism ; The Antecedents of Present-Day Movements ; Emerging
Political Ideals; The Backwash of Industrialism; The Contemporary
Cultural Turmoil; Continental Youth Movements ; The Problem of the
Nature of Continental Churches; Church versus State; The Free
Churches of Europe ; The Church and the People ; Continental Mission-
ary, Social and Temperance Work; The Church and Education; The
Church and Labor ; the Church and Peace Movements ; The Changing
Theological Front; The Relation of Protestant and Catholic Churches;
The Problem of Minorities ; Federative, Coordinating and Relief Move-
ments.

Part Two under the caption of “The Scope of European Protes-
testant Churches, treated under eight chapters, as follows : The Central
Countries : Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain and Ireland ; The
Scandinavian Countries: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland; The
Netherlands ; The Latin Countries : France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal,
Italy; The Old Hapsburg Territories: Czecho-Slovakia, Austria, Hun-
gary ; The Eastern Countries : Poland, The Baltic States, Esthonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Russia ; The Balkan Countries : Bulgaria,
Greece, Albania, The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Ru-
mania, Turkey. A valuable Bibliography and Index are added.

The names of the authors of this volume should furnish sufficient
warrant of its value. Dr. Keller is an outstanding figure in the Protes-
tant Churches of Europe. He was trained in the Universities of Basel,
Geneva and Berlin. For three years he was Instructor in The Interna-
tional School in Cairo, and while there served as one of the pastors in a
Protestant parish in that city. He holds a high rank as a student in
Archaeology and was connected with an expedition commissioned to visit
the Monastery of Ste. Catherine on Mount Sinai to study the Greek
manuscripts in the famous Library where the Codex Sinaiticus was dis-
covered in 1844 and 1859. He devoted some time also to the study of
Coptic manuscripts in the Monasteries of the Western Desert. Dr.
Keller returned to Switzerland in 1899 when he was elected Professor of
Religious Education in the State College of Schaffhausen. Afterwards
he was pastor of a Reformed Church in Geneva from which position he
was called to the historic parish of St. Peter in Zurich. Meantime he
had been recognized as the leading representative of the church unity
movement in Europe. He is now the European Secretary of the Federal
Council of Churches, and also directs the Social and Economic Federation
of the Continuation Committee of the Stockholm Conference on Life and
Work. In this capacity he edits a Quarterly Review in the interests of
this movement.

Dr. George Stewart is the associate minister of the Madison Avenue
Presbyterian Church of New York. He has travelled extensively in
Europe and he has made a thorough study of the religious, social and
economic situation. He is the author of several books. In this volume he
embodies the results of his long study of the European Churches.

Since the War special interest has been developed in the subjects dis-

474

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

cussed in this volume. It is, however, the first book that has penetrated
so deeply into the acute problems that European Protestantism is facing.
Hitherto certain aspects of the situation have been discussed, but gen-
erally in a fugitive and fragmentary manner. Here is presented a treat-
ment both encylopaedic and thorough. To all who recognize and
appreciate the fact that the historic Churches of Europe have given to
America our Christianity not only but also our educational and civic
institutions a book such as this is both timely and stimulating. It will
also serve to direct with discrimination and effectiveness the missionary
and relief movements in this country now enlisted in behalf of European
Protestantism.

Special interest attaches to Chapter VI of Part One, pp. 129-156, on
“The Changing Theological Front.’’ The tendencies set in motion by the
influence of Ritschlianism, the study of Comparative Religion, the
Socio-Religious movement have developed what the writers call “The
Theology of Crisis.” “This movement of thought sprang up in Switzer-
land and Germany and is spreading like wildfire throughout the Conti-
nent. It is of immense importance because of the power and influence it
is having especially over large sections of idealistic youth who fell frus-
trated by the devastating effects of the War. In it, the aversion of the
present generation from the spirit which led to war, becomes a genuine
spiritual revolution. The leaders of this movement are a small group of
Reformed Swiss theologians, Professor Barth, now in Gottingen, Ger-
many, Professor Brunner in Zurich, and Rev. Thumeysen. They are
seconded on the German Lutheran side by Professors Gogarten of Jena
and Bultmann in Marburg.

