its different forms, still retaining some portion of its old life, a powerful reaction, which with the keen weapons of the latest scientific cultivation and the force of a newly resuscitated religious feeling, carried breach after breach into the system of unbelief, and began once more to build up again the ancient faith with the most diligent zeal. This, however, is not a direct unconditioned return to the earlier stand-point of Church theology, over against which rationalism must be allowed to have a certain kind of right; but a living reproduction rather, and for this very reason, at the same time an advance. The pure negation of a particular tendency, is never a victory over it. Only such an opposition can be so considered, which recognizes also and saves the element of truth in which the tendency has its life.-pp. 11-14.

It would be gratifying to follow the author still farther, into this part of his book, but the limits of our article will not permit us. We commend the whole chapter, however, to the attention of all who desire to know, what has been done, of late, for TRUTH in Germany, and especially to those who imagine German theology to be throughout unsound. No one can rise from the perusal of this portion of the book without a higher regard for German Literature, and a strong conviction that it must, in the necessity of the case, exert a powerful influence upon the world of thought, for a long time to come, together with a feeling of surprise, that in this country, we should have so long neglected to avail ourselves of the rich stores of knowledge, heaped up and systematized by German labor and offered to us on the slight condition of a reproduction in an English form.

The most important section of the work, is that which unfolds the author's idea of Church History. This we will endeavor to exhibit, as far as we can, in the words of the book. But inasmuch as we shall frequently be obliged, for the sake of brevity, to join detached sentences, and parts of sentences, by clauses of our own, we will place quotation marks only where we give the author's language unaltered and at some length. After some interesting preliminary remarks upon the nature of the Church, Dr. Schaf proceeds to consider first the nature of History in general, and afterwards of Church History:

"HISTORY denotes in its objective sense the general course of events; subjectively the representation of these events. This definition, however, requires to be made more particular, so soon as History comes to be handled as a science. Only that can be called Historical, strictly speaking, which has exercised a determining influence upon the progress of humanity. As every individual has his history, so has humanity as a whole. Its biography

is universal or World History. Revelation and enlightened reason teach us, to look upon the human race as a single family, which has sprung from one and the same common ancestor, and tends toward the same end, the exhibition of God's glory. Hence the History of the world also must be conducted as a living organism, in which the irresistible onward movement of humanity towards its end,may be fairly represented. The Histories of particular nations form the members of this organic body; through which, under all difference of character, and calling, and position, and circumstances, one life-blood still flows, and in which the idea of humanity, as formed from God, and for God, dwells as a single soul. All nations, however, are not Historical, any more than all individuals; but only such as have made themselves felt in a living way upon the actual developments inward and outward, of the world's life as a whole." *

*

"As nations which have come to free action, and individuals that reciprocally complete one another, form thus the factors of world-history, so we are to recognize in different periods the several stadia, inwardly connected, and flowing necessarily one out of another, through which the idea of humanity must proceed, in order to come always to a more complete realization and exhibition of its own nature. Every period has a distinct character, which is impressed more or less on all its movements and tendencies. This is denominated the spirit of the age. It is nothing more than the world-spirit, or the spirit of humanity itself at a particular point of its age. For humanity, like the single man of which it is organically composed, passes through the stages of childhood, earlier and later youth, and manhood, onward to old age."

"At the same time, every period and every people has also its several stages of life through which to pass; and then we must say again that Christianity, as such, includes a new course of development, peculiar to itself, and essentially different from all that went before. Religion in this form is not to be viewed as an advance simply upon the Jewish system, exalting it to a higher state. It must be regarded rather as a new creation, by which a new principle, a divine life is communicated to humanity itself. Christianity forms the turning point of the world's History; and Christ the true pole star of the whole, is the centre also around which all revolves; the key, as the great historian John Von Müller expressed himself, which alone can unlock the sense of all that has taken place before his advent, or since. In Christ, the ideal of humanity has been actualized. All history before him must be viewed as a preparation for his presence; a preparation, which in Judaism carried a positive character, in the way of progressive revelations and condescensions on the part of God: while in Paganism it was more negative, a helpless struggle upwards on the part of man. All history since Christ finds its central movement in the divine principle

of life, which he has introduced into human nature, and which is destined gradually to take all up into its own element as revealed in his person. In this view it becomes Church History."—pp. 3741, passim.

CHURCH HISTORY.

CHURCH HISTORY itself like every other theological discipline, has its own history; having reached the high position it now occupies by degrees. We distinguish, in its course of development, three periods. The first two stand related to each. other as extremes. By surmounting both, and at the same time recognizing the truth contained in both, that higher view has come to prevail which enters clearly into the ground of all the more important modern German historical works.

1. The Orthodox Historiography.

Chronicles and annals constitute, down to the time of the Reformation almost the only attempts at Church History; very valuable of course as collections of material, but still no more than attempts at History. Church History, as a science commences, where the Church comes to reflect upon herself; where the historian so represents his matter as to put life into it spiritually from some point of view. The first stand-point which presents itself in the development of the idea of Church History, is that of the earlier orthodoxy as well Roman Catholic, as Protestant. We may style it the stand-point of established orthodory, and exclusive ecclesiasticism. It consists in general, in this, that the Church, with her whole system of doctrine and life, is regarded as something complete from the start; and is thus made to stand, under some received visible form in abstract opposition to all diverging sects, as the absolute and only legitimate representative of the Christian faith. Outward changes in the fortunes of the Church, by its growth in the way of missionary activity, and aggression upon the world are of course admitted, but all idea of an inward development of the nature of the Church itself, is rejected." This view of the Church and its history was held both by the Roman Catholic and early Protestant historians, though differently applied in practice.

"Historical method of the Older Protestant Orthodoxy:" Under this view of History," the conception of the Church be

came more broad and spiritual.' It was no longer identified with the communion of Rome. Elements of evangelical truth and Christian life were recognized in the sects also of the Middle Ages. It was generally admitted that the Lord had at all times reserved a people for himself, even under the dominion of the Pope; but what might be called Roman properly in the Catholic Church, the papacy with its institutions, was regarded as an apostacy from the true Church." After the Reformation the Roman Church, in this theory, took the character of a heresy, and Protestantism took the place that was previously occupied by Rome.

Notwithstanding this change, however, the church continued to be for Protestant historians as well as Roman, something complete in its nature from the beginning, not needing nor admitting any proper development. All activity in the sphere of doctrine, was apprehended only under the form of a vindication or denial of the truth; so that the history of doctrines resolved itself at the last into a mere history of heresies The entire Protestant system was supposed to be found immediately and literally in the Bible, even in the Old Testament itself, and in the life and practice of the first period of the Church; so that the whole intermediate history was made to sink in fact into the character of an unmeaning and useless episode. As it regards government and worship, the more liberal acknowledged changes even within the true Church, but then they looked upon these as the accidental rise and disappearance merely of indifferent ceremonies. At the same time, there were not wanting those who imagined that they could find a specific system of Church government and form of worship, complete in all its details, in the New Testament.2 The view taken of the relation between the reigning Church, and dissenting bodies, remained formally the same that it had been before in the Roman Catholic conception of history; namely that of exclusive ecclesiasticism.

Here, however, this principle fell into a striking self-contradiction in its application. In the first period of the Church, on into the sixth century, the Protestant view went hand in hand with the Romanist in acknowledging the authority of the ecumenical councils, and opposing the sects. But the case chang ed in the Middle Ages. Here the Protestant Historians were

'We pass by the author's exposition of the Roman Catholic view of history, from want of space.

Such persons are still to be found.

forced to take sides with the non-catholic sects, and to make them to be the true Catholic Church, in order to maintain some show of consistency with their previous rule of judgment. But this was attended with great difficulties. For in the first place the Middle Ages are only the regular development of the Catholic Church of the first six centuries. All the germs even of the papacy existed thus early. A second difficulty appears in the fact, that a large proportion of the sects which existed before the Reformation, were further removed in a number of points from the Protestant orthodoxy, than the errors even of the Church of Rome itself. Finally, such Protestants as had carried their studies somewhat thoroughly into the Catholic theology of the Middle Ages could not with all their respect for the dissenting sects, shut their eyes to the fact, that at least as inuch piety as they could exhibit, and a great deal more learning also had place in the reigning Church. This was especially evident in the persons of such men as Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, and Thomas a Kempis. Thus through the pressure of the difficulties which have been mentioned, as well as by the continued development of orthodox theology itself, there was gradually formed during the 18th century, a mediating view, or moderate orthodoxy. This is the supranaturalistic style of Church History. The term supranaturalism is employed in the historical sense of the word to designate the last representatives of the old Protestant orthodoxy, as opposed to Pietism, and still more to Rationalism, by which the theology of Germany was overpowered during the last century. The supranaturalistic historians agree with their strict orthodox predecessors in this: that they look upon the process of history simply as a series of favorable or unfavorable events; and the exhibition of it is considered to be not a living reproduction, but a simple narration, merely of these events. The Christian doctrines are viewed as a fixed unalterable system, handed down through the Bible, and existing in the same form from the beginning. On the other hand, the supranaturalistic historians differed from the strictly orthodox, in regarding deviations from the Church theology with more indulgence. They did not look upon heresies as the product of bad intention; but rather as errors of thought or imagination, or as deviations merely from Church terminology, thus reducing often the most weighty doctrinal controversies to unmeaning logomachies. Lastly, they even justified the heretics in part against the orthodox. In this, however, they assailed their own assumption, that heresy must be regarded as sheer falsehood, which of course can never have