66 the creed itself; and I cannot better set them before your readers than by quoting from another Danish divine-Bishop Martensen. He has written, at some length, against his brother bishop, in a work which he names “A Shield against So-called Grundtvigianism;"* and the points which he makes against him are, in many ways, curious. The phrase which Grundtvig uses to denote the creed is "the little (brief) word from the Lord's mouth" (det lille ord af Herrens mund); and his notion is, that that venerable formula is capable of being traced to our Master himself. This "little word from the Lord's mouth" (spoken to the apostles during the forty days), handed on from generation to generation, from mouth to mouth, as a living word-the word of light and of life (iys-ordet og livsordet) is the mainstay of the Christian community; whilst the Holy Scripture which was published afterwards cannot be this, because it is not the living word. For the word lies dead in the Scriptures, as in a holy grave, and we must not "seek the living among the dead," whilst the risen One is living in his Church, in his own very word (mundsord), and in the Sacraments. With this principle is connected (according to Grundtvigianism) a thorough emancipation from the "papacy of the letter" (skriftklogskabens pavedom), forasmuch as the Church is not referred to the Scriptures in order therefrom to draw its Christianity, but to the Creed and Baptism ; from whence it follows that the Scriptures are for teachers rather than for Christians in the mass. So states Bishop Martensen his opponent's case; and there is no ground for saying that he states it unfairly. He treats Bishop Grundtvig with the utmost respect, and apologizes with special earnestness, not so much for opposing his theories as for venturing to suggest that they are not original. On this head he refers to the strangest of forerunners: he points-of all men in the world-to Lessing! "The non-theological reader,' remarks the Bishop, "who only, perhaps, knows Lessing as the author of Nathan the Wise, or as a famous æsthetical critic, will probably be greatly astonished, and will ask what Lessing has to do with the Church and Church questions." The explanation (very lucid and interesting) follows. § "In Lessing's time there lived in Hamburg an orthodox Lutheran priest (prost), Johann Melchior Goetze; a man who was not without depth and learning, but also not without theological narrowness (indskrænkning) and passion. This man was a 'letter-theologue' in the strictest sense of the word; and the prejudices which are imputed to the Bible orthodoxy of the old school were found in him to a most astonishing degree. If one wishes to realize to one's self his narrow, and, in many ways, soulless (aandlose) standpoint, one has only to read some of the sketches which the Grundtvigians are wont to draw of the theologians who differ from them, and whom they are accustomed to call 'letter-theologues. For although those sketches resemble but little the theologians of this era, they adapt themselves, with some exaggeration, to Goetze and his sympathizers of that day. If, then, that be imputed to those Lutheran theologians which Grundtvig imputes to the existing theologians of Denmark and Norway, that they have not mastered the light-giving (indlysende) distinction between believing the Holy Scriptures and believing every syllable of them to be inspired;' if one imputes to them that they considered Christianity and the Bible to be one and the same thing, and that they possess Christ (have Christum) no otherwise than in a book which fell down from heaven; if one mentions concerning them that they think they have eternal life in dead papers (dode papirer), and mark them as 'Bible-worshippers,' who bow the knee before a dumb and speechless syllable; if, in a word, one were to mention that the Bible-theologues have no eye to the Church, no eye for the Lord's and for the Spirit's living presence and working in the assembly of the faithful, these sketches might (as has been said) fit on, for the most part, to the standpoint of Goetze and those who then thought with him." "Til Forsvar mod den saakaldte Grundtvigianisme." Af Dr. H. Martensen, Biskop over Sjællands Stift. Kjovenhavn, 1863. + Acts i. 3. Martensen, p. 11. S Pp. 13, 14. Bishop Martensen next proceeds to explain Lessing's position, and how it came about that such as he should have set forth views which were but little to be expected from him. "He found," says the Bishop, "The Scripture principle of Protestantism to be defended and applied with such onesidedness (eensidighed), that the Bible, so to say, had become a dumb idol, whilst living Christianity and Church life was forgotten in a condition of things which had had its day (hindoende tilstand). He began, therefore, to assert tradition, ecclesiastical and verbal, in opposition to the Scripture. As Goetze had attacked him because he had forwarded the publication of a work (of course the Wolfenbüttelsche Fragmente') which contains a general attack upon the New Testament, Lessing answered that the cause of the Bible was in no sense the same as that of Christianity; and that an attack upon the Scriptures was by no means the same as an attack upon Christianity. Was not Christianity in full course before the books of the New Testament were written, and (still more) before they were collected into the Canon? Had not the Lord's Prayer been prayed long before it was written down in the Gospels? Had not the baptismal formula been in use before St. Matthew wrote it down? To whom were the writings of the New Testament addressed, except to such as were already Christians and believers? If, then, Christianity could come into full force without the Holy Scriptures, so might it remain alive and continue itself without them." In describing more at length the course of the controversy, Bishop Martensen tells us how that when Goetze, in the heat of dispute, had "put forth the unwise (ubesindige) assertion that all intelligent Christians, and all Christian teachers in all ages, had recognised the Holy Scriptures as the alone source of the knowledge of Christianity, and the alone