ure of its kind, about the size of a fox. But it is not one, but millions, of creatures that we are looking for, and have a right to expect to find if ever they existed.-P. 129.

One of the distinctions between animals and vegetables has been held to be the fact that the former fed on organic food, the latter not. How this boundary line was claimed to be obliterated he thus notices:

We most of us will remember the sensation created by the announcement at the meeting of the British Association at Belfast a few years ago, under the presidency of Professor Tyndall, of the flesh-eating propensity of the Venus's Fly-trap, (Dionœa muscipula,) as the case of a plant living upon animal food, confirming, it was solemnly believed, the relation of the animal to the vegetable kingdom as co-members of the one universal scheme of development by evolution. And doubtless it was under the same inspiration that Dr. Darwin himself has favored the world with a whole volume upon "Insectivorous Plants," drawn up with his usual skill; though, with regard to the main point, we fail to perceive in it any thing new. We have always been under the impression that plants did thrive or live upon decayed animal matter, without having been led to infer a botanical origin for our own race.-P. 129.

That means, we suppose, that the flies are manure, not food.

German Reviews.

ZEITSCHRIFT FUR WISSENSCHAFTLICHE THEOLOGIE. (Journal for Scientific Theology.) Edited by Hilgenfeld. 1879. Third Number.-1. THOMA, The Old Testament in the Gospel of St. John, (Second Article.) 2. HANNE, The Theory of Man's Descent from the Monkey. 3. TOLLIN, The Antichrist of Servetus. 4. DOMBART, The Significance of Commedianus for the Text of the Testimonia of Garran. 5. RONSCH, Miscellaneous Remarks.

Fourth Number.-1. HOLTZMANN, Baptism in the New Testament. 2. HILGENFELD, Paulinism in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 3. HILGENFELD, The Most Recent Work on the Book of Baruch. 4. HOLTZMANN, The Mutual Relation of the Two Epistles to the Corinthians. 5. HILGENFELD, A Modern Orthodox Theologian on Justin. 6. EGLI, The Cock in the Gospels.

As the Journal for Scientific Theology is the organ of the most advanced Liberal or Rationalistic school of the German Protestant Churches, the article by Dr. Hanne, on "Man's Descent from the Monkey," will be taken as a manifesto of the school, defining its position with regard to Darwinism and Haeckelism. Dr. Hanne examines the opinions of Darwin, and more particularly those of Haeckel, which he very properly distinguishes

from those of Darwin, from an esthetical and logical point of view, and emphatically and decidedly rejects them, as revolting to the esthetical feelings of man and to logic. One of the most interesting features of the article are the copious quotations from the recent literature on the subject, which is well known to be immense. As no one who is not a scientist by profession can possibly keep pace with the progress of this branch of literature, articles giving a resumé of the opinions of the best writers on both sides are, of course, in demand and very useful. Dr. Hanne gives at length the views of a number of scientists, by whom the assertions of Haeckel are rejected as entirely groundless. Among those who from the study of natural seience directly draw inferences in behalf of the belief in a personal God, he quotes especially Hermann Lotze, the author of the Mikrokosmus, and Albert Wigand, the author of Der Darwinismus und die Naturforschung, Newtons und Cuviers, (two volumes, 1876.) Wigand, who is regarded as a scientist of distinction, says on this subject: "Only he has a right to deny the personal Creator who derides the principle of appositeness and at the same time of lawfulness in nature, and sees in it nothing but the play of an aimless and lawless accident." At the close of his article Dr. Hanne discusses the question, to what extent the Darwinian theory of the descent of man would affect the position of the theological school to which he belongs, or, as he calls it, modern theology. "For the religious faith which does not cling to the letter of Genesis," he says, "the new hypothesis is entirely unimportant. We concur in the words of Heinrich Lang, (Religiöse Reden, ii, 312.) The divine creative power remains entirely the same whether it takes a piece of earth or the organism of an animal for the basis of man, and in each case man remains a creature of God's hand, different from animal not only as to degree, but as to his substance,"

Among the Church fathers and apologetic writers of the second century, Justin, the philosopher and martyr, holds a prominent place, and his theological views are, therefore, a subject of considerable importance and interest for the church historian. It is doubtful, with regard to several writings ascribed to him, whether they are genuine or spurious; and even if a synopsis of his theological views is exclusively evolved from

the writings which are admitted by all to be genuine, theologians still differ as to whether, in the writings of Justin, the so-called Jewish Christian or the Gentile Christian type of Christianity prevails; furthermore, whether Justin with regard to all the fundamental doctrines held in common by the Evangelical Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Greek Churches was fuily orthodox or not. All these questions have recently again become the subject of a very animated controversy in consequence of a work published by a distinguished Lutheran theologian, Professor Moritz von Engelhardt, at the Russian University of Dorpat, and entitled, Das Christenthum Justins des Martyrers. Eine Untersuchung über die Anfänge der Katholischen Glaubenslehre. (1878.) The work is fully reviewed by Professor Hilgenfeld in the fourth number of his "Journal for Scientific Theology." In the beginning of his article he casts a rapid glance over the divergent opinions which succeeding schools of Protestant theologians have held with regard to Justin. Matthias Flaccus, the first Protestant Church historian, whose great work is best known under the title Centuria Magdeburgenses, found that the genuine apostolic Christianity was greatly disfigured in Justin. Instead of declaring with Augustin, the virtues of pagans as brilliant vices, Justin had declared pagans like Socrates, and even the philosopher Heraclitus, to have been virtual Christians. The author of the Centurio ascribed this to the influence of Greek philosophy. On the other hand, the undisguised teaching of Chiliasm appeared to the Centuria as a gross Jewish error. The Liberal schools of German Protestantism inaintained likewise that Justin's Christianity was strongly mixed with pagan philosophy and Jewish errors. Semler represented Justin as a Platonist, and this view has found many adherents. On the other hand, the author of the Dialogue with the Jew Trypho conld well appear as a man of entirely Jewish opinions. The identity of the author of the two Apologies for Christianity against paganism, and of the Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon, has, however, been fully established, and thus Credner (in his Beiträge zur Einlei tung in die biblischen Schriften, vol. i, 1832) pronounced Justin not only a representative of a Jewish type of Christianity, but an adherent of Ebionism; and this view has been adopted by nearly all the thcologians of the Tübingen school. This

