FOREIGN OUTLOOK.

SOME LEADERS OF THOUGHT.

Friedrich Spitta. He stands among the foremost of the theological faculty at Strasburg. He is well prepared by scholastic training, by natural talents, and by long practice to exercise the office of a New Testament critic. He is courageous in the expression of his opinions, yet careful to conciliate, so far as possible, the minds of the more conservative, from whom he often differs so widely. On account of the vast interest awakened during the last few years in the criticism of the Apocalypse, and because he has risen to the rank of a first authority on the subject, it may be well to give his views. He denies (Die Offenbarung des Johannes-The Revelation of John) the unity of the book, claiming that, while the language throughout differs materially from that of other parts of the New Testament, this alone does not prove its unity. He believes that it is a compilation of Jewish and Christian apocalypses. The Grundschrift he takes to be the Christian portion, including the seven epistles to the Churches, and several other of the more favorite passages. Besides this there are two Jewish apocalypses apparent, one composed in the time of Pompey, and another in the time of Caligula. Besides these elements there are the additions made by the redactor who brought all these portions together in the time of Trajan. The Christian Apocalypse he supposes to have been composed by John Mark about a decade prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. He thinks it likely that the redactor did not suspect the Jewish origin of the non-Christian elements of the work he gave to the world. The redactor has done his work so well that it is only by the closest scrutiny that we would suspect its composite nature. Spitta thinks that his view is not only justified from the standpoint of biblical science, but also that he does not deserve to be cast out from the fellowship of the saints because of his conclusions. In the first place he has done his work in the interest of Christianity and the Church. Besides, he compares his conclusions with those of Luther and Zwingli, and finds that while they judge the Apocalypse with such severity as to give it no place in their New Testamen the has clearly proved the Christian origin of at least a portion of the book. He thinks, furthermore, that he has done a good service to religion by making clear which portions are of Christian origin and which of Jewish, to say nothing of the simplification of the apocalyptic problem for the ordinary reader. It will be noticed that, while Vischer makes the Grundschrift Jewish, Spitta makes it Christian.

Hermann Weiss. The theologians of Germany generally have the reputation of being specialists in the most restricted sense. Yet it must be said that most of them are capable of treating a great variety of themes. Weiss, although a professor of theology at Tübingen, is called upon to

write a work on Christian Ethics (Einleitung in die christliche Ethik) for the collection of theological text-books, of which Harnack's Dogmengeschichte forms a part. This places him at once among those of the first rank in German thought. It may be well, therefore, to confine our representations of him to his views on Christian ethics. Of these we can only touch upon anthropology. He affirms that in every individual there is a religious as well as ethical predisposition and capacity. So far as religion is concerned this capacity must not be confounded with the conscience, however closely they may be related to each other. Conscience is indeed the voice of God in the soul, but it is incapable of producing confidence in God. For this a religious capacity of another sort is imperatively demanded, which as really as the other is in man's nature. True morality can only be developed in connection with true religion. But while he asserts an innate capacity for religion in man he denies that the natural and spontaneous development of this capacity would ever cause man to attain the goal of his religio-ethical destination. For this the continual educational influences of the divine Spirit are necessary. This is proved not only by the heathen world, but by the constantly recurring condition of error and sin in the whole human race. This shows how absolutely necessary for the establishment of the religio-ethical consciousness and life is a special revelation from God. The experience of Christendom teaches that from Jesus Christ, especially as portrayed in his word, and not from the development of an original capacity, proceed the specifically religious and moral renewal and perfection. But this does not prove any contradiction between the revelation of God and the natural religious capacity of mankind. Here we have a side of human nature which has not been studied with sufficient care. The majority of theologians have been content to investigate the attributes and powers of God, but have neglected those of man upon whom divine influences operate. Weiss has gone into this department of investigation with all the zeal of a scientist, and yet with all the reverence of a sincere Christian. The profound remark of Augustine that the soul was made for God and cannot rest until it rests in God is constantly proved to be true, and the enemies of Christianity should take note of the fact.

Daniel Völter. His chief prominence is due to his views of the Apocalypse in his Entstehung der Apocalypse (The Origin of the Apocalypse). It is through his researches that the more careful study of the Apocalypse has been pushed with such energy during the past ten years, giving rise to so many theories, and raising the criticism of this book to as great prominence, although not to so great importance, as Wellhausen's theories lent to the criticism of the Pentateuch. No better illustration can be found of the extent to which the critical spirit will lead one who gives himself up to it than that furnished by Völter. The most recent criticism of the Pauline letters has been noticed previously in these pages. Völter is one of the most radical. A professor in a Dutch university, he took his

hint concerning the Pauline epistles from the Dutch professors Loman and Pierson, and the Swiss theologian Steck. But he is more radical than any of his teachers. Not only does he reject the principal Pauline letters along with the smaller ones, but he rejects the Acts of the Apostles as well. Nevertheless, he holds (Die Komposition der Paulinischen Hauptbriefe The Composition of the Principal Pauline Letters) that Romans contains a Pauline element which he can distinguish. Following are the portions which he designates as Pauline: i, 1; i, 5, 6; i, 7; i, 8-17; chapters v and vi (except v, 13, 14; v, 20, and vi, 14, 15); chapters xii, 13; xv, 14-32; xvi, 21-23. The great reason which he gives for the belief in the spuriousness of the Pauline letters is that the Paul of those letters is an impossible character judged by the laws of development. He thinks him isolated from original Christianity and without influence upon the age immediately following. He is a phenomenon which, instead of making clear the early history of Christianity, renders it inexplicable. But we shall understand this better when we see.how Völter sums up the views omitted from the letter that he has reconstructed. In it he finds no speculative construction of the person of Christ. There is no hint in his Romans of the preexistence of Christ, nor of two natures within him, but he appears as a man only. Here the real reason appears for the rejection of the other portions of the Epistle to the Romans. Glad indeed will be the day when men who profess to be purely scientific theologians shall be able to carry on their investigations without presuppositions which invalidate their results.

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

"Geschichte des Spanischen Protestantismus" (History of Spanish Protestantism), by C. A. Wilkens. The history of the Reformation in Spain during the sixteenth century is scarcely at all known to the general reader, except through the history of the Inquisition. Wilkens has made himself master of the subject, and has produced a work of great interest and beauty. He treats the theme with all possible brevity, but gives the most weighty and characteristic features of this section of Spanish Church history. His work is increased in interest and value by the fact that he does not confine himself so closely to his subject as to ignore Spain and the Spanish people among whom the scenes are laid, but describes landscapes, localities, customs, politics, science, art, and important Spanish leaders, thus surrounding his subject with an air of concreteness otherwise impossible. There is a refreshing fairness in his treatment of the principal characters of the Spanish Reformation. He does not try to make them appear greater than they were; and so far as they are justly censurable by their Roman Catholic slanderers he does not undertake to defend them. In his sight the justness of their cause does not excuse their excesses. On the other hand, he does not treat with unnecessary harshness the leading personalities of Romanism during the

period. He appreciates whatever of excellence he sees in Spanish Roman Catholicism, while judging the doctrines according to the principles of the Reformation. In other words, he refuses to pay back the Romanist historians in their own coin when they abuse and slander everything Protestant. Nevertheless he does not fail to give the facts of the history. His work will in this respect prove unsatisfactory to the partisan, and may give comfort and even encouragement to the enemy. Roman Catholics are strangely incapable of gratitude for a spirit of fairness exhibited toward them. They are so wanting in magnanimity and so implacable that they will accept any advantage which that spirit may show them, but they will employ the advantage to destroy the one who affords it. The chivalric honor of knighthood may not safely be attributed to the Roman controversialist. But the true historical spirit has undoubtedly been caught by the author, and his work will be appreciated accordingly. With all its mildness it exhibits in a fearful light the cruelty and un-Christlikeness of the Roman Catholic Church, which claims exactly to represent Christ on earth.

"Der Paulinismus des Irenæus" (The Paulinism of Irenæus), by Dr. Johannes Werner. The question here discussed has to do with the important problems of the canonization of Paul's epistles and the introduction of the Pauline theology into the Christian world. The conclusions of the author regarding the first of these are as follows: The first to use the Pauline epistles comprehensively in his writings, and as canonical, was Irenæus. These letters have indeed hitherto been reckoned as Pauline and estimated accordingly, but had not been reckoned as Holy Scripture. While gnosticism undertook to employ these letters as sacred Scripture in its own interest the Church was compelled to do the same; that is, the Church must turn the weapons of gnosticism against gnosticism. The Pauline epistles thus became canonical by being employed as such from necessity, not from conviction. The apostolic authority of Paul was undoubtedly held by Irenæus, but out of dogmatic considerations. It rested upon the leveling of the individualities of the apostles in the interest of the ecclesiastical tradition. It is independent of the historical Paul as he appears in his letters. Consequently Irenæus did not understand the individuality of Paul, but conceived him as dogmatic interests required he should be. Notwithstanding the mass of Pauline citations in Irenæus, it must not be concluded that he was penetrated with Pauline ideas. The investigation of these citations rather proves that they were employed in the interest of antignostic unity, the mystical and moral tendencies, and the eschatological inclinations of Irenæus. For these purposes Pauline ideas were cited, explained, and misunderstood. On the other hand, the citations hardly touch the specifically Pauline ideas of the plan and nature of salvation, and the measure of properly understood and genuine Pauline thoughts is very small. What Irenæus took from Paul corresponded with his own standpoint; but this was not essentially influenced by Paul. The result of all this is that we must

not suppose the letters of Paul to have been canonized by the choice of the Church, but by an accidental necessity. We may draw either one of two inferences from this: 1. That the Church knew Paul's letters to be unworthy of canonization, or, 2. That the Church wickedly refused them their rightful place in the sacred Scripture until the providence of God interfered to compel it. This book takes the former position. Space forbids the consideration of the doctrinal portion of the book.

"Das Buch Judith " (The Book of Judith), by Arthur S. Weissmann. Another contribution by a Jew to Jewish theological literature is here presented. It will be welcome to many who know but little of the book or its heroine. The story lacks indeed but little of being as interesting as Esther. But to the Jews at least the history of the latter is well known because of the Feast of Purim which celebrates it, while to the deeds recorded in Judith no festival is dedicated. To the Christian the Book of Esther is better known because it is among the canonical books. of the Old Testament. Weissmann says that Judith is denied a place among the trustworthy historic books, not because it relates improbabilities or monstrosities, but because it makes Nebuchadnezzar reign at the time of Arpaxad, who lived at least two thousand years previously, and because of the difficulty of placing the events related in any date of Jewish history known to us. He thinks that Nebuchadnezzar was a typical name for a violent ruler, and that the events well fit into the period about B. C. 312. As to the refusal of the Synagogue to canonize the book, he thinks that several reasons conspired. But the principal reason was that Judith sprang from the tribe of Simeon, and that this tribe had for more than a thousand years been under the pressure of a curse. Jacob had cursed Simeon. Moses, before his death, blessed all the tribes of Israel except Simeon. The song of Deborah had a word of praise and encouragement for all the tribes except Simeon. And the Bible seems to heap upon this tribe all manner of reproach. The other tribes treated Simeon with such harshness that many of the tribe were obliged to leave the country to whose conquest they had contributed. If, as he supposes, the book may for a time have found a place in the canon, then he would explain its subsequent rejection and displacement on the ground that during the Maccabean period the general sentiment was against the admission of women to a share in any great or noble deed. He thinks the tendency of the book is decidedly in favor of the introduction of a higher state of morals, a deepening of religious feeling, and the selection as leaders of those only who are and who have always been above such suspicion in their lives. The author is an enthusiast in favor of the activity of woman in the realm of religious endeavor, citing Judith, Esther, Miriam, and Deborah as examples of this activity, and calling upon the Jewish women of the present and future to assist in securing to the race the precious treasures of truth, morality, and brotherly love, feeling assured that the result will not fail of success.