« 이전계속 »
Jewish Christians scattered among the Gentiles, and James chief among the Jews living separated from Gentiles. Mosheim, in his Church History, lays down this principle as to reliance on historic statements of the early fathers:
For my own part I think we cannot well withhold our credit from such particulars as stand supported by the clear and positive testimony of Origen, Eusebius, Gregory Nanzianzen, Paulinus, Jerome, Socrates, and certain of the more ancient writers who are cited with approbation by Eusebius.
He applies this principle to the testimonies as to the death of Peter at Rome; but makes no collation of the facts above presented relating to his earlier mission. Gieseler, the most masterly of all modern writers in his comprehensive and apposite citations, quotes from the whole range of authors above referred to, though without the fulness and collation here observed. He states as a guiding principle (Per. I, Div. I, Sect. 27, Note 5): "Several Protestant writers have been led by partisan feeling to deny that Peter was ever at Rome." Hug, in his invaluable Introduction to the New Testament, makes the discrimination already noted in the use of ancient authorities, relying fully on the historic statement of the early fathers as to the origin of Mark's gospel, and Peter's visits and death at Rome; while he traces with minuteness the likeness between the epistles of Paul and of Peter, written at the same time at Rome and actually alluded to by Peter himself. The able article in Smith's Dictionary, just issued, though failing in all respects to apply the principle, yet fully recognizes the rule of judgment as to ancient authorities in the remark as to Origen, "though fanciful in speculation, he is not inaccurate in historical matters." Gaussen, of Geneva, is in general true to it; remarking of Grotius, that as historic authority, he is invaluable.
Two writers, prominent in present discussions, deserve in the close of this survey a moment's notice. Bishop Hopkins, of the American Episcopal Church, writing to sustain the Ritualistic tendency in the City of New York, has unwittingly brought out the vital principle which vexed the controversy of Jerome and Augustine before the introduction of Jewish ceremonies was thought of, even at Rome.
He contends that the Jewish rites were continued in the Christian Church at Jerusalem by James, with even Paul's approval and countenance; that the Roman Church introduced them, therefore, with propriety; that the English Episcopal Church therefore might, as they did, retain some of them; and that both the English and American Church may consequently revive them. Without thought of its bearing, examining his early authorities with the acumen of the legal profession to which he was bred, Bishop Hopkins states as historic fact, that on the fall of the Jewish state at Jerusalem the Jews converted to Christ ceased to observe Jewish rites. It is perfectly clear to a careful observer, that neither James nor Paul introduced Jewish rites into Christian worship; that in the temple, while standing, and as members of the Jewish state, while it lasted, a civil obligation imposed on them the duty of conformity with national ceremonial requirements; which requirements had no other religious sanctity connected with them than those always belonging to civil relations.
Since the above facts and conclusions have been brought together in these pages—whose results, stated by the writer about twenty years ago, met the approval alike of the ablest of American statesmen and of devout Christians of different denominations—even within a few weeks past, a lithographed manuscript has been sent to the writer by its author, from Paris, France, whose sentiment indicates a return in the public sentiment to the spirit of the primitive view, in that land which has been the first, and is the last to cling to a worldly hierarchy. In March, 1866, a wondrously constituted assembly gathered at the old centre of Christian classic learning, the Sorbonne at Paris. There were congregated about two thousand of the most intelligent, devout and earnest leaders from among the Jews, the Catholics, and different branches of the Reformed Church of France. Their common bond was reverence for the Scriptures given by Divine inspiration as the sure guide and efficient power to save all men. The special object sought was a translation of the Scriptures, from a text and in a popular dialect mutually agreed upon, which should give to the masses of the French people a clear understanding and a common interpretation of revealed truth. As the result of this gathering and its deliberations, a Committee of Revisers was chosen, whose Secretary is the Rev. E. Petavel, D. D., a Reformed pastor, whose scholarship, piety and catholic spirit have commended him to all. From his pen has come the lithographed manuscript above mentioned, which has been sent to a few acquaintances.
The tract is entitled 11 La Victoire de Saint Paul," or, "The Victory of Saint Paul." It is addressed to Rev. Father Gratry, an eminent Catholic divine, who is in sympathy with the views of Father Hyacinthe, of France, and of Dr. Dollinger, of Germany. Its motto is the Divine address to the parents of Esau and Jacob, "Major serviet minori," "the elder shall serve the younger"; and the application is this: that the spirit of Peter, long dominant in the Church of Rome, must yield to that of Paul, its real founder. He commences the discussion by the admission, "You know, honored and dear Sir, that I admit, on my part, the primacy of Saint Peter; which the larger part of my co-religionists reject." Born, however, a Protestant, and having thoroughly studied its influence in England, Germany, and North America, as compared with that of the Roman Church in Italy, Spain, Poland, and South America, he is compelled to look for the cause of this difference. It is found in this, that while Peter was chief of the apostles in courage and energy, he was leader in denial of fundamental truth to such an extent that Christ had to say, "Get thee behind me, Satan"; he was superseded by James at Jerusalem, among Jewish Christians, and was rebuked by Paul at Antioch, among Gentile disciples; and he was, in fine, "the least infallible of the apostles." In his relation to the Church of Rome, he was the leader of the party devoted to dependence on rites borrowed from Judaism, the truth as to which Paul taught in Gal. vi. 13; and therefore Paul, instead of Peter, should now triumph in the Church of Rome, as he manifestly ruled in its foundation. He closes by referring to the words of Jesus to Peter, placed over the Council Hall at the Vatican, "Ego autem rogavipro te ut non deficiat fides tua; et tu, aliquando conversus, confirmafratres twos'' This conversion, indicated by Christ as future, supposes a decidedly dangerous and corrupting tendency in the Roman Church; that the spirit of Paul—adherence to the simple faith as it is in Jesus—has been stifled in that church; and that in the late Council at Rome, as in the first Council at Jerusalem, "the victory of Paul" over Peter must be sought.