This so-called “Theology of Crisis” is healthy in that it has a theo-
centric influence and emphasizes salvation by faith alone. The effect is
to focus effort on the preaching of the Gospel, to stress the spiritual
rather than the ethical side of Christianity. It has marked and acceler-
ated a swing away from prevailing rationalism.

Let it not be regarded as a stricture upon the value of the book that
the reviewer feels called upon to direct attention to the fact that too
little emphasis is given to the conservative position of many of the
leaders in the Reformed Churches of Europe. There prevails in many
quarters a consciousness of the subtle inroads that Modernism is making,
and a valiant stand has been taken against it in many of the churches
and educational institutions in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Transylvania,
and Poland, as well as in some countries in western Europe. In the
influential movements for union now under way there are not wanting
courageous men in high position who suspect that the tendency to merge
may carry with it also a corresponding tendency to minimize the place
and power of the Reformed Theology throughout Europe. Should this
be the case the loss resulting to Christianity would far outweigh what
advantages might inhere in or result from organic union. But the day
of such a consummation is too remote to justify present misgivings.

Princeton. Sylvester Woodbridge Beach.

RECENT LITERATURE

475

PERIODICAL LITERATURE

American Church Monthly, New York, April: William H. Dunphy,
Regal Power of the Papacy; Frederick S. Arnold, Folk-lore and
Frazer; Reginald Tribe, Ideals of the Religious Life; Bessie R.
Burchett, Need of Church Schools; C. H. Palmer, Thomas Hardy
and the Church; E. Sinclair Hertell, A Little about William Blake.
The Same, May: Clarence A. Manning, Solovyev and Benson; C. H.
Palmer, The Great Defeat; Mark Brusstar, Streeter — Prophet of
Youth; Latta Griswold, Pius II at Ancona. The Same, June: Clar-
ence A. Manning, The Religion of Leo Tolstoy; Walker Gwynne,
The Exceptive Clauses in St. Matthew.

American Journal of Philology, Baltimore, April: James Hutton,
First Idyl of Moschus in Imitations to the year 1800; Kenneth Scott,
Deification of Demetrius Poliorcetes ; Francis A. Woods, Greek Fish
Names; Albert M. Sturtevant, The suffix -sc- in Old Norse Elska.

Anglican Theological Review, Lancaster, April: Luther B. Moore,
Should the Present Canon on Divorce be altered?; Clifford P. More-
house, English Church and State in the Feudal Anarchy; D. A. Mc-
Gregor, Contemporary Theories of Primitive Religion; Francis J.
Hall, The Study of Dogmatic Theology.

Biblical Review, New York, April: John McNicol, The Christianity
of Pascal; A. McCaig, Christ’s Teaching concerning his own Death;
Edgar Y. Mullins, Humanizing our Philosophy; S. D. Chown, The
Springs of Evangelistic Power; E. G. Sihler, Nero and the Primitive
Christians.

Bibliotheca Sacra, St. Louis, April : A. H. Baldinger, The Para-
mount Problem of Protestantism; A. S. Badger, Life at Eighty-five;
J. O. Buswell, Jr., Conditional Immortality; H. J. Flowers, Christ’s
Doctrine of the Man and Sin ; J. M. Hantz, Our Lord’s Divinity ; Her-
bert Parzen, A Chapter of Israelitish History; G. H. Estabrooks,
Natural and Supernatural.

Canadian Journal of Religious Thought, Toronto, March-April: G. S.
Brett, The Modern Mind and Modernism; F. G. Vial, Language of
the Gospels ; E. A. Dale, Religious Purpose of the Aeneid ; Kathleen
Mackenzie, Columba, Saint and Statesman. The Same, May-June:
W. T. Brown, The Meaning of Worship; Samuel A. B. Mercer, Ex-
cavations in Palestine since the Great War; G. S. Brett, Life in East-
ern Lands ; H. L. MacNeill, Paul, the first Christian Protestant ; S. P.
Rose, Good English in the Pulpit; H. W. Wright, Experimentalism in
Religion.

