HISTORY
OF
PROTESTANT
THEOLOGY
DR DORNER
B 451353
VOL.II.
BX
4844
713
I&T CLARK

ARTES
1837
SCIENTIA
VERITAS
LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
•E PLURIBUS UNUM
TUBBOR
-QUAERIS PENINSULAM AMOENAMI
CIRCUMSPICE


:
1
HISTORY
OF
+
PROTESTANT THEOLOGY
VOLUME II.
B X
4844
.D7/3
1
1
LONDON,
DUBLIN,
NEW YORK,
PRINTED BY MUIR & PATERSON,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
HAMILTON, ADAMS & Co.
JOHN ROBERTSON & Co.
CHARLES SCRIBNER & Co.
HISTORY
OF
7667
LIBRARY
OF THE
VERSITY OF
PROTESTANT THEOLOGY
PARTICULARLY IN GERMANY
1

Diewed according to its fundamental Movement
AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS, MORAL, AND
INTELLECTUAL LIFE
BY DR.
A DORNER
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT BERLIN
TRANSLATED BY THE
REV. GEORGE ROBSON, M.A., INVERNESS
AND
SOPHIA TAYLOR
VOLUME II.
WITH A PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION BY
THE AUTHOR
EDINBURGH
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
1871
CONTENTS OF VOLUME II.
BOOK II.
The Separate Life of the Two Protestant Confessions, and the Dissolution
of the Unity of the Reformation Principle, from the Seventeenth to
the beginning of the Nineteenth Century,
Introduction,
The Reformed Church,
FIRST DIVISION.
SECTION I.
Onesided Objectivity, or the Prevalence of Reformed Orthodoxy till about
1700,
SECTION II.
The Deistic Era,
Subjectivity awakening in Britain,
Francis Bacon,
Herbert of Cherbury,
Thomas Hobbes,
Cudworth, More, and Norris,
PAGE
3
9
66
CHAPTER I.
66
66
CORR
69
70
73
CHAPTER II.
The Conflict and Triumph of Deism, and the Opposition it encountered,
Locke, Shaftesbury, Tindal, Toland, Collins,
Formal Apologetics,
Hume, Morgan, Chubb,
Methodism,
Scotch Philosophy,
•
76
77
83
87
91
96
vi
Contents.
SECOND DIVISION.
The Lutheran Church from 1580 to 1800,
Introduction,
PAGE
98
98
SECTION I.
Onesided Objectivity, or Ancient Lutheran Orthodoxy,
103
CHAPTER I.
Literature and Theological Method,
•
I. The Orthodox School,
II. The Calixtine School,
III. Jena and Leipsic,
Chief Divines and their Methods,
103
•
103
106
•
107
108
CHAPTER II.
History of the Reformation Principle during the prevalence of Lutheran
Orthodoxy, down to the Eighteenth Century,
CHAPTER III.
Individual Doctrines during the period of Lutheran Scholasticism,
118
•
141
SECTION II.
The Commencement of the Opposition to the Old Church Orthodoxy,
174
Protestant Mysticism,
CHAPTER I.
177
CHAPTER II.
Calixtus and the Syncretistic Controversies,
185
CHAPTER III.
Spener and Pietism. The Moravian Brotherhood,
1. The Age of Spener and Francke,
2. John Albert Bengel and his School,
3. Zinzendorf and the Moravian Brotherhood,
Retrospect,
203
203
227
245
248
Contents.
SECTION III.
Subjectivity victorious in the Eighteenth Century,
vii
PAGE
252
Introduction,
CHAPTER I.
The Philosophy of Leibnitz and Wolff, and the first attempt to effect a
Union of Philosophy and Theology in Wolff's Supernaturalism and
Rationalism,
CHAPTER II.
The Reaction of the Formless but Vigorous Intellect against the Deadness
of Orthodoxy and the Emptiness of Illuminism: Klopstock, Hamann,
Claudius, Lessing, and Herder,
CHAPTER III.
Subjective Philosophy. Kant, Fichte, Jacobi, and their Relation to
Theology,
Retrospect,
BOOK III.
252
263
293
321
345
The Nineteenth Century, or the Regeneration of Protestant Theology,
349
FIRST DIVISION.
The German Protestant or Evangelical Church,
351
SECTION I.
Schelling, Hegel, Schleiermacher,
357
SECTION II.
From the Fifth Decade to the Present Time,
396
SECOND DIVISION.
The Reformed Nations beyond Germany during the Nineteenth Century.
France, French and German Switzerland, Holland, Great Britain,
North America,
471
BOOK II.
THE SEPARATE LIFE OF THE TWO PROTESTANT
CONFESSIONS, AND THE DISSOLUTION OF THE
UNITY OF THE REFORMATION PRINCIPLE, FROM
THE SEVENTEENTH TO THE BEGINNING OF
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
II.
A
INTRODUCTION.
IT is, at first sight, a more cheerless period which claims our
attention in this second Book. The lofty aspirations of the
Reformation yield too quickly, for our desires, to a spiritual
negligence; its fertile vitality, its bold yet moderate use of liberty,
to a certain amount of sterility, narrowness, and scrupulosity.
The valour and courage of the heroes in the spiritual conflicts of
the sixteenth century were still indeed regarded as models, but
were often exchanged for a hateful and narrow-minded love of con-
tention, which regarded trifles as important, and but too often
esteemed the weightiest matters trifles. And yet it would ill accord
with historical justice if such an impression should induce us to
pass hasty judgment upon this post-Reformation period as a time
of spiritual relaxation, of declension from the lofty spirit of the
Reformation, introductory to an era of decay. That it was not
an age of spiritual death which succeeded the Reformation era has
been abundantly shown by Tholuck, in his "Evidences of Life in
the Lutheran Church," and with regard to the Reformed Church
by Göbel, in his "History of Christian Life." The relation of the
post-Apostolic to the Apostolic era, and the lack of originality
and vigour which the former exhibits in comparison of the latter,
are in this respect very instructive. Great as is the inferiority
of the earlier Christian centuries to the age of the Apostles, it
would be unjust to designate them, as on that account, in a state
of declension, spiritual poverty, or lack of faith, and to forget the
blood of the martyrs which helped to conquer the world. The
Reformation also was succeeded by a period of terrible and
bloody conflicts, resulting sometimes, as in France, in defeat,
though mostly in victory, but conflicts which could never have
been maintained in Holland, Germany, Scotland, and England
without the power and courage supplied by faith. The question
then with which we have to deal is: Whether the seventeenth
century, in the first place, faithfully contributed to the discharge
4
Introduction.
of that duty which the nature of the case made incumbent? The
duty of the age succeeding the Apostles could not have been to
equal them in originality and mental productivity; the task set
before it was rather to apply and utilize the treasures bequeathed
by Apostolic minds. The intensive process having reached its
point of rest in the formation of the Canon, must of necessity
yield to the extensive. A similar state of things is found in the
history of the Protestant Church and its theology, subsequently
to the completion of its symbol and the written statement of
its confession. There can be no doubt that Holy Scripture
contains a rich abundance of truths and views, which have
yet to be expounded and made the common possession of the
Church, and that the day will surely come when, the neces-
sity and maturity of the Church and the God-enlightened
insight being combined, such a result will be attained by means
of men of original minds. But if we were to conceive of such
as appearing immediately after the Reformation, not only would
a receptive soil for their labours have been for the most part lack-
ing, but if they should anywhere attain to extensive influence,
the utilization of the gifts bestowed by the Reformers would then
have been checked. What was first of all necessary was that the
Reformation principle should, in conformity with its world-wide
importance, secure itself a lasting history in the midst of the
nations of Europe. The question was to carry out the Reforma-
tion view of the world by a review of the history of the Church,
and by means of the whole series of the documents of revelation,
whether of the Old or New Testament, and thus to take, as it
were, spiritual possession, and strike at the roots, of the whole
preceding world. Controversy, for instance, against the existing
Roman Catholic Church could never be successfully carried on,
if the Reformation should be suffered to appear only as a protest
against the whole preceding history of the Church, and should
not rather find its authorization and justification in Christian
antiquity. For it would indeed be monstrous to suppose that
Apostolic Christianity had never, and nowhere, had any existence
in the Church except in Holy Scripture, which the sixteenth cen-
tury drew from the rubbish that concealed it, and brought to light.1
The further task laid upon this age was that of bringing the
1 That the true Church never did die out has been from the very first the
doctrinal principle of the Reformation. It was this that first the Magdeburg
Introduction.
5
Reformation principle into its rightful relation with the prim-
æval world, and especially with the general reason of mankind,
and thus naturalizing it in the world of mind. Hence, both the
evangelical confessions were concerned, in the interests of divin-
ity itself, "that queen of the theological sciences," to do ample
justice to the demands of human science. Melancthon's Loci
and Calvin's Institutio had indeed already afforded a glimpse
of the harmony existing between the several doctrines, as beheld
from the point of view of evangelical faith; but the doctrinal
writings of the Reformers and their immediate successors were
still very deficient in systematic completeness. A great work
had yet to be accomplished in bringing into form the treasures
excavated by the Reformation, and in so reasoning them out,
even to the minutest details, that they might give the impression
of an edifice harmonious in all its parts, not merely free from
all internal contradictions, but also exhibiting an internal
• relation of each portion to every other. Lastly, it was im-
possible that evangelical truth could be generally and deeply
implanted in the heart and intellect of the people during the
Reformation era, when Protestants were naturally very depen-
dent upon their spiritual leaders. Hence the question now was
to lead the people by instruction and discipline, by guidance and
custom, to an increasingly independent possession and enjoy-
ment of evangelical truth,—a task which the violence of the
German war, and the political agitations in England, Scotland
and Holland rendered one of no ordinary difficulty.
It cannot be said that the Protestant theologians of the seven-
teenth century were equal in all respects to the task thus imposed
upon them, and least of all to that last mentioned. Their defi-
ciency was somewhat less with respect to the rightful exhibition of
1
centuriators, and afterwards John Gerhard and Calixtus, sought to prove on his-
torical grounds.
1 The Reformed Churches may here claim the preference over the Lutheran.
Christian customs and discipline, as well as a more general habit of becoming
acquainted with Holy Scripture, being more energetically and successfully brought
to bear in the former than in the latter. It is in such matters that the genius of
the Reformed Church was specially evinced, c.g. in the sanctification of the Sab-
bath, which became a widespread popular practice in Great Britain and North
America. The legality into which both confessions fell, became among the
Lutherans a theoretical, and among the Reformed a practical, tendency to correct
doctrine. Thus, each having an eye for the deficiencies of the other, a protest
against the degeneracy of the entire Evangelical Church was never silenced.
6
Introduction.
the relation between reason and Christianity; at least the blame
must here be shared between them and philosophy, which was
as yet in a state of total dependence. The other tasks pointed
out were boldly undertaken and pursued in a manner which
must be esteemed most praiseworthy, when the amount of exe-
getical and critical skill then existing is taken into consideration.
This applies chiefly to the Lutheran Church, the great dogma-
tical works of which may-with the reservation hinted at-be
regarded, both for their accurate delineation and subtle elabora-
tion of notions, as works of art and models. Some, e.g. Calixtus,
also manifest a capacity for large systematic conceptions; others
are, through their extensive exegetical and historical apparatus,
monuments of persevering industry and loyal attachment to
evangelical truth, and could not fail to increase the self-con-
fidence and joyful certitude of Protestant consciousness, as well
as its acuteness and enlightenment.
With this praise however, blame must, in many respects, be
combined; and chiefly because the theology of this century
fails to produce the impression, made by that of the Refor-
mation era, and especially of the leaders of that movement, of
having acquired possession of evangelical truth by means of
profound labour and internal conflicts-means by which a vital
tradition of such truths could alone have been effected. On the
contrary, it was by an easier path, viz. by embracing the doctrine
of the Reformers, under a strong co-operating influence of mere
human authority, that this theology had come into its posses-
sions, which it adhered to and enforced as a fixed and inviolable
tradition. It is true that the persuasion that the dogmas of the
Protestant Church were in accordance with Scripture, was both
exegetically and historically a well-founded one. But even such
a perception could not take the place of certainty of the internal
truths of Christianity. Where this vital and conscious religious
appropriation is wanting, the motive for faith in the chief matter
is nothing more than the willingly acknowledged authority of
Protestant tradition, i.e. of tradition in accordance with Scripture.
And this, as well as the fact that the evangelical principle, though
religiously appropriated, was not developed, nor applied, as the
source of the organic unity of dogmas, involved a further con-
sequence. For while nothing but mental appropriation can form
the vital bond between faith and Holy Scripture or Church doc-
Introduction.
7
trine, because evangelical and scriptural truth in its internal
unity and consistency can only be so viewed by fides divina, as
to leave the latter at liberty to deal intelligently therewith; this
truth will, where there is an actual preponderance of fides his-
torica, be involuntarily separated into a multiplicity of doctrines
and propositions, which may, in the interest of maintaining purity
of doctrine and losing no one item thereof, be most scrupulously
and carefully preserved, without any correct or certain apprecia-
tion of their position or comparative importance with respect to
the whole. For, in this case, the unity by which the several doc-
trinal propositions are supported is no longer the vital Gospel
principle, recognized in its truth and become a matter of faith.
On the contrary, Holy Scripture has become the connecting but
only external bond which equally embraces all dogmas with its
formal authority, just as the mantle of the Church equally covers
and sanctions all the dogmas of Romanism. In short, transition
from the creative energy of the Reformation to the era of the
maintenance or preservation of Protestant tradition, thus became
a relapse to the legal stage, and, in the Lutheran Church espe-
cially, a relapse into legal dogmatism. With this were combined
the disintegration above alluded to, and the impotence of the
vital principle of dogmatic organization, and, on the other hand,
a scrupulosity about omissions, a want of happy certainty, a fear
of all innovation, a horror even of variety, which was regarded as
inimical to the unity of the Church,-nay, in virtue of the con-
nection between Church and State, and the then increasing
absoluteness of the latter, a violence to, and depreciation of,
individual freedom, that indispensable medium for all genuine.
appropriation of evangelical truth. So far then as a rather legal
than evangelical conservatism takes the place of living tradition,
i.e. of constantly renewed reproduction, in the theological activity
of the seventeenth century, so far is it certainly true that this
age exhibits, on the whole, a declension of the Protestant spirit.
The subjective factor, which—as is expressed by the material
principle of the Reformation-essentially belongs to the character
of evangelical piety and theology, was abridged, and received but
trifling cultivation. The Objective quantities, doctrinal tradition
and Holy Scripture, were called into operation. Faith, formerly so
free and vigorous, occupied but a passive position with respect
to these quantities, which yet are not God, but things given. It
8
Introduction.
was no wonder then that the subjective principle, lacking a loving
care on the part of the Church, should, where it asserted itself,
take up a lax position with respect to the latter, as in the varied
degeneracy of mysticism, which would not be restrained by the
new and scrupulous literalism of orthodoxy, but on the other
hand ran wild in every direction.
Happily the onesidedness into which the Evangelical Church
fell was contrary to its own nature. For its confessions, as well
as Holy Scripture, are born of another than the legal spirit. In
both the objective requires the subjective, requires a form of
existence not merely in historical faith, but a mode of existence
in the spirit. Both urge onwards and beyond this evangelically
tinged, but radically catholicizing mode of dealing, betraying as
it does the after-effect of the epoch of dominant Catholicism,-
a mode which could at most have set up a weakly, anomalous,
rival church beside the Church of Rome, and must have ended
in a pugnacious but unsatisfactory sectarianism. Hence a re-
action could not fail to take place within the Church itself. It
appeared among the Reformed in the influence of the Cartesian
philosophy, in Coccejus and the mystics of Holland, especially
the Labadists; and in Great Britain in the Independents and
Quakers. Among Lutherans it was found on the part of the
intelligence of the Church in Calixtus and the Syncretistic con-
troversies, on the part of the religiously inclined will in Spener,
on the part of religious fecling in mysticism and Zinzendorf.
In all these, however, the reaction bore, not a merely negative
character, but contributed, under different aspects, to the further
development of the Reformation principle.
FIRST DIVISION.
The Reformed Church.
SECTION I.
ONESIDED OBJECTIVITY, OR THE PREVALENCE OF REFORMED
ORTHODOXY TILL ABOUT 1700.
THE
HE old Reformed Orthodoxy of the Continent, after entering
upon its scholastic period, maintained itself in France,
Holland, and Switzerland, against the ever re-emerging anti-
predestinarian tendency. It was however much shaken about
1650 by Coccejanism, and soon after by Cartesianism. Though
successful in repressing for a time by legal enactments, and by
the Formula Consensus Helvet., every anti-Calvinist movement,
its gradual decay was plainly apparent about 1700. In Great
Britain, where the spirit of the Reformed Church found a more
practical expression, and where two opposing and increasingly
irreconcilable forms-viz. Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism
-chiefly prevailed, it was but the historical, and especially the
patristic sides of theology which were chiefly cultivated. Not
till the exigencies of the conflict with Deism were experienced
was the activity of the intellect aroused, and even then no scien-
tific conquest of the adversary was achieved. We must, how-
ever, in the first place, take up again the threads of our history.
The theological leadership was about the year 1600 transferred
from Switzerland to Holland, which, for some time after the Edict
of Nantes, shared it with France, till at length England appeared
in the foreground, and North America also gradually became an
important member in the list of Reformed nations.
The small country of Holland, urged by the emulation of its
different provinces, founded, during the period of its world-wide
prosperity, a series of universities. These foundations were
made at the first in the interest of that Protestant faith, to which
•
IO
Universities of Holland.
In
Holland was indebted for her deliverance from the Spanish yoke,
but after that enlargement of view which resulted from her
splendid worldly position, in the interest also of philology and
the classics. In this latter respect we need only mention the
names of Scaliger, Salmasius, Lipsius, Isaac Vossius, Grävius,
Heinsius, and the Orientalists Erpenius and Schultens.
these was felt the after-influence of the spirit of Erasmus
and Melancthon, an influence beneficial to theology also. Uni-
versities were founded at Leyden in 1575, at Franecker in 1585,
at Gröningen in 1614, at Utrecht in 1634, at Harderwyk in
1648, and these in the seventeenth century attracted the more
aspiring students of all Protestant countries. To these were added
schools in Amsterdam (1631), Deventer, Middelburg, and Breda.
The study of the Scriptures in the original languages was, from
the first, specially cultivated at the Dutch universities under
John Drusius and M. Lydius, and carried on by such men as
Louis de Dieu, and even by Andr. Rivetus, Gisbert Voetius, and
Amama. Subsequently, however, to the Synod of Dort, and the
doctrinal legalism introduced thereby into the Dutch Church,
this peaceful and simpler biblical period was followed by one.
in which a Reformed scholasticism prevailed. Though Sibrand
Lubbertus and Francis Gomarus, the victors at Dort, were
themselves so far from being scholastics that the former accused
his colleague Maccovius on account of his introduction of the
scholastic method, it now set in irresistibly, and the most impor-
tant Reformed scholastics were natives of Holland, c.g. besides
the above named, John Maccovius, Sam. Maresius, Gisbert
Voetius, Hoornbeck, Marck.
We will first enumerate the chief theologians of Holland
according to their respective universities. Of Franecker were
Martin Lydius, † 1601; John Drusius, the famous exegete and
orientalist, formerly of Leyden, † 1616; Maccovius (v. Makow-
sky),¹ professor from 1614 to 1644; Amesius, † 1633,2 and
Amama. Of Utrecht, Gisbert Voetius, 1634-76;3 Hoornbeck,
1 Collegia theologica, Amst. 1623-1631. Loci commun. theolog., Fran. 1626.
2 An opponent of Arminius (De Arminii Scntcntia, 1613; Medulla Theologiæ ;
De conscientia et ejus jure, vel casibus; Puritanismus Anglicanus). He also
advocated the strict idea of the Sabbath-Belarminus enervutus.
3 G. Voetii Selectæ disputationes theol., 5 vols. 1648. Though learned and pious
he favoured the scholastic method, and zealously opposed Cartesianism, Cocce-
janism, and subsequently also the ccclesiolæ in ecclesia of his associate La Badie.
Universities of Holland.
I I
2
one of the ablest of controversialists especially against the
Socinians, 1644 to 1654, subsequently of Leyden,¹ and Melch.
Leydecker, the apologist of the Reformed systems, 1679-1721.2
Of Gröningen: Francis Gomarus, 1618-41 (of Leyden from 1594-
1611), the very strict Supralapsarian and opponent of Arminius;
Sam. Maresius, 1643-75,4 the divine and controversialist, a kind
of "Reformed Calovius," who opposed not only Catholicism and
Socinianism, but also the Coccejans, Cartesians, Amyraud, and La
Badie; John Henry Alting, 1627-44,5 an anti-scholastic historian
and divine, and his son Jacob Alting, a biblical theologian and
Old Testament exegete, 1643-97. Of Leyden: Franc. Junius,
formerly of Heidelberg and Neustadt on the Hardt, † 1602;
Louis de Dieu, 1619-42, the advocate of a strictly grammatical
exegesis by the aid of oriental languages and translations of
Holy Scripture; Andr. Rivetus; Fred. Spanheim (of Geneva till
1642), the opponent of the Amyraldists, † 1646, and his son
Fred. Spanheim the younger, 1670-1701, the prolific and strictly
Calvinistic systematizer and controversialist (previously, from
1655, of Heidelberg); Anton. Hulsius, the acute controversialist;s
the famous scholar Gerh. Joh. Vossius, born 1577, alike dis-
tinguished as a philologist, historian, and chronologer, † 1649,
at Amsterdam, whither he had retired from Leyden in 1633.
He published in 1618 seven books on the Pelagian controversies.9
1 Summa controversiarum religionis cum Infidelibus, Hæreticis, Schismaticis,
i.e. Gentilibus, Judicis, Muhamedanis, Papistis, Anabaptistis, Enthusiastis, et
Libertinis, Socinianis; Remonstrantibus, Lutheranis, Brownistis, Græcis, ed. 2.
Traj. ad Rh., 1658. Also Socinanismus confutatus, 3 vols. 1650-1664.
2
* De veritate fidei Reformata (a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism).
Ultraj, 1694. De economia trium personarum in negotio salutis, &c., 1682.
3
Opp. omnia theologica, Amst. 1664, especially his Disput. theol. contained
therein, pp. 1-372.
4 Syst. theologicum cum annotationis, Gröningen, 1673.
5 Alting, scriptorum theologicorum, 3 vols. Amst. 1644.
6 Fr. Spanheimii exercitationes de Gratia universali (in opposition to Amyraud),
1646.
7 Controversiarum de religione cum dissidentibus hodie christianis, prolixe cum
Judæis, elenchus historico-theologicus. Also his Collegium theologicum of the year
1657, his Decades theologica and his Disputationes.
8 Systema controvers. theol. 1677.
9 Though an opponent of the Remonstrants, he did not satisfy Gomarus. Com-
pare also his Theses theologica et historica de variis doctr. chr. capitibus, 1658
(containing 91 Disp. on locos dogm.). Also his famous work De theologia
gentili et Physiologia christiana sive de origine ac progressu idolatriæ deque naturæ
mirandis, quibus homo adducitur ad Deum, Libri ix. ed. nova, Amst. 1658.
I 2
Universities of Holland.
The Coccejans of Franecker were, besides Coccejus himself,
1636-1650 (of Leyden 1650-69), Van der Wayen; Campeius
Vitringa, the meritorious exegete of Isaiah, † 1722; Hermann
Witsius, † 1708,¹ the elegant philologist, the peacemaker in the
Coccejan controversy; of Leyden, Gürtler, and others. Besides
the Coccejans, we have yet to mention Fred. Ad. Lampe of
Utrecht, born 1682, + 1729, Erpenius, the critic of Leyden,
Alex. Roëll, the speculative theologian, and the Cartesians,
Heidanus, Burmann,² and Wittich. The persecutions of the Re-
formed in France brought a second immigration of French
theologians to Holland, among whom the sceptical P. Bayle and
the orthodox Jurieu were the chief.
3
The Reformed Church of Germany, especially of its western
part, shared in the various theological movements of Holland,
a more active intercourse now taking place between the teachers
and learners of either country. Such intercourse was also shared
by Lutherans, in accordance with the custom, then prevalent.
among young men, of making long theological journeys."
In Germany the Reformed system had for some time deeply
affected but few countries, and the influence of Holland, of
Lasco, and of Erasmus, was scarcely apparent beyond East Fries-
land and the Lower Rhine. An adherence to Melancthon, how-
ever, was on this account only the more deeply rooted. This was
especially the case in his birthplace, the Palatinate, and also in
Hesse, which, since the time of Philip the Magnanimous, had
1
¹ De Economia fæderum Dei cum hominibus, 1693, ed. 4, Herborn, 1712. He
subsequently taught in Utrecht and Leyden.
2 Franc. Burmanni Synopsis Theologice et speciatim Economiæ fœderum Dei ab
initio seculorum usque ad consummat. eorum, Traj. ad Rh. ed. 1, 1671, ed. 2,
1681, vol. i.
Die Econ. d. A. T., vol. ii., N. T., with a Concilium de studio
theolog, as an appendix.
3 Bayle, Dictionnaire critique, appearing from 1694, vol. iii. 1715.
4
Compare the article Jurieu in Herzog's Realencycl. vii. 176, &c., by A.
Schweizer, and Schweizer's Centraldogmen der reformirte Kirche, ii.
He was
professor at Sedan from 1674-81, and resided in Amsterdam after the suppression
of the Academy. His most important works in the controversy with Arnaud
and Nicole, the Jansenists, are-Apologie pour la morale des Réformés, ou défense
de leur doctrine sur la justification, la persévérance des vrais saints et la certitude
de leur salut, 1675, and Le vrai système de l'Eglise et la véritable analyse de la
foi, 1686.
Traité de la nature et de la grace, 1687. Histoire des Dogmes et des
Cultes, 1704.
5 Comp. Tholuck's excellent work, Das akad. Leben im 17 Jahrhunderte, 1853,
i 53, 305-316; ii. 204.
Germany after the Form of Concord.
13
sought to maintain an intermediate position between the Swiss
and the Lutherans. The same adherence existed also in many
districts in which the numerous disciples of Melancthon had
exerted an influence. When then the preparation and com-
pletion of the Form of Agreement in 1850 began to separate
Philippism or Melancthonian doctrine from the Church, those
countries which were most strongly tinged therewith departed
from the Lutheran, and approximated more or less to the
Reformed, Church. Thus the Church of the Palatinate, with its
Heidelberg Catechism and the Reformed arrangements of the
university of Heidelberg, was established as a Reformed Church,
and remained such even after a brief but violent Lutheran reac-
tion (1578-83). In 1568 the Reformed Church of the Lower
Rhine was founded by the synod of Wesel; in 1571, that of
East Friesland by the synod of Emden. This example was fol-
lowed by the county of Meurs in 1580, by Nassau, with Witt-
genstein, Solms, and Wied, in 1586, by Anhalt in 1587, by
Bentheim, Tecklenburg, and Pfalz Zweibrücken, in 1588, by
Hanau in 1596, and Lippe in 1600, not to mention the acces-
sion of many Lutheran princes, especially the Elector Sigismund
(December 1613). Calvinism prevailed also in Dantzie, and
more moderately at Elbing, from 1590 to 1606; it was triumphant
in Bremen, though Albert Hardenburg, the Melancthonian, and
his patron M. von Buren, yielded to Lutheran pressure. In
the Diet the Reformed were relatively still more numerously
represented, by reason of the above-named accessions of so many
personages of princely rank, who were attracted either, after the
example of Philip of Hesse, by their love of peace, and by an
ecclesiastical policy which aimed at union, or by the more prac-
tically intelligible character of the Reformed confessions, or by
the greater refinement, liberality, or skill of Reformed scholars
and statesmen. The persecution of the Philippists furnished
them with many staunch supporters from Saxony, &c., c.g.
Christoph. Pezel, who was zealous for Reformed doctrine in
Nassau-Dillenburg, Caspar Cruciger, the younger, † 1597, at
Cassel, Widebram, Schönfeld, Gregor Franck, Pierius, and others.
Still the members of the Reformed confession were in Germany
too dispersed and too much exposed to vicissitudes, especially
through war and through their Lutheran surrounding, to be able,
in their mostly isolated positions, to carry on a joint, connected,
14
Reformed Universities of Germany.
and independent scientific activity. In the west, where they
were still most numerous, they depended chiefly on the theolo-
gical movements of Holland, and partly also on those of Switzer-
land. In proportion to their numbers indeed they largely in-
creased their establishments for theological education, but their
circle was too narrow to permit them to raise themselves to a
more widespread importance.
The universities of Heidelberg and Marburg occupy the first
rank. These are followed, though at a considerable distance, by
Frankfort on the Oder, which always inclined to Melancthonism,
became, after the accession of Sigismund, a Reformed university,
with at most one Lutheran tutor,-Duisburg, founded by the
great Elector in 1655, and the theological schools of Herborn
and Bremen; while the academical gymnasia of Steinfurt (1590),
Hamm (1650), Lingen (1697), Hanau (1607), are scarcely worth
mentioning.¹
1 We subjoin a concise review of the scholarship of the Reformed Church in
Germany, compiled chiefly from Tholuck's before-named work, ii. 246-314.
(Comp. Heppe, Dogmatik der deutsch. Protest. 1857, i. 180-204; Schweizer,
Centraldogmen, ii. 1856, Div. 2, pp. 246-314.) Of Heidelberg, after its uni-
versity was, in 1557, dedicated to protestant doctrine, were Casp. Olevian and
Z. Ursinus, the author of the Heidelberg Catechism, Zanchius, who, as a predes-
tinarian, gave place to the Lutheran Marbach of Strasburg, 1561. (Compare
H. Zanchii de religione christ. fides Neost. 1585; also Tremellius and Boquin.)
These were all, however, at first, so moderate, that even a Hestius and a Klebitz
were able to co-operate with them. They still endeavoured, on the whole, to
maintain a more moderate type. They were, however, driven from Heidelberg,
partly by the violent Lutheranization of the country by Louis VI., partly by
the introduction of the Form of Concord. They assembled at the Gymnasium
illustre at Neustadt on the Hardt, founded by Louis' brother, John Casimir,
where, strengthened by others, they constituted an important power in theo-
logical controversy. Powerful works against the Form. Conc. especially the Ad-
monitio Neostadiensis and the Defensio of the same, proceeded from the theo-
logians here assembled, during their brief exile from Heidelberg, viz. Franz
Junius, Dan. Tossanus, Zanchius, A.D. 1590, and Ursinus. Among the theolo-
gians of Heidelberg were subsequently numbered Georg Sohn, the systematizer,
1584-1590, David Pareus, the famous advocate of peace, 1584-1622 (Irenicon
sive de unione et synodo evangelicorum concilianda), Dan. Tossanus, 1586-
1602, successor of Grynäus, Hen. Alting, 1612-22, Abr. Scultetus, 1618-22.
The earlier of these, including Sohn, were not as yet willing to embrace Swiss
doctrines, but desired to stop at those of Bucer and the Wittenburg Conc.
of 1536. Ursinus, the Silesian (comp. his Doctrine christ. compend. s. com-
ment. catech. Genev. 1584) and Pareus desired to be Unionists of Melancthon's
type, the latter especially felt nothing impede his efforts after union except the
doctrine of ubiquity. In 1603, however, a controversy on the doctrine of the
Lord's Supper broke out within the faculty; Pareus desired to embrace a Presence
Reformed Universities and Theological Schools. 15
With regard to the Swiss universities and theological schools
of Basle, Bern, Zurich, Geneva, and Lausanne, these have less an
independent history than those of France and the Netherlands,
of Christ with spiritual participation, while the iconoclast Scultetus, (also a
Silesian,) and Pitiscus, insisted on the Zwinglian doctrine of a commemorative
meal, because it was equally absurd to think of a spiritual participation of what
was corporeal, as of a corporeal participation of what was spiritual. This contro-
versy was silenced by the government. Paul Tossanus, a son of Daniel, and
Scultetus, belonged at Dort to the strictest Reformed party. The philologists of
Heidelberg were Sylberg, and Keckermann, the gifted and original Pomeranian,
from Dantzic, 1592-1602, + at Dantzic 1609. He was an Aristotelian and an
opponent of Ramus. He insisted on maintaining philosophy in an independent
position, and on leaving politics, ethics, &c., to philosophy, while Amesius of
Franecker, a Scotchman, would only acknowledge Christian ethics, which he
carried out in a puritanical spirit with reference to the Sabbath, amusements, &c.
After war had disturbed the university for a quarter of a century (1626), nay, had
endeavoured to convert it into a Jesuit establishment, it was restored, in 1652, by
the Elector Charles Louis. Joh. Hen. Hottinger, the elder, the great orientalist
and church historian, invited from Zurich, now taught in it for a period of six
years, 1655-1661, and Fr. Spanheim, the younger (1655-70, when he removed
to Leyden), an acute polemic, an opponent of Coccejus and Cartesius, and an anti-
unionist; both were strictly Reformed. Hottinger, however, as subsequently
Mieg, 1688, and the polished scholar Joh. Louis Fabricius, 1660, was inclined to
to a conservative union. When Spinoza was to be called to the professorial chair,
Fabricius carried the condition that he should not interfere with the existing state
of church teaching, a condition which induced Spinoza to resign.
sense.
In the Philippistic university of Marburg also efforts were made, till towards
the close of the sixteenth century, to maintain a moderate type of doctrine be-
tween that of the Lutherans and the Reformed. This was the aim of the above-
named Sohn, 1574 (Exegesis præcipuorum articulorum Augustanæ conf., 1591 ;
Synopsis corp. doctr. Pl. Melancthonis, 1588), and of Cruciger of Wittenburg ;
and the Conf. Augs. of 1540 was then all but universally received by the Reformed
of Germany. The pious and able methodologist, A. Hyperius, and Lamb. of
Avignon, were indeed of a more Reformed turn of mind, though still in a unionist
Now, however, when the strict Lutheran Ægidius Hunnius of Wurtem-
berg (1574-92) was, in virtue of the joint government of both confessions, ap-
pointed in the same year with Sohn, the two could not agree. The Form. Conc.,
however, brought on the crisis. Upper Hesse was for, Lower Hesse against it.
Sohn was obliged to yield, because at first no room was left for a more moderate
tendency, and Hunnius because of his strict Lutheranism. Since, however, Upper
Hesse was for a long time decidedly Lutheran, and the attempt of Moritz to make
all Hesse Reformed, and that of his successor to abolish Marburg, and permanently
to transfer its students and professors to the Lutheran university of Giessen, both
failed, the end was that Hesse was divided into a Lutheran portion with the
university of Giessen, and a Reformed, with that of Marburg. Moritz's "points
of improvement" having driven B. Mentzer and Winckelmann from Marburg,
these theologians found a reception at Giessen. After the Synod of Dort, to which
Cruciger, Angelokrator, and Goclenius were sent as deputies on the part of Hesse,
the teaching at Marburg became more predestinarian, although the resolutions of
16 Reformed Universities and Theological Schools.
and rather depended, during the seventeenth century, on the
latter, until in the eighteenth the German influence became the
more powerful. They were able however, in virtue of their
this synod were regarded as binding in scarcely any part of Germany. This phase
of doctrine is denoted by the names of Eglin (about 1618), G. Cruciger, and Heine
(1661). The latter, together with Seb. Curtius, conducted the Cassel discussion
with Lutheran theologians. John Crocius, † 1659, however, the most famous
of all the Marburg theologians, though a staunch defender of the Reformed system
against Catholics, Lutherans, and Weigelians, took up a more moderate position.
Sam. Andreä, 1699, favoured, though cautiously, the Coccejan and Cartesian
systems, defending Coccejan tenets against Alting, and Cartesian against Zwinger
of Zurich, but also predestination against Musæus.
A milder type of doctrine prevailed in the university of Frankfort on the Oder,
in spite of Andr. Musculus, the co-operator in the "Torgisches Buch," and the
Form of Concord was not accepted. Heidenreich, A.D. 1617, and Pelargus, who
represented the standpoint of the union which results from the admission that
both confessions equally possess the fundamental and saving truths, ordained both
Lutheran and Reformed clergymen, and created both Lutheran and Reformed
doctors. John Berg, the court chaplain, was also a universalist and antipredes-
tinarian. Its later theologians, however, e.g., Wolfg. Crell, 1618, and Christoph.
Becmann, 1676-1717, were predestinarians, and the first named a supralapsarian.
On the other hand, the notion of union was still entertained by Greg. Franck,
A. D. 1651, who found the difference between the confessions no greater than that
between the Gospel of St. Matthew and those of St. Luke or St. John, and with
a leaning towards Anglicanism, by Sam. Strimelius, 1696-1730, and Holzfuss,
+ 1717.
Of Duisberg, which from the very first was favourable to the Coccejan and
Cartesian systems, the following may be mentioned. Joh. Clanberg, expelled from
Herborn as a Cartesian, and the first professor who lectured on the new philo-
sophy at a German university, 1656-65. He was the author of the Ars Etymologica,
and highly esteemed by Leibnitz as an expounder of Cartesius. Hen. Hulsius,
1684-1723, who went as far as Cartesian rationalism, after the manner of A. Roëll,
and Martin Hundius, 1655-66, a Coccejan. The most noted theologians of this
university were, however, the systematizer Van Diest, 1657-64, and Peter v.
Maestricht, subsequently, 1670-77, of Frankfort, and then called to be the suc-
cessor of Voetius, chiefly famous on account of his work, Theoretico-practica
theologia, Traj. ad Rh., 1699, 4, in which he combines exegetical and dogmatical
with controversial and practical matters, and even gives a sketch of Church history
from the beginning of the world, of morals and asceticism; and finally, in the
eighteenth century, Gerdes, the Church historian, subsequently, 1726-68, of Grö-
ningen. Duisberg was rather a place of transition to the more famous scholars,
and this was still more the case with the academic gymnasia, which must now be
briefly noticed.
The high school of Herborn, founded 1584, rose to greater importance than
either Duisberg or Frankfort. Its chief ornaments were Olevian and Joh. Piscator.
After Zanchi's advocacy of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, Olevian and
Piscator wrote doctrinal compendiums as epitomes or aphorisms of Calvin's Insti-
tut. rel. chr. (Heppe, pp. 184, 185). Olevian also wrote the Expositio symb.
apost., 1576, and De substantia fœderis gratuili, 1585, a prelude to the theology
Reformed Universities and Theological Schools.
17
more practical spirit, to keep themselves at a tolerable distance
from scholastic theology. A stiffer orthodoxy, however, began
to prevail in these universities also towards the middle of the
century, when the innovations of French theology threatened
of the covenant. Piscator, educated at Strasburg and Tubingen, taught at Heidel-
berg in 1574, at Neustadt on the Hardt in 1578, at Herborn from 1584 to 1625.
His government quietly allowed him to bring forward in his public lectures his
denial of the redeeming efficacy of Christ's active obedience. This doctrine was how-
ever rejected by several French synods, and by most Reformed theologians, though
favoured by a few, e.g. Pareus, Scultetus, Alting, Cameron, Blondell, Cappell, La
Placette. Piscator was, in opposition to Wolleb, Pareus, and others, a decided
Ramist. Compare his Aphorismi doctr. Christ. ex Instit. Calvini excerpti, scu
loci comm. theologici, ed. 2, 1592. It was as an exegete and translator of Scrip-
ture that he was chiefly distinguished, as was also Pasor, 1615-26 (subse-
quently of Franecker), author of the first New Testament lexicon, who denied
that there are any Hebraisms in the New Testament, and was the predecessor of
Pfochen in such purism. Among the systematic theologians of Herborn were
Matthias Martinius, the philologist, † 1630, Bremen (Christianæ doctrine summa
capita, Herb. 1603, of which the Methodus ss. theologiæ in iv. libros divisia
forms a second part; Summula s. theologiæ, Bremen, 1610); and especially Joh.
Hen. Alsted, from 1619 onwards, and subsequently of Weissenburg in Siebenbur-
gen (Theologia scholastica exhibens locos comm. theolog. methodo scholastica),
+1638, deputy to Dort, a stiff formalist, and addicted to a refined kind of
Chiliasm. After the devastations of the war he was succeeded by Nethenius,
1669, a strict Voetian and fanatic predestinarian, who could not refrain from ex-
pressing in his lectures, sermons, and prayers, his persuasion of Adam's eternal
damnation. Subsequently to 1676 John Melchior of Solingen distinguished him-
self at Herborn. He was inclined to the Coccejan theology, and to a Chiliasmus
subtilis, was an ardent advocate of practical theology, and specially deserves notice
for his clear recognition of the evangelical principle. He based his theology upon
the experience of faith (sensus), which he intimately combined with conscientia.
This enabled him, as an orthodox teacher, to maintain in his treatises De demon-
stratione veritatis ad conscientiam; Principium credendi rationale orthodoxum,
and De necessitate et sufficientia credendorum, that the power of accrediting itself
to the mind is to be attributed to the contents of the Gospel, in opposition to the
inner light of enthusiasts, but not less so in opposition to the external authority'
of the Church. This is effected not merely by the inward certitude resulting from
the appeased cravings of the man who embraces the Gospel, but by the purification
and strengthening of the conscience by the Holy Ghost, by the increased love of
truth which He bestows, and to which the Gospel approves itself on sure grounds
as something favourable to the conscience, thus producing a free acquiescence,
which is more than mere faith for the sake of the authority of Holy Scripture.
To say this is not indeed to assume a faith in the divine nature of Holy Scripture,
but this he says is not, at first, necessary; for our Church does not place this
faith, but faith in the truths of Holy Scripture in the first place. He also evinces,
in his controversy with Nicole, a deeper insight with respect to the fundamental
articles (comp. Tholuck, d. akad. Leben, ii. 310). In 1690, the eccentric
Horch, who was connected with the separatists, was called to Herborn, but dis-
missed in 1698.
II.
B
K
1
18 Reformed Universities and Theological Schools.
to introduce confusion and separation into the Church.¹ The
course of studies at these Reformed institutions, which were
provided with two, or at most with three, tutors, consisted,
The Bremen gymnasium was the scene of the labours not only of its founder
Chr. Pezel, but of the above-named Math. Martini, 1610; Ludwig Crocius, +
1655, author of the Syntagma s. theologiæ in four books, Brem. 1636, brother of
Joh. Crocius of Marburg; Coccejus, 1629-36; and Conr. Berg, son of the famous
court chaplain, 1629-42. Among later names that of Nicol Gürtler, 1696-99, author
of the Systema theologiæ prophetica is the most famous. He afterwards taught
at Deventer and Franecker. Martini, Isselberg and Crocius were the Bremen
deputies to Dort, and their instructions were of a moderate character. All three,
as also C. Berg, and Herm. Hildebrand, his successor, † 1649, were Universal-
ists, devoted to the Union, and kindred spirits with Calixtus and Coccejus.
They were however opposed by the strict John Combach, 1639-43, who was anta-
gonistic to the then prevailing spirit of Bremen, and the result of the resolutions
of the Synod of Dort, and of the Dutch controversy against Coccejus was, that a
stricter trope of doctrine obtained in Bremen. Flockenius, the Particularist,
who followed in Combach's steps, taught there after 1656. Lodenstein, La Badie,
and Undereyk, afterwards exerted an influence in Bremen, by means of their
hearty and arousing preaching, and this active and earnest tendency, which was
akin to Pietism, found its classical advocate in Lampe, 1709-1720 (Einl. zum
Geheimniss des Gnadenbundes, Brem. 1712; Comment. zum Evang. Johannis,
1723), afterwards of Utrecht till 1727, when he returned to Bremen.
Steinfurt was the scene of the labours of Conrad Vorstius, the independent and
acute systematic of a freer tendency. His views were anti-predestinarian, nay,
approximated to Socinianism, his doctrine of Deity original (comp. my treatise on
the Unchangeableness of God in the Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologic, 1857, pp.
478, &c.), and from 1659-65 of the systematic Heidegger, subsequently of Zurich.
Of Hanau were Joh. Rud. Lavater, Caspar Waser, Gürtler, of Lingen from
1674, Pontanus, and in the eighteenth century, Stosch and Elsner, the exegetes.
In the gymnasium of Zerbst, Mark Fr. Wendelin, whose Compendium Christ.
Theol. lib. iii. 1634, and Christiance theol. systema, 1656, follow the scholastic
method taught from 1611 to 1652.
1 Basle had in the time of the antistes Sulzer, who also fulfilled the functions of
Lutheran superintendent, 1553-85, and Joh. Jas. Grynæus, 1586, &c., maintained
a moderate tendency tinged by Humanism and the influence of Erasmus, and
occupying no exclusive position with regard to a temperate Lutheranism.
It can
boast of those distinguished orientalists, the elder and younger Buxtorff, 1590-
1629 and 1647-1664. The former in his Tiberias, 1620, strictly advocates the
genuineness and inspiration of the Hebrew vowel-points, a work which his son,
Joh. Buxtorff, felt himself obliged, in the honour of his father, zealously to defend
against Cappellus. This gave rise to a controversy, said to be settled in favour of
Buxtorff in the Form. Cons. Helv. The most important systematics of Basle
were Polanus, 1596-1610, a native of Silesia, where Philippism prevailed, and
Wolleb, 1618-1629, author of a widely-circulated manual of divinity and morals,
(Wollebii Compendium Theol. Christ., 1626, a work of classical conciseness,
clearness, and acuteness, which may be compared with the Lutheran Baier). But
most influential in the Church at Basle were the professors, and antistites
Zwinger, 1629-54, who accomplished the introduction of the Confess. Helv. into
Swiss Theological Faculties.
19
as at Lutheran institutions, in attendance upon lectures on
philosophy (especially dialectics and rhetoric) and catecheti-
cal theology, by which was understood a popular system of
divinity. To this was sometimes added a course on methodical
Basle, and Gernler, son-in-law of the former. They were the forerunners of a
strict confessional epoch in Basle, and it was at Gernler's proposition that the
Basle Convention adopted Heidegger's Form. Cons., though favourers of the
French theology, e.g., Joh. and Rud. Wetstein the elder, great uncle of the
critic, 1684, were not wanting even in Basle. Gernler's successor, Peter
Werenfels, 1703, was however inclined to more moderation, and, at the
instance of the Elector, effected an abolition of the obligation to this new symbol.
His son, Sam. Werenfels, 1685-1740, intimately connected with Ostervald of
Neufchatel, and Alph. Turretin of Geneva, already represented an accommodation
between orthodoxy and Pietism in a unionist sense (Hagenbach, Jubelsch. der
Univ. Basel, 1860).
Berne entered less deeply than Basle into theology. The divines and exegetes
Wolfg. Musculus, 1549-63 (Loci comm. s. Theologiæ, 1563), and Bened. Aretius,
1563-1574 (Problematum theologicum, pt. ii. Lausanne, 1578), were followed by
but few names of note. The council neglected the university, and sought to con-
strain the conscience by force. Beside Dan. Wyss, the philosopher, who was pro-
hibited from teaching the Cartesian philosophy, need be named only Rud.
Rodolph, 1675-1718, the moralist. (Comp. Schweizer, die Entwicklung des
Moralsystems der reformirten Kirche. Stud. und Kritik, 1850, and Rodolphi
Catechesis Palatina, 1697.) The Form. Cons. remained binding far into the
eighteenth century. Cartesianism, in a rationalistic form, however, effected an
entrance in Ringier, the disciple of Roell, while Stapfer was a Wolffian.
In Zurich, as elsewhere, a more biblical and exegetical tendency at first pre-
vailed. This is represented by the names of Bibliander, Pellican, Petr. Martyr
(P. Martyr Vermilii, Loci comm. Heidelb. 1580), Gualterus, Lud. Lavater, and
especially H. Bullinger (comp. De scripturæ sanctæ auctoritate, certudine, firmi-
tate, et absoluta perfectione, &c., Heinrychi Bullingeri, lib. vii. Tig. 1538.)
Rud. Hospinian, however, the Church historian, already assumed a more irritable
confessional tone (Concordia discors seu de origine et progressu Formul. Concord.
Bergensis, 1617; De orig. et progr. controversiæ sacramentariæ, 1602-1598, 2
vols.). P. Martyr obtained the adhesion of the Church of Zurich to the stricter
predestinarianism in 1561, on the occasion of the Zurich memorial on Zanchi's
controversy with Marbach of Strasburg, 1561. In the doctrine of the Lord's
Supper, Zurich, in spite of the Consensus Tig., did not decidedly advance to the
tenets of Calvin, but rather stopped at the doctrine of Zwinglius, and rejected the
tenet of the French Synod of Gap: that we are refreshed by the substance of
Christ's body and blood. At Dort, Zurich espoused the stricter side. This was
greatly owing to the worthy and learned John Jas. Breitinger, who, after 1613, was
the actual ruler of the Church of Zurich. He did not, however, refuse friendly
relations with Lutherans, while Caspar Waser, the orientalist, † 1625, and
John Jas. Huldricus, † 1638, had even a greater leaning towards union, the
former because he preferred the simple words of Scripture, the latter because the
unanimity of all concerning all passages of Scripture is unattainable. A stricter
insistance upon orthodoxy was inaugurated by the antistes Irminger and Prof.
Stucki, † 1660, and the Universalism of a Zink was threatened with summary
20
Swiss Theological Faculties.
theology. At first, when the study of Scripture was more culti-
vated, philology, and especially the Hebrew and the Oriental
languages, were sedulously pursued, and dogmatic theology
(the science of the loci) was esteemed subordinate, the different
single loci being often deduced, by way of appendix, from single
exegetical paragraphs. But in the seventeenth century (among
the Reformed after the Synod of Dort, 1618) a great change may
be perceived. For then controversial divinity became the chief
study for two or three years, and the lectures usually embracing
but a single locus, it was very long before the whole system was
got through. Numerous debates and similar exercises kept the
punishment. Joh. Heinr. Hottinger (author of the Hist. ecclesiast. N. T. vol. ix.),
distinguished both as an orientalist and historian, was, subsequently to 1642,
an honour to Zurich (see above, Heidelberg), and, in the main, of a more concilia-
tory disposition. But his successor, J. H. Heidegger, 1667 (till 1661 of Steinfurt,
and afterwards Professor of Ethics at Zurich), was the author of the Form. Cons.
Helv. (also of the Medulla Theol. Christiance, ed. '2, 1713, and of the Hist.
Papatus, published with Guicciardini's Hist. Papatus at Amsterdam, 1684). It
was not from harsh scholastic dogmatism, nor for the sake of excommunicating
others, but to secure the unity of the Church against innovations, that he advo-
cated the full strictness of the symbolical system, nay, exceeded it, by the tenet
concerning the inspiration even of the points and accents of the Old Testa-
ment. He had no objection to regard the vowel points as recent, if only the
antiquity of the identical sense of the present readings were admitted, but thought
it safer to derive the vowel points themselves from Adam, Moses, Ezra, or some
other inspired prophet (Tholuck, d. akad. Leben, ii. 373). Caspar Suicer, 1649-84,
author of the Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 2 vols. fol. 1684, a cyclopedia of informa-
tion, and the result of twenty years' industry, was another distinguished biblical
philologist. Heidegger was succeeded by Joh. Jas. Hottinger, son of the elder
Hottinger. He was zealously devoted to the resolutions of the Synod of Dort and
opposed to Pietism, which, however, penetrated even into the University of
Zurich in the person of Joh. Jas. Ulrich, 1710. The Cartesian philosophy and
the doctrines of Coccejus had but little influence in Switzerland. The latter
were represented only by Chouet of Geneva, 1666-86.
Among the theologians of Lausanne, where Beza once taught, may be men-
tioned Will. Bucanus, 1591 (G. Bucani, Loci Communcs, 1602; Institutiones Theo-
logica, 1605). The college founded at Geneva by Calvin in 1559, in which not
only himself, but also Beza and Danæus the ethicist, 1572-81, had taught (Dan-
eus Lamb. Elhice Christiana, and Isagoge Christiana, 1591), numbered among its
teachers, besides the great philologist Jas. Scaliger, 1572-78, Is. Casaubonus,
1582-96, Diodati, 1609-49, Bened. Turretin, 1612-31, and Theod. Tronchin, 1615-
57, the learned Fred. Spanheim the elder, 1631-41, subsequently of Leyden, and
Fran. Turretin, 1653 (Institutio Theologia clenetica, 1679). They represent the
period of strict symbolical orthodoxy in Geneva. The more liberal theology of
Saumur then made its influence felt, and advanced in some respects towards
rationalism by means of Philip Mestrezat, Alex. Morus, and Louis Tronchin.
Basnage, Bayle and Clericus, studied at Geneva at about this time. An anti-
*
Philosophy, Divinity, Ethics.
2 I
attention alive, and induced much dialectic skill of a formal kind.
While this state of things prevailed Christian ethics were for a
long time unrepresented by any chair, and were either left to
the philosophical faculty, or interwoven into divinity as a kind
of appendage, or found in practical theology as the ethic element
in the Casus conscientia. A lively interest in ethics was however
earlier manifested in the Reformed than in the Lutheran Church,
in which it was not till the times of Calixtus and still more of
Spener that this study was sedulously pursued.' Historical
theology too was, like ethics, left to the philosophical faculty,"
to the professor of history, who was certain to lecture upon it
in conformity with the four kingdoms of Daniel, and from the
Christian standpoint. The history of doctrines was indeed, in
the interest of controversy and of "testimony to correctness of
doctrine," at all times made a subject of study. But this practical
object obscured, and as it were confused, the historical vision.
The Magdeburg centuriators had themselves occupied this position,
yet their connected work, grand as it was of its kind, was in the
main neglected, till Calixtus, besides whom Micraelius, Kortholt
of Kiel, Bebel of Wittenberg and Strasburg, who preceded Pfaff,
and Mosheim, may be mentioned as at least respectable. In the
Reformed Church, these were equalled by Gerh. Vossius, Joh.
Hen. Hottinger of Heidelberg and Zurich, and Gerdes of Duis-
berg and Gröningen, † 1768. The more practical and biblical
feeling of the Swiss and of most of the German Reformed, and
the taste for scholastic disputation which for some time pre-
vailed, especially in Holland, was unfavourable to a tranquil
absorption in historical contemplations. The branch of the
Reformed Church found in France, though here too the contro-
versial interest predominated, did more in this line, as the names
symbolic but pious toleration was introduced by Joh. Alph. Turretin, 1697
(Dilucidationes philosophico-theologico-dogmatico-morales; on the principles of
natural and revealed religion, vols. i. ii., 1711, see Basil, 1748), and Bened.
Pictet (B. Pictet, Morale chrétienne, 1697, Medulla Theologiæ didact. et elenetica,
1711). Comp. besides Tholuck's above-cited work, especially A. Schweizer's Cen-
traldogmen, ii.
1 Tholuck, akad. Leben, i. 85-121 and 231-40. Henke's Calixtus, i. 20, &c.
421, &c.
2 Among Lutheran writers on theological methodology and isagogics are Hy-
perius of Marburg (De recte formando Theolog. studio, 1556, Alsted. 1623), Joh.
Gerhard (Methodus stud. theol.), and Spener, after Dannhauer's Hodosophia.
22 History and Theology at Protestant Universities.
of Daillé, Blondel, Jas. Basnage, &c. prove. The most favour-
able soil for historical theology in the Reformed Church was how-
ever furnished by England and the Anglican Church (see below).
Forbes, a Scotchman, also distinguished himself by his profound
historical investigations, e.g. concerning the meaning of the
Pope's infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. In the eigh-
teenth century, the professorship of ecclesiastical history was
still frequently combined with that of practical theology, to
which actual ministrations were generally united. The exi-
gencies of the Church caused practical theology to be much culti-
vated, especially Homiletics, in which the skilful formation of
several schemes for sermons from one text was made the chief
matter. This was also the case with pastoral theology, to which
still belonged, by reason of the retention of private confession in
the Lutheran Church till the era of Pietism, the treatment of
cases of conscience according to medieval practice. Subse-
quently to Coccejus, Calixtus, and especially Spener, catechizing
became more general. The treatment of practical theology on
scientific principles was still however lacking, and homiletical
and catechetical instruction was as yet encumbered by mechani-
cal technology. The Reformed "prophesyings," ie. colloquies
with the Bible searching portion of the congregation, at first
flourished at Zurich, and in the Lower Rhine. These, which
were the forerunners, in church form, of the Collegia Biblica of
Spener's time, disappeared in the seventeenth century, when
the interest in the study of Scripture grew cold. In the time of
Spener, this study had almost ceased in the Lutheran univer-
sities of Germany.
1
We now turn, after these introductory notices, to the history
of theology in the Reformed Churches. The scholastic method,
with its recurrence to Aristotle, was regarded by many with sus-
picion, as threatening the interests of practical religion. The
desire, however, one might even say the necessity, of making
sure of the possessions already acquired, had an irresistible
influence in the naturalization of a method which was, beyond
any other, adapted to direct the scientific instinct, not so much
to an investigation of contents, as to an elaboration of the
given, to the defence of existing dogmas, as of an unalterable
quantity. For a short period, indeed, a reaction against the
1 Comp. Tholuck, d. akad. Leben, ii. 3, &c.
Reformed Scholasticism.
23
Aristotelian philosophy seemed likely to be successful. Peter
Ramus, formerly professor at the Royal College of Paris, born
1515, attacked Aristotle by means both of attractive lectures
and violent controversy, and promised a new philosophy. Hav-
ing, in 1561, seceded to the Protestant Church, and been conse-
quently deprived of his professorship, he began to obtain great
influence, especially among the Reformed. He was one of the
victims of St. Bartholomew's night. But though numerous
attempts were made to introduce his method, e.g. into Holland,
Geneva, Herborn, and even Helmstedt, it was unable to attain
any lasting influence. The obstacle to this was not only that
widely spread adherence to Aristotle which made such men as
Theodore Beza, Pareus, Ursinus, Keckermann, Gomarus, and
Voetius his opponents, but also, and chiefly, the superficiality by
which he courted popularity, and that repugnance to an investi-
gation of principles which was peculiar to him, such investi-
gation being impossible without those speculative discussions
which he regarded as mere empty subtleties. Thus through the
absence of any other kind of scientific method, and the superi-
ority of Aristotelian formal virtuosoship, his attempt to create a
reaction soon succumbed, and only helped to confirm the supre-
macy of Aristotle in Protestant theology, without respect to
confessions, and to introduce its modern scholastic period.
And yet the form of scholasticism which was to establish for
all ages the original predestinarian aspect of the Reformed
system, and thereby to give it consistency, never attained un-
questioned authority. And this not merely because the Lutheran
Church, during the seventeenth century, more and more decidedly
renounced Predestinarianism, and thus offered an efficient
nucleus for opposition especially to the Reformed in Germany,
but also because the principle of universalism reacted against
that of particularism in the counsel of salvation within the
Reformed Church itself. This was the case in Holland, France,
1 Keckermann (in his Præcognitorum philosophicorum, lib. ii. naturam philoso-
phiæ explicantes et rationum ejus, tum docendæ tum discendæ monstrantes, Hanov.
1618, i. 11, 8) blames him not only for his intricacy, but also because, while
rejecting metaphysics as a barren science, he is incapable of deducing the particular
from a general knowledge of the nature of all things, and is, on the contrary, satis-
fied with superficial definitions and divisions which express nothing decisive.
The rejection, he says, of technical terms does not of itself produce profounder
knowledge. Comp. Tholuck, d. akad. Leben, ii. 3, &c.
24
France.
and England successively, and at last, in the eighteenth century,
in Switzerland also, where by means of Heidegger's Form. Cons.
Helvet. the attempt was made even in 1675 to decide as far
as possible against it. The Confessio Sigismundi, 1613, denies
an absolute decree of individual reprobation (decretum reproba-
tionis), while, even after the Synod of Dort, the Reformed
Hessian and Margraviate theologians for the most part went no
further than to dwell upon unbelief as the cause of reprobation.
In France patristic scholarship for a period prevailed, being
advocated by men so distinguished as David Blondel, 1591-1655
(successor in 1650 to the learned Vossius of Amsterdam),
Daillé, 1594-1670, and others, whose writings were for the most.
part calculated to serve a controversial and apologetic purpose
against Catholicism.1 The influence of Geneva and of Beza
was still for some time dominant at the academy of Sedan,
where the controversialist P. du Moulin (Molinæus) and Will.
Rivet, brother of Andrew of Leyden, taught. In the school of
Saumur, on the contrary, an opposition to absolute predestina-
tion was commenced by Cameron about 1618, and extended and
carried on by his pupils, Moses Amyraud (Amyraldus) and
Paul Testard. This called forth the more antagonism, inasmuch
as the school of Saumur was speedily attaining that high de-
gree of prosperity which lasted till 1660, through men of a more
liberal theology, such as Joshua La Place (Placæus) and Ludovi-
2
1 As e.g. Blondel's investigations concerning the papistic primacy in 1641, and
the episcopate in 1646; his Pseudo-Isidorus, 1628; Daillé's De usu patrum
in decidendis controversiis, 1656, and others. Basnage answered Bossuet's
Histoire des variations des églises Protest. by a History of the Christian Church
in 2 vols. fol. 1699, and a History of the Reformed Church, 2 vols. 1690. Jurien
replied to Maimbourg's attack upon Calvinism, 1683, and Arnaud's upon Re-
formed ethics, 1675. Beausobre's Histoire critique de Manichée et du Mani-
chéisme, Amst., has also the apologetic purpose of proving the Christian con-
tinuity or apostolical succession of Reformed doctrines, in opposition to Roman
Catholicism. We pass over numerous other works by these scholars, dedi-
cated to critical investigations of single articles, such as purgatory, image
worship, adoration of saints, the sacrifice of the mass, &c., and name only Dan.
Chamier's Panstratic catholicæ seu controversiarum de religione adversus Pon-
tificios corpus, 4 vols. Geneva, 1626 (to which a fifth vol. on the Church was
added by Alsted in 1629), and Claude's Défense de la Réformation, 1673, against
Nicole, Arnaud, and others.
2 Amyraud, Traité de la Prédestination, 1643. Amyraud was chosen pastor at
Saumur in the place of Daillé in 1625, and professor of theology in 1631.
Comp. A. Schweizer, art. Amyraud in Herzog's Realencyclopädie, i. 292, &c.,
and his treatise in Baur's Theol. Jahrb. 1852, i. 2.
The Three Chief French Controversies.
25
cus Cappellus.¹ An opposition to the Calvinistic system was
now formed among these kindred spirits, who, in the three leading
controversies of the French Church, attacked the salient points
of this doctrine of predestination, and in a fourth, opposed in an
important respect the scholastic view of the principle of Scrip-
ture. Reformed orthodoxy was indeed less violently opposed
to Amyraldism in France than in Switzerland, where Heidegger
and Herminger of Zurich, Gernler and J. Zwinger of Basle,
and Fran. Turretin of Geneva,³ were numbered among its adver-
saries; and in Holland, where Maccovius, Andr. Rivetus, Fr.
Spanheim of Leyden, and others, equally contended against it.
They even forbade all intercourse with Saumur, but were
unable to carry out a second secession.
4
2
An apologetic interest for the doctrine of predestination im-
pelled Amyraud to endeavour to find room for the universalism
of grace beside the particularism of effective salvation. His
view was, that there was with God a general purpose. of grace
for believers. In conformity with this, it was possible for all to
be saved, if only they believed. This all would have been capable
of doing if sin had not existed. All are however under the
power of sin (in an infralapsarian sense), and therefore not able
of themselves to believe. Hence this general decree still remains
quite ineffective, and is regarded only as ideal. God therefore
supplements this first decree by a second. This is irresistibly
efficacious in spite of sin, but only for the elect. This theory
was called hypothetical universalism, inasmuch as salvation was
made to depend upon a faith which was in the abstract possible.
It is however an unmistakeable inconsistency for the first purpose
decidedly to bring forward the universal love of God, which the
second, without any reason being pointed out, abolishes and
makes merely particular. The dualism thus supposed (i.e. un-
changeableness and mobility) in the Divine decree is, however,
no longer purely Calvinistic; it already reminds of the federal
theology, in such wise indeed, that while in His first decree God
¹ Even at Geneva the theology of Saumur found adherents in Louis Tronchet
and Phil. Mestrezat. The latter was inclined to Arminianism.
2 Comp. A. Schweizer, Centraldogmen, ii. 340, &c.
3 F. Turretini Instit. theologiæ elenetica, Genev. 1679, &c.
4 Fr. Spanhemii Disp. de gratia universali, 1644, and the Exercitationes de
gratia univ., &c. 1646. He also wrote several works against Anabaptism.
#
26
Amyraldism.
promises salvation only to those who believe, by His second He
grants faith and forgiveness only to some. Thus Amyraud's
doctrine is distinguished from Arminianism, against which he
also wrote, by the fact that the latter makes all participate in
that pardoning grace upon which all depend, by bestowing upon
them the means of believing, a point to which Lutheran doctrine.
also tends. The latter however is obliged, on account of its
doctrine of original sin, to inculcate an irresistible general opera-
tion of grace creating the possibility of believing, while, accord-
ing to Arminianism, every one is of himself capable of believing.
The difference between Amyraud's and orthodox doctrine consists
-since no one can really be saved by this universalism-only in
the attempt to preserve the universality¹ of a purpose of grace
so far as God's own nature is concerned, and thus to maintain
that love is the very inmost power in God, lest it should teach
the original existence in Him of a will which denies salvation
together with a will which grants it. But he did not consider
that the inmost nature of God can not be unaffected by this
dualism, if the decree of efficient redemption is only particular.
Amyraud only avoids the reproach cast upon supralapsarianism,
of making God Himself guilty of that sin which He condemns,
by being able to say with Augustine, whose infralapsarianism he
really favours, that the original cause of the denial of saving
grace is not an absence of loving purpose in God, and that the
perdition of any is caused by his own voluntary fall into sin.
Thus while a tendency to universalism was indeed manifested
in Amyraud, he essentially adhered to the old system. Hence
David Blondel, Daillé, and Benj. Basnage, president of the
national synod at Alençon, 1637, men of minds akin to his own,
were able to protect him, at least in France, from condemnation
for heterodoxy.
The Amyraldian controversy was however followed by a
second, relating to the consequences of the Adamic sin, and
occasioned by Joshua La Place. If infralapsarianism said: The
condemnation with which some are visited is no injustice,
because it is owing to that fall of Adam in which we are all
involved, it might be replied: This would certainly be the case
The ethic tendency of Amyraud is shown in his copious treatise on morals:
La Morale chrétienne, 6 vols. 1652, &c., as well as in his endeavour not to
conceive of grace as merely sovereign.
Placeus.
27
if we had been personally present and active in this fall, or if it
could be proved that Divine justice was, for any reason, acting
rightly in treating Adam's posterity as guilty. On the part of
the Calvinists, among whom the view that God should punish
sin by sin met with little opposition, the attempt had been
made to prove that this is the case, by the assertion that the
general corruption of the race was decreed as a punishment for
the fall, or as a judgment, and that this corruption makes them
deserving of condemnation. Orthodoxy, on its part, sought to
establish that direct participation in Adam's guilt which con-
sisted in the transmission to all men of a penal state from the
time of Adam's sin, by regarding Adam as the representative
head of mankind, and also as the man with whom God had
made a covenant in the name of the race, to the consequences of
which the latter was subject. Now Placæus will neither admit
that God inflicts, as a punishment, that sin which is itself worthy
of punishment, nor agree to a direct imputation of Adam's guilt
to his descendants. On the contrary, he insists-and thus ap-
proximates to Lutheran doctrine-that God regards us as sinners,
and as deserving of punishment, on account of that corruption.
which has become our own; and that it is only indirectly, and
because of this our own corruption, that God can impute to us
Adam's sin. There is no decree which so involves us in Adam's
punishment, that we thereby become sinners. The transmission
of Adam's sin to us is not effected by his being physically and
morally our covenant head, it is simply a natural consequence of
Adam's sin, and not a judgment upon his posterity. Thus, as
far as sin and guilt are concerned, Adam only occupies the posi-
tion of the first in a series, becoming indeed the propagating
causality, as are we also to our descendants; but not the judicial
cause of the infliction of sinfulness or condemnation upon us, his
posterity. The Synod of Charenton decided against him in 1645.
Amyraud attempted, though insufficiently, to defend Divine
love with regard to salvation and perdition; but Placæus fell
back more decidedly on the moral character of God in respect of
justice also, and would not suffer sin to be conceived of as
brought about by His agency, even under the form of a judg
ment against it. The same ethic feature also appears in the fact
1 Placæus, De Statu Hominis lapsi ante Gratiam, 1640, and his Disp. de primi
peccati imputatione. Comp. J. Müller, Lehre von der Sünde, ii. p. 453, &c.
