THE NEWLY-DISCOVERED APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES. PROF. SEEBERG, Erlangen (N. K. Zeitschr., Dec., 1891).—There is great joy among scholars over the discovery, by Prof. J. Rendel Harris, of a Syriac translation of this second-century work. The text is published, with a translation and notes, in the Cambridge "Texts and Studies," edited by the Rev. J. A. Robinson. This discovery has led to two other discoveries. The Armenian fragment, purporting to be the work of Aristides, is shown to be genuine; and Mr. Robinson has discovered that the medieval legend of "Barlaam and Joasaph" has the apology of Aristides among its contents. We thus have three copies of the work in whole or in part. The three texts, while identical in substance, differ so much in detail that it becomes difficult to determine which is nearest the original. One object of Dr. Seeberg's careful analysis and comparison is to throw some light on this question.

First of all, the Syriac version enables the essayist to correct the traditional date. Hitherto our only knowledge of Aristides has come from the meagre notices of Eusebius and Jerome, and Jerome merely amplified Eusebius. Quadratus and Aristides were said to have presented their Apologies to the Emperor Hadrian in 124 A.D., and this was confirmed by the Armenian fragment. But a very careful examination of the heading of the Syriac version, the details of which are given in the essay, leads Dr. Seeberg to conclude that the Apology was addressed to Hadrian's successor, Antoninus Pius, and belongs probably to 140-145 A.D. It is certain that the Syriac heading is corrupt, and the essayist's emendation removes all difficulties. The Apology has many points in common with the Second Epist. of Clement, which belongs to the same time.

The principal part of the paper is taken up with a discussion of the mutual relations of three texts-the Syriac, the Armenian, and the Greek contained in the Life of Barlaam. A first glance shows that the two former are closely related to each other, while the Armenian enlarges freely. Both the Syriac and Greek present signs of revision, although the Greek preserves the wording of the Armenian in considerable portions. Despite abbreviations and additions, the Greek is said to supply a more original text than the Syriac. The Armenian and Syriac, notwithstanding their similarity, are independent of each other. The three texts, in short, are independent. Dr. Seeberg thus sums up the conclusions he comes to: "1. The Syraic and Armenian, despite various additions and enlargements, have faithfully preserved the original arrangement of the Apology. 2. There is no reason to assume an ancient revision of the Apology as the basis of the Syriac and Armenian. 3. The Greek, or the author of the Life of Barlaam, has also revised the Apology, besides changing the arrangement to suit his own purpose. 4. While a reconstruction of the discourse of Aristides has to be admitted in regard to the language, especially in the Greek, any thought is to be accepted as belonging to Aristides when contained in the Syriac and Armenian, which are both independent witnesses." He then gives a reconstruction of two sections of the Apology, taking as his guide these two postulates: "1. The language is only to be regarded as certain where the Armenian or Syriac agrees with the Greek. 2. The order of thought, however, is ascertainable from the agreement of the Armenian and Syriac, or of the Greek with either one of the other two."

We said above that Dr. Seeberg makes the Greek text more original than the Syriac and Armenian. On the other hand, he has an elaborate argument to show that the arrangement of the matter is more original in the latter than in the former. The Greek reviser has evidently taken great liberties in this respect, adapting the order to his immediate purpose. To take a slight example: The Greek text divides

mankind into Heathen, Jews, and Christians, subdividing the Heathen into Chaldeans, Hellenes, and Egyptians. The Syriac and Armenian give another division: Barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and Christians. The latter classification may seem strange, seeing that Jews and Christians would come under the first head. But it is shown that there is warrant for such a division. Dr. Seeberg argues that the Syriac and Armenian classification is the more original, because it is the least artificial and the most difficult to account for. The classification of the Greek text is the same as in Hippolytus, where the purpose is obvious. The Chaldeans, Greeks, and Egyptians are selected as the most cultured representatives of the heathen world, and yet they went grievously astray.

The work of Aristides adds very little to our knowledge. Like the Teaching of the Twelve, it is interesting chiefly for its extreme antiquity and for the simple picture it gives of early Christian faith and practice. It is evidently the oldest of the second-century remains. It is without features which a later date would certainly have stamped upon it. To it heathenism is a mere folly; it knows nothing of the idea of a "præparatio evangelica" even in heathenism. Ceremonial Judaism is worship paid to angels, not to God. Aristides is careful to refer to the " Scriptures" as his authority; he takes the facts of Christ's life from " the Gospel." He attempts no definition of God; to search into His nature is useless. He is without name, or beginning, or change, unbegotten, eternal, incomprehensible, above the reach of need or passion, a spiritual, invisible Being! "He it is who made all things for man's sake, and it is well that man should fear God and do no hurt to his neighbour. The chief distinction of this God from heathen deities is that He is living and mighty, the world's Creator and Lord, a God able to save those who trust in Him. God sent His Son, who took flesh of the Virgin Mary. His life is described according to the creed. . . . Jesus brought men faith in the one true God, the Creator. He gave laws which Christians conscientiously follow, in view of the recompense of the world to come. Jesus is the Judge of mankind. He does not speak of the saving efficacy of Christ's life and death." Evidently those points are selected which are most likely to tell in an appeal to a heathen emperor. The laws of the Christians, the glory of their service, and their hope of reward in the future, the emperor will learn from the Scriptures of the Christians."