school divided the biblical and apostolical Christianity into the Jewish Christianity of the primitive apostles, and the Gentile Christianity of Paul, which difference, in its view, terminated in the old Catholic Church. Justin, according to the Tübingen theologians, represented the transition from Jewish Christianity to Catholicism. This view of the Tübingen school was chiefly controverted by Albrecht Ritchl, in his celebrated work on the Origin of the Old Catholic Church, (Entstehung der alt Katholischen Kirche, 1850, second edition, 1857,) who not only softened very considerably the supposed differences between the Jewish and Gentile types of Christianity, but made Justin a somewhat degenerate representative of the Gentile Christianity of Paul. Justin thus appeared as a chief witness for the incompetency of the Gentile Christianity of the postapostolic age to obtain control of the Old Testament presuppositions of the fundamental ideas of the apostolic, especially Pauline, theology. Justin's Dialogue, according to Ritchl, substantially opposes Christianity as a new law to the old law, Christ as the new lawgiver to the old lawgiver, viewing Christianity one-sidedly as teaching, and Christ as a teacher. Ritchl's view has met with much approval on the part of the orthodox theologians. The new work by Professor Engelhard accepts the views of Ritschl, and tries to carry it through by showing in which particular points Justin's opinions do not come up to the full standard of biblical orthodoxy. The reviewer of Engelhard's work, Professor Hilgenfeld, contents himself with declaring, for the present, his dissent from the views of Ritschl and Engelhard. They have failed, he thinks, to prove that Justin could not be the representative of some Jewish type of Christianity. We may expect that Justin's orthodoxy will now for some time be thoroughly ventilated from every possible stand-point in the theological journals of Germany. At the close of his articles, Professor Hilgenfeld refers to a new work by a Jewish scholar, Dr. M. Friedländer, in Vienna, entitled Patristische und Talmudische Schriften, (1878,) which sheds some light on Justin's dialogue with the Jew Tryphon from Jewish writings. Dr. Friedländer says of Justin: "As long as Justin defends himself against the Jewish charge of not observing the law, as long as he disputes the literal conception of certain petrified, long-abandoned doctrines,

and tries to spiritualize them, so long he speaks sensibly, and even in an elevated and convincing manner." Dr. Friedländer calls Justin one of the best among the Church fathers, though to some extent a sophist. It may be of interest for our readers to compare the foregoing extracts from Professor Hilgenfeld's article with the remarks of Professor Schaff, (Church History, vol. i, p. 484:) "Justin was a man of very extensive reading, enormous memory, inquiring spirit, and many profound ideas, but wanting in critical discernment. His mode of reasoning is often ingenions and convincing, but sometimes loose and rambling, fanciful and puerile. His style is easy and vivacious, but diffuse and careless."

STUDIEN UND KRITIKEN. (Essays and Reviews.) Edited by Dr. J. KÖSTLIN and Dr. RIEHM. Fourth Number, 1879.-Essays: 1. KÖSTLIN, The Task of Christian Ethics. 2. GRÖBLER, The Views of the Jewish Literature of the Last Two Centuries before Christ on Immortality and Resurrection. Thoughts and Remarks: 1. KÖSTLIN, Luther's Last Intercourse with Staupitz. 2. EIBACH, John Milton as a Theologian. 3. Another Greek Translator of the Bible besides Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotius. Reviews: 1. SCHRADER'S Keilinschriften und Geschichteforschung, reviewed by RÖSCH. 2. WIESELER'S Zur Geschichte der Kleinasiatischen Galater und des deutschen Volkes in der Urzeit, reviewed by HERZBERG. Until a few years ago it was not known how Luther's relation to Staupitz, whom, at the beginning of his career, he esteemed like a spiritual father, and to whom he was attached in intimate friendship, had finally terminated. Three years ago considerable light was shed upon this obscure subject by a letter of Staupitz, published for the first time in C. and W. Krafft's Briefe und Documente aus der Zeit der Reformation, and referred to last year in the Methodist Quarterly Review. The revised text of this letter has been reprinted in a very able work by Kolde on the German Augustinians and Staupitz, (Die deutsche. Augustiner-Congregation und J. von Staupitz, Gotha, 1879.) Luther in a preceding letter had given utterance to his fear that the long continued silence of Staupitz indicated an estrangement from his friends at Wittenberg, and that under the influence of the Archbishop of Salzburg he had become wavering in his evangelical sentiments. It is, therefore, highly interesting to see from Staupitz's last letter that he assures Luther of his unwavering love for him, and, while he reminds Luther of the fact that in former years he (Staupitz) was a forerunner of the holy evangelical doctrine, he now calls himself a disciple of Luther, though, he says, Luther goes further than