« ПредишнаНапред »
on tlie same fundamental principle-one expressing it in terms of Brain, the other in terms of Mind."
The solutions of the savans will doubtless cover a large amount of cases; but, perhaps, they are guilty of a very ununscientific method in regard to a residue of cases, namely, holding those who doubt as simpletons, and supplementing reasoning with ridicule. Our suvan reasons well to a certain extent, and thereafter substitutes something else besides reasoning which is not quite so good as reasoning. We feel doubtful whether either solutions, namely, unconscious volition, unconscious cerebration, deception, imputations of stupidity, or ridicule, will explain the manifestations in the Wesley family. And starting with one such case, with or without the leave of the savans, we soon find a series of analogous cases, perhaps some furnished by Mr. Owen, in a work noticed on another page, of which their solutions are no solutions.
Mr. Owen gives quite fully the case of Mr. Livermore, one of our New York Fifth Avenue merohant princes. Losing a friend by death, he is induced, though a skeptic, to consult Mrs. Underhill. In one of the apartments of his own residence, by himself selected, with Mrs. Underhill alone, with every means of deception removed, the doors closed and fastened with sealing wax, he holds a series of sessions. Repeatedly, amid phenomena of the most remarkable character, the well-known features and figure of his deceased friend are made visible, for half an hour at a time, radiant with beauty, and messages are received from her. This occurs again and again through a series of
years. Admitting the sanity and veracity of Mr. Livermore, our savan makes no approach to a solution of the facts. WESTMINSTER REVIEW, October, 1871. (New York: Reprint. Leonard Scott, 140 Fulton-street.)-1. The Pilgrim Fathers. 2. Greek Democracy.
3. Faraday. 4. Geoffrey Chaucer. 5. Bearings of Modern Science on Art. 6. The Author ship of Junius. 7. The Baptists. 8. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. 9. The Session
of 1871. On the narratives of the resurrection of Jesus in the Gospels we have the following striking summary: “For it will be observed that the many particularities and minor traits which occur in their narratives are exactly the product which would arise in an attempt tacitly to meet difficulties and objections. Thus it was currently reported by the Jews that the disciples of Christ removed his body after the crucifixion. No, says the narrative, for it was carefully deposited in a tomb. Matt. xxvii, 65, 66. At all events, continues the objector, the body disappeared. Yes, rejoins the narrative, for the tomb was miraculously opened. Matt. xxviii, 2. But how do we know it was miraculously opened? Because the women saw it empty and were told so by the angels. But what should the women have to do at the tomb? They were going with spices and ointments to do honor to the body. Luke xxiv, 1, 2. But there should be better testimony to such an event than that of imaginative women. Yes, there was the evidence of his disciples, who had known him well. John xx, 20. But they might well imagine a resurrection at sight of the open tomb. Yes, but they saw himself. A few attached friends might fancy an appearance. Yes, but they saw him often. Acts i, 3. Sight is fallacious. But then he was touched and handled. Luke xxiv, 39. Might not then the inference be that he was personated by some other, or that he had been naturally 'resuscitated? Nay, the print of the wounds was enough to convince the most doubting both of his identity and of his death. John sx, 25–28. At best the story hangs upon the report of a few who might be deceiving or deceived. Not so, for he appeared not only to them repeatedly, but to five hundred brethren at once. 1 Cor. xv, 6. But what became of this resuscitated person. How long did he live, and how did he die again? He did not die again, but was removed from the earth in the very sight of the gazing apostles. Luke xxiv, 51. And thus from the belief in the resurrection as a germ may have grown up naturally the history of the resurrection as its product."
But when we consider the perfectly independent character of each Gospel, as evinced by the discrepancies between them so difficult to reconcile, this remarkable combination of evidencial items could not have been formed by any combined purpose of the writers. It is all spontaneous and humanly accidental; the plain result of an honest, simple narrative by each separate writer of facts as they are here.
Nur ber, 1872. Essays : 1. Holz, Researches on the Beginnings of the Chris-
viewed by Oehler. 3. Hupfeld, The Psalms, reviewed by Bielim. Dr. Brieger, of the University of Halle, published in 1870 a work on Cardinal Gasparo Contarini, in which he called attention to a particular crisis in the History of the Reformationthe negotiations at Ratisbon in 1541—which for a time seemed to offer a fair prospect for the reunion of the Lutherans with Rome. This work he now follows up by the above article on Contarini, which discusses the relation of the Cardinal to the doctrine of justification as agreed upon in Ratisbon. There is still extant a treatise (“Tractatus seu Epistola de Justificatione,") which the Cardinal, during the days of the Colloquium wrote with regard to, and in defense of, the formula of reunion. In 1571, when the complete works of the Cardinal were published at Paris, the Sorbonne approved of the reception of the treatise into the collection; while a few years later, (1589,) in a new edition published at Venice, it was considerably altered by the Inquisitor-General of Venice, Marco Medici, so as to appear to some extent to be in harmony with the Council of Trent. Later, (in 1748,) the learned Cardinal Angelo Maria Quirini, Bishop of Brescia, and at the same time member of the Berlin Academy of Science, published, in the third volume of his edition of the letters of Pole, the essay of Contarini in its original form, together with the changes of the Venitian edition. This publication involved Quirini in a long controversy with the Leipsic Professor Kiesling, who victoriously refuted the attempt of Quirini to prove the (Roman Catholic) orthodoxy of Contarini. That in this controversy Kiesling was right and Quirini wrong, has in particular been recognized by Döllinger in his great work on the Reformation.
