the attempt to work out of the dead formalism, into which the perversion and abuse of the permanent ordinances of the church in this respect had run. Let us see to it that, in recovering from it, we do not go to the opposite extreme, and lose all adequate sense of the privilege and duty of bringing up the children of the covenant, not as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, but in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; that for the heresy of baptismal regeneration, real or hypothetical, we do not substitute the coarse heresy of making some outward "bodily exercise" of our own invention—of rising, sitting, or standing the birth-throe, or symbol, or credential of entrance into the kingdom of Heaven. Ritualism in essence may come under one form as well as another, in the evangelical as well as in the avowedly ritualistic church. In every way there is a vast deal of sound, practical, and theoretical divinity in the stanza,

Not all the outward forms on earth,

Nor rites that God has given,

Nor will of man, nor blood, nor birth,

Can raise a soul to heaven.

We have already found occasion to notice the tendency to legalism, and insufficient attention to the person, the atonement, the forensic and objective righteousness of Christ, as distinguished from his subjective and inward work of sanctification, which deformed some former revivals, so that their subjects were long in attaining, if they ever attained, the buoyant sense of adoption, and of standing fast in that liberty wherewith Christ walketh free. The danger is now in the opposite direction. The fulness of Christ is abundantly presented in recent revivals. But whether true sanctification as the fruit of that justification is adequately defined and insisted on: whether there is not danger of that Antinomian tendency, which consists in the hope of being saved in and not from sin, we think deserving of serious, critical, and prayerful consideration. The adversary of souls, if he cannot prevent revivals, is ever striving to corrupt and pervert them. He puts on the guise of an angel of light, when he connot successfully expose his true character as a roaring lion. Let us beware lest, as he beguiled Eve through his subtility, even so we be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Art. VIII.-RECENT GERMAN WORKS ON APOLO

GETICS.*

By HENRY B. SMITH.

It is only within a generation that Apologetics has become recognized as a distinct department of theology, and treated as an organized whole. And it is chiefly in Germany that its distinctive nature and definition, its method and relation to other branches, have been fully discussed. Planck, in his Introduction to the Theological Sciences,† first assigned to it a definite place in the sphere of theology, putting it, however, strangely enough, under the head of exegetical theology.

Schleiermacher, in his epoch-making treatise, entitled A Short Exhibit of Theological Study, published in the first volume of his Complete Works, first assigned to Apologetics the leading place in the organism of the different departments of theology—as a preparatory discipline for all the rest, and having to do with the fundamental principles of theology. In this sense it is equivalent to fundamental theology; and has for its object the investigation of all the ideas, facts, and truths which logically or historically precede the system of theology proper, or Christian dogmatics, strictly so called. This is a broad and comprehensive view of the subject; but, as thus defined, it neglects too much what has always been considered as the chief object of Apologetics, that is, the specific defense of religion, especially of the Christian religion, against objections-the vindication of the absolute and final authority of Christianity as the highest and best system of truth for man. Accordingly, few have followed Schleiermacher in giving so wide a scope to Apologetics; though almost all recent writers find a specific position for it in the encyclopædia of theology. Tholuck (in his Vermischte Schriften, Bd. I., p. 149, sq.) and some others denied that it could be treated fully, as a whole, by itself; for the general reason, that all the doctrines, facts, and truths of both. natural and revealed religion, have, and must have, their apologetic side; they can all be assailed, and must all be defended; but this, they say, should be done in detail, rather than by grouping all to

* See our REVIEW for July, p. 479, where the titles are given of several recent German works on Apologetics.

† Planck, Einleitung in die theologischen Wissenschaften, Vol. I., 8 271-362. Schleiermacher, Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums: Sämmtl. Werke, Abthlg. I., Bd. I., & 39.

gether. In any case, the materials with which Apologetics has to do must be taken from some or all of the other departments of theology. And if its office be to reply in detail to all the specific objections, and to establish the truth of the assailed positions, of course it is an endless work, and would defy all attempts at a proper classification. But it is not to be, nor has it been, so understood. Very generally stated, it may be said that Apologetics comprises what has previously been published under the two great heads of natural theology, on the one hand, and of the evidences of Christianity on the other. And the chief problem and question has been to bring these two under one department, or under one definition; also including the general principles and questions that come up in the modern philosophies of history and religion, as well as the substance of the investigations contained in the introductions to the Old and New Testament. The facts of ethnology, and of primeval and prehistoric history-even the investigations of natural science, and the principles of anthropology, and of ethics, have also come to constitute a part of the materials of which Apologetics must make use.* So that we have here manifestly a pretty broad field; and the question is, whether it can be fairly and profitably cultivated with a scientific unity of idea and design.

Another, though a somewhat secondary question, is, to which division of the general encyclopedia of theology shall Apologetics be allotted. Nobody would now think of following Planck in putting it under exegetical theology. Only a part of its materials can be claimed as giving it a position under historical theology; but it comprises much more than this, especially when we bring into view the modern and urgent conflicts of Christianity with materialism and pantheism. It must then come under either systematic or practical theology, or have a place by itself.

Dr. Delitzsch,† in his System of Apologetics, assigned it to practical theology, since it has to do with the practical work and progress of the church (as has preaching). It cannot well be put under any one department. But Dr. Delitzsch's own treatment of the subject is quite like that of a work on systematic theology; it is made up almost wholly of dogmatic material.

Dr. Düsterdieck, in his able articles on this question, also contends.

See PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW, July, 1876, pp. 494-6.

†System der Christlichen Apologetik, 1869.

In Jahrbücher f. deutsche Theologie, 1866, on the Idea and Encyclopedic Po sition of Apologetics.

for practical theology as the proper rubric under which Apologetics is to be put, on the ground that Apologetics, etymologically, is the theory of apology, just as homiletics is the theory of sermonizing, and so comes under the head of practice and art, rather than of system or theory. But this seems to be too narrow a view of its nature and functions. It does not merely tell us how all vindication is to be conducted; how Christianity is to be scientifically defended; but it also defends it; and not only defends it, but tries to establish its truth and authority. As Baumstark (Apologetik, p. 29) well remarks: "Apologetics, as the scientific proof of the absolutism of the Christian religion, as a whole, cannot be assigned to a single division of the system of theology, but is to prepare the ground for the whole of theology. Hence it has its place in the introduction to the whole system, as proposed by Schleiermacher." It is treated of by Pelt in his Encyclopædia under the general caption of the "Doctrine of Theological Principles; or, Fundamental Theology." The objection to this is, that its materials are so largely taken from church history, exegesis. etc, that it must needs come after these. It would seem, then, that we must either make a distinct head for it, introductory to all the departments of theology, or else assign a place (as Hagenbach does introductory to systematic theology. The latter is, perhaps, the most convenient arrangement for teaching, even though it be not free from all logical objections.

To return to the general idea of Apologetics. It was defined by Sack* (in the first really important and systematic work on the subject after Schleiermacher's scheme was propounded) as that branch o theology ("theological discipline") "which treats of the ground of the Christian religion as divine fact." He distinguishes between the ideal and real sides of Christianity; and assigns the former (the idea to systematic theology, while the latter (the real) is the proper subject of Apologetics-having to do with the actuality of Christianity: so preparing the way for dogmatics. This seems (as Baumstark says, p. 2) to separate the ideal and the real too much; and Apologetics. as a matter of fact, has to do with a good deal more than the external history of Christianity. And Sack himself concedes, that "the idea side, or the doctrine, can never be considered without relation to the real, historical basis; and that, in Apologetics, though the main subjectmatter be the real side of Christianity, yet this can never be treated without reference to the ideal element.” His further treatment of the materials of Apologetics is, in fact, rather doctrinal than historical; for

* K. H. Sack, Christliche Apologetik. Hamburg, 1829. 2d Ed., 1841.

his chief headings are "Redemption," "Life," and "Perfection;" and these subjects are taken from Christian theory and life, rather than from Christian history.

The Roman Catholic divine, Drey,* in his work, entitled Apologetics as the Scientific Evidence of the Divinity of Christianity in its Manifestation, defines Apologetics as "the Philosophy of the Christian Revelation, and of its History." He is the representative of a class of German Catholic divines who felt the influence of the philosophy of Schelling, in its later form, in its opposition to the Hegelian logic; and who were led to lay the chief stress on the positive historical elements of the Christian system. Christianity, they said, is primarily historical fact; and theology should also be historical and positive in its fundamental character. Yet it can not be merely historical; it is rather a philosophy of the history—a scientific shaping and defense of the Christian church and religion. To this definition and treatment of the subject it has been well objected, that it brings the whole of Apologetics under the head of the philosophy of religion; it ceases to be a part of theology, and becomes a branch of philosophy. As a philosophy of religion, Drey's work contains valuable materials, shaped with learning and ability. It handles a part of the theme, but does not give a clear and full view of the whole of the science. Apologetics includes, to a certain extent, the philosophy of religion; but it has also a wider as well as a more specific scope.

Of the Christian Apologetics on an Anthropological Basis, by Pastor Christian Edward Baumstark,† only the first volume has been published. It differs from the other works on this subject chiefly in its method, as indicated by the title. The author takes the ground (on the Method of Apologetics, pp. 30-36), that while the historical method has been chiefly followed, the psychological is the only satisfactory and final one. The historical method tries to show that the Christian religion is, and by its history is proved to be, the true religion for man. The psychological method, on the other hand, starts with the individual, and shows that Christianity completely corresponds to the religious capacity and the religious needs of man. It is a merit of Baumstark's work that it emphasizes the latter point, and vindicates its necessity. But the fact is, that every apologetic work must, in some way, more or less consciously combine both methods.

* Apologetik als Wissenschaftliche Nachweisung der Göttlichkeit des Cbristen-, thums in seiner Erscheinung. Mainz, 3 Bde., 1844-1847.

Christliche Apologetik auf anthropologischer Grundlage. Bd. I Frankfurt a. m, 1872.