The same motive evidently inspires the account given of the life of Christians, which is the most attractive part of the work. Dr. Seeberg writes, "Christians form a new race of men in the world, the race of those blessed of God, living in the fellowship of prayer with God. They who serve the true God and follow the precepts of His Messiah, without distinction of age or sex, walk in the path of light without making a show or boast of the work of holy love, which they quietly practise. They who raise their head to the eternal world are a world-conserving force that has entered into the system of the ancient world. By their intercession the world exists, and for their sakes its beauty continues. The new law of love is a reality to Christians. The traveller finds a welcome with them; the poor man is not forgotten, not even after his death. They fast even from necessaries that they may help a brother's needs. If any one is imprisoned for the faith they succour him, and seek, if possible, to secure his release.”

"One sees that the treatise does not present much that is new. Yet it makes a deep impression to hear a witness of the greatest revolution in the world's history speak of the 'new race,' whose faith had become the victory which overcame the world, and whose love was the new power, before which the old must perforce pass away." J. S. BANKS.

CURRENT FRENCH THOUGHT.

DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAIN DOGMAS? By AUGUSTE SABATIER (Revue Chrétienne).-The answer to this question is easily found by ascertaining I. What a dogma is, and II. What the New Testament is.

I. Dogma. If we examine a dogma, e.g., that of the personal infallibility of the Pope, formulated in our own time, or that of the co-essential divinity of Jesus Christ decided by the Council of Nicæa, we find that it is a statement of what had previously existed as a doctrine freely discussed, and indefinite in form. The doctrine when defined by a Church becomes a law for all members of that Church. In it there is both a doctrinal element, elaborated by discussion, and an element of authority, that proceeds from the Church formally constituted. This is clearly seen from the meaning of the verb from which "dogma" is derived (edožev), placuit, “it has seemed good." Both the word and the idea it implies are anterior to Christianity, and quite foreign to Hebrew tradition. They are rather to be found in the history of Greek philosophy and politics. In the New Testament it is never applied to the contents of the Gospel, but to the rigid forms of the Jewish law (Col. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 15), to imperial decrees (Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 7), and to the definite rule prescribed by the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xvi. 4). In fact, this last is the first and only "dogma" in the New Testament, and from the desuetude into which it has fallen we see how temporary and variable dogmas are. It was at a much later time that a distinction was made between practical rules and doctrinal decisions, and it was in the beginning of the fourth century that the word dogma was applied exclusively to the latter. We can, therefore, see that there cannot be dogmas (in our sense of the word) in the Bible, since the Bible is earlier than the period when decisions on doctrine were pronounced by the Church.

II. New Testament. The question, What is the New Testament? resolves itself into three others: (1) How was the canon of the New Testament formed? (2) Who wrote the books that compose it, and with what purpose? (3) Of what does the revelation of God which we find in it consist?

(1) How was the canon formed? The Christian Church was in existence before the New Testament, and even existed without it for nearly a century and a half. If God gave us the Gospel, it is the Church which has given us the New Testament. The oral and living tradition was at first preferred to written books. The collection of sacred books was very slowly formed, and varied considerably in various places. A hundred and fifty years after Jesus Christ the four Gospels first appear as superseding all other narratives of the life of the Saviour. The epistles were collected at a later time. About the year A.D. 200 the general plan of the New Testament was fixed. But still there was not unanimity as to the various books and the degree of authority belonging to each. Some books, e.g., the Shepherd of Hermas, were admitted which were afterwards excluded; others, e.g., the Epistle to the Hebrews, were excluded which were afterwards admitted. Who, then, collected the books of our New Testament, fixed definitely which should belong to it and which should not? The history of five centuries replies, the ancient Catholic Church. Those, therefore, who uphold the dogmatic authority of the Bible are involved in a vicious circle, since the question as to what books should appear in it was settled by the authority of the Church.

(2) Who wrote the books of the New Testament, and with what purpose? The Gospel of St. Matthew does not, in its present form, appear to be the work of that

Apostle; that of St. Mark is still more anonymous—it is attributed to him by Papias, who speaks of it as an echo of the preaching of St. Peter; St. Luke claims to be no more than a conscientious historian, who had taken pains to obtain accurate information. Critics of equal eminence are opposed to each other on the question of the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel. No one can say definitely who is the St. James whose epistle we have. One of those attributed to St. Peter is not above suspicion, the other is very generally suspected. In short, we cannot be sure that any of the books of the New Testament proceeded from any one of the Twelve Apostles. There still remains, of course, the Apostle Paul. He is the theologian of the Apostolic age; but his teaching springs from his personal experience. He speaks of the revelation given him by the Holy Spirit, but his assurance is based upon that conviction of forgiveness and peace which every believer receives from the same Divine source. All the books of the New Testament have their origin in fortuitous circumstances of the time when they were written. In none of them does the author wish to give and formulate dogmas. It is to Jesus that supreme authority belongs; and there are no dogmas in His teaching, because that teaching is rather the giving of life than the setting forth of abstract, supernatural truths. It is for us to formulate truth, provided we always clearly keep in view that our deductions are necessarily imperfect and faulty, and have not the same authority as the Word of God.