A review of the whole field indicates that the following facts and principles are worthy of study, that, if verified, they may become a practical guide. In all ages, the statements of the inspired writers have, in all discussions among the professed disciples of Christ, been recognized by all parties as infallible; and, consequently, leading minds in all ages have admitted these subordinate principles and facts. The statements of all uninspired good men as to events which can be tested by the senses, have a foundation of reliable truth as fact; while the opinions of all uninspired men, and the conduct of inspired apostles, may be erroneous. The apostles of Jesus were each inspired for special ends; only five of the original twelve, namely, Peter, John, Matthew, James and Jude, being empowered to write authoritative records; while Paul was more comprehensively guided into " all the counsel of God." The special mission of James was to the Jews separated from the Gentiles; that of Peter to the Jews scattered among the Gentiles; and that of Paul to all men, Jews and Gentiles, yet specially to the world of mankind, as they became related to each other when the Jewish state ended. In his mission Peter was leader for six or seven years (from A. D. 33 to 42), at Jerusalem, and in carrying the gospel to the Samaritan and Roman capitals of his native country. Afterwards, from A. D. 43 to A. D. 49, until the edict banishing Jews from Jerusalem (see Acts xii. 17 and xviii. 2), he was at Rome. Returning from this extended tour among the Gentiles (Acts xv. 7), he was the first to state facts, but subordinate to James in the final decision as to the relation of Old Testament ceremonies to the New Testament dispensation. At this council, the "grace given" to each apostle was fully "perceived," and the special inspiration and mission of Paul and Peter was particularly recognized (Gal. i. 12, 18; and ii. 8, 9). Subsequently to that decision, Peter's forwardness led him to go beyond the limit both of his inspiration and mission. At Antioch, in North Syria, in Galatia, the centre of Asia Minor, and at Corinth, the eye of Greece, both his oral teaching and his conduct were not fully "according to the truth" (Gal. ii. 11; iii. 1; and 1 Cor. iii. 4, 22); yet, throughout Asia Minor, and finally on a second visit to Rome, Peter was eminently useful to Jewish disciples scattered abroad; while in his own epistles and in the gospel of Mark, he left inspired records of great value to all subsequent believers in Jesus (1 Peter i. 1; v. 13; 2 Peter, i. 15; iii. 1, 14-18). Finally, Peter met, with special firmness, the martyr's trial, according to the prophecy of Jesus (John xxi. 18, 19), in the eleventh year of Nero, A. D. 67; thus confirming the testimony of Jerome, universally relied upon in his statement of facts by all ancient and modern scholars, that Peter was, to the extent declared by Jerome, the founder, with Paul, of the Church at Rome, because from his baptism of Cornelius, he "was eminent" in esteem " at Rome for twenty-five years." In the ages that followed the better and primitive centuries, when such men as Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine ceased to hold the balance of control in that church, Peter's inconsistencies outlived his excellencies; and not until his successors— legitimately his in their tendency to Jewish ceremonies—are converted, can this apostle confirm again his brethren.
A PARTIAL VIEW OF THE MODERN THEORIES . OP CONSCIOUSNESS.
Elements of Intellectual Philosophy. By Frakcis Watlasd, D. D.
Sheldon and Company. 1871.
Scribner, Armstrong and Company. 1872.
Bart. Vol. I. Metaphysics. Gould and Lincoln. 1872.
SINCE the Greek sophists cast the physical theories of their predecessors into the crucible of human reason, consciousness has been the confessedly proper test for philosophical theories. Since the enunciation by Des Cartes of his famous and much discussed enthymeme, quod cogito has been formally recognized as furnishing the appropriate subject matter of psychology, philosophy's favorite theme. No system of philosophy has presumed to pass beyond without a formal review and explicit statement of its doctrine of consciousness.
Just now, when the new theories of modern positivism are demanding attention, it seems not inappropriate to examine the orthodox doctrine with a view to determining its consistency, and the stability of the foundations laid in it. The fact, then, that we do not propose an exhaustive treatment of the subject, but only one view of it, is deemed sufficient apology for setting these three works at the head of our discussion. This seems the more fitting since these authors have, unt il very recently at least, been most studied and most generally received by those of our own country who sought to lay sale foundations, and to determine true principles for philosophic investigation.