תמונות בעמוד


and imposed on him the duty, of self-cultivation for his own happiness and the welfare of his fellows, as the most emphatic way of glorifying his Maker."

On the other hand, there are topics where Mr Grant does not thoroughly cope with his opponent,—as, for example, Mr Holyoake's favourite objection to the doctrine of eternal torments and “coarse damnation;" and there are other topics, such as the connection of faith and works, and of justification through the one, and judgment according to the other—or the harmony of prayer with the laws of nature--which we think Mr Grant has not treated with sufficient discrimination, and where he has laid himself somewhat open to the attacks of his opponent. We regret exceedingly to be compelled to bring a more serious charge against Mr Grant. Some of the concessions which he makes we would entirely recall. What could induce him, for example, in settling the basis of discussion, to say that “ the doctrines of election and reprobation, together with the supposed condemnation of all men for Adam's fall, are founded on metaphysical views," and should not therefore be included among those which he undertook to defend? The looseness of such an expression as that which we have placed in italics is equalled only by the inaccuracy of the sentiment. Or what could lead him, when he was asked whether he did not think David was a Christian, to answer, “No, I do not; he was a Jew”? We strongly protest against thrusting the Old Testament so completely into the background as is done in this discussion, or treating it as if it were a mere historical introduction to Christianity--not an integral part of the revelation of his will which God has graciously given to the children of men. No doubt the Old Testament might furnish Mr Holyoake and his brethren with still better materials than the New for such popular and superficial objections as all infidels delight in ; but though this might be an argument against the expediency of such popular discussions, it is no justification of the exclusion of the Old Testament as one of the great standards of revealed truth.

In reading this discussion, one thing has struck us forcibly—the resemblance between some of the views and arguments of the secularists and those of agitators for railway trains, open museums, lecture-rooms, and crystal-palaces on the Lord's-day. We have not space to furnish extracts; but the fact will be apparent to every reader, and it is not an uninstructive one.

Another conviction that has been deepened in our minds by reading this discussion is that of the immense importance of a comprehensive view being taken by ministers of religion of the condition of the working classes, and great pains being used to develop the ameliorating and elevating tendencies of Christianity. We are fully aware of the dangers of the theory that would represent the gospel of Christ as a mere engine of temporal philanthropy; but the danger of the opposite extreme is not less-dealing with it as a mere system of dogmatic theology. We believe that at the present moment the state of the working classes in this country has reached a most momentous crisis. On the policy of the evangelical churches towards them it will depend, whether the next quarter of a century shall find the working classes of Great Britain in a state of infidelity similar to that of France immediately before the outbreak of the great Revolution, or, through the blessing of


God on the due use of means, in a condition of enlightened adherence to the Christian faith, and blessed subjection to its precepts, such as has never been exhibited on so vast a scale at any other period of history, or by any other nation of the world. There are some cheering and encouraging symptoms that lead one to hope that the evangelical churches are opening their eyes to their responsibility and duty in this matter; but they are only symptoms, and mere symptoms cannot leave one without anxiety. Let Christian ministers everywhere, and especially in large towns, study the condition of the masses; let it be one of the prominent subjects of exposition and consideration at Alliances, Unions, Synods, and all sorts of ecclesiastical assemblies; then, through God's mercy, the champions of infidelity shall find their occupation gone, and at last the world may behold the aspect of a really great and Christian Dation.





The first article (in the January number), by Schwarz of Jena, entitled, Melancthon und seine Schüler als Ethiker, sketches, with a great amount of research, and with copious reference to original sources, what Melancthon and his scholars performed in the department of Ethics. Alluding to the sixteenth volume of the “ Corpus Reformatorum,” which has appeared, Dr Schwarz expresses a hope that the undertaking will be supported till the completion of Melancthon's works; adding, it will be lamentable if Germany does not at once raise this monument to the man whom she justly calls her preceptor in many respects. The object of the paper is to furnish a characteristic of Melancthon as an ethical teacher, and thus supplement what had previously been written by Galle, Matthes, and others. In the first decennium of Melancthon's labours as a reformer, no room was found, says the writer, for any particular efforts on behalf of ethics. Melancthon had come to Wittenberg with a very free scientific tendency, familiar with Aristotle, and filled with admiration of him. At the instance of his teacher, Stadianus, he had formed the plan of preparing, in company, an improved edition of his works. In his inaugural address, on 29th August 1518, he speaks of it, and makes particular mention, along with Plato's republic, of the ethical writings of Aristotle. But soon, through Luther's influence, the young professor turns away with a certain aversion from philosophical studies, and from Aristotle. It is well known what deep aversion Luther had conceived to the “ Father of Scholasticism.” The steps which led Melancthon to his system are next pointed out by Dr Schwarz with lucid order, but at the same time with deep prejudice against predestination, the want of which in Germany, as D’Aubigné well shows, is one great cause of all her theological woes. At first, adds this writer, Melancthon was at one with Luther, in maintaining that free will before conversion can do nothing good, and that every good work is accomplished only through God's effectual operation in man. At that time philosophy appeared so foolish to him, that he dedicated his edition of the * Clouds of Aristophanes” to his colleague Amsdorf, because philosophy was there ridiculed as it deserved. Melancthon now lived and moved in the Holy Scriptures, especially in Paut; and towards the end of 1521, appeared the fruit of his study in his “ Hypoty poses Theologicæ,” in which we are told he goes the length of absolute predestination, and decidedly renounces Aristotle. The writer next traces the first indications of that change in Melancthon's views, which has justly been regarded as his error, but which this writer, who asserts that ethics presuppose a different view of the will than Melancthon at first held, regards as the transition to his ethical distinction. The first certain trace of this change is found in the Scholia to the Epistle to the

Colossians, published in 1527, where Melancthon wishes to show his S181231av, or fairness, on controverted points, and says with Homer, that men grow weary of every thing, but not of strife. This is to be understood of free-will. In the Articles of Visitation, which appeared in Latin in 1527, and in German in 1528, with Luther's preface, he mentions the same topics more briefly, but almost still more pointedly. He, besides, urges the preaching of the law and of repentance. Preachers were also to make single virtues the subject of their discourses, and to combat that carnal security which leans on justifying faith. Amsdorf and Agricola took deep offence at this, and the latter, who now, for the first time, came forth with his Antinomianism, was still kept quiet by Luther. Meanwhile, Melancthon had again turned more to the study of philosophy, and to Aristotle. He published the Dialectics in 1529; and in the excellent Ratio Discendae Theologiae of 1530 he expresses a wish, at the conclusion, that theologians would not neglect philosophy, which many blame merely because they do not know it. Unlike his former self, he now urged the study. He confessed that it was only when he became acquainted with the pure doctrine of the gospel that he perceived aright the nature and value of philosophy, and hoped that many would agree with him. He employed the halcyon days which the year 1533 brought along with it to expel by every means the lethargy in reference to philosophy. Such were the influences, the states of mind, and the efforts, under which the preparation of the loci was completed. Collecting, as he says in the dedication to Henry VIII. of England, the main parts of Christian doctrine which he thought contributed most to the nourishment of piety, and were of use for the life and practice of believers, Melancthon executed his task in a way which of itself must have made his name immortal. Erasmus' definition of free-will was not yet adopted. Melancthon first adopted it after Luther's death. But he approximated to Erasmus, and openly avowed a mild synergism, which we are told pervades the ethical parts in which the work is so rich. So much did Melancthon now urge new obedience, that he held it absolutely necessary to everlasting life, though he ascribed no merit to it. In short, the whole tendency of Melancthon towards the end of the second decennium of his labours, went always more decidedly to ethics. He had not been able to prepare his work on physics, nor the separate work on the nature of the soul, which he had intended. But he had been led to the psychological foundations of ethics, as is shown by the work which he issued in 1538, under the title Epitome Philosophiæ Moralis. “When we put all together," says Dr Schwarz, "it appears that he had before his mind a system of philosophy in which ethics with politics in a manner formed the summit, physics in connection with metaphysics composed the foundation, psychology or anthropology was the intermediate member, and dialectics, from which he separated rhetoric, passed with him as the science of sciences which ministered to every other discipline by the principles of methodology which were to be laid down by it." This construction was in substance borrowed from the ancients, and particularly from Aristotle, but it was peculiarly modified in Melancthon, and in many respects may remind us of Schleiermacher. “If, on the other hand," says the writer, add the alterations which the loci underwent since the beginning of

we now

the fortieth year in the sense of synergism, the modifications to which Melancthon agreed on this point in the negotiations upon the interim, the growing decision with which he expressed himself on the necessity of new obedience and of good works against those who even maintained their hurtfulness, the circumspection with which he stood aloof as well from the Catholic error in justification as from Pelagianism and the extreme of Osiander, without altering the connection between justification and regeneration, it is clear that his last decennium furnished still more occasions than formerly for a proper theological system of ethics. Melancthon, however, did not himself execute it. His scholar Chyträus in 1555 made the imperfect attempt. The article then sketches the labours of Melancthon's scholars, of Chyträus, of Hemming, the most eminent of them, of Strigel and of Pezel, who in republishing the Epitome thus speaks of Melancthon: “ Etsi Socrates, Plato, Aristoteles de morali philosophia multum copiose et erudite disserunt, tamen longe præfero scriptum rev præceptoris qui doctrina ecclesiæ adjutus de fine hominis, virtutibus et affectibus ita perspicue, eleganter et erudite disputat ut nemo sit in hoc genere qui eum aquare, tantum abest ut superare posse videatur.”

The next article, by Dr Creuzer, entitled, Josephus und seine griechischen und Hellenistischen Führer, treats of Josephus as a man and a writer, and discusses the foreign guides to which he refers particularly in his polemics against Apion. It is an article replete with the consummate learning of this great scholar, copious quotations and references in notes opening up further side-glimpses of great interest. He says that while the Greek and Roman authors pronounced quite general opinions upon Josephus, it is since the days of J. A. Ernesti that men have entered into a deeper estimate of him as a man and a writer, and have critically weighed his character as a historian in detail. The writer says that he starts from the results of that criticism interspersing the fruits of his own study. He shows that Josephus was of priestly descent, and hence the key-note of his character was the priestly-aristocratic. To the circumstance that he belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, Niebuhr attaches remarks on his historic fidelity, stating that Josephus was a Pharisee, though a better man than the majority of them. “ Hence,” adds Niebuhr," he is often untrue, and his antiquities are rich in perversions of historical facts, and in falsifications which have their origin in his enormous national pride. In his account of the Jewish war, he discovers many of the peculiarities of an oriental writer, and wherever he has to do with numbers he shows his oriental love of exaggeration.” Cless, too, calls him liberal with numbers. Creuzer here shows that the latter statement must be taken with limitation, and that the numbers in the manuscripts of Josephus are often falsified. As to the orientalism, we are here told not to forget that Josephus attempted to reconcile the cosmopolitan spirit of Rome with the Hebrew particularism, and consequently to soften, as far as possible, the offensive element of the marvellous, which the east brought along with it. He desired not to write at all for the Jews, to whom, as he himself tells us in the conclusion of his Antiquities, the conimunication of their holy writings and ordinances, particularly in elegant Greek language, was an abomination, but for the Greeks, and mainly for the Romans, particularly for his patron and friend Epa

« הקודםהמשך »