« IndietroContinua »
arrangement of the books of the New Testament. It places the Epistles of Paul immediately after the Gospels; the Epistle to the Hebrews immediately after the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, that is to say, in the midst of the Epistles of Paul; then the Acts of the Apostles, the Catholic Letters, and the Revelation. It also subjoins to the books of the New Testament the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas. In this arrangement of biblical works it resembles the canon as given by Eusebius, (Church History, iii, 15.) and the one given in the Codex Claromontanus, which arranges the last books of the New Testament as follows: Barnabae Epistola,
Johannis Revelatio, Actus Apostolorum, Pastor (Hermas,) Actus
Pauli, Revelatio Petri. Now, as toward the close of the fourth century the synods of Laodicea (364) and Carthage (397) excluded these antilegomena (apocryphal books) from the canon, their reception into the Codex Sinaiticus seems to point to an origin of the Codex before the close of the fourth century. Hilgenfeld tries to invalidate this argument by assuming that the authority of Eusebius, whom Constantine the Great ordered to prepare fifty copies of the Scripture for the Church of Constantinople, may have been for some time so great that even in later times copies of this imperial court Bible were made. He calls attention to the fact that Tischendorf himself states that even in the fifth century the Codex Alexandrinus subjoins
the two epistles of Clemens Romanus to the New Testament.
The chief and decisive argument for the later origin of the Codex Sinaiticus Hilgenfeld finds in a postscript to the book of Esther, in which it is stated that this Codex has been carefully compared with another “very ancient” one, which the martyr Pamphilus, who died 309, had corrected. It is argued by Hilgenfeld that this collated Codex of the beginning of the fourth century could not possibly be called very ancient by one who collated it before the middle of the same century? He rejects as inadmissible the assumption of Tischendorf, according to whom the postscript refers to later corrections made in the Codex Sinaiticus. In conclusion Hilgenfeld doubts the assertion of Tischendorf, that the Codex Sinaiticus deserves the first place among the manuscripts of the Bible, not excepting even the Vaticanus. -
Professor Tischendorf replies to this argument in the fourteenth article of the Journal for Scientific Theology. The argument for a later origin, which Hilgenfeld had derived from the peculiar language of the Codex Sinaiticus, he demolishes so successfully that Hilgenfeld acknowledges his error. With regard to the testimony of a nameless paleographist which is invoked by Hilgenfeld, he remarks that he cannot accept such a testimony; for while Montfaucon, who hitherto was regarded as the highest authority in paleography, hardly knew twenty-five uncial manuscripts, he (Tischendorf) had compared in the European and Oriental libraries from two to three hundred and used them for a new “Palaeographia Graeca,” which he intends to publish, and that this number embraces about forty which he discovered in the East, and which had never been used before. He then challenges the authority adduced by Hilgenfeld to produce a single uncial manuscript of the sixth century which has any of the essential characteristics of the Sinaitic manuscript. He also enters into an elaborate defense of his arguments in favor of the early origin of the Codex Sinaiticus, and, among other points, mentions that, according to the testimony of Eusebius and Hieronymus, “nearly all Greek manuscripts,” and in particular the “accurate manuscripts,” omitted Marcus xvi, 9–20, which are found in all the seven hundred manuscripts which are of a later date than the beginning of the fifth century, and that therefore the omission of these eleven verses in the Codex Sinaiticus is a strong argument in favor of its origin prior to the fifth century.
Professor Hilgenfeld again replies to the articles of Tischendorf, adhering to his view respecting the origin of the Codex in the sixth century.
ZEITsch RIFT FUR WIssENscHAFTLICHE THEologne. (Journal of Scientific Theology.) Third Number. 1. RosBNKRANz, German Materialism and Theology. 2. HILGENFELD, The Gospel of Mark and the Mark-hypothesis. 3. FITzscBE, On 2 Esdras, i, ii, xv, xvi.