28
Claude Pajon.
that he insists upon treating the sin which has become our own
through inheritance, and not the imputed sin and guilt of Adam
as the direct cause of punishment. But as this obviously lays
weight upon the personality of man, in opposition to his con-
nection with his species, at least so far as the decision of his final
destiny is concerned, it already involved a germ of opposition
to the third salient point of the Calvinistic system, which
became in Pajonism the object of the third chief controversy.
This related to the irresistibility of the agency of the Divine
Grace, which was embraced not only by Calvin, but also, in
opposition to semi-Pelagianism and Synergism, by Lutheran
orthodoxy. If it be regarded as certain that not all are partakers
of grace, and if this does not result from a sentence of God upon
the sin of Adam, but from the sin of man himself, it is an
obvious inconsequence to refer the continuance of unbelief and
the perdition of the individual either, with Amyraud, to God's
non-election or, with Placæus, to his own but irresistibly in-
herited sin, which must after all be connected with a Divine
decree. The universal inheritance of sin, which abolished the
power of believing, could only be reconciled if accompanied by
an equally universal and irresistible agency of grace, in virtue
of which the power of believing would be restored to all the
descendants of Adam. But even ancient Lutheran theology had
not ventured upon so wide a departure from the doctrine of par-
ticular election. Still less was such a departure contemplated by
Claude Pajon,¹ who, on the contrary, weakened both the Calvinistic
form of the doctrine of predestination, and the common Protestant
doctrine of original sin, in order to escape the necessity of an
irresistible agency of the Holy Spirit. Experience shows that
all are not converted. If conversion depends upon an irresis-
tible operation of grace, this must, to explain such a fact, be
conceived of as particular, which is to be avoided. The reason
then of the dissimilar results of the Gospel must lie with the
world. In this case the alternatives which offer an explanation
are human freedom and the joint influence of external circum-
stances, either of which may work with determining effect in the
direction, of conversion. Pajon decided for the latter. He
1 His chief work is his Examen du livre qui porte pour titre, Préjugez contre
les Calvinistes (by P. Nicole), 1673. He only orally delivered his heterodox views.
Comp. Al. Schweizer, Centraldogmen der reformirten Kirche, ii. 564, &c., 576,
&c., 600, and his treatise on Pajonism in Baur's theol. Jahrb. 1853.
Pajonism: its Intellectualism.
29
rejects self-redemption, but thinks that original sin has no such
power as to render irresistible grace necessary. Man needs but
to be aroused by enlightenment, which he conceives of as having
a determining effect upon the will, a notion to which his prede-
cessors at Saumur were already inclined. The agency of the Word
is all that is needed. In this, when favoured by external circum-
stances, a logically moral efficacy is inherent, apart from any
agency of the Holy Spirit. The will, he thinks, is entirely
dependent upon knowledge, nothing is required but the know-
ledge of the truth, and this is secured by the Word, without any
direct reference to the Holy Spirit. Such operations of grace as
he admits he transfers to Holy Scripture. The Holy Ghost has
abdicated His agency to the Word. It is evident that an intellec-
tualism was here taking the place of the ethico-religious spirit of
the Reformers, and that God was thus, by a strange intermix-
ture of deism and supernaturalism, put in the background by
His Word being made the substitute for Himself. Pajonism
forms a remarkable parallel to the intellectualistic degeneration-
a degeneration leading even to deism-which Lutheran ortho-
doxy will at its climax exhibit to our view.¹
Far more important than these modifications of the Reformed
material principle was the relaxation which took place in Re-
formed theology, in respect of the self-certitude of Faith, and
which manifested itself in an exaggeration of the formal prin-
ciple. In this the two Buxtorffs of Basle, 1564-1629 and 1599-
1664, played conspicuous parts.2 The elder was the great rab-
binical scholar of his age, the younger was more narrow-minded
and scrupulous. The tendency of both was however to make
everything depend upon the literal inspiration of Holy Scrip-
ture and the incorruptness of the text of the Old Testament. From
their association with rabbis they imbibed so legal a kind of
reverence for the Old Testament, that they considered it essen-
tial to prove that even the vowels of the Old Testament text, as
1 With Pajon agreed Le Cène, Papin, L'Enfant, Alix, Du Vidal. His chief
opponent was Jurieu of Sedan. After the cruel dispersion of the Church by Louis
XIV., 1681, Jurieu and many others resided, as refugees, in Holland. He staunchly
defended Reformed orthodoxy in his Traité de la nature et de la grace, ou du
concours général de la Providence et du concours particulier de la grace efficace,
&c., Utrecht, 1687. So also did Melch. Leydecker, † 1721, in his Veritas
evangelica triumphans, and Fr. Spanheim, Controversiarum Elenchus, 1688, 4to.
Comp. A. Schweizer, id. ii. 573.
* Hagenbach's Jubelschrift der Universität Basel, 1860.
30
The Buxtorffs and Cappellus.
handed down by the Jews, were inspired.¹ They were opposed
by the above-named L. Cappellus.2 The elder Buxtorff insisted
upon the authorship of the sacred writers, in the case of the
vowel points, as the safest view, but the younger gave a more
decidedly doctrinal turn to the matter, by making this necessary
to the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and the Form. Consens.
Eccles. Helvet. (1676) gave symbolical authority to the view, that
the Hebrew codex, according to both its consonants and vowels
or points, or, at all events, according to the signification of the
points, was inspired by God,-a view which immediately found
hearty acceptance in the Lutheran Church also. The younger
Buxtorff held that the punctuation had descended partly from
Moses, partly from Ezra. The dispute grew violent, because
Cappellus urged a revision of the text by a change of vocaliza-
tion, and (after De Dieu's example) by a comparison of trans-
lations, and this seemed to the orthodox to imperil the certainty
of the records of inspiration. How wide a departure from the
standpoint of the Reformation was this notion, which made faith
depend upon such questions, and denied to this extent the lawful-
ness of that very criticism which the Protestant principle so urgent-
ly demanded! Even Roman Catholic science, when contrasted
with such a standpoint, took up a position of candid investiga-
tion, as is manifest by the labours of Rich. Simon during the
same century. It was forgotten that this standpoint again
made Christian faith entirely dependent upon Church tradi-
tion, nay, so far as the Old Testament was concerned, upon the
synagogue.
The Consensus Helv. remained in force for only some fifty
years. About the year 1700, the so-called Triumvirate, Joh.
Alphæus Turretin of Geneva, Werenfels of Basle, and Ostervald
1 Bleek, Einl. ins A. Test. 1860, pp. 126, 732. Hupfeld, krit. Belenchtung
einiger dunkeln und nicht verstandenen Stellen der Alltestamentlichen Textge-
schichte, ii. Vocalisation, Stud. und Kritik, 1830, 3, 4.
2 Lud. Cappelli Arcanum punctuationis revelatum, ed. Thomas Erpenius, Ley-
den, 1624.
3 Buxtorfii Tract. de punctorum vocalium et accentum in libris V. T. hebraicis
origine, antiquitate et auctoritate c. Lud. Cap., Basle, 1648.
4 As by Carpzovius, Pfeiffer, Ernst Val. Löscher; and also by the Reformed in
other countries than Switzerland.
5 Rich. Simon, Histoire critique du Texte du N. T., 1689; Histoire critique
des Versions du N. T., 1690; Hist. critique des principaux Commentaires du
N. T., 1693.
Holland: Reaction against Scholasticism.
31
of Neufchatel, gave to the Swiss Reformed Church another ten-
dency of departure from strict Church doctrine, partly in the direc-
tion of pietism, and partly in that of unionism, while orthodoxy
was beginning to be transformed into biblical supernaturalism.¹
Contemporary with this but too brief period of prosperity for
theology in France by means of the above-named scholars, to
whom may be added, Phil. de Mornay, the apologist, and Cha-
mier,2 were the various forms of reaction which set in in Holland
against the revival of scholasticism. The most important among
these was the Coccejan, which was characterized by simple piety
and an ardent attachment to Scripture. The founder of this
school, which flourished during several decades, was a German
named Cock (Coccejus), born 1602, at Bremen, professor there
in 1629, professor at Franecker from 1636 to 1650, and professor
of divinity at Leyden at the time of his death in 1669. He had
studied at Franecker, where Maccovius advocated strict ortho-
doxy, Amesius the Puritan insisted upon piety of heart and life,
and Amama his friend specially enforced the study of the original
text of Scripture. The two latter obtained great influence over
the piously educated young student, who had grown up amidst
1 The freer views of H. Grotius, Joh. Clericus (Ars critica, 3 vols. Amst. 1696,
and Diss. de optimo genere interpretum s. scripturæ, 1693), and Joh. Jas. Wet-
stein (Libelli ad crisin et interpretationem N. T. ed. Semler, 1766), at first indeed
met for the most part with nothing but opposition. Orthodox theology felt itself
injured, both by the criticism of the canon, and by those principles of interpreta-
tion which released from the authority of symbolical doctrine as the binding
Analogia fidci, and directed attention on the contrary to the meaning which its
first readers must have found in Scripture. On the other hand, J. A. Turretin
(De s. scripturæ interpretanda methodo tract. bipart. 1728) and Werenfels,
(Lectiones hermeneut. in his Opusc.) reject, with the above-named, the analogy
of faith as hermeneutical legalism, and insist that the exegete should transpose
himself into the historical circumstances and surroundings.
2 De veritate relig. Christ. a Ph. Mornico, Plessiaco Domino, 1587; Dan.
Chamier, Panstratiæ catholicæ, sive controverss, adv. Pontificios, lib. iv. 1626.
3 M. Göbel, Gesch. d. christl. Lebens, vol. ii. Tholuck, d. akad. Leben d.
17 Jahr. ii. 222-239. Ebrard in Herzog's Realencyel. ii. 762. On the Coccejan
system, comp. the works of Schweizer (Glaubenslehre d. ev. reform. K. 1844,
&c. Heppe, Dogm. d. deutschen Protestantismus, 1857, i. 142, &c. Gass, Gesch.
d. protest. Dogmatik, Berl. 1857, ii. 253, &c. Diestel, Studien z. Föderaltheologie
Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1856, 2 vols. x. 209. His Opera omnia theolog. exeget.
didactica, polemica, philologica, appeared at Frankfort on the Maine, 1702.
pare especially J. Cocceji Summa doctrina de fædere et testamento Dei and his
Summa Theologiæ ex scripturis repetita, Gen. 1665 (containing also the former
work of 1653 in an appendix).
Com-
13
32 Character of Lutheran and Reformed Divinity.
the Melancthonian leanings of his native Bremen. He early
felt a special attraction to oriental and Old Testament studies,
on which account he also endeavoured to acquire rabbinical
knowledge from a Jew of Hamburg. These studies evidently
influenced his entire labours. His whole theology was a scrip-
tural theology, and in order to divert divinity from empty and
unprofitable questions he desired to regard it as a statement of
the vital relation between God and man. To understand the
position of Coccejus, with whom a new element, proceeding from
the Reformed Church of Germany, powerfully pervaded Reformed
scholasticism, especially that of Holland, and to appreciate his
influence upon the history of theology, it will be necessary to
take a brief survey of the state of Protestant theology and
especially of the system of divinity in his day. Strict accuracy
in the formation of notions and the firm establishment of their
mutual connection were as urgently needed in the offensive and
defensive warfare which the Evangelical Church of those days
was waging for its very existence, as precision in the analysis of
these notions. For it was these which formed, so to speak, the
mental forces among which strict military discipline was to be
preserved, that by firmly maintaining their rank and file they
might leave no weak point to the attacks of the enemy, and be
equally serviceable whether for attack or defence. Such a course
of theology was rendered necessary even by the external history
of Protestantism, unless the connection with the scientific tra-
ditions of the middle ages had pressed onwards to the Aristo-
telian scholastic method, before a new philosophy was generated
by the Protestant mind. Though what has been said applies
equally to both confessions, there is still an unmistakeable
difference between them, even in the period of their mutual
scholasticism. Little independent and productive power was
indeed devoted by either side to the doctrine of the nature of
God, i.e. to theology in its narrower sense. Lutheran divinity,
however, more brought forward the benefits bestowed by Christ
(beneficia Christi, according to Melancthon), and especially justi-
fication as the essence of Scripture teaching. To this it sought
to make all dogma subservient, a purpose which subsequently
resulted in the delineation, with special diligence, if not with a
steady hand, of the succession of the different elements in the
subjective process of salvation. The Reformed view, on the con-
The Divine Decrees.
33
trary, proceeded not, as we have remarked, from the nature of
God, yet from the Divine decree, in which the whole affair is,
as it were, regarded sub specie æternitatis, without the human
side being able to appear as in any sense an independent factor.
Hence, in conformity with the prevailing doctrine of the un-
changeableness of God, to whose nature His decree must be
attributed, no room was left for a classification of history into
great periods or ages, governed by different principles. Even
the Fall forms no special section, and sin is, agreeably with the
Divine decree, a factor acting nearly from the beginning, and
referred by the strictest of the Reformed to God's ordinance,
though in such wise that God does not act evilly (non male facit),
though He may cause evil (malum facit) and insert it—though
under this point of view it is still evil-as a salutary fermenta-
tion in the whole mass. God is ever harmonious with Himself,
since He from eternity as equally ordained Christ as He did sin,
though only indeed for the elect; because it is for the good of
the world that it should be a monument of God's glory-of His
justice in the lost, of His mercy in the elect. This downright
supralapsarian view, chiefly advocated among the Reformed of
French tongue and in Holland, never prevailed over infralap-
sarian opinions. Wherever it was dominant, however, it was
able to carry out a reckless systematic consistency, in which
man appears unselfed, and a system of unyielding Divine thoughts
takes the place of a human history. These Divine thoughts
naturally became Divine appointments, because, according to
the prevailing doctrine of the simplicity of God, His thought
and knowledge cannot be really distinguished from His agency.
Neither did Lutheran scholasticism attain to an actual human
history of salvation, nor to a clear division thereof into periods,
but only to a history of the salvation of the individual soul.
This it so regards as to make, not indeed the Divine decree, but
the revelation of correct doctrine, of Divine truth, the central
point upon which salvation turns. Now, since agreeably to God's
unchangeableness this truth is at all times the same, it holds
that salvation was present to man before Christ, especially in the
Old Testament, as well as subsequently present in the New;
that God's grace never failed to reveal this truth; and that all
generations possessed, in the knowledge of this truth, which was
thus placed within their reach, the principle of regeneration.
II.
C
34
Identification of the Bible by both Confessions.
This was a view which, on the one hand, already urges in a one-
sided manner the subjective process of salvation into intellec-
tualistic paths, while, on the other, it finds its support in the
obscurity, with which even the Reformation age had expressed
itself, concerning the difference and similarity of Old Testament
and Christian times. For clear as is generally the view of Luther
in this respect, and decidedly as the contrast between law and
gospel is insisted on, yet this was not applied,—as is especially
evident in Luther's commentaries on the Old Testament,-to bring
out a settled distinction between the religions of the Old and
New Testaments. Aptly as the Form of Concord brings forward
the fact, that the Gospel is found under the Old Covenant, and
the Law under the New, yet if justice is to be done to the division
into periods hinted at by our Lord Himself (Matt. xi. 11, 12),
the intermingling of the mutual relations of the two ought to
have been expressed in a formula which did not too much
encroach upon the newness of Christianity. It was natural that
the identification of the two testaments should not be regarded
by the Lutheran Church as taking place in the Roman Catholic
fashion of a retrogression of the gospel to the law, but rather in
the form of an anticipative exaltation of the Old Testament to
the level of the New, a form which was however destructive to
the idea of a progressive development. This kind of identifica-
tion was favoured by the hypothesis that the Old Testament
saints did already look to Christ and His redeeming work,
that the whole course of the world's history was comprised in
one single glance before that God who both in His nature and
deeds is always equal to Himself, and that the future being
already present and efficient with Him, the historical merits of
Christ must naturally have a retrospective power. Increased
support was also afforded to this view by the prevailing theory of
inspiration, which regarded God as the exclusive author of Holy
Scripture. For since the duty of interpretation must ever be to
give the full sense of the author, this theology, in the interest of
maintaining the constant self-equality of God and of His thoughts,
gave to exposition an irresistible tendency to discover in the
inspired writings of the Old Testament the truths of the New,
as the alone suitable and exhaustive sense of their composer—a
sense accessible at least to believers.
Thus, in spite of certain attempts in this direction, Lutheran
Coccejus: his Divinity a Biblical Theology.
35
theology also no less failed to attain to a real, vivid and organic
history of human salvation. Reformed theology shared more
largely, if possible, in this identifying view of the Old and New
Testaments. The utmost difference indeed between the two
theologies, in this respect, was that the doctrine of absolute pre-
destination, with its strong emphasis on the omnipotence and
sovereignty of God, gave this identification a still more legal turn.
It is not till this state of things is considered, that we are in a
position to estimate the eminent importance of Coccejus, in spite
of the limits by which he too was restricted.
His opinions were always of the genuine Reformed type: he
also imputed to the Old Testament too much that was essentially
Christian. But he is distinguished from the scholasticism of his
age in that it is his delight to live and move in the element of Scrip-
ture, and that he seeks in his exposition to furnish an explanation
not less philosophically accurate than De Dieu and Drusius had
required. His principle is not that the words—as was so often
said—signify all that is grammatically possible, and that therefore
manifold meanings are to be sought in Holy Scripture,¹ but only
that God, the Author of Holy Scripture, was absolutely conscious of
His whole counsel. He does not however seek to surpass what God
intended, but only the sense which the sacred writers were con-
scious of, and limits the possible meaning by the context, the
integra oratio, insisting that in any case that can alone be
esteemed the genuine sense which is consistent with the evident
meaning of the Word of God. This afforded to his scholarly
acuteness and his rare gift of combination ample space for dis-
covering, in this realm of the Divine Word and deeds, the utmost
variety of reference between each and all, and observing how the
thoughts expressed in different passages chime in, so to speak,
with one another. If then this method, formally regarded, was
favourable to the deduction of a Scripture theology from the
whole Bible, the important and decisive question was: What is
2
1 He says, on the contrary, that the true meaning of vowels and phrases de-
pends upon the whole connection (compages): Id significant verba, quod possunt
significare in integra oratione.
2 Summa theol. lib. vii. c. 6, sec. 51. It is according to the diversity of gifts
that one man perceives in Holy Scripture aspects which escape another. Thus
Scripture is susceptible of a variety of meanings, a fact which is not inconsistent
with the principle of the oneness of the literal and verbal meaning: such multi-
plicity does but embrace the various parts of a higher whole.
36
Idea of the Covenant.
that formative principle, that point in Holy Scripture, towards
which the lines converge from all sides? And this brings us to
the special matter of his biblical theology, which at the same
time occupies in his view the position of divinity.
The all-governing principle is, he thinks, that of the Covenant.
Instead of finding the central seat of salvation in the Divine
counsel alone, and evaporating the history, or at least its saving
significance, his fundamental notion, viz. that of the covenant, is
an historical one, based upon the acts of God, and susceptible of
various aspects during the course of the world's history. Salva-
tion consisting, in his view, not in a summary of Divine decrees
or eternal truths, but in the historical acts of God, the contents
of Scripture, in all their variety, are far more accessible to him;
and though, because he makes the human factor little else than a
mere husk to the representation of the history of salvation, he
also is, as yet, unable to discover with certainty any progressive
development of religion and revelation, still the notion of the
covenant does already decidedly break through the rigid and
inflexible self-equality of the Divine decree. It leads him more-
over, in virtue of his infralapsarian opinions, to the view of such
a relation of God to men as is determined and conditioned by
Him, with reference to the variety of their several needs.
Recent investigations have indeed shown that such men as
Hyperius, Olevianus,' and Raphael Eglin, had, long before the
time of Coccejus, adopted and diligently cultivated the idea of
the covenant. With strict Calvinists, however, it could but
remain a onesided one, and be confined to the relation of God to
man (μovó λevpov); and indeed the relation or act of God must be,
in any case, that upon which all is based. The admission that
there are two parties to a covenant, or even that there is a reci-
procal relation between God and man, could hardly be conceded
when freedom was denied. Even the Fall was not regarded as
having changed or altered the relation of God to man, but merely
as an expression of the unchangeable eternal decree to save
some and not others, through faith and the gift of perseverance.
Eglin, however, had already dealt more seriously with the idea
1 Comp. (C. Olevianus) Expositio symboli apostolici sive articulorum fidei, in
qua Summa gratuiti fœderis æterni inter Deum et fideles breviter et perspicue
tractatur, Francof. 1570. Comp. p. 408, of which an extract is given in K.
Sudhoff's Olevianus and Ursinus, 1857, p. 573, &e.
Its Relation to the Decree.
37
of the covenant, and sought to give it a more universalistic form.
He allows that the fœdus naturale or legale was altered through
the Fall, not indeed in respect of its final end, but of the means
thereto, and represents it as not from the beginning particularistic.
On the contrary, instead of introducing a dualism into the very
The
beginnings of the covenant, he makes it refer to all men.
more exact elaboration, however, of the idea of the covenant
must be referred to Coccejus, since it was he who first combined,
under the point of view furnished by the covenant, all the words
and acts of God related in the sacred history, down to the
slightest detail, and thus sought to satisfy in a biblico-theologi-
cal form the craving for a system. The system of divinity
becomes in his view a history of the relation of God and man.
Not believing Christian consciousness, but Scripture alone (the
formal principle), is the immediate source of his system. It is
to Scripture that the receptive intelligent mind must recur, in
order to understand and reproduce the history in its internal
connection and the mutual relation of its parts. This history
begins to acquire, in his view of it, a progressive character, and
the disturbance or alteration which he allows to have taken
place at one point, viz. the Fall, in the Divine counsel begins to
seek a position in other points of the history also. He, too,
indeed—as has been remarked-is still unable to rise above an
actual identification of the Old and New Testaments, all time
subsequent to the Fall forming in his view, and in the entire
theology of the covenant, one great period, called the covenant
of grace. For the principle upon which is based the view that,
because the future was present to God, it occupied a similar
relation to those Old Testament believers who understood the
words and acts of God according to their God-designed meaning,
was not yet broken through. Thus everything in the Old
Testament becomes typical or prophetic, and the special matter
of the whole Old Testament history is only the New Testament
or Christ. What the history of the Old Testament in its various
epochs, especially the religion of the law, signifies in its own
proper position, and with respect to the progressive development
of religion in general, is not stated. It seems to him impossible
that after the Fall had frustrated the acquirement of salvation by
works, God should have contemplated in His dispensation, and
even in that of the law, anything else than a direct communica-
1
38
System of Coccejus.
1
tion of grace. Hence, to regard the law of the Sabbath, the
ceremonial ordinances, nay, the Decalogue itself, as Divine re-
quirements, as duties to be performed, seems to him a Jewish
misconception of that unchangeable covenant of grace which
succeeded the covenant of works. The sharp contrast in Re-
formed theology between works and grace, law and gospel, may
have co-operated at this point. He so represents this contrast
as to make the chief significance of that covenant of grace, which
was instituted immediately after the Fall, consist in the abolition
of the covenant of works, which was indeed broken by man,
without God having therefore ceased to require the fulfilment of
His law. Thus the purport of the whole sacred history, down
to Christ, is to introduce the legitimate abolition of the covenant
of works, the legitimate deliverance of man from this covenant,
to the requirements of which he was no longer equal, a deliver-
ance consummated by the satisfaction of Christ and the eschato-
logical completion of His work. Hence the obverse of this
gradual abolition of the covenant of works was the gradual
introduction of that fulfilment of the law, in other words, of that
righteousness which, being effected by Christ, is apprehended by
faith. And hence also the preliminary stages of Christianity
were those types and prophecies of Christ which faith perceives.
to be such, and with which God has combined an actual Chris-
tian blessing, having, in virtue of the Trinitarian compact be-
tween the Father and the Son, so far suffered the pledge of the
latter to hold good, even prior to His making satisfaction, as to
allow the Old Testament saints to participate, if not in the com-
plete pardon (apeois), yet in the remission and passing over of
sin (Tápeσis) (Rom. iii. 25; Heb. x. 18). The Old Testament,
including the law, is, he thinks, an actual type of Christian
grace; the sacrifices were a bond given by the Israelites for
the pre-reception of grace. By the death of Christ, which
earned grace, this bond was cancelled.
But even this dawn of a distinction between the blessings
enjoyed under the Old and New Testaments, a distinction which
was in some respects still further carried out by Coccejus, agreed
but ill with the orthodox theology of a Spanheim, a Maresius, a
Hulsius. Besides the attacks made upon his typical and alle-
1 Indagatio natura Sabbathi et quictis novi testamenti, Opera, tom. vii.
2 Comp. Gass, Geschichte d. prot. Dogmatik, p. 286, &c.
2
Its Opponents.
39
gorical mode of exposition, he was reproached with degrading
the Old Testament, and with representing that which could only
be called a difference in the administration of one and the same
Divine counsel suitable to the diverse circumstances of the times,
as though it were a difference in the degrees of salvation and in
the ways of obtaining it. By such a representation, he intro-
duced it was said-an element of change into the unchange-
ableness of the Divine counsel. This must be indeed admitted
also with regard to the fundamental distinction between the
covenant of works and the covenant of grace, a matter in which
he is to be commended when compared with his orthodox
opponents. Such commendations cannot, however, be extended
in every respect. For his system unmistakeably suffers from the
appearance of exhibiting two ways of salvation; one without
Christ, the other through Him, and both equally possible in
themselves, and leading to the same end, and thus undoubtedly
disturbs the unity of the divine idea of the world. Finding, as
he rightly does, the covenant of works, which he regards as
embracing the natural moral law and the primitive condition,
in many respects imperfect, his system would have been in
better proportion, if, departing still more widely from orthodoxy,
he had regarded his two covenants under the point of view of a
gradual revelation and development of religion; and if, after the
example of the Apostle Paul, he had found even in the first
Adam, and in the law of nature, an inward reference to the
second Adam, through whom the law was fulfilled and realized.
The Coccejan school-in which Heidanus, Burmann, Momma
of Hamburg, Van der Weyen, Braun, Gürtler, Campesius Vi-
tringa, Hermann Witsius, Sal. van Til, form an important series,
extending into the eighteenth century-on the one hand, further
carried out the method of Coccejus in contending against its
opponents Hulsius, Voetius, Maresius, Fred. Spanheim, and Peter
van Maestricht, and, on the other, disencumbered it of much
that was the mere play of a luxuriant imagination. Fran. Bur-
mann, especially, stated the essentials of the Coccejan system in
a simple and more finished form. He treats the two dispensa-
tions in such wise, that grace and faith were and are the basis
of both; while the law and its ceremonies were first superadded
by Moses, as a preparative for Christianity. The progress of
the covenant of grace is denoted by the three stages which the
40
The Coccejan School.
Church or the kingdom of God passed through up to Christ;
the stage of the sacred family, the national or theocratic stage,
and that in which the Church is being gathered in from all
nations. In all these stages the Church had its appropriate
revelation and sacraments. Thus the covenant of grace is
divided into three periods, the patriarchal, the legally theocratic,
and the Christian, each having a share in the promise. The legal
stage being recognized chiefly in its historical significance, a
more decided progress in the præ-Christian period subsequent to
the Fall is the result, and Coccejus' distinction between the time
in which Christ was the dispenser (expromissor), and that in
which He was only the hostage (fidejussor) of salvation, receives
thereby a more stable basis. The Gospel, however, still holds
the place of only a subdivision in the fœdus gratiæ. Burmann
at the same time so defines the first covenant, or the stand-
point of nature and works, as to acknowledge the need of revela-
tion, notwithstanding the innate knowledge of God.' He was
also a Cartesian, and sought to combine the supralapsarian
system with the theology of the covenant.
Many Coccejans, e.g. Heidanus, Burmann, Braun, Wittich,
entered into closer relation with the Cartesian system by means
of the first covenant, viz. that of works, which was also called
the covenant of nature. For though it was at first conceived of
as purely supernatural, as a miraculous endowment, with the
knowledge of God and the capability of acting rightly, which
sin subsequently weakened and obscured, yet the proper nature
of man being obviously depicted in the description of his
1 Fr. Burmanni synopsis theologice et speciatim economic foederum Dei. Ab
initio seculorum usque ad consummationem, 1651, 4to. 2 vols. 1681. Momma de
varia conditione et statu Ecclesiæ Dei sub triplici economia patriacharum ac Testa-
menti Veteris ac denique Novi, 1673, 2 vols. Abrah. Heidani corpus theologic
christiance in 15 locos distributum, 2 vols. 1686. Hermann Witsius de economia
fæderum, libri iv. 1677; his Exercitationes sacræ in symbolum quod apostolorum
dicitur, 1681. Miscellanea sacra, 2 pts. 1695. Sal. van Til's Isagoge ad scripta
prophetica, 1704, translated 1699, and Vitringa's Typus doctrinæ propheticæ,
1708; Comment. in libr. proph. Jesajce, 2 pts. fol. 1714, elaborate a pro-
phetical theology, as Gürtler had already done in his Systema theologice pro-
phetica, 1702. Witsius, Van der Weyen, and the three last named, endea
vour to approximate more to orthodoxy, though not in its strictly scholastic
form, while, on the part of orthodoxy, a more conciliatory attitude towards
the federal theology was, after much conflict, assumed. Melch. Leydecker
attempted to develop the three dispensations from the three Persons of the
Trinity.
Cartesianism.
4 I
original state, the view taken of the latter could not but influence
that held concerning the state of sin. For the primitive man
must have preserved an identity with himself even after the
Fall. All this naturally applied more to knowledge than to the
power of acting rightly, and it was at this point that many
Coccejan theologians embraced Cartesian notions. For they
held that not only did that law of conscience which belonged
to the original state remain also in the state of sin, while
Mosaism did but transpose it into the form of positive statutes,
but that a knowledge of God was also innate in the soul as
such, a notion which harmonizes with Descartes idea innata.
According to these, the soul, as the thinking principle (res
cogitans), is created directly by God, and distinguished from
extended substance-from matter, by actual union with God, so
that the corruption propagated from the corporeal organism,
cannot, properly speaking, penetrate into the nature of the soul.
Heidanus indeed endeavours to veil that weakening of the
effects of original sin involved in such a view, partly by referring
to the personal union of the soul with the body, and partly by the
expedient that the view that the soul of Adam was not from
the beginning in real fellowship with God, in respect of know-
ledge and especially of will, leads to Pelagianism, to a develop-
ment purely from man's own resources. But since this fellowship
with God and knowledge of God must also be attributed to man
in his sinful state, unless the nature of man (this res cogitans) is
said to be abolished, natural theology must necessarily occupy a
more important position with respect to revealed theology.
This was held by Van Til, in such wise, that the subordination of
the former to the latter was firmly maintained.¹ Others how-
ever went further. We shall subsequently have to consider
more closely these Cartesian influences upon Reformed theology,
when we treat of their effect upon the formal principle, of the
relation of the lumen naturæ to Holy Scripture. For Cartesian-
ism had but little influence in bringing about any alteration of
reformed dogma in its material aspect.
Of far more importance was the inward undermining of pre-
destinarianism by the Coccejan system. Not only because there
was no position in Coccejan theology for a double original decree
of election and reprobation; the original covenant with the human
1
¹ Theologiæ compendium utriusque tum naturalis, tum revelata, 1704.
C.
42
Union between Cartesianism and Coccejanism.
race being, on the contrary, represented as bearing a character
of universalism; but also, because if so copious a variety in the
forms of the Divine covenant at different periods of the cove-
nant of grace were regarded as consistent with the immutability
of the Divine counsel, the infralapsarian standpoint must conse-
quently be given up. For what else could have been the motive
of such a variety of positions with regard to man on the part of
God, but a regard to his condition and needs at different times?
And if God, in His different dispensations, limits Himself in
such various manners out of regard to man, with what con-
sistency can His self-limitation out of regard to human freedom
be excluded? For the supreme unchangeable sovereignty of
God would be no more imperilled by this, than by such
variety of form in His dispensation of salvation. This was
in fact carried out by Peter Poiret in his "Dispensation of the
Covenants," in which he, in an anti-Augustinian manner, em-
braces universalism even after the Fall, and attributes to the
variety of the Divine covenants the meaning, that Divine grace
has ever indefatigably sought by fresh means to gain and to save
mankind. The Coccejan theology at first only broke through
the absoluteness and unchangeableness of the Divine decree, and
attempted still to embrace a particular election. But if this
unchangeableness and the nature of God no longer stand in the
way of universalism, and if a separate particularistic revelation
of the righteousness and grace of God is in principle disclaimed,
by embracing a covenant of works esteemed universal, it would
be a far more insufferable thought, than in the rigid supralap-
sarian system, that God, without any intrinsic necessity of His
own nature and notwithstanding the elasticity of His dispensa-
tions, should, out of pure arbitrariness, allow only one portion
of the human race to profit by grace, and should, while includ-
ing the other without personal guilt in the pactum of the com-
mon guilt of the race, by reason of the act of its first head, not
also include it in the pactum of a share in the salvation of its
second Head through faith. Samuel Puffendorff¹ makes this
latter application, and shows that a covenant which utterly ex-
cludes the freedom of man, and lays no definite stress upon his
conduct, but makes his final destiny depend solely upon the
1 Samuel Puffendorff, Jus feciale divinum sive de consensu et dissensu Protes
tantium, 1695, p. 243, &c.
Coccejanism and Predestination.
43
inevitable necessity of the decree of election, is an empty notion.
Coccejus and his school did not indeed as yet admit this, though
he no longer embraced a decree of individual reprobation.
Without directly opposing the system of Dort, he touched upon
the chief salient points of the predestinarian question; and upon
the foundation of the greater vitality of sacred history, he
sowed the seeds of opinions which of themselves involved the
disuse of the predestinarian system, and necessarily smoothed
down its austerity. So purifying a progress was a lasting
gain.
Federalism broke the rule of Aristotelian scholasticism, and
placed in its stead-nay, in that of dogmatics-investigation of
the Scriptures, and the study of the Hebrew language. But
though it thus rendered essential service to the knowledge of the
Scriptures as a whole, it diminished, not to say neglected,
the subjective side of the Reformation principle. In fact, the
Coccejan system instituted no deeper research concerning the
ultimate basis of faith in the Scripture than Reformed scholasti-
cism had done. It stopped at an exhibition of the internal con-
nection of the progressive and objective history of salvation, its
harmonious arrangement and concatenation. These are said to
be the guarantee of its internal truth. But if the point of con-
tact between this objective historical world and the subjective
mind, with its need of salvation, is not discovered, there is a
declension from the standpoint of the Reformation to the stage
of a merely historical faith, and the principle of an external
though trustworthy authority, again becomes the ultimate basis
of faith. To this must be added that the absence of syste-
matic accuracy, and distinct definitions concealed the above-
named want of consistency, and that the constant repetition of
the federalistic scheme, naturally led, like scholasticism, to a
lifeless uniformity. Hence its orthodox adversaries, G. Voetius,
Maresius, Spanheim, Hoornbeck, Ant. Hulsius, were right in
opposing the over estimation of the Coccejan method and system.
They brought about a persecution of the Coccejans, who from
1650 to 1670 were in great and increasing estimation. A second
and greater schism seemed to threaten the Dutch Church. It was
not however in vain that the Rhenish Synod exhorted them to
peace, and a reconciliation was brought about. This was the
¹ Comp. Gass, Gesch. der protest. Dogmatik, ii. 319.
1
1
44
Cartesius.
more practicable, inasmuch as the tendencies of the rising gene-
ration opened the way to an accommodation between the Cocce-
jan and Voetian types of doctrine. It even became customary
in Dutch universities to have a Coccejan professor for exegesis
and a Voetian for divinity; to these were soon added a theolo-
gian of the Lampian school for practical theology,¹ an arrange-
ment which lasted till about 1820.2 And finally, the new factor
which, after the Ramistic philosophy had fallen into discredit,
began in Cartesianism to exert an influence, contributed in no
slight degree to the willingness of the Coccejans and the ortho-
dox divines to come to an understanding. This new philosophy
was indeed anti-scholastic, and yet in one aspect favourable to
the orthodox system, inasmuch as it laid great stress upon
accuracy of notions. It was allied to Coccejanism by its efforts
to cast off the fetters of traditionary authority, and to make the
old system more pliable, not however in the way of objective
contemplation, but by a vigorous appropriation of the religious
matter in the way of philosophical reasoning.
So early as the middle of the seventeenth century, Cartesius
had acquired influence in Holland. The free republic had
become the adopted country and auditory for the philosopher
born in the bosom of the Catholic Church. He first acquired a
school at Leyden in Heidanus, then at orthodox Utrecht in his
son-in-Law Fr. Burmann, in Wittich, Braun, Allinga and others.
The stricter Reformed orthodoxy however carried out prohibitory
edicts not only in Holland, but also in Berne, Marburg, and
Herborn. 3 The reason of this was chiefly Cartesius' doctrine of
the necessity of doubt for arriving at the knowledge of truth.
Cartesius insisted upon doubt, not as an end, but as an impulse
to more thorough investigation. This was certainly making
stricter demands on science than scholasticism could acknow-
ledge. Besides, if doubt were unrestricted or indeed regarded
as the ultimate attainment of science, unbelief or even atheism
might be the result. Doubt might moreover be made use of as
1
Lampe, a disciple of Campegius Vitringa, and of a mind akin to Pietism,
flourished in the first quarter of the eighteenth century. He was born at
Detmold.
2 Gübel, Gesch. des christlichen Lebens, ii. 160.
3 It was only at the university of Duisberg, founded by Brandenburg, that
greater freedoin with respect to embracing the Cartesian philosophy was enjoyed.
Clanberg, a Cartesian highly esteemed by Leibnitz, taught there.
Influence of Cartesianism.
45
a substructure for proving that we must turn to external
authority alone for support, a use which was indeed less con-
genial to Protestant than to Catholic theology. Cartesius did
not himself inculcate a doubt of all external authorities for the
He
purpose of recurring to the authority of the Church.
desired, on the contrary, to lead doubt to the knowledge of
reason, by means especially of innate ideas. Hence it is not
surprising that he gave a new impulse to a natural theology in
the Evangelical Church. The doctrine of innate ideas, advancing
as it did beyond the merely formal or "organic" use of the
reason, might be applied as a proof of the superfluousness, or
at least as a criticism, of historical revelation.
To this must be added, that men of this school differed some-
what from each other in doctrine. When, c.g., Wittich, Burmann,
Braun, found the nature of spirit to consist in thought, the
result with respect to Christology was, that since the nature of God
also is said to consist in thought, the union of God and man is
only possible through thought; otherwise their very natures
would remain disunited. Their uniting then takes place so that
the two substances become in action and endurance one com-
pound quantity or Person, and form as it were the higher unity."
Union itself is effected by the Divine and the human substance
mutually revealing their respective thoughts, and together deter-
mining and agreeing to constitute one single whole. Maresius.
and Peter von Maestricht wrote against these notions. The
application of the Cartesian dualism between mental substances
and bodies had a greater effect upon demonology. For if mind
has by its very essence nothing to do with nature, a mutual
influence of one upon the other is impossible. This was capable
of affecting the doctrine of original sin (see above, p. 41), and
was moreover extended, especially by Balthazar Bekker,2 to a
denial of the influence of spirits and demons upon bodies.
Demoniacs he considers, on the contrary, to be merely persons.
affected with a certain form of disease. Holy Scripture, he says,
lays down no revealed doctrine concerning the Devil, but accom-
modates itself to that which previously existed; in fact, it is not
its purpose to teach us what natural things are in themselves, but
Comp. my Geschichte der Christologic, ii, 899-901.
2 Born in West Friesland, 1634, † 1692; comp. his Mundus fascinatus, in 3
vols. translated by Schwager, with notes by Semler, 1781-82.
46
Influence of Cartesianism.
to view them in reference to the glory of God and our salvation.
Other suspicious features of Cartesianism, which form a transition
to Spinozism, had less effect, as e.g. its view of God as being,
properly speaking, the sole substance, because all beside Him is
accidental or transitory, or its recurrence not to final but efficient
causes; or finally, its thesis, leaving scarcely any room for miracles,
that all nature is one vast unalterable machine which God does
but assist, that the world having been once formed by God, is
ever afterwards self-maintained, like an automaton.
Of more importance to theology than all this, was the position
in which an external revelation and all objective authority might
be placed by the Cartesian system. For since, by reason of the
dualism between mind and the corporeal world, that which was
perceptible by the senses could have no influence upon the
mind a notion consistently carried out by Geulinx into occa-
sionalism—all external agency, whether of Holy Scripture, of
the Person of Christ, or of the sacraments is denied, and a direct
agency of the Spirit of God upon the spirit of man can only take
place on the occasion of an external agency upon the senses.
In this aspect occasionalism does but furnish the philosophical
formula of the dualism to which Reformed theologians were in
many respects inclined. And it was in this dualism that Car-
tesianism sought to gain a hold of the Reformed system by
making eternal truths, and even logical and mathematical truths,
dependent upon the sovereignty of God; a notion which, e.g.,
even Burmann,¹ without incurring any reproof on the part of the
orthodox, embraced, and stated in such a form as to say that
God's free will could, without any detriment to His nature, have
caused twice three not to make six.2 If, in this respect, the
influence of Cartesianism resulted, not in a departure from Re-
formed orthodox doctrine, but rather in bestowing upon it philo-
1 Comp. Gass, id. p. 317, &c.
2 Limborch, the Arminian, contradicts him, so far as logical and mathematical
truths are concerned; these he regards as unalterable, while with respect to moral
truths Arminians think with Burmann. This doctrine of the dependence of
eternal truths upon God's free sovereignty, shows how closely even Cartesius,
in spite of his anticatholic theses, still coincides with the medieval concep-
tions of God. We shall not, moreover, err in assuming, in the predestinarian
system also, an after effect of medieval notions of God, when we see it arrive
at the same result as Cartesius, by the stress which it lays upon the freedom
(i.c. the power) of God. On the other hand, the apparently close affinity of
the predestinarian system with Spinoza's determinism is not a real one. For
Influence of Cartesianism.
47
sophical strength, the case was otherwise with respect to the
position of reason to revelation held by many theologians as
the result of the Cartesian system. The consciousness of reason,
which had been aroused in Holland by Cartesianism and Spino-
zism, resisted the notion of submitting to the authority of the
external word, whether of Holy Scripture or the Church. And
the more so, since no definite and rightful position had been
assigned to the reason in theology. Faith was no longer to
theologians of different tendencies, nor even to orthodoxy, as it
had partially been at the Reformation, the Christian form and
determination of the reason itself. Hence they did not regard
it as a duty to conquer by Christian reason and science their non-
Christian degenerations. Reason was left outside the domain of
faith as an alien power either to be nothing or to lay claim to every-
thing. Alexander Roëll already awarded the supremacy to reason.
Reason, he said, is in itself as infallible as God; it is even the
born word of God, with which Holy Scripture must coincide.
The latter is susceptible of various meanings, and its dicta are
incapable of directly producing certainty, while reason includes
in itself a certainty of what is known. Hence it is the part of
reason not only to explain Scripture, but also to prove the truth
of the word of God therein contained.¹ Ludwig Meyer, extend-
ing this still farther, says: Reason is that analogia fidei accord-
ing to which Scripture must be interpreted, even if for this
purpose recourse is had to allegory. Hen. Hulsius of Duisberg,
1684-1723 (son of Anton. Hulsius of Leyden, the opponent of
2
necessity is not dwelt upon by the Reformed system for the purpose of subjecting
God thereto, but solely for that of placing man under the absolute freedom of
God. Hence the Arminian accusation of Spinozism is repelled with a good con-
science by the orthodox.
1 In saying this he certainly demands that care should be taken, lest any alien
element should be mingled with the reason. Hence though he, as well as Car-
tesius, insists upon conceiving of the reason as something more than a mere faculty
of cognition, he yet returns to the view of a latency of the reason in reality, or
to a restriction thereof, a notion which must have rendered the dicta of the em-
pirical reason doubtful. Comp. Scholten, De Leer d. hervomde Kerk in hare
Grondbeginselen, 2 pts. 1850, i. 267, &c.
2 Philosophia scripturæ interpres, 1666; Wolzogen, De scripturarum inter-
prete, 1668. Wolzogen assumes both the divine authorship and truth of Serip-
ture, and the possibility of perceiving these. But he adds that what is obvious
to the reason is truth, and cannot be at variance with Scripture. If a contradic-
tion is apparent in natural things, it is the interpretation of Scripture which must
48
Reaction of the Evangelical Consciousness.
Cartesius), even advances beyond this. He rationalizes the
doctrine of the Divine covenants, and in his Principiis Credendi,
1688, puts the evidence of reason in the place of the testi-
monium Spir. S. as the ultimate ground of faith.¹ Here then
natural reason is absolutely identified with reason, and in virtue
of the doctrine of perfect innate ideas exception is taken to
their obscuration by sin. At most he does but admit that the
consciousness of this treasure of innate ideas requires to be
developed, thus admitting a natural non-knowledge as the be-
ginning. Roëll also denied the imputation of original sin.
Hence it was a misapplication, based upon self-delusion, when
Tucker attempted to prove to the reason the authority of Scrip-
ture by means of reason. Finally Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-
politicus had an extensive influence in the same direction.²
Reformation truth was not, however, without its advocates.
Huber, the jurist, rejected alike the authority of the Church,
and the basing of the truth of Scripture upon reason, because
nothing but the light kindled in the heart by the Holy Spirit
can bring real certainty.3 Joh. Melchioris of Herborn, 1676,
expressed himself still better. The Reformed Church, he says,
did not set faith in the divine origin of Scripture, but faith in its
truths, in the first place, and it is from faith in these that we
advance to faith in the Scriptures in general. For the conscience
easily unites itself to Christ, who is the central point of Scrip-
ture, while the other contents of Scripture are in close connection
with Him. Faith is based upon the sensus conscientia. It is
this which furnishes to faith the basis which it needs for a
rational theology. In the affair of our eternal salvation we must
be determined by the truth contained in the matter itself; the
Holy Ghost creates no new faculty of apperception, but He
be at fault. On the other hand, with respect to the mysteries of the Trinity,
Christology, &c., he can only recur to the authority of Holy Scripture : submis-
sion thereto being facilitated by the demonstration of probability. Thus a mixture
of proofs to the understanding, and faith in authority, took the place of the self-
evidence of truth (or the testimon. Sp. S.).
1 Com. Tholuck, Das akad. Leben, ii. 249.
2 Comp. Tholuck, Das kirchl. Leben d. 17 Jahrh. ii. 31.
3 The faculty of Basle (Joh. Buxtorf, J. J. Wetstein, and Gernler), in their
Syllabus controversiarum, &c., 1662, also say: There is in faith an actus directus
which is the means of the certitudo objectiva; but there is also a radius reflexus
in se ipsum, importans SUBJECTIVAM CERTITUDINEM in ipso credente.
Great Britain.
49
purifies the mind that it may be able to form a right judgment,
in virtue not merely of an instinctive conviction, but of a con-
scious perception of the conscience. He also seeks to distinguish
between this certainty of faith and the inner light of fanatics.
It is truth alone which can give inward satisfaction and repose
(satiatio, acquiescentia); it arouses the true sensibility of the reason,
and then agrees, by its own nature and without argument, with
the conscience, which is predestined for truth and its reception.
The fundamental truth, that salvation is by Christ alone, is suffi-
cient for faith, though more is required for church fellowship.¹
Insular Britain presents an aspect wholly unlike that of the
Reformed continent. Its active intercourse with the Protestant
continental churches was followed, during the seventeenth cen-
tury, by a period of isolation, and occupation with its private
affairs. In the eighteenth, however, it acquired only the more
influence in Germany.
It is common to the whole of this branch of the Evangelical
Church, that it cannot be said to have produced any successive
scientific development of theology. Neither in England, Scot-
land, nor Ireland, was a scholastic theology and a scientifically-
framed orthodoxy able to strike root. On the contrary, after the
common fundamental doctrines of the Reformation had been
received from the continent, and naturalized in the country—
and that not without the differences between Calvin and Melanc-
thon being reproduced in Scotland and England-the develop-
ment here took place in the sphere of the will, in Church
government and organization, in political, social and moral life,
and, especially in England, in worship. The consequence of this
preponderance of the productions of the will over those of the
intellect was, that heterodoxy here easily assumed the form of
schism; and this both because opposites are wont to come into
far more violent collision in the world of practice than in the
world of thought, and also because there was a lack of inclination
to follow out the different tendencies to their principles, and
thereby to arrive at that understanding or accommodation which
might have resulted in a combined historical development.
This practical turn of mind, which rather furnishes material for
Church history than for a history of theology, necessarily suffered
the relation between Church and State to attain to a supreme
1 See above, pp. 16, 17.
II.
D
50
Episcopacy and Presbyterianism.
importance, which was the cause of many disturbances in the
history of the Church. And yet it may be said that the same
active principles which developed themselves in a more theore-
tical manner on the continent, were in operation here also. For
here too the history is, on the whole, the history of the relation
between authority and freedom, which, now combining with, and
now opposing one another, were incessantly striving to attain to
a satisfactory union. Here, however, the different schools of the
continent became different Church parties or sects, and carried
out their differences more in practice than in doctrine. The
chief contrast, which sprung up in the soil of a tolerably uni-
form doctrinal confession, was that of Episcopacy and Presbyteri-
anism; the former established in England under Elizabeth, by
means of Richard Hooker and Archbishop Whitgift, the latter
implanted in Scotland by John Knox and Melville. The first
of these forms of Church government makes the Church as unity
its starting-point, the second starting from the congregation
makes unity result from the ascending organisms. Both asserted
themselves to be doctrinally necessary, and each sought to make
itself supreme. Hence arose, especially after the union of the
Scotch and English crowns (1603), the most violent ecclesiastico-
political conflicts, particularly from 1638 to 1689. These, after
the alternate triumph and defeat of both parties, resulted not in
the mutual purification and interpenetration of these opposites,
but in general enervation, and finally in the sway of Episcopacy
with hierarchical features in England, and of Presbyterianism
with theocratic tendencies in Scotland. The consequence of this
disturbance of the national life in the seventeenth century, when
the minds of men were shaken in their inmost recesses, was
Deism, which lasted, without intermission, till about 1750.
These opposite systems may be historically accounted for, by
the fact that in Scotland it was the people who, in opposition to
the civil power, violently carried out the Reformation, while in
England the state itself supported it, but at the same time kept
it under tutelage, the crown deporting itself, under Henry VIII.
and Elizabeth, as the inheritor of the papal power, and the
bishops becoming its powerful dependant vassals. At first, in
Scotland as well as England, the tendency was towards Lutheran
doctrine. The martyrs Hamilton, Alesius, and other Scotchmen,
studied at Wittenberg. It was not till after 1544 that, through
Conflicting Principles in Anglicanism.
51
the influence of Wishart, close connections with the Swiss were
entered into, while in 1557 John Knox, a faithful Genevese
disciple, instituted, in combination with the nobles, the first
covenant, "to fight to the death for the Lord's cause and against.
idolatry." The first General Assembly, the Confessio Scotica
and the Book of Discipline, all date from the year 1560. The
earlier English Reformers also were either educated in Germany
or by means of Lutheran works. Subsequently, however, Martin
Bucer and Peter Martyr were summoned to England, and through
their influence a moderate form of evangelical doctrine prevailed.
The fundamental importance of the conflict between the two
systems lay in the fact that it was a strife between the purism
of the Reformation and a reverence for ecclesiastical tradition
with respect to worship and Church government. Episcopacy
was desirous of breaking with this as little as possible, and re-
garded the continuity of the Church as consisting chiefly in the
apostolical succession of its bishops. Not venturing to view
ordination as a sacrament, it yet considered the clergy the con-
stant and God-ordained depositaries of all ecclesiastical minis-
tration. Presbyterianism, on the other hand, broke with ecclesi-
astical tradition, for the sake of recurring to Scripture alone, which
it treated, however, in a legal manner, as a codex for a theocracy,
of which the Israelitish nation was said to be the type. Botli
abridged the material principle. The Scotch, by finding in
Scripture a divine law, prescribing the only correct form of Church
government, instead of leaving to the mind of the Church, and its
own perception of what would in each age be most beneficial,
freedom to fashion its government according to existing necessity:
the Anglicans, not only by finding their form of Church govern-
ment prescribed in Scripture, but also by referring the interpre-
tation of the Bible and the right to decide upon the orthodoxy
of doctrines, to the clergy, and especially the bishops, by showing
extreme mistrust of the private judgment of the laity, and
finally, by requiring from clergymen such obedience to their
bishops as is rendered to the secular authority in its department,
or as is based by the Church of Rome upon her doctrine of
ordination. Thus Church government, which both regard as
essential to the true and procreative Church, may become, with
both Presbyterians and Anglicans, a new condition of salvation,
and come into collision with sola fides.
52
Attempts at a Catholicizing Arrangement.
The Anglican Church is in her Thirty-nine Articles—so far
as their doctrinal statements are concerned-purely evangelical,
and an advocate of the common truths of the Reformation in a
mild and moderate form. In the doctrine of the sacraments
she inclines rather to the Reformed, than to the Lutheran type.¹
But with this common evangelical doctrine is combined a
form of worship and church government which follows as closely
as possible that handed down from pre-Reformation times, and
originating in part from a different principle. This discrepancy
has, at different times, acted as an effectual spur to attempts, in
one mode or another, at a more harmonious arrangement. The
Anglican form of worship and government has ever involved the
temptation to a catholicizing and hierarchical tendency; and
three times since the Reformation has the latter endeavoured to
ignore or tamper with the Thirty-nine Articles. First, from
Elizabeth, and Bishops Jewell, Hooker, Whitgift and Bancroft,
down to the Stuarts, James I. and Charles I., in whose time.
Archbishop Laud was the harsh and tyrannical advocate of hier-
archism. Secondly, after the restoration under Bishops Hicks
and Dodwell, born 1641, died 1711. The latter was of opinion.
that the reception of the sacraments makes the soul of man
immortal; that the power of valid baptism, of the right admini-
stration of the sacraments, and of teaching, is restricted to the
episcopally ordained; and that the laying on of the hands of the
bishop communicates the Holy Ghost, irrespective of the spirit-
ual receptivity of the ordained. Also, that those baptized by
ministers not episcopally ordained, i.e. by dissenters, are not Chris-
tians at all. The third attempt of this kind was the Puseyite
or Tractarian movement of the present century.
These Episcopalian attempts to reduce the religious spirit of
Great Britain to uniformity were opposed in England, not to
mention Scotland, by several counter-attempts to give preval-
ence to elements opposed to Episcopacy, and to carry out with
greater strictness the now slumbering Reformation. If on the
one hand tradition and authority preponderated, Protestant
liberty was asserted on the other, nay, the principle of liberty
made the foundation of every form of national life.
1 She refers indeed also to the homilies which advocate the peculiarities of
Anglican Church government, but in her doctrinal theses she coincides, on the
whole, with German confessions, especially with the Conf. Iuertemb.
I
Act of Uniformity: Reaction of.
53
It was during the reign of Elizabeth, when all who rejected
Episcopacy and the Liturgy were threatened by the Act of Uni-
formity with deprivation and imprisonment, that a large number
of English Nonconformists, who found a moral support in Scotch
Presbyterianism, first opposed this act. Till the time of Crom-
well, indeed, it was a question whether the episcopal or presby-
terian form of Church government would predominate. The
intermingling of the political and ecclesiastical elements in both
parties embittered the strife, and complicated the issue. The
reason of this intermingling was that the evangelical principle
of faith not being grasped in its full independence, and con-
sequently failing to attain a sufficiently free development and
productivity, assumed, on the contrary, either a hierarchical or
theocratic form; the authority whether of the Church and tra-
dition, or of the Scriptures, and especially the Old Testament,
being pressed in a legal manner. The question whether certain
ceremonies-matters which for the most part had long been con-
nected with superstition-might be regarded as adiaphora, and
be made binding upon the conscience of the clergy by the secular
power, was brought before the Swiss, especially Bullinger, and
answered by them in a moderate and conciliatory manner (1564-
74), in which however the leaders of the malcontents did not
acquiesce. Persecutions directed against their party determined
them to found a communion of their own, after the model of the
Swiss Church. Conventicles were accordingly formed, which
were soon presbyterially organized (after 1568), and a puri-
tanical separation was opposed to the episcopal system. Its
leader was Thomas Cartwright of Cambridge. It demanded the
full autonomy of the Church, the equality of ministers, the aboli-
tion of a compulsory liturgy, the application of the Mosaic law
even to Christian princes, presbyteries for the congregations, but
no combination of presbyteries into synods, a feature which
already showed the independent tendency of English Presby-
terianism. It regarded the Scriptures as the codex whence the
only lawful form of Church government was to be derived.
Archbishop Whitgift (1583-1604) opposed the notion of estab-
lishing a presbyterian, instead of an episcopal national Church,
and persecuted the Puritans as nonconformists, while his pre-
decessor Grindall had regarded and defended them as a pious
private society within the Church. The Baptists and Brownists
54
The Puritans.
were also treated with extreme harshness. Doctrinally, Whit-
gift advocated the strictest predestinarianism and the partic-
ularism of grace for the sake of extirpating Arminianism. He
was however compelled to withdraw his Nine Lambeth Articles,
and controversial sermons on predestination were forbidden by the
Queen. After 1620 these very Lambeth Articles were adopted
by the Puritans as their confession of faith, while the High
Church party began to favour Arminianism. The demand for a
stricter sanctification of the Sabbath expressed in Bound's Book
on the Sabbath was also inscribed upon the banner of Puri-
tanism, while, on the other side, Bancroft attributed to Episco-
pacy the character of a Divine institution.¹
James I., 1603, King of England, had inspired the English
Puritans with confidence, by recognizing in his Scotch kingdom,
1592 (as James VI.), the claims of Presbyterianism. He soon
however, let fall the mask, and combined with the assertion
that the Episcopal Church, as being catholic and apostolic, was
the true medium between Popery and Puritanism, efforts to
make it supreme, and desires for absolute political power. Ban-
croft, nominated Archbishop of Canterbury, laid upon the Puri-
tans the iron yoke of his Ecclesiastical Constitutions, which
resulted in numerous deprivations. The King hated Puritanism
as a popular power, and thus it happened that on either side
parties were at the same time both ecclesiastical and poli-
tical. The King showing himself favourable even to popery,
and endeavouring to enforce the episcopal system upon the
Scotch Presbyterians, the Brownist, John Robinson of Leyden,
conceived the notion of preserving religious, and through it civil
liberty by emigration to New England. The first band of Pil-
grim Fathers sailed in 1620, and by the year 1635 they had
been followed by above 20,000, who founded a church after the
apostolic model, free from the oppressions of the state and hier-
archy, and maintaining a strict observance of the Sabbath.
Charles I. (1625) being averse to austerity, and seeking to
legalize, so to speak, the desecration of the Sabbath, by the
"Book of Sports" which all clergymen were ordered to read from
their pulpits, the Puritans, who were derided by the frivolous
court and populace, now assumed a more morose and obstinate
1 E. Schöll, art. Puritans in Herzog's Realencycl. and Macaulay's Hist. of
England.
The Revolution. The Covenant of 1638. 55
character. Many of them quarrelled with all ecclesiastical and
political order, and formed those democratic Puritans, who were
the precursors of a second more violent anti-episcopal move-
ment in England.
Charles I. (1625) believing Puritanism to be suppressed,
attacked the political liberties of the country, and gradually
advanced so far as to introduce certain Roman Catholic cere-
monies. Flatterers preached the doctrine of passive obedience,
according to which subjects were bound, under pain of eternal
condemnation, to submit in all things to the will of their rulers.
Archbishop Laud endeavoured, by the most violent means, to
extirpate the Puritans, and the King treated his ancestral country
of Scotland almost like a conquered province. All this brought
the movement to a crisis. The attempt to introduce the Liturgy
into Scotland produced a rebellion, and the Covenant for the
defence of purity of doctrine (1638). While the ecclesiastical
dignitaries were examining in convocation the seventeen canons,
by which the royal supremacy and the Laudian hierarchy were
to be legally recognized as Divine institutions, and the doctrine.
of passive obedience established as the divine right of kings, the
opposition had already become powerful in England also. The
Long Parliament," 1640, was the introduction to the great Eng-
lish revolution. The so-called Committee of Religion was to do
away with the Laudian systems, and to relieve the Puritans;
but the bishops, determining to stand or fall with absolute sove-
reignty, the episcopate was abolished, and the Westminster
Assembly (1st July 1643) devised a form of Church government
for the whole nation.¹ Usher proposed a combination of the
presbyterial with the episcopal system, but the bishops and the
King opposing the scheme, the Scotch insisted upon introducing
their Presbyterianism unaltered into England also. Such inde-
pendence of the State on the part of the Church was not how-
ever desired by Parliament. The parties there represented (dis-
senters being excluded and the bishops having retired) agreed
indeed to an alliance with the Scotch, but the King and the major-
ity of the Upper House were opposed to it. When then the war
against the King broke out, the parliamentary army was power-
fully supported by the Scots. Oliver Cromwell, with his Iron-
CC
1
Comp. Niemeyer, Puritanorum Libri Symbolici, Lips. 1840 (especially the Conf.
Fidei Westmonaster).
56
The Independents and their Triumphs.
sides, however soon raised himself to the head of affairs, and with
him-who till now had espoused the cause of Puritanism, which
was akin to Presbyterianism—a new principle, viz. that of Inde-
pendency, began to make its way and to branch off from Pres-
byterianism.
Cromwell was adverse not merely to prelatic but also to
Presbyterian uniformity. Instead of making one or the other of
the parties which had failed to come to an agreement supreme,
he sought a third standpoint raised above both, suggested to
him both by political and religious motives, and which, though
he was unable to carry it out with Episcopalians and Catholics,
anticipated much which was in subsequent times current. He
required inward piety, but not identity of outward form nor even
of doctrine, and desired to grant full liberty of conscience even
to Anabaptists, &c., and equal political rights to those of differ-
ent religious views. Parliament was obliged to concede full
political privileges to the Independents; though it instituted in
1646 a modified presbyterial system for England. This how-
ever never took root in English soil, but remained a mere castle
in the air, being opposed not only by Episcopalians and Catholics,
but also by the jealousy of Parliament, and especially by Inde-
pendency, which was adverse to every kind of uniformity.
Power now passed into the hands of the army, which formed a
military parliament, consisting for the most part of Independents.
The imprisonment and decapitation of the King, the Protectorate
of Cromwell, and the greatest religious confusion in the midst of
general tumults followed. Externally the spirit of Indepen-
dency prevailed. Catholicism was however still cherished in
secret, and the Episcopal Church had its numerous though
oppressed friends.
In Scotland, the presbyterial system, there
supreme and independent of the State, hated Independency
almost more than Romanism; while in England, the new Par-
liament seized upon the royal supremacy, and so exercised it,
that the Church seemed, after the suppression of Episcopacy,
about to become more than ever dependent upon the State.
Besides, Independency itself was soon the subject of an
internal process of dissolution. The moderates desired that the
Church should be independent of the State, but also that each
separate congregation should be independent of others. They
adhered to the formal principle, but did so, like the Scotch, in a
Internal Dissolution of Independency.
57
legal manner, in respect of Church government, retaining how-
ever the evangelical doctrine of salvation. Their aspirations
after liberty were satisfied with independence of ecclesiastical
tradition, and subjectivity was as yet appeased by the contents
of Scripture, as the material principle required. But among the
more radical spirits there began to appear an alteration of the
material principle, which, under the semblance of more fully
carrying this out, violated, in one way or another, the formal
principle, and misconceived the necessity for the union of sub-
jectivity with the objective and historical contents of Scripture.
To these belonged the Anabaptists, who set up the principle that
different religions must be brought before each individual for
his choice, in order that his decision may be a free one—a maxim
which attributed less importance to truth of matter than to
freedom of decision, i.c. to the use of formal freedom. With
others the predestinarian doctrine of the indefectibility of grace
resulted in Antinomianism. They viewed the doctrine of the
grace of which faith participates in an unethical manner, and
made it the nourishment of a eudæmonistic subjectivity, which,
fleeing from the strictness of objective moral requirements,
cradled itself with dreams of an already attained sanctity. The
widely spread millenarian notions, especially of those who
reckoned themselves among the "saints," added greatly to the
ferment which everywhere prevailed. By the byway of mil-
lenarianism, an intermingling of the ecclesiastical and the
political was-as by the Anabaptists of the Reformation period-
again arrived at. "The fifth monarchy of Daniel, the thousand
years' reign of the saints, was at hand, and they, the Millenarian
Independents, were called to establish this kingdom."1 To these
were added the Levellers. When that great statesman Cromwell
did not enter into these fanatical notions of his former friends,
nay, opposed the opinions of the Independentistic Parliament,
which insisted upon treating merely political questions, such as
alliances, war, peace, &c., solely according to the religious prin-
ciple, and dissolved the discordant assembly, he was regarded by
them as an apostate and Antichrist, and the tide of fanaticism
rose higher and higher. The Levellers demanded unlimited
political equality and religious liberty: a man's own conscience
and the illumination of the Spirit of God were in their eyes the
¹ G. Fox, 1649; Robt. Barclay, 1667; William Penn, 1644-1718.
58
Cromwell's partial Religious Freedom.
sole authority. With some, especially where political motives
preponderated, religious indifferentism was the goal arrived at.
Hence, as subsequently by the Quakers, no essential and neces-
sary position was left for either the external historical revelation
or the means of grace. In the midst of such an elimination of
the formal principle, an inward revelation with which the mind
might more easily and more closely combine than with the
external being still insisted on, the character of faith, now set
free from the historical contents of Scripture, was thus neces-
sarily altered, and the mystic "inner light" of the Holy Spirit
was but too easily transformed into the light of reason, or the
voice of the subjective conscience.
Cromwell himself at last occupied a tolerably isolated position.
Hated by many, but now free from party combinations, he was
only the more diligent in laying the foundations of religious
toleration in England. He constrained none to conformity, but
granted to all who confessed God and Christ, with the exception
of Papists and Prelatists, religious freedom and civil equality.
But the mental anarchy which had set in was not thus to be
restrained. The restoration of Episcopacy and absolutism under
Charles II. and James II., the latter of whom, at first secretly,
afterwards openly a Roman Catholic, attempted to undermine
Protestantism, served, after a short interval of tranquillity, to
increase the excitement and confusion, until the second revolu-
tion resulted in the final overthrow of the Stuarts, and also put
an end to the struggle for either a Presbyterian or Episcopal
uniformity of Church government or worship.
The result of these violent convulsions was, that on the whole
Presbyterianism predominated in Scotland, and Episcopacy in
England. Besides these, the firmer formations of the English
Baptists and Independents (or Congregationalists) settled down
as the more peaceful deposit of the various parties. To these
must be added the Quakers, who, by an appeal to the inward
leading of the still small voice of the Holy Spirit alone, carried
to the last extreme the opposition to the clerical office, to
external authority in religious matters, and to ceremonies.
Their starting-point was opposition to the onesidedness, result-
ing in formalism and a mechanical legality, with which the
Scotch and English Churches took their positions upon a formal
principle of authority alone; the former upon that of the Bible,
Division of Parties. Quakerism.
59
the latter upon that of the Church. To this was added the
desire to flee from the storms of external life and from the
national disasters to the peace of rest in God, and in this way to
obtain an inward independence. But in an equally onesided
and mystical manner did they themselves insist upon those
elements of the material principle-inward experience and the
assurance of faith. The reaction of the material principle which
was exhibited in their case was insufficient, because they sought
by pure inwardness to separate themselves from all external
objectiveness, a proceeding accompanied by distortions of Chris-
tology, and of the doctrines of justification and the atonement.
This alteration of the matter, by combination wherewith faith
receives its evangelical form, involved a change in the nature of
faith itself. Quakerism left no firm position to the word and
sacraments, those means of grace upon which faith must lay
hold, to say nothing of a rule of doctrine and an ecclesiastical
organization. The inner light to which it trusted was by no
means conceived of in a rationalistic sense, but regarded as an
objective emanation from the glorified and light-imparting
Saviour (in the souls both of Christians and non-Christians).
But their aversion to all that was objectively historical, could not
but have a Docetic effect upon their Christology. Christ is to them
the eternal light, endowed with a body of light, and enlighten-
ing all men without the external word. His birth of the Virgin
is not denied, but is made a theophany without real importance.
