ure of these sufferings was inflicted, He suffered for sins; but it is yet true that it was only vicariously that He so suffered. He was personally innocent of all the crimes laid to His charge. His whole life was holy, and His whole work gracious in its purpose and benefi. cent in its results; and yet He suffered -suffered to the death; but with what result? In its rendering of the apostle's statement in this regard the Authorized Version is very seriously defective. It translates: "Being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit." It spells “spirit” with a capital S, and so indicates that the thought is that He was put to death in the flesh, but was made alive again by the Holy Ghost. Thus translated, the passage asserts the facts of Christ's death and revivification, and reveals the agent by whom this latter was effected; but this introduces an idea entirely foreign to the apostle's thought, and states a fact which is wholly irrelevant to his argument. Literally the expression is: "Being put to death in flesh, ¿v σapki, but quickened in spirit, ἐν πνευματι. The contrast is between Christ's physical nature, on the one hand, and His spiritual nature, on the other. His physical life was terminated, but His spiritual life was intensified.

And now this assertion is to be substantiated. Then follows the passage which is to be considered in this study. This being the case, it is manifest that whatever may be its specific meaning, the purpose of the passage is to justify the apostle's assertion that the physical death of Christ has resulted in the spiritual quickening of Christ. It is manifest that the only way in which it can be shown that the sufferings of Christ intensified the spiritual life of Christ is by comparison of the vigor of that life prior to His sufferings with its virility subsequently. If such comparison reveals increased vigor subsequently to His sufferings, there comes then the further question, Is this increased vigor the result and reward of these sufferings? By the terms of the

argument just this is the task which Peter sets himself to accomplish in the passage before us.

46

The passage literally rendered reads as follows: Being put to death, indeed, in flesh, but quickened in spirit; in which going He preached also to the spirits in prison, disobedient sometime when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, in which few-that is, eight souls were saved through water; which, in a like figure, now saveth us also, even baptism-not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the stipulation toward God of a good conscience; through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject unto Him.”✦

Evidently two things, at least, are here asserted: (a) That the unembodied spirit of Christ preached. (b) That those to whom He preached were antediluvian sinners. This much is plain, but when was this preaching done?

An increasingly popular answer to this question is substantially this: It was done in the interval between the crucifixion of Christ and His resurrection. A cursory reading of the passage seems to justify this answer, but close attention to his language reveals the fact that the apostle does not specifically designate the time. All he says is that Christ, in His unembodied spirit, preached to the antediluvians, and that His going to them preceded His preaching to them; but he says nothing di rectly about the time of His going. It is to be noted, however, that these spirits were disobedient in the days of Noah. He does not say that those to whom Christ, in His unembodied spirit, preached were the spirits of men who were disobedient in the days of Noah. They were spirits who in the days of Noah were disobedient. This would seem to indicate that the preaching was in the days of Noah, and that

* Lillie, Lectures on Epistles of Peter in loco.

He further describes those to whom Christ's spirit preached as being spirits in prison. The word is of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, and in thirty-six instances out of forty-seven denotes a place of primitive safe-keep

xx. 7—where it is applied to Satan-is it used in connection with spiritual beings. The thought seems to be that when the bodies of the antediluvians perished in the flood, their spirits were put in safe-keeping-" prison"-till the judgment.

The Deeper Problems.

IN looking back at the course of German theology during the year, we find that much of its best thought was absorbed by questions of the day. So momentous and even critical are many of the practical concerns of religion, that the best Christian thinkers feel the need of devoting their energies to the problems which pertain to the very existence and the efficiency of the church. More than ever we now hear the ologians declare that it is for the sake of the church that theology exists, and that, therefore, Christian science must be the minister of Christian practice. But it is also admitted that the deepest inquiries may be most practical, because so fundamental as to underlie the whole of Christian faith and life. Scholarship has a mission of its own, however, even if the immediate application to practice is not apparent; and although the age is predominantly practical, there is proof enough that German theology pursues profound inquiries for their own sake, without regard to the practical results.

Freely, quietly, resistlessly the march of Christian intellect goes on. Barriers are put up, and it is said to reason: Thus far and no farther. But reason can be met only by better reason, so the investigation continues. Even in the ranks of the strictest confessional party voices are heard in favor of the utmost freedom in theological investigations. Thus at a religious conference

in Berlin severe thrusts were made at biblical criticism; but Professors Grau and Zoeckler, recognized leaders of orthodoxy, claimed that this criticism has its legitimate sphere, and protested against the efforts to check its free investigations. As truth is the only object worthy of search, so all possible evidence should be secured in favor of truth and for the exposure and overthrow of error. The value of what is traditional depends on the evidence in favor of the tradition.

The great theological problems are not such as admit of the same final solutions as in mathematics and in natural science. These problems may be come clearer and the method of dealing with them more evident, without finding a solution. That the problems are ever deepening; that behind the problems discussed there are other and still deeper ones; that as problems are evolved they are also involved with others; and that solutions given are but revelations of new problems —all this is evident to the student of the deeper discussions of the day and to the earnest thinker. And whatever the immediate practical demands may be, these problems cannot be dismissed. They are innate to the mind in the sense that they are inevitable as soon as a certain degree of intellectual development is attained. They may be settled dogmatically and traditionally, but only so long as the dogmatics and traditions are received as valid and final. But in

crises, when scepticism and the critical spirit become dominant, scholars are not willing to begin with dogmatics and traditions, but insist on going to the ultimate sources, so as to construct their own doctrines and begin a new tradition.

There is a deep and broad ferment in German theology. Minds are agi tated; old problems, long deemed settled, are disturbed; petrifactions are melted and become fluid; fossils are quickened with new life. The thoroughness of the present criticisms involves the greatest difliculties and produces painful unrest. But the advantages in the demand for an ultimate and immovable basis are also great. Christians at all thoughtful and carnest are obliged to consider the greatest questions of reason, of faith, and of life. Men are aroused from the slumbers of security, which often mean indifference; they are, if at all alive, freed from the slavery of the petty considerations which destroy the efficiency of so many minds, and are ab. sorbed by the great thoughts of nature, of the soul, of Scripture, of God. Theologians must now do for themselves what they have too often been content to let others do for them-namely, to determine amid the multitude of theories which has the most valid reason for existence. There must be thor oughness, otherwise the problems cannot even be appreciated; there must be severe intellectual honesty, or the problems which ought to be investigated now will culpably be deferred to the future; and there must be freedom from external restraint, in order that the inner authority of truth may be absolute. Partisanship and prejudice. have no voice in the matter; where the cause is everything, there personal vituperation is but an evidence of weakness. It is said of Rothe that he knew only of fellow-laborers in his inquiries, not of antagonists, no matter with whom he argued; and this community of labor, whatever difference of view may prevail, is a growing conviction of the

Christian scholars of Germany, in spite of the bitterness of parties.

Most of all in Germany is theology a part of the great intellectual organism. The theological faculty is in living contact with the other faculties of the university. It constantly receives and gives; it is subject to the scrutiny and criticism of science and philosophy; hence theology must not only take the ologians into account, but all scholars, all learning. The positions of infidelity must be fairly stated and fully met, otherwise theology will have to abandon the hope of gaining the respect of men of culture and of coping with the most advanced thought of the day. Heterodoxy cannot be met by the crushing weight of the authority of former ages; it must be met by the authority now recognized as valid. If theologians themselves do not expose the weaknesses of theological positions, there are others who will do so with exaggera tions. In Germany it is clear that theology must not only justify itself to the believer, but also to the profoundest intellect and highest culture of the day.

Those, therefore, who seriously enter upon the study of the deeper problems do so with the conviction that the search for truth, with the aid of all that reason and past inquiries and present scholarship can give, is the sole aim worthy of the Christian scholar. This aim, freed from the embarrassments of past ages, is lauded as the glory of our age, and this glory the Christian thinker shares to the fullest extent. In this aim the Bible is a help, not an obstacle. The German Christian scholar regards it as self-evident that ungodly learning must be surpassed by the godly; that a materialistic science must be met by a deeper science that proves materialism inadequate; that an atheistic philosophy must be overthrown by a more profound theistic philosophy; that a criticism which is purely negative must be superseded by a criticism that is not less thorough but more rational, and strong enough to discover positions as well as negations; and that a one-sided intel

lectualism must be met by an intellectuality that is still greater, and for that reason has room for a spiritual soul, an ethical will, and a valid faith.

Well may we be awed by the magnitude of the great problems of German thought-psychological, philosophical, scientific, historical, dogmatic, biblical. At the close of the year their discussion seems less heated than formerly. Partisan fervor is seen to injure the very cause it would promote, and quiet in vestigation is more and more taking its place. Extremes in criticism and in all departments produce reactions against themselves, and thus create their own remedy. New theories, so apt to be exaggerated when first proposed, gradually assume their proper place with friend and foe. Even in discussing the problems of the Ritschl school there is more calmness, and in the school itself, as well as by opponents, these problems are criticised and modified. which when first introduced into modern theology seemed startling and became the occasion of fanatical attack and of as fanatical defence, has become a quiet leaven to theological thought. For awhile Christians were disturbed by the negative results of criticism; but it has become evident that numerous positive elements remain for solid and firm Christian constructions.

Much

Mistakes Respecting the German Army.

IT is common to regard a standing army as a national curse. The reasons for this opinion are frequently enumerated, and they are weighty; but they are often exaggerated, while it is wholly overlooked that such an army may also have elements that are a blessing. Those who have only a theoretical knowledge of a standing army—which is the case with mcst Americans-are the ones whose views are usually full of errors. When they visit Germany and meet soldiers everywhere and hear complaints about heavy taxation, they conclude that the army, while a necessity for national defence, is an almost in

tolerable burden to the people, and ought to be abolished as soon as practicable.

A careful examination of the matter has wholly reversed the views with which I came to Germany, and has led me to question whether in itself the army is not a blessing to the people, aside from all questions of its necessity for defence against foreign foes. Great evils are undoubtedly connected with the German army. Many thousands of officers devote their lives to the study of military affairs, and millions of men spend from one to three years, during the best period of life, in the same pursuit. Young men who have passed a successful examination at the end of a six years' course in a gymnasium serve but one year, the others three, though many are dismissed at the end of two and a half years. During this period they are taken from their studies and regular avocations, and the interference with their chosen pursuit in life may be very serious. But besides this break in the course of the individual, the army has many temptations to young men lodged together in barracks and deprived of the restraining influences and positive blessings of home-life. To this must be added the interference with the intellectual life of the nation, with the industries, and the agricul tural pursuits. What development might be possible in these, if they could absorb the strength now devoted to the army! Then we must also add the enormous expense of the army, which is such a burden on the people and exhausts the national resources, or rather oppresses the country with debt. The army takes men, labor, money, all of which might be devoted to the development of the wealth and intellect of the nation. That these evils are admitted in Germany is evident from the fact that there is a strong tendency to reduce military service from three to two years, a tendency favored by men of position and influence.

And yet, glaring as the evils are, this is only one side. The money spent for

the army comes from the people; but this money also remains in the land, promotes various industries, and flows back to the people whence it came. More than half a million men are constantly taken from the industrial and agricultural pursuits, but the actual situation proves this evil less than foreigners usually suppose. Laborers are superabundant in Germany, while labor is scarce. Even with the army, there is such a surplus of laborers that the earnings are small, and many thousands emigrate to other lands in order to find labor. It is wrong to judge Germany by a new land with vast undeveloped resources, with a surplus of labor and a lack of laborers.

While these facts are admitted as mitigating circumstances, few foreigners are prepared to acknowledge the positive blessings of the standing army of Germany. Yet they are great. The army is a national school, whose teaching and training are in many respects superior to those of the common schools and the universities. This training is essentially alike for all the soldiers. Here they meet on a common ground. The awkward and the gawky and the crooked are made straight and supple and skilful. Young men are taken from the plough and from the herds, and by discipline that is severe but methodical are soon transformed into

new beings. They are taught cleanliness and order. Those taken from behind the counter are developed physically, and thus are prepared for hardships. This physical discipline is of inestimable value. At a late medical congress a leading authority delivered an address on longevity. As one of the means to secure a long life he mentioned the discipline of young men while serving in the army. There are also intellectual advantages, the strength of the German army consisting in its intellectual character as well as in its physical qualities. The soldiers are taught as well as drilled; and the fact that the educated serve only one instead of three years is a premium on in

tellect. The service is very severe; but it is based on the principle that what will make the soldiers the most intelligent and most robust and most efficient is also most advantageous to the army and the nation. The soldiers are trained to hardship, and that is a great boon in an age strongly inclined to effeminacy. Courage is developed, and great stress is laid in general on the Roman virtues and all manly qualities. Duty is made supreme, and the soldier is taught that selfishness must be overcome, that he is part of the nation, that its interests are his own, that he must be prepared to defend those interests to the utmost, and that he must lay life itself on the altar if the nation demands the sacrifice; hence the army is a school of patriotism as well as of courage. Then obedience is taught as nowhere else. Authority is respected, law is severely enforced. The army is one of the mightiest bulwarks against the loosening of authority which has be come so common in our day. Impertinence, impudence, the undue exaltation of self are rooted out, and in their place we find respect and obedience.

The influence of the army is felt throughout the nation and in all departments of life. In some respects the effect is detrimental. Men accustomed to such rigid subordination are apt to lack the spirit of independence. Especially in official life is the effect of the army felt. The will of a superior is so predominant that those under it are in danger of becoming machines ather than strong personalitics. The disappearance of independence during Bismarck's dominion was especially marked. Where the government is paternal, we look for subjects rather than for independent citizens; and particu larly is this the case with government officials. But at the same time there is a prevalence of order and system and faithfulness to authority which is not surpassed in any land. Official corrup tion is rare; the German cities are, as a rule, the best governed in the world. The Germans have a reputation for sys