The first article, by one of the noted philosophers of Germany, Professor Karl Rosencranz of Königsberg, gives an interesting and valuable review of the entire materialistic literature, as well as of the works which have been written in refutation of the pretensions of this school. The materialistic school commenced with Ludwig Feuerbach, who in 1830 in his work, “Gedanken eines Denkers über Tod und Unsterblichkeit,” (Thoughts of a Thinker on Death and Immortality,) gave the first impulse to understanding by immortality, not existence after death, but the unceasing presence of the idea as the absolute substance in the mind. The same author published subsequently “Das Wesen des Christenthums,” (The Essence of Christianity, 1841.) in which he attempted to show that man's representation of God was only his reflection on his own essence; “Grundsätze der Philosophie der Zukunft,” (Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, 1843,) in which he declared sensuousness to be the absolute criterion; and “Ueber das Wesen der Religion,” (on the Essence of Religion, 1851,) in which nature was declared to be identical with the absolute.
Among the prominent representatives of this school, founded by Feuerbach, the author mentions and reviews Blasche, Michelet, Professor at the University of Berlin, D. F. Strauss, the author of the Life of Jesus, all of whom denied the doctrine of a personal immortality. These views found very ardent and successful champions among a numerous class of writers, who tried to popularize the study of natural sciences. Burmeister, (Geschichte der Schöpfung, 1843,) A. Humboldt, (Kosmos, vol. i., 1845,) Ule, (Weltall, 1850,) B. Cotta, (Letters on the Kosmos,) were among the first and most efficient writers of this school. The latter identified the idea of spirit with that of the brain, and thus inaugurated the phrenological literature of the Inaterialistic school, of which Dr. Scheve of Heidelberg is one of the chief representatives. The investigations of Dubois Raymond, professor in Berlin, on animal electricity, (Ueber die thierische Electricität, 184S,) seemed to dissolve that which had hitherto been thought to be a manifestation of the soul, as a principle independent of matter, into an electrical process. Subsequently the works of Moleschott and Rossmässler gave currency to the idea that the phosphorous contents of the brain contained the thinking substance. Life began to be looked upon as a merely chemical process, and Feuerbach, in a review of Moleschott's Physiologie der Nahrungsmittel, (Physiology of Aliment,) came to the conclusion that “man is what he eats.” Karl Vogt, the author of numerous works on zoology, taught expressly that man is only a highly organized class of animals, and that he must follow all his desires and passions. In 1855 L. Büchner, then a lecturer at the Uni. versity of Tübingen, compiled a systematic and popular compendium of all the fundamental doctrines of the materialistic school, under the title of “ Kraft und Hoff.” (Force and Matter.) which had an immense circulation, and was in 1862 translated into French, and in 1864 into English. Among other prominent writers of the materialistic school are mentioned Virchow, professor in Berlin, and Czolbe, who maintained not only the eternity of the world, but the eternity of the form in which it at present exists. As the ablest among the numerous writers of the school, Professor Rosenkranz regards Feuerbach, Moleschott, and Vogt. While the works of the materialistic school are numerous, the litérature against them is no less so. As the materialists not only attacked theology, revealed and natural, but also every kind of philosophy, they necessarily called forth the opposition of the ablest representa. tives of every philosophical school. Among those who wrote against them from the stand-point of the right wing of the Hegelians were Erdmann, Hinrichs, and Schaller. Among the adherents of Herbart, Dr. Taute and Drossbach; among those of Baader, Professor Hoff
man and Dr. Fabri are mentioned as having attacked the arguments of the materialists. Schopenhauer and his school, though their philosophy is no less atheistical than that of the materialists, belong among the most violent opponents of the latter. The attacks of the materialists upon Christianity were especially repulsed by Richard Wagner, Professor of Natural Sciences at the University of Gottingen, Andreas Wagner, and Frohschammer, Professors at the University of Munich, and many others. /
JAHRBUCHER FUR DEUTsche THEoLogie. (Year-books of German The
ology. Third Number.) 1. STEITz, The Doctrine of the Greek Church
concerning the Lord's Supper. 2. FischER, Corpus Doctrinae Hohenloi
cum. 3. SciLRoRDER, On the Book of Revelation. * Dr. Steitz, to whose valuable essays in the theological periodicals of Germany we have had more than once occasion to refer, begins in the first article a history of the Doctrine of the Lord's Supper in the Greek Church until the close of the seventeenth century. His treatise will be much more complete than anything that has previously been written on the subject; for even the works of Ebrard, Kahnis, and Ruckert trace the history of the doctrine in the Greek Church only
until the eighth century. As the result of his investigations, Dr.