basis of doctrine, Lessing pointed forcibly to the ancient fathers (especially Irenæus and Tertullian), and to the Regula Fidei as laid down by them. This Regula Fidei,' says Lessing, 'is the rock upon which the Church is built, and not the Holy Scriptures." But now comes the fact which is to justify this episode, by connecting the sceptic Lessing (of whom Goetze could say that if he published a Bible it would doubtless take the form of a pocket edition !) with a grave and very active Christian bishop:: "When Lessing's opponents maintained that the so-called Regula Fidei had developed itself subsequently upon the basis of the baptismal formula, he was led to maintain a theory which, had he lived in our own days, might have obtained for him the name of a Grundtvigian. He maintained (that is) that the fully-formulated Rule of Faith must have been from the beginning. One while he mentions this as the highest probability; one while as something certain, and unconditionally essential; and he thinks he can even name the point of time when our Lord communicated the Apostles' Creed, during the forty days. Be it ever so probable that the acceptance of the baptismal formula given in Matt. xxviii. 19 was in the beginning sufficient for the reception of those in baptism who wished to acknowledge Christ, is it on this account improbable that Christ, after his resurrection, did leave with his disciples a short summary of what they should teach about Him in other days?" That this was so, he maintains to be certain. "Either," he says,— "We must accept nothing, absolutely nothing about the Christian religion upon merely historical grounds, or we must accept this, that there has been in every age an authentic form of faith which contains more than the mere formulary which was commanded for baptism, which has not grown accidentally out of this formulary, which has not been drawn later out of the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, which does not derive its credibility from its agreement with these writings, but which draws its credibility from itself." This, as we have seen, is the very principle of Grundtvig. But on this head I must ask you to hear Bishop Martensen again. For the present I have occupied your space sufficiently. W. C. DowDING. * Martensen, pp. 17, 18. "Nichts, gar nichts." Das Characterbild Jesu. Ein Biblischer Versuch. Von Dr. DANIEL is not without a certain degree of hesitation that we have set ourselves to Dr. Schenkel stands somewhat prominent at present among the constructive anti-supranaturalistic theologians of Germany, and as this particular work has given occasion to much controversy and even ecclesiastical agitation, in which it was sought, though in vain, to depose the author from his Professorship on account of it, we have on the whole, though not fond of vending to general notice views of sacred truth which we deem fatally erroneous, yet judged that it will do no harm to indicate the kind of position which Dr. Schenkel has taken, especially as we cannot but believe, that our readers will agree with us in thinking, that the simple exposition of his views is for the most part at once the exposure of their fallacy. The object of the work Dr. Schenkel thus describes : "Unquestionably we are compelled to renounce the hope of setting forth a 'Life of Christ,' in any strict sense of the term. Our purpose goes no further than to sketch a portrait of the Character of Jesus, so far as this is possible, following such original documents as can be relied upon. How Jesus became what he was; amid what conditions, trials, conflicts, he developed himself and fought his way through to perfection; what he desired, ained at, achieved, and in what particular manner; what it is in which the definite peculiarity of his life and endeavour, of his person and his work, left its impression,-this, to the best of our power, we have endeavoured to show. In this endeavour there certainly hovers before our eyes, not only a problem of science, but also a requirement of the Church. We are deeply penetrated by the conviction that the comprehensive and radical renewing of the Church, at which our whole age is labouring, can only be carried through in connection with a renewed faith in the really historical Christ living in the world's history."-(Pp. 9, 10.) We must do Dr. Schenkel the justice of stating that he is neither, as a theologian, a merely negative critic of the Gospel history, nor, as a member of the Christian Church, without a certain zeal for what he considers would be the Christian progress of society. In the latter point of view, he is one of the originators and most active members of the "Protestanten Verein" (Protestant Association), formed professedly for the diffusion of Protestant and Christian sentiments. In former years he was regarded as an ardent friend of free-minded evangelical religion; but his scepticism has, of later years, destroyed in his mind all positive beliefs belonging to orthodox Christianity. What he insists upon as the one great truth of Protestantism is "free inquiry," such as shall own subjection to no external authority whatever, but shall be "evermore knocking at the gates of truth, and never rest, till it has forced its way forward to the very last causes and powers by which the process of humanity's development in religion and morals is conditioned and made practicable" (p. 5). Perhaps Dr. Schenkel himself understands what the goal is which he thus endeavours to set before our view; but we have our doubts. While, however, he throws to the winds all the dogmas of Church orthodoxy, he yet would fain cling to a certain phantom, left him by his former religious thought. He holds to the persuasion that "faith in the world's Redeemer," "resting upon firmer foundations than those of superstition, priestcraft, and an imagination filled with joyous images [of future rewards] or scaring images [of future punishments]," and "reposing upon general conviction, on the mental and social requirements of nations, the educational elements [Bildungselementen] of all time," can alone impart "to culture its consecration, to civilization its depth" (p. 