Such assurance in substance the mind of the Church has carried in itself, through all ages; and we find it frequently proclaimed, in terms more or less clear, by the proper representatives of this mind in the sphere of theology. Still the assurance is not itself a clear insight at once into the construction of the fact which is thus firmly felt to be true; and we need not be surprised to find accordingly, that down to our own day the problem of a full and adequate representation of the central significance of the mystery now in view as being the real heart of all truth and reason besides, has never yet been brought to a conclusively round and complete solution. This however affects not at all the certainty of the fact itself, nor the reasonableness of the assurance by which it is held to be true; it belongs only to theology as a science, to the theory of Christianity as the understanding seeks to master it in harmony with the knowledge it has of the world in other forms. At the same time theology as a science is itself part of the living process of Christianity, and needs continually to be advanced more and more in its own direction in order that this last may come to its full and perfect triumph. The theory of religion here, and the power of it in the actual world, what it is for the understanding and what it is for the life, must go forward hand in hand together; and it is vain to look for the last universal success of the gospel under the second form, without a corresponding progress also under the first. It may be regarded then as a fact of much meaning and promise, that at the present time a new and more than usually active interest seems to be drawn on all sides towards the christological question, as one which is felt to lie at the root of all right theology, and to condition by its proper scientific solution the prosperity of all other christian interests. Liebner admits that much of the speculation which has been turned in this direction in modern times has been actuated by a spirit more or less hostile to the true sense of Christianity, and that even in its best character it has labored too generally under a false philosophical tendency, which has served materially to mar and vitiate its results. But this, he thinks, forms no reason for calling in question its significance, or refusing to make account of its endeavors and deeds. There is no good reason why the thinking even of Schelling or Hegel, though in no fellowship whatever with the christian faith as such, should not be acknowledged as of real weight for theological science, where it has to do even in a false and insufficient way with interests and relations which it is the province of such science to set in proper light. Theology can never be dissociated from the general progress of human thought. This moves with

organic necessity in one direction always, as a single whole; and it belongs to theology to move along with it, as the only power that can furnish a right response in the end to the vast and mighty interrogations with which it forms still the inmost burden of the age. In this way however it is quite possible, that the impulse to such new openings of thought, rendered necessary by the previous course of theology, may spring not immediately from the sphere of faith as such, but from the sphere of philosophy, and in this form seem even to carry an unfriendly aspect towards christian truth. Still in such case if the thought thus set in motion belong in truth to the actual philosophy of the world's mind at the time, it may be entitled notwithstanding to the earnest regard of those who take an interest in theology, as an indirect contribution at least to its service and benefit. Such merit beyond all doubt must be allowed to the later German philosophy, in its relations to the better German theology of the present time. It has served to force attention and inquiry towards questions, which had not been rightly answered before, and to which a full and fair answer is now required as the last sense of Protestantism and the innermost want of the age. Both Schelling and Hegel have struck in this way on more than one chord of thought, demanding and deserving universal regard in the bosom of the Church. In particular, the christological ideas of this last are very significant and full of instruction; for however monstrous they are in their own nature, and contrary to the truth as it is in Christ, they still bear striking testimony to the great central fact of the gospel, by seeking to solve in another way the problem with which it is concerned; whilst they make it necessary for christian science to go more deeply into its own truth, for the very purpose of bringing out clearly its superiority to the false speculation so plausibly presented in its place. And if we are bound to allow this much in favor even of Hegel, who will pretend that a still greater regard is not due to the professedly christian speculation of Schleiermacher, and others following more or less his theological influence, as occupied with the same profound and deeply interesting themes? It comes to nothing, that such deep earnest thinkers are found to deviate here and there from the established orthodoxy of their time, that they are chargeable with great and serious errors, and that it is not safe to follow them blindly in their theological speculations. We know well enough that it is not safe to follow any leader blindly, whether he be an original thinker or an easy traditionist who never thinks at all. That is not the question. We know too that Schleiermacher has fallen into serious errors. But what

then? Was he not still the theological Origen of his age? And is there no use whatever to be made of the activity of such a mind long and earnestly exercised on the deepest problems of religion, no profit at all to be expected or sought from his keen dialectical intelligence, and vast armory of learning, turned towards their solution? Alas for the misery of such a judgment as that. Say, that he has answered all questions wrong; yet who will pretend that he had not tact enough at least to know what questions actually lie in the way of theology as it now stands, and most loudly crave an answer at its hands; or that the endeavors of such a man to find the right answer deserve not the regard of inferior (even though more orthodox) minds, as instructive hints and helps at least by which they may be profitably guided towards something better? This only rational view of the matter we find taken by Dr. Liebner. He is not satisfied by any means with the christological efforts thus far of the modern time. He is not satisfied with the theory of Schleiermacher, nor with the light in which the subject is exhibited by Göschel, Dorner, Fischer, Martensen, or Lange. But he is not led by this, to undervalue and slight the labors of such men on this field; much less to set down the field itself as a waste of metaphysical thorns and briars, unworthy of culture. On the contrary, he finds in these manifold efforts of the great minds of the age, all looking in the same direction and grappling with the same profound questions, full evidence and proof that the general problem with which they are concerned lies in truth near the inmost heart of theology at the present time, and that all the interests of religion as well as those of philosophy call loudly from all sides for its right solution. However speculation may have failed, in one case or in fifty, to bring out such a solution in full satisfactory form, it has lost none of its force for this reason as constantly accumulating testimony to the reality, weight, and importance, of the fact it seeks to explain; whilst it must be taken also to determine conclusively at least some of the points and positions, that are necessarily comprehended in the subject as a whole.