(3) of what does the revelation of God in the New Testament consist? Certainly not of a list of dogmas, i.e., of abstract, supernatural truths. We are dead in trespasses and sins. It is no help to give us an abstract idea; what we need is to be raised from the dead. The Word of God is essentially a creative force; religious truth is inseparable from religious life. God, desiring to save us, has not confined Himself to stating dogmatically the normal relations between us and Him; He has done more and better, He has created in the heart of humanity Jesus, Son of God and Son of Man, as a germ, a living power able to give life. In a concrete form Jesus Christ manifests the normal relations between man and the Heavenly Father. That being granted, it is easy to show the connection between the New Testament as a book and this work of God. The religious experiences which it records are accepted by the Christian conscience as the type of that life of faith and love after which it aspires, and for which it was made. And so the New Testament is the same for all men-for the wise and for the ignorant; it demands from all the submission of the heart and not of the intellect. It sends those empty away who seek from it a supernatural knowledge of things in heaven or earth; but it gives food to those who hunger after righteousness, it satisfies those who thirst for forgiveness and life everlasting.

DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAIN DOGMAS? A REPLY TO M. SABATIER. By M. GODET (Revue Chrétienne).-M. Sabatier and I are agreed upon the point that Christian thought undergoes constant change in its effort to fix and express in a more and more perfect doctrinal form the contents of the religious life and experience of the Church. But he and I part company when he applies this law of the transformation of dogma to the teaching of the Bible, to that of the Apostles, and to that of Jesus Himself. I maintain that over against ecclesiastical dogmas, which vary according to the state of Christian life at the time when they are formulated, there are Biblical dogmas, which are permanent factors in that life.

Is it right to use the word dogma in this sense? I believe my doing so is in accordance with the Biblical use of the word. In the passages in the New Testament where it appears we find in it three elements which constitute "dogma": 1. A com

petent and recognized authority which issues a decision; 2. A fact, the object of that decision; and 3. A circle of persons for whom that decision is authoritative. Are there, then, in the New Testament declarations emanating from a competent authority, bearing on certain facts, and recognized as valid in the circle subject to that authority? There are: the New Testament contains a certain number of statements given as emanating from a Divine authority, bearing on facts of a supernatural order, and authoritative for the whole circle of believers. To these I attach the name of Biblical dogmas. These dogmas, it is to be specially noticed, have, as their contents, facts of a supernatural order, not metaphysical ideas-doctrines or abstract truths. And in order to distinguish them from the dogmas formulated at a later period by the Church, I entitle them implicit dogmas. An example or two will make my position clearer. The New Testament affirms the incarnation of a Divine Being in the Person of Jesus. Christian thought has been brought to bear upon this revealed fact, and has striven to show how a Divine and a human nature could coexist in one person. Eutyches and Nestorius have given different, even opposite, solutions of this problem, and the Council of Chalcedon published a formula on the point which for many ages seemed sufficiently satisfactory. The Lutheran and the Reformed Churches have given new and somewhat differing solutions of the same question, and recently the hypothesis of a voluntary self-humiliation (kévwois, Phil. ii. 7) has been advanced in explanation of the matter. But it is clear that the simple and permanent statement of the fact itself in words like these: "The Word became flesh,' ""He who was in the form of God emptied Himself "-towers far above all this labour of Christian thought. In the same way I instance the dogma of predestination. The New Testament states the fact of a Divine decree concerning the glorious destiny of the elect—" predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son of God" (Rom. viii. 29). Christian thought has examined and re-examined the Divine decree from every point of view, in order to formulate it and justify it. It is impossible, therefore, to find a better expression than “implicit dogmas" by which to designate the simple affirmations of the Bible, as distinguished from the labours to systematize Divine truth to which they have given

rise.

The particular phrase used, however, is not a matter of much consequence : what is of consequence is to know if the position I defend is true, i.e., if prior to the formulating of dogmas by the Church, there are in the New Testament statements given as emanating from a Divine revelation, and having as their substance facts inaccessible to human thought, by which God has seen good to effect the salvation of men. It is the existence of such statements that I wish to point out.

These are preliminary discussions; let us come to the true points of debate. The first is the canonicity of the books of the New Testament. Does the authority of those books rest upon the authority of the Church that collected them? It does not. It was not the Church of the latter part of the fourth century that, in pronouncing the canon of the New Testament as closed, gave the stamp of authority to the sacred books. It did no more than recognize that authority which those writings had already possessed for three centuries in virtue of their Apostolic origin. Indeed, in order to justify the admission into the canon of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and those of St. James and St. Jude, they strove to attribute the first-named of these to St. Paul, and to identify the authors of the second and third with the cousins and Apostles of Jesus. With the same purpose in view, they endeavoured to connect the Gospel of St. Mark with the teaching of St. Peter, and that of St. Luke with the teaching of St. Paul. The whole New Testament was thus traced to the Apostles. These facts, and many others which I could bring forward, prove that it was not the