Christian heretics Hegesippus mentions the Masbotheans, whom he has already designated as an Israelitish sect. Whence the repetition? Harnack thinks, from Justin's "Syntagma." But we have no evidence that Justin made mention of the Masbotheans.

Hilgenfeld finds the "Clementine Recognitions" and "Homilies" (which he insists on ascribing to the second century, notwithstanding Zahn's arguments to the contrary), at variance with Justin and accordant in several points with Hegisippus. From what appears in Hegisippus and Pseudo-Clement, Hilgenfeld infers that "Justin has set forth the generally current view in deriving the heresies of the Christian time merely from Samaritan magic and the sudden instigation of the devil." It would require too much space to indicate the particulars in which the point of view and the details of Hegisippus and Pseudo-Clement differ from those of Justin. But these points of difference seem sufficiently numerous and important to make the supposition that either of these writers was indebted to Justin for particulars that can not be compared with his extant statements, hazardous in the extreme.

Celsus, as quoted by Origen, is likewise shown to have been independent of Justin in his representation of early Christian heresies.

While Clement of Alexandria agrees with Justin in his enumeration of heretics from Simon to Marcion, he imparts much information which Hilgenfeld thinks he could hardly have derived from Justin.

Origen also is shown to have gone still further beyond the information supplied by Justin, and to have furnished us with "many an independent notice on the heretics."

The list of heretics in the "Apostolic Constitutions" appears to be more in accord with that of Hegisippus than with that of Justin.

With Irenæus the case is different. He expressly mentions Justin as a principal authority. After a somewhat prolonged balancing of views with Harnack and Lipsius, who are at variance in some particulars, and with neither of whom he wholly agrees, Dr. Hilgenfeld concludes:

"Although Justin's view of Christian heresy always forms the basis of that of Irenæus, yet it appears partly perverted, partly transformed, and partly further developed. An evident perversion is the additional information about the Ebionites, who can be

charged with degrading the Demiarge, neither by representing him as a self-deification nor as accepting a higher God, who also have absolutely nothing to do with the source and root' of the Valentinians. A transformation is the transferring of the culminating point of heresy from Marcion to the Valentinians; with the transformation is also closely connected an essential development. Among the Valentinians, especially in their later form, Irenæus assumes contact with Hellenism, its poetry, and especially its philosophy. So then with Irenæus already the derivation of heresy from Hellenism begins to appear. The more pervasive this derivation became the more must Justin's erroneous derivation of Christian heresy from diabolical instigation in the circles of Samaritan magic sink into the background. In the place of the Israelitish heresies from which Hegisippus supposed the Christian to have sprung the world-wisdom of Hellenism became more and more prominent."

Hilgenfeld distinguishes between the author of the "Syntagma" (not Justin's) and the author of the "Philosophoumena" as Hippolytus I and Hippolytus II. Hippolytus I differs from Justin in making the number of Israelitish sects four instead of seven, but agrees with Justin and Irenæus (against Hegesippus and Pseudo-Clement) in deriving Christian heresies from the Samaritan magician Simon and his self-deification. Hippolytus I enumerates thirty-two distinct heretical leaders, ending with the Patripassian Noetus. Hilgenfeld shows the inadmissibility of Lipsius's view that Hippolytus I is substantially independent of the work of Irenæus, and agrees with Harnack in maintaining that he knew and used the work of his master. His chief task was to amplify and supplement Irenæus's account, and there are indications that in some cases where Irenæus has departed from Justin's "Syntagma" Hippolytus I has returned to this authority. Yet Hilgenfeld rejects decisively Lipsius's view that the resemblance between Hippolytus and Irenæus can be accounted for from their use of this common source.

Hippolytus II, according to Hilgenfeld, departed completely from Justin's view of the rise of Christian heresies, and carried. further than Irenæus had done the idea of the influence of Hellenistic philosophy, mysteries, and astrology. Tertullian our author does not look upon as an independent authority, his indebtedness to Irenæus being everywhere manifest. Such later writers as Philaster, Epiphanius, and Theodoret follow blindly in the footsteps of the great authorities that have been mentioned.

Having in eighty-seven pages carefully weighed his authorities, our author proceeds to discuss the parties, one by one, in the light of the whole of the pertinent literature. First of all the Essenes demand his attention. Merely to state intelligibly the various theories that have of late years been advanced with reference to the origin and nature of this party and its relations to early Christianity would require many pages. Hilgenfeld considers minutely the somewhat fragmentary notices of them that occur in Philo, Josephus, Pliny, and Hippolytus II, in the light of all that has been written of late by Ewald, Hitzig, Zeller, Lucius, Ritschl, Bunsen, Spiegel, and others, and decides that it is unnecessary to regard the peculiar practices of the Essenes-community of goods; abstinence from marriage, flesh, animal sacri. fices, anointing with oil, and the possession of slaves-as derived from Pythagoreanism or Buddhism. He regards them as reaching back to the "primitive time when the temple was not yet built, much less declared the only place of worship. They maintained their own priests and sacred rites, as the Jews already possessed an exclusively Aaronic priest class and a privileged sanctuary. As a second Moses, Jonadab came forward on behalf of this tribe, who, about B. C. 884, took part in the overthrow of the royal house unfaithful to Jehovah (2 Kings x, 15, 23, sq.)." Our author finds traces of the Essenes during the interval between B. C. 884 and 106, when they appear as diviners or teachers of divination. He agrees with Lightfoot (although he makes no mention of Lightfoot's admirable dissertation on the Essenes in his "Commentary on Colossians," etc.) in finding more points of resemblance between Essenism and Parseeism than between Essenism and Pythagoreanism. These points he (as Lightfoot) considers in detail: veneration of the sun, magic, angelology, soothsaying, attaching peculiar sanctity to meal-time, ceremonial baths, etc.; and admits the influence of the Parsee elements on Essenism. Yet he regards Essenism as essentially a Jewish growth. "Essenism is not be regarded as a mysterious innovation on the post-Maccabean form of Judaism, but as a scion of Israelitism in the broader sense, which, as the main trunk of Judaism aged, still showed fresh vitality." Hilgenfeld's derivation of the term "Essenes" deserves to be noticed as one among a multitude that have been suggested. It may be said that the name occurs in at least four widely different forms.

