« IndietroContinua »
founded by him. A little book of considerable interest is the publication of the first French Catechism of Calvin, which he compiled in 1536, a few months after his arrival in Geneva, and the Latin text of which he sent, in 1538, immediately before his expulsion, to friendly Churches as a testimony of the doctrines prevailing in Geneva. As this catechism was subsequently suppressed by Calvin on purpose aud replaced by a new compilation, it fell into oblivion, and has only recently become known again. The editors of Calvin's complete works have since published the Latin edition, while the first French edition of 1537 has recently been found in the National Library of Paris, and has been published (in 1878) at Geneva by Rilliet and Dufonr. It is regarded as probable that the Latin text was the original, and the French the translation. A special work on the ethics of Calvin (Die Etkik Calvins, Strasburg, 1877) has been published by P. Lobstein.
The "Documents Relating to the History of the German Reformation," which are published by Schultze, were taken from the archives of Naldes, which, like the archives of many other Italian cities, contain many letters and dispatches on the early history of the Reformation which had never before appeared in print. The Report of Cardinal Morone on the Tridentine Council, which is published by Prof. Maureubrecher, of Bonn, has been obtained from the library of Prince Altieri, of Rome. The celebrated German historian, Leopold Ranke, in his work on the Roman Popes, calls Morone's Report the most important document on the Tridentine Council. Ranke had read it, but had failed to take a complete copy.
Ziitschrht Tor WiasenSChAFTLiChk Thiolooie. (Journal for Scientific Theology ) Edited by Hilgenfeld. Second Number. 1880. 1. Israel, On Jerome's Vita S. Hilarionis. 2. Gorreb, The Persecution of Christians at the Time of the Emperors Numerianus and Carinus. 3. Holtzmann, St. James the Just and his Namesakes. 4. Bonnkt, Remarks on the Most Ancient Writings on the Ascension of Mary.
In the Jannary number of the Methodist Quarterly Review we called attention to a remarkable new work published by an Old Catholic theologian, Prof. Friedrich, of Munich, on "The Earliest History of the Primacy in the Church." Prof. Friedrich, after the precedence of several Protestant theologians of Germany, especially Dr. Uhlhorn and Dr. Ritschl, attempted to show that the idea of a primacy was indeed not unknown in the earliest Church, but that this idea was not connected with the Apostle Peter and the bishops of Rome, but with St. James and the bishops of Jerusalem; that the office of a primate was at first hereditary in the family of Jesus, but that subsequently it remained connected with the episcopal see of Jerusalem, until the catastrophe of A. D. 135 gave to Rome a favorable opportunity to vindicate successfully its claim to be the metropolis of Christendom. In the above article on St. James, Prof. Holtzmann, of the University of Strasburg, declares a partial assent to the theories of Prof. Friedrich concerning the See of Jerusalem, while in some respects he rejects the views of the Old Catholic theologian. Prof. Holtzmann refers to a commentary just published by him to the "Pastoral Letters" (Die Pastoralbriefe /critisch und exegetisch behandelt, 1880) for a full exposition of his views regarding the early constitution of the Christian Church. The article in the present number of the "Journal for Scientific Theology " treats particularly on the person of James the Just, the head of the Apostolic Church of Jerusalem, and his relation to the apostles of the same name. It is well known that a large number of treatises have been writen to elucidate this relationship, which was pronounced by Dr. Neander to be the most difficult question in the apostolic history. Prof. Holtz mann identifies James, "the brother of the Lord," who is mentioned in Gal. i, 19, and James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, who was surnamed the Just by the ancients on account of his eminent virtues. He finds, however, that the description of this James, as it is given by some of the early Christian writers, ill accords with the accounts given of him in the Acts ; that while the Bible represents him as being on friendly terms with Paul, the Ebionitic party of the early Christian Church described him as leading a life of ascetic strictness,' and as held in the highest veneration by the Jews. In the writings of this party James, the bishop, ranks the apostles, and is called archbishop. All the teachers of Christianity among the pagans are said to derive from him their authority, and there is an apparent tendency to clothe him with the authority of a universal bishop of the Church. Dr. Holtzmann further holds that James, the brother of the Lord and first Bishop of Jerusalem, was not one of the twelve apostles, and
s, therefore, not identical with James, the son of Alpheus; but that the writers of the ancient Church began at an early period to confound James, the son of Alpheus, with James, the brother of the Lord. The relationship which, according to him, existed between Jesus and all the relatives mentioned in the New Testament, is illustrated by him in the following genealogical table:
Jacob, (Matt. 1,16,) or Eli, (Luke 111, 83.)
Joseph, Cleophas, husband of Mary, brother of Joseph, the mother of the Lord. (Eusebius, "Church History," 111, 11,) l and uncle of the Lord, (Ibid., It, 22.)
the first-born. or
hate 11,7.' Joseph. (Eusebius, lv, 22,)
1 successor of James as Bishop of
Jerusalem; died at the age of 120, aa
Soker and James, the sons of Judas, were, according to Eusebius, heads of the Churches in Palestine, probably as assistants of the aged Simeon. Simeon, as head of the Church of Jerusalem, was followed by Justus; at that time no more relatives of Jesus were alive. The brothers of the Lord who are mentioned in the New Testament are regarded by Holtzmann as children of Joseph and Mary, not as step-brothers or cousins of Jesus. He regrets that so many Protestant theologians appear to have, like Hengstenberg, submitted to the papal dictation which designated the belief in full brothers of the Lord as a crime for which even recantation cannot atone. As praiseworthy exceptions to this tendency he mentions Schaff, Wieseler, Pressense, (" History of the First Three Centuries,") LTofman, (in his "Bible-werk") Grau, (Entwicklungsgeschichte,) Laurent, and Gustav Plitt.