The mystical union with the eternal Christ, by which the latent
light of the soul is aroused, and the image of Christ impressed
upon it, takes the place of justification. According to Barclay,¹
it is possible for the regenerate man to be sinless.
But a further result of the conflicts and disorders in the
regions of politics, morals and religion, was the appearance of
Deism after the second half of the seventeenth century, and its
1 Robert Barclay died 1690. Theologiæ vere Christianæ Apologia, 1676, and
the Catechismus et Fidei Confessio, composed by him, 1673 and 1676. Comp.
also the recent works of Joseph Gurney, and Thos. Clarkson's Portraiture of
Quakerism, 3 parts, London, 1806. The party of Hicks has, during the pre-
sent century, carried out in America the spiritualistic and rationalistic conse·
quences. The result however has been, that the Quakers, those reformed
Schwenckfeldians, have drawn nearer to the Scriptures. See Schneckenburger's
Vorlesungen über die Lehrbegriffe der kleineren prot. Kirchenparteien, 1863, pp.
69-102.
60
Science in the Seventeenth Century.
unchecked and triumphant progress till about 1750. By its
means England exercised extensive influence upon the churches
of the Continent, and especially of Germany, until the reaction
of practical Christianity in Methodism, and its consequences
-the formation on the one hand of the Evangelical or Low
Church party, and on the other the victorious reaction against
the moderates in Scotland, changed the scene. Before, how-
ever, entering upon this subject, we must first take a glance
at the state of theology in Great Britain in the seventeenth
century.
During the sixteenth, and especially the seventeenth century,
England can certainly boast of many names of note among
her theologians, especially in the departments of exegesis,
patristic literature, and the history of doctrines. Among these
are J. Pearson, 1612-1686;¹ George Bull, 1634-1710;2 Arch-
bishop Usher, the famous chronologer, 1581-1656; Jos. Bing-
ham, the great archæologist, 1688-1723;3 J. Selden, 1584-
1654; Beveridge, 1636-1708; the learned patrologist Cave,
1637-1713; and the Anglicanized German, Grabe, 1666-1712;
Jewell, the apologist of Episcopacy and the English Church,
¹ Exposition of the Creed, 1659. This work, which is held in high estimation
in England, endeavours to rear up systematic theology upon the simple founda-
tions of the cecumenical creeds. It develops from Christianity those general
principles of religion by which atheism is to be refuted. His Lectiones de Deo
et Attributis Ejus rather adhere to the method of Thos. Aquinas, and he has
hence been called the father of a scholasticism. Comp. the article Pearson in
Herzog's Realencyclop. He endeavours, however, to assert the biblical and his-
torically critical character of theology, and insists upon the necessity of a settled
text of the New Testament. See the great exegetical work Critici Sacri, 9 vols.,
which he edited in conjunction with others. Among his numerous patristic
labours may be mentioned his Vindicia Epistolarum Sancti Ignatii, 1672, against
Daillé. He unites with Petavius in favour of the seven Epistles edited by
Vossius, 1646. In this question he was especially interested for the antiquity of
Episcopacy, the rise of which he also traces in other works, in which he gives the
evidence for the apostolical succession in the Anglican Church. Comp. Dodwell's
edition of his Opera posthuma, 1688, and Churton, The Minor Works of John
Pearson, 1844, 2 vols.
2 Defensio Fidei Niccence in his Opp. ed. E. Grabe, 1703. In his Harmonia
Apostolica, he seeks to prove the identity of ante-Nicene with Nicene doctrine,
and with that of the Apostles Paul and James.
3 Origines Ecclesiasticæ, or the Antiquities of the Christian Church, 8 vols.,
1708-22, carried down to Gregory the Great. He maintains that the Apostles
instituted episcopacy. Bingham, Pearson, and Bull were highly esteemed in the
Romish Church also, as well as in Germany.
History and Theology of Great Britain.
6I
1522-1571; Richard Hooker,¹ 1554-1600; Potter,2 1674-1747.
Among the Scotch, the most important Church historian was J.
Forbes, 1593-1648, who proved,³ with much scholarship, that
the different popes contradicted one another, and showed the
uncertainty of Romish doctrine, if its authority is to be estimated
according to its own claims-e.g. its demand that the sentence of
the Pope è cathedra should be decisive. With regard to exegesis
the London Polyglot of Brian Walton (undertaken by him in
conjunction with many fellow-labourers, and completed 1657)
was an eminently meritorious work. With respect more parti-
ticularly to the Old Testament, may be mentioned Edw.
Pococke, died 1691, the Arabic scholar, one of the co-operators
in the Polyglot, and an interpreter of the minor prophets;
Edw. Castell, the lexicologist of the Polyglot; Th. Hyde, S.
Clarke; Lightfoot, the great Talmudist, 1602-1675; Outram,
† 1689;4 J. Spencer, † 1695,5 who embraced the notion that
the motive of certain portions of the Mosaic law was that
they might furnish a defence against heathenism, while he con-
sidered that in other portions many heathen elements had been
incorporated from a spirit of accommodation, a view opposed by
H. Witsius and others. To still more recent times belongs
Lowth, Bishop of London, a man of refined poetical taste, died
1787. Among New Testament exegetes are: W. Whitaker,
1547-1595; Hammond, 1605-1660,8 a zealous admirer of Hugo
Grotius; and D. Whitby, 1638-1726.9 The first famous critic.
of the New Testament in England was J. Mill, 1645-1707.10
Systematic Theology and especially Divinity were less cultivated,
7
1 Author of the Ecclesiastical Polity.
2 Author of Church Government in the Apostolic Age. Episcopacy is uniformly
regarded as of apostolic ordinance.
3 In the 2d vol. of his Works, 1708.
4 De Sacrificiis, lib. ii.
5 De Legibus Hebræorum Ritualibus eorumque Rationibus, lib. iii. 1685.
6 De Sacra Poësi Hebræorum, 1753. Translations of Isaiah, 1778-79.
7 Works, ii. fol., Genev. 1610. He is an esteemed defender of the authority of
Holy Scripture.
A Paraphrase of, and Annotations upon, the New Testament, 1675. Psalms
and Proverbs, 1684.
9 Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols. fol., 1718, ed. 4.
At first an Arminian, he subsequently embraced Arian tenets. Comp. his
Disquisitiones Modestie in Bulli Defension. Fidei Nicænæ.
10 Novum Testamentum Græcum cum Lectionibus Variantibus (from MSS.),
Oxford, 1707.
62
Systematic Theologians of Great Britain.
except by the Puritans, Independents, and Dissenters in general,
among whom the Calvinistic John Owen, 1610-1683, takes the
first rank, and John Howe, 1630-1705, together with Goodwin,
1600-1679, are highly esteemed.¹ To these may be added Arch-
bishop Leighton of the Anglican Church of Scotland.2 Divinity
was chiefly treated on by Anglicans, as e.g. by Pearson and
Beveridge, under the form of expositions of the Apostles' Creed,
the Athanasian Creed, the Church Catechism, and the Thirty-
nine Articles. Treatises on separate doctrines, especially Baptism,
the Lord's Supper, the Church, Holy Scripture, are not infrequent;
nor in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are discussions
on the Trinity, the Incarnation and work of Christ, and, after the
pattern of the Reformation age, on Justification. It was not till
after the Deistic period that the doctrines of the Divine govern-
ment and the Trinity were much discussed. Among Anglican theo-
logians of a freer doctrinal tendency, during the seventeenth cen-
tury, were Chillingworth, 1602-1699; Stillingfleet, 1635-1699;5
1 John Owen's Works, by W. Goold, D.D., ed. in 24 vols. Edinb. 1854. Through
fear of disturbing the received text by a critical use of translations, he declared
himself opposed to the preface and appendix of Walton's Polyglot, and maintained
the genuineness and purity of the Hebrew and Greek text of Scripture against
Walton, who successfully defended his cause. He also advocated the original
authority, the self-evidencing light and power of Scripture against "the fana-
tics," attacked "the idol of free will," and defended the indefectibility of grace
against the Arminians. Sherlock maintained the doctrines of the Trinity, the
Incarnation, Satisfaction, and Justification, and especially the doctrine of the
Holy Ghost and His work against the Socinians. John Howe, Whole Works, 8
vols., ed. John Hunt, 1822; see especially vol. i., The Living Temple.
2 Leighton, Theol. Lectures, translated under the title of Prælectiones Theolo-
gicæ.
Works, 1830, vol. iv.
3 Sam. Parker, De Deo. The doctrine of the Trinity was treated on by Water-
land, 1683-1740; the dissenter Isaac Watts, 1674-1748; and Edw. Stillingfleet
(see below); the doctrine of the Atonement by the last named, Goodwin the
Independent (Discourse on Christ the Mediator, Opp., vol. iii. 1692), and
Thomas Taylor the Puritan, 1576-1632; Christology by Isaac Watts (The
Glory of Christ as God-Man), 1728, and Owen (see above); the Sacraments by
Hopkins, 1633-1690; Justification by Richard Hooker, Forbes, Gataker, 1574-
1654, Owen and Howe; the Church by almost every learned bishop; Eschatology
by Thom. Burnet, a millenarian, 1635-1715, author of Telluris Theoria Sacra, in
4 vols., 1681 and 1689; De Statu Mortuorum et Resurgentium Tractatus cum
app. de Futura Judæorum-Restaur., ed. nov. 1723; De Fide et Officiis Christ., ed.
nov. 1729.
4 The Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation, 1638.
5 Works, 6 vols. fol. Lond. 1710. Specially worthy of notice is his Rational
Account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion, ed. 2, 1681; Origines Sacræ,
or Rational Account of the Grounds of Natural and Revealed Religion, 1701.
Character of English Theology.
63
Edw. Fowler, 1632-1714;¹ and Bishops Tillotson and Burnet,
1643-1715, famed for their pulpit eloquence, the latter also a
Church historian. Rich. Baxter, † 1691, and John Bunyan,
† 1688, were chiefly concerned for the revival of practical god-
liness.
The character of English theology, during its most flourishing
period, is, however, pre-eminently historical and comparatively
indifferent to scientific accuracy. As a scholastic age, properly
so called, cannot be here, as elsewhere, spoken of, so neither do
we find productivity even in freer forms. The English mind of
the seventeenth century had not yet sufficiently mastered the
Reformation principle, to possess therein sufficient power and
impulse for an independent reproduction of dogma, and especially
of the doctrine of salvation. Anthropology and soteriology were
still discussed with far less interest than the doctrine of the
Trinity, which was defended on the authority of tradition, and
without attempts at its further cultivation.3 In the seventeenth
century far more importance was attached, in the Anglican
Church, to submission to Church order than to doctrinal ortho-
doxy. This was especially the case with the Romanizing Arch-
bishop Laud, who endeavoured to transfer the authority of the
Church of Rome to the Church of England and to restrict its
reformation. At the same time he declared peaceable dissent in
certain non-fundamental articles allowable, while Potter required
only the substance of the Christian religion for the existence of
the Church, nay, called the apostolic symbol a sufficient catalogue
of fundamental articles. It was the dogma of predestination
which gave the greatest offence to English theologians, although
among the earlier there were many non-presbyterians of Cal-
vinistic opinions. The resolutions of Dort were not sanctioned,
1 The Principles and Practices of certain Moderate Divines of the Church of
England, abusively called Latitudinarians, truly Represented and Defended
(anonym.), ed. 2, 1671. The Design of Christianity, 1676 (that it is, "“inward
real righteousness"); Libertas Evangelica, 1680.
2 There was always among Anglicans, though not among Puritans, an inclina-
tion to Arminian opinions, the zealous advocacy of free grace or of assurance of
salvation being rather regarded as antinomian or enthusiastic. So Gataker with
respect to J. Eaton, Tobias Crisp, and John Saltmark. Comp. Hoornbeck, Summa
Controversiarum Relig. 1658, p. 812.
3 G. Bull and others return to a subordination of the Son, together with his
Homoousion.
* Comp. Tholuck, das kirchl. Leben, ii. 22-24.
64
Latitudinarianism.
nay, in 1620, the preaching of predestinarian doctrine was pro-
hibited, a fact which served to favour Arminianism. Strict Cal-
vinism was, in the seventeenth century, advocated by scarcely
any except Presbyterians, and especially Puritans, whose break-
ing up into numberless sects we have described above. A
middle position between the Episcopalians and the fanatic Puri-
tans was taken up by the so-called Latitudinarian party, now
beginning to appear, of which Archbishop Abbot († 1633) may
be regarded as the first representative. This tendency was both
politically and ecclesiastically liberal, and inclined to a union
with the Presbyterians, nay, with the Greek Church under
Cyrillus Lukaris. If some of this way of thinking still adhered
to the Thirty-nine Articles, others already went farther, as c.g.
John Hales of Eton (born 1584, died 1656), who accompanied D.
Carlton, the English deputy, to Dort. He there inclined towards
Episcopius, and was alienated from Calvinism. Chillingworth,
who was of a kindred spirit, also embraced Arminian opinions.
In this view love is the main point. Soul-destroying error need
not be feared where this is found, and other errors do not justify
intolerance or schism. They desire to leave even those articles
which are required as fundamental, in that breadth and generality
in which Holy Scripture states them. It was no marvel that
this anti-dogmatic tendency, which laid the chief stress upon
the practical, in other words, upon the moral element, should
have increasingly evaporated all that was specifically Christian.
Already there were not wanting those who rejected every other
evidence of Christian truth than that furnished by its reason-
ableness, because the appeal to the inward testimony of the
Holy Ghost involved the circle, that this witness to the truth of
Scripture is only known to us from Scripture, while the historical
proof furnished by miracles was (according to Grotius) wanting
in validity, even Scripture itself admitting that there are such
things as lying miracles.¹
This latitudinarian tendency obtained, moreover, fresh acces-
sions by means of the philosophical systems which, in the course
of the seventeenth century, appeared in England in its turn.
1 So Bishop Fowler, in his work (mentioned p. 63), The Principles and Prac-
tices of certain Moderate Divines, &c. Comp. Tholuck, Das kirchl. Leben, ii. p.
23. To these belongs also Hammond, Opp. vol. i., The Reasonableness of the
Christian Religion; of Fundamentals, of Schism, &c.
Latitudinarianism.
65
These were divided into two main branches, one of a more ideal-
istic kind, at the head of which was Ralph Cudworth; the other
realistic and empiric, whose leaders were Lord Bacon and John
Locke. The relation of both to the Church type of doctrine was
a free one. The Cambridge school of Cudworth still manifested
a reverent spirit, while Locke, on the contrary, retreated to the
one proposition, "Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah," (see below,)
and Arthur Bury¹ regarded repentance and faith as alone essen-
tial, and the gospel as intended to render legible the eternal law
of nature, written in the heart.2
At this point, however, we are already brought in contact with
Deism.
1 The Naked Gospel Discovered, 1690, and the Vindicia Libertatis in Fide
Christiana Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ et Arthuri Bury contra calumnias et ineptias Petri
Juricu Theologiæ et Malignitatis Professoris, an appendix to the work Latitudin-
arius Orthodoxus, London, 1697.
2 Tholuck, id. p. 24.
II.
E
Bacon.
SECTION II.
THE DEISTIC ERA.¹
I
CHAPTER I.
SUBJECTIVITY AWAKENING IN BRITAIN.
was not till the philosophic movement, caused by the over-
throw of the Aristotelian philosophy by Francis Bacon
(1561-1626), had removed obstructions from its course, that the
flow of theological science in England became more rapid, while
even then its current was, for want of a settled method, more
intermittent than in Germany.
The great chancellor bestowed both speech and consciousness
upon the genius of the English nation by those works which, on
the one hand, vindicated the claims of ordinary experience, espe-
cially with respect to natural phenomena and politics, and on the
other gave it an impulse whose after effects were far-reaching
and not wholly salutary.2 England under Elizabeth had taken
her place among the great powers of Europe, her patriotism was
fully aroused, while her views were at the same time enlarged
by her commerce and colonies. All this, together with numerous
inventions, continual discoveries in the heavens, in the seas, on
the earth, the great advances made in mathematics, mechanics, and
physics, promoted as they were by the labours also of Cartesius
and Spinoza, developed more and more the realistic feature of the
national mind, and threatened traditionary beliefs with serious
collisions, wherever they came in contact with modern notions.
Bacon gave to this tendency both scientific method and a good
conscience; the former by directing to common experience as
the only possible means of advancing science, the latter by
1 J. Leland, View of the Principal Deistic Writers, 1754. Thorschmid, Fersuch
einer vollst. engelländ. Freidenker-Bibliothek, 1765-67, and especially G. B.
Lechler's excellent work, Gesch. des engl. Deismus, 1841, and Pattison's essay in
the Oxford Essays and Reviews.
2 Best edition of Francis Bacon's works, by Basil Montagu, 16 vols. 1825-34.
Especially with regard to our subject the last book of De Dignitate et Augmentis
Scientiarum, lib. ix. 1605; Novum Organum, 1620.
Bacon.
67
keeping on tolerably good terms with the world of faith. He is
willing to leave to theology its independent province, but he does
this for reasons which show that he takes too low a view of the
problems of philosophy, which he limits chiefly to natural science,¹
and that he sees in theology nothing more than the revealed and
moreover arbitrary law of God. To his mind a knowledge of
nature is, next to the Word of God, the best nourishment of
faith. Nature reveals the power of God, Scripture His will.
The Word of God, and not the human nature, is the sole source
of theology. It is our duty to believe God's Word, even where
it is opposed to our reason; for we owe to God self-renunciation
with respect to our reason, as well as obedience with respect to
our will. To say this is to assume, in unprejudiced faith, that
the Scriptures are the Word of God. This principle may furnish
a hint as to the reason why he ascribes a far greater dignity to
faith than to our present knowledge, viz., that in knowledge the
mind is affected by the impressions of the senses, in faith the
mind is affected by mind, by a worthier agent.2 He here seems
to fall back upon a sense of the Divine nature of Holy Scripture,
as he indeed expresses it, when he says, that it is written upon
the heart by God. Yet little weight can be laid upon this, since,
on the other hand, he again returns to the maxim, that the prin-
ciples of religion being of a positive kind, and ordained of God's
free omnipotence, are entirely removed as to their corroboration
from any investigation. Nor must the purport of Holy Scrip-
ture be ascertained by means of such an exposition as human
compositions are subjected to, for the revelations of God being
designed to meet the necessities and answer the inquiries of
every age, their meaning cannot be exhausted by the sense first
given by the context. He thus opens a door to various meanings,
in other words, to a subjective interpretation of Scripture, while,
on the other hand, he requires the absolute submission of faith
even to that which is apparently incredible and unreasonable;
greater honour being in such cases done to God, and the victory
of faith being proportionately nobler. Hence he does not recog-
nize an enlightening of the understanding by means of Christian
1 Compare H. Ritter, Gesch. der chr. Philos. vol. vi. pp. 369, &c. He contem-
plates a reform, or restoration of the sciences in general, by means of their return
to their proper office, the "interpretation of nature," in the place of the flights
of imagination they have hitherto been taking through anticipationes mentis.
2 De Augmentis Scientiarum, ix. cap. c. i. ed. Francof. 1665, pp. 258, 259.
68
Bacon.
truth. In his view faith is, in the first place, a blind submission
to mysteries, and it is as foreign to his notion of theology that
faith should itself beget knowledge, as that the gospel, should be
the means of bestowing an assurance of salvation. He by no
means regards faith as the source of a Christian knowledge, and
almost entirely sacrifices the material principle to the formal.
On the other hand, he insists that to attribute to Scripture a
completeness of such a nature, that all philosophy, unless it is to
be esteemed profane, must be derived from it, is an exaggeration,
an intemperies of a Rabbinical and Paracelsian kind. This, he
thinks, would be to seek the dead among the living, an error
quite as blameworthy as seeking the living among the dead, i.c.
theology in philosophy. It is by sharply defined severance
between the two that Bacon would maintain their respective
claims and provinces.
His very view of nature displays a sensualistic and mate-
rial feature, though of a more refined kind, since he allows
that all matter has life in itself. In natural science he will
have nothing to do with designing causes, but directs his at-
tention chiefly to efficient causes, though a mechanical expla-
nation of nature does not content him. He is also averse to
Atomism, because he is incapable of comprising multiplicity in
unity. Being, however, unable wholly to exclude ethics and
natural theology from philosophy, he is obliged again to bring
philosophy and Christianity into contact, even as the heart to
which the gospel appeals is connected with the reason. In fact, he
concedes to the natural intelligence, which is a spark and rem-
nant of primitive purity,¹ an inward instinct, in conformity with
the law of conscience, though such a concession is certainly at
variance with his opposition to innate ideas. But this natural
intelligence is almost entirely of a negative kind, and more.
capable of condemning errors than of instructing in duties. So
too in the case of natural theology. In his view it also is rather
a merely negative source of knowledge, capable of refuting
atheism, but not called upon to lay the foundations of religion,
for all the principles of religion rest upon themselves (sunt
authypostatæ, per se subsistentes), because they are positive, and
depend more upon authority than upon reasoning. On the
other side, he allows to reason at least a secondary position in
1 De Augmentis Scientiarum, p. 259.
2 Ibid. p. 260.
2
Lord Herbert.
69
theology; it is her part to explain mysteries according to their
purport, and to draw inferences, only guarding in the former
case against presumption, and in the latter comparing results
with principles.
Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1581-1684), though a personal
friend of Bacon, opposed his views. In contrast to Bacon's
empiricism, he embraced the belief in innate ideas, which how-
ever needed to be aroused by experience, and in common notions
corresponding to the world; for man is a microcosm in corres-
pondence with the macrocosm. He views morality as such a
common notion, or rather as a compound of such common
notions. Such too is religion, and it is to this latter that he
chiefly directs his attention. He endeavours to retreat from
the mysterics which, according to the dominant theology, must
be believed,—although their real importance to the moral and
religious life cannot be made evident-to those vital principles of
religion which he finds in all modes of belief. In doing this he
is so little opposed to a belief in revelation, that it is by means
of an inward revelation that he would learn what are the
essential doctrines in all religions. These he makes to be
the five following: there is a Supreme Being; He is to be
the object of worship; piety and virtue are the chief elements
of worship; sin is to be expiated by sorrow and amendment;
and there are divine rewards and punishments both in this life
and the next. These truths are self-existent in the reason, after
the manner of innate ideas; they may also, if necesssry (if they
have been choked or obscured) become matters of revelation,
which may after careful criticism be recognised as such. He
lays great stress upon repentance of evil as the crisis of the
malady, and calls it the sacrament of nature. These chief pillars
of religion he regards as having been overlaid and hidden by
priestcraft, till Christianity appeared to restore primitive religion,
which however was soon to experience a fresh degeneration from
which it is now to be delivered.
Thus the notion of innate ideas, far from forming a bridge to
historical Christianity, was rather to serve as a handle for the
criticism of Christian doctrine, by denying that it was possible
¹ De Veritate prout distinguitur a Revelatione, a verisimili, a possibili et a falso,
1624. De Religione Gentilium Errorumquc apud cos causis, 1645, and more com-
pletely, 1663.
*
70
Thomas Hobbes.
for Christianity to introduce anything essentially new.
It was
however with Hobbes that an antagonistic, a purely empiric,
nay, a materialistic system, which was to have a far more de-
structive effect upon Christianity, appeared in all its harshness.
1
Thomas Hobbes (1558-1679), like Cartesius and Bacon, in-
sisted on keeping apart the provinces of philosophy and religion;
but the mathematical system which Cartesius required was
formed in his hands into an entirely mechanical and materialistic
view of the universe. The object of his exertions differs from
that of Bacon, inasmuch as it was not a reform of natural science,
but of ethics and politics, which he contemplated. These he
desires to see treated mathematically as hitherto neglected
branches of natural science, and moreover of a mechanical kind
of natural science. The perplexity and misery caused during
his time in England by religious contentions, aroused such dis-
gust in his mind, with its conservative principles and lively
interest in the good of the community, that he did not hesitate
to adopt even those most radical means which he thought alone
promised a remedy. This remedy he found in reducing society
to a mere mechanism, by a theory which placed everything, with-
out exception, in absolute subjection to one supreme earthly
power, namely, that of the State, whether its will were demo-
cratically or monarchically represented, and whether it dealt
with things secular or with things religious and moral.²
According to Hobbes, by nature there are no innate ideas,
and consequently no conscience. He is a sceptical sensualistic
nominalist. In his view there is no knowledge but that which
is derived from the impressions of the senses, and our ideas are
but perpetually oscillating sensations which we denote by
words, i.e. names, the counters of our logical computations or
sequences.. Reactions against the influence of the senses arise.
within us; to these we give the name of will, and even our moral
ideas have a sensuous origin. We also are nothing else than
bodies, and God Himself is a corporeal spirit, who can only
reveal Himself to us as such (i.e. to the senses). The matter of
the will is self-assertion; this we call happiness: and what we
desire that we call good. Thus he arrives at a morality of
1 The complete edition of Hobbes' works is that of Sir William Molesworth in
eleven English, 1839, and five Latin vols., 1839-1845.
2 Compare H. Ritter, Gesch. der chr. Philos., vol. vi. pp. 453-542.
Thomas Hobbes.
71
absolute egotism, which is only restrained, through regard to
common interests and fear of anarchy, by means of public order.
Power especially is desired by all, and everything is in itself
common property. This being so, it is might which gives right,
and hence would arise a bellum omnium contra omnes, a universal
chaos. A compromise however by which all renounce their power
in favour of one absolute sovereign, viz. the government, is ex-
pedient. Thus chaotic democracy is made, as it is also by
Mariana and other Roman Catholic teachers of this period,
the basis of government and even of monarchy. This does not
arise from the higher idea of justice or of the State, but from
prudence, which upon utilitarian principles seeks a remedy
against the chaos of arbitrariness, but without any alteration of
the selfish principle. According to this renunciation, the govern-
ment or monarch becomes the general will, the soul of the
gigantic (@ov, of the Leviathan, whose members are all without
a will of their own. This monstrous being is the mortal God,
the God upon earth. This only, and not the Church, has power
on earth. It was not possible for Christ to found a kingdom of
redeemed beings, before He had paid the price of their redemp-
tion. But neither did He found this kingdom after His death;
this event is not to take place till His return. All this shows
us how suspiciously near a relation there is, between the Stuart
theories of passive obedience founded on the Divine right of
kings, and a system of absolute materialism which denies all
moral freedom and despises personality.¹ The state, ie. the
ruler-continues Hobbes-cannot indeed control the inward
faith, but the whole outer man, even the tongue, belongs to it.
If the sovereign commands a man to blaspheme God or Christ,
he must do it upon the sovereign's responsibility. It is his to
prescribe religion, worship, doctrine, his decree makes Holy
Scripture canonical, he is the supreme pastor and ordains bishops;
1 Other English writers of the seventeenth century advocate the doctrine of
passive obedience from other standpoints. Thus Sir Robert Filmer († 1647), in
his work, The Freeholders' Grand Inquest touching our Sovereign Lord the King
and his Parliament, 1679; Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings, 1680.
Such was also the doctrine of the Nonjurors, 1688. Comp. Macaulay's Hist. of
Eng., Samuel Parker, and others. A like position was occupied in Denmark by
Archbishop Swaning (Idea boni Principis, 1648) and John Wandalin (Juris Regii
ȧvuπevoúvov solutissimi, 4 books, 1664), who materially contributed to the
establishment of the Danish royal law; and in Sweden by Arsenius and Lundius.
Comp. Tholuck, Das akad. Leben, ii. 159, 179.
72
Thomas Hobbes.
that is heretical which opposes his commands, and he can never
be a heretic. This audacious system, full of the materialistic
spirit, and arising, as it did, in a period of superabundant sub-
jectivity, and bloody conflicts waged in the name of religion, was
a desperate attempt to cast out the Beelzebub of arbitrary sub-
jectivism by the most ultra-despotism, which however was itself
no less arbitrary, nay whose throne was based only upon egotism,
upon the desire for peace at any price, even at that of the sacri-
fice of all that was most sacred. It is despair of all truth, and
of its power to restore health to human life, which thus leads
the last instinct which yet survives-that of bodily self-preserva-
tion to mental suicide. This same dialectic necessity, which
certainly is ever urging the arbitrariness of pure subjectivity to
seek its point of rest in the absolute despotism of merely external
authority, that fear may begin to operate where higher motives
have ceased to work, by a contrary process drives men again
from this to a fresh supremacy of arbitrariness, as certainly as
such an authority can itself be regarded only as a product of
arbitrariness. For the idolizing of self-constituted authorities
does not make them divine. The same vicious circle must be
ever and again traversed between subjective arbitrariness and
authority, till each is interpenetrated by the other, till authority
aims at freedom, and freedom has found its true condition and
just support in lawful authorities. Of the union of these two
principles in the sphere of religion, by the Reformation, Hobbes
understood nothing, and in the seventeenth century they were
severed in every possible way.
1
At this period many signs showed that atheism and infidelity
were widely spread in England. And yet the nation at large
was not accessible to materialistic opinions, not to speak of the
coarser theories of Hobbes. Nor had the spirit of empiricism as
yet taken sufficiently deep and general root in the land of a Scotus
Erigena, an Anselm and a Duns Scotus, for a contempt for
speculation, and a neglect of the deeper intellectual problems,
to have become universal. On the contrary, it was after the
overthrow of the Aristotelian system that the school of Ralph
Cudworth, 1617-1688, who, without obstructing the progress of
1 The True Intellectual System of the Universe, wherein all the Reason and
Philosophy of Atheism is confuted and its impossibility demonstrated, 1678 (trans.
into Latin, with notes by Mosheim, ed. 2, vol. ii. 1773).
Cudworth. More. Norris.
73
natural science, opposed a Platonic philosophy to empiricism,
materialism, and atheism, became more widely spread. To
this Platonic school belong John Norris, 1657-1711,¹ Samuel
Parker, Bishop of Oxford, 1640-1687,2 and especially Henry
More, 1614-1687.3 To maintain a harmony between the natural
sciences and the interests of spiritualism, Cudworth decided on
the acceptance of a plastic power in nature, nay, of the vitality
of every individual atom. This was in accordance with the
doctrine of John Baptista of Helmont, who taught that nature
fashions all things not from without, like art, but from within.4
So little is Cudworth opposed to the atomic theory, that he
endeavours to employ it as the substructure of his theological
views; but that which he strongly embraces is the notion of
design. The movements of atoms cannot be conceived of as the
work of chance. A spiritual being controls them: since how-
ever he is of opinion that it would be unworthy of God to
operate directly upon things so trifling, he interposes as it were
an intermediate being between God and the atoms, in the shape
of his plastic power of nature. This is, on the one hand, the
motive force inherent in matter, and so connected therewith that
a law of nature may be spoken of, and all that takes place in
nature need not be attributed to miracle. On the other hand,
it is not independent of God, but obeys His supreme behest.
A motive similar to that which induced the interposition of the
Alexandrian Logos here prevails, the only difference being that
Cudworth considers the plastic power of nature both finite and
fallible, and hence is obliged to have recourse to a theodicy. If
this limitation of the Divine co-operation (concursus) already
betrays a deistical feature, this is yet in many ways checked in
his writings, and his friend Henry More, when speaking of his
labours, declares their aim to have been to oppose the Car-
tesianism which would exclude God from the world, by again
¹ An Essay towards the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World, London,
1701-4, allied with Malebranche.
2 Ritter's already cited work, vii. 432. Also Wilkins, Bishop of Chester,
1614-72, who seeks to check the prevalence of the mechanical view of the universe
by directing attention to other possibly inhabited worlds, and to the marvels of
mechanism.
3 Theological Works, fol. 1708; Opera Theologica, 1675; Philosophica, 1679,
together 3 vols. fol.
• Ritter, ibid. p. 439.
74
Cudworth. More. Norris.
introducing Him into the world. This he attempts to do-in
contrast to the Cartesians, whom he calls Nullibists, because
they deny that Spirit or God is anywhere-by attributing to Him
an actual existence in space. At the same time, however, he
ascribes to space itself a kind of spirituality, and herein reminds
us of Newton's doctrine that the living and Divine Omnipresence
has its general sensorium-by means of which God is in per-
ceptible and active relation with the world-in the subtlest
medium, whether called ether or space.¹
Far more important, however, to Cudworth, H. More, and
Norris, than a rectification of the view of nature, was the laying
of a genuine theological foundation for the ethical principle.
To Cudworth especially are we indebted for having so boldly
contended against the principle of deism and materialism, in its
first movements, that he sought to liberate theology also from
those errors which offered dangerous points of contact to the
opponents of Christianity. For instance he opposes, besides
atomistic atheism, both immoral theism, i.e. the doctrine that
the difference between good and evil depends upon the sove-
reignty of God, and that moral but fatalistic theism which,
though it admits that good and evil are such of their own
nature, yet leaves everything to God's exclusive agency, and, by
denying moral freedom, abolishes morality. In Cudworth's
opinion, good is inherent in the nature of God, and-according
to Norris, who carries out this subject still further-independent
of the Divine sovereignty.2
The Platonism of this school, however, required a transposi-
tion into a world of thought to which the age in general was
already alien. This was seen in men who, though opposed to
Hobbes, were yet unable to accept the doctrine of innate ideas.
Thus Richard Cumberland insists that it is only by experience
that we can know that the law of our nature does not urge us,
as Hobbes declares, to mere self-love; but has, as Hugo Grotius
teaches, its counterpoise in the social instinct. Joseph Glan-
3
1 A view repudiated, as is well known, even by Oettinger, and most nearly
approximated among modern philosophers by Lotze and Weisse.
A Treatise concerning eternal and immutable Morality, 1673. On Frecuvill,
with notes, by J. Allen, London, 1838. More, Enchiridion Ethicum, Amstelod.
1695. Norris, ibid. cap. vi. pp. 303-407.
3 De Legibus Naturæ disquisitio philosophica, 1672. Compare Ritter's above-
cited work.
Retrospect.
75
ville, too, 1636-1680,¹ goes so far as already to question the
applicability of the law of causality.
2
But such scepticism, which could not fail to introduce con-
fusion even into the duties of life, was little in accordance with
the English mind. This, after the extravagances of Indepen-
dency during the Cromwellian period had exposed an appeal to
the Divine Spirit, with respect to things divine and Christian,
to a general suspicion of enthusiasm, sought for itself another
way. The English mind could not again be brought into sub-
jection to ecclesiastical authority, whether Romish or Anglican,
not even in the form that, while faith is based upon Holy
Scripture, Scripture is based upon the authority of the Church.
Nor was the assertion that Holy Scripture is self-evidencing, and
furnishes assurance of its own divine nature, borne out;3 for
though the saving truth it contains has indeed the power of
accrediting itself to the heart, yet this truth being neither re-
stricted to the form of Scripture, nor identical with it, but being,
on the contrary, capable of existing in various forms, its divine
nature is no guarantee of the divine nature of its form, nor, con-
sequently, of the inspiration of Scripture. This distinction-
so natural to the Lutheran Reformation, though subsequently
forgotten by Lutheran theology-was one wholly alien to English
theology, as was also the perception of the relative independence.
of the material principle in general. Hence, English theology,
on the whole, has laboured under this misfortune: that while
the advocates of Holy Scripture have dwarfed the principle of
faith, and therefore shown so little independent power of free
dogmatical production, the advocates of free believing person-
ality have, on the contrary, failed to discover its consistency
with Scripture, and degenerated, as above related, into the
2
Skepsis Scientifica, or Confessed Ignorance the Way to Science, 4to, 1665.
Compare the Oxford Essays and Reviews, 1861, 5th edit., pp. 254-329: Ten-
dencies of Religious Thought in England, 1688-1750, by Mark Pattison, Rector of
Lincoln College, Oxford. His conclusion, with the question it contains (p. 329),
finds an answer in the history of German theology.
Cudworth, in the preface to his Intellectual System, had already said, with
Calvin, that a belief in Scripture is not a merely historical faith, resting upon
artificial proofs and evidences; but a certain higher and diviner power in the
soul which is, properly speaking, in correspondence with Deity. Compare H.
More, Discourse on the True Grounds of the Certainty of Faith in points of Reli-
gion, Theol. Works, i. 765.
76
The Rise of Common Sense.
fanaticism of the inner light, or into a self-emptying latitudina-
rianism.
When, then, the integrity of faith in Scripture or the Church
was shaken by the religious movements and the beginnings of
Deism, the English mind, after the Revolution of 1688, sought
the support which it was in need of, in the reason, and there
being then no system of philosophy whose influence was at all
extensive, this was done by making common sense the judge as
to what truths were requisite for the community. To this cir-
cumstance it was that John Locke, the herald of common sense,
was indebted for his permanent authority in England. In this
respect rationalists and supernaturalists are agreed, that both in
the last instance appeal to common sense; with this difference,
however, that while the latter would prove to it, that the fact of
its own existence obliges it to admit that of other supernatural
but historically corroborated sources of truth besides everyday
experience, the former think themselves obliged to refuse any
such admission. We have thus described the nature of the two
parties, which, for the space of sixty years, were found in conflict
with each other, and also shown what was the basis common to
them both.
CHAPTER II.
THE CONFLICT AND TRIUMPH OF DEISM.
A NEW era dawned on Britain with the Revolution of 1688. To
the change thus inaugurated, the two last-mentioned factors,
together with latitudinarianism and the prevailing indiffer-
ence with which religious distinctious were regarded, mainly
contributed. The breach between the English mind and its
episcopal or presbyterian traditions became wider and wider.
It retreated from positive truths and definite forms to indefinite.
generalities, and sought to exchange its antiquated garments for
robes of a more elegant and modish kind. Solid and steady
study at the universities, with its requisitions of accuracy of
idea and copious knowledge, laid aside its scholastic garb, and
1 According to Pattison, the doctrine of an inner light (even when regarded as
kindled by Scripture) was, about 1688, rejected by all parties as enthusiastic, with-
out the claims of the material principle being otherwise secured.
•
Locke.
77
at the same time its thoroughness; and the classics and versi-
fication now occupied the chief places in the universities.¹ The
clergy no longer regarded themselves as the ambassadors of
Christ, commissioned, in His name, to offer salvation to the
world; but as orators whose office it was eloquently to recom-
mend to their flocks Christian, or for the most part merely moral,
truths, as the surest means of happiness both in this world and
the next. Pattison, the intelligent and clear-sighted historian of
this period, describes it as one of decay of religion, licentious-
ness of morals, public corruption, and profaneness of language;2
and makes the just remark, that those ages in which morality
alone has been most spoken of, have ever been those in which it
has been least practised. In saying this we would not deny our
obligations even to the period terminating 1750; which, by
clearing away much dead matter, prepared the way for a recon-
struction of theology from the very depths of the heart's beliefs,
and also subjected man's moral nature to stricter observation.
From the very nature of things, however, it can only be regarded
as a period of transition, as an elementary step towards the
genuine inward freedom of personality.
We must, however, take a somewhat nearer view of this period,
the influence of which was abundantly felt in Germany.
John Locke (1632-1704)³ coincided with Hobbes in his denial
of innate ideas, but knew how to touch the right string for moving
the English mind, by combining empiricism with a love of liberty,
as well as with a certain amount of reverence, more of a moral
than of a mystic or religious kind, for the Divine and for the
the law of God.
Locke proclaimed the doctrine of the religious toleration of the
State, and went even so far as an absolute separation of Church
and State. Faith, he says, is not a matter of the will; but de-
pends, and must depend, upon evident reasons. He endeavours
to unite Divine revelation and reason, by treating the latter,
with its formal laws, as a kind of revelation. Reason is the eye,
revelation the telescope; fanaticism alone desires a revelation.
1 See Pattison, ibid.
Essays and Reviews, p. 256.
Works, 3 vols. fol., 1689, especially vol. i. An Essay on the Human Under-
standing, and the Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures,
with two Vindications, vol. ii., 1695.
78
Locke.
with that omission of reason which would abolish both. While
the former is not the production of reason, it is by means of
reason that we must be convinced that it is revelation. Who
would pluck out an eye to be better able to see through a
telescope? Reason is able to perceive why she must use the
telescope. If once the form by which revelation is introduced
is proved divine, its contents must consequently be believed.
These contents then are, that Jesus is the Messiah, and that
faith in Him makes up for the deficiency of our works. To
embrace and hold fast fundamental doctrines, and to be willing
to believe all that comes from God, is all that is necessary to
salvation. Locke's maxims on toleration made him the favourite
of dissenters; his propositions on the possibility of proving that
a reception of Christianity is agreeable to reason, which resembled
those of Hugo Grotius, exerted an influence upon English works
on the Evidences which has endured until the present day. In
these compositions Christianity is regarded, in a onesided manner,
as a summary of doctrines, at which reason, left to itself, either
never could, or could not till a later period, arrive; and the
evidences adduced for these truths or doctrines, leaving their
matter entirely out of the question, stop at proving the divinity
of their origin, or of the form in which they were introduced, as
that wherein their authority consists.
When once a feeling for the independent nature of religion is
lost, the world of will and thought will soon be substituted for
it; and where confidence in the power of the understanding and
the dictates of the reason is aroused—an event which occurs most
speedily in the realm of morals-opposition to Christianity, or
religion in general, is sure to follow.
Arthur, Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671-1713,' was a man of an
estimable spirit. In contrast to Hobbes and Locke, the latter
of whom eudæmonistically calls that good whereby anything is
1 Shaftesbury's Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, and Times, 3 vols.
1749.
2 He, as well as William Wollaston (1659-1724), author of The Religion of
Nature Delineated, 1726, and Samuel Clarke (1673-1729), author of A Demon-
stration of the Being and Attributes of God, in answer to Hobbes, Spinoza, &c.,
1705, is an admirer of Plato. He is also a special opponent of the mechanical
doctrine of nature. He acknowledges the value of mathematics, but declares that
they have nothing to do with the soul. The mechanical explanation of the soul's
life is folly in his eyes. See Ritter's above-named work, vii. 549, and Lechler's
Geschichte des englischen Deismus, 1841, pp. 246-65.
Shaftesbury.
79
brought about which, according to the laws of our nature, is a bene-
fit to us, Shaftesbury is of opinion, that moral goodness has a real
existence, and that its principles are innate in us as ideas, or at
least, as moral instincts. As music and beauty of form are not
merely subjective, nor the results of certain conventional arrange-
ments, but things objective, so also are the natural moral feel-
ings, such as shame, remorse, everywhere and at all times the
same, and therefore reasonable.' He admits that the mere im-
mediate feeling is not, as yet, in the stricter sense, a moral one,
but that reflection and conscious will are needed to constitute
it such. For in morals all depends upon the motives of actions.
This motive he finds in the beauty and loveliness inherent in
good; these beget a delight, which becomes the motive of right
action. He takes offence at Christianity because it promises
rewards to virtue, and thereby denies its intrinsic value, its
position as its own object, and the happiness which it involves.
Hellenistic by nature, and an enthusiast for beauty, he miscon-
ceives both the power of sin and the claims of justice, views
good in an idealistic manner, and desires not salvation in another
world, but harmony in this-that union of the good and the
beautiful which enables us to dispense with the hope of Heaven.
But he is unable to state whence this virtue originates; he is of
opinion that a persuasion of the goodness, the order and the
beauty of the universe can animate and encourage virtue; that
man, entertaining such views, will act rightly, because he is in
harmony with himself and the world. He allows that this faith
in the goodness of the world, and therefore the attainment of
perfection in virtue, depends upon faith in God, i.c. upon theism.
But in an optimist spirit, he overlooks sin, and the disorder it
has introduced into the world. The theism of Christianity seeks
neither to deny these, nor to regard them as subjective concep-
tions, but to reconcile them. Shaftesbury, on the contrary, in his
idealism, rather flees from the contemplation of reality than
gains the victory over it. If we find disorder within us, he says,
we find it also without-we find an angry and a threatening
God. But he is not able to inform us how to escape the disorder
that is in us, and instead of recognizing that it is precisely to the
1 Compare his work, Sensus Communis, an essay on the Freedom of Wit and
Humour: An Inquiry concerning Virtue and Merit; The Moralist, a philosophi
cal rhapsody on the Deity and Providence.
So
Shaftesbury.
pure that the sin which is in the world must be the heaviest
sorrow, he solaces himself, in an easy and æşthetic manner, by
his view of the unalloyed perfection and goodness of nature,
while God is in his eyes mere harmonious goodness; holiness and
righteousness being left in the background. He acknowledges
that Love, the principle of Christianity, is the supreme prin-
ciple, and that hence solicitude on its account is out of place.
With regard to scoffers he considers that it stands the test
which of all others shows it to be proof against them, namely,
the test of ridicule. It is unjust to apply ridicule, that prac-
tical scepticism, even to that which is most ridiculous; when
applied however it does not injure, but strengthens that which
it seems to injure. Christianity is "a witty and good humoured
religion," and needs no other evidence in its favour than that
furnished by its contents, by which he means its morality,
although he finds this deficient, inasmuch as it omits all com-
mendation of patriotism and friendship. In Shaftesbury we see
a reaction against that legal spirit, which so loves to separate
the good from the beautiful, and to place it in a onesided manner
in the light of duty only, but overlooks the ideal pleasure and the
freedom found in goodness. By placing their reconciliation.
however only in humanism and in a refined æsthetical cultivation
of the intellect, he makes this to be the power of morality, which
be therefore views not in its deeper meaning, but rather as merely
a beautiful form of the intellectual life. Even that which he
views as the source of knowledge in the province of morals, viz.
the feeling, he regards as a feeling merely for form.
Hence Samuel Clarke, an otherwise tolerably yielding opponent
of the Deists, sought to give a more objective expression to
matters ethical. He regards neither the State nor the Church,
with its revelation,,nor the mere feeling for the beautiful, but the
reason of things, as the criterion or source of our knowledge of
goodness. That is good which is in conformity therewith, which
is therefore suitable to circumstances, and which would also make
itself heard if a pure idea of the world were already established.
Reason would then be the object as well as the law of the
1 Ordinary theology has the defect of laying more stress upon the power of
God, by its appeal to miracles, than upon His goodness, while in fact the order of
the world is the best proof of God's power and wisdom, and a being acting in a
merely arbitrary manner would not be God but a dæmon. The Moralist, ii. 5.
Ritter, ibid. p. 544.
Tindal.
81
normal movement of the empiric world, in which the law may
certainly be in some manner innate. But the formula assumes
that empiric things are of themselves reasonable, that things
exist not to be determined by the moral, but that the moral has
to find its standard in things.
Tindal (1657-1733)¹ follows Shaftesbury, inasmuch as he
regards beauty as a motive to virtue, but he adds to this a second
motive, viz. its utility, and passes entirely into eudæmonism.
He considers the desire for true happiness to be the all-impel-
ling lever, the ultimate object, while virtue, because it makes per-
fect, is the means thereto. In such eudæmonistic morality, reli-
gion is abolished; for though action according to the reason of
things, which leads to happiness, may be religious so far as this
reason of things is regarded as the will of God, yet it is only a
possible relation to God, as the primary originator of this world
which is therein supposed. A further relation between God
and man in history, such as positive religion insists on, is denied
by Tindal. For he thinks that a positive religion, if it is to
be anything more than natural religion, must be distinguished
from this only by basing its precepts, not upon the reason
of things, which forms a whole complete within itself, but
upon the Divine pleasure, and this he considers would be
unworthy of God. Hence Christianity can be nothing more
than the restoration of the one natural religion, i.e. of morality,
which impels to the pursuit of true happiness, in a manner con-
formable to that reason of things which originates from God. It
was from the moral consciousness, as though this were a com-
plete and always uniform possession of the reason, that Deism
carried on its operations against revelation and Christianity,
because freedom and a conscious knowledge of good, and not
belief upon mere authority, are essential to morality. Nothing
was to be received except on reasonable grounds, and hence faith
was based upon knowledge.
While faith was thus made entirely theoretical, the theologi-
cal opponents of Deism by no means maintained its moral and
religious importance. There is indeed a difference among them.
Some declared natural religion to be chimerical, others, who
1 Christianity as old as the Creation, or the Gospel a Republication of the
Religion of Nature, 1720. Certain replies to this work are given in Darling's
Cyclopædia Bibliographica.
II.
F
82
1
Opponents of Deism. Conybeare.
2
did not view it in this light, either deduced it from a primary
and positive revelation (as Campbell and Stebbing), or-as was
the case with the majority-asserted its need of completion by the
perfect revelation contained in Scripture (so Conybeare, 1697-
1755). Both the advocates and opponents of Deism are how-
ever agreed that faith is an acquiescence in doctrines, which
being above the reason are mysteries, and that evidences for the
truth of Scripture furnished to the understanding must produce
a reasonable persuasion that even mysteries are to be believed,
because they are contained in Scripture. But that operation of
the understanding, which was in this case relied on for the defence
of Christian doctrines, led Deism to the opposite goal, and it now
displayed the "Freethinking" banner. Thus there can, accord-
ing to Toland (1669-1722), be nothing above the reason, because
anything can only be believed according to the dictates of rea-
son, which must appeal to the contents themselves of that which
is to be believed. Collins rightly thinks that that which has
evidence in its favour must be allowed to be valid, that free-
thinking means seeking evidence, and that Holy Scripture even
requires this. The prophets and apostles were freethinkers,
no conversion of the heathen was possible without a desertion of
the superstition of their forefathers through freethinking. But
this evidence is regarded as purely theoretical, and as equally
adapted to all, of whatever degree of moral and intellectual
power. Besides this freethinking does not advance beyond
self-justification and self-praise; instead of coming to the
point, it is satisfied with laying down the principle or maxims
of free thought, but attains to no process of reasoning pro-
ductive of positive results. On the contrary, the energy of
this free thought seems only able to exhaust itself in a negative
manner, viz. by attacks upon the Christian religion, which it
regards as in the main the work of priestcraft.3 The emptiness
and capriciousness of such free thought, and the contrast be-
tween its ridiculous self-assertion and its performances, was
wittily, but bitterly, exposed by the great philologist Richard
1 Conybeare, A Defence of revealed Religion against the cxceptions of (Tindal's)
Christianity as old as Creation, 1732.
2 Anth. Collins (1676-1726), A Discourse of Freethinking occasioned by the
rise and growth of a sect called Freethinkers, 1713. This was answered by
Whiston.
3 Anth. Collins, Pricstcraft in perfection, &c. 1710.
Richard Bentley.
83
Bentley. It was possible, he said, to think freely, and yet to
accept Christianity, but that freethinking had been a bad call-
ing for Collins, who advocated the most slavish of all systems,
which left nothing but pure matter and an endless chain of
causes. "That the soul is material, Christianity a cheat, scrip-
ture a falsehood, hell a fable, heaven a dream, our life without
providence and our death without hope, such are the items of
the glorious gospel of these truly uncultivated evangelists. As a
fly delights in a sore, so does this freethinking seek everywhere
thorns instead of roses, blemishes instead of beauty. The deists
lay claim to no other thoughts than those of the fools who say
in their hearts, There is no God." But theologians, alas con-
tented themselves with the task of demonstrating Christianity,
and treating faith as the result of historical evidence.
This fault of method, however, which considered it as the chief
business of theology to establish the truth of Christianity with-
out regard to its specific matter, and especially to the fact that
it is the religion of atonement and regeneration, and therefore in
an entirely formal manner,—had its deeper roots in that increas-
ing indifference to the truths from which the Church derives.
her life, in that progressive dilution, nay, entire dissipation of such
verities, which had prevailed since Latitudinarianism had been
the order of the day. The vitality of religion depends on the
atonement furnished by Christianity in the person and work of
Christ. But the Latitudinarians had, after the Arminian fashion,
actually transformed the evangelical doctrine of justification by
free grace for Christ's sake, into justification through sanctifica-
tion and good works, and severed it from the merits of Christ.
Not Christ, but faith, i.c. faith acting by love, was said to have
justifying power; while the merit that was lacking through human
frailty, God-who was not bound by any law of retributive
justice—was to supply, in prospect of amendment of life accord-
ing to the injunctions of Christ, whose office thus became chiefly
that of a teacher of morality. It is true that those peculiar
expressions concerning the relation of God to Christ, and con-
cerning His Divine dignity, the so-called "mysteries," still formed
part of those Holy Scriptures whose contents were to be believed
for the sake of the evidences adduced. But these expressions
had become uncomprehended mysteries, chiefly through the fact
that the doctrine of Christ's work had been so pared down as to
8+
Evidence from Prophecy. William Whiston.
form a contrast to the doctrine embraced concerning His person,
and that His miraculous dignity had become a superfluous
apparatus if only such results as were ascribed to it were to
be produced. Hence it may easily be conceived that when
apologists did enter somewhat more closely into the contents of
the Gospel, for the sake of rendering them more plausible to the
reason, the transition to giving to the Son a subordinate position
would soon be made. Already did the Platonists, and even Bull,
entertain a lowered view of His equality with the Father, while
later writers on evidences, such as Whitby and Clarke, under
the influence of a deistic view of the universe, embraced Arian
and Socinian notions.
We will return however to a detailed view of the history of
English formal apologetics.
The chief concern of these was, after the manner of Grotius, to
establish the formal principle, which on the one hand was gene-
rally esteemed the sole and independent principle of theology,
while on the other it was, through the loss of unbiassed faith,
regarded as itself standing in need of confirmation. This was to
be attained by the help of two kinds of historical proof, that of
prophecy and that of miracles.
1
The former was worked out especially by William Whiston
in a book abounding in hypotheses. The quotations in the New
Testament often making verbal departures from the original text
of the Old Testament, and sometimes altering its sense, this
strange man hit upon, and carried out, the notion, that the Old
Testament as it existed in Christ's days might have been adul-
terated by the Jews, for the sake of depriving Christians of the most
palpable evidence against them. Collins thankfully accepted the
proposition that the evidence furnished by prophecy was alone
conclusive, since then every new revelation must be based upon
former revelations, and declared that God's consistency with
Himself required this. If, however, the prophecies of the Old
Testament are unfulfilled, this proves-he said that Christianity
2
1 W. Whiston, The Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecies (Boyle Lectures for
1708). Its author, who succeeded Sir Isaac Newton at Cambridge, turned Arian,
and forfeited his post. In other works he endeavoured to show that the Apostolic
Constitutions, and most of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, form parts of
the canon of Scripture, having been orally delivered by Christ Himself to His
disciples after His resurrection.
2 A Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, &c., Lon-
don, 1724. Compare his Scheme of Literal Prophecy considered, 1727.
Reply of Collins. His Opponents.
85
is not true. And if the New Testament presents us with a
Messiah totally different from that of the Old, we cannot there-
fore-with Whiston-fall back upon the typical and allegorical
interpretation of the Old Testament, otherwise we destroy the
foundations of Christianity. If the Old Testament may not be
allegorically explained, there is no foundation for Christianity,
for we cannot appeal directly to inspiration. All agree that this
depends upon the authenticity of the apostolic writings, as the
latter again does upon their credibility, all which makes this
kind of evidence too complicated. If then we would not give
up Christianity altogether, there is nothing left but to allow it
to be a mystical and allegorical Judaism. The position occu-
pied in England by the Old Testament was such that the appear-
ance of this work produced a sensation similar to that felt when
an explosion takes place. No less than thirty-five answers
appeared. These however presented the spectacle of a scattered
army deprived of its leader, and notably contradicted each other.
Some thought all depended on the fulfilment of the Messianic
prophecies, and that it was possible to adduce proof that they
had been strictly fulfilled. Others acknowledged that the Old
Testament representations of the Messiah, if literally viewed, did
not harmonize with the New Testament. Hence they either
admitted erroneous applications¹ in the New Testament, or had
recourse like Chandler" to typical, or like Woolston, 1669-
1733,3 to allegorical explanations, by which indeed, as Collins
desired, the stringency of the evidence was weakened, and a door
opened to arbitrary views. Sherlock, 1678-1761, went still
farther, and viewed the Jewish religion as itself a prophecy.
He sought to strengthen the evidence of prophecy by making
the whole of the Old Testament, and even the law, prophetic.
But he thought that Christianity itself was potentially involved
in Judaism, in which idea he went beyond Collins. Finally,
Bullock said that Christianity did not at all depend on pro-
1 Jeffrey, A Review of the Controversies between the author (Collins) and his
Adversaries, 1726.
4
* A Defence of Christianity from the Prophecies of the Old Testament, 1725-28,
3 vols.
3 The Moderator between an Infidel and the Apostate, 1725; and previously,
The Old Apology for the Christian Religion, 1705.
4 Six discourses on the Use and Intent of Prophecy in the several ages of the
World (2 Pet. i. 19), vol. iv. 1725, Works, ed. Hughes, 5 vols. London, 1830.
5 The Reasoning of Christ and His Apostles in their Defence of Christianity
86 Evidence of Miracles. Sherlock and Annet.
phecy, but was a new law given by the interposition of Omni-
potence.
This leads to the evidence of miracles.
1
The unfortunate results
of the mode of treatment adopted with regard to the evidence of
prophecy were far from leading to an abandonment of the entire
method. On the contrary, it was hoped that better success
would ensue from combining Christian doctrine with the evi-
dence of miracles. Woolston, the allegorical interpreter at
whose hands the miracles experienced the same kind of treat-
ment as the prophecies had done, marks the transition. They
were not to be taken historically, but rather regarded as the
allegorical garb of doctrines; and, as in the case of prophetic
evidence, all must at last centre in the Messianic prophecies,
so here too all depended on that supreme miracle of Christ's
person, His resurrection, which must necessarily be more his-
torically cognizable than His origin. Woolston's attack upon
the miracles called forth about sixty controversial works, the
chief of which were those of Lardner, Gibson, Ditton, and
especially Sherlock (The Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection
of Jesus, 3rd ed. 1729). This celebrated work was answered by
Peter Annet († 1768), the chief opponent of the evidence of
miracles, who endeavoured to prove both the impossibility of
miracles in general, and the incredibility of the narratives of the
resurrection and of the miracles of the Apostle Paul. Sherlock's
Trial of the Witnesses was conducted after the manner of English
courts of judicature, and sought, in conformity with English taste,
to adduce strict legal evidence for the fact of the resurrection.
But here too it was apparent, that such merely historical proofs of
single historical facts as would compel belief, are not possible, or
at least are not capable of becoming the foundation of such a
faith as Christianity demands. Annet, assailing the possibility
of miracles on à priori grounds, thought them inconsistent with
the wisdom of God; because a good government would be all of
one kind.
A system which, by demanding faith in miracles,
expressed a disapprobation in God of a world without miracles,
had but little of God in it. Instead however of entering upon a
considered, with a preface against Collins' grounds and reasons, 3rd ed. 1730. Also
his defence of this work against the scheme of Collins, in which also he appeals to
the evidence of miracles, London, 1728.
1 Compare his six discourses on The Miracles of our Saviour, London, 1727-29,
and defence of these, 1729, 1730.
David Hume. Th. Lardner. Henry Dodwell. 87
more thorough investigation as to what the unity of the world
was to be sought in, and what was required thereby, the path of
historical evidences was still persevered in. These were met by
David Hume, 1711-1766,¹ with the assertions that, allowing
miracles to be possible, they could not be recognized as miracles,
and consequently were wrought in vain; that they were only
the effects of mysterious causes, and that it is not yet apparent
whether they proceeded from good or evil powers, whether they
are attributable to accident or deception, whether they were the
effects of divine or (as Woolston supposes) only magical forces
and means.
It was for the sake of establishing the possibility of
recognizing miracles, that resort was had to combining them with
the holy character of Christ, especially since miracles alone
could, as in the case of the prophets, at most prove the Divine
mission of Christ, but not His Divine nature, for which it was
necessary to have recourse to His own statements. This indeed
increased the necessity of establishing the credibility of the New
Testament writings, which had not been unassailed, and though
Lardner's comprehensive work was in this respect a highly meri-
torious performance, yet the complicated nature of the process of
proof could not but arouse the uncomfortable feeling that Chris-
tian faith was thus made dependent upon the proficiency of the
learned. This feeling-apart from the practical religious reaction
of Methodism against the staleness and unprofitableness of merely
evidential preaching and writing and against Deism-was power-
fully expressed by Henry Dodwell the younger. He arrived at
the conclusion that there is a great gulf between revelation and
reason, and that not only are evidences powerless to fill it, but that
to employ the method of demonstration is to betray Christianity.
It is folly to attempt to found faith upon free thought. Thought
remains thought, and will never become religion. Faith worthy
of the name is the operation of the Holy Ghost, and none can
believe unless he is a subject of such operation. He was opposed
however by both the Deists and the apologists (Leland, Dod-
dridge, &c.), for both saw that if he were in the right, their
exertions had been in vain. For the rest, his views also were
¹ Essays on Miracles, an Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, and his
Natural History of Religion in his Essays and Treatises, 1764, vol. ii.
2 Christianity not founded on argument, and the true principle of Gospel
Evidence assigned (Anonym.), London, 1743.
88
Th. Morgan. Th. Chubb.
still far removed from the standpoint of the Reformers. He did not
perceive that in faith, too, a principle of objective knowledge is
granted, and contributing nothing to this, he was incapable either
of stemming the torrent, or of turning it into another channel.
On the contrary, he is so indifferent to objective truth, that he
thinks faith cannot be one and the same in all, and that the
obligation to believe cannot apply to all, because faith does not
depend upon a man's own will. He thus, in a predestinarian
manner, approximates to the Quaker standpoint.
Theologians of the leading school, however, preferred to fall
back upon the moral excellence of Christ's teaching, and to
avoid those questions concerning His person and work which
had become too difficult for them. Hence, in the fourth decade
of this century, Deism appeared increasingly triumpliant. Tin-
dal († 1733), Morgan († 1743),¹ at first a dissenting preacher,
then an Arian and Socinian, and Chubb († 1747),2 agreed in
a denial of all positive religion. According to Morgan the Old
Testament was a system of priestcraft, the God of Israel a
national God, and it was through the Old Testament that the
original purity of Christianity had been corrupted. Paul, the
great freethinker, exercised due criticism against Mosaism, and
as a Deistic Christian opposed Judaizing Christians. Morgan how-
ever forgets that the atonement, which he stigmatizes as a Jewish.
error, forms the central point of Pauline doctrine. Chubb finds
the Scriptures intricate, and denies their inspiration, nay, even
their credibility. To the historical reasons upon which the sup-
posed positive revelation may be opposed, he adds also à priori
grounds. Morality, for the sake of which alone religion has any
claim upon man, can tolerate nothing arbitrary. But there
must always be an arbitrary element, uncongenial to the mind
in positive religion, while natural religion, which primitive
Christianity was intended to restore, has this evidence in itself.
1 The Moral Philosopher, 1737.
2 The True Gospel of Jesus Christ asserted, 1739. Discourse on Miracles, 1741.
3 These propositions gave rise to the Warburtonian controversy. Warburton,
convinced of the intimate connection between the divine authority of the New
Testament and that of the Old, and aware that apologists had felt great difficulty
in the fact, that the doctrine of retribution in another world is not taught in the
books of Moses, attempted in his work, The Divine Legation of Moses, 1738, to
prove from the very absence of this doctrine the Divine nature of the Old Testa-
ment theocracy, which would have been out of all keeping unless this deficiency
had been compensated by direct Divine government.
Morgan and Chubb.
1
89
Natural religion knows nothing of an arbitrary God, giving
positive laws at variance with His own nature. Theology may
indeed say, that what God wills is therefore good, but truth says
that God wills what He wills because it is good for man; for it
is the glory of God to will what is best for man, and the know-
ledge of God is nothing else than the knowledge of this Divine
will which is in conformity with the well-being of the world it
governs in other words, the knowledge of God is the knowledge
of the laws of the universe. Thus the living God being banished,
a way was made for pantheistic opinions, which were also advo-
cated by Morgan. The universal Spirit reveals itself to the
general reason, and makes evident the intrinsic reasonableness of
truth. The criterion of truth is, that it be consistent with the
happiness of man, as the ultimate object of Deity. This truth
was revealed from God to Christ, who possessed the pure light
of nature, which His apostles indeed again obscured. If Tindal
and Morgan rejected positive religion, because reason was suffi-
cient, and her dictates of superior authority to any outward
revelation, Chubb denied the latter, because everything in the
world follows its settled undeviating course; hence he acknow-
ledges neither a special Providence nor answers to prayer. If
there were a revelation it could not be perceived to be such,
because uncongenial to the mind. Christ may indeed be allowed
to be a heaven-sent teacher, inasmuch as He taught, that the
virtuous are pleasing to God, that repentance atones for sin, and
that there is a retribution. But these three propositions, which
were laid down as primary by Herbert of Cherbury, are held
also by the reason. The course here followed is most worthy
of remark, for while the starting-point was the endeavour to
assign the narratives of Scripture to design and fraud, the im-
possibility of establishing this position drove its would-be advo-
cates to the mythic or allegorical view. For Chubb esteems the
Apostles to have been enthusiasts, and unconscious inventors;
the story of the resurrection, c.g., being in his opinion the result
of dreams and visions. The subsequent repetition of this pro-
cess, on a larger scale, in Germany, points to a law of history.
Meanwhile the defenders of revelation perseveringly continued
their labours. Among these were G. Benson,¹ 1699-1763, Stack-
1 A Summary View of the Evidences of Christ's Resurrection, 1754. The His-
tory of the Life of Jesus Christ, 1764. The Reasonableness of the Christian Reli-
gion as delivered in the Scriptures, 1759.
90
Lord Bolingbroke.
house, Leland, and Lardner, but these all followed only in the
beaten track, devoting themselves rather to the defence of the
formal authority of Scripture, than of the subject-matter of
Christianity. But since their chief interest also lay in the moral
teaching of Jesus, which did not need the evidence of miracle
and prophecy, their position became one of increasing difficulty.
They reverentially guarded indeed one portion after another of
their old doctrinal inheritance, which from their standpoint it
was troublesome enough to defend. But they altogether failed
to perceive how intimate was the connection between these doc-
trines and the cause of religion itself, e.g. that of Christ's person.
It is, therefore, no matter of surprise that their own doctrinal
stores grew more and more scanty. Conybeare and Foster were
rational supernaturalists. Daniel Whitby and others belonged
to categories whose very existence announces the extinction of
religious life. Christianity was looked upon as a beneficent and
useful institution. To maintain that it was necessary seemed
too bold a step. In 1750 many who desired that the excellence of
Christian morality should be admitted, owned their obligations to
Deism for having delivered them from superstition and dogmatism.
Thus was Deism dreaming of its victory over Christianity,
and the witty and frivolous Lord Bolingbroke (1678-1751)
making Deistic inferences the common property of the educated,
and a matter of taste and fashion. Not contented with claiming
toleration or equality for freethinkers, he directed all his energies.
to bring about the triumph of Deistic opinions. As a statesman
he was tyrannical in matters of religion, which he despised. He
agreed with Romanists, that Scripture is not the sole source of
our knowledge of truth, for to him it was nothing but a collection
of falsehoods. He agreed with Protestants, that tradition was
untrustworthy; to both he declared that revelation was impos-
sible, and without a specific object. It was no good sign for
Christianity that its decline was contemporary with the advance
of science. This looked as if it were but ill able to endure the
light of reason. He too distinguished between the traditional
element in Christianity, which originated with deceitful or de-
luded men, and genuine Christianity, i.e. natural religion. The
former he called a melancholy religion, requiring only prayer
and penitence, and demanding no activity for the general good.
It was a vain attempt to justify Scripture to the philosophic
1 Philosophical Works, in 5 vols. ed. Melet, 1754.
Methodism.
91
mind, indeed the irreconcilability of Christianity and reason
had become an axiom, the latter looking down on the former
from its superior elevation.
But it was just now, when, in the public opinion of the edu-
cated world, the victory of Deism seemed in a scientific aspect
decided, and when being unobstructed by opponents, it was to
begin to develop the supposed fulness and self-assurance of
Deistic reason, in the place of that Christianity which it re-
jected, that its emptiness became apparent, and it incurred the
fate of all merely negative criticism. It had unconsciously been
living upon its adversary, theological science; and when this
succumbed it fell with it. It was not Christianity that was
overthrown, as the Deists supposed, for this still existed in
another form than that of the feeble theology which had fallen.
Deism, on the contrary, had no existence as religion, but only as
an aggregate of critical notions, and it was under the delusion
that Christianity too was but a system of opinions. Criticism,
however, having disposed of its theological adversaries, did not
stop here, but made the reason itself, and its assumed copious
knowledge, the object of its next attack.
CC
>>
David Hume was the stronger man who came upon Deism,
and resolved its supposed knowledge into a searching investiga-
tion of the reason itself, by disputing the objective truth even of
the necessary categories of thought, those of causality, &c. No
Deistic work made any general impression after 1750, except
perhaps those of Priestley, who propagated Socinian opinions
in America also, and of the still more radical Paine. Its ardour
was self-extinguished; for an orthodox opposition could scarcely
be said to exist. Orthodoxy in fact contented itself, for the most
part, with a defence of the outworks, while, as far as the contents
of Christianity were concerned, it was itself only too nearly assi-
milated to a moderate kind of Deism; morality and not religion
having become the centre on which it turned.
