express themselves in awkward German. He did not always succeed in the first attempt. Even in the later editions Luther revised his German with the utmost care. In the New Testament, e. g., he at first used the imperative forms "gang, ""stand," and the like, which he afterwards changed to "gehe," "stehe." (Cf. Matthew v, 41; viii, 4; ix, 6; ii, 13, 20, and many others.)

In the earlier German Bibles there are many foreign words such as "benedeien," "maledeien," "Kasteien” (cf., e. g., Matthew v, 44, "Benedehyt die euch maledehyen, Psalm xxxviii, 1); dialectic words and forms like "spreissen" (Matthew vii, 3), "Spugnis" (Matthew xiv, 26= Gespenst), "Darbe" (Mark xii, 44), "Kröppler" or "Kröpel," "hynnausen," "Kindle,' " "Kindle," "Bundle" (Matthew xiii, 30), and the like; sometimes we find expressions like "die von Aufang selbstsichtige" (Luke i, 2), “eine rufende Stimme" (Luke iii, 4; John i, 23), "der Eyffer deines Hauses" (John ii, 17); and sentences like this, "und battet um den Mörder euch zu geben" (Acts iii, 14).

Luther's care to improve in these respects extends even to the restoration of a regular and uniform orthography. The first editions of the New Testament still retain a very irregular and unshapely orthography, which in part, no doubt, is to be charged to the compositors and proof-readers; but after the year 1530 he constantly simplified the spelling, and made it more uniform and regular. In his translation of the Bible, in which he devoted far more care to the German than in any of his other writings, how wonderfully Luther succeeded in giving an ideal development to the whole beauty and richness of the German language. We can understand why his contemporary and admirer, Erasmus, calls him "a true German Cicero," and boasts that "no other ever spoke or wrote better German than he.' The original manner in which he treated the language is shown by the fact that his first papal opponents spoke of his translation of the Bible as "Luther's German," and they acknowledged that this German was "ele

gant and sweet sounding," and gave it the very best testimonial by appropriating it more and more, so that as early as 1530 Luther could write: "It is a noticeable fact that they are learning to speak and write German from my translation and my German, and they are also stealing my language, of which they knew very little before; and, instead of thanking me for it, they are using it to oppose me. But I grant them the privilege, for it is a pleasure to me to teach my unthankful pupils, and even my enemies, how to talk." It is known that J. Grimm calls the new high-German "the Protestant dialect, whose freedom-breathing nature long since overpowered poets and writers of the Catholic faith when they were not aware of it."

In time this Protestant dialect, this German of Luther moving in an ever-widening circle conquered the provinces of the various German dialects; first upper Germany, where the dialectic inflections of certain words and word-forms soon became indispensable in the first editions of the Bible; then lower Germany, for which the last low-German Bible was printed in the year 1621; and finally Switzerland, where, in the year 1667, the Zürich Bible was rendered into high-German. We have, to be sure, wrought together a variety of factors in improving and extending the new highGerman written language; but the most efficient factor, which united all the German tribes in language, was Luther's Bible. In the broader development of the highGerman written language, in its purification from many foreign words which had worked their way into it, especially in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and in its rejuvenation at the epoch of our German classics, no other book has exercised so great an influence as Luther's Bible, whose language served as a model to many of our best writers; and even the improvements that have been made in our day in the German language, and in the correct writing of German, began in many cases with Luther. And, besides this, Luther's Bible exercised a more ennobling influence upon the language of the common people

than any other book. "Wherever Luther's Bible was read or is read," says Radloff, "the language of the lower classes is more intelligible, more definite, more dignified."

It would be a great, but not unrequited, task to trace the more material influence which Luther's Bible exerted upon German literature, particularly upon the poetry and general culture of the German people. Radloff compares its influence in our German culture with that of the Homeric epics in the Grecian. But the limits prescribed me prevent my entering into this subject. This much is certain, that whoever is anxious for our national culture, will also wish Luther's Bible to be the book most read by the people. It is just as inestimable a national treasure for our German people as it is an indispensable support for the religious and ecclesiastical life of Protestantism, and if Bugenhagen's custom of celebrating every year a festival commemorative of the translation of the Bible extends no further, yet all evangelical German tongues, and with them all Germans, have reason to praise and thank God for the Bible translated into German by Dr. Martin Luther.

BOOKS-REVIEWS AND NOTICES.

SOME RECENT GERMAN WORKS ON EARLY CHURCH HIS. TORY.

Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums, Urkundlich Dargestellt. Von Dr. ADOLF Hilgenfeld. Leipsig. Fues's Verlag. 1884.

FOR Considerably more than thirty years Dr. Adolf Hilgenfeld has been giving his almost undivided attention to the Christian literature of the first three centuries, and to the theology and polity of the ante-Nicene Church. His "Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie" (Review for Scientific Theology), inaugurated in 1857, has contributed its full quota to the elucidation of all current problems in theological science, and has been particularly rich in discussions of critical questions pertaining to the apostolic and sub-apostolic times. Among his earlier works may be mentioned his edition of "The Apostolic Fathers," his treatise on "The Canon of the New Testament," that on "The Messiah of the Jews," and that on "The Paschal Controversy of the Ancient Church."

The work before us embodies the mature results of his investigations into the origin and nature of the various divergencies of faith and practice that appeared during the first three centuries. The principal sources of the history of early heretical parties are Irenæus, Hippolytus, Hegesippus, Pseudo-Clement, Celsus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Of these the first, second, fourth, sixth, and seventh have been preserved in comparative integrity. The third we have only in extracts preserved by Eusebius, and the fifth only in very copious extracts made by Origen with polemic aim.

In his first "Apology" Justin Martyr makes mention of a work by himself, entitled, “ σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενημένων Αἱρέ σEWV OUTEYTAμEvv." This work of Justin's has unfortunately been lost (may we not hope that some Bryennios will yet unearth it in some monkish library ?). The question naturally arises, how far this work lay at the basis of those of Irenæus, Hippolytus, and others; and nothing is more natural than that a German theologian should attempt, by a detailed comparison of these writers, to reconstruct the lost "Syntagma." This Dr. Hilgen

feld proceeds to do, following most acutely certain hints given by Justin himself, and by Irenæus and Hippolytus. In his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew," Justin mentions seven Jewish heretical parties besides the Samaritans, viz., Sadducees, Genists, Merists, Galileans, Hellenianians, Pharisees, and Baptists. It is from the Samaritans alone that he derives Christian heretical parties. Simon Magus and Menander he supposes to have been projected into the world by demons (Apol. I, xvi), and to have blasphemously claimed for themselves divine attributes. Marcion was the arch-heretic of Justin's own time. Laying principal stress, as Justin does, on these three, the question arises whether, in his "Syntagma," Marcion followed immediately upon Simon and Menander, or, as in Irenæus and others, such heretical teachers as Saturninus (Satornilus), Basileides, and Valentinus were interposed. Hilgenfeld adopts the latter view, Harnack the former. Hilgenfeld seems fully to justify his position by reference to Justin's own list in the "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew," where all of these parties are mentioned. Accordingly he reconstructs the scheme of Justin's "Syntagma" as follows: 1. The Samaritan magician Simon; 2. Menander, likewise a Samaritan magician; 3. Satornilus; 4. Basileides; 5. Certain connecting links between Simon and Valentinus; 6. Valentinus; 7. Marcion. That Justin knew of all these heretics. is certain; that in his "Syntagma" he treated of them in this order is a most natural supposition.

The case of Hegesippus (who wrote about 180) next arises. Did he follow Justin's "Syntagma," or is he to be taken as an independent witness? Lipsius (in 1873) maintained his independence. Harnack was absolutely sure of the contrary. Helgenfeld (in 1874) defended Lipsius against Harnack. Lipsius yielded, notwithstanding Hilgenfeld's support. Hilgenfeld is unable to see how Harnack can hold to his view in face of the arguments that are adduced in the present work. The principal reason for supposing that Hegesippus was an independent witness is the fact, that while both enumerate seven Jewish parties, the lists differ considerably. Besides, Hegesippus's representation of the relation of these Jewish parties to early Christian heresies differs in essential particulars from that of Justin. "Not as Justin does Hegesippus represent Simon as the arch-heretic of the Christian time, but a scion of the Israelitish heresies." Other variations no less remarkable appear. Among the early VOL. VI, No. 24-35