relate in an objective manner what was delivered to them; an internal and contemplative view of Christianity prevails in the writings of John, and a practical and dialectic tendency in those of Paul, who was later called to be an apostle. And these may be said to be types of the subsequent modes of theological thought and teaching.*

1 When we speak of the apostolic doctrine in general, we must not forget that we do not refer to the twelve Apostles, of whose doctrinal views we possess but very imperfect knowledge. For it is yet contested whether the James and Jude, whose Epistles are in the canon, belonged to the twelve apostles, and whether they are the brothers of our Lord. On the doctrinal system of James, see Dorner, u. s. p. 91 sq. (Comp. Herder, Briefe zweier Brüder Jesu in unserm Kanon; Wieseler, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1842, I. p. 71, ss.; * Schaff, das Verhältniss des Jacobus, Bruders des Hernn, zu Jacóbus Alphæi, Berl. 1842; and the commentaries.) [Lardner, vi. 162–202; Wright, W., in Kitto, Cyclop. of Bibl. Literat.] On his relation to Paul, see Neander, Gelegenheitschriften, 3d ed., p. 1 sq. Accordingly, Peter and John alone remain; but the second epistle of the one, and the second and third epistles of the other, were very early reckoned amongst the Antilegomena [Wright, W., in Kitto, 1. c. sub voce]; the genuineness of the second epistle of Peter in particular has again been impugned in modern times; and even his first epistle, though without sufficient basis, has been the subject of doubts. Comp. De Wette's Einleitung ins N. Test. § 172, 173.] Neander, Hist. of the Plant. and Train. of the Ch. ii. p. 33, 34. Wright, W., in Kitto, 1. c. sub voce.]

If the first epistle of Peter is genuine, it is undoubtedly of greater importance in a dogmatic point of view, than that of James, who gives a greater prominence to practical Christianity, and seems to ignore its christological aspects, though he occasionally evinces a profound acquaintance with the nature of faith and the Divine economy (ch. i. 13, ss. 25; ii. 10, etc). [Dorner, 1. c. contests this position; but Hagenbach says that he attributes views to James which are not distinctly his.] But dogmatic ideas appear even in the writings of Peter more as a vast mass of materials as yet in their rough state. "In vain do we look in his writings for those definite peculiarities, so manifestly impressed upon the works of John and Paul." De Wette, 1. c. Comp. however, Rauch, Rettung der Originalität des ersten Briefes Petri, in Winer's and Engelhardt's Kritische Journal, viii. p. 396. Steiger, 1. c. and Dorner, p. 97, ss., and especially Weiss, Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff, Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie, Berlin, 1855. "It bears upon it the impress of the apostolic spirit," Neander, 1. c. ii. p. 33.] 3 John and Paul are then the prominent representatives of the doctrinal peculiarities of primitive Christianity. In estimating the views of the former, besides his epistles, we have to consider the introduction to his gospel, and the peculiarities before alluded to in his relation of the discourses of Christ. (On the book of Revelation, and its relation to the Gospel and the Epistles, the opinions of critics have ever been, and still are different.)*

* While for a long time the Gospel of John was held to be genuine, but not the Apoca.

The manifestation of God in the flesh-union with God through Christ— life from and in God—and victory over the world and sin by means of this life, which is a life of love-these are the fundamental doctrines propounded by John. (Comp. Lücke's Commentaries on John's writings; Rickli's Predigten über den ersten Brief; Tholuck's and De Wette's Commentaries on his gospel; Paulus, über die 3 Lehrbriefe.) [Neander, 1. c. p. 240. ss. "Hence every thing in his view turned on one simple contrast:-Divine life in communion with the Redeemer-death in estrangement from him."] Paul differs from John materially and formally. a. Materially: John rather presents the outlines of theology and christology, Paul those of anthropology and the doctrine of redemption; nevertheless, the writings of John are also of the highest importance for anthropology, and those of Paul for theology and christology. But the central point of John's theology is the incarnation of the Logos in Christ; the working element of the Pauline doctrine is justification by faith. b. Formally: Paul lets his thoughts rise up before the soul of the reader, reproduces them in him in a genetic order, and unfolds all the resources of dialectic art, not obliterating the traces of his former rabbinical education. John proceeds thetically and demonstratively, drawing the reader into the depths of mystic vision, and announces Divine things in the tone of a seer, and addresses himself more to the believing mind than to the understanding. John styles his readers children, Pauls calls them his brethren. (Comp. on the difference between Paul and John, Staudenmaier on Joh. Scot. Erigena, p. 220, ss.) A peculiar theological tendency is represented, in fine, in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is related to the Pauline doctrine with a prevailing leaning toward the typical; as to its form, it holds the medium between the modes of Paul and John. [Neander, Hist. of Plant. and Train. ii. p. 212-229.] (On the conjectures respecting its author, comp. the Commentaries of Bleek, [Stuart], Tholuck [translat. into English by J. Hamilton and J. E. Ryland, Edinb. 1842, 2 vols.; and Alexander, W. L., in Kitto, l. c. sub voce]. On the three primary biblical forms (the Jacobo-Petrine, the Johannine, and the Pauline), see Dorner, 1. c. p. 77.

The further development of the History of Doctrines will show that the tendency represented by John prevailed during the first period, as seen in the unfolding of the doctrine of the Logos, and in its christology; it was not until the second period that Augustine put the Pauline doctrine in the foreground. This statement would need to be entirely changed, and such a view would be a mere optical deception, if the results of the criticisms of the Tübingen school (Baur) were as well made out, as they might seem to be on a superficial inspection. According to this scheme, Christianity could not have had any such primitive purity and dignity; that is, it could not have had

lypse (Lücke), the latest negative criticism has reversed the relation (Schwegler); and in opposition to this, the genuineness of both works, including the Epistles of John, has been recently defended by Ebrard. Comp., however, Bleek, Beiträge zur Evangelienkritik, Berl. 1846, i. s. 182, sq.; and Lücke, in the second edition of his work on John. We can not regard the acts upon this matter as by any means closed, for, from a wholly impartial stand-point, much may be said in favor of the identity of the evangelist and the author of the Apocalypse. [Comp. J. T. Zobler, Ursprung des vierten Evang. in Zeitschrift f. wiss Theol. 1860.]

for its chief object to defend from the beginning its character, as a specific divine revelation, against any possible corruptions and perversions; but it, first of all, would have had to unwind the swaddling bands of a prosaic Ebionitism before it became etherialized, passing through the Pauline tendency into the spiritual gnosis of John; a process, for which, according to that theory, a full century was needed. We should not then find at first any common organism, spreading itself out on various sides in the fullness of a rich life, but only a small series of differing phenomena, mutually dissolving each other. But, now, history shows that great epochs (e. g., the Reformation) wake up the mind in all directions, and call out different tendencies at one stroke; though they may occur in a relative succession, yet they follow one another so rapidly that we can comprise them in a synchronistic picture. Thus, De Wette says [Wesen des Christl. Glaubens. Basil, 1846, p. 256]: “A more exact acquaintance with the New Testament documents shows us that the primitive Christianity here described had already run through three stadia of its development; that at first (according to the representation of the first three Gospels, particularly that of Matthew) it is a Jewish Christianity; then, with the Apostle Paul, it comes into conflict with the Jewish particularism ; until at last, in John, it wholly overcomes its antagonism with the law." It must also be conceded, that in the course of this historical process, now one, and now another, of the tendencies preformed in primitive Christianity, obtains the leading influence; and that a series of centuries not yet closed is necessary, in order that what has actually been revealed in principle may be worked over in all its relations to the individual and to society at large. Thus the Pauline type of Christianity remained for a long time a hidden treasure in the vineyard of the Lord, until in the period of the Reformation it was seen in its full significancy. So, too, the more recent philosophy of religion has recurred to the profound spiritual vision of John. Lastly, in respect to the striking contrast between the apostolic times and the post-apostolic-so much less productive in the sphere of doctrines, it is not unnatural that a period of stagnation should succeed one in which men's souls were thoroughly aroused in all directions; and to this there are also analogies in history, e. g., that of the Reformation. Besides this, it has been remarked that the office of the post-apostolic times was not so much to form doctrines as to build up the church; next, with the period of apologetics, commences the real work in the elaboration of the doctrinal system. Comp. Dorner, ubi supra, p. 130 sq.