Steitz announces that the Greeks did not know transubstantiation until the establishment of the Latin Empire in Constantinople; that the opinion which appears to be akin to transubstantiation, and is found in a number of Greek fathers and writers, deserves rather the name of transformation; that only since the fourteenth century an inclination of the Latin doctrine of the Sacraments, and in particular, the Lord's Supper, is found; but that not until after the negotiations about a union of the Latin and Greek Churches at Florence, transubstantiation, under the name of usrovatoguc, found admittance to the Greek Church. The first installment of Dr. Steitz's essays examines the passages relating to the Lord's Supper which occur in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Justinus the Martyr, Irenaeus, and the earlier Gnostics.
- French Reviews.
REvUE DES DEUx MoRDEs.-May 1–2. SAINT MARC GERARDIN, The Origin of the Eastern Question, (first article.). 3. RENAN, The Higher Instruction in France, its History and Future. 3. RECLUs, The Sanitary Commission in the War of the United States, 1861 to 1864. 7. GALOs, The Expedition of Cochin China. 9. MAZADE, The Confessions of Father Lacordaire. , - -
May 15.-2. RUI Forg UEs, Teheran and Persia in 1863. 5. CALMon, ... William Pitt, (first article.) 6. UBICINI, Eastern Nationalities—Servia. June 1.—CALMoN, William Pitt, (second article.) 7. GEFFRoy, The London Conference.
June 15. 3. PAVIE, The Origin and the Transformation of the French Language. 7. GIQUEL, France in China. 8. MoWTALIVET, Reminiscences of the Parliamentary Monarchy of 1830.
July 1–2. BELEzy, Australia. 5. GUIzot, Science and the Supernatural 6. MAZADE, Portugal under King Luiz I. 7. LAUGAL, The Confederate Pirates and the Right of Nations.
ART. X-QUARTERLY BOOK-TABLE.
Joeligion, Theology, and Biblical Literature.
Journal of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church; held in Philadelphia, Pa., 1864. Edited by Rev. WILLIAM L. HARRIs, D.D. 8vo., pp. 512. New York: Carlton & Porter. 1864. It is a striking but hitherto unnoticed fact that ours is the only Church whose general ecclesiastical body has established a daily paper to publish and circulate the reports of its debates and measures. We know not how much of a volume embodies the results of other ecclesi. astical bodies; but the goodly work before us, wrought by Dr. Harris and his coadjutors, furnishes much ground for pleasant gratulations. It holds the record of many an important measure and the tokens of growing prosperity. It is full of auguries of good for the Church, the country, and the world. We shall confine our notices to a few important points. The action of the Church recognizes that our children are children of the Church. She takes all obtainable children into her nursery. She recognizes baptized children as initially within the pale of the Church. She only waits the mature and intelligent evidence of a hope. ful regenerate character to call them to the communion table. We cordially welcome these movements. We welcome the whole discussion of the “infant question” as sure to result in truth and good. That the Church has in the past rather floated along both in measure and doctrine on this all important point is owing to her vigorous and busy immaturity. Let not our thinking men fear or tremble at the submission of the whole question to what it has never had, a full and fraternal discussion. A large number of our best thinkers hold that while, irrespective of the atonement, man is depraved in his entire nature, yet that the child is met by the atonement at his entrance into life, and placed in a saved state. But that is matter of mere theory. When it comes to the matter of practice we suppose that most of them would esteem the present measure of the General Conference as