Theologische Studies Und Kritiken. (Theological Essays and Reviews.) Etlays: 1. Hackenschmidt, The Teaching of the Lutheran Theologian, John Musaeus, concerning the Visibility of the Church. 2. Kleinert, Practical Theology, (First Article.) Thoughts and Remarks: 1. Seidemann, Lnther and Bishop John VII. of Meissen. 2. Hkrtling, A Transposition in the Gospel of John. Review*: 1. Gkss, Christ's Person and Work; reviewed by Reifp. 2. KjoppMank, History of Church Latin, edited by Ludwiq.
Dr. Bertling believes that, by the mistake of a copyist, the passage John vii, 19-24 has been put in a wrong place; that originally it was part of the fifth chapter of John, following immediately after verse 16, and that it should be restored to its original place. We give his remarks in a somewhat condensed form:
In John v, 1—16, the healing of the sick man at the pool of Bethesda is related. According to verse 16 the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to slay him because he had done these things on the Sabbath-day. In verse 17 Jesus answers: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." According to verse 18 the Jews sought the more to kill him because he said that God was his Father. The answer of Jesus, in verse 17, has no direct reference to the Sabbath. Such a reference may only be thought to be implied in the words, " My Father worketh hitherto" which may be understood as meaning that the Father worketh every day, also on the Sabbath-day, and that this justifies the healing of the sick man on the Sabbath-day. At all events the necessary reference to the Sabbath is not expressly made, but must be supplied by conjecture. Now, it is noteworthy that an explicit reference of this kind does find itself in John vii, 19-24, and that in the latter place it seems to break the connection. A transposition of these verses from the seventh chapter of John to the fifth chapter, inserting them between verses 16 and 17, would give us in both chapters the most natural connection. If this transposition is made, Jesus answers the charge that, in healing the sick man, he broke the Sabbath by referring the Jews to the fact that in cases of circumcision they all transgress the law. The Jews, therefore, are admonished, (vii, 24 :) "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment," and the healing of the sick man, like circumcision, is represented as an act of justification and redemption which is not only allowed on the Sabbath, but necessary. The transposition facilitates the understanding of John v, 17; the miraculous healing of a sick man being a remarkable manifestation of the uninterrupted (" hitherto ") working of the Father, and, therefore, a proof that such an act performed on the Sabbath-day is no crime, but divine worship. The transfer of vii, 19-24, will also greatly improve the connection between the remaining parts of this chapter, (verses 1-18, and 25 to the end of chapter.) Chapter vii relates that Jesus went somewhat later to the feast of the Tabernacles than the others. About the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. Some of the Jews " marveled at his words," inquiring how "this man knew lettere, having never learned." Jesus answered that indeed his teaching was not human, wisdom—not any thing contrived by man—but that it came from God, and was a divine testimony for every earnest inquirer. The men who speak of themselves seek their own glory, but if one seeks only the glory of God, then the hearers may be convinced that there is no unrighteousness in him. The transition from this assertion (verse 18) to the law of Moses concerning circumcision (verse 19) appears not to be very obvious. On the other hand, by transposing verses 19 to 24 from chapter vii to chapter v, and connecting vii, 18, directly with vii, 25, the transition becomes entirely natural. It appears both from vii, 15, and from vii, 25-27, that the hearers of Jesus were wavering, and could not make up their minds as to what to think of him. Therefore it also appears entirely natural that the powerful argument for the divine origin of the teaching of Jesus (in verse 18) should be followed (in verse 25) by the marveling inquiry " of some of them of Jerusalem," " Is not this he whom they seek to kill?"
In conclusion, the author frankly admits that there is one serious objection to his argumentation. All the ancient manuscripts and translations agree in giving the verses referred to in the very place where they are found in our present Bible. The simplest\way to explain this fact is, in his opinion, to assume that in the earliest times, when there was as yet only one copy of this Gospel, one entire leaf, containing verses 19-24, was misplaced while being copied.
Revue Cbritiennk. (Christian Review.) December, 1879. 1. Coussirat, Henry Ward Beecher. 2. Bonit-mauby, The Friends of God in the Fourteenth Century.
2. Alokk, Too Probable Not To Be True, (A Novel.) 4. Prbssensi, The Free Synod and the New Projects of Conciliation in the Reformed State Church of France.
January, 1880.—1. Fker, The Religion of Aryan India in Vedic Times. 2. Astik, The Correspondence of Doudan. 3. Irma S., A History which Begins with a Marriage. February, 1880.—1. Natiuk, Religion. 2. Astik, The Correspondence of Doudan.
3. The Life to Come, Shall We Recognize Each Other?
The "Christian Review," which began, on January 1, 1880, the twenty-sixth year of its existence, will be conducted