Catholic Historical Review, Washington, April : Clarence E. Mar-
tin, The American Judiciary and Religious Liberty; Thomas J. Sha-
han, The Higher Education of the Catholic Clergy; Edward A. Pace,
The Church and Scholasticism; John J. Burke, The Historical Attitude
of the Church towards Nationalism; John A. Ryan, Attitude of the
Church toward Free Speech ; Moorhouse F. X. Millar, Origin of
Sound Democratic Principles in Catholic Tradition.

476

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Church Quarterly Review, London, April : G. K. A. Bell, The Ma-
lines Conversations ; H. Maurice Relton, The Incarnation and its Ex-
tension in Church and Sacraments; Claude Jenkins, John Wyclif : the
first Phase; W. O. E. Oesterley, Jewish Marriage in Ancient and
Modern Times; Felix Hope, Asceticism.

Congregational Quarterly, London, April : Edward Grubb, The Fact
of Christian Unity; Kenneth A. Saunders, A Plea for New Realism
in Christology; Roderic Dunkerley, The Earliest Christian Docu-
ments; E. Griffith -Jones, God and Nature: a Reply; F. C. Spurr,
Public Reading of Scripture Today.

Crozer Quarterly, Philadelphia, April : Frederick Tracy, Evolution
and the Higher Life of Man ; Oliver W. Elsbree, From West to
East ; Charles M. Bond, Religion and Education ; Stewart G. Cole,
Philosophical Support of Mysticism ; R. E. E. Harkness, Story of the
Christian Church.

Expository Times, Edinburgh, April: W. M. Macgregor, Sermon on
Mount — The Beatitudes ; Arthur S. Peake, Commentaries on Old and
New Testament; R. C. Gillie, Prophetic Vocation: a Comparison;
J. W. Jack, New Light on Palestine. The Same, May: A. J. Gossip,
Sermon on the Mount — The New Righteousness; F. R. Montgomery
Hitchcock, Latinity of the Pastorals; Arthur S. Peake, Commentaries
on the Old and New Testaments, iii; R. W. Stewart, Newer Estimate
of Judaism. The Same, June: Arthur S. Peake, Commentaries on the
Old and New Testaments, iv; S. P. T. Prideaux, A Plea for the Study
of Theology; F. W. Norwood, Sermon on the Mount, iii; John E. Mac-
Fadyen, A German Estimate of Contemporary British Theology; K. L.
Stevenson, Origin of the Hebrews.

Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge, April : Benjamin W.
Bacon, Some “Western” Variants in the Text of Acts; William H. P.
Hatch, The Apostles in the New Testament and in the Ecclesiastical
Tradition of Egypt.

Homiletic Review, New York, March: Do Parents Know their Chil-
dren?; G. Walter Fiske, Where Abraham went to Church; D. A.
Harshaw, Philosophy of the Negro Spiritual; Thomas F. Opie, The
Preacher to the Theologian. The Same, April : Ward Adair, The new
Brand of Immortality; Arthur S. Phelps, Life and Art of Albrecht
Diirer; Do Parents Know their Children? ii ; Rembert G. Smith, Shall
the Preacher regain his Power?; H. Norman Sibley, The Terrible
Meek. The Same, May: Wm. E. Bryce, Can we believe in Miracles?;
The Minister and his convictions; Wm. C. Carl, The Organ in France
and America today; Clyde F. Vance, Principles in the use of Illustra-
tions ; W. E. Griffith, What the Church may learn from Masonry.
The Same, June: O. F. Davis, The pastor and the child; Fred Smith,
The child in the morning worship ; R. C. Hallock, The minister’s health
and how to edify it; Fred Smith, The psychology required for the chil-
dren’s sermonet.

Jewish Quarterly Review, Philadelphia, April : Samuel Schulman,
Professor Moore’s “Judaism”; Cecil Roth, Sumptuary Laws of the

RECENT LITERATURE

477

Community of Carpentras; Solomon L. Skoss, The Arabic Commen-
tary of ’Ali Ben Suleiman the Karaite of the book of Genesis.

Journal of Religion, Chicago, April : Eugene W. Lyman, Mysticism,
Reason, and Social Idealism ; E. Boyd Barrett, Drama of Catholic Con-
fession; Clifford Manshardt, Converts or co-operation — a study of
modern missions; Herbert W. Hines, Development of the Psychology
of Prophecy; Vincent Taylor, The Synoptic Gospels and some recent
British criticism ; Shelby V. MoCasland, The Cult story of the Early
Church.

