co-operate. Lastly, one seems warranted in offering a verbal criticism. The writer's use of the words epourania and epigeia is not to be commended or imitated; the A. V. heavenly things and earthly things would be preferable. While one is compelled to offer these critical comments on this work, yet one gladly closes with words of the heartiest commendation. It is a good book on a great subject. ALFRED E. GARVIE.

The Secret of Hegel: Being the Hegelian System in Origin, Principle, Form and Matter.

By James Hutchison Stirling, LL.D. New Edition, carefully revised. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1897. Pp. lxiii. 751. Price, 168.

THIRTY-TWO years after its first publication, the Secret of Hegel has passed into a second edition. And everyone interested in the progress of philosophy in this country will join in congratulating the veteran author on the circumstance that he has himself had the opportunity of re-editing and reissuing the book which has done more than any other single work to stimulate the higher metaphysical thinking of the last generation.

The alterations in the new edition are pretty frequent, but nowhere (so far as I have observed) of fundamental importance. Explanatory clauses and phrases have been added to the translation; there are a few new footnotes; some vigorous criticisms of Hamilton have been pruned away; and an occasional periphrasis has been substituted for the "plain word of the first edition. One little bit of autobiography may be quoted from the preface to the new edition :

"As for Hegel, it was somewhat strange that seeing the name -while still at home and even without a dream of Germany-with surprise, for the first time, in a Review, I was somehow very peculiarly impressed by it. But the special magic lay for me in this, that, supping with two students of German before I was in German as deep as they, I heard this Hegel talked of with awe, as, by universal repute, the deepest of all philosophers, but as equally, also, the darkest. The one had been asked to translate bits of him for the press; and the other had come to the belief that there was something beyond usual remarkable in him: it was understood that he had not only completed philosophy, but, above all, reconciled to philosophy Christianity itself. That struck!"

This passage brings out-what was indeed sufficiently obvious all along that it was Dr Stirling's strong interest in the problems

of the spiritual life that first attracted him to Hegel, and that has dominated his whole philosophical activity. God, Freedom, Immortality are for him realities which Hegel has enabled him to grasp not merely conceptions with different degrees of validity for thought. And his strong insistence on this positive attitude gives a permanent interest to his interpretation of Hegel.

His speculative point of view leads him also, in various ways and at various places, to pass current modes of reflection under review. And these criticisms are always full of interest, although they may not always show the same unerring insight. As an example, reference may be made to the economic disquisitions in the Conclusion. If they are no longer so necessary as they were a generation ago, that is because their substantial truth is now commonly recognised. On the other hand, lapse of time, and the reflection which has come with it, have not modified the author's unsympathetic attitude towards Darwin and all his works.

On these, as on other matters, there is no important change between the original and the present edition; and it is surely well to have the Secret preserved essentially as it appeared in 1865. Much, it is true, has been done in the interval to facilitate the study of Hegel. His historical antecedents have been carefully explained; his characteristic notions have been elucidated by application to familiar material; he has been approached from every possible point of view; and the student has been supplied with a set of formulæ whose use is perhaps only too easy and not a little deceptive. All that has been done by others in this direction Dr Stirling ignores. The student who stands on the threshold of Hegelian study cannot afford to do so; but, if he is wise, it will not be long before he turns to the Secret. For it is no disparagement of the labours of others to say that Dr Stirling's is the one book of the English Hegelian series which bears the unmistakable stamp of genius. Irregular in its plan, rugged in style, and often as dark as the "Secret" it professes to disclose, it is always genuine, virile, profound-the work of a man struggling with a great theme. The rugged directness of the style, with its bold coinage of phrases to suit the thought as it arises, its bursts of eloquence when a point of vantage is gained, its Titanic laughter when a favourite obstacle is rolled-or kicked-from the path: this gives a vividness and individuality to the performance, which can only be described as Stirlingese. And Stirlingese—if one analyses it--is the thought of Hegel in the style of Carlyle.

Only a strong man can use such a style. And it must be confessed that, strong man as Dr Stirling is, he has the defects of his qualities: that his harshness is often accentuated unnecessarily, and that his individuality sometimes sinks into egotism. But these are

only occasional blemishes. The author has laid firm hands on the thinking men of his time; and, whatever changes of philosophical attitude the near future may bring, it will be long before the Secret of Hegel is allowed to pass into oblivion.

W. R. SORLEY.

Theologische Studien.

Herrn Professor D. Bernhard Weiss zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht von C. R. Gregory, Ad. Harnack, M. W. Jacobus, G. Koffmane, E. Kühl, A. Resch, O. Ritschl, Fr. Sieffert, A. Titius, J. Weiss, Fr. Zimmer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. 1897. 8vo, pp. 358. Price, M.11.

SOME disadvantages attend the modern method of celebrating the birthday of a Professor of Theology by the publication of a volume of Essays written by his colleagues and admirers. As the contents of such collections cannot be indicated by their titles, articles of permanent interest may easily be overlooked, whilst their cost is considerably increased by the less important contributions which are printed with them. But the custom is becoming general, and Dr Otto Zöckler suggests that a special heading should be provided in Bibliographies for literature of this class. Many of the essays written in honour of Weizsäcker and Cremer are wellknown to students, and there are some of equal value amongst the eleven articles contained in the volume recently published in celebration of the seventieth birthday of Dr Bernhard Weiss.

I. Dr Adolf Harnack contributes a short appreciation of 66 A Recently-discovered Narrative of the Resurrection," which was described by Carl Schmidt in the Berliner Akademie-Berichten, 1895. The document is in the Coptic language, and was found at Akhmim; it is dated by Harnack 150-180, and contains an account of conversations which Jesus had with his disciples after the Resurrection, the Apostles speaking throughout in the first person plural. The unbelief of the disciples is strongly emphasised, and the narratives of the canonical Gospels are strangely interwoven with some remarkable variations; for example, "Peter, lay thy finger in the nail-prints on my hands; Thomas, lay thy finger in the spear-wound in my side; Andrew, touch my feet." Harnack, who certainly does not under-estimate this document, nevertheless confesses that it furnishes little help towards the solution of the problem of the Resurrection-narratives; in his view it is secondary, of anti-Gnostic origin, a literary composition in which the various features of the later tradition are skilfully blended.

II. Professor Jacobus, of Hartford, Conn., U.S.A., discusses critically "The citation, Ephesians v. 14, as affecting the Paulinity of the Epistle," but the worth of his argument depends upon the acceptance of his theory of the source of the quotation in the verse, "Wherefore he saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee." The only objections urged against the view that the words are quoted from an early Christian hymn are that the theory is a purely speculative one, and that the poetic character of the fragment has never been proved. The Old Testament passages, which are usually regarded as the sources of the quotation are rejected, because they have no connection with the "principle of the reproof of evil," which is the leading thought in the verses which precede the citation. "Utterly foreign" to the thought of the Epistle is Isaiah lx. 1, which "is supposed to be the most probable source,' whilst "the other passages which have been suggested have almost nothing to commend them." Professor Jacobus holds that Jonah i. 6, in the original Hebrew, is the true source, and shows that the idea of reproof of sin which the Apostle needed to illustrate his argument underlies the story. The citation is then shown to be distinctively Pauline in cast, as appears from "the spiritualisation of the Old Testament narrative, and the close reference of its spiritualised thought to the context in which it stands." The passage in Jonah has not, however, been completely overlooked hitherto; in the Expositor's Bible, Professor Findlay refers to the verses in the Old Testament, of which this snatch of an early Christian song is a free paraphrase, and adds, "perhaps there are echoes even of Jonah i. 6."

III. The authorship of a work which is ascribed to Luther in Walch's edition of the Reformer's writings is assigned to John Agricola by G. Koffmane. The inquiry has one element of general interest, for the author of the work in dispute comments upon 1 John v. 7, and the inference has been drawn that Luther had before him a Greek MS. containing the verse which mentions the Three Heavenly Witnesses.

IV. "The Pauline Theodicy" (Rom. ix.-xi.) is the title of an article in which Ernst Kühl carefully analyses the argument of St Paul with special reference to the views of Beyschlag and Karl Müller. Surprise is expressed that Beyschlag, in the second edition of a treatise originally published in 1868, has expressed no change of opinion, and has left unnoticed the work of theologians who have written on this theme during the last three decades. Kühl's polemic is mainly directed against Beyschlag's theory, according to which the key to the difficulties of Rom. ix.-xii. is found in the application of the Apostle's words not to any pre

temporal acts of God, but to the Divine working in history, the freedom of the human will being assumed. In Kühl's view the central thought of the Epistle is expressed in ch. iii. 21-27, and with great force he urges that there the solution of problems furnished by later chapters must be sought. Stated briefly, his contention is that St Paul first shows how the hope of the Christian ultimately rests on the assurance of being one of those whom God in His free grace has chosen to lead to salvation, then in chapters ix.-xi. the apostle points out the bearing upon the Jewish nation of the great principle that in the work of salvation no man may glory in God's presence.

V. Of great interest and value to all students of the origin of the Gospels is the essay by Dr Alfred Resch, the well-known writer on the "Agrapha." It is entitled, "Tà Aóyia 'Inσoû= ya contribution to the study of the Synoptic Gospels." A high tribute is paid to Dr Bernhard Weiss, to whom the volume is dedicated, and whose distinctive merit it is "to have further developed the 'Two-Sources' theory." The strict Two-Sources hypothesis assumed for the two main sources-the Ur-Evangelium and the Ur-Marcus-an equal originality, and accounted for the differences in the synoptic parallels of Matt. and Luke, by the different treatment of these two sources by the first and third Evangelists. Weiss fixed limits to the originality of Mark by showing his dependence on the Ur-Evangelium, the Apostolic Source, as he calls it; but, at the same time, he made fully manifest the profound influence exerted by the gospel of Mark on both its synoptic successors."

In the latter half of his essay Dr Resch gives an instructive resume of his own extensive contributions to the criticism of the Gospels, describing his previous publications on the "Agrapha and "Extra-canonical parallels to the Gospels" as only preparatory to the work which will shortly appear in which the "Logia" of Jesus will be published in Hebrew as well as in Greek. Resch re-affirms his conviction that the Ur-Evangelium was written in Hebrew and not in Aramaic, and protests against the confusing of the question "In what language did Jesus speak?" with the question "In what language was the Gospel first committed to writing?" As the title of this essay indicates, Resch holds that when Tà Aóyia 'Inooû is translated into the meaning of the phrase is unmistakable; the Hebrew words recall the titles of books which were the " sources of the Old Testament history, e.g., 1 Chr. xxix. 29, "The History (77) of Samuel the Seer." Hence whatever ambiguity there may be as to the meaning of Tà Aóyia, there can be no doubt that the significance of