Page images

belated individuals still cherish all the theories of the materialistic phi. losophy, and especially do they endanger the general moral and religious welfare by applying or proposing to apply those theories to everyday life. Menzi discusses materialism in its relation to the inorganic, the orgapic, and the intellectual world. Under the first he makes the point that matter, from which materialism starts, is not an object of experience, but something supersensuous. We have certain sense phenomena to account for, and our reason posits matter as the explanatory cause. He calls attention to the fact that no one ever saw an atom and that atoms are strictly a metaphysical fiction; also that the most prominent representatives of the mechanical theory of nature have declined to class themselves as materialists. Coming to the relation between materialism and the organic world, he holds that all attempts to explain life on mechan. ical principles have proved failures. Life is the same mystery it has always been. In the intellectual world, also, materialism is a failure. The attempt of Carl Vogt and others to regard thought as a secretion of the brain overlooks the incommensurability of material and mental phepomena. Nor has monism succeeded in abolishing the dualism between these two classes of phenomena. The most it has done is to raise the question in a new form. Least of all can materialism explain the facts of self-consciousness and of free will. Menzi admits that the existence of God is not capable of mathematically certain proof. The best proof of the highest truths of life is their power to satisfy us. But since we all have a consciousness of God, he says that it is an original feeling of the human soul, a fact which both extensively and intensively rises above all other energies of the mind, and is best explained, like law and order in nature, on the theory that it is produced by an infinite, almighty, and omnipresent Being. In very brief form Menzi has contrived to ex. hibit the hallowness, shallowness, and untenability of the materialistic theory. The present writer often asks himself why this country does not produce more works of this kind. Materialism in all its aspects is rampant among the masses of our people. It is a question whether we do well to trust it to wear itself out.

Kelchversagung und Kelchspendung in der abendländischen Kirche (The Refusal and the Permission of the Cup in the Western Church). By Julius Smend. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1898. This is a most interesting account of a doctrine and practice of the Roman Catholic Church which is but little understood by Protestants. Accord. ing to Smend, the practice first arose and later received ecclesiastical sanction. He mentions several causes which aided in the movement to with. hold the cup from the laity. The first is theological speculation. The doctrine arose that the whole Christ is in each of the elements of the communion. Such was the teaching of Anselm of Canterbury. A little later Alexander Hales held that the doctrine of Anselm can be preserved only by refusing the cup to the laity. Still later Thomas Aquinas declared that the permission of the cup to the laity tended to perpetuate the denial of Anselm's doctrine that the cup is not necessary, since Jesus gave food, but not drink, to the five thousand, and that its refusal to the laity is necessary to give the priests a more distinguished privilege. The second cause was the influence of great personalities and ecclesiastical counsels. Smend thinks that Pope Gregory II (715-731) introduced the practice of using but one cup in the communion. At any rate, from the eighth century onward but one cup was in use, and it was often so large or otherwise inconvenient to handle that instead of drinking from the rim of the cup a tube was used. But this was exceedingly impracticable on occasions when many communed; and, besides, one cup would not hold enough for a large number. The Ordo Romanus made no provision for a second consecration. Hence unconsecrated wine had to be added to the consecrated, the effect not being to make the whole sacred. As a consequence it was felt necessary to withdraw the cup entirely from the laity. Little by little the practice and the doctrine grew side by side, until in the councils of Constance and Basel the decree went forth that the communion of the laity should be in “one kind,” that is, of the bread only. Still, it was not until three centuries later that Benedict XIV (1740–58) was able completely to put the custom into execution. Smend also gives many interesting facts relative to the former practices of the Church. As early as the fifth century it was recommended that the communicant should take something to eat immediately after the Lord's Supper, lest in some way he might expectorate some of the sacred elements. Hence many churches hit upon the plan to furnish to all communicants bread and wine to be used immediately after the sacrament. Granted the doctrine of transubstantiation and the doctrine promulgated by Anselm, the Roman Catholic practice is at least allowable. Theological speculation generally leads to folly in practice and should be wholly abandoned.

Dogmatik (Dogmatic Theology). By Julius Kaftan, Freiburg i. B., J. C. B. Mohr, 1897. The name of Kaftan is one which needs only to be mentioned to arouse interest in the mind of the intelligent theologian. His work on dogmatic theology is destined to increase his fame and usefulness. It is impossible here to do more than merely indicate some of his points of view. One of the most important is characteristic of the entire Ritschlian theology, namely, the principle that every proposition in a system of Christian doctrine must be brought into connection with the life of the individual and receive from the same its convincing force. With reference to the relation of faith and Scripture he teaches that faith has for its immediate object the revelation contained in the Scripture, while, on the other hand, only when one has a personal faith can he be assured of the truth of that revelation. It is to be

[ocr errors]

observed here that the word faith is used, as by so many writers, in these two propositions in two different senses. But he proceeds to say that if the above-mentioned relation between Christian faith and the historical revelation actually exists, then the idea of inspiration is foreign and secondary. On the other hand, the peculiarity of Christian faith demands that the Scripture shall be conceived of as simply and solely the record of the historical revelation of God. From this it follows that the Scripture must be understood historically. Concerning the deity of Christ, it is held by Kaftan that this deity signifies that in his person we have the perfect and complete revelation of God to man. This, however, has to do with the risen and glorified Christ, since the faith of the disciples prior to the ascension was not Christian faith, which was produced by the appearances of the risen Lord and by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, this ascended Christ is no other than the one who was among men in the flesh, who was the historical Saviour. As to his oneness with God it is mysterious and incomprehensible. Yet this was the very core and center of his consciousness of himself; and in him the will of God was executed, and the spirit and life of God were imparted to man. Jesus, so far as his divinity was concerned, was in God from all eternity. We cannot get on without the thought of a real, as distinguished from an ideal, preexistence of Christ, though it is necessary to bear in mind the inadequacy of the expression. Jesus would have been incarnated according to the counsels of God, even had man never sinned. As to the manner of the incarnation, it can only be said that it differs absolutely from birth and development as ordinarily seen in the world. These brief statements show that, though accompanied by many cautions and provisos, Kaftan is in reality orthodox on the main points. To the confusion of many hasty critics of the Ritschlian theology so much must be said.


Modern Preaching from German Pulpits. The German idea of mod. ern preaching does not demand the so-called up-to-date topics employed in America. One will seldom hear any reference in the German pulpit to disputed subjects in theology. These are rightly left to the schools. Nor does one often find a preacher who takes up the latest sensation, whether local, national, or international. The German notion of modern preaching is that it should meet the demands of present-day ethical and religious conditions. It must be said in truth that there is very little attempt to be modern in this or in any other sense.

The average German preacher goes the round of the topics of the ecclesiastical year, as though this was in exact correspondence with the needs of his congregation. In fact, the pastors of the German State Church scarcely pretend to know the immediate needs of their flocks. The parishes are too large for such knowledge. Any information bearing on the subject must be obtained from literary sources, rather than from personal contact with the people. This would be, under given conditions, a distinct advantage over the methods employed in America. The preachers are prevented from emphasizing unduly the merely local, temporary, and sensational in current thought and activity. They are in a position to adapt their preaching only to the profounder and more permanent aspects of the life about them. Both they and their congregations are thereby saved from the distractions which American churchgoers suffer at the hands of many of the clergy. But, while there is very little effort to adapt preaching to the needs of the times, there are those who believe there ought to be more of such effort. It is claimed by them that one of the characteristics of modern German church life is a disposition to get on smoothly with one's own conscience. Modern preaching, according to their view, ought to make the unconsecrated or morally depraved in the congregations feel uncomfortable, and thus lead them to feel a need of pardon, regeneration, and a holy life. More of such modern preaching is needed in America also.

Ultramontanism in Alsace and Lorraine. In September, 1897, Pastor Gerbert, of Biebrich, Alsace-Lorraine, delivered an address in Berlin in which he described a Roman Catholic procession, one of whose features was a cross to which was fastened an almost nude boy with a couple of girls, fifteen or sixteen years old, kneeling before him. This he described as a shameful profanation of that which is most sacred in Christianity. The Ultramontane press at first denied in toto the truth of his allegations, and even high ecclesiastics, having professed to investigate the matter, pronounced the story false. Gerbert was brought to trial under the laws protecting the religious sentiments and practices from insult. He was found guilty and fined fifty marks, while his accusers were required to pay the costs. The court held, however, that in the main the story as told by Gerbert was true, or at least had not been proved false by his accusers. It was brought out in the trial that the names of the accusers, who numbered one hundred and sixty-six, were at least in some cases secured by misrepresentation. But what is most striking of all is that such high officials in the Church as a bishop and a general vicar did not know that the use of “living pictures" in such processions is strictly forbidden by the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, that the attorney for the accusers had the effrontery to assert that Alsace-Lorrai was not a country in which religious equality between Romanists and Protestants exists, and that as the German empire was founded by Pope Leo III the rightful emperor must always be a Roman Catholic. If we add to this the statement of the court in the Gerbert case that in Lorraine the priesthood ofterf combines national, linguistic, and confessional enmity to Germany, we see something of the spirit of Ultramontanism in Alsace and Lorraine.


THE centralization of wealth in the hands of a few is a feature of American life to which no student of social science can be indifferent. In the Christian Quarterly for January, 1899, its editor, W. T. Moore, regards the fact as ominous, and discusses with vigor the question, “ How Shall We Save the Rich ?” As an illustration of the centralization of property he writes: “It has been stated that recently twenty-one railroad magnates met in New York to discuss the question of railroad competition, and that these gentlemen represented the enormous sum of three billions of dollars. This is undoubtedly a startling fact, and ought to call very earnest attention to two exceedingly dangerous tendencies, namely, the rapid increase of wealth and the absorption of that wealth by comparatively a few individuals. Let us take a few facts from a very conservative calculation with respect to the wealth of New York City. We find the surprising number of 1,157 individuals and estates that are each worth not less than $1,000,000. That is, there are in New York City over 1,100 millionaires, while in Brooklyn there are 162 millionaires, making 1,319 in the two cities, or what is now called Greater New York. The nine wealthiest estates in the United States are said to be as follows : William Waldorf Astor, $150,000,000; J. Gould, $100,000,000; John D. Rockefeller, $90,000,000; Cornelius Vanderbilt, $90,000,000; William K. Vanderbilt, $80,000,000; Henry E. Flagler, $60,000,000; John L. Blair, $50,000,000; Russell Sage, $50,000,000; Collis P. Huntington, $50,000,000; making the grand total of $720,000,000. . . . Nor is this all. Eight members of the Vanderbilt family are estimated to be worth $254,000,000; while the Standard Oil Company, composed of nine (specially wealthy) persons, is reckoned to be worth $825,000,000. It must be remembered also that this immense sum has been accumulated within twenty years." Of the danger which this condition implies the author further writes: “Who does not know that wealth begets profligacy, and that the downfall of nations has usually started from the temple of fortune ? The historian, Rollins, tells us that the opulence of Sybaris was soon followed by luxury and such a dissoluteness of manners as is scarcely credible. The citizens employed themselves in nothing but banquets, games, and carousals. Public rewards and marks of distinction were bestowed on those who gave the most magnificent entertainments, and even to such cooks as were best skilled in the important art of making new discoveries in dressing dishes and inventing new refinements to please the palate. . . . When we hear of dinner parties costing $50,000 in the houses of some of our rich men, surely we are not in a position to speak contemptuously of the Sybarites; and, when Mrs. Brown is determined by look or crook to make her party • outshine' that of Mrs. Smith, it is evident we are already passing

« PreviousContinue »