and of Grotius, especially when those who hold them can use such language as the following: "I consider it fundamental in the truth of redemption through Christ that Christ suffered in our stead, or that his work was vicarious, that his sufferings had relation and influence towards God as well as towards man; that the ultimate ground of redemption is the satisfaction of the God of holy love, procured by the sufferings of Christ; and that all other effects upon man rest back upon and assume that satisfaction as having been made, or, in other words, assume a changed relation of God towards sinners produced by the sufferings and death of his only begotten Son." (Professor Harris's Address before the Congregational Club of Boston, May 26, 1884, "Boston Journal," May 21.) Eleventh charge: The professors are charged with holding and teaching "that there is, and will be, probation after death for all men who do not decisively reject Christ during the earthly life; and that this should be emphasized, made influential, and even central in systematic theology." 66 The latter part of this charge is without a shadow of support. The professors, so far from claiming that their view on this subject should be emphasized and made central in systematic theology," declare that it is to be looked upon as an appended inquiry rather than as an essential question for theology." ("Progressive Orthodoxy," page 77.) And they further say: "In the strictest sense, we do not treat it as a doctrine at all, but only as an inference from a doctrine or fundamental principle." ("Andover Defence," page 130.) They frankly admit that they hold, as a reasonable inference from accepted truths, that any persons who have no Christian probation in this life may have such a probation after death. The view which they emphasize is that there is salvation only through faith in Christ, in opposition to the Unitarian view of salvation by works, or by "living up to the light of nature." Their views on this subject seem to us permissible under the Creed of the seminary. The Creed contains no explicit declaration concerning the condition of the wicked during the period between death and the final judgment. The Creed, in highly figurative Scriptural language, declares that "the wicked will awake to shame and everlasting contempt, and with devils be plunged into the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone forever and ever." It is a significant fact that, while the authors of this Creed did say that "believers" at death do "immediately pass into glory," they were led —may we not say providentially led—not to say that the wicked do immediately "awake to shame." If it could be proved that they did believe that the wicked do immediately at death enter into a state of hopeless retribution, then would the fact that they did not express this belief in the Creed be all the more significant. If it were allowable to go behind the language of the Creed, and inquire what views the founders held on this subject, following a line of historical argument similar to that adopted by Dr. Dexter in support of this charge, it could be easily shown that the founders believed that no man can be saved without faith in Christ in this life; and, therefore, that the heathen en masse, and, without exception, perish. This was unquestionably the prevalent view at that time. Thus, in answer to the sixtieth question of the larger Catechism "Can they who have never heard of the gospel, and know not of Jesus Christ, nor believe in Him, be saved by their living according to the light of nature?" it is said, "They who, having never heard the gospel, know not Jesus Christ, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature or the laws of that religion which they profess; neither is there salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, who is the Saviour only of his body, the church." The Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church (chap. x., sect. 4) uses similar language, and declares that the salvation of conscientious heathen with only the light of nature is "much less" possible than is the salvation of those who hear the gospel and reject it, and further declares that "to assert and maintain the contrary is very pernicious and to be detested." With this the Saybrook Platform (chap. x., art. 4) agrees. And this was doubtless the current belief at the opening of the present century; that none were, or could be, saved without a knowledge of Christ and personal faith in Him in this life. Even Dr. Emmons, who stood in such close relations to some of the founders, held this view of the impossibility of the salvation of any of the heathen without the gospel. ("Works," vol. 6, Ser. 22.) From this view, presumably held by some of the founders, there have been two important departures since the seminary was founded, both of them outgrowths of one and the same doctrine, namely, the universality of the atonement. One class of theologians hold that, since Christ died for all, the salvation of all is made possible; and that all who penitently turn to God, whether in Christian or heathen lands, will actually be saved by Christ, even though ignorant of Him. Another class of theologians hold that, since Christ died for all men, all men before the final judgment will have opportunity to accept or reject Him as their Saviour, and those who do not have such opportunity in this life will have it after death. Both classes agree (1) that all men are hopelessly lost without Christ; and (2) that none can be saved except by Christ, and on the ground of the atonement; and (3) that some will be saved who do not hear of Christ in this life. They disagree as to the possibility of salvation without faith in Christ, and this of necessity leads to disagreement as to the possibility of probation