Gambar halaman

433 one of these various kinds of emotion is to be considered the peculiarly Christian kind? Is it that of the early Christians, that of the Crusaders, that of the monk, or that of the Protestant ? The diversity of emotional forms in the phenomena of Christianity is hardly less than that of dogmatic and ritualistic forms. And, in truth, dogmas and rites are merely the temporary deposit and expression of the prevailing kinds of emotion.

As everywhere the law of a development can only be deduced from its whole progress, the perception of the essence of Christianity ought really to be obtained from a survey of its whole history. But a shorter proceeding is also possible. The peculiar principle of the Christian religion can be perceived in its Biblical Beginnings, when, as a new religion, it confronted Judaism and paganism. The religious person. ality of Jesus is the most important source for the perception of its essence. Jesus was, from one point of view, far above His time and surroundings, as the bearer of an original world-renewing power. From another point of view, however, He was also a child of His time and His people, who had grown up in its traditions, and was partly restrained by its limits. The new principle only became recognized when Paul brought Christianity to the Gentiles, and freed it from the fetters of the Jewish law. The theological form which Paul gave to the essence was affected by the ideas of the time. Admitting this, we still may say that the Gospels and the teaching of Paul are the pre-eminent sources from which mediately, through scientific investigation and comparison of particular points, the common essence can be ascertained.

The characteristic feature of the religious personality of Jesus was His consciousness of Sonship to God. But all depends on what we understand by this consciousness of Jesus. Was it a universal human religious relation-which first in Him became completely real, but can and should also be realized in all of us, by Him and through Him? Or was it an exclusive, peculiar, and unique relation of an eternalmetaphysical and temporal-physical descent from God? The author argues that we must consider the Divine Sonship, which formed the fundamental character of the religious self-consciousness of Jesus, as the first actual and typical realization of that religious relation in which all men should stand to God because of their Divine origin and destination, and which becomes a real experience in all who believe in Christthat is, who make their own His filial Spirit. The consciousness of Divine Sonship is the characteristic essence of the Christian religion. In Rom. viii. 15, Paul indicates the distinctive feature of Christian as contrasted with the Jewish-Gentile piety. The heathen and the Jew feared their deities. According to the teaching of Jesus, the whole law and all that the Divine Will exacts of man is met by “loving the Lord with all the heart.” When man devotes his whole heart to God, then the barrier falls that separates the Divine Will from the human. By entire self-devotion to God's perfect will man finds his own true will fulfilled, his better self satisfied, his inmost being and life freed from the painful discord between desire and obligation ; he finds the salvation of his soul. Love, therefore, is the fundamental mood of the pious feeling in Christianity, and, more accurately speaking, childlike love. Love is no voluntary action, it is an involuntary feeling, the origin of which is beyond the limits of the Ego. It is the work of God, who is above all and in all, that the barrier of selfhood is broken down within us, and our heart is ennobled and impelled to devote itself to Him.

When the Christian feels himself in the relation of a child to God he perceives God as Father, or Holy Love. Herein lies the essential difference of the Christian conception of God from the Jewish and Gentile. Heathen gods are personified




powers of nature, or æsthetically idealized men, who do not, however, rise above men in spirituality and morality. The conception of an ethical perfection that is one with itself, or of “holiness,” cannot be applied to them. To the Jew God is the Holy One, who makes His own will the absolute law for men, and enforces exact obedience by severest penalties. The relation of man to God is a legal rather than a filial relation. The God of Christianity is not merely an opposite will, infinitely above man; He is love, whose essence it is to communicate Himself, to condescend to weak and sinful men who are not simply flesh, but also spirit from God's Spirit, and are made to be His images and His children, to be received into the community of Divine life. It would, however, be a grave error to suppose that, in Christianity, the holiness of God, and consequently the inviolability of the laws of the ethical constitution of the world, are no longer valid. The Divine Holiness signifies for us not the denial, but the affirmation and foundation of ethical “ autonomy."

To the Christian consciousness of God corresponds the estimation of man as the child of God, in which the highest idealism is united with the most sober realism. In heathenism is blended the deification of man, and an intense contempt for man, at least for women, slaves, strangers, and enemies. Man is judged externally according to his political and social position and capacity. As for an estimation of his value based on his inner being, the purity of his heart, and the force of his character, there are found but a few weak attempts. Even within the circle of the Jewish community the estimation of the individual was hardly less external and superficial than among the heathen. Esteem for the dignity of man in all men without distinction of nationality, rank, or sex was first brought about by Christianity. The Christian recognizes the universal equal relation of all men to God. It exists in a twofold sense, positive and negative. All have sinned. All are in God's care. Sin, the tendency of godless wilfulness, is a power that has its root in the inmost recesses of human nature and rules over the whole race. The reverse side of universal sin and need of redemption is found in the universal ability of all men to be redeemed, which is based on the indestructible essence of the Divine image that is in every man, the living germ of a better future, of a new man of God. A man's worth is estimated in view of his immost feeling, the tendency of his soul toward the Divine good, even if this be at first only a painful regret for the loss of it, and a heartfelt desire to regain it. Redemption, in the sense of the Gospels, is not a miraculous event occurring once, and brought about outside of humanity by a superhuman mediator 'between the Godhead and humanity; it is an inner process within the heart of man which always and everywhere repeats itself when the fettered and diseased powers of the soul are freed and healed, when the image of God and the child of God that slumber in everyone are aroused to life, reality, and power. The real redemption is in the universal human sonship of God, the ethico-religious ideal of humanity which Jesus typically represented for all of us, by the original power of genius, in His person, and thereby established its realization, and rendered it feasible for all men. The true, redeeming, and saving faith of the Christian consists in his adopting this ideal as the conviction of his heart and the principle of his whole life.

All practical ideals lead to the foundation of communities. The universal community founded on the Divine ideal of humanity is the ethical conception of the “ kingdom of God.” Jesus, in gathering His community of disciples, laid the foundation for the historical realization of the ethical kingdom of God. The Gospel of the sonship of God of all men revealed a new ethical principle, which embraces in a higher unity both these principles-the binding power of fellowship and the independent right of the personal mind. In the fundamental principle of Christian ethics, brotherly love, lies the inner correction for that aspect of it which, at the beginning, from transitory reasons, appeared in one-sided force—its asceticism.

The religious opinion of the world seems to be essentially the same in Christianity as in Judaism ; but it differs by finding the purpose of the world no longer in a single nation, but in entire humanity. According to the Christian way of thinking, the kingdom of God is conceived both as already present and as a kingdom to come.

The reformation of the sixteenth century made a beginning for the spiritual. ethical conception and realization of Christianity.

DO THE LITERARY POSTULATES OF HEXATEUCH CRITICISM HAVE ANY PARALLELS IN THE OTHER BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ? By Professor C. R. BROWN (The Andover Review). This is precisely the question which intelligent minds are asking in view of modern discussion concerning the Hexateuch. Has something unique been discovered? Or have students only found in one portion of the Old Testament certain features that are characteristic of the whole ? To readjust our ideas of the composition of the entire book may be to bring back full confidence in its inspiration and authority. It will not be possible to follow Professor Brown in his illustrative details, but the line of his argument may be briefly indicated.

Nowhere in the Old Testament is the composition of the Pentateuch ascribed to Moses, or even to the time of Moses. We are left to the examination of its contents and structure for our opinions concerning its authorship. Many scholarly and devout critics have come to the following conclusions: (1) That the Hexateuch, in its present form, is a compilation of four great documents, each of these having been made from pre-existent material in a written form. (2) That these documents may be distinguished, at least in part, by individual preferences in the use of words, phrases, and modes of representation. (3) That the author of each document presented the history and institutions of the past in a form coloured by the practices of his own time, or moulded by the traditions of different ages. (4) That these documents circulated for a while as separate works. (5) That the compiler selected such part of each source as suited his purpose, endeavouring in general to make a continuous chronological story, and interjecting remarks of his own to cover the transitions. (6) That Moses cannot have been the compiler of the Pentateuch, nor even the author of either of the four great documents, in their present form, but that the earliest of these sources was composed long after the death of the great lawgiver. Professor Brown does not discuss the truth of these conclusions. He inquires whether conclu. sions very similar to them cannot be established in regard to the other Hebrew writings ? Are there compilations in the Old Testament outside the Hexateuch ? " The most cursory examination reveals their presence, for several books distinctly quote extended passages from different sources; and when a more thorough investigation is instituted, the discovery is made that there is scarcely anything else among the Hebrew historical writings, although the component doctrines are not always referred to." In Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra Nehemiah we are met by phenomena that most readily accommodate themselves to the idea of compilation. Several of the later prophets contain historical material. That Daniel is made up from different sources is evident from the presence of the Aramaic language in the body of the book. Isaiah has several historical chapters evidently incorporated from some recognized source. The peculiar form of the preface of Jeremiah, and the utter lack of chronological sequence, show that it was successively enlarged after it was issued with Jeremiah's name. Such short books as Ruth and Esther alone seem to have been composed after the modern method of writing history.

The method followed by Hebrew compilers, and some of the phenomena that resulted from the application of these methods, may be discovered by the careful study of the Book of Chronicles, comparing it with the Book of Samuel. The results of such a study will be to convince us (1) that the Chronicler does not concern himself with the history of David previous to his coronation at Jerusalem, nor with his private life after that time. (2) The compiler makes large quotations from the Book of Samuel, and for the most part cites the passages nearly word for word, only making such minor alterations as seemed suitable to his purpose. (3) The Chronicler betrays a partiality for statistical matters; and he has a tendency to the use of language which, interpreted literally, is an exaggeration, and not simply a one-sided representation of the facts contained in the earlier narrative. (4) There is present in the latter book what we may call a specialization of prophecy. (5) The compiler of Chronicles prefers Elohim-Jehovah as the Divine name. The compiler's method is everywhere the same. He introduces the least possible changes consistent with his plan into the phraseology of Samuel and Kings, and combines his selections, as well as he is able, with material drawn from some other source. He, indeed, asserts him. self that he used other sources of information.