$ 19.

CULTURE OF THE AGE AND PHILOSOPHY.

Souverain, Le Platonisnee déovilé, Amst. 1700; in German, über den Platonismus der Kirchenväter, mit Anmerkungen von Löffler, 2 edit. 1792. In reply: Keil, De Doctoribus veteris Ecclesiæ, Culpa corruptæ per Platonicos Sententias Theologiæ liberandis, Comment. xii. (in his Opusc. Acad. Pars. II). Fichte, Im., De Philosophiæ Novæ Platonicæ Origine, Berol. 1818, 8. Ackermann, Das Christliche im Plato und in der Platonischen Philosophie, Hamb. 1835. Dähne, A. F., Geschichtliche Darstellung der Judisch-Alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie, in 2 parts, Halle, 1834. F. C. Baur, Das Christliche des Platonismus, oder Socrates und Christus, Tübingen, 1837. Gfrörer, Kritische

Geschichte des Urchristenthums, vol. i; also under the title: Philo und die Alexandrinische Theosophie, 2 parts. Stuttgart, 1831. By the same: Das Jahrhundert des Heils 2 parts. Stuttg. 1836 (zur Geschichte der Urchristenthums). Georgii, über die neuesten Gegensätze in Auffassung der Alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie, insbesonders des Jüdischen Alexandrinismus, in Illgens Zeitschrift für Historische Theologie, 1839, part 3, p. 1, ss. part 4, p. 1, ss. Tennemann, Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. vii. Ritter, vol. iv. p. 418. Schleiermacher, Geschichte der Philosophie, p. 154, ss. [Ritter, Die Christliche Philos. (1858), i. Kapitel 2 and 3. Susemihl, Genetische Entwicklung d. Platon. Phil. 1855. Plato contra Athcos; x. Book on Laws, by Tayler Lewis, New York, 1845; cf. President Woolsey, in Bib. Sacra, 1845. Caesar Morgan, The Trinity of Plato and Philo. F. Robiou, de la Philos. chez les Romains, 6 articles in the Annales de la Philos. Chrét. Paris, 1857, '8. R. Ehlers, Vis atque potestas quam Philosophia Antiqua imprimis Platonica et Stoica in Doctrina Apologetarum Seculi II. habuerit. Göttin. 1859.]

Though the peculiar character of Christianity can not be understood, if it is considered, not as an actual revelation of salvation, but merely as a new system of philosophy, yet, on the other hand, it must be admitted that, in its forms of thought, it attached itself to what was already in existence, though it filled it with its new and quickening spirit, and thus appropriated it to itself.' This was especially the case with the Alexandrian culture, which was principally represented by Philo. This already appears in some of the New Testament writings, especially in the doctrine concerning the Logos,' although in the most general outlines; but afterward it exercised a decisive influence upon Christian speculation.*

"It is a thoroughly unhistorical and untenable assumption, that the primitive Christianity was unphilosophical, and, as such, undogmatic, and that it had to be indebted to the world for the faculty of philosophizing and of forming dogmas." Lange Dogmatik, p 41. But it is also historically true that, before Christianity created a new philosophy by its own living energies, it attached itself to the prevalent forms of thought, and that so far the world did "hasten before" the church in the process of forming doctrines. Comp. Lange, 1. c. p. 42, and Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 44, sq. [Gieseler here defends the early Christian teachers in making use of philosophy; 1. Because the times demanded a philosophical treatment of Christianity. 2. That this became injurious only when these philosophical opinions were held to be matters of faith, and not speculations. 3. The Christian philosophers did not intentionally, but unconsciously, introduce philosophical postulates into the Christian system.]