Journal of Theological Studies, London, April : F. C. Burkitt, The
Mandaeans; F. C. Burkitt, Notes on Ginza Rabba 174; W. Telfer,
The form of a dove; W. E. Barnes, Masoretic reading of Isaiah 43:14;
I. W. Slotki, Stichometry and text of the Great Hallel ; F. C. Burkitt,
The MSS of "Narsai of the Mysteries”; C. H. Turner, Marcan Usage:
notes critical and exegetical on the Second Gospel, ix.

London Quarterly Review, London, April: Marie V. Williams, Re-
ligious Basis of Plato’s Philosophy; S. G. Dimond, Philosophy of Hen-
rik Ibsen; H. Reinheimer, World of colloids; Leslie D. Weather-
head, Shelley’s Hell complex; H. P. Palmer, Benefit of Clergy; Ar-
thur B. Bateman, Rosetti, the Pre-Raphaelites, and a moral.

Lutheran Church Quarterly, Gettysburg and Philadelphia, April:
Paul Scherer, Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth; John Aberly, Prayer;
H. C. Alleman, Prayer in the Old Testament; Henry Schaeffer,
Pastor’s devotional study of the Bible ; R. C. Horn, Rambles in the
Greek New Testament; George Drach, A new interpretation of types
of New Testament teaching; C. H. Kraeling, Reitzenstein and the
Mystery religions; J. A. W. Haas, History or Revelation; C. M. Jacobs,
Sources of Lutheran history; P. I. Morentz, Winning your Jewish
neighbor.

Missionary Review of the World, New York, April: J. J. Lucas,
Fifty years of missions in India; Howard E. Anderson, At the holiest
Hindu festival; Robert A. Hume, A missionary’s motives today; Rob-
ert E. Speer, Unclaimed areas for Christ, ii; Jay S. Stowell, The
crossroads church at the crossroads ; Webster E. Browning, Evangeli-
cal missions in Latin America. The Same, May : W. F. Kraushaar,
New Guinea Savages for Christ; The “One sheep” association of
Japan; Robert H. Glover, What is the message of the Church?; India,
the rudder of Asia; Wm. Moyser, Pandita Ramabai’s Mukti Mission;
N. W. Taylor, Religious freedom in Mexico. The Same, June : Robert
E. Speer, Christians of many nations at Jerusalem ; Davidson D. T.
Jabavu, A South African view of the Council; Augustine Rallia
Ram, Voices from Jerusalem calling India; John A. Mackay, The
meaning to Latin America; Call to prayer from Jerusalem; The Chris-
tian message to all men; John M. Springer, Wealth in Central Africa;
Alton B. Jacobs, Carey’s influence continues.

Monist, Chicago, April: John Dewey, Social as a category; J. E.
Turner, Charaoter of Reality; F. S. C. Northrop, Internal Inconsis-

478

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

tency in Aristotelian Logic; Charner M. Perry, Language and
Thought; L. L. Bernard, Development of Methods in Sociology.

Moslem World, New York, April : Sonia Howe, Charles de Foucauld
explorer and knight-errant; D. A. Chowdhury, Islam in Bengal; Paul
W. Harrison, Heart of our message; J. Christy Wilson, The all-
Persia church conference; Pierre Crabites, Islam, Personal Law and
the Capitulations; Charles R. Watson, Launching the Council for
Western Asia and Northern Africa.

New Church Life, Lancaster, April : L. W. T. David, The Word and
the human Form ; Donald F. Rose, Why I am a Swedenborgian ;
Theodore Pitcairn, Ultimate source of philosophic ideas. The Same,
May: The Origin of Man — Four addresses. The Same, June: G. A.
Sexton, Divine Authority; F. W. Elphick, What constitutes heresy in
the New Church?