But while the learned were thus engaged either in fruitless
contentions or injurious compromises, and while the very de-
fenders of revelation were losing sight of the vital points of reli-
gion, a practical religious movement originated in the midst of
the English nation. We speak of Methodism, which not only
attained great importance in England, but also in North America,
and on the continent of Europe, where it exercised considerable
92
Methodism.
influence upon the different Reformed Churches, and also upon
some Lutherans. Its leaders were John Wesley, born 1703,
† 1791, George Whitfield, born 1714, † 1770, and subse-
quently Cole, Asbury, and especially Fletcher, † 1785. At
first they were desirous only to restore the saving truths taught
by the Reformers, and to apply them to the religious revival of
the nation, but not to effect a separation from the national
Church. Hence the ideas of faith and regeneration were those
to which they gave especial prominence, while in the genuine
spirit of the Reformers, they could not be satisfied with that
merely historical faith, which, in the most favourable case, would
be the result of the English system of evidences. Faith was to
them that personal reliance on, and confidence in Christ, with
which the assurance of salvation is combined. Hence it was the
material principle, the subjective side of Christian piety, which
was so vigorously revived in Methodism, and which was here
more intimately and decidedly united than in Quakerism, with
the object of religion and with Holy Scripture. In this respect
Methodism rather follows Baxter and Bunyan, although, with
the exception of Whitfield's smaller party, it was opposed to the
Calvinistic dogma of predestination, and inclined rather to Armi-
nian doctrines; indeed Wesley was himself for some time editor
of an Arminian magazine (after 1777). And yet Methodism
was, on the whole, far more removed, as far as saving doctrines.
were concerned, from Arminianism, than from the old Reformed
system. It was the protest of national piety against the languor
of Latitudinarianism. Its animating principle was "the subjec-
tivity of direct feeling and of inward experience, while that of
Arminianism and Socinianism was the subjectivity of the prac-
tical intellect."1
But those saving doctrines of the Reformers, to which the
attention of Methodism was almost exclusively directed, acquired
a peculiar tinge in its hands. On the one side great stress was
laid upon the misery and natural corruption of man, and espe-
cially on the corruption arising from original sin. With this was
combined--as the subjective tendency of Methodism might lead
us to expect the requirement, in every case, that a special and
formal conflict of repentance should be undergone, for the promo-
1 Schneckenburger, Vorlesungen über die Lehrbegriffe der kleineren protestan-
tischen Kirchenparteien, 1863, p. 104.
Methodism.
2
93
tion of which special institutions, as is well known, were in-
vented, as e.g. the inquirer's bench. On the other side, it was
held that sinless perfection of the inner life was attainable even
on earth subsequently to this conflict; while in opposition to
Calvinistic tenets the possibility of the falling away of true be-
lievers was nevertheless admitted. The combination of these
tenets was brought about by the fact that Methodism did not
regard the power of original sin as consisting so much in its
tenacity and enduring influence, as in that feeling of unhap-
piness and ruin which is present in the sinner, through the
agency of sin as an inimical power, while grace was viewed as a
sudden deliverance from this alien power. Certainly redemption
was not regarded by Methodists as a purely objective occurrence
as a mere deliverance from the power of the devil. Their
attention was, on the contrary, rather turned to personal assur-
ance of conversion and justification. The period of anxiety
which they required, was to be followed by a corresponding and
contrasted state of delight, which, where it is found, consists in
the pleasure now taken in things divine, instead of the pleasure
once found in sin. In this feeling of delight, however, the con-
tinued existence of sinfulness was lost sight of, to a degree which
made perfect holiness appear a present possibility. Justly has a
moral shallowness been found here, a shallowness of which the
antinomian movements in the party were the fitting retribution.
There is, however, another equally suspicious feature. Justifica-
tion being the Divine act of pardon and adoption, forms the
independent objective basis of the whole process of salvation,
1 With this was [by some] combined the demand of being able to name the day
and hour of the new birth, of which a man must of necessity have been con-
scious. The grace bestowed in, and from the time of, baptism was consequently
held in but slight estimation.
* When, about 1770, an antinomian superiority to law began to evidence itself
among the Methodists, John Wesley preached against Calvinism, and found the
reason of such antinomian tendencies in the assurance of eternal election (the
donum perseverantice). This was followed by a severance of the Methodists into
the followers of Wesley and Whitfield, the believers in universal or in particular
redemption. The Thirty-nine Articles, which Methodists embraced, had made no
decision. The more lenient system of doctrine was successfully advocated by
Fletcher, the theologian of Methodism (Checks to Antinomianism; Christian Per-
fection), and by Rowland Hill. Since, however, an antinomian element might
easily be connected with Wesley's doctrine of Christian perfection, Wesleyanism
endeavoured to render this harmless, by teaching the possibility of losing the gift
of perfection.
94
Methodism.
and remains unshaken even amidst the subsequent workings of
sin, so long as faith endures. This, however, Methodism does
not allow to be a self-existing, independent power, but to a
certain degree identifies it with sanctification, by making the
Divine act of justification consist in the bestowal of a feeling of
ecstasy, whose other side is said to be an abhorrence of sin.
Thus, what with the inconstancy of human feeling and the still
existing power of evil inclination, the very foundation of justifi-
cation is shaken, if growth in sanctification ceases. When the
feeling of delight is lost, temptations reappear which shake the
edifice of the spiritual life to its very foundations. Efforts are
made to avert such a catastrophe, either by an antinomian dis-
regard of convictions of sin, or by seeking a palliative in a revival
or augmentation of that feeling of delight, which, from its very
nature, cannot be equable. But there is one thing which cannot.
thus be attained, and which can alone be possessed in the genuine
doctrine of the Reformers, and that is the simultaneous presence
of grace and of consciousness of sin; in other words, the com-
forting assurance that by virtue of our union with Christ, we,
who have not merely been sinners, but to whom sin still cleaves,
are nevertheless justified for the sake of our union with Christ,-
an assurance which makes us partakers indeed of the peace of
God, but with respect to which, that rising or falling measure of
ecstatic feeling, which varies according to the varying tempera-
ments of individuals, is to be regarded as accidental. Method-
ism soon leads to forming a judgment of Christian excellence
not from independent considerations of moral worth, but
according to the existence or amount of this feeling; though
this, in itself, can be but aesthetic, or-though in a refined
sense-eudæmonistic and egotistic. Methodism may also lead,
by a life of constant reflection upon one's self, to such absorption
in the question, Am I accepted of God? or, Am I a true
believer? that the acts of faith and the acceptance of grace
are meanwhile delayed, or to speak more correctly-the
appearance of both faith and grace is waited for in a wholly
passive manner. The effects of Methodism were, nevertheless,
as salutary as they were widespread. It powerfully contributed
to the revival of Christian feeling, by even that partial purifi-
cation of doctrine which it effected, and if it did not directly
bring about a regeneration of English theology, it yet produced
Methodism.
95
a healthy agitation in the English Church, and furnished a
factor which is indispensable to such a regeneration, by insisting
upon personal experience of justification, and regeneration of life.
When this factor assumes-as in a large ecclesiastical com-
munity it may easily do-such a form as to exclude all that is
incidental, forced, and arbitrary, in the pious subjective tendencies
of Methodism, the time is come for the Church to show her
gratitude for the blessing she has received, by a gift which is
peculiarly her own. At first, however, Methodism furnished but
little in a direct manner towards the regeneration of theology,
its efforts being chiefly limited to the sphere of practice. It
largely contributed to the fall which Deism underwent in the
estimation of the English nation after 1750, though the inward
poverty of that system was the chief cause of its ruin. Theology
was unproductive in England till the Tractarian or Puseyite
movement in the fourth decade of the present century, and
whilst practical Christian activity was vigorously and variously
developed both in the Church and among Dissenters, theological
science kept to its traditional paths, and busied itself, according
to its custom, with Evidences. Among these Butler's Analogy, a
convincing, refined, and judicious work-still in high estimation
-may be regarded as a model; while Leland,¹ 1691-1766, and
Nath. Lardner, 1684-1768, manifest extensive apologetic scholar-
ship, though their doctrine is in other respects of a subordination
or Socinian tendency. Paley (1743-1805), moreover, produced,
besides his Hora Paulina, a work on Evidences, which is to the
present day instilled into English youth at the universities, and
regarded as a complete apologetic panoply.3
2
4
A similar state of things prevailed in Scotland as in England.
After its long and fierce struggle for existence, the Church
applied itself with special delight to completing and perfecting
He wrote
1 See above, p. 66. A View of the principal Deistical Writers, &c., and some
account of the answers that have been published against them, 1754.
against Tindal, Morgan, and H. Dodwell.
Lardner's principal work is The Credibility of the Gospel History, which first
appeared, London, 1727-1757, in 17 vols. He is a Socinian supernaturalist.
3 Natural Theology, 16th ed. 1819. A View of the Evidences of Christianity
and Hora Paulinæ, 3d ed. 1803. Works, London, 1825. Comp. Pattison in
Essays and Reviews.
4 Compare J. Köstlin, Die schottische Kirche, ihr inneres Leben und ihr Ver-
hältniss zum Staat, 1852, and Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1850, Nos. 23, seq. Das
Dogma und die rel. theologische Entwicklung der schottischen Kirche.
96
Scotch Philosophy.
the constitution it had now secured. While devoting itself,
however, to this work, it was betrayed into a spirit of dead form-
alism. Its connection with the State and with the educated
classes became a more intimate one, and this, while on the one
hand it mitigated the ruggedness of old Presbyterianism by the
influences of classical learning and philosophy, on the other,
suffered Church discipline to grow lax, and Arminianism, nay,
even Socinianism, to creep in, and conceded to the State and to
patrons great power over the congregations. This tendency towards
lifeless externalism which characterized the previous century, now
designated by the name of the "dark age," did not indeed remain
entirely without opposition, which, however, vented itself only in
the form of two secessions, in 1732 (Erskine) and 1761 (Gillespie),
on account of the laxity of Church discipline and the privileges of
patronage. The tendency reached its height under the leader-
ship of Robertson, the historian, A.D. 1758-1788. Estranged from
the people, who still clung to Calvinism, and had received an im-
pulse from Methodism, the Assembly, relying upon the support
of the State, governed the Church despotically, and the party
which exhibited most signs of vitality, and was designated by its
opponents as that of "the Wild men," was crushed by the Mode-
rates. The latter were afraid that a revival of the old Reformed
doctrines of grace would lead to Antinomianism. Even the
awakening which appeared after the French Revolution, and in
consequence of which the evangelical party again preponderated
after the first quarter of the present century, chiefly through the
exertions of the renowned Dr. Chalmers, did not immediately
bring about a regeneration of theology, and succumbed to the
temptation of looking upon the State as the headquarters of that
worldliness with which it had to contend.
For the rest, more solid philosophical studies, in which it excels
England even to the present day, flourished in Scotland from about
1750.¹ The scepticism, nay, atheism, of his countryman Hume,
was opposed by Thomas Reid (1704-1796),² founder of the so-
called Scotch school, to which belong James Beattie³ († 1803),
1 Compare Dav. Masson's Recent British Philosophy. London and Cambridge,
1865.
2 The works of Thos. Reid, now fully collected by Sir W. Hamilton, 1852,
especially, Essays on the power of the Human Mind, 3 vols. 1803.
3 An Essay on the Nature of the Immutability of Truth, in opposition to Sophis-
try and Scepticism, 1770. Elements of Moral Science, 3d ed. 1818.
Scotch Philosophy.
97
Ferguson¹ (1816), and Dugald Stewart 2 (+ 1798), and with
which Thomas Brown³ (1778-1828), and the French philo-
sophers Jouffroy and Royer-Collard are closely allied. Like
Fries, they endeavour, by observation of, or reflection upon
psychological occurrences, to build up a science, and thus to
oppose to Locke's sensualistic, a mental empiricism, and to lay
down the laws of mind in a so-called mental philosophy. There
exists, according to their views, an abstract infinite something
most intimately connected with our being, and which is at the
same time the principle both of conscience and of religion.
There is also a direct inward apprehension of this (common
sense), which neither needs nor is capable of proof. This they
also call faith, in the sense of the most certain persuasion of
irrefutable mental facts. They base their ethics upon the prin-
ciples of benevolence and sympathy. What these command is
good. With the exception of Beattie¹ they have not entered into
nearer relation to Christianity, while their successor, Sir W.
Hamilton, rather inclined to criticism.5 Hence philosophy,
though flourishing more in Scotland than in England, had no
influence in effecting a revival of theology. The revival of the
Scotch Church during the present century was confined chiefly
to practical matters.
¹ Principles of Moral and Political Science, 1792.
2 Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind, 2 vols. 1792 and 1814.
Outlines of Moral Philosophy, 7th ed. 1844; Philosophical Essays, 3d ed. 1818.
Inquiry into the relation of Cause and Effect, 4th ed. London, 1835. Lectures
on the Philosophy of the Human Mind, ed. Welsh, 1838.
Evidences of the Christian Religion briefly and plainly stated, 4th ed. 1795.
5 Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, and especially his treatise Philoso-
phy of the Unconditioned, 1852, pp. 1-37. Compare my treatise in the Jahrb.
für deutsche Theologie, 1861, No. 2: die Mansel-Mauricesche Controverse.
II.
G
THE
SECOND DIVISION.
The Lutheran Church from 1580 to 1800.
INTRODUCTION.
HE period of the Reformation was succeeded, in the Lutheran
Church also, by an epoch dedicated to the scholastic forti-
fication of the system of doctrine contained in its symbols. This
epoch lasted still longer in this than in the Reformed Church,
viz. till about the year 1700.¹ A reaction on grounds of feeling,
science, and practice, then set in; hence after the authority of
the established Lutheran Church and of the clergy had fallen,
the emancipation of the Church advanced in such wise, that
philosophy placed itself at the head of the movement.
Compared with the Reformed, the Lutheran Church was the
subject of a slower, but also of a more united and more con-
secutive development. This development was moreover less dis-
turbed by schisms. The dissensions which arose remained
within the same ecclesiastical community, hence they were of
necessity more thoroughly investigated and understood, a fact
which in many instances resulted in the combination of the
lawful elements found in opposing parties.
The character of the earlier part of this period was not creative;
neither was its attention directed so much to the elaboration
and utilization of those treasures which were the legacy of the
Reformation, as to their preservation and maintenance (see above
1 Comp. Gass, Gesch. der protestant. Dogm. 3 vols. 1854; Schmidt, Dogmatik
der evang. luther. Kirche, 3d edit. 1853; Franck, Geschichte der protestant. Theo-
logie, 1862, i.; Von Luther bis Gerhard, 1865, ii.; Von G. Calixt bis Wolff.
And see especially Tholuck's instructive and excellent works Das akadem. Leben
des 17 Jahrhunderts, i. ii. 1853, 1854; Der Geist der lutherischen Theologic
Wittenbergs, 1852; Lebenszeugen der lutherischen Kirche aus allen Ständen vor
und während der Zeit des dreissigjährigen Kriegs, 1859; das kirchliche Leben des
17 Jahrhunderts, 2 pts. 1861-62; Geschichte des Rationalismus, pt. i. 1865;
Heppe, Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus im 16 Jahrhundert, 3 vols.
1857.

BEAKY
OF THE
.
Introduction.
1
p. 1). This interest too was specially subserved by theological
science, which consisted almost exclusively in dogmatics, while
religious life consisted for the most part in the act of assimila-
ting traditional beliefs. The faithful maintenance of doctrine
was indeed no slight matter in the serious and inevitable contest
with the Church of Rome, especially with the Order of Jesuits,¹
and in the voluntary contest with the Reformed Church. More
especially too was this rendered difficult by the fact, that the
very existence of the Lutheran Church was threatened till the
year 1648. The Thirty Years' war, moreover, gave rise to irregu-
larities, which seemed to make a strict maintenance of church
unity indispensable, and bestowed upon the elements of discipline
and ecclesiastical law an importance not originally involved in
the spirit of the Lutheran Reformation. The constructive in-
telligence of the seventeenth century possessed itself of the
materials accumulated in the mind of the German people during
the Reformation era, to fashion them into means of offence and
defence. A well-armed method, equipped with a system of
logic, sought to make Protestant truth theoretically defensible at
all points. The unwearying diligence and acuteness of the great
dogmatic writers of the seventeenth century surrounded it on
all sides with defences, and endeavoured to render it an impreg-
nable citadel. Within this citadel a vigorous spiritual life, which
gave evidence of its existence chiefly in sacred song and music,
was not lacking. But the notion of winning the world to the
Gospel, and of the moral expansion of the Protestant principle
according to its different aspects, had almost disappeared. Nay
more, amidst such onesided efforts to preserve what was already
possessed, without any attempt at vivid reproduction, criticism, and
progress, the very subject itself deteriorated, according to an inward
¹ These endeavoured, when violence was unavailing, to bring back the minds of
men to the Romish Church, by discussions of terms of peace, by attempts at
union, and by the conversion of ruling princes. In these discussions of terms
of peace they invented many so-called methods. (Comp. Walch, Rel. Str.
ausserh, der luther. Kirche, ii. 195; Henke, G. Calixt, i. 357, &c. 425, &c. 532;
II. i. 157.) The appeal to Scripture was opposed by the demand for literal proof
that Protestant doctrine was contained therein. Others proposed making Augus-
tine umpire; others tried to shew by the methodus præscriptionum that the
Catholic Church was in possession of primitive Christian doctrine, which must
be esteemed genuine until her declension from purity of doctrine was proved
from history, while Protestant doctrine being a novelty was self-condemned by
this very fact.
Uor M
ΙΟΟ
Introduction.
law while passing through the hand. Luther's principle of
faith in its union with Holy Scripture (see Vol. I.), instead of
being the centre which supported and the vital power which
fertilized the whole system, became a mere single article of
doctrine along with others, and the scholastic treatment to which
even the scriptural doctrine of justification through faith was
subjected, betrays but too surely a secret uncertainty touching
sundry important elements of the principle as well as its position
in the system. Nor could aught else be looked for if vital
religious experience was to retire to the background instead of
continuing to take the lead. It cannot be denied that a certain
amount of formal productivity belongs to the period. The mind
showed itself fruitful in the invention of various methods; a
vast amount of matter was also collected from the Old and
New Testaments, and the writings of the Fathers, and utilized
for divinity. But throughout the whole of these various methods,
a breach with the heartiness and assurance of personal faith is
apparent. In place of these we find either an orthodox belief,
which unfortunately esteemed itself a scriptural faith, or an
objective churchmanship. A Protestant tradition opposed itself
to Romish tradition, and sought to compensate by external
authority for an inward persuasion of truth. Hence, in spite of
doctrinal productions, noble and admirable of their kind, com-
plaints of the gravest nature began to arise on the part of men of
vital piety, e.g. of such as John Arndt, Lütkemann, Valentine.
Andreä, Grossgebauer, Heinrich Müller, Tarnovius Quistorp,
Mayfahrt, Schuppius, and others, who were the forerunners of
the movement inaugurated by Spener. Scholastic orthodoxy
was already opposed by that mystic element which, though
repulsed, was now again asserting itself. With this was con-
nected the opposition made from the scientific standpoint, by
Calixtus, and at last these elements combined in Spener and his
school, and in Zinzendorf, in efforts to obtain either an internal
reform of the Church, or to set up a model community beside
her. Since however each of these oppositions represented only
such elements of truth as had been lost sight of, under the
aspects of either knowledge, will, or feeling, orthodox Lutheran
theology was still superior to each of these manifestations, though
shaken by them to its very depths. And thus it came to pass
that when reason awoke to consciousness, and began to raise its
head, one stone after another was carried off from the old
Mou
Introduction.
ΙΟΙ
Lutheran divinity. This section too of the history of theology,
to which that of the Reformed Church is anticipatively analo-
gous, maintains, in spite of the apparent chaos, a uniform course,
governed by perceptible laws. The only difference is that in
the last-named church the continuity is less closely linked, and
the successive stages less completely passed through.
Philosophy-whose entrance into the movement was now in-
dispensable, if faith, rejoicing in redemption, was to expand into.
an objective knowledge of God, of the world, and above all of
itself—after exercising a criticism upon the ecclesiastical system
of doctrine by means of a formal logic, and achieving the inde-
pendence of the movement, commenced operations by attempting
to win for itself, first within the sphere of the subjective will,
then in those of the subjective feeling and the subjective reason,
an independent kingdom of truth. Thus that which was already
announced under these three aspects, in a theological or religious
garb, by the opposition which was but in its germ in the seven-
teenth century, appeared under a philosophic form in the
eighteenth; and the factors whose union is essential to the
soundness of church life and of theology, were still more de-
cidedly separated, and unanimous only in opposing the Chris-
tianity of the Church. But the effort to make each of these
factors, taken singly, the whole, did but serve to bring out with
greater distinctness their intrinsic organic connection. To this
must be added, that theology, which was itself deeply stirred by
the movement in the sphere of philosophy, was making ever
fresh attempts to maintain the bond between reason and faith,
and to set up a theology in harmony with the prevailing philo-
sophy. All these efforts at union, embracing as they do the
various phases of rationalism and supernaturalism, were indeed
soon extinguished, not only on account of their own unsatis-
factory relation to faith, but also by reason of that incessant
progress which was continually superseding each of the great
philosophical systems by a later one. We may even say of each,
that the latest was ever urging on the mind which was seeking to
carry it out more completely towards its successor, until-all the
philosophical attempts of onesided subjectivity to constitute itself
a whole, to the exclusion of objectivity, having been successively
exhausted and overthrown-the time for a higher stage of philo-
sophy had arrived, even that whose fundamental tendency may be
called the combination of the subjective and objective elements.
102
Introduction.
Although a whole series of experiments was needed, even
upon this new soil, before a more satisfactory standpoint was
obtained, yet there was given in the fundamental tendency of
this stage of philosophy a prototype for the due and conscious
combination of the objective or formal principle, and of personal
faith or the material principle, and thus for the restoration of
the evangelical principle to its reformation purity and glory.
And not to this only, but to the higher and more certain position
of being no longer a mere matter of formal inheritance, or indeed
of tradition, but a common possession, scientifically secured, cap-
able of restoring its independence to theology, and of effecting
its fruitful organization.
During the whole course of this great history—a course pro-
gressing in conformity to law-the great matter was to liberate
from the chrysalis state into which it had again fallen, that evan-
gelical principle of faith in which a new world was enclosed; and
to deduce therefrom, or obtain from its point of view, a new
knowledge of the human and the divine, nay, of the world in
general. But for this more conscious possession of the treasures
of faith, the first thing needed was such an investigation of the
general relations of the divine and human as might form its
substructure. This task, which had remained unaccomplished
since the Reformation, necessarily and naturally devolved upon
philosophical research. Not only during the middle ages, but
again, in respect of the doctrine of predestination in the Refor-
mation era, and in the seventeenth century, theology had for
the most part kept more strictly to the divine side, i.e. since
the doctrine of God was but little discussed, to the investi-
gation of divine grace and its laws; while the creature, the
human side of Christology, together with the doctrines of in-
spiration, of the operations of grace, and of the sacraments, had
been almost lost sight of in the divine. Hence, after 1750, philo-
sophy, placing itself on the human side, began to make this
question its own. It advocated the misconceived claims of sub-
jectivity, nay, at first it far exceeded these claims, by seeking to
set up subjectivity as the absolute principle. But all these
attempts at rendering this principle absolute, whether in the form
of will, thought, or feeling, terminated in a reaction towards
objectivity, and hence a position more friendly to Christianity
characterizes the commencement of the present century.
Wittenberg. Tübingen.
103
THE
SECTION I.
ONESIDED OBJECTIVITY.
CHAPTER I.
LITERATURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD.
留
​HE universities were pre-eminently the homes of Lutheran
doctrine, though the great cities-such as Hamburg, Lü-
beck, Magdeburg, Dantzic, Stettin, Gotha, Nuremberg and
Stutgardt also boast the possession of theological celebrities.2
1
I. After the separation of the Melanchthonians, Wittenberg was
the school of the strictest orthodoxy, in the sense of the Form
of Concord. Tübingen, Strasburg, and Greifswald, and for a short
period Giessen also, rank next, during the seventeenth century.
After these may be mentioned certain towns, such as Dantzic,
Lubeck, and Hamburg. Immediately after the promulgation of
the Form of Concord, in which the Wurtembergers had taken
so prominent a part, Wittenberg was greatly reinforced from
Swabia. Hence were Polyk, Leyser the elder (1552-1610), the
continuer of the Harmonia quatuor Evangeliorum, begun by
Chemnitz and completed by John Gerhard; George Mylius;
Ægid. Hunnius, † 1603, formerly of Marburg from 1576 to 1592,
and father of Nicolas Hunnius of Lübeck, who exercised such
abundant influence upon the Lutheran form of the doctrine of
predestination (see Vol. I.), and a partial influence upon its
Christology also;3 and Leonhard Hütter (1563-1616), (see below,
p. 109). Wittenberg also claims the following names of note:
Balth. Meisner (1587-1626), John Hülsemann,5 from 1629
1 Magdeburg was the birthplace of Protestant ecclesiastical history, by means
of the Magdeburg centuries of Von Flaccius, John Wigand, Matth. Judex, Basilius
Faber, Andr. Corvinus, Thom. Holzhuter. An abridgment was made by Luc.
Osiander, with a continuation from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century.
4
2 With respect to what follows, compare especially the detailed information in
Tholuck's Das akadem. Leben, &c., ii. pp. 15-202; Gass, Geschichte der protestan-
tischen Doymatik, 3 vols.; Stäudlin, Geschichte der theol. II¯issenschaft, ii. 1811.
3 Ægid. Hunnii libelli iv. de persona Christi, 1585. Articulus de providentia
Dei et æterna prædestinatione sive electione, 1605, in opposition to Tossanus and G.
Huber, Epitome biblica, 1603. 4 B. Meisner, Philosophia sobria, 1611.
5 Breviarium Theologiæ exhib. præcip. fid. controversias, 1640.
104
Tübingen. Strasburg.
$
to 1646 of Wittenberg, and subsequently of Leipsic, a violent
polemic,¹ but a man of profound intellect, † 1661; Abr. Calovius,
formerly of Königsberg, Rostock, and Dantzic, but of Witten-
berg from 1650 to 1686;2 Quenstedt, his father-in-law, 1617-
1688, and Deutschmann, his son-in-law; and lastly Baldwin, with
whom may be named Weller, chaplain to the Saxon court.
4
Next in estimation to these are the theologians of Tübingen:
Jacob Andreä (Schmidlin), 1562-1590, Heerbrands (+ 1600),
Hafenreffer (1592-1619), Steph. Gerlach († 1612), John George
Sigwarts (1587-1618), Andr. Osiander (1607-1627), the Cryptic
Theod. Thumm (1618-1630), and M. Nicolai (1618-1650), Luc
Osiander, the scourge of John Arndt, one of those theologians
to whom "
the Holy Ghost seems to have appeared in the form
rather of a raven than a dove." And in the second half of the
century: John Adam Osiander (1660-1697), author of the Har-
monia Evangelica, not to mention that theologian of doubtful
character Tobias Wagner († 1680). Förtsch (1695-1705), Chris-
toph Pfaff the elder (1685-1700), and Jäger (1702-1720), ter-
minate the strictly orthodox series. With Christoph Reuchlin
(† 1707), Hochstetter († 1720), and the Church historian Weis-
mann-who were more akin to the genius of Spener's school,-
and with Christoph Matth. Pfaff the younger, a man of elegant
and extensive scholarship, a new era began.
At Strasburg, where Calvin, Bucer, Capito, Hedio, Peter Martyr,
and Zanchius taught in the sixteenth century, but which after the
controversy of the latter with Marburg became decidedly Lutheran,
theology at the beginning of the seventeenth century still main-
tained a milder tendency, which was advocated chiefly by John
Schmidt (1623-1658), to whom Spener was largely indebted.
Dorsche (1626-1658) and Dannhauer (1635-1666), however, soon
became the ruling spirits. Bebel, too, the historian, who was highly
esteemed by Spener for his moderation, also subsequently adhered
to the Wittenberg school. Zentgraf (1695-1707) was like-minded
with these. The pious and scriptural theologian Seb. Schmidt
(1654-1696) was the only exception to the prevailing tone.
1
¹ Comp. his Calvinismus irreconciliabilis; Callixtinischer Gewissenswurm, 1854.
2 Calovius, Biblia illustrata, iv. fol. is specially directed against the Annotat.
in V. T. und in libros Evv. &c. of H. Grotius. On his doctrinal writings, see below.
3 Jac. Heerbrand, Comp. Theologiæ methodi quæstionibus tract. 1575.
* Matthias Hafenreffer, Loci Theologici, lib. iii. 1600.
5 Author of a theological compendium which, according to Hafenreffer, was
introduced into Wurtemberg. 6 Tholuck, in his above-cited work, ii. 133.
Giessen.
Greifswald. Hamburg. Dantzic. 105
In Giessen (compare above, p. 15, Marburg) Justus Feuerborn,
(† 1656), and Balth. Mentzer, 1627 the Kenotics,¹ whose Christo-
logy was of a more moderate kind than that of the Tübingen
theologians and their colleague Gesenius (of Strasburg, 1619, of
Rinteln, 1621), who inclined to the Tübingen school, were, to-
gether with Winckelmann († 1626), driven from that university.
Nevertheless they, as well as Menno Hannecken, 1626-1646,
and Haberkorn, 1650-1676, belong to the strictly Lutheran party.
Not before the times of H. May, the worthy representative of the
Spenerian tendency, 1688, Gottfr. Arnold (for less than a year
professor of history, 1697), John Ernst Gerhard, 1697, Hedinger,
1694, and John Jas. Rambach, did another spirit enter into
Giessen and bring to it fresh renown.
In Greifswald, towards the end of the sixteenth century, Jacob
and Frederic Runge were still inculcating the tenets of Melanch-
thon, and contributing to the rejection of the Form. Conc. in
Pomerania. In the seventeenth, however, the doctrines of the
Form. Conc., concerning the Lord's Supper, the Person of Christ,
and predestination, were adopted at the instigation of the harsh
Balth. v. Krakiewitz, and the Form. Conc. itself made binding
upon the faculty. Balth. Rhaw († 1638), Battus, and others,
laboured in a like spirit until about 1693. In Mayer, the enemy
of Spener, this tendency reached its climax.
Thus it was, for the most part, the strictest orthodoxy which
prevailed in the above-named cities, and in their universities,
and this evidenced itself more particularly in animosity to the
Reformed Church. In Hamburg, Lutheranism was advocated by
Jas. Reineccius, 1613, Edzard, Erdm. Neumeister; in Dantzic,
after a short prevalence of Reformed doctrines (from 1606 to
1616), by Botsack, Calovius, 1643, the bully Eg. Strauch, 1670
to 1682, and the immortal Schelwig (see below).
For a considerable period Rostock, where a milder and more
mystical tendency prevailed, presented a marked contrast to
2
¹ Kenotik (KEVOTɩký), doctrine of the real humiliation of Christ, i.e. of His so
emptying Himself of the Divine attributes of omnipresence and government of
the world that in His human nature He was not omnipresent, but limited to a
particular place. The older Tübingen school, on the other hand, maintained such
a union of the two natures as gave to the human all the attributes of the divine.
Hence, instead of a real emptying, there was only a concealment, an abstinence
from the use of attributes really possessed. Theologians who held the former
doctrine were called Cryptics; those who held the latter, Kenoties. Both words
have failed to obtain currency out of Germany.-Tr.
2 Practical theology was here specially favoured and cherished.
106
Helmstädt.
these cities. According to Chyträus, Lutkemann laboured there
as professor of philosophy (1643), also Grossgebauer, Paul, and
John Tarnovius (1604-1637), (1614-1629), J. Quistorp the elder,
1615-1640, and J. Quistorp the younger, 1647-1661, Heinr.
Müller, the excellent ascetic author (1653-1675), Schomer, the
admirable writer on ethics (1680-1693), while Affelmann (1609-
1624), John Kothmann (1626-1650), Dorsche (1654-1659), and
John König (1663-1664), author of the Theologia positiva, 1664,
belong to the scholastic series which terminated with that
staunch anti-pietist Fecht. Eihhard Lubinus (1596-1621), there
sought to strike out an independent philosophical path. He
declared evil to be necessary, but viewed it as a mere negation.¹
II. The strictly orthodox universities were opposed chiefly by
the Calixtine school, which was represented not merely at Helm-
städt (founded 1576), but also at the universities of Altdorf, Rin-
teln, and Königsberg, and which found adherents in many other
places besides Schleswig-Holstein, the native land of Calixtus,
where Terserus, Matthias, and Strigelius were Calixtines, and
which continued to be its chief seat till Sweden accepted the For-
mula concordia, and became the home of Lutheran orthodoxy.
Helmstädt was the scene of the labours not only of George
Calixtus, but of his friends and pupils Hornejus, 1619-1641,
Titius, 1649-1681, the advocate of the necessity of good works
for salvation, and also of his contentious and worldly-minded son
Ulrich Calixtus, 1657-1701. The classics, and a feeling for
history, flourished still longer in Helmstädt. Mosheim, who
subsequently removed to Göttingen, was their last representative.
But indifference to all confessions spread on all sides, as is shown
especially by Fabricius, that mischievous ecclesiastical counsellor
of protestant princes who were willing to make their daughters
change their religion for the sake of a crown. Unionism in the
Calixtine school went so far as to form plans for uniting with
Romanists. This was the case with the Abbot Molanus of Loc-
cum, a pupil of Calixtus. He had been professor at Rinteln,
together with two other pupils of Calixtus, Mart. Eccard (1650),
and Henichen (1651), author of a theological compendium. John
Meisner of Wittenberg, Ernst Gerhard of Jena (1659-1688), a
son of John Gerhard, were likewise favourers of Calixtus. Be-
sides these may be also mentioned the strange, and subsequently
1 E. Lubinus, Phosphorus de prima causa et natura mali, 1596.
Königsberg. Altdorf.
107
rationalistic, Hermann von der Hardt (1690-1713), who was at
first much moved by Spener's teaching.
Among the teachers of Königsberg were numbered, besides
Myslenta (1619-1653), "a volcano constantly vomiting fire and
mud,” and Alex. Calovius (1640-1643), John Behm (1613-1640),
who was at first zealous against the Reformed, and became after-
wards, together with his son, Mich. Behm (1640-1650), a syncre-
tist; also Latermann (1647-1652) and Christ. Dreier (1644-1688).
Mich. Behm, Dreier, and Lev. Pouchon were deputies of the Elector
to the Conference of Thorn (1645). The syncretism of Königs-
berg became to John Ernst Grabe (1697) a bridge to Anglican
episcopacy, and to the theologian John Phil. Pfeiffer (1694) and
many laymen a bridge to Roman Catholicism. Towards the close
of this century, Königsberg rejected pietism. In Lysius (1709),
a pupil of the Halle school was first numbered among its faculty,
and Mich. Lilienthal (1713) was afterwards associated with him.
Finally, the aesthetic and humanistic inclinations of Nurem-
berg gave the tone to its university of Altdorf. At first, Altdorf
was decidedly Philippistic-nay, many of its teachers went as
far as Calvinism, c.g. Dürnhofer († 1594) and Moritz Helling
(† 1595). The Form. Conc. was perseveringly rejected by the
council of Nuremberg; and the Corpus Philippicum made a text-
book. Only Schopper (1598-1616), John Schröder (1611-1621),
professor at Altdorf, and Saubert of Nuremberg advocated
Lutheran orthodoxy-the latter in a zealous, but at the same
time a dignified and pious, manner. Thereupon, König (1614-
1626) more decidedly represented the orthodox system, but not
sincerely, since he was at the same time dallying with the So-
cinians, who had secretly collected in Altdorf. After this, in the
third decade of the century, the influence of Helmstädt, of Cornel.
Martini, and of Calixtus commenced. In 1636 appeared the
celebrated Old Testament exegete Hackspan, whose views har-
monized with those of Ludw. Cappellus. Fabricius, Dürr (1651-
1677), and John Saubert (professor at Altdorf 1660, at Helm-
städt 1673) shared in this tendency.
The theological ambiguity which had set up its seat chiefly at
Nuremberg and Altdorf was principally represented by Dilherr,
called in 1642 from Jena to Altdorf. The pietistic school sub-
sequently obtained a footing here.
III. The middle-ground between strict orthodoxy and the
108
Fena. Leipsic. Copenhagen.
school of Calixtus was occupied by Leipsic, but especially by
Jena, which, by means of a series of excellent teachers, entered
with wisdom and moderation, but at the same time with decision,
into the various theological phases of the seventeenth century,
and whose circle of youthful theologians amounted to several
thousands. But it was chiefly through the instrumentality of
the great John Gerhard, in the beginning of the century, that a
new and better era dawned upon Jena. John Himmel and John
Major formed with him the famed "Johannean Triad." For a
short time (1638 to 1640), Sal. Glassius, author of the Philologia
sacra, 1623, was the ornament of Jena. Christ. Chemnitz
(1652-1666), a man as pious as he was orthodox, kept up its
fame from its greatest period till that of John Musaeus, 1643-
1681, an acute philosopher, and, together with Calixtus and
Gerhard, one of the greatest theologians of the century, with
whom even Spener was on terms of understanding. Wilh. Baier
also, author of the famed Compendium, after reading Arndt's True
Christianity, adhered, though cautiously, to Spener. Sagittarius,
the renowned historian (1674-1694), agreed with H. A. Francke;
and Fr. Buddæus transmitted this spirit to the eighteenth century.
On the whole, a comparatively milder tone prevailed also in
Leipsic, as is evidenced by Höpfner, celebrated for his work On
Justification, one of the Leipsic collocutors in 1631, Martin
Geyer (1639-1683), court-chaplain before Lucius and Spener;
also by the pious Olearius (1664) and Rechenberg, the friend of
Spener (1680-1721). Nay, even John Bened. Carpzovius the elder
(1646-1657) does not exhibit the acerbity of the strictly ortho-
dox. These were represented in Leipsic by the names of
Hülsemann (1646-1661), Scherzer (1667-1683), Pfeiffer (1648),
Alberti (1671), who were, however, unable to make any decided
impression upon the university.
In Copenhagen, Brochmann (1633) was a worthy representa-
tive of the Jena school; while Masius, the Calovian, exhibited the
hateful combination of a defence of despotic secular power and
orthodoxy, and found kindred spirits in Arsenius and Lundius.
The chief works of the above-named are of a doctrinal nature.
But divinity, besides mere controversy, embraced also ethics,
practical theology, exegesis, and the history of doctrines. All
these subjects however were ruled by divinity, that depositary
of the self-conscious Protestant principle. Progress is exhibited
Local Method.
109
in method. The doctrinal works of John Spangenberg (1540,
Margarita theologica); Erasm. Sarcerius, Chyträus, 1555, Nicol
Hemming (Enchiridion theologica), 1537, and Syntagma institu-
tionum christ., 1574). Nicolas Solnecker (Institut. chr. rel., 1563),
Victorin Strigel (edited by Pezel, 1582-1585), Martin Chemnitz
ed. Polyk, Leyser, 1591, and especially John Gerhard,¹ the
great divine of the Lutheran Church, all follow the local method
of which Melanchthon set the example, and which prevailed from
his time to that of Calixtus. Gerhard's works are distinguished
by the devout spirit, the extensive patristic and scholastic learn-
ing, the fulness of thought, and finally by the precision of ideas,
and the skill in doctrinal criticism and apologetics which they
exhibit. He exercised a lasting influence upon the consolida-
tion of Lutheran views, was greatly followed by even Quenstedt,
"the book-keeper of Lutheran orthodoxy," and remains to this
day a mine of doctrinal knowledge. His mildness and modera-
tion gained him the esteem both of Catholics and Reformed, and
his principal doctrinal work was re-edited by the latter (at
Geneva). Leonhard Hütter of Nellingen, near Ulm, wrote a
theological compendium in strictest accordance with the symbols.2
It gives the Lutheran system of doctrine, without many explana-
tions, in the form of question and answer, as being most con-
venient for committing to memory, and is accompanied with
extracts from Luther and Melanchthon, Chemnitz and Ægid.
Hunnius. He is thus the most decided representative of merely
traditional Lutheranism. In his larger work, published after his
1 Jo. Gerhardi Loci Theologici cum pro adstruenda veritate, tum pro destruenda
quorumvis contradicentum falsitate per theses nervose, solide, et copiose explicati;
novem tomis comprehensum, 1609-22. Enlarged by excellent articles, ed. Cotta,
in 20 quarto vols. 1762-1781. Lic. Preuss has commenced a new edition, pt. iv.
1867. Also Confessionis Catholicæ in qua doctrina cathol, et evang. quam ecclesiæ
Aug. Conf. addictée profitentur, Epitome, ed. Joh. Ernst Gerhard, lib. i. ii. in 2
vols. 4to, 1661.
2 Frequently edited in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As a staunch
controversialist against the Jesuits, Melanchthon and the Reformed, he inaugurated
the era of symbolical traditionalism in the Lutheran Church. He replied to the
Irenicum of Dav. Pareus (1614) in his Irenicum vere christianum (as opposed to a
unio fucata), 1616; and to the Concordia discors of R. Hospinian, 1607, in the
Concordia concors, de origine et progressu Form. Conc. eccles. Aug. Conf. 1614.
Of like nature are also his Calvinista Aulico, Politicus, and several works occasioned
by the secession of John Sigismund to the Reformed Confession. He was also a
specially zealous and productive commentator on the symbolical books, particu-
larly the Augustana and Form. Conc.
IIO
Analytical Method.
death, he treats doctrinal matters more thoroughly, but with
little feeling for system or sound exegesis. His chief aim is to
carry out, for learned and acute controversialists, the opposition
to Melanchthon and the Reformed. To the same series belongs
also the doctrinal work¹ of Brockmann the Dane.
3
2
The local method, by separating the doctrinal matter into
fragments, prevented the organic connection and progress of the
system from being perceptible. Hence George Calixtus, who
entered upon his labours in the sphere of divinity in 1613, intro-
duced the analytical method, which soon found acceptance even
with his opponents, e.g. Calovius, Dannhauer (Hodosophia), and
Hülsemann. It seeks to deduce from one supreme truth, which
is the best possession of mortals, the several doctrinal propositions
as component parts of that same truth, and as means towards the
attainment of the highest end. This highest end is the happiness.
of man in the fruition of God. With this Calovius already con-
nected the so-called definitional and causal methods in the several
doctrines. Scherzer reduced the whole system of theology to twen-
ty-nine definitions to be learned by heart. König, Quenstedt,
and Baier, employed a method similar to that of Calovius.
5
6
When the time arrived for giving the stability of a systematic
form to the truths attained to at the Reformation, and laying
down connected and self-consistent tenets,-for which process.
the agency of the reasoning powers was indispensable, the chief
concern was to bring evangelical truth into its true and positive
relation to general human reason. It was in this respect that
the controversy of Daniel Hoffman was important.8 Strongly as
Luther had expressed himself against philosophy and reason, so
far as their intervention in spiritualia was concerned, he had
yet as decidedly acknowledged reason as God's gift to man, and
as queen in her proper province. His chief solicitude had been
to maintain the independence of the province of faith with
1 C. E. Brochmanni Universæ theolog, systema, 2 vols. Lips. 1838.
2 G. Calixti Epitome theologia, Gosl. 1619, with a disput. de principio theologico.
3 Abr. Calovii Syst. loc. theol. 1675-77, 12 vols. in 4to.
4 Jo. Ad. Scherzeri Systema Theologiæ, xxix. definitionibus absolutum, 1679,
ed. 2, 1685.
5 Theolog. posit, acroam. 1664.
6 Theolog. didacticopolem, sive syst. theol. 1685, 1702.
7 Joh. Guel. Baier, Comp. theol, posit. 1693, following the footsteps of Joh. Musæus.
8 Comp. Gass, Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik, i. 1854; Henke, Calixt,
i. 33, ff. p. 67-70; Thomasius, de controv. Hoffmanniana, 1844.
The Hoffmann Controversy.
1
III
respect to that of reason. In so doing he was far from denying
to faith a susceptibility of scientific treatment; on the contrary,
in his own opinion, that which seems foolishness to the natural
reason is nevertheless divine wisdom, and also capable of being
perceived to be such. But the provinces of nature and of faith
cannot be two separate worlds; they are, on the contrary, found
together in one and the same man, nay, there is no other faculty
of thought at the service of faith, than that which the natural
man also possesses. Hence, if there is to be a science of faith,
the first matter is to define more exactly the relation between
reason and faith, and on this point Luther has laid down no
connected doctrine, though he has not omitted dropping hints,
which betray a feeling that the Aristotelian philosophy and its
categories do not meet the requirements of the science of faith,
but that we must learn to speak " with a new tongue in another
language." Now Daniel Hoffmann, an opponent of Ægid.
Hunnius, and a camp-follower of the Gnesio-Lutheran band,
himself formerly a professor of philosophy, who had in 1593
been reproached with holding the Calvinistic doctrine of pre-
destination,2 irritated at the enthusiasm which Caselius and
Corn. Martini had rekindled in Helmstädt for humanities and
the Aristotelian philosophy, maintained in the interest-as he
supposed-of pure Lutheran doctrine, that, reason being naturally
an enemy of God, is to be regarded as essentially opposed to
revelation, and that consequently her opposition to revelation is
a sign of its truth. That which is against reason is for God.³
In such terms did he reject all and every use of reason in theo-
logy. Philosophy is a work of the flesh, and of all impurity,
idolatry and witchcraft; the ancient Church called philosophers
the patriarchs of heresy, a saying which his philosophical col-
leagues, Caselius, Martini, &c., took amiss; all that is true in
philosophy is false in theology. Philosophers are unregenerate
1 Hoffmanni proposito de Dco et Christi tum persona tum officio, 1593.
2 Bayle asserts of him that he made God the author of sin per accidens, Diction.
hist. et crit. ii. 489. Hoffmann specially reproaches Hunnius with declension
from the doctrine of election of the Form. Conc. He puts the prævisa fides in the
place of election which finds no reason in us. Hoffmann, on his part, felt him-
self in a condition to point out a hundred gross errors to the Wittenbergers. He
was also a stout polemic against the Reformed.
3 It is an abominabilis sententia of the Sorbonne : idem esse verum in philosophia
et theologia; compare Hoffmann, pro duplici veritate Lutheri, 1600. His oppo-
nents maintained that double truth is blasphemy, since God is truth.
II2
The Hoffmann Controversy.
men; what they say of God is untrue. No unregenerate man
can know that God is, and the more the reason is cultivated, the
more highly does she estimate herself, and the more dangerous
does she become to faith. To practise philosophy is to incur
damnation. Bötscher, an opponent of Calixtus, subsequently
expressed himself in a similar manner. All knowledge beside
that of Holy Scripture leads from God to the world and to idola-
try. It is the devil who has implanted their law in nature and
in reason, viz. the delusion, "Ye shall be as gods." It is not
difficult to blame the narrowness of this standpoint, yet we have
here but the theoretical correlative of that antinomianism which
is also so penetrated by the power and fulness of the principle of
faith as to regard a transition to other spheres, whether to the
ethical on the one hand or to the intellectual on the other, as
an impeachment of the all-sufficiency of faith. In this case,
Hoffmann proceeds upon the assumption that philosophy will
not confine itself to that which is merely formal, but will hold
certain notions with regard to things moral and divine, which,
by reason of natural corruption, must necessarily be erroneous,
and lead to either Pelagianism or Atheism. His Aristotelian
opponents¹ insisted on ascribing to philosophy, not indeed
another truth besides theological truth, but another mode of
becoming acquainted with at least a certain portion of theo-
logical truth, which, as such, is only historically corroborated by
Scripture and deducible therefrom. In so doing they evidently
overlook evangelical fides and its assurance, and fall back upon
the form of historical faith. Hence the controversy could not
but lead to the question, whether philosophy possesses a special
second source of knowledge of the same truths or a portion of
them, which theology teaches from Scripture? If this question
were answered in the affirmative, theology, which had thus been.
referred to merely historical sources of knowledge, was evidently
placed in an unfavourable position with respect to philosophy,
which ascribed to itself the lion's share, as far as certainty was
concerned. It was said that it was possible to know, by means
of the reason, that God was not only just, but also compassionate,
and placable. Hoffmann, without bringing into the field the
power of true Protestant fides (though he says that we must learn
novis linguis loqui), had yet a feeling that if philosophy is an
1 Jacob Martini, Vernunftspiegel, 1618.
Relation to Philosophy.
113
independent source of knowledge, while theological knowledge
bears a merely historical character, and if reason has no need of
revelation, a self-sufficiency, nay, a worldly and ungodly ten-
dency is introduced in philosophy. The contest however was
not as yet to be decided on its own merits.¹ His philosophical
colleagues brought the matter before the secular power, which
obliged him to recant, and deprived him of his office (1601).
He died in 1611.
After the influence of Calixtus had made itself felt, the for-
merly inimical relation of the theological faculty, of a Hesshus,
a Hoffmann, a Strube, to the humanities and philosophy be-
came a friendly one, and the study of philosophy flourished
at Helmstädt. The attempts of Pfaffrads and others to intro-
duce the philosophy of Peter Ramus were defeated by the
decided Aristotelianism of Corn. Martini (1568-1621). Gener-
ally speaking, the study of formal philosophy, of course
after the medieval fashion, was soon much cultivated in the
Lutheran Church. This was done chiefly on dialectic grounds,
for purposes both of defence and attack. The most general and
popular means of exercising or displaying intellectual power
was by means of disputations. The Methodologia (see above,
p. 18) for the study of theology arranged that, in a five years'
course, the study of philosophy should play an important part.
Many, indeed, were afraid of any other than a formal use (usus
organicus) of philosophy, though the Aristotelian seemed, accord-
ing to its usual custom, capable of being applied indifferently to
the analysis of any material, whatever might be its purport, and
of conducing to systematic instruction therein. Moreover, not
only was the Aristotelian logic embraced, but also the Aristo-
telian ontology and metaphysics-of course exclusive of the
denial of a creation,-together with the improvements and addi-
tions of the Schoolmen. No scruples were felt in transferring the
categories of being or essence and existence, substance and acci-
dence, potency and art, causality, the modal categories of the
possible, the actual, the necessary, the ideas of genus, kind, and
individual, of the finite and infinite, to the sphere of doctrine,
1 Henke, in his before-named work, p. 69, thinks he sees in this controversy the
real beginning of the history of Rationalism, because the names Rationista, Ratio-
cinister, already occur in it. I should think that in saying this he fixes it either
too early or too late.
II.
H
کی
114
Aristotle and P. Ramus.
and applying them to its subject-matter. Nay, since the So-
cinians built their system upon the natural ignorance of the
reason, and thence inferred that all, even eternal, truths have
only an empiric and positive significance, an inference evidently
more favourable to the positivism of the Romish view, Lutheran
divinity, undeterred by its doctrine of original sin, gradually took
up the position of an advocate of.the rights of reason and philo-
sophy, and that not with reference to their merely formal
employment. Gerhard first opposed this Socinian axiom, and
asserted that the reason is capable of a certain knowledge of
God, though by no means of such a knowledge as to make reve-
lation superfluous. Perhaps the remembrance that the Reforma-
tion had sought to do justice to whatever was truly human, and
to recognize its compatibility with Christianity, also contri-
buted to bring about this result. But be this as it may, the
relation of theology to philosophy, in the Lutheran Church
of the seventeenth century, was far more than in the Reformed
Church, one of maintaining " a high estimation yet subordination
of philosophy."
And this lays down the conditions for that distinction be-
tween the articuli puri et mixti of Lutheran divinity, which
most decidedly shows what was esteemed to be the relation of
the reason to external revelation; whether these were to be re-
garded as two sources of the knowledge of the same truth, or as
separate gradations in a source essentially one. The articuli
puri are known only by the word of God, are merely matters of
faith in Holy Scripture; they contain the mysteries of salvation,
especially the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The articuli mixti
are such doctrines as are partially known to the reason; but the
reason being fallible and obscured, we cannot be assured of the
truth of what it teaches; hence even those articles which reason
knows from its own resources, are only believed in so far as they
are confirmed by Divine revelation in Holy Scripture. We
know that there is a God from evident proofs, but we believe it
only because it is revealed by God. So Calovius, Quenstedt,
1 The investigations into the relation of the universal moral law to the Christian
law are of like import in ethics, as the articuli puri et mixli in divinity. Hugo
Grotius had already thoroughly discussed this subject. He was followed by G.
Pufendorff, who laid it down as an axiom, that the universal moral law receives
only a positive form in Christianity. This was to make Christianity nothing more
than a means of promulgating or establishing the universal human.
Articuli Puri et Mixti.
115
Hollatius, and Baier. The revelation of God is contained only in
the Word of God. Faith is thus treated as a higher kind of cer-
tainty than the knowledge arrived at by the reason through its
own inferences. And this of itself involves an unquestionable
truth, if by faith we understand not merely historical faith. But
then, it may be asked, whether a certain amount of faith may
not, in this sense, be ascribed even to reason antecedently to its
inferences, nay, whether the notion of revelation is to be limited
to the external revelation in Scripture? It is, moreover, per-
fectly correct to say that if the inferences of reason are not con-
firmed by the Christian faith, but, on the contrary, opposed
thereby, it is impossible that the confidence and certainty of
Christian consciousness can be bestowed on such inferences.
In this case, it holds good that the beginning should await its
corroboration and establishment from the completion. But this
does not prove that, in another respect, the beginning, i.e. the
knowledge attained by reason, may not contribute, as a point of
contact, to the corroboration of revelation, and especially of the
Christian revelation, since there may be various degrees of cer-
tainty. Now though it is unanimously allowed that even theo-
logy must conform to the laws of formal logic, it was not generally
admitted by the Lutheran systematizers of the seventeenth
century, that the actual dictates even of the ratio recta were
necessary points of contact for Christianity and theology. The
reason, in consequence of that admixture of error to which she
is exposed, is incapable of judging what are the dictates of the
ratio recta-this is a matter which revelation alone can decide.
But even those dictates of the ratio recta which are admitted by
revelation to be such, are not brought into inward relation to
faith, still less is a kind of revelation recognized in reason,
in so far as she participates in divine truth. "Revelation" is
found solely in the positive, the historical; nay, by degrees the
secondary, i.c. the records of historical revelation, the Holy
Scriptures, are taken for "revelation;" and thus Holy Scripture
with its doctrines is put in the place of the vital facts of revela-
tion. Fides, moreover, was not regarded as the Christianized
form and self-certainty of the mind, ic. of truly enlightened
reason, but only as the reception into the mind of the contents
of scriptural and church teaching; and theology was far more
occupied with the establishment of correct doctrine, than with
116
Articuli Puri et Mixti.
the question, how and by what means a vital appropriation of
Christianity was to be effected. Hence it may be said that the
distinction of articuli puri et mixti was by no means sufficient
to determine the relation between Christianity and reason, be-
tween faith and knowledge. On the contrary, it attributed both
too much and too little to the human mind. For the reason, apart
from God and His continual revelation of Himself, which does
not take place in Scripture alone, cannot have that knowledge of
God which is assumed in the articulis mixtis. We may perceive
also the influence of the old non-Christian metaphysics upon
theology itself, in the fact that the nature of God is chiefly found
in the metaphysical attributes, and that His moral nature, his-
torically revealed in Christ as Love, is cast into the background,
and by no means attains as yet its central position. On the
contrary, the co-ordination of all the Divine attributes, nay, even
the denial of any actual distinction between them, is embraced;
and thus the idea of God is reduced to a simplicity void of
vitality, and dangerous to the history of revelation. But too
little is also ascribed to the human mind. For there is such a
thing as reason enlightened by Christianity, and revelation would
have been given in vain, if it were not possible to know both
that it is true, and why it is true. According to the view in
question the two sources of knowledge, reason and revelation,
are said to have the same contents with respect to the articuli
mixti, and therefore to be but different modes of knowing the
same thing. Now to avoid an arbitrary choice of either the one
or the other, it was necessary that both should be subjected to a
rule which should assign to each its right position. This then
was erroneously placed in one of the two members of the con-
trast: true certainty even of the existence of God, it was said,
could be attained only by the revelation in Holy Scripture, and
consequently faith in God was based upon Holy Scripture, its
inspiration, miracles, &c.; as though it were possible for an
unbeliever to believe in Scripture, without in some way or other
previously believing in God."
It was John Musaus who had already opposed the beginnings
of English Deism, and written against Herbert of Cherbury and
1 Compare my treatise on the unchangeableness of God, in the Jahrb. für
deutsche Theologic, 1857.
2 Comp. the prize essay of Harries, De articulis puris et mixtis.
John Musaus on Philosophy.
1
117
Spinoza, who most nearly approached the truth in this matter,
and elaborated a system of natural theology. He did not deny
the possibility that reason might discover Herbert's five proposi-
tions; but knowing is one thing and doing another. For the
latter, a divine and vital energy was needed; and this Christianity
offers. Sin needs expiation and a mediator; and these are given
in Christ. Spinoza, in his theologico-political tracts, insists upon
absolute freedom of thought, and the exclusion of nothing but
what is contrary to Pietas. Musaeus replies that the very condi-
tion of piety is the knowledge of God, that a vacuum of
knowledge is not sufficient for piety, which consists not in mere
obedience to God and knowledge of the Divine will, but also in
knowledge of the Divine nature. True piety is not possible
without an atonement; and this presupposes a definite truth
which must be known if it is to be of use to piety. Consequently,
natural theology differs from that which is revealed; because
man cannot obtain salvation from his reason, which can announce
to him only law and punishment. Finally, in opposition to
Herbert, he regards the connection existing between natural
reason and positive revelation, with all their diversity, to be
similar to that between a vital need and its supply, and finds a
reasonable assurance of the truth of Christianity in the path of
ethical knowledge. Man's conscience finds, he says, in Christianity
the satisfaction of its wants, and nature and grace enter into a
fruitful alliance in the reason that is enlightened by the truths
of Christianity. In thus speaking, however, he stands almost.
alone; while the more stress the Lutheran Church laid upon
purity of doctrine, and the more theology found in Christianity
nothing beyond a mere compound of doctrines-nay, of secret
doctrines, &.c. such as appeal only to faith, and are incapable of
being matters of knowledge-the more were the articuli puri
threatened with an irruption of intellectualism in a traditional
form, while the articuli mixti exhibited an intermingling of the
philosophical and theological elements. If the distinction
between reason and revelation is chiefly that they are but different
sources of the same knowledge, theology would have placed itself
in a difficult position by conceding to reason an independent
1 J. Musæus, De luminis naturæ et ei innixa theologiæ naturalis insufficientia
ad salutem contra Herbertum de Cherbury Baron Angl. 1667. Tractatus theo-
logico-politicus—ad veritatis lancem examinatus, Præside J. Musɗo, 1674.
118 Seventeenth Century Reformation Principles.
knowledge, and yet attributing only to revelation the power of
self-authentication. For if Holy Scripture were not blindly
received upon the authority of the Church, and therefore of
tradition, it could be only for the sake of proofs of some kind
or other offered to the reason that this validity and supremacy
over reason were claimed for it; unless recourse were had to
some other confirmation of revelation than one of a merely
intellectual kind. This leads, however, to the position which
the divinity of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries occu-
pied towards the principle of the Reformation, especially to its
material side and to the assurance of salvation.
CHAPTER II.
HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION PRINCIPLE DURING THE PREVALENCE
OF LUTHERAN ORTHODOXY, DOWN TO THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
WE have seen (Vol. I.) that with Luther the word and faith
were indissolubly united, while each, nevertheless, had its
relative independent existence; that he regarded assurance of
the truth of Christianity as being in the first place assurance of
salvation, and not a mere product of the authority of Holy
Scripture; and, finally, that to his mind that divine assurance,
which is inherent in evangelical faith, is an assurance of the truth
of the promises contained in the word of God, and, above all, of
the justification of the sinner before God through faith, and not
chiefly the product of divine testimony to the authority of the
canon. The article of justification is regarded by him not merely
as a single article among others, but also as that very truth
whose generative power produces from itself the entire organism
of Christian doctrine and Christian practice. Hence, all doctrines
were not, in his view, of equal importance, but their relative
value was determined by the closeness of their connection with
the vital principle of the whole. Not that he laid down
scientifically the distinction between faith and doctrinal formula
—nevertheless, justification through faith was not a mere dogma
of his theology, but the experimental fact upon which it was
founded. This relative independence of faith not merely secured
a free interpretation of Scripture by faith, in opposition to ecclesias-
tical tradition, but also left a lawful position to believing criticism.
Reformation Principles in Seventeenth Century. 119
That aiming after absolute certitude in religious matters, so
ineffaceably impressed upon the German mind by the Reforma-
tion era, was, in the seventeenth century, still powerfully opera-
tive, and seeking for satisfaction in a theological manner also, by
continuing its labours until it should find repose in that which
was supreme, even in the Divine. On this ground it was that
there was such constant opposition to Socinianism and Arminian-
ism, which would probably have been contented to esteem truth
unattainable, partly because what is good, and what is true to
us depend upon the will of God, which is only to be known in
a positive way. Equally was this the reason for opposing Roman
Catholic theology, which, by furnishing only human testimony
to superhuman truth, stops at the stage of a merely historical
faith. In the place of the Church's testimony, to which its
legitimate and subordinate position was allowed, was placed the
testimony of Holy Scripture, and even this not in such wise
that faith in Scripture should now be a mere faith in external
authority as faith in the Church had been. On the contrary, it
was unanimously acknowledged, as at the Reformation, that a
firm, a God-produced, certainty concerning the contents of
Christianity and their truth, is both possible and necessary.
Gerhard, Hülsemann, König, Calovius, Dannhauer, Dorsche,
Quenstedt, and Hollatius, all agree in this respect with Luther
and Chemnitz. Neither will these teachers allow Christian
truth to be regarded as a merely theoretical matter, nor permit
the assurance thereof to be separated from the assurance of
salvation. They call theology a habitus practicus, whose object.
is eternal salvation, and in so doing express a principle, to which
indeed some were less faithful than others. Hence, it cannot be
said that that union of the formal and material principles which
forms the central point of the Reformation, was entirely neglected
or lost in the seventeenth century. Even though subsequently
to Gerhard, Holy Scripture was, according to the prefatory work
of Hunnius,¹ made the starting-point of systems of divinity, and
the sole principle and foundation of theology, yet this was only
done on the assumption that the theologian or divine had ex-
perienced in his own case the power of Scripture, and that, while
laying down in his system the contents of Holy Scripture,
he possessed also an assured certainty of its truth, even as
1 Æg. Hunnius, De perfect. Majcst. autorit. fide ac certit. Script. sacr., 1594.
I 20 Seventeenth Century Reformation Principles.
Scripture is meant both to create faith and to be understood
by faith.
And yet how different is the spirit exhibited by this century
from that of the Reformation era! Let us see in what this
difference consists and how it may be explained. We shall not
err if we say that the theology of this period no longer treated
the material principle of the Reformation, viewed in the aspect
of personal assurance, and that which is the matter of this
assurance, viz. justification by faith, as a principle co-ordinate
with the Scripture principle, but made its authority depend
solely upon the Scripture principle, nay, regarded it as
clusively the result and product of the latter, and was therein
unfaithful to the standpoint of the Reformation, and especially
to that of Luther. We shall soon see what abundant results
followed from this imperceptible alteration.
ex-
It crept in unperceived, and was no conscious declension from
the Reformation. On the contrary, it is easy to point out the
factors by means of which the extinction of the material prin-
ciple was gradually effected. On the one side, the divine self-
certainty of faith, a certainty which, where it really exists, is
relatively independent of all men, even of apostles (Gal. i. 8),
was something alien, and therefore fantastical to catholic piety
and theology, which regarded it as "private fancy," and appealed
from "private judgment" to the supposed surer judgment of the
Church. The mere appeal to personal assurance of truth (even
though it were divine truth) or of salvation, seemed of little avail
in that important function of polemics, which, instead of defend-
ing itself with evidences, or taking refuge in the citadel of
personal faith, was seeking to give universal authority to
evangelical truth, and consequently to maintain an aggressive
character. Such an appeal could only have been efficient if the
formal pherophory of faith had developed its treasures, and made
an important objective impression, by a statement of its con-
tents, and of their indissoluble connection; and for such a work
the age was not yet ripe. Since then a dispute cannot he
carried on against one negantem contra principia, and Catholic
theology moreover, while rejecting the material principle, equally
1
1 Chemnitz, in his Loci, proves that the doctrine of the Trinity may be de-
veloped from that of justification by faith; the notion is however nowhere else
further carried out.
Reformation Doctrine of Principles.
I2I
with its opponents, acknowledged the Divine authority of Holy
Scripture, this was the principle which was fallen back upon.
To this circumstance was added another. The fanatical ten-
dencies (fanatici enthusiasta) sought for support from the
material principle, while they either diminished or lightly
esteemed the formal. Hence both zeal for the defence of the
latter, and the effort to deprive such opponents of all support
from the former, led to a disregard of the co-ordination of the
material with the formal principle,¹ though, as before remarked,
this was not carried so far as not still to leave to the former, as
being at least the effect of the formal, a secondary position in
the introduction to the system, or among the fundamental
doctrines.
On the other hand, however, that impulse of the Reformation
which required infallible truth and assurance thereof, and which
would not rest content within the province of the creature, still
survived. Hence it was necessary to exalt Holy Scripture to
a superhuman position, that thus connection therewith might
maintain somewhat of that direct fellowship with God which
protestants from the very first demanded.
In what has been advanced, we have stated the data out of
which the theological principles or fundamental doctrines of the
period were constructed.
The edifice was reared with much care, and with a conscien-
tiousness which was thorough of its kind, the divinity of the age
not shrinking from encountering the most cogent objections.
It was one of the dogmatic achievements of the seventeenth
century to carry out the locus of Scripture with an exactness
which had not been even approximated either in the sixteenth
or in any previous century.
We must, it is said, if our faith is to rest upon an absolutely
secure and infallible foundation, recur to its ultimate, its abso-
lutely supreme principle. This very notion of an ultimate
principle forbids us to derive our assurance of it from aught
extraneous to itself; it is worthy of belief on its own account
(aÚTÓTσTOV); it is not subject to be judged by aught inferior to
itself (árvπcúðuvor), being, on the contrary, itself the supreme
rule of judgment. Finally, it is not even susceptible of proof,
1 In this respect the controversy between Rathmann and Movius marks the
point of transition. See below.
122
Seventeenth Century Reformation Principles.
or as Hollatius more moderately expresses it, at least not à priori
demonstrable, but must be left to prove itself. The supreme
principle of theology is God as revealing Himself, or His revela-
tion, and a doctrine is fully proved when it is shown to be really
the word or revelation of God. Now the revelation of God is
given in Holy Scripture, or as was subsequently said, Holy Scrip-
ture is the revelation of God. That it is this, and nothing less
than this, is its own assertion, and the truth of this self-asser-
tion commends itself to our belief by the external and internal
criteria of its divinity, i.e. of its Divine origin. The external
criteria are its antiquity, the superior illumination and love of
truth which distinguish its authors,¹ the miracles which attest
it, the consent of all Christendom, the wonderful spread of the
Gospel, the martyrs who died for their faith in Scripture, and the
judgments which have fallen upon its despisers and persecutors.
The internal criteria are the majesty of God's witness to Himself
in Holy Scripture, the simplicity and dignity of its style, the
sublimity of the divine mysteries which it contains, the truth
of its statements, the holiness of its precepts, and finally its
sufficiency for salvation. But it was possible to acknowledge
all this, and still to stand on the ground of an historical faith, a
faith in mere authority (fides humana). Hence the inward
witness of the Spirit, which seals and certifies to the heart, the
inspiration of Holy Scripture, was declared to be the ultimate
and chief means by which its divine origin is to be certified and
sealed to the heart.2 To make this clear, and to avoid the
appearance of arguing in a circle, it was needful to connect the
doctrine of the authority of Scripture with that of its efficacy.
Holy Scripture does not accredit itself in so far as it places
before us a certain matter of thought, but in so far as it evi-
dences (certainly by means of this matter) its power to affect us,
to open and to enlighten our hearts. This enlightenment, being
the effect of Scripture, compels our inference of the nature of its
cause. Through this enlightenment we recognize the truth of
the doctrina scripturæ sacra, and its divinity, and are therefore
conscious that God is its author.3 Hollatius also brings forward
the converting saving power of Holy Scripture, and since the
1 So Hollatius, bk. i. p. 124.
2 Hollatii Examen, pp. 136-140.
3 So especially Calovius and also Hollatius, p. 138.
Seventeenth Century Reformation Principles.
123
effect, the changed heart, is conscious of its own state, and knows
that the effect of Scripture is good and salutary, nay, has an
assurance which it must perceive to be infallible and divine, the
inference of the divine nature of the cause, i.e. of the divine
origin or inspiration of Scripture, is a just one. It must here be
noted that neither in Calovius, nor Quenstedt, nor even in Holla-
tius, is the adoption of the individual, nor the assurance of justi-
fication, made to be the proper matter of the Holy Spirit's testimony,
on the contrary, the whole stress is laid upon the production of an
assurance that the DOCTRINES of Holy Scripture are true, and it is
by means of this, or even by means of an experience of the con-
verting effects of these doctrines, that a transition is made to the
assurance of the divine origin of Holy Scripture, which last is
reached by an inference of the cause from the effect. He who
has evangelical faith (fiducialiter credit) knows also that he
believes, and in this his faith and assurance, which are both
conscious, he possesses the divine datum which points to the
divinity of its cause,¹ which gives him assurance of the Divine
origin of Holy Scripture.
Thus was Holy Scripture-accompanied of course by the
Holy Spirit who was its author-made the sole principle of
theology, and then that it might be duly and adequately endowed
for this position, the doctrine of its properties (affectiones) was
made proportionate thereto.
It was only step by step that the departure from the Reforma-
tion doctrine was accomplished. Æg. Hunnius was still so far
from laying down faith in the Holy Scripture as the first thing,
and then building personal assurance of salvation upon the
assurance of its Divine origin, that he says, on the contrary: The
most efficacious and surest evidence on which to found faith in
Holy Scripture is this, that believers (i.c. they who believe in
Christ) are sensible of the truth of the Divine promises in Scrip-
ture, and therefore experience their saving power. The Holy
¹ Comp. Hollatius, id. p. 137.
2 The era of the local method showed itself more faithful to the position of the
Reformation in the fact that the older doctrinal terms, e.g. even in Chemnitz,
nay, at first, even in John Gerhard, do not yet put the locus of Holy Scripture in
the first place as the all-supporting foundation. In them the doctrine of Holy
Scripture falls within the doctrine of faith, either in the section de lege et Evangelio,
which, from Melanchthon onwards, was never lacking, or in the doctrine of the
means of grace (as in Calixtus).
124
Changes in the Reformation Principles.
Spirit thereby seals to the heart the truth of Holy Scripture (of
its contents). Nevertheless it is certain that Hunnius proceeds
directly from the experience of the saving power of the contents
of Scripture to that of the Divine authority and origin of the
canon. The assurance of the saving power of that Christian
truth which is contained in Scripture, is at once changed into
assurance of the Divine origin and form of the canon, and
it is this exchange of assurance of the Divine nature of the con-
tents, for assurance of the Divine nature of the form of the canon,
which is, almost without exception, the turn taken and main-
tained during the seventeenth century.
1
Gerhard too, though he does not yet exclude personal experi-
ence of salvation from the means of being assured that the con-
tents of Scripture are the truth of God, already applies the
testimony of the Spirit in a onesided manner to doctrine. He,
as well as those who follow him, understands the words, “The
Spirit beareth witness to our spirit that the Spirit is truth," to
mean the Holy Ghost witnesses in the heart that the doctrine.
which has proceeded from Him, ie. Holy Scripture, is truth.
Personal salvation and the experience thereof and therefore
justification are no longer made, as by Luther, the means of
attaining assurance of the Divine nature of Christianity, and the
basis of all religious certainty.
In the writings of Gerhard's successors, of Calovius, Hülse-
mann, Dorsche, Quenstedt, and even Hollatius, it is the con-
firmation of the objective doctrine which alone occupies the
foreground. The necessity of experience of salvation to the
evangelical recognition of the Divine authority of Holy Scripture,
is detracted from, the connection of the former with the latter
lost sight of, while the matter of the Testimonii Spiritus S. is no
longer made to be the personal adoption of the justified believer,
but Holy Scripture, the Divine nature of its doctrines and form,
its Divine authorship or averría, whoever its earthly author may
have been. For the question of human authorship becomes in-
different, and may be decided by the historical testimony of the
Church, if the Divine authenticity is established. The assurance
of personal salvation, which was the chief concern of the Re-
formers, maintains but a very precarious position, beside that
assurance of the truth of doctrine, which had become the main
1 J. Gerh. Loci, pt. ii.; De natura theolog. § 20, &c.; de auctor. scr. § 36, 44, &c.
Testimonii Spiritus Sanctus.
125
point, and which was conceived of as bestowed by the Illuminatio.
The temptation to deduce assurance of salvation from the pos-
session of correct doctrine was now imminent. Calovius, in
spite of his doctrine of the Unio mystica, here cuts off all
direct connection between the believer and the Holy Spirit,
referring him solely to Holy Scripture, in which nevertheless
the name of the believer longing for personal assurance of salva-
tion is not written, and thus leaves no room for any other assur-
ance than that which is caused by an inference from the posses-
sion of pure doctrine, and the experience of its ameliorating
effects. And G. Calixtus, his antipodes, is not so far removed
from him in this respect. For, while ancient Protestant doctrine
unanimously demands in evangelical faith that notitia, assensus,
and fiducia, with which the assurance of salvation is connected,
Calixtus, on the contrary, is satisfied with the assensus, and says
nothing of the fides specialis, nor of the certitudo salutis. This
being the case, it is evident that the chief interest was, in theory,
placed, not as formerly, in the saving contents of Scripture, but
in the truth of its doctrine.
1
What wonder was it then, that finally Wernsdorf, the "Epi-
gone of Lutheran theology," should dwindle the Testimonium
Spr. S. into a recalling to the memory of all those texts of the
Bible which prove, that our judgment concerning our adoption is
according to truth, which judgment itself must again be based
upon the fact that we have embraced pure doctrine.
The altered position given by even a Hollatius to the Testi-
monium Spr. S., when compared with that which it occupies in
the writings of the Reformers, is especially apparent in his dis-
cussion of the questions, how conversion and the new birth are
related thereto. The Reformation doctrine was that the believer,
the man born again, has this witness in himself (1 John v. 10).
That he has it, and that in a fuller degree than one who does.
not yet believe can have it, is still admitted, but the fact that he
Hollatius, i. p. 136,
1 Quenstedt, pt. i. p. 97, iii. 566, &c., especially 569, &c.
&c. Baier, Compend. theol. posit. 1750, pt. iii. c. 5, § 14, p. 553. Compare, on
the other hand, Chemnitz, Loc. th. de justif. p. 254, &c. In Calovius the testim.
sp. s. falls far behind the authority of the ecclesiastical institution, with its word
and sacraments. Also in Calixtus the specialis fides is merged in the assensus,
Epitome Theol. 1619, p. 171, &c.
2 Wernsdorf, Disput. Acad. i. 1164, De gustu spiritus s., in opposition to the
mystics and piétists.
126
Testimonii Spiritus Sanctus.
believes is significantly ascribed to the Testimonium. For the wit-
ness of the Holy Spirit (which is heard in the written or preached
word) must stir, open, and enlighten the heart of him who is
on the way to the new birth, and kindle faith in him.¹ But while
an increased importance is thus given to the Spirit's witness, even
in the case of one about to believe, the matter of this testimony
is not merely diluted but altered; the testifying Spirit has
become something merely objective, pure doctrine, the contents
of Scripture, nay Scripture itself. An assurance of the truth
and divine nature of Scripture is consequently esteemed possible,
nay necessary, even before the existence of that fides specialis or
fiducia, which individually appropriates salvation. Such assur-
ance is possible through the illumination proceeding from the Holy
Spirit; and it is but a consequence of this notion that there must
be also a Theologia irregenitorum. It is also necessary, because
personal saving faith must evidently have a correct view of the
object to be apprehended, in order to be able to apprehend it as that
which it is, and therefore to originate itself, and perceive the act
of faith to be a duty, in which result the above-named criteria also
co-operate. But here the distinction is lost sight of, that while
there is in Christian truth an aspect which commends itself to the
better mind of one about to believe, a persuasive aspect calculated
to gain his full concurrence, the saving power of Christianity,
that central point of the contents of the Gospel, is neither experi-
enced nor guaranteed thereby, but only the right, nay the duty,
established of making this experience by the act of faith, and
thereby obtaining divine assurance concerning the main point.2
The position thus assigned to assurance of salvation, a posi-
1 The above-cited work, pp. 140, 141.
2 I must not here omit to own, that Chemnitz, in his Loci theol. de justif.
p. 250, occasionally expresses himself in a manner which is involuntarily favour-
able to later writers. This is a further proof that the task of forming doc-
trine into a science, which was left unfinished at the Reformation era, was a
difficult work, and encompassed with many obstacles. He says, evangelical faith
requires notitia assensus and fiducia specialis, these form three grades of which each
successively assumes the preceding. The second, by means of which the third
becomes possible, already contains, in his view, the firm persuasion that all which
is revealed in the Word of God is undoubted truth. Quando hoc generale funda-
mentum vacillet, tunc non potest concipi vel in lucta retineri firma fiducia pro-
missionis Evangelica. If in this passage we are to understand by the word of
God the Holy Scripture, Chemnitz requires faith in the whole of Scripture as
undoubted truth, before the existence of faith in Christ.
Endowment of Holy Scripture.
127
tion inferior to that occupied by assurance of the purity of
scriptural doctrine, and of the Divine nature of Holy Scripture,
naturally deprived the doctrine of justification by faith, and the
knowledge of such justification of fundamental importance to
assurance of the Divine character of Christianity. For assurance of
salvation is identical with assurance of justification. Another way
of being assured of the truth of Christianity was struck out, viz.
the self-corroboration of Holy Scripture with respect to the truth
of its contents and the Divine nature of its form, by means of
indwelling of the Holy Spirit therein. The material principle of
the Reformation being thus deprived of its rank as a principle,
it could now find a position only within the system itself, and
only as an article of faith beside others in opposition to art.
Sm. 305. On the other hand, the undisputed proposition that
Holy Scripture is the sole principle of theology, now found
general acceptance. This then had now to be endowed in a
manner which should correspond to its high position, and fit it
to bear alone the weight of the whole body of divinity. It
could now no longer be only the trustworthy record of Christian
revelation, the source of genuine Christian knowlege, and there-
fore the rule and test of all that was supposed to be Christian ;
it must also become the source of all assurance that Christianity
is truth, and-together with the formal use of the reason-the
sole and sufficient means of proof in matters doctrinal and moral.
All that was taken from the material principle-which answers
for the Divine nature of Christianity, and thus for the certainty
of Christian truth by means of the consciousness of adoption-
was attributed to Holy Scripture, nay, the latter was so endowed,
that, compared with Luther's standpoint, the confirmation, sense
and importance of the inspiration of Holy Scripture were essen-
tially altered, and it was represented as fully self-sufficing, self-
supporting and self-evidencing.
Even Joh. Gerhard¹ starts with setting up Holy Scripture as
the sole principle of knowledge, as though this, apart from fides,
embraced the whole doctrine of the principles. Calovius and
1 Compare Gerhard, Loci theolog., pt. i. § 1, and the whole of the first locus,
also pt. ii. especially cap. 2, 3. That Gerhard marks in this matter a point of
transition is shown by the fact that, after having in vol. i. advanced to the locus
of the work of Christ, in vol. ii. he begins again with the locus of Holy Scripture,
and continues it in detail, going so far as to maintain the doctrine of verbal
inspiration.
128
Calovius' Theory of Inspiration.
others imitate him. The old orthodox theory of inspiration,
according to Calovius, is as follows.¹
The holy men chosen for the writing of the Scriptures are
Dei amanuenses, Christi manus et Spr. S. tabelliones et notarii.
It is as though Christ had written all, even the historical parts,
with His own hand. "The holy men were living and writing
pens," to call them instrumental authors would be to say almost
too much. Inspiration has regard to the words as well as matter,
a view to which the contemporary theory of Buxtorf, which has
already been discussed, was necessary. Thus Holy Scripture
became itself revelation, and not merely the record of a revela-
tion previously given. So much was that fundamental idea of
Christianity, the union of the human and the Divine, forgotten,
that even the apostles, the first depositaries of Christianity, were
treated as though nothing of this union had been manifested in
them. The fear lest human error should enter, caused all human
co-operation save of an external kind to be excluded and sup-
pressed, as though Christianity had as yet effected nothing in
the minds of the apostles, or as if the propagation and trans-
mission of Christianity could be conceived as a fresh miracle,
quite isolated and separated from its fundamental facts, and
therefore one which might just as well have taken place, and
with as beneficial results, outside the sphere of Christ's historical
agency. Such a view involved the admission that Christianity
neither possessed nor exercised a force which might enable it
to maintain itself as a power which had entered into history,
but that on the contrary an absolutely new beginning, a second
and ideal creation was, as it were, necessary in order that the
first and real one might-as though it had effected nothing
-be secured to the world. For what effect could it be said to
have produced in the world, if a union of the human and the
Divine had not been attained even in the apostles? If the Holy
Spirit worked in them to the destruction of their individuality,
and continued to be extraneous to their persons, nay, if Chris-
tianity cannot become the possession of man, without suffering
an obscuration, this must apply to succeeding generations in
their relation to Scripture, and thus finally, this whole theory of
1 Calovii Syst. loc. theol., tom. i. cap. 4, pp. 448-758, tom. ii. cap. 1, quæst.
ix. p. 101, &c.
2 Hollatius, idem, p. 161.
Efficacy of Holy Scripture.
129
inspiration appears in the light of an ineffective and idle expen-
diture of miraculous intervention. Is it said, however, that
there was such a connection of the apostles' own consciousness
and experience, with both the fundamental fact and what they
knew by inspiration, that they, comparing the two, were able,
either wholly or partly, to perceive their identity and to answer
for it? It then follows, in the first case, that they were capable
of correctly transmitting the facts of Christianity without this
abrupt miracle; and even in the second, that, with reference to
that which as the pure Gospel must have become their mental
property and this would contain the saving doctrines,-his-
torical Christianity had so sufficiently worked in them, that its
rudimental doctrines at least were sure to be faithfully handed
down by them, even without this miraculous re-foundation.
Christianity is however a complete whole, and as surely as it
is this, so surely is it capable, wherever it is found, though
only in a rudimentary state, of rearing up out of itself its con-
crete contents.
From this doctrine of the inspiration of Holy Scripture were
now deduced, as its chief properties, its authority,-which objec-
tively is rooted in its inspiration, and subjectively is proved by
the above-mentioned criteria, especially by the Testimonium
Spir. S.,―perspicuity, sufficiency, and efficacy. We pause upon
the latter, as specially characteristic of the age, and again make
Calovius the speaker for that orthodox Lutheran doctrine, in
which he essentially coincides.
Rathmann (born at Lubeck, deacon in Dantzic 1612-1628),
had been particularly zealous in his opposition of the above-
described tendency of orthodox theology. To restrict all real
communion between God and His believing people, to the means
of grace, and especially to the Holy Scriptures, to confine the
agency of the Spirit exclusively to these, and to endow them
with all those divine powers which are due to Christ and to the
Holy Ghost, seemed to him to do dishonour to Christ and the
Holy Spirit, and to put fellowship with the impersonal Scrip-
tures in the place of fellowship with the living God. He was
a follower of Arndt, and the manner in which he extolled
the books of the New Testament Scriptures seemed to his col-
league Corvinus to be fanatical, and tending to hypocrisy, while,
at the same time, he was reproached with contempt of the exter-
II.
I
130
The Rathmann Controversy.
nal or preached word, in comparison with the inner word, or the
power of the Holy Spirit. Rathmann maintained¹ that Christ,
with His grace, ever remains the true light, that the Holy Ghost
is the true foundation of the Church, that He must Himself
kindle the light in each heart, and lead to the discovery of the
hidden treasure in the field of the external word. This is in
itself a dead letter, in which there is no inherent power of con-
version; for this power is in the Holy Ghost in combination with
the external word. Scripture, though it does indeed bear testi-
mony to the truth, is yet, if viewed alone, but a picture, or as a
finger-post, which shows the way without leading therein. In his
view the external word is not the Holy Spirit's self-acting instru-
ment for salvation (instrumentum passivum, lumen objecti, instru-
mentale, historicum), not the efficient cause of illumination. The
power of enlightening grace voluntarily combines with the external
word, or even precedes the agency of Holy Scripture, in the case of
those who have a predisposition for it, in virtue of gracious pre-
destination from eternity. The axe does not hew, unless the
woodsman throws his strength into it." On the other hand, the
influence of the Holy Spirit has operated, even apart from Scrip-
ture, and as truly as He unites Himself therewith, that we may
be made partakers of salvation, so surely must it be held that we
are saved not by words but by real things, by things not earthly
but heavenly. Every one must come for himself to Christ, the
fountain of grace.
(C
His opponents ascribed to the external word, as the vehicle of
salvation, an inherent efficacy like that attributed to God Him-
self. As the power of propagation dwells in the natural seed,
and the power of sight in the eye, so does the power of conver-
sion dwell, by means of a miraculous and divine appointment, in
the Word of God. It was thought necessary to oppose mysti-
1 Rathmann, Jesu Christi Gnadenreich, Dantzic, 1621. Bedenken über D.
Dieterici Schwarmfragen, Luneb. 1624 (with Andr. Osiander's Consilium Nori-
cum. Der Vater beständige Lehr. (see Calov. i. 699). With him agrees the Lithua-
nian Casp. Movius, Discursus Theolog. Comp. Gust. Franck's Geschichte der
protestantischen Theologic von Luther bis Joh. Gerhard, i. 365. Tholuck's Lebens-
zeugen, p. 169, &c.
Censures and Doubts of the Theological Faculty, &c., concern-
ing Herm. Rathmann's Works, Jena, 1626. Engelhardt's Rathmann Contro-
versy in Niedner's Zeitschrift für historische Theologic, 1854. The theological
convention too which was summoned yearly from 1621-28, for discussing and de-
ciding on the theological questions of the day, in as official a manner as was pos-
sible, by Matth. Hoë of Hoënegg, entered into the Rathmann controversy.
The Rathmann Controversy.
131
cism by limiting the agency of the Holy Spirit more and
more to that which He exercises by means of the external
word, whether written or preached. The four faculties of Wit-
tenberg, Königsberg, Helmstädt (without the agreement of Calix-
tus), and Jena, being consulted by the council of Dantzic, gave
their judgment against Rathmann, and designated him a Cal-
vinist, and a despiser of the external word. Among these the Jena
theologians were those who most decidedly pronounced against
him. His distinction, they said, between the external and in-
ternal word savoured of Schwenckfeld and of mystic fanaticism.
Even Joh. Gerhard, urged by Matthias Hoë of Hoënegg, court
chaplain at Dresden, allowed himself to accede to a harsh con-
demnation of Rathmann.¹ Not a few purposed, in this contest
with Rathmann, to pass sentence upon Arndt also. This was,
however, opposed by J. Gerhard. The theological convention
at Leipzig also decided against Rathmann, after Rostock, then
(1626) at the height of its theological fame, had contested the
judgment promulgated by these four faculties, and defended
Rathmann's orthodoxy.3
We will now see how Calovius laid down Lutheran doctrine
in 1655, after the controversy. 4
Holy Scripture is the word of God, inspired by God; the
word of God is of its own nature spiritus et vita, the power of
God unto salvation. For though the power of God dwells essen-
tially in God, it is also present by impartation in the human
nature of Christ, in the sacraments, and in the word of God;
and Holy Scripture being the word of God, that divine power
which is in the word of God never leaves it. Divine power is
indeed present in the sacraments only during their use, for it is
given them only for the act of participation. But the power of
God is perennially present in Holy Scripture, for the word of
God is living and incorruptible, and the Holy Ghost is insepar-
1 Compare Gerh. Loci th. ii. 284.
* Der reinen Theologen richtige Lehre von der h. Schrift, Leipzig, 1629 (by
Matth. Hoë of Hoënegg).
3 The Rostock divines, especially Paul Tarnovius († 1633), declared moreover
that they did not acknowledge the Saxons as their judges. Tarnovius, and his
nephew John Tarnovius († 1629), an able exegete, still advocated the Reforma-
tion doctrine. Hoë sent to the latter the censure of his theological convention,
which even J. Gerhard, in opposition to his former declarations, was induced to
sign. Tholuck, Lebenszeugen, p. 167, &c.
Calovius' above-cited work, i. 692-718.
132
Calovius on Holy Scripture.
able from His word. Otherwise it would no longer be the
word of the Spirit, but the word of man. Although it is a thing
instrumental, and therefore designed for use, yet it may not be
called lifeless or inoperative in itself. In that aspect according
to which it both is, and has inwardly, the power of the Holy
Spirit, it is as little an instrument as the presence of the Triune
God in Holy Baptism is an instrument. There is indeed no
binding (alligatio) of the Holy Spirit to the word, but the power
of the Holy Ghost is communicated to the word by means of a
mystical unio of the Holy Spirit therewith. Formally regarded,
(i.e. according to its proper nature), it does not belong to the
rank of the creature, for it is Divine thought, the mind of
God. And who would assign the thoughts, mind, and counsel of
God to the creature? Hence some say, the word of God is
somewhat of God (verbum Dei esse aliquid Dei), a divine efflu-
ence (άúpporα). In no case is the power of God imparted to the
word, a creature.¹ Hence too Holy Scripture does not first need
the illumination of the Holy Ghost. Holy Scripture is not an
instrumentum inanimatum, depyov; the removal of the obstacles
to faith is not effected directly by the Holy Spirit, but solely
through the Word, by means of which all that is necessary to
conversion is effected. The Holy Spirit does not operate directly
and apart from means, not even at the beginning of conversion;
all is effected by the Word of God alone, by the power which it
possesses, nay, which it is.2
So far did Calovius close his eyes to that desire for direct fel-
lowship with God which characterized the Reformers. But both
himself and the Wittenbergians of his days, unlike the genera-
tion which preceded them, went so far as even to change the
saving, religious importance of the Testimonium Spir. S. into a
merely intellectual process of becoming acquainted with truth.
Though Rathmann may, in his opposition to the literalism of the
Scriptuarians, have here and there gone too far, and made the
internal relation between letter and spirit, form and contents, too
accidental a matter, he is undoubtedly, on the whole, nearer to
the standpoint of the Reformation and to the Augustana, Art.
V., than his opponents are. They, however, overpowered him,
as Calovius shows.
The communication of the Divine attributes (Communic.
1 Calovius, id. i. 717.
2 Id. p. 705.
The Canonicity of Holy Scripture.
133
idiom.) was now transferred from Christology to Holy Scripture.
The more the latter was withdrawn from the sphere of means
leading to the Triune God, and the agency of God Himself
attributed to it, the more did it stand in the place of God, and
the more were direct communion with God, and all such agency
of the Holy Ghost as was not at the same time its immediate
agency, excluded. But the obverse side of this deification of
Holy Scripture, like the deification of the Church by Romanism,
was a lifeless and deistic notion. God-so to speak-abdicated
His saving agency to Scripture. With such an identification of
the matter or contents and its expression, in which that element
of symbolism which cleaves to language was-as gradually in
the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper-more and more left
out of the question, it was no wonder that magical notions of the
agency of Holy Scripture should be entertained. From this point
of view, even the serious inquiry of the otherwise admirable.
Nitzsche, general superintendent of Gotha-whether Holy Scrip-
ture may be called a creature ?-need seem neither strange nor
The negative answer at which he arrived was, about 1750,
still farther carried out, and developed to gross errors, by the
Swedenborgian doctrine.
new.
1
With regard to canonicity, Luther's freer views left for a while
an open field to scientific investigations. At first, a distinction
was still made between proto-canonical and deutero-canonical
books. A subordinate position was still given in German edi-
tions of the New Testament to the Antilegomena; but Luther's
principles of criticism soon came to be regarded as something
which must be pardoned in so great a man. If historical
testimony were here and there wanting to their apostolical
authorship, the Church had, notwithstanding, always received.
these books as canonical. In that identification of the contents
and the form of Holy Scripture, of which we have spoken, the
Testimonium Spiritus S. was indeed to be treated simply, as if it
testified also to the Divine authenticity of the form. According
to Quenstedt, the canonicity of a book is not determined by its
being the composition of the author whose name it bears, nor is
1 Compare Bleek's Einleitung ins A. T. 1860, p. 8, &c.; Einleitung ins N. T.
1862, pp. 12, &c., 665, &c.; Einleitung in Hebräerbrief, pp. 449-460. Even
Chemnitz in his Examen. Conc. Trid. calls seven books of the New Testament
apocryphos to denote the uncertainty of their authorship.
134
Purity of the New Testament Language.
it said that this depends upon " whether it treats of Christ "-and
therefore upon the material principle,-but a book is canonical
for the Church if it has received therefrom the mark of Theo-
pneustia. Hence, that which decides the question is the judg-
ment of the Church. And the mark thus affixed by the judg-
ment, whether of the individual believer or of the Church,
testifies to authenticity and the fact of inspiration, in the sense
in which Quenstedt understands it, and not rather to the
Divine nature of the contents, which may be found also in other
Christian writings. Calovius regards the questions of genuine-
ness and integrity as irrelevant, after the Church has decided.
To correct even acknowledged errors in Luther's translation of
the Bible was regarded as dangerous; nay, the very typograph-
ical errors of his editions were to be left intact 2 a sure sign
what kind of faith was being set up. Thus the self-dependence
of the canon-which was exactly what had to be proved by the
free agitation of this question apart from Church authority-was
more and more transferred to the Church, which was to give
canonical importance to a book, and to fill up the gaps which his-
torical investigation and regard to the intrinsic value might have
left. In like manner, the universal reception of a certain text,
the Recepta, by theologians, took the place of further critical
research, and caused various readings to be forgotten. The
inspiration of the very words seemed, moreover, to involve the
utmost purity of style. Hence, when Musaus declared the as-
sured inspiration of the matter to be possible without that of the
words, the majority of contemporary theologians who were seeking
to prove the classical correctness of the New Testament idiom +
3
1 It is no matter to fides salvefica whether Matthew is, or is not, the author of
the gospel; yet it may be and it is canonical on this account. It belongs to fides
salvefica to regard it as canonical, not on account of historical testimony to its
origin, but because the testim. sp. s. witnesses internally thereto, Quenst. i. 94.
He maintains, in opposition to the Calixtine triad, that there is no need of the
historical testimony of the Church to the apostolic origin of a book to prove it
canonical. This is an approach to Romanism. Scripture is self-sufficient, and
itself testifies to its Divine origin. But he fails to perceive that this would lead
back by a byway, as shown in the text, to the dogmatic authority of the Church,
and, indeed, in a far graver form than that of historical tradition, which protestants
have never rejected. This testimonium is said to be publicum (see above, p. 120).
2 Comp. Tholuck, das kirchl. Leben, i. 65.
3 And yet it was at the same time still declared that we were not to believe on
account of the Church.
4 So especially the decision of the Wittenberg faculty, in 1638. To admit
Historical Discrepancies.
135
handled him roughly enough. The controversy concerning the
purity of the New Testament Greek in Lutheran theology, which
was a pendant to that of Buxtorf, was first occasioned by
Pfochen,¹ and transferred to Germany by Jungius, rector of
Hamburg, who denied that the language of the New Testament
was classical Greek, which neither Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, Gro-
tius, nor Salmasius had found it to be. The opponents of Jungius
and Musæus, especially the faculty of Wittenberg, conceded at
most the presence of Hebraisms in the New Testament. One ad-
vantage, however, accrued from this controversy, in the compro-
mise pointed out, especially by Scaliger and Heinsius, who, on the
one side, conceded the non-classical character of the New Testa-
ment language, without, on the other, admitting that it was arbi-
trary, uncouth, and awkward. The New Testament idiom was
Hellenistic; and the Hellenistic language was neither solely
Hellenistic nor Hebraistic, but a composite tongue having its own
laws. This compromise found favour, e.g. even with Quenstedt,
without, however, being so far developed as to give rise to a gram-
mar and lexicology of the New Testament idiom—a task which it
was reserved for Winer to accomplish in the present century.
The historical discrepancies of Holy Scripture were subjected
to the artificial harmonizing of Osiander and Calovins, who
chiefly sought to reconcile them by making two separate occur-
rences out of two different accounts of one fact, a method which
was not found to answer in every case. Thus the aim still
was to give certainty to the form and the formal authority of
Holy Scripture. It was here that a palpable pledge, as it were,
of the truth of Holy Scripture and the true strength of the
Church were sought, as is ever the case where a dead con-
servatism is inclined to. It is however questionable whether these
high views of inspiration really increased the estimation or were
profitable to the exposition of the Scriptures.
Exegetic theology was indeed diligently prosecuted in numer-
ous literary works, though little practised at the universities.
Labem barbarismorum et solescismorum would be blasphemia against the writers
of Holy Scripture and against the Holy Ghost. So Quenstedt, Hollatius, and
Calovius.
1 Diatribe de linguæ græci N. T. puritate, Amstel. 1629.
2 Compare Guhrauer, Joach. Jungius und sein Zeitalter, 1850; Tholuck, das
kirchl. Leben, i. p. 77, &c.
136
State of Exegesis.
Flacius had already done good service to hermeneutics in his
Clavis. Joh. Gerhard, Glassius (Philologia sacra, Jena, 1623),
Wolfg. Franz, Dannhauer, Pfeifer and Michael Walther,¹ continued
to labour in this department. With the help of dialectics certain
doctrinally important words were carefully investigated, and be-
sides the already-mentioned works of Gerhard and Osiander,
Calovius' Biblia illustrata is the result of much diligence. But,
compared with the discoveries made by the enlightened views
of the Reformers, the utmost that was now attempted was to
remove certain apparent contradictions, by explaining them
according to the law of the Analogia fidei (as Flacius already
required), and thus to give certainty to the matter of Scripture
in general. Holy Scripture was chiefly applied to the confirma-
tion of single dogmatic loci and propositions, as though the con-
gruity of Scripture with the ecclesiastical system were already
perfect, and the former had nothing more to impart to the latter.
A free and consistent development of itself, and of the organism
of its contents, was not permitted to Scripture, but was always
obstructed by doctrinal exigencies and scruples. Thus the
divine did in reality only occupy too independent a position
with respect to Holy Scripture, and the body of ecclesiastical
doctrine already put itself in the place of the material principle
instead of existing in virtue of it. The interest too felt in the
contents of Scripture was more and more confined to the dicta
probantia, as though Scripture existed only for the sake of
furnishing them. Calovius sought, in his theory of inspiration, to
exercise a special care for these dicta probantia, it being his be-
lief that at least one passage of Holy Scripture was specially
inspired to serve as a proof of each doctrine of theology. But
this very theory of inspiration, by changing the human side of
Scripture into a mere appearance, had an actual influence upon
its contents. If everything in Scripture were directly and only
Divine, it was no longer possible to recognize that rich abund-
ance in Divine revelation which is unveiled to the human race
in proportion to the growth of its receptive power.
If, e.g.,
the Psalmist, prophets, and apostles, were but the speaking-
trumpets of God, the conflict, the labour, in short, the individual
state of mind which Divine revelation presupposes and uses as
the means by which its progress is accomplished, are lost sight of.
1 Officina biblica, 1636. J. Olearii Theologia exegetica, 1674.
The Church's Rule of Faith.
137
On the contrary, the speaker is always and equally God, who is
unchangeable, and since what He says can be nothing else but
absolutely perfect and complete, all difference between the Old
and New Testament revelation in doctrinal matters is abolished.
Accordingly, we find Calovius imputing it as a sin to Calixtus,
that the latter will not acknowledge the Old Testament to be the
sedes of the doctrine of the Trinity. In general, however, the
province of exegesis does not appear as at all an independent
one beside that of doctrine. Full justice could not be done to
the grammatical element while the notion of classical purity of
style was embraced. At best, recourse was had to Hebraisms,
while the Hellenistic tongue, which, since the age of Alexander,
had been composed of an intermixture of Oriental, and especially
Semitic, with Greek expressions, was not yet investigated as a
separate department of language under its own special laws.
Neither was justice done to the historical element of exegesis so
long as the sacred writers were regarded as the merely passive
instruments of a Divine agency, by which they were withdrawn
from the influence of actual occurrences. And finally, the theo-
logical element, instead of being represented by the principle of
living faith dwelling in the exegete, was replaced by the Analogia
Scripturæ sacra, which, being derived from Scripture, was to
become the guiding-star of its interpretation. But, it may be
asked, who was to fashion this analogy of faith, and according to
what principles? The Church's rule of faith was substituted
unawares for the analogy of Scripture; an interpretation départ-
ing from that which was traditionary was censured; and this rule
of faith by which exegesis was to be guided was gradually
extended to all subjects. From all that has been said, it is evident.
what must have become of the still much talked-of principle of
the Perspicuitas and the semet ipsam interpretandi facultas of
Holy Scripture. In fact, the symbolical books, instead of being
compared with those scriptures which were intelligible to faith,
had themselves become the supreme rule of theology. This was
however an actual denial of the sufficient intelligibility of Holy
Scripture. They who in a spirit of candour agree with the sym-
bolical books, like J. Gerhard, will readily admit that they cannot.
have an autoritatem judicis. But later writers, like Calovius, and
1
1 Gerhard still very decidedly insists that the true rule of faith must be the
Analogia scrip. s. and be derived therefrom.
138
The Church's Rule of Faith.
especially Schelwig, Neumeister, and Wernsdorf, the opponents
of the Pietists, talk of the normative power and inspiration of the
symbolical books.¹ They are compositions which are more divine
than human, and are therefore a standard of doctrine. This they
are, of course, on account of their accordance with Scripture.
But instead of arriving at this accordance again and anew in a
theological manner, by means of a believing interpretation of
Scripture, it was taken for granted and made the pole-star of ex-
position. Not merely innovations but even inusitatis loquendi
formula were looked upon as dangerous.
This mode of treating Holy Scripture could not fail to exercise
an influence upon the estimation of individual doctrines, inas-
much as they were all contained in Scripture, and all subjects of
that Testimonium Spiritus S. internum which proceeds therefrom.
If the material principle were no longer treated as a principle,
and the centre no longer acted as the centre or pulse of the
whole, it was impossible to distinguish between central and
peripheristic, and the consequence was that the supposed con-
servative and polemic feeling which had swallowed camels
strained at gnats. The consciousness that there was still a
difference between the theological formula of doctrine, with its
subtle distinctions and intricate ramifications, and the saving and
essential truths of Christianity, could never indeed wholly vanish
from the Lutheran Church.2 It was necessary, even in regard
of the Old Testament saints, if they were not to be excluded from
saving faith, and the unlearned masses for whom the truths of
the Catechism were deemed sufficient, to admit a distinction be-
tween fundamental and non-fundamental articles. But, on the
other side, the interests of controversy were so seductive, that
the greatest possible number was included among the funda-
mental. In this respect Nicolaus Hunnius occupies an influential
position.3 A distinction was made between that which con-
stitutes faith, and that which either results from faith or con-
1 They had an inspiratio mediata, were not written sine singulari numinis
directione,
2 Tholuck, Das kirchl. Leben, i. 79, &c., 81, &c., 93, &c.
3 Diáσkefis theologica, de fundamentali dissensu doctrince evangel. Lutheran, et
Calvinian, Viteb. 1626. Hülsemann, Calvinismus irreconciliab. Viteb. 1646.
Calovius, Syst. i. 767, and his work Syncretismus Calixtinus, 1655. Examen
doctrinae publ. eccles. ref. et syncrct. cum orthod. in art. de persona Christi, 1663.
Quenstedt, i. 241, &c. Joh. Meisner, De articulis fidei in his Examen catechismi
Palatini, Wittenberg, 1669.
The Church's Rule of Faith.
139
tributes to its preservation (consequentia, conservativa). Others,
as Hülsemann, Calovius, and Quenstedt, also distinguish there-
from the presuppositions (antecedentia) of faith. The creation in
time, the fall and eternal reprobation of some of the angels, the
propagation of souls, the unpardonableness of the sin against the
Holy Ghost, the distinction between the visible and the invisible
Church, and, for the most part, the dogmatic explanation of the
sacraments, the doctrine of Antichrist, &c., were allowed to be
non-fundamental¹ But, upon the whole, there was a very evident
inclination to be continually narrowing their sphere and increas-
ing that of the fundamental, to be ever tracing fresh lines of
demarcation against Calvinism and Syncretism, and thereby more
and more approaching the Romish manner of treating doctrines.
There was a gradual drifting from the multum of the principle to
the multa, which were no longer guided by a pole-star, but kept.
together by the authority of Church doctrine.
All this shows that, as far as the doctrine of principles is
concerned, the seventeenth century furnishes occasion for speak-
ing, not of a scientific fertilization or cultivation of "justifying
faith," but almost exclusively of a pathology thereof, such as
we have endeavoured to describe. It was not that it was
banished from evangelical consciousness, or even neglected in
practice, but it was scarcely touched upon in the doctrine of
theological principles, its place here being occupied by the
doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, and the article of faith and
justification being found within the system as one article among
many, and even losing its position there through the doctrine of
Holy Baptism.
During the first epoch of Lutheran scholasticism, down to
Calixtus, a candid agreement with Church doctrine still pre-
vailed, though even then a relaxation of the spirit of the Re-
formation was traceable. This was still more the case during
the second epoch, viz. from 1630 to 1670, which was occu-
pied with the Syncretistic controversy. The third epoch, how-
ever, from 1680 to E. Valentin Löscher, exhibits in such men
as J. B. Carpzovius, Schwelwig, Mayer, Edzard, and E. Neu-
meister, fresh and vigorous efforts in favour of purely Lutheran
doctrines, in opposition to Pietism.2 But here too, the his-
1 Comp. Gass's above-named work, i. 244.
2 Comp. Engelhardt, Ernst Val. Löscher, 1856.
140
The Church's Rule of Faith.
torical law held good, that an orthodoxy which insists upon
being only conservative, and repressing all new germs, is imper-
ceptibly converted into heterodoxy. In opposition to the allega-
tion of Spener, that no one can be a genuine Christian theologian
without personal experience of salvation, his so-called orthodox
opponents whose tendency was to a relaxation of morality and
an externalization of religion-were of opinion that there is a
truly spiritual and divine theology even of the unregenerate;
that pietas is no essential requirement in a theologian, for the
apodeictic mark of a true teacher is simply correctness of doctrine;
as though it were a matter of indifference to the right under-
standing of Christian doctrine whether personal participation in
that which is its subject takes place or not. But things had
gone so far that saving power was, in Hellenic fashion, transferred
to knowledge, or to correctness of notions, inward experience of
salvation inferred only from purity of doctrine, and theology
regarded as proprietress of those theological notions which are
ordained of God to be of saving efficacy. It was taught that the
true sense of Scripture does, in virtue of its inherent power,
reveal itself to the understanding even of the ungodly, if he be
orthodox, as often as he contemplates it; and that the word
becomes to him the means of salvation through the true and
divine knowledge (illuminatio) obtained therefrom. Spiritual
feeling and experience are not the foundation nor the means.
of salvation, neither are they the principle of knowledge in
things divine. On the contrary, experience is but a fruit of
the knowledge, produced by the light of the word in the under-
standing, in the case of those who do not wickedly reject grace.
The office of an orthodox teacher, even if he be ungodly, is
self-efficacious. With this were connected hierarchical notions
of the office of the Church, and of so-called official grace. Every
regular minister of the word does, in the work of conversion,
truly, though after the manner of a servant, kindle faith,
and beget the soul anew. Thus the continued agency of the
Holy Ghost was, in a deistic fashion, abolished by the ministry, by
the Church and its means of grace, and the power belonging
to the Spirit alone represented as abdicated to these second
causes. These were no longer regarded as mere media for
His operations, but as exercising an independent agency,
wherever access was allowed them. A regenerating power being
Doctrine of God.
141
thus attributed, not only to the sacraments, but to correct doctrine
and to notions, in the case of those who did not wickedly oppose
them, the opus operatum of Romish doctrine, which works in all
who non ponunt obicem, was again reached, and an intellectual
Pelagianism combined with a magical effect of grace. The
only difference was that the good works of the medieval Church
were exchanged for the works of the understanding, while the
Reformation synthesis of the intellectual with the ethic and the
religious was dissolved. A rationalizing Pajonism had been
reached by a Lutheran byway also, and this had been done
under the self-pleasing delusion that a transcendently high
position had been preserved to supernatural grace, by conceiving
of it as operating magically. This intellectualism of the theologia
irregenitorum did more damage to so-called orthodoxy than any
external attack, and deprived it of the confidence of Christian
people. It was forsaken by the nation in the eighteenth cen-
tury, but not before it had forsaken itself, ie. the Reformation
principle. On the one hand, it confounded nature and grace,
by teaching that the unregenerate are capable of spiritual
knowledge as well as the regenerate; on the other hand, it
exceeded, if possible, the Romish dogma of the magical efficacy
of the sacraments, in favour of the word and the clerical office,
by making the impius orthodoxus receive illumination from the
word as often as he contemplates it, and regarded Holy Scrip-
ture in the light of some natural production, which cannot help
giving out its power of propagating true theology and genuine
illumination.
CHAPTER III.
INDIVIDUAL DOCTRINES DURING THE PERIOD OF LUTHERAN
SCHOLASTICISM.
It will be easily perceived from what we have found to be the
case with respect to the spirit and principle of Lutheran ortho-
doxy, that it was but little concerned to extend the sway of the
Reformation principle, and to make it fruitful in fresh aspects.
In such departments of thought, indeed, as the Reformation had
not yet touched, dependence was placed upon the Schoolmen,
especially Aquinas. It was not yet perceived that their doctrine.
of God, as well as that of Augustine, was still combined with
142
Doctrine of God.
pre-Christian elements, and ill-accorded with the evangelical
principle of faith. An identification of the counsel and nature
of God, the acceptance of the objective undistinguishableness of
His knowledge and will, and of His attributes in general, in short
the doctrine of a simplicity in the Divine nature which excluded
distinctions, and ill-agreed with the doctrine of the Trinity,
prevails even in Gerhard, Musæus and Quenstedt. All this
was but little in accordance with the conviction entertained
by the Lutheran Church of God's historical presence in the
world.¹ Yet a mystical element was so deeply rooted in
Lutheran doctrine, that the absolute transcendentalism of God
never unanimously prevailed. Hence it was just the most
strictly orthodox divines, a Calovius and a Quenstedt, who were
not satisfied with the teaching of Helmstädt and Jena. A
presence of the Divine Being equally near to all creatures, to-
gether with various degrees and kinds of agency (operatio) on
His part, did not content them. They required also a difference
in the nearness of the Divine nature to different creatures. They
explain the words of the Form. Conc.: that the Holy Ghost
dwells in believers, not merely by His gifts, but by His nature,
as signifying a special nearness (peculiaris approximatio) of
¹ From the unity of God are inferred His simplicity and unchangeableness.
Calov. ii. 278-320, Altributa ab essentia Dei realiter non distinguunter, p. 221.
They are formally distinguished, and that not merely subjectively for us (ratione
ratiocinante), but we are necessarily obliged (ratione ratiocinata) to distinguish,
e.g., between justice and mercy. But realiter they are not distinct sive ab
esscntia, sive inter se, or else there would not be summa simplicitas in God. It is
thus that he would reconcile Scotus and Aquinas, pp. 243, 244. The absolute
simplicity of God excludes even a distinction between actus and potentia. He is
summa actualitas; there is room for no accidens in Him, p. 283 (therefore not
even in His knowledge and will with respect to what is free). Decreta Dei, quæ
actus Dei sunt immanentes, non sunt realiter ab essentia Dei distincta, nedum per
morem accidentium. Else would there be mutatio in God, even though He were
Himself the cause of His mutatio, p. 286. Neither is there a realis distinctio be-
tween the essentia and voluntas libera of God, between essentia and persona; all
distinctions and changes are solely on the part of the world, p. 286. So also
Quenstedt. He goes on, indeed, to say, i. 284-293, that these, though conceptus
inadequati on our part, are realiter in God. But his meaning is that they are
God's nature (even the decreta, so far as they are actus Dei immanens et æternus,
p. 299), and that this being absolutely simple, the Attributa ex natura rei or
realiter are not distinct therefrom. The Divine actions are, so far as God is
concerned, ever the same. Mutatio fit in creatura, non in creatore, p. 300.
Comp. in Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. 1857, my Gesch. der Lehre. v. d. Unveränder-
lichkeit Gottes, p. 469, &e.
:
Doctrine of God.
143
Himself to the believer,¹ and they make the nearness of Christ
-which becomes to believers a unio mystica-to be a still more
intimate one. Quenstedt also delights in describing how all
things live and move and have their being in God, which is
indeed easier to conceive, than to think of God in a living,
historical and varying relation to mankind.2 If the mystical
element were even suffered to recede in the origin of faith,
and transferred to the unio mystica of the Holy Ghost with
Scripture, still the unio mystica of the Christian with God
was esteemed a higher grade of Christian life. The doctrine of
the Trinity, indeed, was only analyzed according to logical dis-
¹ Calovius, 1635, ii. 612-650, especially pp. 615, 638. He insists upon a veritas
inhabitationis mysticæ naturæ ipsius divinæ, non abstractæ solum alicujus virtutis,
x. 506; the unio mystica is intrinsica, non per nudam assistentiam, sed per in-
timam immanentiam, non solum gratiæ operationem, sed simul substantiæ divinæ
ad fideles approximationem inferens, cum mystica πepixwpńσeɩ, citra tamen commix-
tionem vel essentia humance transformationem. Meisner, Orat. de Christiano:
Ut divina et humana natura in Christo capite uniuntur personaliter, ita in
Christianis membris uniuntur spiritualiter (s. Calov. ii. 637).
:
2 The Calixtine school, Fr. Ul. Calixtus, Hornejus and Henichius, find such a
notion to savour of the doctrine of Schwenckfeld and Weigel. J. Museus however
says (Disp. de Convers. vi. de Renov. n. xxvi., Der Jenischen Theolog. ausführl.
Erklärung, 1676, pp. 600, &c., 540, &c.), God is in His essence always and
everywhere equally present, i.e. He is secretly near to all. To deny this would be
to deny in Socinian fashion His immeasurableness. Neither is it fitting to em-
brace a diversity in His omnipresence, according to His several attributes, as c.g.
that He is not goodness in all for God is everywhere wholly and indivisibly one,
everywhere present in His whole simple being; hence there remains only a dis-
tinction in His mode of operation, which however is not exercised without His
substantial presence. Since, moreover, it is said, at the same time, that man
does not draw forth actus from God, but that the will of God is also His simple
essence, it follows that God ever wills the same, and thus even this distinction
is but apparent, and falls back solely upon the part of the world. Calovius, on
his side, x. 513-515, insists that the human nature of believers becomes a partaker
of the Divine nature, and also, in Christ, of personal unio with God. Museus,
Ausf. Erkl. p. 540, &c., says, on the other hand, God is—so far as His substance is
concerned-as present everywhere as in Jesus; but in Jesus the person also of the
Logos is united with the human nature; moreover, in His case, an entirely unique
operation upon the human nature takes place. But the person of the Logos being
conceived as, according to its nature, not only in the human nature of Jesus,
but as omnipresent in all men, even the unio personalis seems to lead not to
another mode of being, but only to another mode of operation of the Logos in
Jesus, and this again, under the prevailing notion of the simplicity and unchange-
ableness of God, to transfer all that is distinctive in Christ to His human nature.
This would be to say that the latter was so peculiarly constituted that it received
in a peculiar and unique manner the one undivided and ever self-equal agency of
God.
144
The Original State of Man.
tinctions, and remained but loosely connected with history and
with the interests of piety. Calovius, however, in the interest
of the unity of God also extended the old doctrine of the hypo-
statical union to the divine agency in the world (opera ad extra
sunt communia).
The original state of man is so described by Lutheran divines,
as to leave but very limited space for moral self-cultivation, and
to render the fall from such a state almost inexplicable. Accord-
ing to Quenstedt, superior wisdom and knowledge of God were
bestowed upon man; while others, going more into detail, de-
scribe also the nature and matter of such knowledge.¹ To this
were added not only instinctive purity and harmony, but also
perfect holiness, and the entire accordance of his whole nature
with the Triune God, who had made His abode in man. This
universal perfection (perfectio, justitia originalis) was natural
(naturalis), not accessory. It dwelt habitually in man (habitu-
aliter), and but for the fall he would have transmitted it to his
posterity; nevertheless he possessed it only in an accidental
manner, i.e. he was capable of losing it.
By the fall, whiclr brought in guilt and punishment, the whole
corporeal and mental condition of man was altered. Having lost
original righteousness he could not bequeath it to his descen-
dants; on the contrary, being himself corrupt, he could only
transmit a corrupt nature.2 The view, that souls also originate
by generation, was usually adopted as an auxiliary tenet to this
theory of Lutheran divinity, though it found no favour with
such men as Melanchthon and Brenz, and even the Jena school
did not regard it as an incontestable axiom. Since, then, it was
¹ According to Quenstedt, ii. 6, Adam's knowledge was so excellent and perfect,
that none, since the fall, have been able, whether by means of the book of nature
or of Holy Scripture, to attain to it. The apostles alone had a clearer insight
into the mysteries of faith; but Adam surpassed even them with respect to his
extensive and intensive knowledge of the world, which he arrived at, not in a dis-
cursive and uncertain manner, by inferences, but by seeing, so to speak, into the
heart of things.
2 In the interest of the Theodicy, Eilh. Lubinus (Phosphorus de prima causa
et natura mali, 1596) sought, in an age as yet favourable to the doctrine of
predestination, to smooth, by a negative view of evil, those difficulties concern-
ing the relation of God thereto, which even the F. C. had not obviated. Evil was
a nullity. A nullity could arise only from a nullity. From God only good can
proceed. His chief opponent, Grawer, maintained on the contrary an aggravated
notion of evil, and made man responsible for sin. Comp. Bayle, Dictionnaire,
s. v. Eilh. Lub. See above, p. 106.
Original Sin.
145
taught, the wrath of God lay upon the first human beings, and
their ruined state descending to their successors, the wrath of
God also was transmitted to them. But the wrath of God pre-
supposes the guilt of man; hence the task was to convict the
progeny of Adam of a share in his guilt. This was attempted
by endeavouring to prove, both directly and indirectly, the im-
putability of Adam's sin to his descendants. Indirectly, because
original sin, according to the Reformation axiom, consisting not
merely in a debitum through another's fault, but also cleaving to
us as our own sinful nature, the guilt of Adam and his descen-
dants is equal, and his corruption is ours. The question, how-
ever: how God can impute to us that Adamic corruption which
was transmitted to us without our consent? still remaining
unanswered, it was sought to implicate Adam's descendants
directly in this state of ruin, by the view that Adam's sins may
be directly imputed to us, because he, as head and progenitor,
was also the representative of the whole race, and acted in their
name. So Quenstedt and Hollatius, in agreement with Gerhard.
According to Quenstedt, all the wills of his descendants were
contained (locata) in Adam's will. There was, as it were, a
pactum, according to which our first parents, if they preserved
their purity, would bequeath their perfection, if they fell their
corruption, to their posterity. This thought was afterwards
further carried out by the federal theology admitted into Lutheran
divinity in the eighteenth century.¹
At this point, the post-Reformation era advanced beyond the
Confessions, which had been satisfied with admitting the indirect
imputation of Adam's sin; and, in so doing, it took a step which
did no service in proving the doctrine. On the other hand,
divines firmly adhered to the Confessions in admitting original
sin to be the source and reason of all actual sin, whether of heart
or life. In proportion,, however, as the doctrine of absolute pre-
destination was gradually expunged, did that of the freedom of
the will necessarily involve a modification in this respect; the
¹ Baier, Compend, theol. pos. ed. Preuss, 1864, p. 308, is however somewhat
more cautious, from the feeling, that in saying this, either the pre-existence of
all men is admitted, and Adam made only a symbolical figure of mankind in
general, or that nothing is contributed towards proving the personal participation
of all his progeny in Adam's sin. He insists that it is not for us to enter into
subtle investigations of the manner in which the imputation of Adam's sin and
guilt is possible, but firmly to embrace the revealed fact that it is so.
II.
K
146
Capability of Redemption.
province of civil justice especially having already been, at least
for the most part, left by the Reformation to free will. But
the desire of making the need of redemption full and absolute
forbade a limitation of the power of original sin; and, impelled
by this, no such allusion to free will was suffered in the
doctrine of original sin as might allow, e.g., that aught but the
latter should be regarded as the source of that contempt of God's
word which was not supposed to be in itself necessary to sinful
man. Original sin was indeed generally treated as a power
everywhere present and always equal. Actual sin, on the other
hand, was the more carefully distinguished, and classified
according to its various kinds and degrees. In doing this,
however, great stress was necessarily, but inconsistently, laid
upon the amount of evil inclination-deliberate sins against the
conscience, or even the sin against the Holy Ghost, being
naturally regarded as heavier, The latter was, however, only
viewed as unpardonable in case of final impenitence. A deeper
degree of sinfulness, not involved in original sin as such, was
found in the state of obduracy (induratio et cxcoccatio). Of this
God was not to be regarded as the ordaining or active cause;
though, of course, it was held to arise permissively and judicially
from Him, and to result from abandonment by His Spirit. This
was an indirect admission that original sin is not a sufficient
explanation of all actual sin: if it were so, indeed, the choice
would no longer be between the truly good (spiritualia) and the
evil, but between greater or less degrees of evil (liberum arbi-
trium2 in malis spiritualibus).
Hence arose, moreover, a difficulty with respect to the
doctrine of conversion, unless this were to be effected in a
magical manner. For if man can meet the grace of the Gospel
only with evil actions, and thus offer it no point of contact, it
would seem that nothing but a sovereign act of Divine power,
whose obverse would be the absolute passivity of man, will
avail. A careful elaboration, however, of the doctrine of the
appropriation of salvation led to the discovery of a way of escape
from this position. Calling, illumination, regeneration and con-
1 The contumax repugnantia is ex malitia sponte contractâ. Musæus, in the
important Disputt. De conversione hominis peccaloris ad Deum, 1647, Disp. ii. §
lxiii.
2 Quenstedt, ii. 176. Gerhard, v. 99.
Christology.
147
version, justification, mystical union, and renewal are its chief
points. Calling ever lays hold on that spark of knowledge of
God on the conscience, and on the vague longings for salvation
still found in the natural man.¹ These, though powerless as a
counterpoise to the outbreaking of original sin into actually
sinful acts, form a handle upon which the influences of Divine
grace may operate, through the means of grace. Then, if the
man (though at first presenting nothing more than a possibility of
conversion, aptitudo passiva) gives himself up to these influences,
his enslaved will, gradually delivered from bondage, becomes an
arbitrium liberatum,2 which is capable, in spite of original sin, of
deciding upon an acceptance of salvation. The chief weight is
here certainly laid upon the increasing illumination, and its power
of becoming a fresh impulse to the will. Quenstedt and Hollatius
find, even in these natural drawings towards amendment, a call
to salvation in a wider and more general sense. But effectual
calling lies only in that call which conveys the glad tidings of
redemption (vocatio specialis). This, according to its intrinsic and
Divine tenor, is universal and addressed to all men; but the par-
ticular carrying into execution, which experience points to, toge-
ther with the general acceptance of the view that the day of
grace is limited to the present life, caused great difficulties, and
it was only by the help of unsatisfactory and artificial expedients
that Lutheran divinity was able to carry out an opposition to a
doctrine of absolute double predestination.
Christology, the work of Christ, and the doctrine of the sacra-
ments were very zealously discussed after 1600. They were,
however, treated chiefly in a traditional manner, though, as far
as these matters were concerned, the tradition was that of the
Reformation, while the inherited objective doctrines of God and
of the Trinity were not yet determined by the principle of faith,
nor cultivated in their intrinsic connection with anthropological
and soteriological tenets. Thus the system which was by Luther
so decidedly founded upon a unity, obtained, as it were, two
centres, a purely objective one as well as the principle of faith
―a state of things which, in a logical point of view, could only
be made more tolerable by gradually losing sight of the inde-
pendence of the latter.
For example, Musæus, Disp. ii. § lxiv.
2 Comp. Franck, die Conc. Form. i. 150, &c. 164, &c.
148
1
Christology.
Those who adhere more strictly to the fundamental notion of
Lutheran Christology, teach not merely a communication of
idiomata (in which are included actions and sufferings as well as
attributes), but also a communication of natures (a realis com-
munio naturarum), nay, even a communication of the Person of
the Logos to the human nature, that the latter may not remain
impersonal. It is insisted that the unio is not a mere appearance
of the Person of the Son of God in human nature, nor a special
influence thereon, but that He also brought the Divine nature
into humanity, nay, effected a communication of the Divine
nature thereto. Of this real communion, the threefold Communi-
catio idiomatum which is laid down-chiefly after Chemnitz-is
but the result. In the first place, idiomata, which chiefly apper-
tain to one nature, are declared to belong to the whole Person, in
virtue of the Communio naturarum (idioπoínois), John vi. 62,
iii. 16. Secondly, in virtue of the same Communio, the acts of
the one Person are at the same time the acts of the two natures,
co-operating in the work of redemption (genus apotelesmaticum)
-the one Person acting through its two natures. Thirdly, there
is, on the same grounds, a transference of the idiomata of the one
nature to the other. Since, however, it is not possible for the
Divine nature to be limited by the human, this transference, it is
said, is not reciprocal. On the contrary, only an elevation of
the human by means of the Divine nature can be thereby
effected (genus avxnμaτikóv, majestaticum). In the seventeenth
century, indeed, Christology was no longer based, as formerly,
upon the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but fully developed
without this reference, and that chiefly in an anti-Reformed and
anti-Jesuitical interest. Hence, the question concerning the
omnipresence of the body of Christ was no longer the only one.
discussed, but that also concerning the relation of the manhood
of Christ to omniscience and omnipotence. No important
advance can, however, be perceived in this dogma. Its ethic
predicates remained as good as uncultivated till the time of
Hollatius; while, on the other hand, a departure from, and a
yielding up of the consequences of the idea, began to show itself
after the exaggerations of the Tübingen Cryptics. Not only was
1 Calovius, Systema, 636.
2
The Tübingen school taught from the first the omnipresence of the manhood
of Jesus, in virtue of the Unio; the Giessen school merely inferred from the unio
Christology.
149
it admitted now, as also in the sixteenth century, that the
so-called passive attributes of Deity, such as infinitas, immensitas,
æternitas, were not imparted to the human nature, and the com-
munication limited to the active attributes, but the participation
of Christ's human nature in the Divine attributes, and therefore
the bond of unio, was more and more loosely and externally con-
ceived of They did not actually belong, it was said, to the
human nature of Christ, but the Godhead of the Son exercised
them in and through the manhood."
1
In order to maintain the reality of Christ's manhood, and espe-
cially of His sufferings, the dogma of the twofold state of Christ
was carefully elaborated. The state of humiliation was, however,
to be not otherwise distinguished from the state of exaltation than
by the consideration that, since the Divine Logos must maintain
His eternal unchangeableness, the participation in His attributes
by the human nature on earth must be in some way limited.
The incarnation could not, however, be regarded as per se a state
of humiliation, because the manhood of Christ continues to exist
in the state of exaltation. Was, then, that humiliation of which
the Logos could not be the object to be regarded as a suffering
on the part of the humanity only, as a physical necessity imposed
thereupon by the laws of human life, or as the voluntary assump-
tion of a state of humiliation? Theology, eager to preserve the
notion of self-humiliation, and not merely that of humiliation,
endeavoured to represent the humble beginnings of Christ's
humanity as the voluntary act, not merely of the Logos,-who,
being incapable of either humbling Himself or being humbled,-
the possibility of His being wherever He would during His state of humiliation,
and from His exaltation the actual omnipræsentia, so far as this belongs to His
government, or is united with an agency (omnipræsentia modificata), a view es-
sentially coinciding with the Saxon Decisio. Thus Museus asserts: The human
nature of Jesus had, in its state of humiliation, no indistans propinquitas ad omnes
creaturas, and even, in its state of exaltation, no absoluta omnipræsentia in omnibus
creaturis, though it is indeed present wherever He has promised, in His word, in
His holy Supper, in the Church. Ausf. Erklärung, p. 544. Museus adheres to
the maxim: The Logos is non extra carnem ; but apparently in the sense that He
is never and nowhere disunited from the manhood.
1 In contrast to Schwenckfeld and the Mystics, all commixtio and transformatio
of the human into the Divine nature and vice versa were avoided. See above,
remarks upon the unio mystica by Calovius and Musæus, p. 143.
* Comp. my Entw. Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. Person. Christi, p. 831, &c. [translated
in Clark's Foreign Theological Library]. The unio takes place per σvrdíacoır.
150
The Work of Christ.
can at most withhold His active communication, but, on the
contrary, as the act of the manhood which was united with the
Logos. But an irreconcilable contradiction thus arose. For, in
order to abase itself, the manhood must first exist. Now, it had
no existence prior to its conception, yet the first moment of its
being was an abasement, unless we accept the notion of a prior
glorious existence of the human nature of Christ. Hence, Latin
theologians (such as Reinhard) explain the self-abasement of
Christ's manhood by the statement, that Jesus was subsequently
willing to bear that humiliation to which, at first, He passively
submitted, and that thus, by supplementary acquiescence, that
freedom of choice was perfected which could not at first take
place for lack of self-consciousness. This leads, in all essential
particulars, to the explanation given by others of Phil. ii. 8, viz.
that self-abasement is to be referred to the human nature as both
its subject and object, and not to the Logos-indeed, the Re-
formed themselves insisted that it can be referred to the Logos
only figuratively and in the moral sense of Divine condescension.
Thus, self-humiliation was held to signify that status servilis in
Christ's earthly life which, in virtue of His intrinsic majesty, He
could easily have renounced without ceasing to be true man.
But the more strictly orthodox kept to the former circle of ideas.
They embraced the view that the Incarnation first took place in
the eternal and illocal sphere, and that, the manhood of Christ,
having thus come into existence at the same time that the ací
of unio took place, then took part in the process by which its
entrance into this world was effected. For this purpose it
humbled itself-a view which leads to a pre-existence of the
manhood of Jesus in a conscious form. The pre-existence of
Jesus was also arrived at, in a corporeal point of view, through
the dogma of the Præservatio massa Adamicæ.
With regard to the doctrine of the Work of Christ, Melanch-
thon had already alluded to the threefold division, adopted
by Strigelius, and specially carried out by John Gerhard.
Yet it was chiefly the priestly office alone which was brought to
bear upon the rest of the system, especially upon the doctrine of
Justificatio, or forgiveness of sins. The royal office was extended
by Lutheran theology to the whole world, and not only to the
kingdom of grace.
With respect to the appropriation of salvation, and especially
Appropriation of Salvation.
151
It
the relation of Divine grace to human freedom, the question for
Lutheran theology was, to maintain man's absolute need of
redemption and inability to redeem himself, in such wise as to
avoid a double decree of predestination, and to lay upon the
lost the blame of their own perdition. Now it might indeed be
said that none would come into condemnation without personal
unbelief. But none can be guilty of unbelief except the
possibility of believing is given both externally and internally.
This possibility it was attempted to prove in two ways.
might be said, after the manner of Synergism, that original sin
not only leaves man capable of executing civil justice and of
hearing the word of God, but that its effects must also be limited
by the admission that it does not necessarily entail upon the un-
regenerate, as such, the rejection of grace. On the contrary,
man still naturally possesses the power of turning towards
redemption, and therefore a real recipiency of a spiritual kind.
Such was the tendency of the Calixtine school; but such notions
were, upon the whole, rejected by Lutheran divinity. Secondly,
the causation of the condemnation of some might be removed
from God by embracing the view that to those who-as they are
certainly able to do—hear His word, and inquire after true religion,
or to those in general whom His Gospel reaches, while they are,
in a spiritual respect, as yet entirely passive and incapable of
activity, and hence, to all who are externally called, He so far
restores freedom that they are capable of deciding either for or
against Christ. Thus, the point of the resistibility of conversion
-as distinguished from the possibility of conversion was still
maintained (in opposition to the Reformed). Comp. Museus, de
Conversione, in his before-named work de lib. arb. § xlix.;
Conversionis gratiam non esse irresistibilem; and Disp. v. de
conversionis termino ad quem (i.e. fide salvifica), § lv. &c. If man
will not hear the word, which he certainly might, nor inquire
after true religion, he brings upon himself the guilt of his own
ruin. If he hears it, he receives illumination and the excitement
of good desires through the Holy Spirit, more passive; in short,
the possibility of believing. Lic. Reinhard, however, the opponent
of Musæus, does not omit to reproach him for thus teaching that
there are bonis motus, pia desideria, even in the unregenerate.
This accusation Musæus attempts to answer (Ausf. Erhl. p. 420,
&c.) as though he had spoken of a pium desiderium only in the
•
152
Election.
The
case of one already included among the regenerate.
opponents, indeed, speak even of an inpouring of fresh passive
powers (id. 459) for the reception of salvation by faith. There
was no need to conceive of the latter as of a magical nature. The
gracious influence in question might be supposed to be caused
through the divine operation of the word and sacraments upon
that human constitution which was still capable of conversion,
upon the reason first, which still possesses some dim remains of
divine knowledge, and, through the reason, upon the will. But
if grace first of all restores freedom of choice, and if this is not
determined through absolute election, and if, on the contrary, the
good decision of man is made the condition of election (as, c.g.,
even Quenstedt insists), this is an evident departure from the
doctrine of the F. C.; for fides perseverans, inasmuch as it is
foreseen by God, is now made a cause of election. Thus, the
Divine foreknowledge of persevering faith is the condition of
election-in other words, persevering faith is this condition; and
this the F. C. had denied. Calovius still declined to call faith a
causa impulsiva, movens of election; but both König and
Quenstedt taught, after Gerhard, that faith is the cause, though
not the meritorious cause, of election.¹ So much having been
conceded concerning a free decision for faith, and the Melanch-
thonian type being thus victorious, a modification of the doctrine
of assurance immediately followed. According to Musus, there
is no absoluta certitudo of final salvation, because no one knows
whether he shall believe to the end (finaliter); and Quenstedt
2
1 Quenstedt, Syst. iii. 36; Fides et quidem perseverans et finalis etiam ingredi-
tur circulum Electionis æternæ. Ex divinitus enim prævisa fides meritum Christi
finaliter apprehendente ad vitam æternam clecti sumus. Comp. p. 31. Musæus,
Ausf. Erkl. pp. 482-518, replying to Lic. Reinhard's attack upon the faculty of
Jena (Theologorum Jenensium errores, p. 706, &c.), says: Since all that is in God
(His decrees as well as His attributes) partakes of His own independent and
unchangeable nature, nothing can properly be to Him a causa impulsiva decreti,
otherwise His decisions would be determined, and His acts induced, by something
created (p. 487). We can only speak of a ratio à priori quæ se per modum causæ
impulsivæ habet, and which suffices for an explanation why some are elected and
others are not. That is to say: It is not the faith of believers that is the cause
of their election, but the will of God, who imputes this to faith, that he who has
it is elected. Thus, however, the predestination of individuals is exchanged for
the predestination of the conditions of salvation, viz. repentance and faith;
these are, however, so much the more the causes of actual salvation, though ac-
cording to God's ordo salutis.
2 How wide a departure this is from the F. C. is shown F. C. 809, 810.
Condemnation of the Heathen.
1
153
says it is not so much faith as established faith that has a
certitudo salutis. We may, indeed, and we ought to, have a
Divine assurance of our present state of grace, but only an
assurance conditional upon our fidelity of our future state.¹ The
use of the words Electio and Prædestinatio was, indeed, still
continued; but the absoluteness of the decree, instead of being
referred to certain persons, was referred to the principle that God
had resolved to save those who believed to the end. With respect
to individuals, the doctrine of Calixtus of a decretum salutis con-
ditionata was general.
Thus, at all events, the necessity of seeking in God the cause
of the condemnation of any who were called through the word
was dispensed with. But now the further difficulty remained-
How, without inequality of treatment, can those be condemned
who do not experience that irresistible influence of the Holy
Ghost which is connected with the means of grace, the external
word having been either not at all or not powerfully proclaimed
to them? A remnant of Particularism still lurked here; and even
missionary zeal was long repressed by the silent assumption that
the Gospel was not designed for all. It was held that those nations.
who are still suffered to depart without having the Gospel brought
to them, incurred this lot through the sins of their forefathers; as
though the Gospel could anywhere find itself in presence of men
already incapable of being redeemed. If, in order to justify
their condemnation, it was said that the heathen are to be judged
according to their works, while others are to be judged by their
relation to Christ, this was to set up another standard of judgment,
which, unless it were in some way combined with the former, must
result in a contrary destination of different men, and consequently
in a severance of the one human race into different species.
And what are we to think of the children of the heathen ?
Quenstedt's opinion is that God foreknew that they would not
have believed; as though punishment, nay, damnation, could
be inflicted, not for anything done, but only for the scientia
futuribilium. Evidently this would only be possible if the
essential equality of all sin committed before the birth of Christ
were denied, and the sin of the heathen regarded as of a nature
1 Quenstedt, Systema, iii. pp. 566-578. A new point of controversy against the
Réformed arose from this, as well as from the received doctrine of the falling away
of believers.
•
154
Petersen's Universal Restoration.
excluding à priori the possibility of faith, which, again, would
impeach the universal capability of redemption through Christ.¹
It was no wonder then that, about 1700, Petersen preferred to
advance to the notion of a universal apokatastasis, for the sake of
doing justice to the universality of grace. His doctrine met, how-
ever, with almost universal rejection, because it obliged him to
embrace a physical process of redemption, or at least one which
was not brought about by the word of Christ. Dippel and Edel-
mann soon joined him, though not so much on religious grounds.
A train of thought which was the germ of the Terministic con-
troversy of 1698-1710 might well lead further. It had been
usual so to identify the day of grace with the duration of earthly
life, as to allow no hope beyond it, and also to regard the termi
of grace as unexpired while life lasted. Though the original
foundation of this opinion was a serious view of the impor-
tance of earthly life, it was yet capable of being made the basis
of that levity which would delay repentance till the approach of
death. To put a stop to this notion, Böse, with whom Rechen-
berg agreed, upheld the tenet that there is, even in this life, a
peremptory termination of grace. This cannot depend upon so
external a matter as time, but upon the inward maturity of the
decision for or against Christ. Grace is taken from those who
have repeatedly refused it, and the justification formerly pro-
nounced is withdrawn. On the other hand, this shortening of
the day of grace even during the earthly life was opposed espe-
cially by Ittig. The position was, however, one very unfavour-
able to him, although it is evident that Rechenberg's argument,
if it is to have any force at all, proves too much. For if every-
thing depends mainly upon inward maturity and decision, and
not on time and place, it follows not only that in some this ripe-
1 Some also thought that the promise of God to all nations was fulfilled by
some specimens, as it were, of each being gained for the Gospel or called, while
the guilt of the unbelieving remnant was caused by the fact that, though they
could not be ignorant of the existence and spread of Christianity, they neglected
coming to Christian nations and thence fetching the Gospel-mere evasions, with
which the missionary instinct, if it had been in a vigorous condition, as in the
[Roman] Catholic Church, could not have been satisfied. Evangelical Christen-
dom was, however, still but too much engrossed by itself, and, unfortunately, by
its own internal disputes, especially those between the Lutheran and Reformed
Churches for differences in doctrine were at last detected by controversial
acuteness in almost every article of faith.
2 Rechenberg, De gratiæ revocatricis termino peremptorio, 1700.
+
I
1
1
:
Elements in the Appropriation of Salvation. 155
ness for judgment is found even before the close of their earthly
life, but also that in others it has not yet been reached when life
is over, and then that judginent cannot be passed till they attain
such ripeness in another world. This inference, however, was
not drawn, but the eternity of punishment was doubted by
many, in the case of the unbaptized, or its nature viewed
negatively, as an absence of happiness.
To enter more minutely into the separate elements of the
appropriation of salvation, it is obvious, that from the combination
of the doctrine of man's absolutely impotent yet salvable condi-
tion by nature with the above considered doctrine, that there is
present in the word of God a divine power enabling man to lay
hold of salvation, the condensed and mature results of Lutheran
orthodoxy may be stated as follows. Through the means of
grace, especially the word of God, man, who is naturally dead,
receives new and divine powers, the illumination of his un-
derstanding, the excitement of good affections in his will. This
endowment with supernatural powers is the restoration of the
liberum arbitrium, and is called the new birth. Man having now
a liberated will (arb. liberatum) possesses the possibility or power
of believing. If he uses these powers of regeneration, as he can,
but is not constrained to do, in cultivating repentance and faith
(in conversio), justification and sanctification, mystical union with
God, and glorification, are imparted to him. Justification must,
however, be regarded as an Actus Dei forensis, independent of
man's merits, though not of his faith. So Hollatius.
Thus there may be regenerate men not yet justified by God,
and not yet believers, and man may experience this great act
of endowment with the powers of regeneration in a purely
passive manner. Since, moreover, it was evident that the notion
of regeneration would be much weakened, if only the possibility
of faith, and therefore of justification, were implied thereby,
others made faith also to be bestowed among the powers of
regeneration, whereby this grace also was involved in mere
passivity. On the other side, however, this doctrine of the im-
partation of the supernatural powers of regeneration, with or
without faith, encroached upon justification, nay, the latter was
emptied, and deprived of that fundamental importance in the new
life which it had possessed in the Reformation system, in favour
of regeneration. Justification was no longer the foundation of
156 Elements in the Appropriation of Salvation.
the new life, being itself a mere effect of regeneration. Neither
could it any longer claim the independent merit of abolishing
the Divine displeasure and substituting the Divine grace in its
place. For from what else than already present and preventing
grace was the impartation of the grace of regeneration to flow?
It is evident that God must Himself already have been secretly
favourable and gracious to a man, and must already have
pardoned him in the forum divinum, for the sake of Christ and
His relation to human nature, to be able to bestow upon him the
grace of regeneration.
It may easily be perceived why doctrinal teaching should
have taken a form which placed regeneration before faith. The
reason will be found in infant baptism, in connection with the
doctrine of natural corruption, and the power of the means of
grace. It could not but be granted that children cannot, properly
speaking, have faith, as required by the gospel. But so much
the more was it insisted that regeneration took place through the
act of baptism, not indeed without respect to faith, but in order
that it might be produced. This relation then became typical
also of the doctrine of the conversion of adults. The only
difference was, that in the latter regeneration had gradually to
overcome actual opposition, while children, being incapable of
interposing any rebellious resistance to grace, the work of re-
generation could in them proceed without obstacle. If adults
fell from the grace of Baptism, i.c. from regeneration, they needed,
in the first place, since in their cases will and consciousness were
developed, that effectual calling should again touch their hearts,
and spiritual illumination be again bestowed. The course of things
was, however, entirely analogous to that which takes place in Infant
Baptism, in this respect that the grace of regeneration (liberatum
1 Many efforts were made to fashion the doctrine of baptism in a manner
analogous to that of the Lord's Supper. Hence a materia calestis was sought,
which should sacramentally combine with the water (the mat. terres.). This was
found, c.g., in the words of consecration, in the Holy Trinity, in the Holy Ghost,
or in the blood of Christ. This was however opposed by Musæus, Ausf. Erkl., pp.
677-690, who appealed in this matter to both Chemnitz and Gerhard.
* Luther, on the contrary, required it for Baptism, and did not teach a re-
generation previous to faith.
3 Hollat. Exam. iii. quæst. 14, p. 334.
According to Hollatius faith is assumed in their regeneration. It is not how-
ever to be regarded as an act, but only as the repose of the reasonable soul of the
child in Christ, as the cause of salvation. Luther thought otherwise: see vol. i. 170.
1
Relation between Regeneration and Faith.
157
arbitrium, must first be bestowed, to make repentance and faith
(conversio) possible, and that then faith receives justification.
In all this there was undoubtedly a restoration of a logical
proportion between the appropriation of salvation by means of
Infant Baptism, and its appropriation by adults; while, in em-
bracing the notion of regenerate persons who as yet neither
believed nor were justified, there was a sensible departure from
apostolic and Reformation teaching. According to New Testa-
ment diction the term new birth should have been reserved for
the time of living faith.
More important however to us is the dislocation entailed, by
such doctrinal statements, upon that stronghold of the Reforma-
tion, justification. The abridgment of its rights as the funda-
mental doctrine has been already considered (p. 119, f.). Let us
now observe the position which it gradually occupied as part of
the superstructure itself. It might have been expected that
justification, though no longer, as at first, the foundation of the
whole system, would still have played a distinguished part
within it. For it is undoubtedly the leading characteristic of
the Reformation, that the justification of the sinner forms the
point of transition between the old life and the new, and that
hereby is that free grace of God which depends on no human
performances glorified, and a new beginning made. It is to the
Divine act of justification that the new life is to owe its origin,
to make the former in any way dependent on the latter is to
invert the Divine order. Moreover, it was solely in the interest
of avoiding a dependence of divine grace upon man's own moral
worth, even if this were referred to God, that the definition of
justification as an actus Dei judicialis, forensis arose. And yet a
glance at the Lutheran system shows, that such an expectation
was far indeed from being realized. It is true that the older
theologians, such as Chemnitz and Hütter, still make everything
hinge upon giving a decided prominence to justification as the
turning-point. In their writings, the doctrines of God and of
creation are usually followed by those of sin, of the liberum
arbitrium, and of the law, to which the Gospel stands in con-
1 Comp. Henr. Hopfneri Lips. Theol. De Justificatione hominis peccatoris coram
Deo Disputatt. xii. Lips. 1653. Jo. Musei Tract, theol, de Conversione hominis pec-
catoris ad Deum, 1691. 9 Disputatt. distinct from the above-cited Disp. de Convers,
v. J. 1647-1649, and chiefly occupied with the Jesuits Erbermann and Walenburgh.
2 Comp. Chemnitz, Loci theol. de Justif, pp. 202-249.
158
Gradual Postponement of Justification
trast; and the central point of the Gospel is, in their view, justi-
fication, which is followed by the doctrines of good works, of
repentance, and of faith.
Hafenreffer indeed inserts fides immediately after the doc-
trine of the work of Christ, but he does this because he had
made predestination, i.c. election-which advances through the
three elements of the mercy of God, the merits of Christ and
faith-follow the doctrine of sin. For faith, which is regarded
as a divine operation subsequent to the proffer of justification, is
needed for the accomplishment of the Divine counsel. Thus
the precedence is here actually given to justification, while the
law, the Gospel with repentance and faith, follow as human
acts. Chemnitz does not treat of predestination, and Hütter
deals with it after justification, passing on thence to the sub-
jective aspect, viz. repentance, faith, and obedience. Joh. Gerhard
takes another course. According to Scripture, he first discusses
the doctrine of God and of Christ, as "the foundation of theo-
logy;" he then proceeds to creation and providence, with which
he connects the doctrine of election. Then follow the Divine
likeness, sin and free-will. After these, the law and the Gospel,
then pænitentia, including repentance and faith, and not till after
these justificatio, with which bona opera are connected. Later
writers, such as Calovius, give an even inferior place to justifi-
cation, by placing the doctrines of the Church, the magistratus
politicus, and the means of grace, before it. Not till his tenth
volume does he discuss the acts of God for the application of
redemption and the conversion of man. He there first speaks of
Vocatio, Illuminatio, Regeneratio, Conversio, afterwards of Justi-
ficatio, in connection with fides justificans and with contritio and
fides, as parts of pænitentia, and then of the unio mystica, Saneti-
ficatio, Glorificatio, and Prædestinatio. Scherzer, in his Systema,
essentially follows Calovius. Here justification follows the law,
the Gospel, conversion, the power of the keys and the sacraments,
and is followed by renovatio. And if others do not go quite so
far, it is still customary to place Vocatio, Regeneratio, and Con-
versio before justificatio (so König, Baier, and essentially also
Calixtus). Musaus understands regeneratio as conversio.1 So
1 De Convers. 1647, Disp. i. In its wider sense regeneratio includes also
justificatio and renovatio (sanctification); in its narrower, it is identical with
Conversio. Regeneratio, as well as Justificatio, is actio solius Dei, but the former
in the Process of Salvation.
2
159
too does Dav. Hollatius,¹ + 1713, since he first discusses, in a
Trinitarian manner, God's mercy and predestination, Christ's
redeeming work, and the Holy Spirit's appropriating grace, as
principles of redemption, and designates vocatio, illuminatio,
conversio, regeneratio, justificatio, unio mystica, renovatio, con-
servatio fidei and glorificatio, as the operations of the Spirit. He
then proceeds to the means of salvation, the objective, viz. the
word and sacraments; the subjective, viz. Poenitentia, with Con-
tritio and fides salvifica. Not that there was any intention to
injure the before named fundamental idea of the Reformation by
the position thus assigned to justification; yet not only did it
thus lose its due prominence, but it was also necessarily, even
though involuntarily, obscured by the precedence thus given to
other matters. It was certainly an advance to determine with
greater exactness the psychological gradations in the process of
salvation; but in doing this a sphere was entered upon, in
which from the very nature of the matter, the Divine willing-
ness to save, and man, combine in
in ever new aspects-in
which the former more actively takes in hand and moulds the
various qualities of man, and the latter willingly yields himself
to this plastic power, and becomes a new and free person-
ality in God. If then, in detailing the successive stages in the
process of salvation, justification were inserted-as was custom-
ary-after regeneratio, conversio, (pænitentia contritio et fides
salvifica), justificatio-so far as it was to be regarded as the
principle of the new life-was necessarily placed in an em-
barrassing position, as being by the order of the doctrines
preceded by this life. A further difficulty arose from the cir-
effects a change in the subject, producing illumination and spiritual desires; its
aim (terminus ad quem) is saving faith. Justificatio produces no change in man
himself, it is external to him, forensis. It is the non-imputation of sin, the
imputation of Christ's merits. He subsequently changes this usual mode of
representation for the following (Ausführl. Erklär. p. 591): The merits of Christ
apprehended by faith are the causa impulsiva of Justificatio; hence the imputatio
justitia Christi (fide apprehensi) ordine prior remissione peccatorum. Moreover,
guilt (reatus) is not taken from man after regeneration. Disp. de Convers. 1647,
ii. § xiii.
1 Examen theologicum acroamaticum univers. theolog. thet. polem. complectens,
1707.
He views Regeneratio as donatio fidei, or at least as the result of the super-
natural powers by which it is accompanied, together with the destruction of sin-
ful opposition, vol. iii. p. 342.
160
Gradual Postponement of Justification
cumstance that it was placed here as an actus Dei forensis.
For while all other divine acts (vocatio, illuminatio, regeneratio,
conversio) express at the same time an effect produced, a change
of some kind evoked, in man, this was not the case with Justi-
ficatio as forensis, although it was reckoned a member of the
same series.¹ There was now but one step needed to make
justification homogeneous with its fellow members. This was to
understand this divine act, as consisting in a consciousness of
justification before God, wrought in the heart by a divine opera-
tion. And this was actually the way in which it was viewed by
many. Such a view was however insufficient, nor could the
relegation of justification as an actus Dei forensis to an inferior
position be thereby justified. For thus, according to what has
been stated above, that which was most excellent had taken place
before it, and this act was no longer in a condition to act as a
principle. Hence, it is taught and very justly-that the con-
sciousness of redemption or justification is by no means an im-
mediate consequence of faith, and that hence justification before.
God may exist without such consciousness. In fact, viewed as
an actus Dei forensis, there is a necessity that it should be
regarded as existing prior to man's consciousness thereof, nay,
prior to faith. For faith is nothing else than the commence-
ment of such consciousness, and could not arise at all unless
preceded objectively by justification before God-in other words
by a Divine and gracious purpose, special with regard to the
individual sinner, existing on God's part as an accomplished act
of pardon, and then applying to man by the exhibition and offer
of the benefits of redemption. The vocation of the individual to
salvation could not result unless God had already, in preventing
love, previously pardoned the sinner for Christ's sake, ic. for
the sake of that fellowship of Christ with the sinner, which the
latter had not yet rejected.
It is only when Justificatio forensis maintains its Reformation
position, at the head of the process of salvation, that it has any
firm or secure standing at all.2 If removed from this, it is
¹ And that without a more secure position either for this act, or the knowledge
thereof.
2 For evangelical doctrine was not concerned that God's favourable judgment
should not be announced, "not be insinuated" to man, but only that this judg-
ment should be passed on account of our union with Christ (not on account of
our own right disposition), God accepting Him as our surety.
in the Process of Salvation.
161
gradually driven to a greater and greater distance, till at last, as
in Storr's divinity, it takes its place at the end. We have
already seen that the formula by which the doctrine of the
appropriation of salvation, especially as far as regeneration and
faith are concerned, was expressed, was analogous with that of
Infant Baptism. But, in another aspect, this postponement of
justification to regeneratio, conversio, pœnitentia, fides, was also at
variance with the Lutheran doctrine of baptism. For this did
not suppose that the justificatio of the child was delayed on the
part of God, until the existence of that faith which, according to
orthodox divinity, was regarded as an effect of baptism. On the
contrary, Holy Baptism-which does not become valid baptism
by means of and after faith-is undoubtedly said to include
remission of guilt for Christ's sake, the non-imputation of
original sin, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and
therefore the Divine adjudication of justification in virtue of a
secret divine award, which is however manifested in the sacra-
ment. Nay, the covenant concluded with the baptized infant is
said to be permanent on God's part, until positive unbelief
renders it void. And it is just to this preventing love of God
that the Reformers rightly ascribed the power of breaking and
shaming the sinner's heart, of bringing man, in proportion to the
development of his consciousness, to that repentance, conversion,
and assurance, by which the gift, which it is God's serious pur-
pose to bestow, becomes in fact man's own possession. But in
the above described succession of stages in the process by which
salvation is appropriated, this prevenient character of pardoning
grace (justitia forensis) is much obscured, because justificatio is so
long retarded. As to the question, at what stage of the process
the secret and divine act of justificatio forensis comes into opera-
tion, nothing more could be said than that it is not at the point
where the consciousness of being justified before God takes place.
On the contrary, according to the prevailing doctrinal scheme,
not only calling and illumination, but also regeneration, re-
pentance, and faith (or conversion), were to precede, at least
in the case of adults, not only perhaps the consciousness of Divine
forgiveness, but the act of Divine justification itself, and therefore
the secret divine forgiveness; in other words, this was not to
come into operation till after a series of stages had been gone
through, involving also subjective changes to which God, in His
II.
L
162
Gradual Postponement of Justification
actus forensis, is said to have no regard. By such a scheme not
only is the permanence of the baptismal covenant, on the part of
God, forgotten, but this post-Reformation doctrine of the so-called
orthodox divines approximates in a very suspicious manner to
the Roman Catholic system, according to which the justifying
(and sanctifying) love of God is indeed said to be preveniently
manifested in baptism, but declared unattainable for sin after
baptism, before pænitentia and its works. The reason of this
change is certainly very evident. The intention was to do away
with the frivolous trust in a magical efficacy of the merits of
Christ, by teaching that the process by which salvation is be-
stowed upon man, is not completed by the eternal compassion
of God and the objective merits of Christ, but needs also the sub-
jective process of faith, from which also amendment and a change
of mind cannot be excluded. But this danger could hardly be
in this manner averted, without the free and prevenient grace
located in Justificatio forensis being obscured. The Reforma-
tion doctrine was so laid down that the possession and happy
enjoyment of grace could in none otherwise be obtained than
through repentance and faith, which formed the soil in which the
new birth was implanted. But at the same time it stated with
1 Faith, which on its part presupposes repentance and amendment, thus be-
comes, in fact, a causality of salvation, and that not merely of an instrumental
and mediate kind, nor as a psychologically necessary result of a personal posses-
sion and enjoyment of salvation, but also a causa impulsiva to the Divine act of
Justificatio itself;-as though even the very offer of pardon, and therefore faith,
were possible, unless God anticipatively announced the existence of His favourable
disposition, His pardon for the sake of Christ's union with us-not on account of
our union with Him through faith, or of the change wrought in us by faith.
Musæus (Ausf. Erkl., pp. 587-599), on the contrary, makes earnest repentance and
true faith the conditions, generally speaking, on which God's forgiveness of sin
takes place. But how can this be even offered unless it has already taken place
on the part of God for the sake of Christ? And how many uncertainties ensue
(sec. 18) as to whether repentance be earnest enough, and faith true enough, to
result in the act of Divine Justification! Again, this act is indeed, according to
Musæus, no more to be conceived of as an Actus realiter in Deo productus than
election is (idem, p. 585). "It is, on the contrary, ipsa Dei essentia, or else we
must deny, with Conr. Vorstius and the Socinians, the unchangeableness and
simplicity of God.” Justificatio is but the nature of God Himself, regarded
according to our imperfect notions as will, with respect to believers as its object.
In such opinions a deistic feature is unmistakeable, and is necessarily involved in
the prevailing idea of God, Comp. de Convers. 1647, disp. v. § lix. Thus the
impossibility of a repetition of justification need not be inferred as by the
Calvinists--from God's unchangeableness.
in the Process of Salvation.
163
equal clearness that Justification (justificatio forensis) formed the
pre-temporal foundation, on God's part, for the whole process,
and that God can only impart its blessings step by step, on the
ground that He has already forgiven a man objectively before
His secret forum, for Christ's sake, and chooses, on His side, to
treat him as one who has found favour with Him. This pre-
temporal justification is then manifested (“insinuated”) objec-
tively in the call in the sacrament, and in the pronunciation of
pardon (e.g. in confession), and subjectively by the witness of the
Spirit in them that believe. A notion of this shows itself even
in the remark made by some, that all the several stages of the
process exist simultaneously-a remark however, which, when
applied to the subjective process in man, calls in question the
whole order laid down, and might be connected with a perfectly
abstract view of the relation of God to time.¹
It is of the first importance to hold that the prevenient grace
of God is wholly independent of human merit, with respect both
to the commencement and the continuance of the work of salva-
tion; and this is what is meant by Luther's saying that in the
work of salvation the condition of man is mere passive. This is
most especially true with regard to justification, because it is not
the change in the sinner which first inclines God to pardon him;
but, on the contrary, the gift of pardon which produces a moral
change in man. Thus the justification of the sinner must be
conceived of as, first of all, a transaction taking place in God,
and manifested in that preaching which produces faith (Vocatio).
But if justification is to take its place with faith after regenera-
tion and conversion, this relative state of things is not merely
obscured, but there arises the further difficulty, that while, in the
case of justification, the mera passivitas, which is here in place,
disappears behind the causa impulsivæ, it is maintained in that
of regeneration, through fear of Pelagian or Synergistic views.
If, however, its Reformation position at the head of the whole
process of salvation, as its governing principle and lasting foun-
dation, were preserved to justification, its independence of sanc-
1 Quenstedt, iii. 621, says: Regeneratio, justificatio, unio mystica, et renovatio
tempore simul sunt et quovis puncto mathematico arctiores adeo ut divelli et
sequestrari nequeant, cohærent. It was also a principle recognized by Gerhard
(vii. 321), and still more distinctly by Museus, that bona opera are present in
faith.
164
The Lord's Supper.
tification, and the subjective part of the process in general,
would also be secured in the manner in which alone this can
adequately be done. The advantage would also be reaped,
that all the jealousy with which sanctification and human
agency in the work of salvation are regarded from the stand-
point of justification would be dispensed with. Effectual calling,
which proclaims that God has forgiven for Christ's sake, and
now requires faith in this fact, involves the possibility of faith,
through which the gift of pardon is possessed and enjoyed, nay,
through which regeneration into vital communion with Christ is
effected; while unbelief not only deprives man of the present
possession and enjoyment of reconciliation, but, if persevered in,
entails condemnation. On the other hand, the precedence given
to regeneration, instead of justification, was an obstacle to the
free development of the Protestant principle in its ethical
aspect; and hence it was against this precedence that the
Pietistic movement was chiefly directed.
Faith is more decidedly necessary for the profitable reception
of the Lord's Supper than for baptism and regeneration. It is
indeed insisted that unbelievers do receive the body and blood
of Christ, and that these are not merely offered to them. Accord-
ing to Gerhard, however, they have only a manducatio oralis, not
spiritualis. Hollatius limits this assertion by the further state-
ment that, on the one hand, the elements, on the other, the body
and blood of Christ, are received, but not in the same manner.
For since Christ's body and blood, being glorified, are accessible
to the naturalis concoctio, but not as the elements are, the mandu-
catio oralis is directly a mere partaking of bread and wine, and
only indirectly, and for the sake of the Unio sacramentalis, to be
referred to the body and blood of Christ. Since, then, the latter
neither bring a blessing to unbelievers, nor have any detrimental
effect attributed to them, the doctrine of Hollatius could not but
lead to the view that, in the case of unbelievers, who exclude
themselves from the reception of Christ's glorified body, a dis-
solution of the Unio sacramentalis must be accepted; and no
reason can be shown for making this dissolution take place after,
instead of by, unbelieving participation, except an obvious incli-
nation to admit a miraculous change in the elements, by means
of consecration. By consecration Quenstedt understands not the
mere setting apart from profane use and blessing of the elements,
Doctrine of the Church.
165
but also that sacramental union which thus takes place, not in
their dispensation or reception, but through the priestly utter-
ance of the words of Christ Himself. In his view the Unio sacra-
mentalis also is referred, not to the whole Christ, but only to His
body and blood, though the whole Christ is present, and is
spiritually received. If the consecration which is performed by
men is said to effect the sacramental union, this approximates to
the magical notion that it is not so much Christ who brings to
pass the act of union, as the priest who has it in his power. A
barrier against such a view was, however, furnished by that
article of the F. C., according to which the Unio sacramentalis is
not objectively and independently secured by consecration, but
only involved in the whole transaction, including the distribu-
tion and participation. Incorporation into Christ, and spiritual
nourishment to eternal life, are increasingly dwelt on as being,
together with the sealing of pardon, the benefits received in the
Lord's Supper. Hollatius, who in this particular approximates,
with easy unconcern, to the Calvinistic Churches, attributes to
the Lord's Supper a reference also to immortality, the symbol or
pledge of which is given in Christ's body and blood. This train
of thought, however, keeps within the limits of viewing the
sacrament as a pledge and promise, and does not go so far as
to regard it as the causative principle of the glorification of
corporeity.
With respect to the Church, the fundamental definition-that
it is Primarie societas fidei et Spir. S-was adhered to; and
according to Museus and Hollatius, its members are not only
morally united to Christ, but are also in physical connection
with him, especially by means of the sacraments. All (Hütter,
Gerhard, Baier, Hollatius, &c.) insist upon its invisibility, because
its members, ratione fidei et electionis, are known to God alone.
At the same time, however, they embrace also its visibility,. and
deny that from this distinction a twofold church arises; for the
visible would be no church at all without its invisible side,
while, on the other hand, believers are visible men. Though the
faith of each visible man cannot indeed be with certainty known
and perceived, still the Church itself is perceptible, by means of
the word and sacraments, whose use is never absent where there
are believers; as, on the other hand, believers are never utterly
wanting where the word and the sacraments are still in use. With
166
Doctrine of the Church. Official Grace.
all their attachment to the Lutheran Church, the general Church
of Christ (catholica universalis), which surpasses all particular
churches, has ever the highest place assigned to it in the writings
of theologians. In Calovius, indeed, we can detect the effort to
identify the Lutheran Church with the Church of Christ, and,
emulating Romish teaching, to deny that other confessions are
portions of the universal Church.
In Apologetics the idea of the Church was already distin-
guished from the wider sense in which the word Church was used
(Ecclesia large dicta). The Church in this more extended mean-
ing is a community of those who hold the same confession
and use the sacraments. Comparing this definition with Conf.
Aug. vii., where verbum and sacramenta are required as the
signs by which the Church may be recognized, we perceive that,
with respect to the Church in the wider sense of the word, the
confession was, in the seventeenth century, substituted for the
word. A true or a false church is now to be distinguished by
its confession. Yet even the Lutheran Church is not reckoned
absolutely true, nor others absolutely false. Perfect purity of
doctrine does not secure the perfection of the Church, and even
churches whose doctrine is impure have still the word and sacra-
ments. Only a few place the Church of Rome on a level with
Antichrist, and the Reformed with the Romish Church, or even
with Mohammedanism. The assumption of Calovius that the
Lutheran is the only true Church, from which it would follow
that all others-which he calls, notwithstanding, particular
churches—are no churches at all, because not parts of the true
Church, was not accepted on the part of Lutherans even in the
seventeenth century. More important is the doctrine of official
grace and official gifts, which is closely connected with the above
described dilution of the Reformation principle. The Conf. Aug.
had connected the right of public teaching only with a regular
vocation to the ministry. C. V. Löscher, however, maintained
that the ministry of the word in general is, in accordance with
Divine appointment, properly confined to a certain order of men
regularly called and appointed thereto. To this order alone it
appertains to speak as the word of God, and to perform the work
of the διακονία. According to Quenstedt and Hollatius, the
teachers of the Church form the Ecclesia representiva, for the
maintenance of purity of faith (ie. doctrine) and discipline.
1
!
Sacred Song.
Preaching.
167
The totality of members, including both teachers and hearers, is
called the Ecclesia synthetica, which, after Luther's precedent, is
divided into the three Status hierarchici, the ecclesiasticus, poli-
ticus, and œconomicus. Thus, while the priesthood in general
was acknowledged, laymen were not, in principle, excluded from
councils. This privilege of the laity, however, never came into
excercise, and the two first were distinguished as the teaching and
ruling orders from the obeying order. An attempt was made to
give independence and standing to the clerical order, which,
inefficiently supported as it was in the infancy of this Church,
was exposed almost defenceless to the violence of the State.
This theory, which was derived from the Divine appointment of
a separate order of teachers, and which was to form, as it were,
a compensation for the sacrament of Holy Orders rejected at the
Reformation, could but have led to a restoration of Romish views,
and did not fail to produce a powerful reaction on the part of
the hitherto silent Church, which found a speaker and leader in
Spener.
Greatly as the dogmatic interest preponderated in the Lutheran
Church, the Reformation could not be so inoperative as not to
awaken in extensive circles an interest in vital religion and
personal faith. The vigour of that evangelical and practical faith
which prevailed in the heart of the German nation, was manifested
especially in the richness and abundance of its sacred song.
This was not only cultivated in different ways by many-and
some of them highly-gifted poets, among whom Paul Gerhard
figures as an intellectual magnate-but found the greatest
acceptance with the people, and watered the thirsty ground like
a refreshing spring. A copious literature of ascetic and practical
theology also testifies to an abundant store of spiritual life in the
Church. But this life was in part either a hidden and personal
nature, or confined almost entirely to religious worship and do-
mestic life.
1
¹ Under which head must be specially mentioned the writings of Joh. Arndt,
Heinr. Müller, Scriver, Val. Andreä, Joh. Gerhard, Valer. Herberger, Lütkemann ;
in practical theology, those of the two Tarnovs, Grossgebauer, and Joh. Gerhard.
In the universities, however, and in literature, by far the greater share of attention
was devoted to giving an artistic form to preaching. The rhetoric of Melanchthou
and the classic models of eloquence became the standard of preaching, so far as its
outward form and fashion were concerned; while its spirituality was repressed by
the various schemes which ingenuity was constantly multiplying. A regard to
168
Catechisms and Catechizing.
The aim of the Reformation had been to bring about present
personal salvation and the inner life of faith; and it was entirely
consistent with this aim that what was morally produced by man
-nay, what was yet to be expected from God-for the perfecting
these was often productive of an absence of all elegance of language, and contro-
versy occupied a space destructive of edification. Among writers on methods of
preaching may be mentioned, after A. Pancratius, 1571 (from whom the Pancra-
tian, i.e. the synthetic, method takes its name), Luc. Osiander, 1582, and Eg.
Hunnius, 1595; in the seventeenth century, Baldwin, 1632, J. Hülsemann, 1633,
J. B. Carpzov, 1656, Christ. Chemnitz, 1658. Spener, Breithaupt, and Weismann
effected a deliverance from the numerous restrictions of a mass of artificial rules
by a recurrence to a careful consideration of Scripture, which was very favourable
to analytical preaching (the homily). They opposed especially the so-called dog-
matic, Jorismatic, Hopfnerian, Zetetic, and Ursinian methods. Comp. Palmer,
Ev. Homiletik, and his article upon it in Herzog's Real Encycl. vol. vi. In the
matter of the catechism, and gradually in that of catechizing, the seventeenth
century exhibits no small amount of productiveness, in which the spirit of the
various epochs is, as it were, reflected, and indeed so much so that each sepa-
rate epoch furnishes its separate contribution. Luther's Little Catechism-"the
fruit, not an abridgment, of the large,"―together with the catechism of J. Brenz,
is the standard of the catechisms of the several Lutheran national churches.
In its plastic and childlike simplicity of language, the objective matter of the
Confession is wondrously blended with the expression of personal faith.
In it we
find a typical union of those elements which were subsequently severed, the simplex
et certa professio of the Church's common faith, and the vigorous, joyful, personal
profession and conviction. But the brevity and simplicity of the Shorter Catechism
required that this, even if it remained the foundation, should be supplemented by
more copious explanations, that the young might be able to give an account of their
faith. The numerous works designed to supply this want adopted the cxisting
type of Church doctrine, and stated the summa doctrine, the Locos communes,
sometimes for higher schools and universities (see above, p. 109), at others in
a more popular form; yet still, accompanied by definitions and axioms, sought
to impress upon the understanding with the utmost accuracy and distinctness the
traditional dogmas of the Church. This was an important complementary act of
self-constitution on the part of the Evangelical Church; and the irregularities
prevailing after the Thirty Years' war made it the more necessary that the young
should be again brought under the discipline of Church teaching. On the other
hand, however, intellectualism, which had begun to transform the Church in
general into the school, exerted its influence here also. The catechetical instruc-
tion of the people was not arranged according to the normal stages of growth in
religious life and its needs, but at most according to the different grades of school
proficiency. In the seventeenth century, confirmation was disused in many coun-
tries. To obviate even the appearance of any deficiency after regenerating Baptism,
the act by which the blessing of Baptism is developed was omitted. Spener is
the first who marks a point of transition to ancient practice in this respect.
His aim is to lead Christian doctrine "from the head to the heart." He takes up
the important element of personal faith so much let slip of late, though made of
such vital importance by Luther, and seeks either to inculcate or to strengthen
1
j
-
•
Doctrine of the Last Things.
169
of this salvation and of His kingdom, should have been but little
elaborated. The chief thing is known by faith to be already
present, and therefore the soul is saved, is happy, even in this
world—nay, inwardly as if already in heaven. Hence, its gaze
was but very seldom directed to that external and manifest tri-
umph of the kingdom of Christ, which was still lacking. Pro-
testantism, by the stress which it laid upon the internal, had
assured, if not the freedom and vigour, yet certainly the moral
purity of its principle. And it was just by virtue of this purity
that it could despise both the external ecclesiastical glory of
Romanism and the coarse chiliasm of the Reformation era.
The servile state of the good and of the Church was a matter to
which a Christian must willingly accommodate himself, and
must even learn to love, as furnishing the condition under which
faith may be exercised and proved to be true faith, without
sensible perception, sensuous desires, or selfishness, a faith in
that which is heavenly, for its own sake, and irrespective of its
coming glory. Hence, in Eschatology, that aspect was brought
forward which represents the future world as but a higher degree
of that blessedness to which faith has access even in this, and
the dying believer as immediately introduced into the full
enjoyment of salvation in Christ. This, indeed, would almost
deprive the final judgment of its importance, and could be only
conceivable on the supposition that joy in the triumph of the
kingdom of God, and consciousness of the perfection of the whole
it, for general edification-a work in which he had been preceded by Ernest the
Pious. Spener's catechism, 1677, and still more the works of Gesenius, already
give the preponderance to that which tends to edification, rather than to the ac-
curate definition of traditional dogmas (as given e.g. by Mich. Walther and the
Herford catechism). Nevertheless, it is still in the main from objective Church doc-
trine that they endeavour to obtain practical fruits, partly with special reference
to the rite of confirmation, now reintroduced particularly by Spener. And yet this
objective Church doctrine was cast into the background by Pietism. The Wur-
temburg Church alone had the good fortune, while retaining the catechisms of
Luther and Brenz, to secure unimpaired the acquisitions of the new era in the
Confirmation manual of Hiemer, 1723, which brought into Church order the
above-mentioned religious, and not merely didactic gradation. Compare the ex-
cellent work of Ehrenfeuchter, Zur Gesch. des Katechismus, Gött. 1857. Among
older writers on catechizing are: Trotzendorf (Methodus doctrinæ catechetica, 1570),
Lossius; among those of the seventeenth century, Lütkemann, Kortholt, J. G.
Baier, Hartmann, Tarnov, de SS. ministerio, lib. ii. c. 3, Val Andrea, christlich-
evangelische Kinderlehre, 1648. Comp. Langemack, Histor. catechetica, pt. i.-iii.
1729, &c., and v. Zezschwitz's not yet completed Geschichte der Katechetik.
170
Doctrine of the Last Things.
1
race, were no part of the blessedness of the individual. Selnecker
had already taught an intermediate state before the final
judgment, even for the righteous; but the notion of progress
and improvement in another world soon fell to the ground. The
emphasis laid upon the inward state, and the consequent preoccu-
pation of the believer solely with his personal relation to Christ,
resulted moreover in a spiritualistic view of the world, a certain
contempt for nature and its earthly theatre. This was shown
even, e.g., in the treatment which the notion of miracles met with,
a miracle being unhesitatingly regarded as a suspension, or even
an infraction, of the laws of nature. It was scarcely a decided
reality, but rather a fluctuating kind of existence which was
conceded to nature; she was, as it were, only the material which,
in a state of absolute plasticity, was at every moment being
fashioned by God. Notwithstanding the importance attached to
this earthly life, its aim was so exclusively faith, that when this
was once obtained, the prolongation of his life could scarcely have
been of any importance to the individual; nay, rather, since the
possibility of falling away was admitted, it must have seemed
desirable that the moment when saving faith originated should
be also the moment of death. It is true that the testing and
proving of faith were to take place in this life; but this could
be effected whatever might happen in the outer world. The
surroundings are actually indifferent if the sole matter of
importance is that faith should be maintained. There is not,
indeed, an utter absence of the notion of such a moral fashioning
of life as should make it a vital portion of the whole kingdom of
God and an efficient means of promoting it. Such a notion could
not but partially result from the nature of things, but it formed
no prominent feature of the consciousness. The earthly work of
the Gospel upon mankind, as a connected history of the kingdom
of God upon earth, was lost sight of. In fact, the ethical feeling
for such a work was not yet developed; and it is in this latter
circumstance that we find the secret reason of the absence of
missionary efforts. The clear light of faith having been again
set up by the Reformation, and the possibility of salvation
extended to all, the proper work of the world's history was
regarded, as accomplished, and the speedy end of the world
confidently expected; Antichrist, according to Luther, already
1 Heppe, iii. 420.
Eschatology.
. 171
existing in the Romish Church. It was allowed that the Church,
in that state of bondage which constitutes her mark upon earth,
will yet have many sore trials to bear; but the fact that it is not
her only duty to be a sufferer, but also to contribute by self-
sacrificing service to the renovation and revival of mankind in
every sphere of life, lay so far beyond the horizon, that many
thought, with Quenstedt, that this present world would, at the
second coming of Christ, be not merely changed as to its form,
but even utterly destroyed as to its substance. The world-wide
mission of Christianity and the Reformation with respect to
governments and nations, to art, science, and the whole realm of
culture, could scarcely enter into the consciousness of an age
whose utmost efforts barely sufficed to maintain, among the
storms of the seventeenth century, the pure preaching of the
Gospel for the salvation of the individual soul. All the moral
edifices of mankind were, together with the world on which
they were reared, represented as transitory and without lasting
importance; though, on the other hand, an endurance even of
the corporeal substance in glorified perfection was, in opposition
to this general destruction of the world, embraced in the doctrine
of the Resurrection. The thousand years' reign-a notion whose
importance consisted, among other things, in making the earthly
theatre of the Church of great consequence, and in regarding her
duty to the world as one to be accomplished thereon-was
regarded as already past; because so much had been already
attained by faith that only sight, i.e. the future state, could be a
higher stage or furnish higher tasks.
That faith, or believing consciousness, should not freely enter
into the realm of moral tasks is, as may easily be perceived, a
defect in faith itself. It is not, so far only as its own verifi-
cation and growth are concerned, that faith is a moral work,
whose natural fruit is true sanctification in the calling which
God appoints. Faith, when it feels a lively interest in its object,
cannot but be animated by a love which will long for the true
victory of grace in the kingdom of Christ, and for the extension
of this kingdom. Faith has not proved how infinitely productive
a principle it is, until it lovingly embraces the whole world,
and is not occupied solely in caring for the salvation of the indi-
vidual soul. For this it needs the ideas of design, an acquaint-
ance with the world's destiny according to the counsel of God,
172 Ethical Character of Faith Developed in Hope.
which must be accomplished; and therefore eschatological know-
ledge, as is evident by the Apostle's insertion of hope between
faith and active love, as the cause of the latter (1 Cor. xiii.).
Hence it was but in accordance with the normal relation of
things that Spener-the very man who so greatly contributed to
the re-animation of the evangelical principle of faith, and ex-
horted men with such peculiar earnestness to care for the salva-
tion of their own souls-should, when the time was come, burst
in an unexpected manner the bonds of a spurious subjectiveness,
which, whether emotionally or intellectually, would not advance
beyond first principles, and should direct the hope of believers
to the grand historical development of a future kingdom. It
may seem strange, or look like an indirect way to such an end,
that on the whole the ethic interest of the Lutheran Church
should at first be directed, not to the present state, but to the
future hopes of Christ's kingdom. In this case, however, we
have but another instance of the repetition of that vital law
which we find prevailing also in the primitive Church; and the
fact alluded to will suffice to prove that the first thing needed,-if
we are to be ethically at home in the present, if we are to view
our immediate duties in their connection with the whole, and
consciously to fulfil them in a truly ethical spirit, i.c. as parts of
the great moral task of the whole race, is that we should bring
before our minds the ideal form of that kingdom of God which
shall be. With this must also be combined the realistic side,
i.e. a lively and faithful appreciation of the history of the Church,
inasmuch as the present, upon which our consciousness of the
ideal has to operate, can only be understood from the history of
the past. In this respect the theologian of the seventeenth
century to whom we are most indebted is Calixtus, whose histo-
rical survey of the actual state of mankind, and of the real
necessities and essential functions of the Church, impressed upon
him the conviction-in which he coincided with Spener-that
it was the duty of the modern Church, instead of occupying itself
in fruitless internal disputes, to devote its energies to the exten-
sion of the kingdom of Christ.
Looking back from this point, how great was the difference
between this period and the sixteenth century! Attention was
then directed almost exclusively to the New Testament and the
apostolic age. Far from expecting a new series of developments,
Ethical Character of Faith Developed in Hope. 173
both externally and internally, in human life in general and the
kingdom of Christ in particular, or regarding the promotion of
such developments as the duty of the modern Church, it was
thought enough if the existing Church were purified and in-
wardly led back in its faith to the type of the apostolic age.
Now, on the contrary, the image of a glorious future for the
Church, not only in another world, but in this also, was depicted
by the energy of faith for the encouragement of hope; and this
having to be realized by human instrumentality, could not fail
to kindle that love which sets vigorously about its daily labour,
and does not suffer him whom it influences to rest satisfied with
a life of mere contemplation, or of joy in his own salvation.
Having thus reviewed the scholastic period of the Lutheran
Church, we have arrived at a brighter phase of its life, a phase
full of fertile germs, rich in promise for the future-at tendencies
which existed indeed even in the seventeenth century, as ecclesia
pressa, nay, which provoked by their opposition a still more rigid
manifestation of orthodoxy, but which finally showed themselves
not only superior to all that was morbid therein, but also shook
and destroyed the power of the Church so far as it was identified
with these morbid elements, and thus in due time opened a
wider and freer path to the genuine spirit of the Reformation.
174
Contest with Roman Catholicism.
SECTION II.
THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE OPPOSITION TO THE OLD
CHURCH ORTHODOXY.
THE
HE tendency which, for the sake of brevity, we have desig-
nated as that of Protestant scholasticism, was never quite
sure of its tenure nor happy in it. The contests with the Romish
and Reformed Churches, as well as with Socinians, still continued,
the former especially being powerfully supported, not only by
the material assistance of Jesuitical policy, but also by consider-
able intellectual ability. For while, during the sixteenth century,
the advocates of the Romish Church betrayed, generally speaking,
a want both of genius and intellectual power, it possessed after
its close the advantage of numbering such men as Bellarmine,
the equally able opponent of Chemnitz, Dionysius Petavius,
Thomassinus, and such divines as Gregory v. Valentia, Francis
Suarez, Sanchez, Tanner, Forer, and many others, among its de-
fenders. These were the less bound to reply to Protestant theo-
logians, inasmuch as the latter omitted to bring into the field
their own peculiar resources, viz. the powers inseparable from
their principle, and only too nearly approximated in their method
to the standpoint of their adversaries. They opposed the recep-
tion of tradition beside the Holy Scriptures, while in point of
fact they vindicated the authority of their own system of doc-
trine to its smallest and slightest details, as though it were an
inviolably sacred tradition, and enforced it with the utmost zeal,
and even by means of discipline. They referred, indeed, for its
support to Holy Scripture, yet notwithstanding their appeal to
the perspicuity of the latter, they did not leave its explanation
free. On the other side, the Romanists denied even the limited
intelligibility of Scripture, i.e. its clearness concerning what was
necessary to salvation, and strengthened this denial by referring
to the variety of ways in which Scripture had, from the earliest
ages, been understood. And since at the period of the Thirty
Years' war the schism in the Western Church was not regarded
as irretrievable, methods were invented-especially by the Jesuits
Contest with the Catholic Methodists.
175
Peron, Neuhaus (Nihusius), Erbermann, and after 1650 by the
brothers Walenburgh-for bringing the Lutherans, with their
appeal to Scripture alone, into straits, and proving that subjection
to a visible living authority in matters of doctrine was the only
reasonable course. These methods, which bore various names,¹
all coincided in taking the Lutherans, and their self-restriction
to Scripture, at their own word, and in striving, as it were, to
starve out both their theology and divinity. They declared
themselves prepared to own their opponents in the right, if they
should be really able to prove that their dogmas were literally
contained in Holy Scripture, and that they embraced nothing
more than could be verbally pointed out therein. To this de-
mand of Veron and Neuhaus it was replied that: Holy Scrip-
ture being written for men endowed with the gift of reason,
obvious inferences from the words of Scripture must be held
equally valid; and also, adds Calixtus, that which is evident to
reason, since reason proceeds from the same God as revelation.
To this the brothers Walenburgh answered, that inferences
were not possible without the exercise of reason, and that this
would therefore be to leave each individual to decide concerning
mysteries by means of philosophy and reason. But that upon
which happiness depends, the doctrines necessary to salvation,
must be purely divine, for the intermixture of aught human
would render everything uncertain. Hence the Church must
be endowed with divine authority, if she is to pronounce in-
fallibly on matters of doctrine. This work she effects by the
help of the Holy Ghost. Musæus, who treats these questions
with penetrating acuteness, points out, on the other hand, the
contradictions existing between Catholic theologians, some
of whom insist that saving faith must be founded upon
direct revelation-at least, upon one imparted directly to the
Church-while others, on the contrary, prefer recurring to an
assistance of the Holy Ghost, by means of which the Church
develops what is virtually given in revelation,—an operation
which Protestants likewise may lay claim to, only that they, in
¹ For example, the Veronian, Augustinian, &c. By a petitio principii the pre-
scriptive rights of the Romish Church were inferred from its antiquity, while from its
state of possession it was deduced that the onus probandi lay with the Protestants.
They who sought by such methods the conversion of Protestants were called
Methodists.
176
Contests with Romanism.
exercising it, strictly adhere to the word of Scripture.¹ Protes-
tants especially have a right to decline any external tribunal in
matters of faith as an institution which they can entirely dis-
pense with, because they profess, through the inward witness of
the Spirit, to rejoice in an assurance of scriptural truth and an
accurate knowledge thereof, for which no external authority
could compensate, and which enables them to deal with truth as
their own property. If, on the other hand, the formal principle
is relied on, and only that position given to Holy Scripture
which is accorded in the Catholic system to the Church, then
the circumstance that the formation of the canon, so soon as it
is regarded as unalterably concluded, does but lead back to the
authority of the Church, is undoubtedly the weak point.
2
And yet attacks from without were less dangerous to the old
orthodox system, and met with more unanimous opposition,3 than
1 An inconsistency, however, is discernible here. If a pure and infallible re-
ception of Christian truth is possible to us, although human functions are con-
cerned in such reception, why should these be excluded in the case of the apostles
in the generally-received theory of inspiration? The question, If Holy Scripture
were not understood in a Protestant sense by all Christian antiquity, what be-
comes of its perspicuity? necessitated that historical proof of the novelty of Roman
Catholic explanations of Scripture which was now also undertaken. This contro-
versy, if the prepossession of the constant identity of orthodox doctrine had not
stood in the way, might even have led to the conviction that there must be a de-
velopment of doctrine, because revelation, whose record Holy Scripture is, can
only become more and more to the mind through the action and the forms of the
human intellect. And finally, with this might have been combined the percep-
tion that doctrine, in virtue of that human side which by its very nature it pos-
sesses, not only must be susceptible of variation, but is also only an image of its
matter; that matter may itself remain invariable, even though alterations should
take place in the doctrine. But such a perception still lay in the far distance.
2 Calixtus (Append. to Epist. theol., 1619) and Museus particularly point this
out.
This assertion does not indeed appear here as holding the rank of a second,
and, in its way, an independent aspect of the evangelical principle by the side of
Scripture, although faith in Holy Scripture is itself made to depend upon Divine
assurance of the truth of its contents; consequently, in this material aspect of the
evangelical principle, justice is done in a higher, and in the only satisfactory
manner, to so much of the Romish demand as is justifiable.
3 Besides M. Chemniti Examen Concil. Trid., of which several new and com-
plete editions appeared, may be mentioned in this connection Joh. Gerhard's
Confessio Catholica, vols. i.-iii. 1634-1637, in which this well-read divine has
collected testimony in favour of Protestant doctrine from Catholic authors, and
opposed Romish doctrines as innovations. His work resembles the Catalogus
estium veritatis, 1557 gathered from all centuries, compiled by Matth. Flaccius,
and further carried on by the Magdeburg centurists. And since Bellarmine was
the most formidable opponent of Chemnitz and J. Andreä (Schmidlin), Gerhard
Protestant Mysticism.
177
those powerful tendencies which appeared one after another
within it. These, while they were of one accord with the ortho-
dox, in contending with external foes, and especially with Roman-
ism, opposed the system of old evangelical orthodoxy from various
standpoints.
Protestant mysticism, Calixtus, Spener, and their respective
schools, Zinzendorf and the Moravian Brotherhood, successively
developed the Protestant principle under different phases, already
contained in its germ, viz. the phases of feeling, knowledge, and
will. They all however came in collision with the dominant
system, and were exclusive toward each other. Hence, though
exhibiting progress, when viewed in their individual aspects,
they manifest on the whole a dissolution of the unity and
characteristics of the Protestant ecclesiastical system. In none
of these new forms does the Protestant principle work in all its
fulness and entirety, but is separated into contending tendencies,
which do not seek a mutual agreement till after the second
decade of the eighteenth century.
CHAPTER I.
PROTESTANT MYSTICISM.
OUR attention must, in the first place, be directed to the tendency
which is, on the one hand, inwardly related to Pietism, and may,
on the other, be regarded as the prelude, within the sphere of
religion, to the philosophical movement inaugurated by Leibnitz.
It came into direct contact with theology, by reason of the freer
wrote also Bellarminus ¿podožías testis, Jena, 1631-1633, in which he endeavoured
to corroborate evangelical Catholic truth from the writings of Bellarmine himself,
and to show these to be opposed in many important particulars to the doctrines
of the Roman Catholic Church. Other controversial writers of the period are
Conr. Schlüsselburg, Catalogus hæreticorum (i.e. all opponents of Lutheran doctrine
since the Reformation), 1597; Abr. Calovii Synopsis controversiarum potiorum,
3d ed. Viteb. 1652; Scripta Antisocina, 1674; Lucas Osiander, Enchiridion
controversiarum, Viteb. 1612. J. B. Carpzovius, H. May, and Eisenmenger, wrote
against the Jews; Hinkelmann and Prideaux against Mahommedans; and Joh.
Museus against Deists and Naturalists. Controversial literature against the
Reformed Church was also very abundant. Among those who contributed thereto
were Calovius and Hülsemann. We limit our mention of the older Protestant
Church history to C. Calixtus' Därstellung.
II.
M
178
Protestant Mysticism.
position which it maintained with respect to the Church. We
speak of Protestant mysticism, with which the first and more.
religious or theological course of opposition to the orthodox
scholastic system commences. The second and philosophic
course was to follow in the eighteenth century.
We have seen that when Protestant doctrine clothed itself in
the form of scholasticism, the fulness of the Reformation spirit,
which still lived in the nation, by no means consented thereto.
Side by side with Lutheran scholasticism, which was ever in-
creasingly anxious to rid itself of Luther's mystic element, and
was immersed in a course of reflexion unfavourable to all ori-
ginality and direct conviction, flowed on a copious stream of
mysticism, which in some instances maintained and cultivated
genuine evangelical tenets, as the names of Valentin Weigel,
Jacob Böhme, and especially John Arndt, may suffice to show.
But this mysticism, alienated in spirit from the torpidity of
objective orthodoxy, betook itself, in many instances, to a prac-
tical or theoretical kind of inwardness which was quite as one-
sided. In the seventeenth century the Protestant mysticism,
generally speaking, still preserved its church character. To-
wards its close however a separation, which already advanced to
the formation of new churches, gained the upper hand. Hence
while subjectivity, in the zeal of its self-assertion against exter-
nal church authority, more and more emancipated itself from the
restraints of tradition, the material principle of Protestantism
was exchanged, in various forms, for the inner light, which was
but loosely, or not at all, connected with historical Christianity.
In Chr. Dippel and Edelmann, mysticism had already degenerated
into naturalism.
The older Protestant mysticism, in which the after effects of
the Reformation impulse may be detected, now took possession
chiefly of those points of doctrine which had been least culti-
vated by the Reformers, viz. the doctrine of God, including the
Trinity, those of the creation, of the relation of the nature of
man to the nature of God, and the doctrine of the principles of
knowledge. The ancient mysticism of the Greek Church had
fixed its attention only upon God, in whose sacred light, which
is darkness to man, it sought to be immersed: mediæval mysti-
cism, including that of Germany, was of a more subjective
character. Its aim was no longer the mystic enjoyment of God,
Theosophy.
179
the being lost in God, but, with an all but total forgetfulness of
sin, the glorification or deification of the mystic individual (see
Vol. I. pp. 51, 56). Both the Greek and mediæval mysticism how-
ever, whether aiming at the enjoyment of God or the glorifica-
tion of man, had an element of idealism, and coincided in dis-
regarding corporeity and nature in general, or, though never
actually surpassing the foundation of reality, in treating them
after the fashion of catholic asceticism, in a dualistic manner, as
being but limitations to the spirit. Now the Reformation, whose
first object was certainly the salvation of the soul, dealt seriously
with reality, with respect to sin, that phenomenon of universal
experience, and proclaimed to its subject pardon for this reality,
even in this world. Thus however mysticism also assumed a
new form, namely, a tendency towards the world of reality.
Even nature, which had till now been treated as though it were
merely a deception, or as inimical to spirituality, was now placed
in the light of the Divine idea, and brought into inward relation
with the soul. Such mysticism is theosophy. This now embraced
the whole realm of existence, with the single exception of the
history of the human race, which was not as yet reckoned a part
of the Divine idea, nor perceived to be the history of the Divine.
kingdom. This indeed was a step first taken by mysticism in
consequence of Spener's movement, and by the instrumentality
of Bengel and Oetinger.
Whatever may be the imperfections of mysticism in a scien-
tific point of view, it was the precursor of a great process, which
was to be accomplished in due order in objective thought. It con-
ceived the idea of a knowledge comprising the Divine and
human spirit and nature into a unity, and set this before the
mind as its goal. It was through this, its leading idea, far
superior to the philosophy of the age, not only to the Aristote-
lian, but also to the Cartesian, which is reared upon an irrecon-
cilable dualism. The unity which it aimed at is adapted to
form a substructure, not only for the doctrine of faith, but also
for Christology, and for the doctrine of the means of grace, i.c.
the word and sacraments. The first theosophist was Theo-
phrastus Paracelsus, a contemporary of Luther, and already half
a Protestant. He regarded Christ as the light of nature as well
as of man, and sought to show the inward relation between the
revelation given in Christianity and that manifested in nature.
180
Theophrastus.
He also held that there was an inward relation between nature
and man. Everything is contained in each individual man: he
is a microcosm, he has within him even all the spirits of the
stars, the only question is how to arouse them. He admits no
astrological fate over man, nor any objective magic; magic is to
be found in man himself, it is the power of a man united to God
by faith. Faith is omnipotent, it effects what it conceives, what
it chooses. In his view, magical power, properly so called, is
the imagination of faith, for God also created all things by means.
of imagination. He has but little to say of sin and justification,
but much of the sickness of the body and the reason, which
is however healed by the imaginative power of the spirit,
which has placed itself in relation to Christ, and received His
Spirit. As our souls were poured into our bodies by God Him-
self in unfathomable love, so do we also receive from Christ,
through the Holy Spirit and by means of the imagination of
faith, the seed of a heavenly and spiritual body. This takes
place especially in the Lord's Supper, so that Christ has His
incarnations in all believers through the Spirit. A tendency
towards forming spirit and corporeity into a unity is here un-
mistakeable, but this mysticism does not see its way to such a
unity except in the case of Christ's glorified body and our resur-
rection body. Here it finds that union of spirit and nature,
which it does not extend to the earthly body. This it regards
as rejected and a prey to death by reason of its material nature,
in which notion a still unsurmounted remnant of dualism is
apparent.
Closely connected with Theophrastus and Lautensack of
Nuremberg, who desired to treat the letter of Holy Scripture.
as its mere husk, is Valentin Weigel¹ († 1588). He will be
dependent on Christ alone; Christ is his book. Holy Scripture
is to him the mere witness of this inner revelation. The natural
man has no knowledge; we must be taught by God, but we must,
through the Holy Spirit, see with our own eyes, and not thrust
them out. Knowledge must flow forth from within, that it may
1 Comp. J. O. Opel, Val. Weigel, ein Beitrag zur Lit- und Cult-Gesch. Deutsch-
lands im 17 Jahrh., 1864, p. 121, &c. Weigel's opponents were especially Joh.
Schellhamer, Luc. Osiander (who was also the opponent of Theophrastus), and
Mich. Walther. On Weigel's writings comp. Pertz, zur Gesch. der myst, und ascet.
Lit., Niedner's Zeitschrift für Hist. Thcol., 1857, and especially Opel, pp. 53-70.
Weigel.
181
recoil towards us (ie. objective knowledge, which, with such an
origin, is at the same time subjective). It is by passivity that
we attain in the quiet sabbath of the soul to the perception of
truth, which already exists in our very nature and cannot first
be brought to us from without. It is, however, through the
Spirit and His testimony that that which is from the beginning
secretly within us becomes the matter of our consciousness.
Not till the inner sight beholds in its sabbath repose the heavenly
treasures which are in Christ is the child found in the manger
and in the swaddling clothes-i.e. in Holy Scripture; and at
last Christ is also known in the human nature which He assumed.
For all things come out of the invisible into the visible, out of
the spiritual into the corporeal. There is in Weigel a strong
inclination to make room in his system for corporeity. We need,
he thinks, a substantial regeneration, which is not merely
spiritual, but chiefly corporeal, and accomplished by means of
Christ's spiritual and heavenly body; for through the fall we
have lost our heavenly nature. He opposes this actual union
with Christ to a justificatio forensis, without substantial sanctifi-
cation. He knows, moreover, of no reason for Christ's earthly
corporeity, except that it might serve as a covering to His
heavenly glory. If the sun were on earth, no one could dwell
near it.
Weigel places the perfection of man not in perfect and loving
fellowship with God in Christ, but in the identification of man
with God, and in the actualization of that Divine nature which
was already latent in man, though it had not become his per-
sonal possession.¹
Lautensack had already embraced the view of a progressive
incarnation of God in history, which left to the historic Christ
only a very limited position, together with others, and laid the
chief stress upon the eternal Divine Spirit, who was also called
Christ.2 Esaias Stiefel, 1605, advanced to the proposition, "I am
Christ," and so did Ezekiel Meth, his nephew. This is censured,
however, by Jacob Böhme, who says: "The believer is, on the
contrary, Christ's instrument-a small, humble, but fruitful
1 Concerning other mystics of this period, compare Arnold, Kirchen und Ket-
zerhistorien, ii. 326, 329, .340-350; (Esaias Stiefel, Ezekiel Meth), 370-377 ;
(Paul Nagel and Paul Felgenhauer), 650-741.
2 So also Hiel (properly H. Janson), in his Ackerschatz, 1580.
182
Lautensack. Stiefel. Meth.
sprout." In such words concerning a continuous incarnation of
God we may indeed find traces of rejoicing, that through Chris-
tianity the wall of partition between God and man has been
broken down, that the union between God and humanity has not
been limited to Christ, but continued by His Spirit, and that the
opposition between the divine and human natures, which the
Schoolmen had regarded as infinite, had been overcome. But
since it was not an ethical conception of the Divine nature which
was entertained, an actual union between God and man could
only take place in a physical manner; in other words, could
only lead to actual Pantheism. This physical idea of God,
unsuspected as it is at the first glance, betrays itself especially
in the fact, that regeneration and redemption, so far as these
enter into the question, are, by theosophists, transferred chiefly to
the corporeal side of the matter. Compared with that Romish
mysticism which despised nature, an advance is discernible in
the fact that true life is made to consist in the full concrete reality
of personality. At the same time, however, this doctrine of a
Divine nature, in which the moral element was greatly lost
sight of, afforded a handle to a refined materialism; nor were
there wanting instances of magical and theurgic applications of
faith to alchemy, elixirs of life, and other finite purposes.
Neither can we fail to perceive a remnant of dualism in these
doctrines. For they will not allow that the heavenly body,
whether in the case of Christ or ourselves, becomes such in an
ethic manner, by the spiritualization of the earthly. On the
contrary, they make two bodies exist in one another, and doom
the earthly to annihilation, always manifesting an antagonistic
relation to the external and material world as the root of evil.
Hence they are also alien to external means of grace, and to the
Church.
German theosophy reached the climax of its development in
Jacob Böhme, the shoemaker of Gorlitz (1575-1624).¹ He sought
to trace the principle of creation, and combined the origin of the
world with the Trinitarian problem. In the beginning prim-
ordial knowledge, the first principium, was like a dark valley.
Therein is harshness, bitterness, fierceness, wrath; this is not
God, and yet it is the intrinsic and first source, which is in God
1 Compare my Gesch. der Christol., ii. p. 855; Wullen, Böhme und seine
Lehre, 1838.
Jacob Böhme.
183
the Father, and after which He calls Himself an angry God.
But there is in Him also that eternal feeling [Gemüth], which
longs, which is anxious, which conceives a desire to become
manifest to itself, and which becomes a will to beget. Hence
God is not to him, as often to the elder mystics, mere indiscrimi-
nate existence or nullity, as though the "waste" of infinity were the
highest and the ultimate. He does not conceive of God as only a
dark valley, as unity without divisibility or affectability, nor as
the mere ardour of selfism. According to his view, there is in
God will, emotion, and an indefinite longing to make something
out of nothing. Thus the First Principium, by the force of
emotion, begets the Son, the eternally beloved of God, the gentle
light produced from eternity, from the dark fire; and from the
power which is in this light proceeds the Holy Ghost. Böhme
conceives of God as ever active, and, as it were, agitating, to
bring forth a world of innumerable centres, and to develop all
the fulness of that primal will which is ever tending towards
revelation. His Trinity is said to render creation possible through
the principle of the love of the Father, the eternal indestructible.
nature in God, which he also calls the sensitiveness of love or
the Son, and the Spirit, who propagates the splendour of majesty.
The way in which the world was actually created was that God,
beholding in the mirror of wisdom, in His eternal nature,
the prototypes of creation, was moved, and spoke. At first, how-
ever, these were but ideal creations, and these not out of nothing,
but out of God, in three different circles, representing the Trinity.
This, our material, world arose only in consequence of an apos-
tasy in these circles of spirits, through the fall of Lucifer.
Böhme regards evil not as a mere deficiency, but as the Titanic
attempt to overthrow the order of principles. The principle of
egotism or selfism, which he calls wrath or anger, and which is
ever repressed in God, was seized by Lucifer; and set free, it thus
became the spirit of fire, brought love and wrath into mutual
strife in the creature, and kindled therein a fire, by means of
which the divine unity of its powers was dissolved. He thinks
that we must go to the very depths of Deity in our search after
evil; for though God had not even an anticipation of evil-since
this would have been an obscuration of light-yet the evil which
is in the creature has its roots in the first principle, when ope-
rating, so to speak, independently; and it was through its libe-
184
Jacob Böhme. Gichtel.
ration from all restraint that the Divine order was overthrown.
After the fall of Lucifer and his circle, man was put in his place,¹
and appointed to unite the three circles of the ideal creation
which represented the Trinity. The three principles in him
were still, however, present in him in a "separable," not in a
united state; hence he could and did fall. Then the Divine.
wrath was excited against increasing sin. Yet wrath was never
wholly separated in God from the gentle light of love. And
when the fulness of the time was come, the fall of man moved the
Divine love to reveal itself. It came forth from the womb of
the woman; having become man, it was exposed to every human
condition to development, to conflict, to temptation. To quench.
that fire of wrath, which was kindled in the world by sin, Christ
plunged therein, died, and vanquished the darkness, thus becom-
ing the Redeemer of nature and of mankind, and the founder of
a new and fairer paradise, of which we become partakers, not by
mere retirement and passivity, but by the union of our creature
will with that of the Creator. This is the faith which is born of
retirement and repentance, and through which the soul is
clothed in the heavenly body.
In Böhme's laboured statement the invention of the imagination
and its visionary notions are still in the ascendant, the latter have
rather the mastery of him than he of them, and he is unable to
winnow and arrange them so as to form them into a connected
and intelligible delineation. On the other hand, however, in the
doctrine of God, of the creation, of the fall, and of the restora-
tion, we discern, amidst wondrous beauty and plasticity of lan-
guage, a realism from which idealistic philosophy, with its more
methodical treatment, has often, to the no small injury of its
matter, but too far departed. It was reserved for a later period,
for Oetinger, Fr. v. Baader, and Schelling, to seek out and
utilize many a noble germ in the fermenting chaos of Böhme's
notions.
Böhme's chief disciple was Gichtel (1638-1710) the founder
of the Angelic Brothers, a mystic sect whose leaders favoured
the strictest abstinence, and inclined towards an Apokatastasis,
at least with respect to the souls of all men. They also attri-
buted to themselves the office of redeeming others. Gichtel
teaches that God is only love and not wrath, and while Böhme,
¹ So Milton, in Paradise Lost, according to ancient precedent.
Calixtus.
185
in spite of being violently attacked by Richter and others as an
enthusiast, desired to remain a faithful son of the Church, the
Gichtelians, as well as many others, e.g. Petersen († 1727),
Poiret († 1719), and after a time even G. Arnold, became
Separatists.
Lutheran scholasticism in the days of its supremacy uttered
nothing but condemnation against all these mystics. The
reason of this lay partly in the coldness and reserve manifested
by the mystics with respect to the means of grace, and the
whole external machinery of the Church, nay, even in their
inclination to a spiritualistic view of historical Christianity in
general. But not less is it to be found in the literalism and
mechanical stiffness of this so-called orthodoxy, to which even
the heartfelt piety of an Arndt was an offence.¹
CHAPTER II.
CALIXTUS AND THE SYNCRETISTIC CONTROVERSIES.
GEORGE CALIXTUS,2 born December 14, 1586, in Meddelbye in
the duchy of Sleswick, pursued his studies chiefly in Helmstädt,
where Cornelius Martini, the Aristotelian and Polyhistor, exer-
cised a most important influence upon him. Having proved the
correctness of Martini's saying: that modern philosophy was
of no great value, and that it would be far more profitable to be
better acquainted with the ancient, he began to inquire whether,
in the whirl of opinions and controversies, this were not the
case with theology also, and whether the neutral ground for a
friendly understanding might not be furnished by Church history.