Professor Liebner's work, now before us, falls into two parts. The first is occupied, at some length, with "the posture of the christological problem at the present time." The second, making up the main portion of the volume, is devoted to its general "theological and theanthropological solution."

In setting forth the present posture of the problem, the author directs attention, in the first place, to "the ecclesiastical and theological crisis now passing, and its relation to christology in gen

eral;" and then brings into view what may be termed the "church and school christology as it now stands."

Theology, he tells us, may no longer shun the consciousness, that the Church is at this time passing, by as great a crisis as she has ever heretofore met, into a new order or state. The new in this case at the same time can come in properly, only as it is actively produced or brought to pass by waking mind. No mere tradition will now serve the purposes either of life or thought. The new must be positive in its nature; it is not found therefore in any merely negative or destructional tendencies of the age; these must be regarded at best but as signs of its approach, or solicitations inviting its presence. Still with such positive character, it must not be absolutely new, but a new stadium simply of the life of the Church, in strict historical connection with all that has gone before. No unhistorical movement in this form can ever deserve confidence. All real progress is conditioned indispensably by a full acquaintance with the previous course of theology, and a just reverence for its authority, as well as by a proper regard to the speculations of philosophy in the widest view. "Without a thoroughly comprehensive sense of this vast ecclesiastical back-ground, without a home familiarity with the past theoretical development of the Church, without having faithfully accompanied her sufferings, conflicts and victories, in the working out of her principle thus far, so as with true churchly sensorium to live them into himself as part of his own experience, no man can possibly lay hand anywhere with real effect to the theological work demanded by the wants of the present time; nay, no such man can have any right inwardly to lay his hand upon the work at all. It is impossible indeed to denounce too severely the folly, which pretends to bring help in such a case from abroad only, from any and every quarter as it may happen, and not from the bosom of the Church herself." This however implies no disregard for the resources of philosophy, but requires rather that they should be diligently studied and turned to account. These are part of the material, which true christian theology is bound to take up and employ for its own. higher ends. It is truly astonishing to see, in a retrospective view of the modern philosophy generally, how all its great he roes, partly without their own knowledge or will, have been forced to render even positive service to the christian cause; as it would seem indeed universally, that no great man, no genius, can be born and baptized in the church, without paying tribute in this way to Jesus Christ." It is high time, in this view, that theology should learn to look on all spheres of thought as right

fully tributary to herself, and show her proper supremacy, neither by blindly following nor by blindly rejecting what they offer, but by appropriating out of it in a free way all that is capable of being assimilated to her own more powerful life. "The theology which refuses to give heed to the mighty questions, that have been set in motion by the modern philosophy in its vast wrestlings and endeavors called forth by the progress of the Protestant epoch, (questions indeed which only the full sense of Christianity can ever answer-but this also only as wrought out into the form of science,) must be set down as utterly unequal to the necessities of the age."

All other theological questions belonging to the general crisis of the age, in the judgment of the author, gather themselves up centrally at last in the sphere of christology. Here ultimately are to be referred all difficulties and perplexities in the science of religion, aud to this deep ground we must trace them in order to their proper answer. The first grand question accordingly regards the possibility of a christology at all in the sense of the Church, in some such form as this: Has the Church in the substance of her christology, that is, in that with which she must stand or fall, in the fundamental idea of the true and real Godman, rightly apprehended the nature of christianity?

To be of any real force, this idea must be more of course than an empty sound or notion. It must be such as to meet and master fairly the contradiction, with which it is encountered in all the factors that enter into its constitution. This has become more profound and comprehensive in our age than ever before. The factors in question are Divinity, Humanity, and Nature. On the ground of these severally we find pantheism, a false doctrine of freedom, and a false naturalisin, arrayed in opposition to the whole truth and possibility of the christological mystery. To retain then firm hold of her own faith here, the Church is required and urged to dissolve the force of these most hard and difficult issues, by setting them in full harmony with the sense of this faith, as the true ground where they all come finally to their proper meaning. In other words, to surmount scientifically the false tendencies of the age in the several directions now noticed, she is called, as the prossessor of all truth, not to ignore them with suicidal self-will, but to satisfy rather in a true way the problems they are seeking to satisfy in a false way. Over against the antichristian pantheism, ethicism, and naturalism, of the age, the case needs a truly christian pantheism, in the sense of Paul's ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν, a corresponding scheme of humanity, and a corresponding theory of nature also, in which