Open Court, Chicago, April : Lewis Spence, Papyri of Central Amer-
ica; M. Whitcomb Hess, More about Space and Time in music; Axel
Lundeberg, System of Occidental Occultism; Robert S. Walker, My
environment. The Same, May: Carlyle Summerbell, Jesus and Go-
tama; Thomas D. Eliot, Insanity, Relativity, and Group-formation;
Daljit Singh Sadharia, Future of Religion in Asia. The Same, June:
Wilfrid D. Hamely, Psychology of the Medicine Man; Royal G.
Hall, Significance of John Dewey for Religious Interpretation ; Joseph
Ratner, Fundamentalism and the Doctrine of Evolution ; Robert P.
Richardson, Faith of an Atheist; H. S. Darlington, Was the Biblical
manna an animal product?

Review and Expositor, Louisville, April : Charles S. Farriss, The
place of a Theological Seminary in a modern world of culture ; W. J.
McGlothlin, Reasons for courses in Bible and religious education in
colleges; H. J. Flowers, The grace of God given to Paul — Ephesians
3:1-13; A. T. Robertson, Dr. Broadus beginning Greek; A. L. Vail,
Meaning of the “Single eye” in the Gospels.

Union Seminary Review, Richmond, April: Best Books on Life and
Letters of Paul ; G. F. Bell, Reconstructing our belief ; W. J. Young,
Message of Micah ; A. L. Lathem, The Summer Bible school; Thorn-
ton Whaling, Religious character of Stonewall Jackson; Marshall
B. Wyatt, The Seminary and extension ; C. O’N. Martindale, Is Chris-
tianity supernatural?

Yale Review, New Haven, April: Willard L. Sperry, Modern re-
ligion and American citizenship; T. H. Morgan, What is Darwinism?;
J. A. Spender, The Press and international affairs; John Spargo, Ad-
vance in the American labor movement ; Frederick B. Luquiens, Span-
ish-American Literature; Tucker Brooke, Shakespeare’s Study in cul-
ture and anarchy.

Biblica, Roma, Aprili : K. Prumm, Herrscherkult und Neues Testa-
ment, (con.); L. G. de Fonesca, AmO^kt] — Foedus an testamentum?
(con.) ; P. Jouon, Notes philologiques sur le texte hebreu de Josue; E.
Power, Church of St. Peter in Jerusalem in relation to House of Caiaphas
and Sancta Sion; B. Alfrink, Der letzle Konig von Babylon.

RECENT LITERATURE

479

Bilychnis, Roma, Aprile: M. de Rubris, La preparazione degli opus-
coli azegliani : “programma per l’opinione nazionale’ ed “emancipazione
degl’Israeliti” ; L. Luzatto, Un filosofo del nazionalismo ; G. Pioli, II
congresso dei modernist! della Chiesa inglese ; M. Vinciguerra, La
elezioni in France e in Germania e le condizione dei cattolici. The Same,
Maggio : G. Pioli, William Blake arista dell’invisibile ; P. Chiminelli,
G. Savonaroia nella coscienza dei posteria; E. Ohlsen, Nuovi orienta-
menti del protestantesimo.

Bulletin de Litterature Ecclesiastique, Toulouse, Mars-Avril : Henri
Bremond, Le Vigneron de Montmorency et l’ficole de l’oraison cordiale ;
Louis Desnoyers, L’Etablissement de la Royaute en Israel.

Ciencia Tomista, Salamanca, Mayo-Junio : Vicente Beltran de He-
redia, El maestro Fray Domingo Banez y la Inquisicion espanola; M.
Cuervo, El desco natural de ver a Dios y los fundamentos de la Apolo-
getica inmanentista ; Sabino Alonso, Delegacion “ab homine” y dele-
gacion “a jure” para oir confesiones de religiosas.

Estudis Franciscians, Barcelona, Abril-Juny: Miquel d’Esplugues, El
problema de l’ateisme; Romauld Bizzarri, Della falsa originalita: ossia
Arte, Religione e Filosofia; Michael a Neukirsch, Harmonia ac Con-
cordia quinque Systematum de concursu gratiae actualis cum libero
arbitrio.

Etudes Theologiques et Religieuses, Montpellier, Mai-Juin: L. Per-
rier, La prehistoire de la Palestine et la Bible; L. Maury, Tommy
Fallot (fin.) ; Edouard Bruston, La litterature sapientale dans de livre
de Job; Franz J. Leenhardt, Remarques exegetique sur I Samuel
21:6; Leon James, Essai sur la Tradition.

Foi et Vie, Paris, Avril : Paul Doumergue, Succedanes ou adjuvants
du Christianisme ; E. Huguenin, La Fraternite entre les sexes; La crise
des elites et les catholiques franqais; Rene Jullian, Tradition et mod-
ernite dans l’art; G. Liengme, Les lois psychologiques appliquees dans
l’enseignment religieux, la priere, la predication. The Same, Mai: Emil
Doumergue, Le Vatican conitre l’Action franqaise et le facisme. The
Same, Juin: L’Allemagne et la propagande de culture allemande; M.
Arbousse-Bastide, La Conference oecumenique de Lausanne ; Pierre
Mirabaud, La Conference de Jerusalem; G. Debu, Quelques traits de
la Conference.

Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift, Aalten, April: C. Bouma,
Formgeschichte ; A. J. Fanoy, Het onderteekingsformulier van de Dien-
aren des Woords. The Same, Mei : C. Bouma, De taal van Jezus en van
de Rabbijnen; J. S. Post, De Christelijke Doop; H. A. Barker, Non
Tali Auxilio. The Same, Juni: Verlags van de I7e Algemeene Ver-
gadering der Vereeniging van Predikanten van de Gereformeerde Ker-
ken in Nederland; H. A. Barker, Non Tali Auxilio.

Nieuwe Theologische Studien, Wageningen, April : W. J. Aalders,
Brunner’s Mittler; J. de Zwaan, Neotestamentica ; A. van Veldhuizen,
De Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt en haar uitgaven. The Same, Mei:
A. van Veldhuizen, Vogelboeken; G. van der Leuuw, Bericht over

480

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

de Godsdienstgeschiedenis ; Th. L. W. van Ravesteijn, Voor onze
Oudtestamentische studie.

Onder Eigen Vaandel, Wageningen, April : F. W. C. L. Schulte,
Een teeken van’s Heeren nabijheid; N. G. Veldhoen, Simon de toove-
naar; Th. L. Haitjema, De theologie van Gustaf Aulen; J. C. Aal-
ders, Het theologisch belang van het Assensch leergeschil; L. W. Bak-
huizen van den Brink, De groote Synode; A. H. de Hartog, Theolo-
gie des Woords?

Revue d’Ascetique et de Mystique, Toulouse, Avril : Lettres inedites
du P. Jean-Baptiste Saint-Jure; M. Viller, Le xviie siecle et l’origine
des retraites spirituelles ; F. Cavallera, Une controverse sur les graces
mystiques.

Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiatique, Louvain, Avril : J. Duhr, Le De Fide
de Bachiarius (fin.) ; L. Van der Essen, La situation religieuse de
Pays-Bas en 1634.

Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophic religieuse, Strasbourg, Mars-
Avril: Maurice Goguel, Critique et Histoire: a propos de la vie de
Jesus; G. Van der Leeuw, A propos de recentes etudes sur la structure
de la mentalite primitive; Pierre Janelle, Le voyage de Martin Bucer
et Paul Fagius de Strasbourg en Angleterre en 1549.

Revue des Sciences Philo so phiques et Theologiques, Paris, Avril:

M. D. Roland-Gosselin, Le Sermon sur la montagne et la theologie
thomiste; A. D. Sertillanges, Note sur la nature du mouvement
d’apres S. Thomas d’Aquin ; P. Amiable, Les harmonies de la Cene et
de la Croix.

Scholastik, Freiburg im Breisgau, 3 :2 : Joseph Stiglmayr, Der sog.
Dionysius Areopagita und Severus von Antiochen; August Deneffe,
Gehort die Himmelfahrt Maria zum Glaubensschatz ? ; Joseph Frobes,
Dynamische Psychologie.

Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie, Innsbruck, 52:2: M. Grab-
mann, Der Einfluss Alberts des Grossen auf das mittelalterliche
Geistesleben, i ; J. Santeler, Die Predestination in den Romerbrief-
kommentaren des 13 Jahrhunderts ; C. A. Kneller, Die Bibelbulle Six-
tus’ V ; K. Gf. Preysing, Echtheit und Bedeutung der dogmatitschen
Erklarung Zephyrrins ; C. Bockl, Wer ist der Monch von Heilsbronn?;

N. Paulus, Suarez fiber die Definierbarkeit der leiblichen Himmelfahrt
Maria; J. B. Schuster, Das Prinzip der doppelten Kausalitat und seine
Anwendung auf die Norwehr.

Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche, Tfibingen, 9:2: Friedrich
Traub, Philosophischer und religioser Wirklichkeitsbegriff ; Karl
Thieme, Zur Trinitatsfrage ; Kurt Stavenhagen, Die Idee des re-
ligiosen Wunders; R. F. Merkel, Zum Problem eines neuen Sex-
ualethos.

D. L. MOODY: HIS MESSAGE FOR TODAY

By Charles R. Erdman, D.D., LL.D., New York: Fleming H.
Revell Company. 1928. Pp. 156. Price, $1.50.

“The substance of this volume was given in the form of
lectures delivered on the Smyth Foundation at Columbia Theo-
logical Seminary, Decatur, Georgia, in March, 1928. It is a
pleasure to acknowledge the honour conferred by the faculty
of the seminary in their appointment to this lectureship ; and
further, it is desired to express deep appreciation for being
permitted to present these lectures in this more permanent
form.” — (Foreword.)

THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE GOSPELS

By J. Ritchie Smith, D.D., Professor of Flomiletics in Prince-
ton Theological Seminary. Author of “The Teaching of
the Gospel of John”; “The Wall and the Gates.” New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1926.

“Throughout the entire volume one finds unmistakable evi-
dences of broad and accurate scholarship, a courageous facing
of difficulties and objections and a determination to think things
through, a catholicity of spirit even where the widest differences
of convictions enter, and a deep and vital devotion to Jesus
Christ. It is with an inexpressible satisfaction one rises from
the reading of such a work.” — The Presbyterian.

WHAT IS FAITH?

By J. Gresham Machen, D.D. New York: The Macmillan
Company, Pp. 263. London : Hodder & Stoughton.

“If we had the resources we should provide a copy to every
minister and lay preacher in the British Isles.” — The British
Weekly.

“Professor Machen has written a strong and courageous
book . . .” — Christian World (London).

CHRISTIANITY AND LIBERALISM

By J. Gresham Machen, D.D. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1923.

“This is a book that should be read by every thinking man,
whether he calls himself a conservative or a liberal. While evi-
dently the product of a thorough scholar, it is written through-
out in simple, non-technical words.” — S. G. Craig in The Pres-
byterian.

The Selected Writings

BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE
WARFIELD

Late Professor of Theology in Princeton
Theological Seminary

IN TEN VOLUMES

At the time of his death in 1921, the late Dr. Benjamin Breck-
inridge Warfield was the leading Calvinistic theologian in the
English speaking world. An Editorial Committee proposes to
publish through the Oxford University Press, in a series of vol-
umes, Dr. Warfield’s contribution to theological thought by re-
printing the important articles which he contributed to the vari-
ous Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopedias and to the theological
reviews, especially The Princeton Theological Review.

The first volume, entitled Revelation and Inspiration , contains
two articles on the Idea of Revelation, and a number of exegeti-
cal and critical articles on the Biblical idea of Inspiration and
the grounds of belief in the plenary inspiration of Scripture.

The second volume will contain Dr. Warfield’s major articles
on several Biblical doctrines, such as The Trinity, Predestina-
tion, Faith, The Person of Christ, etc.

The third volume will comprise the historico-critical articles
on the Person and Work of Christ.

Volumes four, five and six will contain articles on Historical
Theology. They will include the articles on Augustine, Calvin,
and The Westminster Confession. These articles are authori-
tative on their respective subjects.

The seventh and eighth volumes will contain the articles on
Perfectionism.

There will be a ninth volume of miscellaneous articles and a
tenth volume containing the most important of Dr. Warfield’s
book reviews.

Volume I, now ready, may be ordered through your book-
seller, or direct from the publisher. It is bound in cloth, 8vo
(9P2 x6j4), pp. xiii+456, price, $3.00.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

AMERICAN BRANCH NEW YORK