Comp. Grossmann, Quæstiones Philoneæ, Lips. 1829. Theile, Christus und Philo, in Winer's und Engelhardt's kritisches Journal, vol. ix. part 4, p. 385. Scheffer, Quæst. Philon, Sect. 2, p. 41, ss. Lücke, Commentar zum Joh. i. p. 249. (Comp. § 41 on the Logos.) Editions of Philo: Turnebus (1552), Höschel (1613), the Parisian (1640), * Mangey (1742), Pfeiffer (5 vol. Erl. 1820), Richter, 1828-'30; Tauchnitz's edition, 1851, sq. Compare the Commentary to Philo's book, De Opificio Mundi, by J. G. Müller, Berlin, 1841. [Philo Judæus, transl. in Bohn's Ecclest. Library, by Yonge, 4 vols.] Edw. von Muralt, Untersuchungen über Philo in Beziehung auf die der

(Petersburger) Akademie gehörigen Handschriften, 1840. [Creuzer in the Studien n. Kritiken, 1831. M. Wolff, Die Philon 'sche Philos, Lpz. 1849; 2d ed. 1858. Philonis Judæi Paralipomena Armena, Venet. 1826; ibid. Sermones Tres, ed. Venet. 1832. Articles on Philo, in Christ. Rev. 1853; North British, 1855; Eclectic (Lond.) Nov. 1855; Journal of Class. and Sacred Philol. 1854. Comp. also Michel Nicholas, Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les deux Siècles antérieurs à l'éré chrétienne, Paris, 1860. S. Klein, Le Judaisme, ou la Verité sur le Talmud. Paris 1859. Lutterbeck, Neutestamentliche Lehrbegriffe, i., p. 393-437.]

'That which was a mere abstract and ideal notion in the system of Philo became a concrete fact in Christianity—a spiritual and historical fact in the sphere of the religious life; on this account “it is alike contrary to historical truth, to deny the influence of the age upon the external phenomena and the didactic development of the gospel, and to derive its internal origin and true nature from the age."—Lücke, 1. c. Comp. Dorner, 1. c. Introd. p. 21, ss.

Much of that which was formerly (from the time of Souverain) called "the Platonism of the Fathers," is by modern research reduced to this, "that the general influence exerted by Platonism was the stronger and more definite influence of the general heathen culture." Baumgarten-Crusius, Compendium, i. p. 67. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. p. 44. Thus the charge of Platonism often brought forward against Justin M. is found on closer examination to be untenable; comp. Semisch, Justin der M. ii. p. 227, ss. It appears more just in the case of the Alexandrian theologians, especially Origen. But here, too, as well as in reference to the partial influence exerted by Aristotelianism and Stoicism upon certain tendencies of the age, it ought not to be overlooked, that during this period "philosophy appears only in a fragmentary way, and in connection with theology." Schleiermacher, l. c. p. 154; comp. also Redepenning, Origenes (Bonn, 1841), vol. i. p. 91, ss. [Comp. Fr. Michelis, Die Philos. Platons in ihrer inneren Beziehung zur geoffenbarten Wahrheit. 1 Abth. Münster, 1859.].

§ 20.

RULE OF FAITH. THE APOSTLES' CREED.

Marheineke, Ursprung und Entwicklung der Orthodoxie und Heterodoxie in den ersten 3 Jahrhunderten (in Daub und Creuzer's Studien, Heidelb. 1807, vol. iii. p. 96, ss.) + Möhler, Einheit der Kirche oder Princip des Katholicismus im Geiste der Kirchenväter der ersten 3 Jahrhundorte, Tüb. 1825. Vossius, J. G., De Tribus Symbolis Dissertt. Amstel. 1701, fol. King, Lord, History of the Apostles' Creed, with critical observations, 5 edit. Lond. 1738. (Latin translation by Olearius, Lips. 1706, Bas. 1768.) Rudelbach, die Bedeutung des Apostol. Symbolums, Lpz. 1844. Stockmeier, J., über Entstehung des Apostolischen Symbolums, Zür. 1846. [Bishop Pearson on the Apostles' Creed. Witsius, H., Dissertation on what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed. Transl. from the Latin by D. Fraser, Edinb. 1823, Dissert. i.—Heylyn, P., The Summe of Christian Theology, contained in the Apostles' Creed, London, 1673, folBarrow, J., Exposition of the Creed, (Theolog. works, vol. v.) Oxf. 1838, Sect. 1. Meyers, De Symbol. Apostol. Treviris, 1849. Hahn, Bibliothek. d. Symbole. 1842. W. W. Harvey, History and Theology of the Three Creeds, 2 vols., 1855. Articles on the Apostles' Creed, in Mercersburg Review, 1849, and Princeton Review, 1852.]