The principles discovered by a close study of the Book of Chronicles are briefly stated. (1) This book is a compilation of at least two great documents. (2) These two documents are distinguished by preferences in the use of words and modes of representation. (3) Probably the author of each document has given us the words and works of the persons introduced in the dialect of his own time. (4) Both of these documents circulated in another connection before being brought together by the compiler. (5) The compiler has selected such parts of the documents as suited his

purpose, and it is clear that he has interjected remarks of his own.

“The last postulate, therefore, with which the discussion began, namely, the position of the critics that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, nor neither of its component documents in their present form, should be weighed according to the methods of literary criticism with the conviction that there is nothing necessarily preposterous in the assertions upon which this postulate is said to be based; that the critics will have to be met upon their own ground; that nothing is so likely to come out of the prolonged discussion of these days as truth; and that the exact facts on this question should be searched for as for hidden treasure, and gratefully received when found.” Every sincere student would wish to discover that precise method which the Divine wisdom has employed for the conveyance of the Divine revelation to men, and the preservation of the Divine revelation among men; and he will be in no way surprised if it comes to view that the Bible, as we have it now, is the record of revelations rather than direct revelations, and even the amended records. Every sincere man wants to know what the Bible really is, and will be prepared to adjust his theories and belief to the facts which must be universally accepted. A book which is largely a complication may, in the providence of God, be employed to carry “heavenly treasure” to our race.

OLD ROMAN LABOUR GUILDS. By Ernst ECKSTEIN. Translated by W. CLARKE Dooley (The Andover Review).—This article is valuable as corrective of general impressions, and as suggesting at once the mission and mischief of guild corporations. From the religious standpoint we cannot fail to be interested in those trade combinations which are so marked a feature of modern society. It is the common notion that corporations are a creation of the Middle Ages, and the union of working. men for social-political purposes an institution of our own century. Facts are opposed to such notions. Guilds or unions (Lat., collegia) existed under the Roman kings. According to Livy, Numa Pompilius formed nine different trades into guilds, viz., flute-players, carpenters, goldsmiths, dyers, shoemakers, tanners, farriers, and potters, the “rest” going into the ninth one. A number of guilds subsequently developed within this ninth one, such as those of the fuller, baker, weaver, tailor, &c. The position of the trades-unions in society was pretty much the same under the emperors. They accordingly represented the fixed and conservative element in the round of changes, for other ranks and conditions had suffered displacement in the course of centuries. The antithesis of patrician and plebeian had been blotted out, but towards the end of the Republic there developed a higher and a lower class of nobility—the higher out of the ruling, corporate body, the Senate; the lower out of the military class of knights, and including bankers, large merchants, &c. The third rank contained the small merchants, those in trades, &c. In spite of this strange mutation, the position of the guilds remained unchanged. They represented a certain power with which the Cæsars counted; they were, as a matter of course, of economic importance too, although they were greatly pressed by the competition arising from slave labour; but in the estimation of the cultivated classes they had neither lost nor gained. The Romans shared a contempt for trades with the Hellenes. Originally, it was even compromising to enact the part of principal by employing others.

The guilds had from antiquity the right to receive new members by decision of the majority, to choose the presiding officer, and to freely move within the limits of statutory rules. They had all legal rights, paid yearly contributions, levied fines, &c. They had no government help in their contentions against the competition of nonguilders, and they could not control individual members in the practice of their trades. They understood, however, the art of forming rings,” and uniting upon prices. Livy gives the history of the first Roman strike. It occurred 312 B.c. The fluteplayers had enjoyed from immemorial time the privilege of a banquet every year in the Temple of Jupiter, at the expense of the government. This year Rome was in great financial difficulties, and the censors decided that the flute-players' banquet must be omitted. The musicians struck, under the watchword, “Who honours not the piper is not to hear his pipe.” In vast numbers, with banners of their association at the front, the brave tibicines marched to the near town of Tibur, firmly resolved not to return to Rome until the censors had seen their error, and arranged for the banquet. The affair was critical, because war was impending, and homage could not be rendered to the gods without the flute-players. The difficulty was only got over by a clever but amusing stratagem-the concession of a right to hold a procession in costume through the streets of the city, and after the manner of our modern maskers, put the public under contribution.

These guilds erected buildings for holding their meetings and banquets (curiæ and scholæ). They had burial funds, and they kept founder's day. Each guild placed itself under the protection of a patron. Favourite patrons were certain deities, Minerva, Mercury, and Diana. Slaves were not received into the trades-unions. Very interesting traces of the mingling of the trades-unions in civic and state affairs are found at Pompeii, partly in official announcements written in brownish-red letters on the whitened squares at the house corners, as likewise in the so-called “grafts” that were scratched in by the ancient Pompeiians, perhaps with the point of a knife or style. The trade associations put up their own candidates, and exercised a visible influence on local conditions. Later on, even the Cæsars did not under-estimate this element, and those emperors who ruled in an aristocratic sense looked upon the coalitions of workmen with some anxiety. This is strikingly illustrated by a letter

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »