naturally expect, colors his whole work. Starting with an erroneous idea as to the origin of language in general, he is tempted, in cases of doubt, to ascribe to words an origin consistent with his own principle. Where the genealogy of a term is not already determined, he frequently strives to make it the mere imitation of some natural sound or animal cry. But, generally, he is to be depended upon for accuracy. The student who has read his introduction will be forewarned against most of the fanciful derivations given; and if the work does no more than set scholars to investigating for themselves, and to searching the records of the past to find whether what he says is true, it will be of incalculable value.

Another defect, which we can only mention, is his lack of system in tracing the different steps of derivation,—the changes through which words have passed in reaching their present form. But this was no more, perhaps, than could have been reasonably expected.

But over against these defects there are to be recognized merits and worth, which every enthusiastic student of "our mothertongue" will readily recognize and be thankful for. Here is a work more interesting than any history,-nay, it is itself history, and one which will shed light, not only upon the language, but also upon every field of learning. No one can afford to grope on ignorant of any part of the knowledge which it affords.

THE FOOTSTEPS OF CHRIST. Translated from the German of A. Caspers, Church Provost and Chief Pastor at Husum. By Adelaide E. Rodham. Edited, with a preface, by the Rev. Charles H. H. Wright, M.A. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1872.

The work of Kirchenpropst Caspers is well known for the high place which it occupies in the list of German works on devotional theology. The entire work being too extensive for reproduction, the translator has omitted portions which reveal the author as a high Sacramentarian of the Lutheran Church, and allows him to appear chiefly as the expounder of those so-called "Evangelical" views, whose broad maintenance forms a perpetual protest against that unfounded opinion which, ignoring the great German revival of faith, holds that the Fatherland is overwhelmingly devoted to unbelief. Parallel with his high views of the Sacraments, Caspers held the doctrine of "justification by faith," which he teaches in a language characterized by much terseness and strength. The work will be welcomed, no doubt, by a large class in America for its faithful following of Christ; yet only the author's most persistent admirers will ever read the volume through.

TH

HIS portion of the Apostolical Constitutions, if entitled to any credit, is of great importance in the history of the Church, and upon the question of Episcopacy. It professes to furnish a statement of bishops, and, by just inference, of all the bishops ordained by the Apostles, and of the cities and places in which they presided. Frequently the name of the Apostle ordaining is given, in other instances it is omitted; but the affirmation of such an ordination is explicit as to all such bishops. It is proposed to examine whether such statement is confirmed or refuted by any reliable evidence.

But a previous essential inquiry is, What credit can be given to the work of which this chapter is a part; to what age is it to be assigned; and what is its general scope and object?

1. The title is, "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, by Clement, bishop and citizen of Rome," and the address in the first book is, "The Apostles and Elders, to all those who from the Gentiles," etc. But more particularly, the fourteenth chapter of the sixth book is, "We, who are now assembled in one place, Peter," etc. (naming the twelve, including Matthias), "James, the brother of the Lord, and Bishop of Jerusalem, and Paul, the teacher of the Gentiles, and chosen vessel, have written to you this Catholic doctrine," etc.

The idea of the work being of Apostolic origin in the proper sense, is almost universally rejected, and so is the supposition of its being a compilation by Clement of Rome. Yet this figment of attributing to the Apostles, what had or was presumed to have been their teachings and practice, was not infrequent. If the Instructions of the Apostles was a work distinct from the present, it is an example. But, at any rate, no critic has, we believe, contended that the unwarranted framework entirely destroys the value of the compilation, as evidence from records, traditions, or usage, of teachings, ceremonies, rules, and facts, prevalent or credited at the time. The body of canons, known as the Canons of the Apostles, and alluded to, or some of them, in early councils, were so termed, not because the Apostles were actually the framers, but that they were rules extant in Churches of Apostolic foundation, and in which, in the language of St. Jerome, "the precepts of ancestors were considered Apostolical laws." Strock's epithet of a forgery, even if applied to this framework only, seems unmerited.

The following summary of authorities as to the work and its age, is chiefly taken from Dr. Krabbe's1 essay in Chase's edition of the Constitutions [New York: 1848].

The Trullian Council of 692 formally notices the constitutions, and forbids them to be used, but it does so expressly because "long ago certain things spurious and unknown to the Church were, to its injury, inserted by the heretical." This is important. There is the clear implication of an ancient existence of constitutions, true and recognized. And the council also refers to the eighty-five canons as coming from the holy Apostles, and that in them (by the eighty-fifth) the constitutions were commanded to be received. Then the use is forbidden, as above stated, and it is added, "for we would not sanction the products of heretical falsehoods, and connect them with the genuine instructions of the Apostles."

Cardinal Perron expresses no opinion as to their date. Lupus assigns them to the fourth century, and holds that they were interpolated. Cardinal Bona treats them as being earlier than the Nicene Council (A.D. 235). Tillemont places them as late as the sixth century. DeMarca dates them as of the third. Dupin of the third and fourth. Cotelerius is inclined to place them before the age of Epiphanius, but conceives that they were afterward greatly corrupted and interpolated. Beveridge thinks they were compiled

1 Professor of Kiel.

3

2 Chase, p. 316. The text is given.

3 About the middle of the fourth century.

by Clement of Alexandria, and Bishop Pearson fixes the time as after the age of Epiphanius, but allows that they represented the teachings and practices of Apostolic times. Grabe places them as early as the second century.

A class of Arian writers supported their integrity and very early date, from their favoring Arian views. LeClerc, in examining this point, attributes them, as they now stand, to an Arian, who wrote near the end of the fourth century. Hig closes a long discussion with the judgment that, for the most part, they were known in the fourth century, but that later, and perhaps about the sixth century, were interpolated by an Arian. Usher is of the same opinion. Daillé admits that they were extant before the end of the fifth century. The learned work of Cotta is cited as holding that they existed, if not in the third, yet soon after the beginning of the fourth century, some time before Epiphanius. He considers them to have been afterward patched by an Arian. Cardinal Perron, Petavius, and others, hold that the constitutions cited by Epiphanius were very different from the present. Dupin notices the citations and the differences; others reject the idea of there being any similar collection in the hands of Epiphanius; yet that he had a work somewhat of this character before him cannot, we think, be reasonably doubted.

Sensible of the importance of the point as to what Epiphanius quoted from, Dr. Krabbe proceeds carefully to examine it, and has made a comparison of passages found in the present constitutions, with those cited by that writer. We give his conclusion: "If we look back upon the comparison through which we have gone, the unavoidable result seems to be that the work which Epiphanius quotes is, for the most part, identical with our constitutions; that the identity of the two in the places which agree cannot be disputed; but that, on the other hand, the work, after his time, suffered interpolations and corruptions, which we can, with great probability, place in the period between him and the Trullian Council, without our being able to discover how far they extend."

And the learned writer consistently ascribes the eighty-fifth of the Apostolic Canons recognizing the constitutions, to the period of these corruptions, about the fourth century. No doubt this was the compilation which was before the council, and was condemned.

No motive of a dogmatic character could exist for interpolating this forty-sixth chapter, a mere enumeration of a line of Bishops. The hierarchical principle was then well established in the Church. St. Cyprian had died about the year 258.

There is a striking piece of evidence in the work of Maximus, who died in 662. He quotes verbatim that part of this forty-sixth chapter which relates to Dionysius the Areopagite being ordained Bishop of Athens.1

We may reasonably conclude, with Dr. Krabbe, that the first seven books were compiled about the end of the third century, and the eighth book in the fourth, and that they were subsequently interpolated and corrupted; that such changes were made to give them an Arian signification, and that for statements of facts, traditions, and practices, we may adopt them as presumptively credible.

The constitutions contain a list of numerous bishops' declared to have been sent and ordained by the Holy Apostles, and that those named had been bishops in the places designated.

That the materials for such a catalogue, and catalogues themselves, must have existed, is proven by other authorities.

St. Irenæus, about the year 170, after speaking of those to whom the Apostles themselves committed Churches and left to be their own successors, says: "But since it would be greatly too prolix in such a work, to enumerate the successions in all the Churches, he would confound the teachers of error by reckoning up the succession from the Apostles Peter and Paul in the illustrious Church of Rome." s

Tertullian, about 198, speaking of heresies, says: "If there be any Churches claiming Apostolical antiquity, let them unfold the line of their bishops so running down by succession from the beginning, that their first bishop may have had for his author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of Apostolic men, who, however, had continued to hold (labor) with the Apostles. For in this manner the Apostolic Churches deduce their lines, as the Church of the Smyrneans produces Polycarp appointed by John; as that of the Romans in like manner Clement ordained by Peter; and as the others point to those who were appointed bishops by the Apostles to deliver down the Apostolic seed."4

"If you claim the title of a Church, give an account of the origin of your chair" (Optatus).

1 Chase's Ed. of Constitutions, p. 319, note.

2 Thirty-one in all. 3 Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine, omnium ecclesiarum enumerare successiones. Apud Marshall's "Notes on Episcopacy," p. 122.

Edant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum Apostolis perseveraverit, habuit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Apostolicæ Ecclesiæ census suos deferunt, sicut Smyrnæorum Ecclesia Polycarpum ab Joanne conlocatum refert, etc. Apud Marshall's "Notes," etc., p. 137.