Rejecting the derivations from Hebrew and Arabic roots that have seemed plausible to many, he derives it from a locality, "Essa, west of the Dead Sea," where the Essenes existed in large numbers.

We shall not have space to follow this admirable writer through his almost exhaustive investigations on the Samaritans, Simon Magus, Menander, Satornilus, Basileides, the BarbeloGnostics, the Ophites, Valentinus, Cerdon, Marcion, Ptolemæus, Marcus, Tatian, the Carpocratians, the Nicolaitans, Cerinthus, the Ebionites, the Encratites, etc. Suffice it to say that he cites

in the original every important passage to be found in the literature of heresiology, and from a most painstaking comparison of statements, the relative value of which has been determined by antecedent critical processes, draws conclusions as to the precise position of each heretical leader.

The fact that great interest is felt in the Cataphrygians or Montanists, and the close connection between this portion of Hilgenfeld's book and the work next to be noticed will be sufficient justification for dwelling a little on this section. Hilgenfeld differs from Bonwetsch (see below) as to the date of the appearing of Montanus as a prophet. About A. D. 172 is thought to be the earliest admissible date, whereas Bonwetsch, misled by Epiphanius, fixed upon A. D. 156. He agrees with Ritschl (against Bonwetsch) in finding in Montanism, especially its Chiliastic features, a Judaizing element. In this Hilgenfeld is certainly right, and Bonwetsch wrong, yet we must accept Didymus's statement that Montanus himselt was a heathen priest, as a partial explanation of the ecstatic nature of Montanist prophecy. We conclude our notice with the following extract:

"The antagonism of Montanism towards Christianity was indeed, in a certain sense, the antagonism of the primitive Christianity towards a progressive secularization of the Church. But the rigor of Church discipline was regarded not merely as a restoration of the primitive, but rather as an intensification by the Paraclete, in view of the nearly approaching consummation. The expectation of the nearly approaching consummation with the thousand years' kingdom was characteristic of primitive Christianity [in this we do not agree with Hilgenfeld], and the combating of this expectation by the anti-Montanist, Caius of Rome, who went so far as to entirely reject the Johannean Apocalypse, seems like a breach with primitive Christianity. Yet, on the other hand, also, that expectation itself, as held by the Cataphrygians was a

breach with primitive Christianity, which by no means distinguished between the evangelical and apostolic time and the time of the consummation as distinct epochs. Primitive Christian, in Montanism, is its antagonism towards the monarchical episcopate at the head of the Churches. But with its monarchy of prophets in the Church, and its correspondingly shaped Church order, Montanism also went beyond primitive Christianity. Montanism and Catholicism are related, in general, not merely as reaction and progress, but both in their way represent the same issue of primitive Christianity. On the one side the new Church of the world coming to an end, on the other side the actually new Church of the continuing world; there already the final rooting out of the tares from the wheat field of the kingdom of heaven, here the greatest possible filling of the net of the kingdom of heaven with fishes good and bad without proper selection. On both sides Jerusalem, as the metropolis of Christianity, was transferred: with the Montanists to Pepuza, with the Catholics, as the history of Montanism itself teaches, actually to Rome."

Hilgenfeld's book is a thesaurus of the literature of the heresies of the first three centuries which no student of the period can afford to neglect; and his deductions are, for the most part, well considered. A. H. N.

Die Geschichte des Montanismus. Von DR. NATHANAL BONWETSCH. Erlangen. 1881.

THIS monograph has been before the public for nearly three years, but as it still remains by far the best and most complete treatise on the subject, we need not apologize for calling attention to it, even at this late hour. Like Hilgenfeld, Bonwetsch brings the whole literature of the subject, so far as it was known to him, under review, and having more space at his disposal, goes much more fully into the consideration of all the questions involved. He begins by summarizing the views of his predecessors in this field. The "sources" follow, and are discussed with

much thoroughness and acumen. The "nature" (wesen) of Montanism next demands his attention, and occupies a large part of the volume. As regards the date of Montanism and its Judaizing tendency we feel constrained to agree with Hilgenfeld against Bonwetsch; but in some particulars Bonwetsch has the advantage. The two works, in fact, well supplement each other so far as Montanism is concerned. As we quoted above from Hilgenfeld concerning the relations of Montanism to the