1 Not only did Corvinus take the field against Arndt in the first year of the
great war, but in 1624 the Theolog-Bedenken of Luc. Osiander of Tübingen dis-
covered Popery, Monkery, Enthusiasm, Pelagianism, Calvinism, Schwenckfeld-
ianism, Flacianism, and Weigelianism in his writings. Comp. Scharff, Supple·
mentum historic litisquæ Arndtianæ, 1727. The Wahres Christenthum of Arndt
however did not lack defenders, among whom were J. Gerhard, and even Witten-
bergians, especially Val. Andreä, Glassius, Spener, and Buddæus. Comp. Breller,
Apologetica Arndtiana, 1625, and Tholuck in Herzog's Realencycl. on Arndt.
Pertz, de Joanne Arndtio ejusque libris qui inscribuntur de vero christianismo,
Hannov. 1852.
2 Comp. Henke's Georg Calixt und seine Zeit, 2 vols. 1853, 1856, a work of
exemplary and thorough research.
168
Calixtus.
ן
To this department he applied himself with the utmost zeal, and
became therein "the ruler of his age." After a journey in
Lutheran countries, according to the frequent and praiseworthy
custom of the times, he also visited many Reformed Churches
and Roman Catholic lands during many years of travel. He
passed a winter (1612) at Cologne, "the Trojan horse of the
papacy in Germany." Thence he went to Holland, which was
then at the height of its prosperity, and seemed to him a com-
pendium of the whole earthly sphere. He next visited Eng-
land, where he became acquainted with Casaubon, and through
him with Thuanus. Soon after his return he became a professor
of Helmstädt, where he laboured for forty-two years (dying
March 19, 1656). The enlarged horizon which he had gained,
both by his philosophical and historical studies, and by means of
his journeys, opened his eyes to the fact that faith and love are
not the exclusive possession of any one religious party; but
that other confessions also are possessed of these advantages.
This conviction disposed him to desire peace. Such a desire.
was moreover greatly increased by the revelation made by the
fury of the Thirty Years' war,-the whole of which happened
during his public life of the mischief caused by divisions and
religious intolerance. Willingly did he echo the saying of
Jerome: Christ is not so poor as to have a church only in Sar-
dinia, all Christendom belongs to Him. He specially delighted
to dwell on all that is truly Christian even in Romanism, and
used his utmost efforts to do away with, or at least to blunt, the
sharp points of those distinctions by which Lutherans were
separated from Reformed, and both from the Romish Church.
He hoped that thus a spirit of true Catholicity might arise upon
the ground of that common and primitive possession, which had
never been surrendered, though it might have been partially
buried beneath other matters. He longed to see the civil war
which was raging within the Church of Christ extinguished, and
to behold the combatants combine in turning their attention
without, that thus the heathen might be converted to Christ,
1 Titius, oratio funcbris, 1656.
2
2 See the introduction to Augustinus de doctrina christiana and to the Com-
monitorium of Vincentius Lerin, 1629, the Reflections de tolerantia Reformatorum,
and the treatise Desiderium concordiæ eccles. sarciendæ, 1650. Digression addressed
to the academies subject to the Pope concerning Barthold Neuhaus's new art. (an
appendix to Theol. mor.) 1634. De auctoritate antiquitatis ecclesiastica, 1639.
Calixtus.
187
by the efforts of a united Christendom. This striving for
union formed the central point of his whole public activity,
and was also an important factor in his theology. He was in
communication with the Reformed Ireniker, Pareus of Heidel-
berg, and with the Scotchman Duræus¹ [John Dury], who tra-
velled from country to country with his unceasing projects of
union. He also exerted his utmost energy, though in vain, to
bring about the discussion at Thorn between the Catholics and
the two Protestant confessions--a work to which he was sum-
moned by the Great Elector.2
Calixtus was undoubtedly, after J. Gerhard, the first theo-
logian of his age in Germany. His eminent talents were acknow-
ledged not only by friend and foe, but by great princes, such as
Duke Augustus of Wolfenbüttel, Ernest the Pious of Saxony,
and the Great Elector. He was a man of more than ordinary
attainments, a theological statesman and a zealous German
patriot, but, for this very reason, of anti-Italian and anti-Jesuitic
tendencies. His personal appearance was imposing and superior,
yet at the same time attractive in its tranquil firmness and
conscious gentleness. He devoted his many-sided cultivation
and extraordinary scholarship to the object of his life, an object
pursued with persevering and undeviating constancy. By this
unswerving pursuit he makes, as few others do, an impression
of being a consistent, self-assured, resolute character. In
many respects he may be regarded as the reviver of a tendency
similar to that of Melanchthon; but we may well imagine that
the Abbot of Königslütter would, with his turn of mind, feel
himself most at home in the Anglican Church. This feeling for
catholicity, this largeness of view and heart, were not, however,
shared and scarcely understood by his contemporaries, but were,
during the whole course of his life, the cause of numberless
attacks. These arose first from the Society of Jesuits, that
modernized Romanism transformed into sectarianism. A verbal
controversy with Romish theologians in Hämelschenburg con-
cerning Holy Scripture, in which his erudition and dialectic.
skill were conspicuous, was the first occasion on which he
obtained laurels. He had subsequently much disputation with
Erbermann and other Jesuits of Mayence, and even previously
with his former fellow-student and friend B. Neuhaus, who had
¹ Henke, id. i. 124, 501, &c.
2 Id. ii. 2, p. 71, &c.
188
Calixtus.
apostatized at Cologne, and who was never weary of provoking
and annoying the great theologian in numberless treatises.1
After 1640, however, when more than half his official career was
over, he came also into violent collision with the heads of
Lutheran orthodoxy, with Matth. Hoë of Hoënegg, Hülsemann,
Calovius, Weller, Dannhauer, Dorsche, Scharf, Myslenta of
Königsberg, and even Höpfner of Leipsic, after preliminary skir-
mishes with Staats Büscher of Hanover. The three first-named
especially regarded his principles as treachery to Lutheran ortho-
doxy, and bestowed upon his widespread school the name of
Syncretists, because, after the manner of the Cretans, they entered
into alliances against their common adversaries, without scruple
or selection; nay, they even joined with the Jesuits in accusing
him of preparing the way for atheism by his "neutralism.'
They succeeded in causing the shipwreck of his hopes of union,
and, indeed, contributed not a little, by the strife which they
stirred up, to that repression of Protestantism in many countries
during the course of the seventeenth century, to which no suc-
cessful opposition was offered. But they failed in their plan of
declaring that a theology which did not submit to the F. C. for-
feited the name of Lutheran, and of defending the Lutheran
Church against heterodoxy by means of a new symbol.
The services rendered to theology by Calixtus were very
extensive. Helmstädt had been, during many years prior to
Calixtus, distinguished for humanistic and philosophic studies,
Caselius having successfully advocated philology, and Cornelius
Martini the Aristotelian philosophy. Calixtus greatly contri-
buted during the first half of the century to maintain these intel-
lectual pursuits in full vigour at this university. His large and
liberal spirit sought to use every means for bringing theology into
close relation with the whole world of culture, nay, for making
it fill the position of the most mature development of human
consciousness. Not that he would have set reason above reve-
lation, but that he lived in the persuasion that God, being the
author of both, they could not possibly contradict each other,
and made it his constant endeavour to show the harmony of
¹ He was ever in the lists against the Jesuits, as the chief defenders of
that dogma which he regarded as most especially the cause of separation in the
Church, viz. the infallibility of the Pope.
Calixtus.
189
recta ratio with revelation.¹ He ascribed to reason, besides the
formal functions indispensable to understanding the meaning of
any subject, the power of attaining from its own resources a
knowlege, real, though imperfect, and requiring to be supple-
mented and completed by the revelation which we possess in
Holy Scripture. The strictly scientific school and method was
to him-living, as he did, in those unhappy times in which he
had ever to contend against the threatened decay of science—an
affair of such urgency, that he devoted thereto many special
treatises.2 His Apparatus theologicus furnishes a kind of theo-
logical encyclopædia, literary history, and methodology. He
first describes the extent of theology and its relation to the other
sciences, to history and philosophy, and thus seeks to exhibit in
its full extent the theme of the science of theology. "Philo-
sophy and philology are in his view the two wings, without
which no one can soar to the higher regions of theological
science. Since the doctrines essential to salvation are to be
drawn from Holy Scripture, the duty of theology is to state, to
confirm, and to defend the contents of Holy Scripture-i.e. to
exercise the exegetic, dogmatic, and controversial (also the
apologetic) functions. His contributions to literary history are
not confined to the narrow limits of his own confession, but
his glance is directed to every province of Christendom. He
makes the course of theological study advance from its first
stage, viz.: the summary statement of Church doctrine (called
Summa, Catechismus, Loci, or Epitome), to exegesis, and then to
ecclesiastical history; thence to an acquaintance with the con-
troversies of the day, and, lastly, to a practical acquaintance.
1 He also attempted apologetic works, viz.: De veritate religionis Christianæ,
1633; Discurs von der wahren Religion und Kirche und ihrem Zustand. 1633.
He perceives an element of true religion even in heathenism, and uses this as an
historical proof of the necessity of revelation. That which is either disfigured or
sought for in heathenism is found in Christianity. This gives us primitive and
yet not obsolete truth. When this fact, together with the history and results of
Christianity is considered, these furnish, if not a proof of its truth, yet a fully
sufficient one of the levity of him who rejects it without seeking to be enlightened
by it. He who does so seek, and candidly reads the Holy Scriptures, will be
affected by their higher and Divine power, and a fides certa, quantumcunque evi-
dentissime etiam evidentiæ certitudinem exæquans vel superans will be begotten in
his heart (Henke, i. 470). The intellectual process is here deficient, but not the
religious counsel.
2
Apparatus theologicus, 1628. Comp. Henke, i. 421.
190
Calixtus. Method.
with ministerial duties. These five distinct and ascending
gradations in the education of a theologian are to be followed by
academic theology," properly so-called. This is to treat each
item of doctrine according to the combined point of view of all
these stages, i.e. exegetically, historically, dogmatically, polemi-
cally, and apologetically,—and liturgically where this is necessary.
He shows that he is in his element in historical theology. He
will not rest satisfied with a mere bare, chronicle-like statement
of facts, but regards Thucydides and Tacitus as models of a treat-
ment which makes use of every circumstance and event of the
period, for the purpose of placing individuals in the light of
this connection, and of judging them accordingly. By his own
example, he was able to naturalize historical studies in German
theology.¹
With respect to Method, his two epitomes of doctrine and
morality 2 deserve special mention. It was, however, by means
of his excellent manual of divinity, a work not written by him-
self, but compiled from his lectures, that he became the originator
of the analytical method, whose fundamental notion is in the
genuine spirit of the Reformation, and corresponds with the syn-
thesis of the ethico-religious and intellectual interests. He seeks
to treat the doctrines of Christianity, not as disputable proposi-
tions, but as saving truths; hence he goes to work in a teleolo-
gical manner, and in his first general part starts from the finis of
theology, viz. eternal life or salvation.3 The subject of this end
is man.
The principles of this end, and the means whereby it is
attained, form the third part. The principles are the Divine
counsel and Christ; the objective means, the word and sacra-
ments; the subjective means, repentance and faith. The minis-
try of the word is appointed to bring man into contact with
the objective means of grace. It is thus that the Church is
1 He also contemplated and partially executed a history of Christian liturgies,
by way of proving that the Lutheran type of worship had the consent of Christian
antiquity in its favour.
2 Epitome Theologice, Gosl. 1619. Even so early as 1611, he had already writ-
ten fifteen Disput. de præcipuis christianæ religionis capitibus (Henke, i. 128).
This earlier work maintains a strictly Lutheran and anti-Reformed tone.
3 He here views eternal life in a purely eschatological sense, hence eschatology,
including immortality, resurrection, judgment, salvation and perdition, is given
in the first part. He also wrote three separate eschatological treatises on the four
first-named subjects.
Calixtus. Moral Theology.
191
founded. The second part treats more particularly of the Church
as militant in this world. It consists of all the nations who have
been called. It is a monarchy under Christ, its head, who unites
under Himself all those who dispense and receive the word and
sacraments. Lastly, he speaks of the means of gathering, pre-
serving, and defending the Church. Not only his own, but
other schools adopted the analytical method.2
Equally important is his Theologia Moralis.3 In his encyclo-
pædic enumerations of theological sciences, though he did not
indeed mention ethics as a branch of study separate from di-
vinity, he gave a sketch of a theological morality. This sketch,
incomplete as it was, gave a new and fruitful impulse to the
cultivation of this science, which had indeed been commenced
so early as the sixteenth century, by Thomas Venatorius, Me-
lanchthon, Chyträus, and Paul v. Eitzen, but had again fallen
into neglect. This impulse did not, however, immediately result
in numerous works on ethics apart from divinity. His efforts in
this field were mainly directed to giving to Christian ethics, as a
theological science, an independent position with regard to philo-
sophical morality, which, in the ordinary discussions, kept for
the most part the upper hand. This end he attained by making,
not men in general, but believers, i.e. regenerate men, the subject
of Christian ethics. It was their affections and actions which it
was its province to describe, not as obtaining eternal life, but
as guarding and confirming what had already been obtained.+
Having laid down the doctrine of the subject of theological
ethics, he proceeds to that of the object, by which, however, he
¹ This division of the general part brought the doctrine of God into the second
section; the doctrine of God and the creator being laid down as the foundation
for the doctrine of the subject of the end. Thus the doctrine of God filled the
strange position of standing between those of man and immortality. Hence sub-
sequent analysts had recourse to the expedient of distinguishing between the
objective end, i.e. God, and the subjective end, i.c. the enjoyment of God, for the
sake of restoring the doctrine of God to the first place.
2 Henichius (of Rinteln), Institutio Theol. dogm., 1655, the doctrinal manual of
Hanover till the eighteenth century. Schramm, de Compendio Henichii, &c.,
1711. Joach. Hildebrandt is of the same school; Abr. Calovius also adopted the
analytical method.
3 Epitome Theologiæ Moralis, 1634. Henke, i. 514. J. A. Schmid (of Helm-
städt) in his Comp. theol. mor., 1705, makes the above his model.
So also Fr. Buddæus, Institutiones theol. moralis, &c., Lips. 1711, and Töllner,
Grundriss der Moraltheologie, 1762.
192
Calixtus. Doctrine of Principles.
does not understand the highest good,¹ but the law according to
which the regenerate ought to act. In the doctrine of the re-
generate man, however, he not only discussed of his state of
grace and of his internal virtues, but also touched upon his
altered external position in the Church and in civil life. Since
all that was universally human was maintained in Christ, he
often returns, when laying down the rules of Christian morality,
to this great exemplar, but without being able to carry out, in
this respect, the theological point of view with which he began.
We now turn to his doctrine of principles. In certain respects
this did not differ from that which was generally regarded as
such. He puts Scripture in the highest place, and attributes to
it the power (efficacia) of giving divine certainty concerning its
own contents. He also calls it the ultimate principle which has
of itself certainty, authenticity, and authority. In his view, as
in that of others, Scripture is αὐτόπιστος, ἀνυπόδεικτος, nor does he
disdain to recommend it by the criteria mentioned above, p. 121.
The main point with him is however its indwelling divine autho-
rity. This notion he investigates more closely.2 By authority
he means that power which a reasonable being (God, angel, or
man) exercises by the expression of his meaning and will, either
to induce the reason of another to acquiescence, or his will to
obedience. This force of attraction (vis alliciendi) arises from the
intrinsic excellence of what is expressed; God's is the highest
authority, all else has authority in proportion to its nearness to
God. Nothing can be placed beside Holy Scripture with respect.
to certainty and infallibility, because it is full of Divine power
effectually to move the heart and constrain it to acquiescence,
a power which it can have only from its Divine Author, and this
is its Divine authority. It does not work apart from God, but
God works through it. Where it performs its own proper work,
it bestows that which is the seal and superscription for the
authorship of a book. From this we perceive that he attributes
to the contents of Holy Scripture the power of self-authentication;
and yet even he makes assurance to be, if not exclusively, yet
1 In the year 1648 he wrote his third eschatological treatise, de bono perfecte
summo sive æterna beatitudine liber unus, which does not contain any doctrine of
property.
2 De auctoritate Scripturæ s., 1654. He had before this presided over the dis-
putation concerning Theses de Script. s. held at Hackspan, 1673.
Calixtus.
193
chiefly of an intellectual kind, and personal assurance, or assur-
ance of justification, is not in his view fundamental. He also
treats the self-authentication of the divine contents as being
directly the authentication of the divine form of Holy Scripture,
which is the more to be wondered at, since He does not identify
with this the Word of God in general. He even thinks that the
Church possesses a Word of God, plainly and sufficiently such
by its sense and thoughts, though not avтoλegeì in Holy Scripture.
He finds the Word of God, e.g. not only in the original text and
in correct translations, but also in the apostolic symbol, nay, even
in the decrees of the cecumenical synods of the first five centuries.
These would, however, have no authority in his eyes if contra-
dicted by Holy Scripture, neither do they add anything thereto,
but the sufficiency of Scripture is in any case to be admitted.
So also in the case of the intelligibility of Scripture. While
estimating primitive Christian tradition very highly, and seeking
to secure for it a higher position than usual, he by no means does
this, for the sake of making up by tradition for any want of
intelligibility in the expressions of Holy Scripture-since tradi-
tion, on the contrary, must be tested by its conformity to Scrip-
ture--but for the purpose of ascertaining with objective certainty
what is really fundamental among the many intelligible sayings
of Scripture, what is the central point of Christian truth by
which, when it is embraced, the distinctive character of Chris-
tianity is secured. That which has been believed by all, always
and everywhere, must be essential: all subsequent additions are
either not necessary to salvation, or to be rejected.
That association of men upon earth which we call the Church,
is the flower of the race, the depositary of the wisdom of man-
kind; it has the privilege of being permanent, of never falling, in
its entirety, into fundamental error. We know that there is
ever an infallible Church of Christ on earth, not only from its
own testimony, but from that of Holy Scripture, which calls it a
pillar and ground of the truth. At present indeed this true
Church which cannot err, though existing, has lost much of its
capability of being known. The boundaries of truth and error
are obliterated by additions and the divisions which have resulted
therefrom, but this only renders more conspicuous the Church's
freedom from error as shown by the records of the times prior to
these innovations, where still it formed an unbroken unity, i.e.
II.
N
194
Calixtus.
during about the first five centuries. Hence an authority of a
secondary degree is accorded to the consensus quinquesæcularis.
The Church of Rome indeed adopted a grievous error when it suf-
fered the papacy to dogmatize, nay, to be pronounced infallible
by the Jesuits. In the Popish Church, the Church Catholic,
oppressed by this error, cannot make itself heard. This point of
view not only served his tendencies to union by furnishing him
with an historical basis for it, for he desired to have the
Church brought back to the state it was in, prior to the divisions,
that it might again be conscious of its unity, but was also
extremely important to him as offering a freer position to science.
For if the Apostles' Creed contains all that is necessary to salva-
tion, all that makes a man a Christian, and if in the ages most
worthy of honour nothing more than belief of its contents was
required, if moreover the Church demands nothing more for
itself than these cecumenical symbols of the unanimous Church,
a wide space is left for the freer action of science. To this must
be added,¹ that far from intending by such peaceful notions to
draw nearer to Romanism as such, i.e. to its innovations, and
above all to the Jesuit doctrine of papal infallibility, he designed,
on the contrary, that his standpoint should give completeness
in an important respect to Protestant apologetics and polemics.
Roman Catholic opponents accused evangelical doctrines of
novelty; they said at the same time that the evangelical thesis
concerning the intelligibility of Holy Scripture was a mere
assertion, which was entirely refuted by the fact of the numer-
ous and self-contradictory explanations of Scripture. It could
not have failed to prove its own intelligibility, if this had
really been its intrinsic quality. Hence there was a need of a
living and visible supreme judge in matters of faith. To this it
had been replied, even before Calixtus, that Scripture was suffi-
ciently intelligible in all that was essential to salvation, and
Flacius, the Magdeburg Centuriators, and J. Gerhard had ad-
duced, in favour of evangelical doctrine, witnesses to the right
understanding of Scripture from each different century. Since
however objections to individual testimony, if opposed to that of
the Church of their times, were always possible on the part of
opponents, Calixtus-supported by his immense patristic learning
2
1 To this Henke first calls attention in his monograph on Calixtus.
2 Comp. also above, pp. 175, 176.
Calixtus.
195
--ventured to undertake the proof that evangelical doctrine was
not only that which was alone consistent with Scripture, but was
also, in all things needful to salvation, the common doctrine of
the unbroken, ancient oecumenical Church; also that Holy
Scripture has proved its intelligibility (perspicuitas) by the
fact that, during the first five centuries, till the Council of
Orange, 529, all that was essential to Christianity was uncom-
promisingly authorized and unanimously accepted. This more-
over involved the controversial reprisal, that Roman Catholic
theologians cannot prove, either from Scripture or from the most
ancient tradition, those parts of their system which the Reforma-
tion opposed; that hence they are constrained by their own
principles—according to which the Church is the true Church
by the fact of ever possessing the same truth-to acknowledge
their subsequent additions to be unnecessary to salvation, if not
objectionable. His solid learning and intimate acquaintance
with the history of dogmas, enabled him to prove, from a vast
series of catholic doctrines and institutions, that these additions
were innovations with respect to universal Christian antiquity,
while some of them had been thereby rejected. This he showed
especially with respect to papal infallibility,' the celibacy of the
clergy (though he gives the preference to the unmarried state in
the Church, 1631), the refusal of the cup to the laity, 1636, the
repetition of the sacrifice of Christ in the mass, 1638 (though he
acknowledges the Lord's Supper to be a sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving), and the doctrine of transubstantiation."
1 As he showed even in 1614. Comp. Henke, i. 266, &c.
visibili ecclesiastica monarchia. With this are connected the
tura s. (Hackspan) 1637. De auctoritate Scripturæ s. 1648.
antiquitatis ecclesiast. 1639.
Also in 1643, de
Theses de Scrip-
De auctoritate
By these monographs, the Lutheran Church first emulated the labours of
Daillé, J. and S. Basnage, Blondel, and certain English writers. Even Calixtus
did not furnish a comprehensive ecclesiastical history. The lack of this
was chiefly supplied by the enormous mass of material accumulated by the Mag-
deburg centuriators, and arranged under their rubrics. Shorter compendiums
were made from this work; hence during the prevalence of Lutheran orthodoxy
their view of Church history was adhered to, a view which was mitigated only in
the school of Calixtus. The main features of his views are as follow: Primitive
Christendom exhibited the realization of the ideal of the Church; it was full of
the Holy Ghost by its possession of pure doctrine, especially that of justification
by grace, that sun in the firmament of the Church. If the Protestant Church,
which has restored this primitive doctrine, finds herself in bitter strife with the
Romish Church, the reason of this must lie in the fact that the latter has
196
Calixtus.
Successful as were the controversial discussions of this master
of the history of dogmatic theology, his historical apology for
the essentials of Christianity produced no satisfactory results.
It gave satisfaction neither to Lutherans nor Romanists, though
it regarded even the Papal Church, in so far as it embraced the
apostolic symbol and the decrees of the ancient councils, as a
part of that true Catholic Church which had not yet lost its unity
in the various particular churches. Catholic theologians insisted
that even such tenets as had but later testimony in their favour
had always been virtually contained in the common Christian
obviously fallen from original purity. This is the work of Antichrist, who con-
ceived the plan of introducing corruption into the Church by means of the papacy
and its temporal power, and set up the mystery of iniquity more and more within
the bosom of the Church. Thus it was by the lying wonders of superhuman
invisible powers that the Church was plunged into deeper and deeper darkness.
This was effected chiefly by the exaltation of the papacy, which became the instru-
ment and the concentration of all antichristian powers. Through the power of
human sin and of increasing darkness, the doctrine of many, of even the best men,
an Augustine, an Athanasius, was not free from blemishes. Yet witnesses to
truth were never entirely wanting, and at the Reformation it rose again in full
splendour. According to this view truth has no history, it is only error which is
characterized by growth, both extensive and intensive. Ideal truth is to be found
not merely in Christ and His apostles, but also in ancient Christendom. Nor does
it need a development and the independent carrying out of its elements, but only
preservation and defence against the powers which would obscure its already per-
fect state. Every alteration of that which is primary, as c.g. a development of
primitive Christian principles, has thus only a negative, and in no case a positive
relation thereto. “Correct doctrine" is thus regarded, as in Catholicism, as com-
plete from the very first, as a matter absolutely fixed. Hence this pessimist view
of history, which is often of necessity unjust to the papacy, leads to great monotony.
The Catholic view of history regards truth itself as fixed, admitting at most the
external increase of its confessors; heretics figure on the boundaries of the Church,
her part as far as they are concerned is to maintain her own completeness. The
annals of Cæsar Baronius, who praises the papacy as the greatest blessing to man-
kind, and designates its opposite as Satanic, are diametrically opposed to the Mag-
deburg centuries. He is encountered however not only by Basnage, but also by
the Gallicans Alex. Natalis, Fleury and Tillemont, who regard episcopacy as the
divinely appointed form of Church government. Calixtus, though strenuously
opposing popery, judges the ancient Catholic Church more favourably. He does
not even condemn additions to the common Christian faith, if only they are not
tyrannically imposed on all. Nor does he indeed define this common Christian
faith in a specifically Protestant fashion, perhaps because he did not find that the
doctrine of justification was, during the first five centuries, as yet the conscious and
common confession of Christians. While, moreover, the Magdeburg centuries and
the annals of Baronius made Church history subserve an ecclesiastical and contro-
versial interest, Calixtus showed more impartiality, and a greater feeling for history.
Comp. Baur, die Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung, 1852.
Syncretistic Controversy.
197
faith, and that a visible ecclesiastical authority was the only
lawful power for laying down, in an infallible manner, the
dogmas which already existed potentially in Holy Scripture and
in the faith of individuals (see above, p. 176). They also called
attention to the fact that Protestants did not understand éven
the apostolic symbol, in the same sense as they did, e.g. the
article of the Church, so that only an appearance of unity would
result, if the advice of Calixtus were followed. In fact the clear-
ness of his practical vision was obscured by the warmth of his
desires, if he hoped that Catholic theologians would practically
submit to a demonstration which demanded of them nothing
less than to give up, or to regard as matters of indifference, the
anti-evangelical doctrines of modern Catholicism. To the Jesuits,
especially, who had chiefly entered into controversy with him,
papal infallibility had become the chief of doctrines, as being
the present source and pledge of the unity of the Church.
Beside that merely "historical tradition" to which the Romish
Church had hitherto appealed, and upon the exclusive and seri-
ously intended validity of which Calixtus had founded his plan
of operations, was already placed, though more covertly, the
maxim that right is with the living.
His Lutheran co-religionists were however, if possible, even
more displeased with him, and the result was the Syncretist
controversy, which was prolonged through several decades. The
Saxon theologians who, since the eight conventions of Matth.
Hoë of Hoënegg, 1621-1629, had claimed a kind of supremacy,
which they subsequently endeavoured to support by the direc-
torial position of their prince in the Corpus Evangelicorum (a
position acknowledged in matters non-ecclesiastical), sent him
an Admonitio, and when he refuted it with the indignation of
a man conscious of an amount of scholarship which all of them
together could not equal, a mass of violent polemic treatises
appeared directed against him and some of his adherents, as c.g.
Latermann of Königsberg, and Hornejus of Helmstädt. When
these failed to produce the desired effect, because Calixtus offered
a bold resistance, and Brunswick as boldly espoused his cause,
and when Helmstädt continued to flourish as heretofore, some
conceived the idea of secret associations for the purpose of stifling
the plague introduced by him; others, especially the faculty of
Wittenberg, which was at first in alliance with that of Leipsic,
198
Consensus Repetitus.
thought of composing the strife by a convention of theologians
(1652). When this also failed, they drew up a plan for a new
confessional document, and actually prepared the Consensus
repetitus fidei vere Lutheranæ, 1655. In this, after the manner
of the Form of Concord, all the controversies which had broken
out in the interim, but especially the syncretism of Calixtus and
his school, in which eighty-eight errors were enumerated, were
to be effectually suppressed by obtaining the signature of all the
Lutheran universities, while, at the same time, that the F. C.
should be rejected by a Lutheran faculty and national church,
the evil was to be removed.¹ Upon this occasion ancient
Lutheran orthodoxy once more summoned all its strength to
check every departure from the common Lutheran type. The
undertaking nevertheless failed. Several princes, among whom
were not merely the members of the house of Brunswick, but
also Ernest the Pious, the Saxon dukes, and the Great Elector,
were averse to the prolonged theological strife, which, when once
the peace of Westphalia had been obtained, burst forth with new
fury among Protestants. The German nation, wearied to death
by public disasters, needed other nourishment than the Consensus
repetitus. But it was through the quiet but firm resistance of
the faculty of Jena, with Musæus at their head, that the design
was frustrated. They regarded it as unnecessarily narrow and
illiberal, and as containing exaggerated and malicious allusions,
and accusations of heresy, and as likely to become the fruitful
seed of fresh dissensions.2 The frustration of this design for
carrying on the work of the Form of Concord, which would have
led to new exclusions, and thus have given a sectarian character
to the Lutheran Church, was the first severe blow experienced
by the old orthodox party, and Wittenberg in particular. The
faculty of Tübingen, in their contest with that of Giessen, had,
upon the publication of the arrogant Saxon Decisio of 1624,
declared that they were not inclined to seek in Saxony a supreme
1 Helmstädt also found support from those countries which had remained un-
fettered by the F. C., especially Sleswick-Holstein, Denmark, and Sweden,
and from Nuremberg and Altdorf.
2 The faculty of Jena, since the time of Joh. Gerhard, was generally regarded
with much respect in Germany. Gerhard himself was at first unfavourable to
Calixtus, but after personal acquaintance, he assumed a more independent atti-
tude with respect both to him and to the over zealous urgency of his own friends,
to whom he was more than once far too yielding.
Calixtus. His Doctrinal Views.
199
court of judicature with respect to correct doctrine, and no means
of opposing their resistance had been found. But the failure of
the Consensus repetitus, after such an expenditure of means, was
a far more certain token to Wittenberg, that after 1655 it had
passed the climax of its authority.
The system of Calixtus did not however prevail, nor could it
do so, unless the Protestant Church and its mission were to
suffer essential damage. Calixtus was no creative genius; his
fundamental thoughts, though full of practical intentions, origin-
ated rather in the school than in actual life.
Such express
alterations as he proposed to make in dogmatic theology, were
unimportant in themselves, and also unproductive of results.
At most he did but moderate certain asperities. He denied
indeed the real communication of Divine qualities to the human
nature of Christ, and its ubiquity, while he firmly embraced the
manducatio oralis in the Lord's Supper. He regarded free will
as the Divine ornament of man, and did not consider his freedom
to be so entirely lost through original sin as to leave him simply
obliged to sin. We can, he thought, individually (distributive)
avoid sin, though our nature, viewed as a unity (collective), is
powerless for good, without supernatural grace, through which
the relation of our primitive state is restored, and a supernatural
gift-which is now to be referred to pardon-added to our original
constitution. Directing his glance backwards, he sees the perfect
type both of the Church and of mankind in their beginnings,
and has no clear idea of growth, of historical development.
In his work on the covenants of God (de pactis Dei), a
theme in which he comes in contact with his younger contem-
porary, Coccejus, he attempts to apply his historical method to
the history of religion. He embraces the view that man, in his
primitive state, received, besides natural endowments, and espe-
cially freedom, supernatural gifts, through which he was perfect,
and which he needed only to preserve; while the Lutheran doc-
trine attributes the Divine likeness, original righteousness, to the
nature, i.c. to the very idea of man; hence in this point also he
was reproached with Romanizing tendencies. Yet a superficial
notion of original sin did not result in his case, on the contrary,
he considers-like Bellarmine--that these supernatural gifts,
though capable of being forfeited, so belonged to the complete
idea of man, that general disorder was introduced into human
200
Calixtus. His Doctrinal Views.
nature by their loss. On the other hand, he makes no difficulty
of allowing the actual perfection of man at the beginning, and is
hence also prevented from teaching that more is gained through
Christ than was lost through Adam. Christianity-like the
Reformation in its degree-is in his eyes merely the restoration
of a former state, nor was it indeed anything else in the eyes of
his opponents. In the above named work he dates the true
Church in the usual way, from the commencement of the Old
Testament, supporting his assertion by the fact that one and
the same faith was ever necessary for salvation. He will not
however admit-because his feeling for exegesis revolts against
it—that the doctrine of the Trinity was plainly revealed in the
Old Testament, and this is as much as to say that in the New
Testament also faith in the Trinity is not necessary to salvation.
This however he does not venture to assert, nor to maintain with
Coccejus a distinction in the mode of participating in salvation.
He uses the expression of his colleague, Hornejus, that good
works are not necessary to salvation, but says, that good works
are the conditio sine qua non of salvation; and admits that grace
may be forfeited by certain supposed grievous sins, which he
thinks may be distinguished as peccata mortalia. But this
admirable moral feature in Calixtus suffers from this difficulty,
that he nevertheless conceives of grace and freedom, of the
Divine and the human, as in external relation to each other.
Divine grace assists the freedom of man. This is especially
shown in his doctrine of Inspiration, which indeed mitigates the
more than Alexandrian asperities of the prevailing view, by
changing Divine prompting into a Divine assistance for pre-
servation from error, but thereby does so much the less justice
to the conception of the union of the Divine Spirit with the
human. The orthodox hypothesis indeed, by wholly absorbing
the human element in the Divine, embraces the essential ex-
traneousness of the two. He ascribes to the reason and the
conscience a true knowledge of the Divine, but without referring
this to a perennial Divine communication or revelation in the
wider sense.
But even his fundamental idea of union or peace between
different Christian confessions, by means of a recurrence to the
unanimity originally prevailing, is but partially true. Certainly
it is becoming in genuine catholicity to seek out, in a spirit of
Calixtus.
201
love, and highly to estimate the traces of universal Christian
consent. It was also natural, and according to rule, to say that
the Reformation desired nothing but a restoration of primitive
Christianity. But the Christian spirit cannot plunge into the
pure and primitive sources of truth, and immerse itself therein,
without also bringing to light new treasures hitherto unappro-
priated by the Church. A mere recurrence by a subsequent age
to the standpoint of a former, is always and at all times an in-
trinsic impossibility; in this case it would have been combined
with a great loss. For it cannot be denied that Calixtus desired
the healing of present differences by a mere return to that which
was less definite. The difference between the Church and the
school, between faith and theology, may indeed have hovered
before his mind, but he also diminished the significance of that
which was of real religious importance. For justification through
faith, which is not expressly mentioned in the apostolic symbol,
is, in its evangelical definiteness, made by him of too little con-
sequence to the salvation of the soul, and the true unity of the
Church. Nor must it be overlooked that his symbol of union
embraces now more, now fewer synodal decrees, generally re-
quiring the Trinitarian, Christological, anti-predestinarian, and
anti-Pelagian decrees of the Councils (of Mileve and Orange).
This uncertainty arises from the fact that he seeks support not in
a qualificative but in a quantitative manner, in which the more
or less involves only a fluctuating distinction. He seeks to
limit the supposed fundamental articles of orthodox divinity
only as to quantity, but is, as well as his orthodox opponents,
caught in the toils of intellectualism, the only apparent differ-
ence between them being that he would be satisfied with re-
garding "fewer" correct doctrines as necessary to salvation.
But dogmatical teaching is not the substance itself, but only the
image or shadow of the substance; hence it would have con-
tributed more to the healing of the Church's discords to have
recurred directly to the substance itself, i.e. to the Person of the
living Redeemer. And with all his personal piety, it was just
this feature of vivid inwardness which was wanting in the
system of Calixtus. Nay, it must be said even of his historical
method, that in this respect it did not go back to the real be-
ginning, to the revival and contemplation of the historical image
of Christ.
202
Calixtus.
Calixtus had a very numerous following of pupils and friends.
Among them must first be mentioned Hornejus († 1649), his
faithful friend and colleague through a long course of years, and
Titius, the successor of the latter. Also Schräder Scheurl
Conring, the Polyhistor, Dätrius, Henichius, and Paul Müller.
Beyond Helmstädt, the Calixtine tendency was either advocated
or dominant among the theological faculties of Königsberg
(through Latermann and the two Behms, father and son); of
Rinteln, the second university of the Landgravate of Hesse
(through Henichius, Peter Museus and Eckart), and of Altdorf
(through Hackspan, Dürr, Deyling, and others). He had besides
followers in Holstein, Denmark, and Sweden, and was a man
of European reputation. His son Frederic Ulric Calixtus, in-
ferior to his father in mind and renown, collected his writings,
and continued the Syncretistic controversy. His school, besides
their labours in history, paid special attention to the cultivation
of exegesis, and remained faithful to his desire of union. This
was shown with happy effect by the Rinteln theologians, who,
in the discussion concerning union with those of Marburg¹at
Cassel (1661), expressed 2 the status controversia between
Lutheran and Reformed in such definite formula, that even the
strict Lutherans could find no fault, but after more closely dis-
cussing the meaning of their respective doctrines, came to the
unanimous decision that Lutheran and Reformed might, and
must, regard each other as brethren, and that no necessity was
imposed by the Holy Ghost of making use of the Nominal-
Elenchus in presence of the congregation. With respect, how-
ever, to the relations to Catholics, the admission of Calixtus that
those doctrines which alone are necessary to salvation are to be
found also in the Romish Church, favoured the secession thereto
of many leading persons, and even princes did not sufficiently
consider that even a sound and more ancient strata of doctrine
may he choked and rendered unfruitful by subsequent layers,
nay, may be so adulterated thereby as to be actually false. Nor
was this all, for the Calixtine school, in Königsberg, partially
¹ Henke, das Unionscolloquium zu Cassel, Jul. 1661, Marburg, 1862.
2 In the sixteenth century, two distinctive doctrines were chiefly enumerated,
viz. those of the Lord's Supper and the Person of Christ; from 1600-1650 a
third, the doctrine of predestination, was added. The collocutors of Cassel
named the doctrine of baptism as a fourth.
First Epoch of Pietism till 1705.
203
adopted forms of a Catholicizing tendency, which resulted in
several secessions. In Helmstädt, moreover, the unsound
Fabricius implicated himself, by his inconsiderate advice in the
change of creed of a princess of his house. On the whole, the
Calixtine tendency was rather a school of learned theologians, to
whom the cause of culture and literature was dearer than that
of religion and morality. And hence it coincided, for the most
part, with the orthodox party in opposing that of Spener. To
this remark, however, the pious Justus Gesenius, the friend and
pupil of Calixtus, forms an honourable exception.
CHAPTER III.
SPENER AND PIETISM. THE MORAVIAN BROTHERHOOD.
1. The Age of Spener and Francke.¹
1
THE history of Pietism, when regarded with respect to its
matter, may be divided into two epochs. The first of these,
extending to about the death of Spener (1705), exhibits it in its
beginnings, and during the period when it was suffering from the
attacks and persecutions of its opponents-in a word, in its state
of apology and defence, but also of first love. The second, from
about 1705 to 1730, shows it acting the aggressive and vic-
torious part.
The first epoch may again be divided into several acts. The
prologue and first act may be regarded as embracing Spener's
ministry at Frankfort on the Maine (from 1666 to 1668), where
he instituted, entirely in the sense of the Schmalkaldic Articles,
mutua colloquia of inquirers and believers in the Church, known
by the name of collegia pietatis. These held their meetings in
his house and under his direction, in the unrestrained form of
address and reply, without the interposition of clerical umpireship,
1 Hossbach has given a picture of Spener and his work (Spener und seine Zeit.
A. 2, von Schweder, 1853), after v. Canstein, Steinmetz, and Knapp. See also
Tholuck, Geschichte des Rationalismus, Div. i. 1865; and Herzog's Realencycl.
s. Spener; Gass's before-named work, ii. 374-499; H. Schmid, Geschichte des
Pietismus, 1863; Göbel, Geschichte des christlichen Lebens, ii. p. 537; Francke,
Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, ii. 130-189 and 213-240.
The copious
materials furnished in Walch's Religionsstreit innerhalb der lutherischen Kirche
have been partly completed and partly arranged and selected by Tholuck, Schmid,
and Francke, especially the former.
204
Spener at Frankfort.
and were productive of much benefit. After obtaining, however,
in spite of the incipient attacks of e.g. Conrad Dilfeld, the
confidence even of the authorities, he soon found that some of
his most esteemed friends, despairing of overcoming the opposition
of the worldly party in the Church to serious conversion,
embraced separatist opinions and errors. The effect of this upon.
himself was a renunciation of the hope that God designed a
revival of the whole Church, and a recurrence to the principle of
the ecclesiolæ in Ecclesia as the only expedient, together with the
observance of greater caution. To this period belong his Pia
desideria, 1675, and his work on the Spiritual Priesthood, 1677,
which contain a sketch of those notions of reform drawn upon
the background of a mind painfully moved by the declensions of
the Church. These two classical and very touching works were
followed, in 1684, by The Use and Abuse of Lamentations over a
Corrupt Christianity, which he published for the sake of averting
all separatist degenerations and misconceptions. In 1689 he
departed to Dresden, where he remained till 1691.
The second act of the drama, extending from 1686 to the
foundation of the university of Halle, exhibits the independent
course of that movement, to which Spener had but given the
impulse, by his writings, his words, and his example. It showed
how fully prepared¹ the soil was in all parts of Germany, by means
both of what it possessed and what it lacked, for the reception of
that which he had but initiated. The people no longer needed,
as in the days of Luther, to be for the first time introduced.
to an acquaintance with evangelical truth. On the contrary, no
sooner had Spener given the watchword of Active Christianity,
than the impulse to make the faith which was confessed by the
lips seriously influential on the life, was irresistibly spread by the
effects of that evangelical preaching with which the intellect of
the people was filled. It was universally felt that to stop at a
merely intellectual belief, as if this were the whole end in view,
would be to make the life a refutation of the faith, existence a
dualism, an unbearable fiction and hypocrisy, nay, the seat of
scepticism and unbelief. And the teaching which had now crept
into the Church and theology, together with evangelical doctrine,
did, where the word of God had fallen on good ground, but the
more awaken desires for a purer and more vigorous form of the
1 Especially by men such as those named above (see p. 167).
The Commencement of the Movement.
205
Church. It did this, moreover, in a manner which was but a
continuation of the Reformation, namely by instilling the
universal conviction, in those whom this movement impelled to
a more active Christianity, that the reform desired must begin
in their own individual cases. For such a purpose it was that
they employed the means pointed out, not only by Spener, but
by his predecessors-especially the private meetings for devotion
conducted by likeminded clergymen, and the perusal of the works
of Spener and others.
The movement, however, pursued, as we have said, its inde-
pendent course. Spener did not inaugurate it in the different
towns and countries, but only followed it, interposing his advice,
warning against dangers, protecting to the utmost of his ability
against attacks, and all with admirable tenderness, persever-
ance, and wisdom. Its course was not, however, an easy or a
peaceful one. On the contrary, strifes and disturbances were
stirred up in a long list of cities and countries against the
movement as a new sect, by the opposition of the so-called
orthodox, who, themselves devoid of spiritual life, sought the
support of the unspiritual multitude, which preferred an accom-
modating churchmanship and a lip Christianity to earnest vital.
religion. This was the case in Darmstadt, Erfurt, Halle, Gotha,
Jena, Wolfenbüttel, Hanover, Peine, Hamburg, and Halberstadt.
A more detailed narrative belongs to Church history; for Pietism,
generally speaking, is rather a phenomenon of Church life than
of theology-a fact for the most part overlooked by its opponents
before Löscher, who, in conformity with their inveterate doctrinal
tendency, were utterly unable to regard or to treat a phenomenon
to them unwonted, otherwise than as a system of doctrine, which
they therefore condemned as a heresy or a conglomerate of
heresies. From their standpoint, where doctrine was all in all,
they were scarcely capable of anything else. Where correct
doctrine was in full swing, they thought that everything else
must, by a kind of physical necessity, fall out well and
harmoniously. For they assumed that if Christian knowledge
(illuminatio) were, in the first place, but pure and complete, it
would of itself so influence the will that all would be ordered and
arranged in the best possible manner. Trusting in "correctness
of doctrine," they surrendered themselves to a security which
pleased itself with dreams of a florentissimus status ccclesiæ, and
206
Collegium Philobiblicum.
ignored the fact that they had themselves defiled and adulterated
"correct doctrine" unawares, and deformed the Gospel into a law
of dogma and a doctrinal codex, confused nature and grace, and
frittered away the ideas of faith and regeneration (see above, p.
139). All this excluded them from any comprehension of the
new movement, nay, laid them under the necessity of suspecting
it as a perversion of truth.
We have but few remarks to make on these contests. We
would but observe that in them clergymen usually rose against
clergymen. For the movement kept itself, at all events at first,
within the bounds, and to the forms, of the ecclesiastical order of
the day, and its leaders were clergymen,-but clergymen who
desired that believers should attain to "full age," and who were
consequently anxious that they should be supplied with fitting
nourishment and employment. Also, that the theologians who,
during the first epoch of the contest, opposed this serious move-
ment, and ordinarily with external success, showed themselves
to be devoid of spirituality, and little skilled in theology,
or, where scholarship was not wanting as in the case of the
faculties of Leipsic and Wittenberg-intriguing, ambitious, and
even arrogant, hypocritical, and fraudulent. Such dispositions
were exhibited, e.g., by J. F. Mayer of Hamburg, and Schelwig of
Dantzic, but especially by J. B. Carpzovius, during the disorders
in Leipsic, which decided the inimical position of orthodoxy, and
at which we must pause for a few moments.
In the same year that Spener was summoned to Dresden
(1686), two masters of arts, A. H. Francke and P. Anton, had,
without his having any share in their proceedings, joined a
collegium philobiblicum in Leipsic, for the purpose of entering,
together with other masters, rather more deeply into the study
of exegesis, a department which had been neglected to an almost
incredible degree by the faculty. They were soon joined by
several students, and even by citizens. Spener, to whom they
were as yet personally unknown, rejoiced at their undertaking
and became their adviser and advocate. They placed themselves
under the presidency of Alberti, the professor of theology, and
under academical permission. The undertaking had the mos:
surprising success; hundreds of students were diligently em-
ployed in the study of Holy Scripture, and the Collegia am
Dissertationes of the professors, who handled very differen
Foundation of the University of Halle.
207
subjects and dealt especially in Aristotelian metaphysics, were
neglected. Moreover, the united reading of the Scriptures,
especially after Francke's second stay in Leipsic, visibly con-
tributed to awaken a spirit of zeal and piety which was not
always restrained within the limits of prudence and moderation.
An investigation was consequently instituted by the faculty,
and though neither Francke nor Anton were convicted of errors
in doctrine or life, the collegium philobiblicum was abolished, and
A. H. Francke deprived of the privilege of delivering theological
lectures, without Spener being able to avert such a sentence.
Meantime his own position in Dresden had been forfeited, by
his faithful exercise of his duties as spiritual father (director of
conscience) to the prince, a circumstance which gave Carpzovius
the opportunity of declaring open and relentless war against
Pietism," for this was the name bestowed upon the movement
by its opponents at Leipsic. Its leaders gradually left Electoral
Saxony, and the effects of the stop thus put to its internal de-
velopment were long felt in that country.¹
They found an asylum in the electorate of Brandenburg.
Spener and Schade were summoned to Berlin, where the former
was appointed provost of the Nicolaikirche, 1691. Lange was
already there. Francke, Breithaupt, and Anton were called
to the university founded at Halle in 1694. Thus Pietism
obtained "the recognition of a national Church and a theo-
logical representation." The new university rapidly attained a
flourishing condition, and Halle became the centre of Pietism.
A. H. Francke's orphanage, v. Canstein's Bible society, the mis-
sionary undertakings started at Halle, and Francke's systematic
agency for instruction, all contributed to render it such. But,
during this latter part of the first period, opposition was still un-
ceasing. Spener was attacked successively, and, as if on a precon-
certed plan, by Schelwig, Carpzovius, Alberti, and the faculty of
Wittenberg (of whom Deutschmann was twice the insipid
spokesman); Francke, by Mayer, who, by intrigues and violence,
had outwardly gained a victory over Horb, on account of his
contributions to a revision of Luther's translation of the Bible.
The attacks, however, in spite of much literary abuse, were so
unskilful, so immeasurably unjust, and so exposed the weak side
of those who conducted them, and Spener's defence was so suc-
1 So also in Brunswick and Hanover.
208
Second Epoch of Pietism.
cessful and indefatigable, that the public opinion of the Church
could not be otherwise than favourable to Pietism, though here
and there degeneracy had already set in. Thus Pietism entered
upon its second epoch, which extended from the death of Spener
(February 1705) to the fourth decade of last century.
The contest, indeed, still continued, nay, orthodoxy was now
more worthily advocated by Val. Ernst Löscher¹ (Superinten-
dent in Dresden, † 1749), a man distinguished both for piety and
learning in his Unschuldigen Nachrichten, from 1702-1719, and
Timotheus Verinus, 2 vols. His opponent, a man inferior to
him in talents and deficient in temper and humility, was
Joachim Lange.2
The contest was now for the first time carried on in a more
scientific manner, both parties endeavouring to reduce the an-
tagonistic standpoint to the unity of a principle. But neither
this controversial literature, nor the friendly discussion arranged
by Löscher at Merseburg, led to an understanding. Löscher did
not yield the dogmatic axioms which gave just offence to Pietism,
nay, he even in some instances made them more stringent,
bringing forward, as an author, those accusations which, in oral
discussion, he seemed to have withdrawn. Pietism, however,
now felt itself the stronger, and took up the part of the aggressor.
Hence, the result alone could decide which side was to be
the victorious, and this was unfavourable to orthodoxy. Even
orthodox theologians like Buddæus withdrew from him, while
the majority of the more powerful intellects among younger
men preferred trying to unite orthodoxy and mysticism-a
union which Löscher intellectually approved, and regarded as
necessary, though his doctrinal inflexibility prevented him from
introducing the results of this conviction into his theology.
Having thus given an outline of the external history of Pietism,
we turn to a consideration of its internal character, so far as this
is important to the history of theology. And here three subjects
must chiefly occupy our attention, with respect to the plans of
Spener and his followers for a reform, or rather a regeneration, of
the Church, namely Theology, the Church, and Christian morality.
¹ Comp. v. Engelhardt, V. E. Löscher nach seinem Leben und Wirken, 1856.
2 J. Lange: Antibarbarus orthodoxic dogmatico-hermeneuticus, 1709-11; Dic
Gestalt des Kreuzreichs Christi in seiner Unschuld, 1713; Erläuterung der
neuesten Historie der evangelischen Kirche von 1689-1719, Halle, 1719.
#
Reform of Theology and the Church.
209
The regeneration of theology which he desired was one not so
much of matter as of form-of the manner in which it was treated,
and of the method of theological study. The teaching Church
must itself be possessed of living faith, must be regenerate.
Those possessed of knowledge must, above all, be also believers,
and not regard their scientific knowledge as a compensation for
their want of Christian piety. For true knowledge, on the
contrary, presupposes faith and regeneration-theology having,
from the very first, been regarded as a habitus practicus, and
πίστις ever recognized as the basis of all γνώσις. To arrive at this
transformation of the teachers, a transformation of theological
studies was needed. The study of holy Scripture, as the surest
means of awakening and conversion, and thereby of true illumi-
nation, was to form the central point of the whole, while
everything else was to be pursued with reference to the practical
aim of self-edification, and to the cultivation of the power of
edifying others.
The second subject is the Church. Pietism did not contemplate
a merely teaching Church, as opposed to merely passive hearers,
but a Church of living believers. Spener calls to the remembrance
of the clerical order, which now again stood in a catholicizing
contrast to the laity," the idea of the universal spiritual
priesthood of Christians, which, in a genuine Reformation spirit,
he founds upon regeneration through justifying faith, and regards
as first of all bound to the duty of co-operating in the spread
of God's kingdom, and then as possessing the right to do so,
inasmuch as there can be nothing by which the right of doing
one's duty can be forfeited. The inertness and lethargy of the
laity must yield to that activity of the moral instinct which,
as even the orthodox teach, is the necessary effect of faith.
The abyss between clergy and laity must become simply a
distinction between those who teach and have the care of
souls entrusted to them, and their brethren who are to be, or
who have already been instructed in practical Christianity, that
they may be their fellow-workers. The Christian laity possess
not only the right of offering to God the sacrifice of prayer, both
for themselves and others, they may also exercise their priestly
office, whether at home or among friends, may help to edify the
Church in their house, have the right mutually to edify each
other-especially under the direction of their minister-from
II.
0
210 Position of the So-called Orthodox towards
the word of God, and to open their mouths, both in question
and answer, in devotional meetings. If the whole congregation
could be divided into sections with lay-presidents, under the
guidance of their clergyman, so much the better. For Spener
had an eye to Church organization. He desired presbyterial
institutions in close connection with local divisions and their
civil authorities, especially for the purposes of Church discipline,
selection of preachers, and such matters-an arrangement which
had already been partly introduced in 1640, though in too close
connection with the civil power, by means of Val. Andrea's
Church conviction at Wurtemberg.
The reformation of morals formed the topstone of the edifice.
The Church must proceed from religion to morals. Sanctification
of life must be the chief and earnest labour of the Christian.
For this end, Christian morality must repudiate everything which
leads to worldliness, or exercises a distracting or destructive effect
upon that serious recollection which is needful to the formation
of Christian character. Under this head were included dancing,
the theatre, gaming, sumptuous apparel, banquets, light and
useless conversation and reading. Spener himself did not go so
far in this respect as later Pietism. He even recognized in
morals the existence of things indifferent (adiaphora), and desired
to restrict all these pleasures only so far as to condemn their
excess. This excess he estimated according to the requirements
of the principle that lawful pleasures cannot hurt the soul, and
must refresh and invigorate the body.
The so-called orthodox at first received the proposals of Spener
with favour. Not only Balth. Mentzer of Giessen, but also
Schelwig, Carpzovius, and Mayer, bestowed the warmest expres-
sions of approbation and commendation even upon the collegia
pietatis. They were, however, thus favourably regarded only
so long as the attempt at regeneration confined itself to the
region of words and thoughts, or remained in distant isolation.
When the matter began, with its personal demands, to touch
themselves more nearly, when it threatened to disturb their
accustomed mode of life, and attributed to them a different
position with respect to religion and knowledge, to their office,
and to the people, from that which they were wont to fill, they
rose up, in the heat of a rigid and passionate conservatism, against
the "innovations;" and the malady which had long been secretly
Spener's Notions of Reform.
2II
affecting the Church in its members broke out in full virulence.
An inclination, hitherto unconfessed but only too powerful, now
became an acknowledged principle; and it was a good sign for
Pietism that its antagonists, in opposing it, found themselves
forced to an open confession of maxims which were contrary to
the spirit of evangelical religion, and which, to an unprejudiced
eye, were an obstacle and an injury to Reformation doctrine.
An identification of the external and visible Church with the
inward and invisible, nay, with the idea of the Church, such as
is scarcely found even in Roman Catholicism, was manifested in
a series of assertions maintained during the course of this conflict.
Schelwig thinks it sectarian to say that the Church needs
reformation. For "it is not the Church but the ungodly in the
Church that must be reformed." A true Lutheran must not
complain that the Church, i.e. the external assembly, has many
defects, for "this would be to defame the Church." 1 The
Church, ie. the external Church, is perfect, is in her most
flourishing condition, for she possesses "correct doctrine." The
Wittenberg divines in their Christlutherischen Vorstellung, 1695,
say: The symbolical books are, not only in facts and doc-
trines, but also in other matters, that Divine truth which was
delivered to the Church, and which is in all points binding. 2
Mayer requires from the clergy the acknowledgment that
nothing but the true word of God is to be found in the sym-
bolical books, and Superintendent Simon, a successor of Mayer,
adds: he who errs even in Articulis minus principalibus (e.g.
he who embraces Spener's more refined Millenarianism) is a
heretic, and must be excluded from spiritual brotherhood.*
A continual testing and purifying of the confession by Scrip-
ture is no longer to be spoken of. Even the distinction between
fides historica and evangelical fides is all but entirely lost sight
of. A divine and inherent authority, to which it is our duty to
submit, is attributed to the Church. Schelwig declaims against.
Spener's conscientious demand, that no one should subscribe
to the symbolical books who had not carefully tested them.
He thinks, indeed, that every future teacher of the Church
ought to read them, but says that it is beyond the powers of an
individual to test all that they contain in a fitting manner.
3
1 Comp. Schmid, pp. 234, 235.
3 Id. p. 239.
2 Idem, p. 244.
4
• Id. p. 185.
For
212
Opposition of Orthodoxy.
2
any who are incapable of such an exercise, it is sufficient that,
according to their views, these books contain nothing false; they
may leave the rest to their mother the Church, and, like dutiful
sons, trust her and her testing of the books containing the
faith.¹ Hence, it was not astonishing that many attributed to
the symbolical books a kind of inspiration (see above, p. 137).
But a tradition possessing inherent Divine authority, placing
itself beside holy Scripture, and weakening and adulterating all
solid study thereof, must be powerless, if represented only by
books and words, and not vested also in living persons. This
tendency to obliterate the distinction between the visible and
invisible Church, to deify the existing ecclesiastical constitution,
could not stop here, it must of necessity also endow those who
bore office in the Church with Divine qualities. And, in fact,
not only does the above-named Simon teach, that the decisions.
of the clergy are of equal obligation with the word of God,
but even a Löscher embraces the doctrine that because there
is in the word of God-whether found in Holy Scripture,
in the creeds, or in preaching, &c.—an inherent power of be-
stowing upon every one whose mind comes in contact with it,
that illumination which is already the commencement of re-
generation, and will assuredly produce its full maturity, there is
present in a minister, apart from the consideration of his walk
and conversation, a certain Divine official grace (see above,
pp. 140, 166). He is not the mere instrument by which, but
the place in which the Holy Spirit works, and (adds Schelwig
and the Wittenberg divines, without being censured by Löscher)
the power which the word has upon the minds of men arises
from the office. The controversy with Schade shows with
what zeal private confession, and its corollary, absolution by
the pastor, which had been left optional by Luther, were em-
braced. Spener-in opposition to Schade-embraced both, but,
like Luther, he did not lay stress upon either the just judgment,
or, generally speaking, any judgment being pronounced concern-
ing the actual pardon of the penitent. This was rather what the
orthodox were inclined to do, and this was also at the bottom of
Schade's erroneous and infinitely troublesome demand for some
authorized form of confession. Spener, on the contrary, viewed
confession not as a judicial sentence upon the individual, but as
1 Schmid, p. 235.
2 Id. p. 185.
Theological Aspect of the Controversy.
213
the proffer of pardon, not only to those who were already be-
lievers, but also to those who would believe, and upon whom
rested the responsibility whether they would let the grace thus
anticipatively offered become efficient through faith, or render it
vain through unbelief. In such a proceeding it was however the
part of the Church to take heed that she cast not that which
was holy before swine. Finally, as far as the laity was concerned,
this identification, it was said, of the visible with the invisible
Church, was authorized by the doctrine of baptism. Conrad
Dilfeld found Spener's earnest demand that young theologians
should seek the illumination of the Holy Spirit and regeneration
superfluous. All had been regenerated in baptism, and had re-
ceived the gift of the Holy Ghost once for all.¹ And if any one
did not manifest this regeneration in his life, this might indeed
be an obstacle to his salvation, but not to his theological studies.
The regenerate had, generally speaking, no advantage over the
unregenerate in learning theology: Plato and Aristotle might, by
diligent study of Scripture, have become theologians even though
they had esteemed the mysteria fidei to be fables. Hence
Spener, by insisting on special illumination, desired to make
men not theologians but prophets, a fact which brought to light
his secret fanaticism. We are thus brought into the very midst
of the question concerning the Theologia irregenitorum, with
which the theological side of the controversy opened.
The opinions expressed on the part of the so-called orthodox
party, show that the Church had again become to them the self-
centred possessor of direct Divine authority, endowed, once for
all, with Divine powers and privileges; as if the Holy Spirit had
relinquished his direct relation to souls, nay, had abdicated his
power and energies in favour of the Church and her means of
grace.
Believers were not indeed, it was said, thereby deprived
of their participation in the Divine. On the contrary, the Holy
Spirit's agency being confined to the Church, He was ever
assuredly present if but one hearer came in contact with the
word. Every one who occupies himself with the word re-
ceives a Divine self-manifesting light, a supernatural effluence,
in virtue of which he already possesses illuminatio, and must be
presumed to have also the beginnings of regeneration (see above,
p. 126).
It is evident, however, that this view impairs the
1 Schmid, p 76.
214
Theologia Irregenitorum.
fundamental relation between God and the creature, is essentially
Deism, upon an absolute supernatural basis in a magical form.
We are by it cut off from communion with God Himself. God
has no longer any vital, actual relation to the world, but has
once for all supernaturally deposited in the vessel of the means
of grace, and especially of the word, the life and light which He
designs to impart. Consequently, the means of grace now work
of themselves (sponte) by their inherent power, and as it were
according to physical law. Experience, indeed, showed but too
plainly, that which was already involved in the very state of the
case, viz. that union with anything finite, even with that which
is supremely sacred, cannot secure to us communion with the
living God, for which we need that elevation above all that is
finite and sensuous, which is found in faith as distinguished from
superstition; and that the natural man remains entirely un-
altered in character, while lulled into security by the delusion
that he is already in possession of what he has yet to seek.
Such qualities as are but natural, were-as J. Lange rightly
observes-regarded in a Pelagian manner as Divine, while, on
the other hand, a higher, a more heartfelt participation in the
Divine was esteemed impossible, and faith in the continued
agency of the Holy Ghost, in illumination and regeneration, was
branded as fanaticism and enthusiasm.
It is nowhere more clearly manifested than here how the
original lively feeling for the divine had gradually dried up in
the so-called orthodox party; orthodoxy had so accustomed itself
to deal purely with second causes that every mention of the con-
tinuous and vital agency of the Holy Spirit seemed exaggerated,
incredible, nay, fraught with danger to the Church. It shows
to what a feeble state the religious pulse had fallen, in the
theology of the day, that the doctrine of the active operation
of the Holy Ghost should have become strange and incredible.
The subject of both the first work against Spener, viz. that
of C. Dilfeld, and the first work of Löscher, the last advocate of
this orthodoxy, was "Enthusiasm."
In this respect, then, Spener reopens the living fountains of
primitive Christianity and of the Reformation. He represents
direct communion with God, a participation in the Divine life,
and the reception of the Divine Spirit as not only a possible
favour, but as that which it is the first and universal duty of every
Pietism insists on Sanctification.
215
Christian to seek. Spener knows a living God, not a God who
has betaken Himself to rest behind those means of grace which
are to work as His substitutes, but which, instead of being able
to supply the place of personal communion with Himself, are
but designed to lead to it. He acknowledges a providentia
specialis, nay, specialissima, a constant supernatural agency, yet
one in conformity with law. The miracles of Christianity do not,
in his view, belong to the "dead past," but are every day
continued—as Luther also thinks-in the miracle of the regener-
ation of the old into the new creature. The means of grace are
not mere things of the world, which, by a supernatural force
implanted in them, emit, according to fixed laws, Divine gifts
and graces; but the means by which the Holy Spirit Himself
works directly in the souls of men, and communicates Himself
to them, without placing Himself in a state of dependence
upon the clerical office, which, on the contrary, He uses as an
instrument for applying the word. And it is this gracious
readiness of God to impart Himself to man, which emboldens him
to require that they who would faithfully and successfully
exercise the office of preachers must first of all be themselves
born again, and hence experience in their own hearts the power
of that Gospel which they are to proclaim.¹
The first and fundamental point of this controversy was the
continued agency of the Holy Spirit and the need thereof. And
here we cannot but hail, on the part of Spener, the re-discovery
of that original fountain of life unclosed by the Reformation, but
again choked up by so-called orthodoxy. This agency of the Holy
Ghost creates and consecrates a new personality, living, active,
and free, and does not coalesce with the old Ego, whose natural
life is passed either in frivolity or in a state of tolerated unhappi-
ness, varied by intermittent acts of pardon by means of priestly
absolution. The Holy Spirit, on the contrary, produces, according
1 Neither Spener nor Pietism in general contemplated any change in the con-
tents of theology, or at least of doctrine. He never says a word concerning union
with the Reformed Church, and is quite content with the form of obligation with
quia for himself. He only desired to transfer what had been already acquired
from the head to the heart and hand. Nevertheless, the stress which he lays upon
the Scriptures leads farther. For, by replacing them in that fitting position ac-
corded to them by the Reformers, he does in effect deny both to the Church and
the State the right of regarding the symbol as a system of doctrine completed once
for all, and ever valid, through the authority of the Church. Hence he prefers
for the Church in general the form of obligation with quatenus.
216
The Ethical Factor in Pietism.
to His purpose, the one connected life of the new personality,
which is ever exercising itself in increasing sanctification.
Spener and all genuine Pietists were deeply impressed with the
conviction that God's purpose in the Gospel is not mere pardon
or justification, but that the end to which these are indeed the
indispensable means is a truly pure and moral life well-pleasing
to God. This ethical character is deeply imprinted upon the
proceedings of Spener and his school. He does not view even
regeneration and faith, as was customary, as simply a work of
God, in which man remains mere passive, a thesis in which
absolute and dualistic predestination was to be bought off by an
inconsistency; but makes earnest contrition and real desires
after righteousness the preliminary conditions of the enjoyment
of pardon. He says, as do also Museus and others, that love of
what is good and holy is already present, as an impulse and a
desire, in the faith which is the means of justification, and grants
that opera sunt in fide præsentia, though justification is not the
product or desert of these works, the germs of which are inherent
in true faith. Finally-as has been said-morality maintains its
place after, as well as before, and in, regeneration. For the new
personality does not exist to rejoice, and to enjoy, but to labour
in the work of its own sanctification. This work of sanctification
consists partly in self-denial with respect to the pleasures of the
world, partly in labours for the increase of the kingdom of those
regenerate persons who diligently prosecute the work of sanctifi-
cation. The more profoundly Spener is impressed with the
ethical and productive character of grace, the more does he delight
to dwell upon the thought of the happy change which must befall
the world when evangelical faith begins to revive. Hence, the
hope of better times even on earth was his most cherished
persuasion, as he owned upon his deathbed, by ordering that
he should be laid in a white coffin and enveloped in a white
pall, declaring that he would not take so much as a thread of
black with him to the grave, because he had mourned quite long
enough over the sad state of the Church, not only outwardly, by
his black garments, but inwardly in his heart. This hope was
most deeply interwoven in his whole idiosyncrasy. The presence
of hope is a necessity to the moral activity of the Church, if love
is to be filled with courage and energy. It is, moreover, needed;
because it is hope alone which can form and set before the mind
The Ethical Factor in Pietism.
217
that ideal, that supreme object, which, thus becoming part and
parcel of the will, will be its governing power. He does not,
like so many in the Lutheran Church, regard the object of life as
attained when the soul is saved by the forgiveness of sin. With
Spener there arose a consciousness that there is a vital duty claiming
fulfilment in this life besides that of seeking pardon and regener-
ation. The exhibition of an increasing moral excellence by
Christians, .e. by Christianity, is in his view an event of the
earthly history of the kingdom of God, and is not to become a
fact for the first time in the heavenly kingdom. His thousand
years' reign does not involve the abolition, but only the diminu-
tion, of sin and evil. He does not insist upon a visible govern-
ment of the Church by Christ, nor even upon substituting
sudden and Divine acts for the moral efforts of man. On the
contrary, he rather views this reign as, at least chiefly, the
result of the labours of regenerate men for their own sanctification,
and consequently for the sanctification of others. Thus, the
eschatology of Spener occupied, in the second century of the
evangelical Church, essentially the same position which the
Chiliasm of the primitive Church had done: it was a recall of
the human mind-which had been, in a onesided manner,
occupied with the transcendental, and turned to a future world,
from the delusion that when once salvation has been attained
through faith there is really nothing else to be done upon earth
but to preserve that supreme treasure until a new stage, conse-
quently conceived of as close at hand, shall be entered upon, in
another world. It was a recall to labour here below, to moral
efforts in this present world. It was in this insignificant covering
of "a hope of better days upon earth" (for it was no weak
sentimentality, but a solid moral feeling, which cherished it) that
there dawned upon the evangelical Church, as upon the Church
of the second century, the conviction that she had been preserved
through the deadly struggle of the Thirty Years' war for the
purpose of fulfilling a great and universal duty to the world and
to herself. Nay, it is to Pietism that we are indebted for the
first step in this new direction, as is shown prophetically, though
microscopically, by the various institutions at Halle, and by
the missionary feeling which it was the means of awakening.