9). He adores an imaginary Jesus, whom he thinks he descries looming through the heavy fogs of New Testament fable, "without qualification the most exalted and most influential phenomenon in the world's history," the exhibition of which is "a problem which none can hope ever satisfactorily to solve;" for, explore as you will, "an incomprehensible remainder will still be left behind, since unknown magnitudes co-operated in the work of the Redeemer's life, which no human sagacity will ever succeed in computing” (p. 9). We have here a blending of elements offering a composition vastly attractive to the unchurched mind of modern Germany. On the one hand, that mind has leave given it to revel in endless activity of moral and metaphysical investigation, which shall nevermore find aught to check its flights, but shall career upwards, downwards, away, in illimitable ether, in chartered freedom. On the other hand, the Teutonic mind delights in the mysterious, the vaguely-awful, the daóvior, and must have it to feed upon; and as the Bible, especially the New Testament, is adapted to supply this requirement, it cannot lose its hold altogether upon Teutonic reverence. However much in that sacred book German scepsis may manage (as it thinks) to melt away into thin air, it yet cannot afford to lose all. Indeed it is recognised generally, even for example by Strauss, that there is something there which all the scepsis in the world can never rid out of being; a something which has forced the sense of its having been present so deeply into the world's consciousness, that a philosophy which either leaves it out of account, or fails to investigate it, is convicted of being untrue to its character. That something is Jesus Christ, the reverence of Christendom for 1,800 years, and, as exhibited in the New Testament, qualified to command the homage. And so the German intellect of the present time, deeply sceptical, and yet forced to admit that a marvellous Reality did appear in Judæa at that time, and the German heart, insatiably yearning for an object to adore, must, in combination, necessarily have some such theory respecting Christ as is here propounded,-one among many others which the combined causes now described have evolved and will yet evolve. And we must confess that, baseless as the entire representation is, it yet is less repulsive to the English mind than the image of Jesus drawn by Renan, in which, with many features in common, the high qualities which attach to the German's ideal, and to which his reverence is accorded, are replaced by a Frenchman's sentimentality and a Frenchman's finesse, in a manner which makes worship impossible. Dr. Schenkel's notions respecting our Gospels must be briefly stated, that it may be seen how slight and uncertain is the basis of documentary evidence on which he builds. They are as follow. The correspondence between the three synoptic Gospels may be most easily explained on the supposition that they all made use of an older writing, an Ur-Evangelium. It is "most highly probable" [we see not why] that this Ur-Evangelium was sketched by Mark, as "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mark i. 1), before A.D. 60, in the Roman Church, and for the mission to the Western heathen. This, however, is not our present Mark; this we owe to a later hand, which added further details, and brought the whole into better order. Yet, notwithstanding these modifications, the image of Jesus's character is reflected with greater fidelity in the second Gospel than in either of the others. We have no schriftstellerische Tendenz here, no purpose in the composition leading to distortion of the materials. With the first Evangelist the case is different; his object is to frame his narrative to affect the unbelieving of the Jews: hence his frequent references to the Old Testament; hence his endeavour to make out that Jesus must needs have done and suffered as He did, because some passages of the Old Testament behoved to be fulfilled, thus depriving his life of its spontaneity. The fountains flow, however, more copiously in Matthew than in the second Gospel; we have large discourses of Christ, indicating "a collection of our Lord's discourses already in being." Richer sources still were accessible to the third Evangelist; "among them, however, such as betray yet more plainly the legendary transformations of a later age." But all three agree in this, they limit Christ's ministry to Galilee. They "have no knowledge" of his being at Jerusalem till the closing days of his ministry. In all three, also, all through, Jesus appears as a true man, moving within the bounds of human limitation, which are only broken through by his miraculous actions: "miracles of omnipotency are humanly no longer conceivable" (p. 16). But these were merely legends, tagged on to the real life of Jesus by "later generations" (späteren Geschlechtern), seeking "in outer miracles to make visible to their view the inner marvellous power of His personal greatness and glory" (in äusseren Wunderereignissen die innere Wundermacht seiner persönlichen Grösse und Herrlichkeit sich zu veranschaulichen). "Moreover, typical personages (Vorbilder) of the Old Testament suggested the sup position that Jesus surely had not been behind them in this respect. If Moses, to save men dying of thirst, had drawn water out of rocks, and fed the starving with manna; if Elijah and Elisha had healed the sick and raised the dead, how natural it was to set forth Him, who undoubtedly was greater than Moses and more glorious than Elijah, as therefore also the accomplisher of greater and more glorious deeds! It is not invention subserving some defined purpose (tendenziöse Erfindung), and still less, as a coarse estimate of history deems, deceit and lies; there lies therein an unconscious homage, rendered by the imagination of a pious enthusiasm on the part of disciples and believers, who had been deeply excited in conscience and in spirit, and who in such hyperbolas gave expression-certainly, after the measure of sober historical criticism, unsuitable expression-to the pious ardour of admiration, love, and reverence unkindled |