Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/873

 Gidgnebert : Histoirc Aiicicnne dti Christiaiiism 863 Tertullian (Paris, 1901 ) shows that he has a special compentency in the materials belonging to the second century. He disclaims any in- tention of addressing Ics savants, having in mind a general public of lay readers, who in France, he notes, are accustomed to preaching and polemic on the subject of Christianity but are profoundly ignorant of its true history as scholars have constructed it. It is indeed a vast army of readers and not confined to France who need to be initiated into an historical view of the development of the Church and it would be difficult to find a better book than this for their assistance. The au- thor must have a warm sympathy for religious conceptions since he is capable of such luminous and interesting exposition, but his scientific impartiality and his unprejudiced use of both Catholic and Protestant scholarship make it impossible to detect his ecclesiastical predilection. It is true that this historical statement is inconsistent with all older dogmatic views, but historical science has conquered a place in Catholic as well as in liberal Protestant circles and ^I. Guignebert will be read with interest by both classes of readers. With impartiality the author has competency. The sai'aiits who are not primarily addressed will value this exhibition of a careful and critical judgment and especially the luminous construction of facts into an intelligible and interesting unity. The author disclaims erudition and originality, but his dis- criminating and critical use of the sources and of the best modern in- vestigations together with his own independent and judicious construc- tion are an adequate erudition and a desirable originality. Admiration of M. Guignebert's ability does not involve a complete assent. Apparently he thinks that Renan was original in suggesting Cerinthus as the author of the Fourth Gospel, though the Alogi of the second century made that affirmation. It is incautious to date the Epistle of James in the last third of the first century, and while the Didache and the Epistle of Bainabas derive the material of The Two Ways from a common source, who will agree with Guignebert in finding the common source in the Synoptic Gospels ! It is rash to date the Old Roman Symbol from the end of the first century and the possibly unintentional and hasty expression will mislead some readers into think- ing that the legend of apostolic authorship was as early. The author's reflections on the dogmatic possibilities of the symbol outrun the limits of the period of which he writes. Apart from such details the book illustrates admirably the net result of modern critical scholarship without capricious and individual views and at the same time is the expression of a mind which has thoroughly and independently conceived the whole matter. The exposition of Paul's con- ceptions is a masterpiece of compression without inadequacy or obscurity and with full indication of secure critical penetration. What a note of competency in the remark that " I'idee du -■^eii/xa chez Paul n'est pas des plus claires ! " Equally satisfactory is the account of the moral and religious conditions of the Graeco-Ronian world in which Chris-