Its fundamental thoughts recur in the orthodox dogmatics of our Church; they are dominant to-day in many ways in theology.

IV. The great renovation wrought by Protestantism in the doctrine of principles consisted in this that Scripture became the sole principle in theology. The Catholic Church also regarded Scripture as a source of revelation. What was new was that Scripture was placed above tradition. This sole authority of Scripture was in correspondence with the emphasizing of faith. The benefits of salvation were no longer regarded as something supernatural that is imparted through the sacraments, so that a real inward. appropriation does not seem to be necessary; they are now held to be something moral and spiritual that is offered through the word and appropriated by faith. It ought accordingly to have been recognized that what is dealt with in theology is the knowledge belonging to faith, which has its object and its principle in the revelation presented in Scripture. The principle of Scripture would then have been restricted to the province of faith, and would not have been treated as a general principle of scientific knowledge. This, however, was not done. From many causes, Protestant dogmatics remained in the channels of scholasticism, and fitted the new principle of Scripture into the mediaval doctrine of principles. In this way the Reformation axiom of the sole authority of Scripture in matters of faith became the theological principle that Scripture is the source of theological doctrinal propositions supernaturally revealed. As an accompanying result of this, the historical character of Scripture was overlooked. And if for those coming after the original revelation of God thr ugh the word was to be identical with Scripture, it was necessary that there should be a guarantee that the Divine word had been retained in the memory with infallible correctness, that there had been an accurate selection of what was to be preserved, and that the record that resulted was without error. This guarantee was found in the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of Scripture. This was extended to the entire contents of Scripture, even to that which was known previously in a natural way, for otherwise human arbitrariness would distinguish between Divine and human elements in Scripture, and its Divine authority would become insecure.

The principle of Scripture, as has already been said, was fitted into the scholastic doctrine of principles, as developed especially by Thomas Aquinas. Hence it is that there are to be found the fundamental features of this doctrine in the doctrine of principles of the orthodox dogmatics. The ground-plan of theological knowledge is the same-there is a rational and a revealed theology. Although there are not inconsiderable divergencies to be observed in matters of detail, there cannot be said to be a re-shaping of principles, properly speaking. Even the guiding fundamental thoughts are taken over. The supreme good, or the salvation of man, the orthodox dogmatics likewise sees in the perfect knowledge of God, which becomes in the life eternal the vision of God. Theology was now regarded as being a dim copy of the knowledge God has of Himself, and the knowledge of God

as being the means of coming nearest on earth to the supreme end of man; theology was therefore a direct means of salvation. From this it necessarily followed that revelation should be conceived of as a communication of theological knowledge. It must, in fact, be held to be such, if Scripture is conceived of in union with the doctrinal development of the Church, and if the latter is placed above Scripture as the principle of interpretation. This was what was done by the Catholic Church. Protestantism can only take Scripture as that which it really is in itself, as a collection of historical records, which can be understood only through an historical interpretation. But there cannot be reconciled with this the position which orthodox dogmatics has assigned to Scripture within a doctrine of Scripture which is essentially Catholic. So also the division of doctrines into such as can be reached by the natural reason, and such as transcend reason, corresponds entirely with the Catholic system. The mysterious doctrines are a counterpart of the mysterious acts of worship of the Church, by which the piety of the Catholic people is nurtured and maintained. But if the evangelical Christian has to see in revelation the source of all comfort and strength, if his piety is to be nothing else than an obedience of faith to revelation, he cannot be satisfied if the truths of revelation are mainly mysteries he must regard with reverence. For what is meant is not that in the revealed truths there remains an element of mystery, but it really belongs to their distinctive marks that they are not manifest to human reason. It is to the understanding that the doctrine is addressed, and yet it is represented that the doctrine is at variance with the understanding; it is not the understanding which can master the doubts which the doctrine raises, but the will, which suppresses misgivings. The truths are revealed, and yet they have not thereby become manifest. These are contradictions which can only become intelligible when it is observed that the new understanding of revelation acquired in the Reformation was grafted into the old understanding of it. This procedure finds its historical justification in this, that Protestantism came upon the scene as a re-shaping of Roman Catholicism, and was therefore in many ways intertwined with its dogma. And from this also it can be understood how the later history of dogma is the history of disintegration.

V. The grounds of the disintegration of dogma lie in dogma itself, and the tendencies by which it was dissolved arose on the soil of dogma. Illuminism (die Aufklärung) and Rationalism retained the rational part of dogmatics, but directed themselves with the very reason that was held to have produced the rational dogmas against the speculative dogmas and dissolved them. In opposition to this tendency the newer speculative philosophy attempted to justify dogma; the actual result was its complete disintegration. Between the two tendencies stands the philosophy of Kant. It put an end for ever to the confident assumption that reason is an independent source of knowledge beyond or above experience. This struck not merely at the speculative dogmas against which Illuminism and

Rationalism were arrayed, but quite as much at the rational dogmas which these two tendencies sought to retain. For even here the use made of reason quite transcends the limits of experience. But this negative proceeding of Kant was accompanied by a positive. From the second century onwards the practical faith of Christianity had been prejudiced by the thought that man must seek the highest good by the way of cognition and knowledge (Erkenntniss und Wissen). That was the fundamental thought of the dogmatic system, and Kant broke its supremacy; he placed the highest good in the most intimate connection with the life of moral activity, and restored thereby the fundamental thought of Christianity.

The dogma of the Church includes in it a proof for the truth of Christianity that is supposed to be furnished by showing that the contents of faith can be objectively known and verified. Faith is to be raised to knowledge. This method, however, cannot be harmonized with the distinctive character of faith. It is a wrong method, and hence the problem is to seek for another proof.

THE NAMES OF THE NEW MOVEMENT IN THE
ROMAN WORLD.

BY REV. PROF. H. R. REYNOLDS, D.D.

"The disciples were first called (first of all received the name of) CHRISTIANS at Antioch." The moment when a group of ideas, or practices, or living principles receives a name, is only second in importance to the moment when it first of all breaks from the womb of time, and establishes by its birth-cry an independent existence. The name of the comprehensive group of ideas and practices called "Christianity" arose from a nickname assigned to certain individuals in the gay and glittering metropolis of Syria. If we would measure its meaning in these early days, we must inquire briefly into the kind of person first of all designated by the novel term. The subjects of this soubriquet-one which was thrown at them in jest and in ignorant scorn-had already cherished among themselves some distinctive names and titles. Thus the very phrase in which the interesting intelligence is conveyed to us designates these people by the gentle and quiet, unobtrusive and indistinctive term of "disciples." There is a momentous hiatus in the very word which the general context supplies. "Discipleship" in itself is a most appropriate position for all to take. None know anything until they have learned it. All must be in the ranks of scholars waiting for their lesson. The noblest teachers have themselves begun by discipleship. The philosophers of Athens and Tarsus, and the Rabbis of Jerusalem drew around them groups of eager listeners who had no higher ambition than to be called the disciples of the Stagyrite," or disciples of Hillel or Shammai. Prophetic men like John the son of Zacharias, shrewd practical teachers like Gamaliel, Oriental sages, Gnostic speculators, grammarians and mathematicians of Alexandria.

Leading Pharisees,

were severally surrounded by their "disciples." Sadducees, and Essenes were the masters of admiring groups, and often after the departure of the teacher the group, the school, the college perpetuated the name of their revered master. Thus we find the disciples of John the Baptist located far enough away from the wilderness of Judæa, and even well known as such in Alexandria and Ephesus.

"The disciples" spoken of in the narratives of the Gospel and of the Acts were doubtless in the first instance the personal followers of the Lord Jesus, who entirely measured their course and conduct by their ideas of His teaching, by their sense of His dignity, by their wish to carry out His behests. Their numbers multiplied enormously very shortly after the close of His brief career. The designation "disciples of Jesus" connoted something indisputably more than willingness to reiterate the remembered words of the Master, more than a resolute intention of embalming the immortal memory of His deeds, of His character, of His sufferings and departure. The disciples of Jesus had a strange conviction that He was still their teacher, that He was personally present "whenever two or three of them met in His name," that they might still receive treasures of wisdom and knowledge from Him, that the deep wells of life that He had opened were flowing yet; that the way, the method of thought and of approach to the Central Reality was made manifest, and that the disciple might still learn more and more from the fathomless depths of His wisdom and revelation. Whether this was a delusion of a highly-strung imagination, whether parallels can be found for this kind of passionate belief, I do not now stop to inquire. All that I wish to emphasize at this moment is that "THE DISCIPLES of the first century might almost claim a monopoly of the name. Whosoever else might call himself a learner from a great master, he more. The abundance of the material seemed never exhausted. The evolution of truth effected by the Lord's method was incessant. The radiance of His life, like a gleaming torch, penetrated dark places, labyrinths of gloom, and was evermore bringing to light things unknown before. New meaning continued to burst from the history and record of the past, from the ceremony and ritual that perplexed them, from the concert and concussion of events about them, from the troubled signs of the times. The first followers of Jesus might well have called themselves "disciples" par excellence. The name is not exhausted to the present hour. After a long life of study of what other men and ages have found in it, each thoughtful "disciple" knows that he is only at the beginning of his task, and still regards all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus. "Learn of Me" is the perpetual voice of Jesus which is ever sounding-strong and penetrating, and yet unspeakably gentle-into the ears of men.

The history of the Church is a continuous proof that the living Lord has had more and more to teach those who have morally surrendered themselves to His guidance concerning God, man, Himself, life, death, and the future. They have learned more of what was implicitly contained in the bare fact of

His Divine humanity. Through the recognition of His unique personality they have learned to appreciate more fully not only His own perfection of moral character, but the essential nature of the Godhead. They have learned from Him the access possible for them into the unseen world, and the eternal future. They have slowly, very slowly, discovered the bearing of His person on duty and on love. New ideals of life have been slowly developed. The influence of these upon surrounding society has by degrees revolutionized the whole tone of public morals, and this has begun to react upon the individual disciple; and so conditions of society which were at one time allowed to be compatible with the supremacy of Jesus the Christ have at length become abhorrent to the first principles of the Gospel, and absolutely repudiated by the disciples. The repudiation, when it was the peculiarity of a few individuals, and pressed prematurely before the indirect effects of the Gospel had made any conspicuous mark on the ways of the world, was stigmatized as fanaticism, but it has gradually become a new leaven in society, a formative principle in the comity of nations, and even a guide to international law. Enormous progress has yet to be achieved before the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom over which He reigns. In the first century the whole of this work had to be done, not only in the social relations and common ideas of the Roman Empire, but in the society of Palestine. Nevertheless, an immense way had been traversed towards the elevation and saving of the world when an increasing multitude of men and women declared themselves to be followers and disciples of Jesus.

Other names had been fashioned as well as that of " 'disciples"; a designation which became almost equally current was that of “ BRETHREN." The common relationship to the Lord Jesus had been so startling in its suggestions as to break the great secret to them that they had been born into a new world, born a second time, born of water and of the Spirit, and that the new individuality created amid the conditions of the old life was a Divine life, the generation of a new soul, spirit, life, which could and would overcome the old life and defy death. In receiving the Word, they received power themselves to become sons of God. They began to regard the Eternal God as their veritable Father, and soon made the wonderful discovery that in no mere metaphorical and rhetorical or poetic sense they were the children of God, and members and brethren in one family, in which the Master and Lord was the elder Brother. We need not recall the parallels to this new and stimulating revelation. Effusive emotion, common interests, imaginative and generous sentiment, have often transformed temporary companionship into so-called brotherhood. So all through the ages there have been "brothers" in arms, in letters, in trade, in science, in art; and the phrase has lost its distinctive and its etymological meaning, and become merely an euphemism for companionship more or less real. But the term in its first inception seems to have had an august significance, and to have sprung from a unique experience, which cannot be exaggerated in force and in revelation. The new life was a stupendous