and salvation after death for those who do not know of Christ before death. Now, the Creed neither expressly affirms nor denies the possibility of salvation without faith in Christ; and it neither affirms nor denies the possibility of probation and of salvation for any who die without a knowledge of Christ. But it is almost certain that the founders did not believe in either possibility. If, therefore, men holding to the one possibility can rightfully occupy chairs of instruction in the seminary, why may not those holding to the other possibility? If it is not contrary to the Creed, though contrary to the views of the founders, to encourage the hope that some of the heathen will be saved who have no opportunity to believe in Christ in this life, why should it be deemed contrary to the Creed, though contrary to the views of the founders, to encourage the hope that some of the heathen will be saved by having an opportunity to believe in Christ after death? The views of the professors on this subject, whether correct or not, do not seem to antagonize any of the doctrines of the Creed, nor lend any countenance to any of the errors and heresies condemned by the Creed. In our judgment, the whole aim of the professors has been to enlarge and deepen the apprehension of Christian truth in its applications to the problems of faith and the work of the church in the world, and they have done this along the lines of the symbols of the seminary. And we think that they deserve for their industry, their zeal, their scholarship, and their piety, not the disfranchisement and suspicion of the friends of the seminary and of sacred learning, but encouragement and sympathy. In conclusion, we cannot refrain from expressing our deep conviction that no greater mistake can be made in endeavoring to promote the growth of Christ's kingdom than that of insisting that such differences on points in eschatology, as exist between the accusers and the accused in this case, should be made the occasion of accusations so grave and a trial so momentous as that which these distinguished and high-minded professors have been called upon to face. D. T. FISKE. EDWARD TAYLOR. C. F. P. BANCROFT. THOMAS H. RUSSELL. J. S. ROPES. ALEXANDER MCKENZIE. WM. H. WILLCOX. THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE. CURRENT GERMAN THOUGHT. IN my last paper (May) I endeavored to characterize very briefly the general position of the school of Ritschl. It may not be uninteresting in the same connection to cast a glance at the two parties which condition and limit the influence of that school upon either side. The first of them is the so-called Confessional school, represented chiefly by the universities of Leipzig, Erlangen, Greifswald, and Rostock, and under the leadership of Professor Luthardt, of Leipzig, a man of immense personal power, whose influence in the orthodox Lutheran Church is undoubtedly greater than that of any other living man. The party is called "Confessional,' and yet there is in Germany no truly Confessional school in the sense in which the Missouri Synod, for instance, deserves that name. The latter is continually pointing out to the mother church its deviation from the old positions and endeavoring to set it a pattern of close conformity to the established standards. But the school of which I speak claims to stand upon the old Confessions, and does so more nearly than any other part of the German Church, thus representing the strictest orthodoxy to be found in Germany. They hold, for instance, the majority of them, in distinction from all other German schools, a very rigid doctrine of plenary inspiration, by no means confining it to the so-called essential parts of Scripture. But at the same time they of course no longer pretend to accept the old mechanical theory which found such vigorous defenders among the post-Reformation divines. And yet, although in this and in some other respects they have outgrown their fathers, the essential principle which distinguishes them from the followers of Ritschl is, that they in reality take as their basis the dogmatists of the seventeenth century, while Ritschl goes back to the Reformation itself, to the underlying principle of Protestantism (not its doctrines here is the vital distinction) as championed by Luther. The Confessional school of the present is distinguished from the orthodox Church of the seventeenth century, not simply by an alteration in a few of its doctrinal positions, but, in general, by the addition of an eighteenth-century pietism, which makes it at the same time deeper and narrower. I do not mean, of course, to imply that every representative of conservative German Lutheranism can be characterized in this way. I simply state the general position, or better, tendency, of the school. The two great lights of this branch of the Church to whom it still looks back for its guidance and its inspiration were Hengstenberg, of Berlin, and Hoffmann, of Erlangen, and it is their spirit which still lives in the orthodox universities. The school is, of course, looked upon by the most conservative people as the bulwark of German Protestantism, but it must be remembered that it is rather the bulwark of the scholastic orthodoxy of the seventeenth century than of the true Protestantism of Luther and the Reformation. The school is strong in numbers-over 1,500 theological students are in attendance upon its four chief universities and it can thus hardly be said that German orthodoxy is losing ground, at least from a numerical point of view. Its principal organs are the "Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben" (monthly), the theological journal of the school; the "Theologisches Literaturblatt" (weekly), devoted entirely to the review of current theological literature; and the "Allgemeine Evangelische Lutherische Kirchenzeitung" (weekly), a general religious paper. All of these enjoy a wide circulation, and are all published at Leipzig under the editorship of Professor Luthardt himself. The influence which he exerts by means of them may be imagined. Hengstenberg's "Evangelische Kirchenzeitung," now edited by Zöckler, of Greifswald, also represents this school, but does not at present enjoy a very wide circulation. At the other angle of the triangle, as different from the orthodox party in its relations to Christianity and the Bible as could well be imagined, and yet one with it in opposition to Ritschlianism, stands the old Tübingen school, - in so far as it can be said still to exist in Germany, at any rate the natural offspring of that school, which has been growing more and more toward a philosophical rationalism (I simply indicate its tendency) and at the same time becoming beautifully less in numbers. It is too negative to live in the face of such a free and at the same time aggressive movement as that of Ritschl on the one side, and such a conservative force as the Confessional school on the other. The former attracts most of the liberally inclined among the younger theologians, the latter absorbs the conservatives. For the Tübingen school few are left. The philosophy of the last-named school is, as is well known, Hegelian, and thus directly opposed to the Neu-Kantianismus of the Ritschlianer. Its position toward the Bible and toward revelation in general is extremely negative. Lipsius, of Jena, and Pfleiderer, of Berlin, are, since the death of Biedermann, of Switzerland, in 1885, the chief representatives of the school. Its strongholds are the universities of Jena and Heidelberg, with a total theological attendance of something over two hundred. The positions of the various members of the party are by no means identical with those of Baur; one has veered off in one direction, another in another (Lipsius is, perhaps, farthest from the old master), but the school is the lineal descendant of the old school, and the spirit of the latter still lives in it. It is noticeable that its chief lights are theologians rather than historians; upon the latter the influence of Ritschl's principles has been especially great. Its principal organs are the "Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie," a very able theological review, published quarterly in Leipzig, with Lipsius as editor-in-chief, and the "Protestantische Kirchenzeitung," published weekly by Reimer, of Berlin. The "Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie," published quarterly at Leipzig, VOL. VIII. NO. 43. 6 under the editorship of Hilgenfeld, of Jena, though often spoken of as an organ of this school, occupies more of an independent position. I may add, what I omitted to state in my last letter, that the principal organs of the Ritschlianer are Harnack and Schürer's "Theologische Literaturzeitung" (published bi-weekly in Leipzig), which is devoted to book reviews and widely known for its very complete theological bibliography, and the "Evangelisch-Lutherisches Gemeindeblatt" (published in Leipzig under the editorship of Dr. Rade, a former pupil of Harnack's), a newly established weekly, which promises to be one of the very best of Germany's religious papers. Ritschlianism is strongest in the universities of Western Germany, especially Göttingen, Marburg, and Giessen, but it has individual representatives in almost every theological faculty. A characteristic difference between Ritschl and the Confessional school on the one side and the Tübingen school on the other may be seen in his treatment of the Bible. He rejects every attempt to deduce from any scholastic theory of inspiration its teaching power, but at the same time he accepts the New Testament as a norm, because it shows us what the followers of Christ believed before Christianity became corrupted and filled with the foreign ideas of philosophy. His treatment of the Bible is thus by no means negative. He endeavors to draw from it, and it alone, his whole system of theology. In addition to these three more clearly marked schools is a fourth of extremely indefinite outlines, which is known as the Mittel-Partei, and is made up of the so-called Vermittelungs - Theologen. They occupy a mediating position between the extreme liberals on the one hand and the extreme conservatives on the other, but are ordinarily looked upon as orthodox theologians. They do not, as a party, enter into the Ritschlianistic strife, and are to be identified neither with the Ritschlianer nor with their opponents. They are the continuators of the theology of Tholuck, Twesten, Dorner, etc., are thoroughly evangelical, but free and scientific in their methods. A great many of them are avowedly devoted to a union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches of Germany, which of itself indicates their position in regard to the distinctively Lutheran doctrines. Their stronghold is the university of Halle, which ranks next to Berlin and Leipzig in the number of its theological students. Their most pronounced organs, the "Deutsch-Evangelische Blätter" (monthly), edited by Professor Beyschlag, of Halle, and the old "Theologische Studien und Kritiken," edited by Professors Koestlin and Riehm, of Halle, and published quarterly by Perthes, of Gotha, are in their hands. MARBURG, PRUSSIA. Arthur C. McGiffert. ARCHEOLOGICAL NOTES. PITHOM - HEROÖPOLIS — SUCCOTH. Up to within about three years and a half very little was known about this Egyptian city. A name had been found on some of the monuments and papyri which had been read Pa-tum or Pi-tum, and which was phonetically the equivalent of the Hebrew Pithom. These sources made it apparent that the place was in the eastern delta of the Nile, but the |