Some Protestant theologians have, however, been of opinion that while the views of Contarini were certainly not those of the Roman Catholic Church, they neither agree wholly with the opinions of the Protestant theologians. Dr. Brieger enters
into a minute discussion of this question, and iinally reaches the conclusion, that while the Cardinal in the expressions he used made some concessions, the substance of his essay is thoroughly Protestant and Evangelical. As an appendix to this essay, Dr. Brieger publishes the full text of a letter from Contarini to Cardinal Alexander Farnese, a nephew of the Pope, who had informed Contarini that it was rumored at Rome that the representatives of the Church in the Ratisbon Conference had made too great concessions to the Protestants, in particular in the doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works. ZEITSCHRIFT FOR WISSENSCHAFTLICHE THEOLOGIE. (Journal for Scientific Theol
ogy.) 1872. First Number.-- 1. HILGENFELD, The Epistle to the Hebrews. 2. KLUGE, Remarks on Holtzmann's Article: The Readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 3. Hönig, On the Relation of the Epistle to the Ephesians to that to the Colossians, 4. HILGENFELD, On Keim's Life of Jesus. 5. SPIEGEL, The
Tenth Article of the Confession of Augsburg. In the First Article Professor Hilgenfeld again discusses, with special regard to the whole recent literature on the subject, the questions as to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the time of its composition, its original readers, and its theological tenets. In common with Luther, Bleck, Tholuck, Credner, Reuss, Bunsen, Lünemann, Kurtz, and other noted theological writers, he adheres to the opinion that the Epistle was written by Apollos to Christian Hebrews at Alexandria before the outbreak of the bloody persecutions of the Alexandrian Jews in A. D. 66.
In the Fourth Article Hilgenfeld reviews at length the new volume (Part II, Volume II) of the Life of Jesus by Professor Theodor Keim, of Zurich, which is entitled “Galilean Tempests." Though Hilgenfeld belongs to the same critical and rationalistic school as Keim, his notice of the work is by no means favorable. But the majority of the theologians of this school appear to have a very high opinion of Keim's book. Thus, in Schenkel's "Allgemeine Kirchliche Zeitschrift," Professor Hausrath, of Heidelberg, calls it a work which constitutes a turning point; which is the most important scientific production on this subject, with which no other work can vie as regards extent of learning and mature consideration of all circumstances; which has collected with marvelous erudition the whole gigantic amount of exegetical material, and clearly distinguished between what is essential and unessential. The editor of the “ Zeitschrift," Professor Schenkel, declares that he agrees with his colleague, Hausrath, in recognizing the rare excellency of the work of Keim, although he differs from some of its views, as he expects to explain more fully in a subsequent number of his periodical.
ART. VIII.-FOREIGN RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM, THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH.—The General Congress of the Old Catholics was held in Munich on September 22d and the two following days, and, as was expected, it led to the organization of the Old Catholics as a Church independent of Rome. The Congress was composed of about three hundred delegates, representing all parts of Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Switzerland. There were also several representatives of the socalled Jansenists for Holland-a small Church organization with an Archbishop at Utrecht and two Bishops, who for nearly two hundred years have maintained, in spite of all Papal excommunications, an independent Catholic Church organization on the same basis on which now the Old Catholics plant themselves. From France, Father Hyacinthe was present, who, from the beginning of the movement, has shown himself one of its most ardent supporters. The Holy Synod of St. Petersburg had sent one of the foremost theological scholars of the country, Professor Ossinin, and authorized him, in case the resolutions of the Congress should be in harmony with the doctrines of the Greek Church, to enter into negotiations for a closer union. The Spanish Government had sent a delegate, and instructed him to watch the proceedings. Several other countries were likewise represented by a few delegates. Professor Schulte, of the University of Prague, whom the Roman Catholics before 1870 regarded as their ablest writer on Church law and on all questions touching the relation between Church and State, was elected president. As vice-presidents the Congress elected Dr. Windscheid, of Heidelberg, and Augustin Keller, a prominent statesman of Switzerland, who has been president of his canton, Aargau, and is now president of the upper branch of the Federal Legislature. The resolutions which were to be the subject of the deliberations of the Congress had been drafted by a Committee consisting of seven of the most prominent scholars of Catholic Germany, namely, Dr. Döllinger, Professor Huber, and Professor Friedrich, of the University of Munich, Professor Reinkens, of the University of Breslau, Professor Schulte, of the University of Prague, Professor Langen, of the University of Bonn, and Professor Massen, of the University of Gratz. Four members of the Committee, Döllinger, Reinkens, Langen, and Friedrich, are priests; the other three laymen. Massen is a convert from Protestantism. The first two resolutions submitted by the Committee were adopted unanimously and without opposition. They are as follows: