fore the appearance of Dorner's work, Martini's Pragmatic History of the Doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, in the first four Centuries (1800), was the only considerable monograph which the Germans had on this subject; but while this work shows thorough study of the sources, it is incomplete, not coming down even to the Council of Nice, and it is not adapted to the present state of historical research.1

In comparison with these leading works, and with others of less importance which might be named, the volume of our author stands on an equality with any of them in point of general ability, and it is superior in its plan, its exhibition of the views of the leading fathers, and its discernment of their differences as well as agreement. It is composed under the full pressure and advantages of the present enthusiastic study of doctrinal history in Germany; and it is up to the very highest requisitions which their finished scholarship imposes.

The voluminous expansion which the investigation of these first centuries has received in this second edition, is owing to several causes. It was perhaps too cursorily treated at first, partly because there were, at the time of its publication, a more general agreement in the views of German scholars respecting this period, and partly because it was written with direct reference to the current speculations upon Christ, which had been raised by the Hegelian philosophy. But in the mean time, the school of Baur in Tübingen had advanced some positions in regard to the views of the earliest church, which, if true, undermined the whole of Dorner's work, as well as the whole historical basis of the Christian faith. We will give, in a few words, the substance of Dr. Baur's views. The original Christian church was strictly Jewish; all the first Christians were Ebionites. Christ was, to them, only the

of the same name), and the latter by Wallis and South, he did not take any direct part. But after his death a work which he wrote for the satisfaction of lord Arundell, who was perplexed by this controversy, appeared under the title, "Discourse on the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, for the first three Ages of Christianity, concerning the Trinity, in opposition to Tritheism and Sabellianism." Bishop Van Mildert, in his Life of Waterland, gives us the best sketch we have seen of these early English Trinitarian discussions.

The Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, by G. S. Faber, 2 vols. London, 1832, is a most pains-taking collection of passages from the fathers, up to the Council of Nice, beginning with the last first, "to prove the bare historical fact, that the catholic church which flourished in the age and under the immediate teaching of the apostles themselves, received and maintained, on the avowed and express ground of apostolical authority, the doctrine of the holy Trinity, with the dependent doctrine of the theanthropic character of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." It is an array of testimony to prove a particular point, and includes an articulate refutation of objections, given in numerical order. To anything like the character of a history, it makes no pretensions. It does not unfold a doctrine, but proves a position.

1849.]

Views of Baur.

165

Jewish Messiah. Of his higher nature neither Christ nor his first apostles had any conception. The Ebionites, instead of being heretics, were really the first Christians; they became heretics only after Christianity itself had been changed. The first division in the early church was occasioned by the question of circumcision. Paul was the chief means of bringing about this change, which was done by denying the absolute necessity of obeying the law, and asserting the doctrine of justification by faith. Thus a great division was formed in the church between the Jews and their opponents; Peter and Paul are assumed as the representatives of the two parties. That of Paul, to which the heathen Christians chiefly attached themselves, at length obtained the supremacy. His authority as an apostle was recognized; and his writings became the foundation of the new Christianity. But this was not all. The Ebionites were also at war with the Alexandrian Gnostics. The conflict of these two introduced another element into the new church, which gave it its chief impulse. This was the doctrine of the Logos, which is chiefly exhibited in the writings ascribed to John, and came into the church about the middle of the second century. In this doctrine the vacillating views respecting the person of Christ came to a fixed expression. The Ebionites held that Christ was essentially only man; Paul himself, though he allowed that in Christ there was something divine, that is, the Spirit (vevua), still held that in his own nature Christ was only man. But the doctrine of the Logos, as contained in John's writings, and as derived from the Alexandrian philosophy, produced a total revolution, and a higher form of Christianity, by asserting that Christ, in his real nature, was not a mere man, but was divine. This was the turning point of Christianity, made about a century and a half after Christ appeared; and around this idea of the Logos, combined and interchanged as it was with the expression" Son of God," the whole subsequent doctrinal disputes about the nature of Christ revolved. Neither Jesus, nor his immediate followers, knew anything of this article of faith; the genuine epistles of Paul do not contain it, (or, in other words, those epistles ascribed to Paul, which indicate that he had a higher view of Christ's nature, are not genuine); of course the doctrine is not historically true as applicable to Christ's person-it is an idea, the highest to which Christianity has led, introducing the highest form of Christianity, yet an idea not realized in the person of Christ, as the church has always held, but realized only (this is probably Baur's view1) in the human race as a whole.

1 For Baur's view, see his Lehrbuch d. Dogmengeschichte, s. 60, 71, 85, 93; his Lehre von d Dreieinigkeit, Vol. I; and his work, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, 1845. It differs from the Socinian view in considering the original form of

The predominant notion in this entire re-construction of the early history of the church, is to detach the Christian system from its indissoluble connection with the person of Christ. Neither the philosophical nor the historical sense of the advocates of this scheme, would be satisfied with the position that the leading doctrines, always held by the church, are without some substance of truth. They are true, only not in the sense and application which Christianity has given to them. It is one of the striking peculiarities and advantages of the Christian system, that it makes facts, and historical facts, the basis of its chief doctrines. Thus, the atonement is not an abstract truth about the reconciliation of God with man; but, as a doctrine, it is based upon an act of Christ, upon something which he did and suffered for the redemption of the race. So, too, the doctrine of the person of Christ, that in him there is a union of humanity with divinity, rests, in the first instance, upon the fact that that union was really manifested, historically revealed, in the incarnation of our Lord. But if, now, it were possible for historical criticism to show, that this view of the person of Christ was unknown to Christ himself and to the early Christians, that it was introduced into the church one hundred and fifty years after Christ; then the whole historical basis of our faith would be subverted, and philosophy would triumph over Christianity; and all that could remain true, or could be proved to be so, in the Christian system, would be, certain very abstract principles, which have no more direct relation to Christ and his work, than they have to any other man and his work.

This virtual revival of Gnosticism is indeed a daring attempt; but then it is less daring and impious than the straight-forward course of others, who say outright that Jesus, by his own declarations, gave the impulse to such elevated faith in his power and nature, but that Jesus was an enthusiast, and that his disciples were most credulous. This is the most consistent scheme, and, in addition to supreme trust in

Christianity, the Humanitarian, as the lowest and undeveloped form; the subsequent form, instead of being a corruption, is a purification and progress of the faith. But still he agrees with the Socinian in denying the reality of the union of the human and divine in the person of Christ. He differs from the Socinian, still further, in giving this construction of the early Christian history a systematic and philosophical form; and his criticism upon the Scriptures is marked by the endeavor to prove, not that the obstinate texts will bear other constructions, but that the works in which they appear are of later origin. Thus, the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians, are not Paul's, since they indicate a higher view of Christ's nature. There are some striking points of similarity between this scheme and what seems to be Gibbon's view of the rise of the doctrine of the Incarnation, in the 47th chapter of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

1849.]

Basis of Christianity is Facts.

167

one's own individual notions, it only needs supreme distrust in every body and every thing else, even in the possibility of a revelation, to make it perfectly satisfactory. It indeed makes Christ to be the greatest of impostors, the most daring of the sons of earth; for it makes him claim that he alone was sinless, while all others were sinful; when this claim itself, if he were like them, would prove him to be a greater sinner than they all. But then, as a recompense for the loss of belief in his virtue, it gives the most unqualified faith in the infallibility of one's own reason. It is content to assume that the whole race of man has hitherto been in error, if it may only maintain that one man is, at last, right, It will gladly abandon all trust in a revelation from God through Christ, if it may only trust in the revelations of one's own spirit. This is a more consistent theory; but it is so rebellious against history, so irreverent to Christ, so distrustful of God, that a philosophical mind would gladly be spared the pain, if not the reproach, of being its advocate. And therefore we have such theories as that of Dr. Baur. Against these subversive views, the work of Dr. Dorner is chiefly directed. It maintains that Christianity was not originally a theory; that its beginning was not in the announcement of any abstract notion; but that its basis was laid in facts. The manifestation of God in the flesh, in the person of Jesus, is the historical and real basis of Christianity. "He that knows religion, knows that the chief thing in it is a divine act, which is intended to reconcile the whole man with God." The person of Christ is the centre and life of this revelation. Who that person is, what are the elements of his nature, is historically recorded. We know, on sure testimony, what Christ declared himself to be; we know what his early disciples believed him to be. That higher view of the nature of Christ, which makes him to be essentially divine, is not a phantastic and unaccountable product of a subsequent age; but was held by the earliest church, and this can be historically proved. And not only in the first century, but in the others, without any hiatus, is this truth set forth. This is surely an elevated conception of history, through all its strifes and conflicts, to trace the gradual and victorious progress of the sublimest truths of the Christian faith; and see them emerging with added lustre, in immortal youth and matured vigor from every fresh assault. And no Christian man who reads how the author has performed this office for the first centuries can fail to say, with him, that "like the astronomer gazing into unimagined worlds, he has often, in the contemplation of this sublime history, been overwhelmed by the feeling of adoring wonder."

In proceeding, now, to give a more full account of the way in which the history of this doctrine is here presented, our limits will oblige us

to confine ourselves to the introductory portion. This is of special value, as exhibiting the relation in which the Christian doctrine stands to those religious opinions prevalent in the ancient world which might, upon a superficial inspection, be considered as identical with

it. The basis of the whole argument of the work, the general principles upon which it is conducted, and the true foundation and method of doctrinal history are also here insisted upon. The introduction closes with giving the great general epochs of the history itself. Though we shall be obliged to confine ourselves to a mere abstract, and thus obscure that excellency of the original which is found in its copious details, we shall still hope to transfer to our pages some reflected image of those elevated conceptions, which this history shows us have met in the person of our Saviour, as their luminous centre.

It is perhaps hardly worth while to remark, that even where we do not wholly agree with the author in his philosophical statements, we have not thought it advisable to interpose any criticisms; believing as we do, that the work as a whole will justify itself, and that on so difficult a subject it is often desirable to see a variety of expositions.

The great idea which lies at the foundation of the Christian revelation, the idea of a union of divinity and humanity, of a God-man, is not restricted to this religion alone; the elements of it are to be found in all creeds, so far as they are religious, and because they are religious. The difference between the various forms of religion, will be rather found to consist in the mode in which this union is conceived or attempted to be realized. The ideal of human life must always be, that it be not human only, but in some way connected with and influenced by what is divine. As soon as man thinks of himself in his relation to God, he cannot conceive of a holy life in any other form than as a union in some sense of divine and human life. And when, on the other hand, we think of God in his relation to man, our highest conception of a revelation will always be that of a manifestation of God, not merely in outward signs and wonders, nor yet in nature which is blind and dumb, but in the form of a being who may know him and be known of him.

This is not anthropomorphism. If it were, then it would be inexplicable that religion and science, as they advance, always employ themselves more and more about this great problem; that their constant tendency is to bring the divine and the human to a closer union. To think of God as wholly abstracted from the world and all that is