For the conversion even of the Jews was an article of Spener's
creed; while with the orthodox party the missionary spirit
218
Defects of Pietism in a Moral Respect.
was, with regard to both Jews and Gentiles, in a wholly dormant
state.
This brighter side of Pietism, however, by no means involves
the admission that Spener's standpoint was a satisfactory one for
the evangelical Church, or even that Pietism in general was
blameless. Undoubtedly one main cause of its faults lies at the
door of the opposition and enmity which arose, in part from the
worldy-minded, in part from those who, intending to espouse
the cause of the Church, threw back upon itself a movement
originally set on foot for the good of the whole Protestant
Church; and thus introduced an asperity and narrowness which
did not belong to it in Spener's times, when it was still in a
plastic state, and capable of being fashioned into Church con-
formity. These faults, however, it did not cast off, when it
came into power, and had, as it were, to take the place of the
old orthodoxy.
This is shown even by its ethical views. The Pietistic morality
to which a lively faith is to advance is almost exclusively piety.
It never attains-at least so far as earth is concerned to the
idea of a world animated in all its varied forms of life by the
spirit of religion,-a world whose task it is to bring to harmonious
realization all the powers and gifts of the first creation by the
principle of the second. On the contrary, from its point of
view, morality is the sanctification of the individual, in other
words, the maintenance and strengthening of the feeling which
revolts from sin and turns to God. Pietistic morality takes
up a chiefly negative position with respect to "the world,"
and is antagonistic thereto. With its strict views of evil,
Pietism makes too little distinction between the world"
and "the world," a defect to which the circumstance that it
takes too onesided a view of the fact that the novelty of
Christianity is a new creation not a little contributes. Con-
sequently this system of morals is-so far as relation to the
world is concerned-rather of a negative and narrow character.
The mind is not as yet emboldened to take the world in hand,
for the purpose of bestowing upon it a moral organization and a
consistent form, in the full confidence that its innate energies, if
used according to the law of their nature, and maintained in a
state of normal efficiency, cannot but subserve the interests of
the kingdom of God. Pietism makes indeed the excellent
(C
Defects of Pietism.
219
general admission, that every element of life must be holy
and dedicated to God; that hence there can be no room for
elements of life which have no real moral worth, for so called
adiaphora, or things indifferent, to which the notion of mere
permission is to be applied. But if our relation to nature is to
be limited chiefly to one of opposition and abstinence, that
positive moral effort which alone can enrich life and develop the
principle of active faith, must be for the most part lacking.
The moral aspect in which human nature is regarded is still too
abstract, and not comprehensive enough to include the whole
circle of moral culture. To art and science especially but a very
precarious and incidental position is conceded. Nay, the whole
realm of æsthetics obtains no other recognition than that of a
necessary evil. Pietism acknowledges no other kind of action
to be positively moral than such as contributes to awakening
and conversion, and therefore to piety. All that cannot be thus
regarded is worthless, if not suspicious and injurious. Powerful
indeed as is its ethic conception of piety or faith, its defect is
that this ethically conceived faith is as energetically taken for
the whole. Here too, as is the case, though in another respect,
in orthodoxy, the principle is made so self-sufficient that it re-
sists its own spontaneous development from a fear least it should
itself be lost, and its inherent energy is absorbed in the act
of ever recurring to the principle. For the only aim of this
activity is the self-maintenance of the principle in presence of
the "world," and the multiplication of its existence by an in-
crease of believing individuals. Nay, if we ask what is the
supreme motive in Pietism, we shall find it to be care for the
salvation of a man's own soul," which, according to the law of
God, cannot be attained by an non-active faith. But thus man
is not placed beyond legality and fear, the love of his neighbour
is not the motive by which he is impelled; for love seeks the
good of him who is loved, it makes him its end, not its means,
and does not fulfil duties towards him that it may thereby
secure its own happiness. Lutheran orthodoxy shows an inclina-
tion to stop at faith as involving the possession of pardon, as the
religious principle of the new life, and to enjoy the principle
instead of using it as the beginning and impelling motive of
activity. Pietism, on the other hand, does not desire to stop at
spiritual selfishness, i.e. at spiritual enjoyment; it preaches an
220
Defects of Pietism.
"active faith," and thus incorporates into the Lutheran Church
also the essence of the view of faith entertained by the Re-
formed Church. But even this "active faith" has not yet really
burst through the limitations of the Ego, for the impelling motive
still is a man's own salvation and its preservation, not the salva-
tion of his neighbour; a care for himself, not self-forgetting love.
It is in consequence of this ethic defect of Pietism that it ex-
hibits a character of bondage, of want of freedom, of anxiety with
respect to duty, and not one of glad activity. In this way of
using one's neighbour as a mere means to one's own salvation, as
material for the fulfilment of duty, or as the means of promoting
God's glory, in this exchange of love for duty is found the hidden
reason of that want of true Church feeling displayed by Pietism.
This Church feeling on the part of the orthodox may certainly
have too often arisen merely from natural love, while Pietism
was, by a negation of the natural, seeking to attain to a higher
grade of life. But as we have shown-instead of recognizing
free, self-forgetting love, begotten of faith, as the supreme end,
it was contented to stop at that stage, at which the subject of
faith is occupied with himself and his own salvation, to refer all
to this end, and to use everything as a means for attaining it.
Thus it lost the old natural ties of attachment to external nation-
ality and Church-fellowship-which were also loosened both by
persecution and its own antagonism to the world-without being
able to replace them by the new and higher bond of the fellow-
ship of Christian love.
With an ampler and more developed knowledge of the world,
and specially with a juster perception of the relation between
the first and the second creation, it might have been possible to
the energy of its ethic instinct to occupy a more satisfactory
position with regard to the Church, the State, science, art, and
social life. But partly by being thrown back upon itself, and
partly from its habit of regarding all truly Christian life as con-
fined within the limits of its own efforts, it took up with a
narrowness which was incapable of appreciating these different
departments, whether independently or in their relation to
Christianity, and which secretly disposed the mind to a new
kind of monachism in its views of this life. To dwell only upon
science, the Pietism of Halle was by no means able to appreciate
its value. For its misconception of the great moral duty of the
་
Defects of Pietism.
22.I
human race led it to tolerate only that kind of knowledge which
is directly serviceable to religion, and thus instead of acknow-
ledging the objective independence and holiness of truth, to
regard it under the partial point of view which would make it
consist only in that which edifies, in other words, in that which
conduces to piety. And not only so, but in the controversy con-
cerning the theologia irregenitorum, in which it rightly opposes
the language of the religious conscience to a scholasticism which
has degenerated into frivolity, it ceases to have right exclusively
on its side the moment it expresses itself in a scientific manner.
And this not merely because its demand that the true theologian
should be also a regenerate man, seems to lay down a principle
for the guidance of the Church, and for the selection of in-
dividuals, which could not be carried out, without setting up
arbitrary criteria of regeneration, nor without great danger of
encouraging hypocrisy and fanaticism; but also because, when it
opposes to the proposition of the orthodox, that "real illumina-
tion may take place even before regeneration, through contact
with the means of grace, nay, that it must do so, because it is
only from such illumination that regeneration can ensue," the
counter proposition, that "regeneration must precede all true
knowledge," this also is partial and onesided, and depreciates the
element of a knowledge of objective truth in sound piety. A
regeneration which is not preceded by true knowledge of the law
of God, moral self-knowledge, nay, even by a longing for, or
anticipation of salvation, might, if it must of necessity precede
all these, happen to man in a blind and magical manner. In
this matter neither of the contending parties can be said to be
quite in the right, because the truth is, that the vital process in
question advances normally in a circle, that which was at first
but imperfect knowledge being raised by means of a believing
appropriation of grace by the heart and will, to the rank of
Christian illumination. So likewise was it one of the grossest
perversions of the so-called orthodox, to make the efficacy of
the word of God dependent upon the office of the minister and
upon official grace. For thus the enjoyment of salvation was-in
opposition to the material principle of the Reformation-made
to depend upon other conditions than upon the word and faith.
But when Pietism suffered itself to be so carried away as to de-
clare, that because none but a regenerate man could be a true
222
Unjust Reproaches.
theologian, therefore no preaching but such as proceeded from the
regenerate could be efficacious for salvation, this was no less
than the before-named thesis of the orthodox party, an encroach-
ment upon the independence of the word, and upon the power
inherent in Christian truth as such. On the other hand, when
Pietism was constantly reproached with despising the word of
God and the sacraments, it was falsely accused. For though
it does insist upon direct communion with God through the
Holy Spirit, this is not a communion to be brought about
without means, but by means of the word. Of the Lord's
Supper, Spener even says that it is the chief means by which
we are to be made partakers of the Divine nature-a saying
which the Wittenberg divines found so little accordant with the
genuine Lutheran spirit that they replied: the Lord's Supper is
indeed a precious treasure, but by no means to be placed before
the word or baptism. It was only to infant baptism that the
Pietists could not concede the high importance attached to it by
the orthodox, who did not hesitate at the opus operatum. The
prominence given to the subjective side in the work of salvation,
and the stress laid upon the consciousness of being in a state of
of grace, may also have not infrequently obscured the perception.
on the part of Pietism, of the importance of a development of
Christian self-consciousness, upon the basis of preventing grace
bestowed upon the individual, and testified by baptism.
It is obvious that Pietism, with its peculiarities, could not
adequately meet the Church's need of a regeneration, both of its
theology and its practical religion. It could as little perhaps be
substituted for the whole Church, as monasticism could for the
Church of Rome. It is true that the opponents of Pietism were
even more defective advocates of the Church's true interest than
itself; for that which was true in Pietism, and which was at the
same time the great need of the age, was no less presupposed
by true churchmanship, than the means of grace are by the
Church. But this only shows how urgently both the contending
parties needed to be blended in a higher standpoint embracing
both.
The Pietism of Northern Germany, though numbering many
scholars among its adherents, was notably deficient in the cultiva-
tion of theological studies of the severer kind. The utmost
1 Schmid, p. 245.
Relation of Pietism to Science.
223
energy was devoted to the guidance and instruction of students
in a course of pious self-cultivation. But it was not as distinctly
perceived that study, serious, solid, scientific labour, undergone
from a hearty love of truth, is an article of the morality of
students. From philosophy, especially, Pietism expected little
or no profit; and yet Leibnitz, the creator of the first system,
which in Germany was independent of Aristotle, was a con-
temporary of Spener. Chr. Wolff was the first to carry out con-
sistently the system of Leibnitz, and Joach. Lange felt himself
obliged to invoke against him the secular power, by which he
was expelled from Halle. For the rest, a criticism of Luther's
translation of the Bible was begun by H. A. Francke, in his Ob-
servationes biblica, 1695, in opposition to the advice of Spener.
He was, however, hindered from continuing it in the most absurd
and disgraceful manner by J. F. Mayer, when the above de-
cribed attacks took place.² Lange and others subsequently
published an extensive commentary on the Bible, in four large
volumes, under the title of Licht und Recht, &c. 1729, but the
unceasing pursuit of edification is not conducive to clearness and
accuracy of interpretation. In like manner, his work on Church
history, from 1689 to 1719, is rather an historical Oratio pro
domo than an investigation of external events. Of far more im-
¹ Though Lange protested against its being said that he despised philosophy.
2 He afterwards published his Prælectiones hermeneutica, 1723, in which he
takes exception against interpreting the received canon according to the analogy of
faith, i.c. according to Church doctrine. He distinguishes between a literal and
a spiritual meaning, the latter being accessible only to the regenerate, the former
to be attained by study. More important is J. J. Rambach's Commentatio de
idoneo s. literarum interprete, 1720, and his Institutiones hermeneuticæ s. 1723,
with his explanations thereof, in two parts, 1738. He-as also J. Lange in his
Hermeneutica s. 1733 — requires, in an expositor of Scripture, besides philo-
logical learning, a certain spiritual tact, and lays great stress upon the need of
paying attention to the emphases laid upon words and connections of words in
holy Scripture. God being their author, as much fulness of meaning as the
words allow must be attributed to them. He insists that the Analogia fidei
should be embraced as the rule of interpretation, yet more as Analogia scrip-
turæ s. than as the faith of the Church. His work was followed by that of C. J.
Baumgarten, Unterricht von Auslegung heiliger Schrift, 1742. Hoffmann, as
well as Rambach and Lange, accepted a manifold sense of Scripture, regarding
the mystical sense as allegorical, parabolical or typical; he nevertheless attempted
to unite with this the unity of the meaning of Scripture, by conceiving this one
meaning as compound. Comp. Hoffmann's Instit. theol. cxegetica, 1754. The
Wittenberg divines, Löscher and others, could not forgive these hermeneutical
aberrations.
224 Relation to Science, Exegesis, and History.
1
portance in this respect is Gottfr. Arnold, who, however, with all
his heartfelt piety, carried his antagonism to the Church so far
as to seek for the true succession and tradition of the Church, i.e.
of practical Christianity, among heretical sects. To this circum-
stance, however, we owe it, that he has inculcated a more than
ordinary appreciation of them, and directed attention to those
inward relations existing between the Church and the heretics
which make their mutual history an inseparable whole. Finally,
the doctrinal works which Pietism did not fail to produce
contributed nothing to theological science. They form a tran-
sition from the scholastic form of treatment to one less heavily
accoutred, but there is no farther carrying out of the special
problems of theology: on the contrary, the feeling for these is
rather blunted, and their meaning left more undefined. The
appeal to the experiences resulting from the illumination of the
Holy Spirit, so usual in Pietistic, and still more so in its kindred
2
1 Unpartheischer Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie bis 1688, Frankfort, 1699, four
vols., and some time previously Abbildung der ersten Christen. His purpose is
not purely historical, since he endeavours, at least in an indirect manner, to con-
duce to edification, especially by giving love the precedence over correctness of
doctrine." He gave a shock, from an historical point of view, to confidence not
only in the Church but in the Protestant Church, and directed it towards the
suppressed sects, especially the mystics. He was opposed by Ernst Sal. Cyprian
and others. The former was the author of Allgemeine Anmerkungen über G.
Arnolds Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, 1700. According to Arnold, the advocates
of "correct doctrine," whether the Protestant ministry verbi divini or the Papacy,
are exactly they who have manifested least holiness of conversation and least love.
Hence, anti-Christianity is not found by him, as by the Magdeburg centuriators,
in the Papacy only, but in the clergy, the hierarchy in general. What it praises
is sure to be bad; what it blames has the presumption of goodness in its favour.
A profound disgust with all ecclesiastical organization and its central point, viz.
"correctness of doctrine," prevails in all his writings. The latter he regards as a
work of reason, an opus operatum-in short, as only a new form of Romish hypo-
crisy. Since he upset all former modes of viewing the matter, and that in a
manner at once violent and monotonous, his opposition could not fail to bring
forward the question-What then is the true history? In Weismann's Introd.
memorabil. cccl. hist. s. N. T., 1718-1745, the Church is treated with more mode-
ration than by Arnold, and the heretics more mildly than by the orthodox.
2 Spener, Evang. Glaubenslehre, being a course of sermons preached during the
year 1687, ed. 1717; Breithaupt, Institutionum theolog. lib. ii. 1693; Theses
credendorum atque agendorum fundamentales, Hal. 1701; G. Anton, Collegium
antitheticum; Freylinghausen, Grundlegung der Theologic, &c. 1704; Compendium
oder kurzer Begriff der Theologic, 1723; J. Lange, Economia salutis, &c. 1730,
and his more controversial work, Antibarbarus orthodoxia dogmat. hermeneut.
1709-11. Spangenberg's Idea fidei fratrum, 1782, may also be reckoned among
those doctrinal works in which practical edification is the leading object.
t
V
Inward Decline of Pietism.
225
mystic circles, doubly required the counterpoise of a strictly
scientific method, both for the sake of avoiding that subjectivistic
aspect so natural to Pietism, and of submitting these experiences
to an objective and universally perceptible criterion. But this
appeal to the Holy Ghost and His agency was used rather as a
substitute than a motive for scientific labour and accurate notions.
The Pietism of Halle had, however, a more fruitful influence in
the department of Christian morality and practical theology.¹
After the death of J. A. Francke, Pietism, whose central
station was at Halle, gradually degenerated in North Germany.
In proportion as its vigour declined, and its energetic efforts
ceased, did it seek to retain the spirit of its better days by means
of a stereotyped pious terminology, by external discipline, and
by the unchildlike system under which Christian piety was to be
trained and accustomed to a precocious self-introspection.2 All
1 Breithaupt, Theol. mor., Hal. 1734. Joach. Lange, Economia salutis eaque
moralis, &c., 1734. The very title of this work as the moral economy of sal-
vation was an offence to Löscher, Chladenius, G. Bernsdorf and Woken, who
regarded it as an obscuration of justification by sanctification. The influence of
Spener is also felt in the Moral Theology of Jäger, Tüb. 1714, of Kortholt, Copen-
hagen, 1717, and of J. J. Rambach, 1739, nay, even in Buddæus' Inst. theol. mor.
1711, the model of Rambach, in J. G. Walch, and others. In the department of
practical theology are Weismann's Rhetorica sacra, 1689, and Breithaupt's Insti-
tutio hermeneutico-homiletica, &c., 1685; J. L. Hartmann's Pastorale Evangeli-
cum, Norinb. 1678; Chr. Kortholt, Pastor fidelis, &c., 1696; G. Arnold, geistliche
Gestalt eines evangelischen Lehrers nach dem Sinn und Exempel der Alten, two
pts., 1704-1723; and, finally, Spener's simple explanation of Christian doctrine,
after the order of Luther's smaller catechism, 1677, and his tabule catechetica:
also, the catechism of Gesenius.
2 Pietism rightly insisted on regeneration and assurance of salvation, and took
a strieter view of the former than was taken by the orthodox, who saw therein
only a Divine impartation of power, and regarded it as fully effected in infant
baptism (see above, p. 156). But the Pietists transferred it to the time of con-
sciousness, in such wise as to lose sight both of the objective basis of preventing
Christian grace, upon which alone the new life can safely rest and happily grow,
and of the feeling for the direct and the natural. By giving again a higher im-
portance to striving after assurance, they fell more and more into habits of morbid
self-introspection, into a life of spiritual reflection instead of a life of simple
childlike courageous faith. The constant self-questioning as to the possession of
true faith, regeneration, and adoption, which had at this period gained ground in
the Reformed Church also, gave rise to secret uncertainty, to a search after
uncertain, nay, self-invented criteria of adoption, which was very likely to lead
into departures from evangelical truth. The Pietists of Wurtemberg were the
first to perceive this, and to return to a sound and Protestant mind in this respect.
Comp. Burk, die Lehre von der Rechtfertigung, in which he reminds that it is not
consciousness which effects sonship, but that the filial believing heart will in due
time arrive at the consciousness of sonship.
II.
P
226
Fresh Branches. Bengel. Zinzendorf.
this did but beget, however, much that was unnatural and
inwardly untrue; and Pietism now fell into a spirit of legality,
which soon showed its infectious power, and had, after the manner
of law, a very disintegrating effect upon popular life, by that
spiritual pride and unloving temper, that judgment of, and
separation from, others, which it is ever wont to introduce, but
which was utterly powerless to generate individual freedom
through communion with God. On the contrary, not a few of
the leaders of the rationalistic movement proceeded from this
school of Pietism.
But while the Pietism of Halle was thus becoming, though in
a different manner, as debilitated and ossified as the old orthodoxy,
the movement which originated chiefly in Spener had thrown out
two fresh and vigorous shoots independently of Halle. These,
though not equally extensive with the Pietism of Halle, were to
have a far more intensive and enduring influence. This they
attained by a characteristic feature in which they notably differed
from the latter, viz. by their rejection of the real defects of the
older Pietism, and their appropriation of those genuine Church
elements which it had neglected to adopt. We allude to Zinzen-
dorf and the Moravian Brotherhood, and to John Albert Bengel
and his school. These resemble each other in their acquaintance
with Christian liberty, and the loveableness of Gospel truth,¹ and
in the profound impression they possess of its creative originality.
Again, they differ from each other by the fact that, while Zinzen-
dorf's ample, warm-hearted, and intellectual individuality quickly
gathered around him a closely-compacted circle of followers, who
1 Compare c.g. with regard to Bengel, Oscar Wächter, Joh. Alb. Bengel,
Lebensabriss, Character, Briefe und Aussprüche, 1865, p. 361, where Bengel is
speaking of those who have indeed a sort of seriousness, strictness and firmness of
character, but in whom the true profundity, the sweetness, gentleness, and gracious-
ness of the Divine word and mysteries have no place (p. 391, &c.). In his view,
the question is that a man should at once (actu directo) believe, and not be always
lingering at reflections about his faith. To insist upon a fides reflexa (a conscious
faith) might lead astray and perplex many who are in the right way, just as a
child who is beginning to walk is made to fall by some one startling it and calling
out to it not to fall. On the other hand, however, we must try to bring those
who are likeminded with the Corinthians to an actus reflexi. Bengel is, moreover,
full of life, cheerfulness, and plasticity in thought and words, and far removed
from the formalism of a system of conversion (p. 418). He says also, speaking
of things indifferent: I am not fond of them; but the cord has been too tightly
drawn. A natural cheerfulness is, comparatively speaking, far rather to be
tolerated than an equally natural, but far more troublesome, sadness.
Bengel.
227
were soon formed into a Protestant community, Bengel and his
school, guided by a broader Church feeling, and touched by the
Church's troubles, loyally remained within her pale, while for
genuine and vigorous science they struck out new paths, free from
the stiffness of scholasticism, and sought, and, in part found, for
it a new foundation. This, with all its profundity, did not forfeit
connection with the flock at large, but was of a thoroughly popular
character, and produced beneficial results in the Christian Church.
We cannot but regard Bengel and his school, which far outlasted
the eighteenth century, and acted throughout it as a preserving
salt, as the precursors, nay, the beginners, of a renovated theology.
2. John Albert Bengel and his School.
1
At the period when Pietism, both at Halle and elsewhere, had
degenerated or decayed, there arose in Joh. Alb. Bengel, born
1687, at Winnenden near Stutgardt, † November 1752, a theo-
logian of the first rank for the Evangelical Church in general,
and that of Wurtemberg in particular. This Church had, during
the former half of the seventeenth century, drunk to the very
dregs the cup of Lutheran orthodoxy, and was therefore only the
more desirous for wholesome and more generous diet than was
furnished by a J. V. Andrea, a Hedinger, and many more like
them. Bengel's thoroughly sound and manly piety was equally
removed from the gloomy seriousness of later Pietism and from
the softness and sentimentality of Zinzendorf. The leading
feature of his character was a combination of reverence for the
sacred majesty of God, ever most conscientiously maintained as
in His presence, and therefore unshaken by the fear of men, and
indifferent to either their praise or blame, and of a childlike trust
in Him which delivered from a slavish fear and from human limi-
tations, and enabled him to use like a son the treasures of the
great house of God, as the inheritance with which his Father
had endowed him.
Spener had gained both friends and followers in Wurtemberg
before the time of Bengel. Many of these-especially Reuchlin,
1 Burk, Bengels Leben und Werken, 1831. Wächter, see last note. Hart-
mann, in Herzog's Real Encycl., art. Bengel. On his theological importance, see
Herm. v. de Goltz, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1861, pp. 460-506.
Gass's
above-cited work, iii. 241. Tholuck, Geschichte des Rationalismus, div. i. pp.
41-47.
228
Friendly Relation to Science.
Weismann, Hochstetter and Jäger-were of the higher class, and
the intercourse with Halle was, for a considerable period, of the
most active kind. Bengel too visited this seat of wisdom and piety
in 1713, and was deeply impressed by all he saw there. But the
intellectual independence and peculiarity of the Swabian race,
willingly as it imbibed all kindred elements of culture, prevailed,
and, supported by that thorough and learned training which had
from of old been domiciled in Swabia, became more and more
decidedly self-conscious.
To Bengel especially the cause of practical religion was as dear
as to Spener. In both, too, were found that tenderness of con-
science, dreading the least defilement, which ever distinguishes one
set apart and endowed for special and honourable purposes. In
Bengel, moreover, not only was the intellectual factor also active,
not only did he desire to nourish a growing piety by a knowledge
of the connection between God's words and His acts-a piety not
yet perfected either through the grace of baptism or the con-
sciousness of sonship; but, compared with the school-and
especially the later school-of Halle, he possessed, together with
wider views, a larger heart, a warmer interest, not merely in the
salvation of the individual soul, but in the whole "great house-
hold of God," and in the divine education of the human race,
both in the past and in the future. In this respect he coincides
in Spener's kindred "hope of better times," a hope which was
to him the fertile germ of a complete and well carried out view
of the universe. In this view, the endeavour to regard all the
ramifications of past history as a work of God, referring in its
inmost meaning to the kingdom of God, and carried out in closest
connection with holy Scripture, is apparent.
1
He was a faithful son of the Church, but it was just because
he had fed abundantly upon the marrow of Reformation truths,
that his attitude with respect to the symbolical books, and still
more to systematic divinity, was an unfettered one.2 Filial
1 See Wächter. He was, on the maternal side, a descendent of Joh. Brenz, of
Wurtemberg, the reformer.
t t
2 With respect to the obligation of accepting the symbolical books, he says: We
must not insist upon binding the ministers of the Church to all particularibus in
iis contentis, eregesi, &c. Nothing more is necessary than that the main theses
-but not the details, the proofs, the exegesis-be believed, accepted, subscribed
to. It is easy for those who are content to live on like the rest of the world to be
orthodox. They believe what was believed before them, and never trouble them-
His True Churchmanship.
229
attachment and careful consideration, as well as deep inward
conviction, united him to the Church; but her teaching was no
ban or bolt to him against any further knowledge. His theo-
selves with testing it. But when a soul is anxious about truth, and would deal
with it as with a precious jewel, then things are not quite so easy.
How wrong
is it, then, to rush upon just such sensitive souls, to cross-question and to gag and
stun them, when we ought, on the contrary, to give them liberty of speech, that
they may gain confidence and suffer themselves to be led aright." Wächter, id.
p. 369.
He disapproved of a merely external and political union between the
Lutheran and Reformed Churches, because it was a spiritual union that was
needed. Such a union already existed between the regenerate in both confessions,
while a union with the mass of the unregenerate, not being one of a spiritual
kind, would be a union in appearance only. His chief complaint against the Re-
formed Church is its doctrine of predestination, its despotic God;" and he
thinks that Lutheran opposition to the absolutum decretum has had the good effect
of obliging the Reformed to more moderation and restraint. Of Baptism he says:
Children are therein dedicated to Christ, but what takes place within them,
according to their several degrees of recipiency, is inscrutable to us. In the Lord's
Supper he considers that everything depends upon the real presence of Christ's
body and blood. It is ex zelo contra Reformatos that Oralism is carried to the
extent it is in the symbolical books. He does not assert that unbelievers also
receive Christ's body and blood. Sive accipiunt impii corpus et sanguinem Domini,
sive non accipiunt, ipsa præsentia realis eadem est. Res potest declarari ex ratione
verbi divini. Coelestia bona appellant imo pulsant etiam incapaces. Ignis appro-
pinquat aquæ per verissimam præsentiam, quæ inde strepit, nec tamen igni mis-
cetur; quid præsentia supposita accipiant actu et quam diu retincant, quis definiet?
Catechismus Lutheri agit de fructu, qui utique fidem præsupponit, non de ipsa
materia sacramenti, p. 388, &c. Justification and sanctification are like one cord
composed of two threads, each of which is nevertheless distinct from the other.
There is an assurance of pardon, and this is ordinarily in the heart when it first
believes. In its beginning it is a tender thing, and is more readily strengthened
by a direct act than by the actus reflexos of testing its own strength. The actus
reflexi (the consciousness of faith) are not however absent, and the less man contri-
butes to them the purer they are; nevertheless, it is the duty of every one to do
his part in seeking after this assurance, in increasing and preserving it. The
assurance or sealing of grace on the part of man is, however, to be distinguished
from assurance concerning the continuance of the state of grace. Even true faith
is at first weak, nay, it may again cease. But the nearer a growing faith ap-
proaches to its end, the stronger does this assurance of the continuance of the state
of grace, and consequent rejoicing therein, become, pp. 418-420. True conversion
is, in his view, so great a work and so varying in form, that its beginnings are
surrounded by many dangers. Conversionis comes heterodoxic opinio. On this
account it needs forbearance and gentle treatment, p. 370. As regards Christo-
logy, it is characteristic of Bengel and his school to bring forward in its full force
the human side in the person of Christ, to say, c.g. that he walked by faith and
not by sight, that he underwent temptation-arising not indeed from His own
nature, but from without-in such wise that his nature was accessible thereto, and
that He had to maintain His purity by the exercise of His will. He looks upon
it as an exaggerated way of speaking, to say that Jesus was from the first moment
of His conception seated at the right hand of God, p. 388.
230
Criticism of the New Testament.
logy was not so much a system of doctrines as a knowledge of
Scripture. For such knowledge he had, however, an unusual
amount of qualifications. He united to an acute understanding,
sound tact and sober-mindedness, a thorough philological train-
ing. To speculate or to systematize was not his forte, being
rather by nature an historian. The most absolute submission,
nay, plasticity, with respect to his sacred subject, a submission
shown by fidelity even in the slightest particulars, and based upon
an ardent interest in its living realities, created in his mind an
impression of the vital oneness of the subject-matter of holy
Scripture. And not only so, for this quality also drew out and
fertilized that intellectual function which feels that there must
be in the history of the human race, and especially in its central
point, a real, a gradually formed system of divine ideas; and it
was the general connection and progress in this system which he
sought to demonstrate by all the means of human learning at his
command.
His first work-a work as arduous as it was devoid of show,
and at the same time, unappreciated-was an attempt to obtain
a more correct text of the New Testament than the Receptus,
which had attained a dictatorial authority, submitted to as a
matter of tradition, and without investigation. For this purpose
he spared no pains in comparing as great a number of manu-
scripts as he could obtain, and in consulting ancient versions,
quotations by the Fathers, &c. In fact, Bengel is the originator of
the criticism of the New Testament text in Germany, and it is
worthy of remembrance in these days, that not a spirit of nega-
tive scepticism, but a most reverent and conscientious evangelical
faith, was the motive of this science-a science necessarily in-
volving the far more comprehensive questions concerning the
genuineness of whole books of the New Testament. In Bengel
evangelical faith maintained that critical element without which
it cannot continue sound and active. The text, he says, which
is injured by a number of various readings, must be settled, if
we are not to leave apostolic words unused, or to treat the words
of copyists as apostolic.¹ The same zeal which cannot tolerate
that Divine truth should be treated as merely human, refuses to
1 Gnomon N. T. in quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas profunditas concinnitas
salubritas sensuum cœlestium indicatur, Tüb. 1742, præf. § viii. [Translated for
the first time into English, with original notes, explanatory and illustrative, under
the editorship of Rev. A. R. Fausset, M. A., 5 vols. 1866, 6th ed., T. & T. Clark.]
Exposition of the New Testament.
231
attribute divine authority to the merely human. Both principles
need to be applied, not only to individual passages, but to whole
books of the New Testament.¹ Moreover, it is the entire Scrip-
tures that must be studied, especially by theologians, and not
merely those passages which are adduced in proof of doctrines.
>>
His next work was exposition. And here his chief concern
was, accurately to ascertain what are the fundamental and distinc-
tive ideas of Scripture? These he finds to be stated, in almost
identical terms, throughout the various writings of holy Scripture,
as though these formed but one book. At the same time he is
however no advocate of a mechanical theory of inspiration, which
ignores the individuality and independence of the sacred authors.²
He neither seeks to narrow by any dogmatic system the full
meaning of these fundamental notions, such as faith, life, light,
righteousness, glory, eternal life, nor, on the other hand, so to
insist upon the so-called "emphasis of the words of Scripture
as to read the text in every possible meaning. The simple sense
of the words in their natural connection, is that which his acute
but pure perception endeavours to apprehend. He is persuaded
that he shall lose nothing by such a proceeding, for he regards
holy Scripture not as a mere "book of maxims" for purposes of
doctrine or edification, but as a wisely arranged living whole, in
which there is nothing superfluous and nothing deficient, but
all is perfectly harmonious. Scripture should, in his view, be
regarded "as an incomparable narrative of the Divine manage-
ment of the human race, throughout all ages of the world, from
the beginning to the end of all things," as a beautiful, a glorious
and a connected system. He has moreover no notion of setting
up the scriptural description of this management of the kingdom
of God—which embraces in its wise arrangements and organiza-
tion not only heaven and earth, but the æons-as a system of
Christian doctrine: (a method subsequently embraced by Coc-
cejus and others, not without incurring the danger of either
4
1 He edited a new edition of the text of the New Testament, with an apparatus
criticus, in 1734.
2 He finds St. Matthew and St. John, e.g., more full of genius [geisterfüllt] than
St. Luke and St. Mark.
3 He carried out his principles and method in the above-named classical and
powerful work, his Gnomon N. T., a book full of solid and useful matter, fre-
quently reprinted.
• V. d. Goltz, p. 472.
232 Significance of Bengel's Chronological Researches.
sacrificing the progressive character of the historical develop-
ment, or of giving, on the other hand, too insecure a position to
the unchanging truth with respect to that changing element from
which it must be clearly distinguished, in other words, of suffer-
ing the doctrinal to be absorbed by the historical, which could not
but lead to a merely historical faith.) He well knows that a know-
ledge of the history alone is not a sufficient basis for Christian
faith, that this deals with things eternal, which he sees gradu-
ally revealed in the history. Hence he leaves to scriptural doc-
trine its rightful position, but insists that, besides their first and
most necessary matter, viz. the knowledge both of God the
Creator, Redeemer, Comforter, and of sin and grace, holy Scrip-
ture furnishes also a second memorial of God in the glimpse
afforded of the divine arrangements in the education, not only of
individual souls, but of the whole human race. It is his belief
that there is a system of divine realities underlying holy Scrip-
ture, and that these realities are revealed by the words and deeds
of God, although he has not seen fit to state them systematically.
In the fundamental notions, however, he has furnished the stones
for such an edifice.
It is however with deeper delight and special efforts that he
turns his attention to the end of the ways of God-the day of
the Lord. For "the object of all the ages in Scripture is the
coming of Jesus Christ in glory." That aim and object of the
world's history, embracing as it does all fulness of perfection,
must determine the significance, as well as the course, of the
whole development. He attributes great importance to the
dates of Scripture, in attempting to understand this organism of
divine ideas impressed upon history. They compose the skeleton
upon which the whole form of the history depends, which cannot
be understood without an acquaintance with its bones and arti-
culation. If, he says, the various dates scattered throughout
the Bible are combined according to the hints furnished in Scrip-
ture, we shall have a chronology consistent throughout, composed
of well-proportioned parts, and necessarily in conformity with
divine wisdom. The external proportions of the appointed
periods point to the internal fact that they are the several
members of one whole, and the beauty and order in which the
1 V. d. Goltz, p. 473, &c., 479.
2 Weltalter, 1746, cap. i. ii. Einl. zur crklärten Offenbarung, § 34, 1740.
Bengel's School.
1
233
progressive stages of development succeed one another, from
Genesis to Revelation, are in his opinion of high apologetic
value with respect to holy Scripture and the Christian religion,
and manifest the existence of a real and self-commending system.
If full light cannot be thrown upon what has already transpired
until the manifestation of the ultimate result of the whole divine
economy, yet, on the other hand, the long but certain course
hitherto maintained, becomes, in its turn, a pledge of the accom-
plishment of that which is as yet matter of prophecy. On these
grounds, Bengel entered into new and learned chronological
researches, and gave, in his apocalyptic expositions, an indepen-
dent system of chronology. His computations concerning the
termination of the present dispensation-which, however, he
distinguishes from the incalculable epoch of the last judgment,
because the indefinite period of the so-called thousand years'
reign must be interposed-have indeed been proved by the result
to be erroneous,—a fact whose possibility he would himself have
admitted. But his lasting and beneficial influence upon theology
and the Church has not been thereby extinguished, while his pre-
diction concerning himself, that he should be for a while forgotten,
and then again brought into notice, has been fulfilled. His works
were the first cock-crowing of that new kind of exegesis which
the Evangelical Church so greatly needed.
2
His efforts met with little favour and much misconception
from professional theologians at the universities, and from the
clerical order in general. But a circle of genuinely pious souls
gathered round him in private, who became, in independent and
various ways, the disseminators of his views, and the cultivators
of those germs of thought which they involved. The school of
¹ Ordo temporum a principio per periodos œconomiæ divinæ historicas atque pro-
pheticas ad finem usque ita deductus, ut tota series—ex V. et N. Testamento propo-
natur, 1741. Erklär. Offenbar. Joh. 1740. Sechzig erbauliche Reden über die
Offenbarung Johannis, 1747. Cyclus sive de anno magno solis, lunæ, stellarum
consideratio, 1747. The details of his computations will be found concisely stated
in Hartmann's article in Herzog's Realencyclopädie, ii. 60-61, where also are col-
lected remarkable examples of his powers of historical prediction.
2 He was from 1713 tutor in the monastery at Denkendorf; in 1741 he was
called to take a part in the government of the Church as Prelate of Herbrech-
tingen, where he contributed towards carrying out (1743) the wise and salutary
laws of Bilfinger concerning the relation between the Church and Pietism, whereby
this current, without renouncing its independence, was brought back with ferti-
lizing effects into the Church of Wurtemberg.
234 The Speculative Branch of Bengel's School.
Bengel, however, branched off into two divisions, both inwardly
united by their love of holy Scripture and of the people. The
one was more distinguished by the historical spirit, the other by
the spirit of Christian speculation. The former, which was the
more influential and the more powerfully represented, was occu-
pied partly in continuing his exegetical labours and publishing
numerous practical works, among which were those of the sub-
sequent preachers of Tübingen, Jer. Fr. Reuss and Magn. Fr.
Roos; and partly in the cultivation of ecclesiastical history,
which had already been undertaken in the spirit of Spener by
Weismann, while Reuss and Burk devoted themselves to syste-
matic divinity.3
2
The other was of a more speculative character, though in a
theosophic form. To this belong Christoph. Fred. Oetinger,
Louis Fricker, Phil. Matth. Hahn, and Mich. Hahn. In them
the school of Bengel is connected with J. Böhme, while they also
form a transition to the more modern school of philosophy since
Schelling. Their investigations and arguments embrace not only
the history of redemption, and the whole subject of religion,
which they regard as the history of the kingdom of God, cul-
minating in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, but also matter and
spirit, the relation of God to the world, of the soul to the body.
Oetinger, the chief of this group, opposes the Wolffian philosophy
as an obsolete vapid idealism, in which God-under the pretence
of exalting the supreme-is dwindled into a lifeless unit, upon
¹ Magn. Fr. Roos, Fundamenta Psychologiæ ex s. scr. collecta, 1769.
2 Weismann († 1747), Introductio in memorabilia hist. eccl., Tüb. 1718.
Roos, author of a History of the Christian Church, 2 vols.
M. Fr.
3 Jer. Fr. Reuss furnished valuable contributions to ethical science: Elementa
theol. mor., Tüb. 1767. Carefully falling back upon evangelical faith, he seeks to
prove the independence and superiority of Christian, to philosophic or natural mo-
rality. To Steinhöfer and Conr. Rieger we are indebted for an ascetic application
of Holy Scripture. Among other authors belonging to this movement may be men-
tioned Flattich, Storr the elder, and Hartmann. Chr. Aug. Crusius of Leipsic, the
opponent of the Wolffian philosophy, was a writer of a kindred spirit with Bengel
and Reuss, though a man of independent thought and of a more philosophical turn
of mind. His doctrine of Conscience is excellent. He embraces the indissoluble
connection of religion and morality,-a matter in which his freer and broader view
of revelation comes to his assistance. Comp. C. A. Crusius, Kurzer Begriff der
Moraltheologie, &c., Leipsic, 1772-1773, 2 pts. He is followed by Gellert, Beh-
kopf, Reichard, S. F. N. Morus. See Stäudlin's above-named work, ii. 643.
Crusius well deserves the monument raised to him by Delitzsch for his biblical and
theological achievements, 1845.
Oetinger and others. Oetinger's Realism. 235
1
which the name indeed of the Ens actuossissimum is bestowed,
but which is so fettered by eternal necessity as to have almost
become personified Fate, or the law of chance-a view from which
no living relation of "the eternal truths" to history can arise, no
intrinsic self-enlarging value be imputed to the course of events.
Wolff's doctrine of the best possible world bribes theodicy,
as Leibnitz does, with the view that evil-arising from that
necessarily finite character of the world and especially of man
which belongs to their nature and distinguishes them from God
-is consequently necessary;-a notion which does vital injury
to moral teleology, and prepares the way for taking the world
as it is and making the best of it, since perfection, though
called indeed the ethic principle, is yet declared by the said
propositions to be unattainable. To this idealism, whose ob-
verse side is a mechanical unideal mode of thought, and a
coarse Philisterism, which in eudæmonistic fashion is toler-
ably content with the present state of things, Oetinger is as
much opposed as fire is to water. In his controversial writings
he goes as far back as the very first principle, the idea of
God, which had so long remained untouched and unreconciled
with evangelical faith, and which, transmitted in its pre-Reforma-
tion form, had already been found very inconsistent with holy
Scripture by Bengel. His view of Heaven, as a world of realities,
could not suffer him to conceive of God as merely an infinite,
unfathomable Being, all will and reason. It obliged him to
regard Him as the living centre who, while He governs the
universe, is at the same time enthroned in a glory and happiness
to which He is, through Christ, raising the human race. Hence
he could not accommodate himself to the thought that the relation
of God to the world was that of a dead law, nor confine His
intercourse with man to the judicial functions of commanding,
acquitting, and condemning. On the contrary, he insisted on
doing justice to the physical and moral, as well as judicial re-
lations of God to the world-a procedure which could not but
exercise a reactionary influence upon the received doctrine of the
atonement.2
These notions were fully taken up, and independently worked
1 Compare Christ. Hoffmann, Fortschritt und Ruckschritt in den letzten zwei
Jahrhunderten oder Geschichte des Abfalls, 1865, ii. 150.
2 Von der Goltz, p. 479.
236
God's Relation to Nature.
out by Oetinger.¹ God is not in his view mere absolute simplicity,
but the unity, absolutely brought about, of the Divine powers.
By locating in God vital potencies whose union is indissoluble in
Him, though they are capable of separate action, he hopes he has
discovered a principle of movement in opposition to the rigid
notion of God which is the characteristic of Spinoza, of Wolff's
philosophy, and of Deism. On the other hand, he finds, however,
the Church doctrine too spiritualistic, opposed to nature and
corporeity and to "biblical realism." The glory (sóga) which
holy Scripture attributes to God is not a merely spiritual
sublimity, but the intrinsic vitality of God become objective, in
other words it is the nature, the incorporate beams of His
majesty. God is not to him and his followers merely spirit, but
substantial life, which is what they mean to express by the
term, corporeity of God. It is this which forms the immediate
principle of the world's origin, while the infinite powers in God,
which in nature are found only in a separate state, are recom-
bined into unity in man, as the microcosmos and microtheos,
though at first this unity is one capable of dissolution. History,
the kingdom of freedom, whose end is the happy union of nature
and spirit, begins with man. In this union nature is to be
exalted to spiritual corporeity, and spirit to attain to substantial
power and organization. These notions, which have recently been
further developed by Schelling and Rothe, and applied by the
latter to ethics also, were indeed too directly attributed to holy
Scripture by Oetinger. "Biblical realism," weary of the evapora-
tion of the radical ideas of Scripture, rejected all biblical forms of
expression, for the sake of having only "massive notions" in
holy Scripture. Hence, even prophecy, e.g. Ezekiel's temple,
was interpreted according to this principle, and consequently all
that had not as yet received its "massive literal fulfilment” is
still to be expected. By such notions the school of Bengel, true
and profound as was its fundamental thought, that corporeity is
the end of the ways of God, frequently fell into a literalism, nay,
even into a Judaism, which expected that animal sacrifices and
a priesthood would again prevail during the thousand years'
reign, and that the Jewish people would, after conversion, have
supremacy over all other nations. Thus the danger was in-
1 Auberlen, die Theosophic F. Ch. Oetingers, with a preface by Rothe, 1847. We
are indebted also to Hamberger and Ehmann for memoirs of Oetinger.
Oetinger on the Philosophy of Nature.
237
creased of making Christianity the mere vestibule of a perfected
Judaism, and of causing that which had begun in the spirit to
be made perfect in the flesh-nay, of being beguiled by eschato-
logical bypaths into a most suspicious proximity to the funda-
mental ideas of Romanism.
All this must however be regarded as but the mere husk in
which this fresh young shoot in the field of theology was as yet
enveloped. Though still imperfect in method, it was worthy of
all praise for its surrender of that prudery which had been main-
tained with respect to the "wisdom in the streets" (philosophy),
for insisting on a reconciliation with faith, for proclaiming by
many valuable thoughts a deeper and more solid philosophy,
and especially for already expressing many important proposi-
tions of that theory of knowledge which was so soon to occupy
the attention of German philosophy. We must yet pause awhile
on this subject.
Oetinger tries to discover a speculative theology or philosophy
of religion which may embrace both nature and sacred history.
In his powerful mind a simple childlike faith was united to
an insatiable thirst after knowledge, extensive scholarship, and
a clear and philosophically trained intellect.¹ The new science,
which he predicted, and sought to inaugurate, was to be no
less opposed to the spiritualism of orthodoxy, which degraded
the realities of Christianity into empty abstractions, than to the
idealism of the Wolffian philosophy. Like the theosophists of
the first centuries of the Evangelical Church (see above, p. 179),
Oetinger feels a powerful attraction towards nature. Behind the
coarse materialism of nature in her present state, he has a pre-
sentient feeling of a higher reality, whose manifestation is to be
brought about by the eschatological proceedings. He finds at-
tempts to explain nature in a mathematical or mechanical manner
specious but unfruitful. Mechanical science does not under-
stand its secrets, nor can they be detected by the microscope.
When we have gone as far and as deep as we can, we
shall still be obliged to pause and to say that God is past
finding out.2 The truth is that nature is seeking, and has
not found herself. For nature is not a self-complete existence,
but a development which has God for its end. This development
he was desirous of tracing, and for this purpose he occupied
1 Rothe, id., p. iv.
2 Comp. Auberlen's above-cited work, p. 55.
238
Oetinger on the Philosophy of Mind.
1
himself much with chemistry, in order to investigate by experi-
ments which border on alchemy, the births of things, and the
natural life thence originating. Life is to his mind the thing
most desirable to be known, it is that which makes itself most
evident to the general feeling, the sensus communis, while no-
thing is more concealed from the abstract reason. There is in
the very smallest living thing an infinity which involves as
great a wisdom as do the largest bodies in the universe. And
when things are thus regarded the omnipresence of God shines
forth in all life. The true organ wherewith to contemplate
nature is, in apposition to philosophic abstraction, the calm
sensibility of a well-disposed and devout soul, in which a
certain rapport with the secrets of nature, such as was enjoyed
by her simple and early children is restored. This is the
metaphysical empiricism" of Schelling, which is as applicable
in the province of history as in that of nature; it is ana-
logous to the distinction made by Hamann between the hearing
of sounds and a musical ear, and between the seeing of colours
and the eye of the painter. We must however strive to approach
nature by the reason also. He views the idea of life, as an
interpretation of two opposing forces which are united in a third.
All multiplicity runs at last into a dualism, and through this
into a unity. Holy Scripture and the ancients furnish-he
thinks-puncta normativa and ideas directrices for a correct view
of life.
CC
He also strives to attain to a philosophy of mind by the
union of two factors, viz. holy Scripture and the general feeling
for truth (sensus communis). Ascertained truth, philosophia
sacra, is, he says, the result of these two sources, which he is
always bringing forward in his principal work, Theologia ex
idea vitæ deducta. Even in physical life there is a secret attrac-
tion to the spiritual, a sensus tacitus æternitatis, arising from a
certain irradiation of the life of God, which, uniting itself with
the life of the inferior creatures, excites in man general presenti-
ments the sense of right and wrong-and a tact in hitting
upon what is most necessary, most profitable or most simple.
This he calls that spiritual feeling for the harmony of truth which
1 Compare his work on the truth of the Sensus communis or of general feeling,
in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes explained according to the original. Inquisitio in
sensum communem in Auberlen, p. 66.
Oetinger's Philosophy of Mind and History. 239
is a universal gift from above, and says that where this uni-
versal feeling for life and truth is suppressed it can never be
restored.¹
Orthodoxy reproaches him with teaching that does not har-
monize with the Church doctrine of original sin, helping to
introduce a merely natural theology, confounding nature with
grace and mingling reason and the Holy Spirit. But he well dis-
tinguishes his sensus communis from Christian truth, regarding
it only as an instrument for the perception (sensorium) of the
wisdom everywhere present in life and truth, in right and light.
Apart from God he recognizes no power of knowing; we must
have God in knowledge. The sensus communis exists that it
may receive the objective manifestation of God; God works in,
and speaks through all things, the Internal pours itself forth in
the External, and the External denotes the Internal. The sensus
communis discovers the manifestation of the omnipresent God in
all that is purely human, in science, in politics, in society. It
perceives, so far as the natural man can, the Divine in the True,
the Beautiful and the Good. This feeling for the Divine was
possessed by Christ in an exceptional degree. Our sensus com-
munis, of which conscience also forms a part, attracts us to Him,
and is also the point of contact for the agency of the Holy Ghost
The sensus communis is His laboratory, and the truths.
of holy Scripture coincide with the secret convictions of our
conscience. It is by means of holy Scripture that the sensus
communis first becomes stable. It would soon err and doubt
itself, unless Divine power which transfigures the psychical into
the spiritual life, and holy Scripture with that sacred his-
tory of which it testifies, were added. Holy Scripture must
however be interpreted according to common sense, as being the
general sense for truth, and not according to philosophy of any
kind. Most strictly and faithfully does he adhere to holy Scrip-
ture and its fundamental notions, as an amphitheatre of the
highest and lowest things. Its fundamental notions are the
standard by which the whole realms of nature and of mind are
to be estimated, while their combination is that fundamental
wisdom which is moreover in harmony with the scnsus com-
munis, and which becomes a philosophia sacra. It was his
endeavour, in contradistinction to Bengel, to discover the main
1 Auberlen, p. 70.
in man.
240
Immanuel Swedenborg.
His
features of that great system of Divine verities, which underlies
the individual utterances of holy Scripture. This seemed to
him indispensable in the presence of modern philosophy. For
he perceives that since we cannot get on without philosophy,
everything depends upon opposing the genuine fundamental
wisdom to false philosophy. Even with respect to holy Scrip-
ture he esteems a philosophia sacra to be necessary, and as need-
ful to its complete understanding, as the key is to the lock.
sacred philosophy is to include the rationcs universales of all the
three faculties. Like Hamann he gives, for the most part, only
fragmentary propositions, which however often contain brilliant
scintillations of thought. His Theologia ex idea vitæ deducta
is alone more systematically carried out, while in other instances
the unity and connection of his thoughts lie hidden in his own
mind, and have to be discovered by combining his notions. The
antiquated, unpolished and unpopular tone of his style is
strangely contrasted with the language and method of the
illuminism period, which in its better productions not only lays
aside the scholastic garment, but also assumes a more intelli-
gible and, so to speak, a more human form. Sometimes this
must be attributed to the solitude of his thoughtful life, and to
his retirement from literary intercourse, but as often to the
originality and depths of his ideas, which indeed are frequently
expressed in beautiful and plastic language, but not less fre-
quently are so incrusted in their antiquated coverings, that this
extraordinary genius may be compared to a valuable, but quite
unpolished diamond.
Not altogether alien from Oetinger's views is the Gnostic
system of Immanuel Swedenborg.¹ This remarkable man, of
noble character and educated mind, who exhibits a strange mix-
ture of fanaticism and cool reasoning, set up, in opposition to
the orthodox faith, a system whose ultra-supernatural clothing
was designed both to cover and to recommend its heterodox
¹ Imm. Swedenborg, Vera christiana religio, continens universum Theologiam
Novæ Ecclesiæ, Amst. 1771, Opp. vol. viii., ed. princ. Lond. 1749. Summaria
expositio doctrina christiance, 1769. De nova Hierosolyma et ejus doctr. cœlesti,
Lond., 1858. Arcuna cœlestia, 1749. For further information, see Schnecken-
burg's Lectures on the doctrinal notions of the minor protestant sects, ed. Hundes-
hagen, 1863, pp. 221, &c. Haug, on the doctrine of the New Church or the
New Jerusalem, in die Studien der würtemb. Geistlichkeit, 1842, and Hamberger's
article on Swedenborg in Herzog's Realencyclopädie.
Immanuel Swedenborg.
241
matter, and undoubtedly does, in the sincere opinion of its
author, furnish ample security for the truth of its contents,
while it is none the less most strongly contrasted therewith.
We must first give a sketch of the main features of his system.
This is manifestly not derived from holy Scripture, but at most
developed by scriptural reading, just as it might have been
by the reading of any other book, so slight is its connection
with the Bible. It is also evident that even his certainly
characteristic view of Scripture is but a reflex and product of
the system which was rising up within his mind, and that his
own statements concerning the source of his system lay claim to
a special illumination, not derived from holy Scripture alone, and
said to be bestowed upon himself only, as the prophet or paraclete,
for the introduction of the Church of the New Jerusalem (1770,
after the completion of his work de vera religione christiana).
Swedenborg's heavenly, i.c. angelic, revelations are said to contain
the key to that true understanding of Scripture which is to restore
unity and prosperity to the Church. In truth, however, they
claim to constitute a canon of Divine authority concerning the
canon of Scripture, with which they deal in a very arbitrary
manner, both as regards its compass, from which almost all the
hagiographa of the Old Testament, and all the books of the New,
except the Gospels and Apocalypse, are excluded, and as regards
the meaning of such books as they allow to remain.
To the Swedish assessor of mines, who was deeply impressed
both with the unity and intrinsic harmony of the world, in spite
of the sin by which it has been disordered, and with the close
organic concatenation of all its members, the indifference of tra-
ditional theology towards nature was a great offence. Hence he
sought, in opposition to theological spiritualism and philoso-
phical idealism, to secure for nature an integral indispensable
position in the universe, nay, even in the fundamental categories
of being, of ontology, and this it was which for a while attracted
Oetinger. Swedenborg regarded nature as the prop of the uni-
verse, as that which first provides for the mind and for love
their substantial support and their basis. His vigorous and pious
feeling revolted at the intellectualism of orthodoxy, and longed
for a real communion of God with the world, which he endea-
voured to reach in thought by a theory of emanation tinged with
pantheism. In this desire, too, it is that we must seek the reason
11.
Q
242
Swedenborg's System.
of his passionate opposition to the traditional doctrine of the
Trinity. For this had certainly advanced to an unapproachable
transcendentalism, degrading to the economic Trinity, and severed
therefrom, while the Trinity of revelation was merged in a Divine
Trinitarian eternity and unchangeableness, and the bridge of
communication between this and the world left undiscovered.
This is the more probable, since he calls the true doctrine of the
Trinity, which is to teach not a triad of Persons, but a triad of
the Person (of the one Lord), a precious pearl, nay, seeks more-
over to carry it out throughout the universe, and so to fashion it
that God and the world may therein be emanistically comprised
into one. Finally, it cannot be denied that there is in his
opposition to the doctrine of justification-an opposition resting
on a misconception of the evangelical notion of faith-an ethical
feature. He puts love in the place of faith, understanding by the
latter a merely historical assent to truth. His ethics are, indeed,
superficial, by reason of the before-named pantheistic feature.
For, viewing, as he does, the nature of man, to which he elsewhere
attributes freedom, as essentially akin to the Divine, he cannot
but reject the doctrine of original sin, and deem the Christian
doctrine of atonement unnecessary. He accordingly disputes
both, and asserts that human freedom is ever capable of deciding
for the good, by virtue of its intrinsic power, while he assigns to
man so eminent a position in the universe, as the basis and
support of all, that if he should fall, and no restoration ensue, a
general destruction would be the result, even as a throne totters
when its pedestal has become rotten.
He represents the universe of being under the figure of three
concentric circles, in the innermost of which is the Lord, as
love, surrounded by the various orders of that world of exalted
spirits of whose actions love is the spring. In the second circle
the Lord appears as Divine truth; and this circle also is a realm
of spirits, but of those whose characteristic is thought. The
visible sensible world, including our nature, forms the third
circle. These circles at present indeed exist simultaneously
beside each other, but they are not without active mutual ten-
dencies and relations. For the purpose of exhibiting their
mode of existence, a transition is now made from the figure of
the circle to that of the cone, from whose apex, representing the
circle which, though the smallest, concentrates in itself the power
The Trinity and the Universe. Correspondences. 243.
of all, proceeds, as from the first circle, a movement downwards,
which emanatively begets and peoples increasingly widening
circles, first the middle or sphere of the knowing spirit-world, till it
arrives at the last or nature. It is the process of God Himself ad-
vancing from being, through development, to existence or reality.¹
And because it is but one and the same Divine nature which mani-
fests itself in these circles, though doing so according to the
various aspects which are potentially in God, each has a certain
relation and reference to the other: everything in the world is full
of correspondences. When the Divine process of life has arrived at
man, God is in the sphere of reality. There is in man, by reason
of his at once sensuous and spiritual nature, a combination of all
that God has willed, of all that exists in a state of separation
outside him, viz. nature, intelligence, love; for man, according to
the Divine idea of him, is in communion with all these three
spheres. In God Himself exists the triad: the Divine nature of
the Lord, or the Father; the Divine human nature, or the Son;
and the Divine nature which proceeds to operation, to reality, or
the Holy Ghost. Man, the aim of the Divine process of life, is
the completion of the whole; because it is by God becoming man
in a sensuous manner that the Divine nature has its adequate
existence, all the potencies latent in God being now realized in
him. Christ is first of all this true man, in whom dwells the
true Trinity-God as the Divine (the Divinum patris), as
Divine-human (idea hominis), and as sensible reality. The
Sonship potentially latent in God, and which becomes actual in
Christ, has for its contents substantial love, the Divine nature of
the Father; the soul of Jesus is from the same, from Jehovah,
and prepares for itself a heavenly body, which already had its
beginning upon earth. He takes also a material body from the
Virgin, so that He may be entirely in the latter as well as in the
former. But in saying this he makes Christ disproportionate to
his notion. For, while it must be the end of the whole process
that Christ should be in all respects divine, the body taken from
Mary is not capable of transmutation into the Divine. Hence,
either a casting-off of this body or a re-begetting of the same by
the power of the indwelling Divinity is necessary. Now, even
His human nature, His soul and body, are divine. The first and
1 Esse, fieri, effectus. Schneckenburg, like modern Swedenborgians, here
reminds of Hegel.
244
Swedenborg's Doctrine of Holy Scripture.
the last, God and (true) nature, pervade each the other in Him;
in Him is the true Trinity realized; He is Jehovah without a
duality of natures, a unity which is the essential centre of the
universe. Without Christ, faith in God would be like a glance.
into the blue unfathomable ether. Our consciousness of God's
existence obtains a point of support from the fact that God has
given to Himself in Christ the definiteness of concrete reality.
In Him are found power, wisdom, love, ready to be poured forth.
This pouring forth was, according to Swedenborg, brought about
by means of holy Scripture, which he regards as nothing less than
the substitutionary continuation of Christ's incarnation since His
departure from earth.
It is not to the Person of Christ Himself, nor to His redeeming
and atoning work, that Swedenborg attaches special importance.
His opinions were too Pelagian, nay, too rationalistic, to let him
feel its necessity. The Christ of history is only important in his
eyes as a mode in which the word of God was manifested or
revealed. It is this which is, properly speaking, the mediator
that came down from God. The historical Christ, being again
withdrawn from our vision, was so far but a transitory phenomenon;
but the Word purposes to appear in the letter that it may be ever
and entirely manifest. The subject of the word is the Lord
Himself; in the word God Himself comes down to us.
Man was
destined to be the basis or support of heaven; but, having turned
away his heart from God, God sent His word to renew man's
connection with heaven. According to this, not God made man,
but God made word is the means of restoration.¹ Even before
Christ, the word played this mediatorial part, as it still does,
beyond the bounds of Christendom. It had, however, various
forms. Originally it was only oral. Divine truth is originally
verbally spoken by the Lord in presence of the angels: it then
takes its course throughout all the heavens till it arrives at man.
It was the fault of idolatry that the oral word, from which
proceeded all the wisdom of the heathen world, became a written
word. This is contained in the Bible, which is a miracle, a
pendant to the universe; for it contains within itself God in His
Trinity, and has therefore a spiritual and heavenly, besides its
literal, meaning. In the last its sense is natural; in the inner,
1 Comp. Hauber's Swedenborgs Lehre von der heiligen Schrift, Tüb. Zeitschrift,
1810, 4. Haug. id.
Zinzendorf and the Moravian Brotherhood.
245
spiritual; in the inmost, heavenly. It is no creature, but, as in
Christ, so in it-though here perpetually present-the threefold
being of God is ideally included, as in a counterpart of God and
of the universe; and that in such wise that the Bible occupies
in the universe the position of mediator, that thus the combina-
tion of extremes which is found in Scripture may be repeated in
a personal form in man, who is said to unite in himself the
Natural, the True, and the Good. The true explanation of
Scripture will proceed beyond the literal to the spiritual and
heavenly, and recognize the correspondences everywhere taking
place between the three worlds-the worlds of nature, of the
True, and of the Good. The key to this understanding of
Scripture, manifested for the founding of the Church of the New
Jerusalem, is Immanuel Swedenborg.
The essence of Swedenborgianism, apart from the miraculous
enveloping in which it lies hidden, is a mystic rationalism, in
which the speculative and the practical elements seek a unity, and
in which the transcendentalism of the Divine, the passivity of
the human aspect, and the spiritualistic contempt of nature are
to be overcome. But the process of Divine life which is to lead
to this is purely cosmical, and removes us, after a Gnostic fashion,
from the firm foundations both of history and revelation.
3. Zinzendorf and the Moravian Brotherhood.¹
Count Zinzendorf and his followers consciously turned away
from the legal spirit which became increasingly dominant in
the Pietism of Halle, and which claimed submission rather by
negative restrictions than in a creative manner. They sought
compensation in the directness and originality of the religious
feeling, and thus again laid hold on that mystic element in the
principle of the Reformation which had retreated in Pietism.
This they did, however, not in the solitary and isolated manner
of those mystics who were constantly appearing in evangelical
Christendom, besides the general professors of its doctrines and
practice. On the contrary, the great endowments of Zinzendorf
united to this spirit of peace and love, this retirement into one's
1 Zinzendorf, One and twenty discourses on the Confession of Augsburg, in the
years 1747 and 1748; also, The Moravian hymn book, The collected writings of
Zinzendorf. For further literature see Schneckenburg's before-named Lectures on
the doctrines of the minor protestant communions, 1863, p. 152, &c.
246
The Church of the Brethren.
own heart, a more vigorous spirit of association, and greater
power of organization than Pietism ever possessed. Zinzendorf,
born 1700, originated in his community, which, though separate
from the Church, was free from a sectarian spirit, an organization
inapplicable indeed to great national churches, yet partly pre-
supposing and partly fertilizing them. By uniting different
evangelical confessions, as merely varying forms of expression,
he endeavoured to institute a typical evangelical union.¹
The stock, indeed, of the Church of the Brethren was furnished
by the Moravian Brethren, those remnants of the Hussites, nay,
of the Waldenses, which persecution had left. Through Zin-
zendorf, however, the Lutheran element was more decidedly
engrafted upon this stock, and though his followers united them-
selves externally to no national Lutheran Church, they still
inwardly regarded themselves as adherents to the Confession of
Augsburg, while he himself passed an examination by the faculty
of Tübingen, and was also an ordained preacher.
But they
found a sectarian narrowness in the scholasticism of Lutheran
theology, and sought to enlarge the heart and widen the horizon
of those who regarded their own particular church as the whole
and sole Church of Christ. By this advocacy of that principle
of inward catholicity, which no particular church, however large
its extent, can deny without becoming, either in its avowed
notions or secret practice, of a sectarian and separatist spirit,
the Church of the Brethren fulfilled a high and holy duty to
evangelical Christendom, which it is one chief sign of a spurious
churchmanship to misconceive. Like a consecrated vestal, she
cherished the sacred flame on her own hearth in times of wide-
spread darkness and deadness in divine things. Joy in their
common Saviour, a heartiness of feeling which showed itself
fruitful in liturgical compositions, in sacred poetry and music,-
though it must be confessed that it sometimes exchanged the
dignified ecclesiastical style for one too familiar, so moulded
together the hearts of believers, though of different confessions,
that they longed to have their inward unity reflected in their
outward congregational life. Hence, while Pietism was more a
strict instructor, the Church of the Brethren, with its gentle rule.
of love, displayed a positive and creative power of organization.
1 Compare Twesten's excellent article on "evangelical union" in Herzog's
theol. Realencyclopädie.
The Church of the Brethren.
247
They felt the love of God to be in Christ a love which was very
near and very human. In Christ, whom they worship as the
holy Son of Man, because, according to Zinzendorf, the Divine
Logos humbled Himself in Mary, that He might become human
in her, they feel the very beating of the pulse of Divine love.
Zinzendorf regards Christ as God voluntarily laying aside His
power, as in the reality of His life on earth wholly and entirely
man, as since His exaltation the representative of God, in whom
the whole Trinity is, so to speak, united. They specially cele-
brate the sufferings of the Divine Son of Man, though their acts
of worship in this respect sometimes degenerate to the theatrical.
With regard to the inner life, they insist that God condescends
to dwell in the heart, in the central point of human life. Happy
in this pious feeling, in intercourse with the Redeemer, the
Church of the Brethren has little interest in theology, and the
principle of faith bore but little fruit in this respect.¹ But
far from a lively and joyful persuasion of justification and all-
sufficient redemption being absent in Zinzendorf, it is just this
which forms the very centre of his piety. The fulness of his
personal faith and experience inclines towards an emancipation
from the formal principle, or at least towards a diminution of
its authority. He tolerates very free views of inspiration, and
ventures upon opinions which, especially with regard to St. Paul,
are very latitudinarian. Nor is he less indifferent with regard
to a definite code of morality than to a distinct system of
doctrine. In religious matters he rather loses sight of righteous-
ness and holiness, and of the corresponding feeling of rever-
ence, those deeper tones, as it were, of Christian harmony, in
favour of a certain familiarity of expression, which, in the
language of the Moravian hymns and worship, often degenerates
to the trifling. Even Antinomian tendencies were for a time
visible; these, however, fortunately disappeared. Attention was
directed to these defects by such men as E. B. Löscher, Baum-
1 Spangenberg's Idea fidei fratrum, 1782, instead of advancing the scientific
problems, modifies those innovations which in Zinzendorf were rather fermenting
in the emotions than laid down in definite form. Recently, however, the Church
of the Brethren has begun to render good service to evangelical theology.
Comp. Plitt's Glaubenslehre nach Schrift und Erfahrung, 2 vols. 1863, 1864,
which seeks to turn to account many of Zinzendorf's notions, especially his
Christological ideas, but transfers the figure of a family to the Trinity in a manner
scarcely differing from Tritheism.
248
Retrospect.
garten of Halle, Fresenius of Frankfort, P. G. Walch of Jena,
and others, and especially by the profound and right-minded
Bengel.¹ Bengel's expostulations in particular were well re-
ceived, and after a while the Church collected its strength to
strive after greater purity, an evidence of which is furnished
in doctrinal respects by Spangenberg's Idea fidei fratrum.
It was not, however, till the appearance of its great disciple,
Schleiermacher, that it became of high importance to the whole
Evangelical Church.
RETROSPECT.
THE elements whose combination was needed in a sound theo-
logy had been happily, but only indirectly, brought into contact
by the Reformers. Their union not having however been secured
to the Church-because the relative importance of the several fac-
tors had not as yet been scientifically determined, nor their limits
and extent established-they were, from the seventeenth century
onwards, again separated. By this separation, a process, the
reverse of the pre-Reformation growth and ripening of the evan-
gelical principle set in. This dissolution of the Reformation
synthesis took place unawares, and under the specious appear-
ance of fully carrying out and securing one side of the prin-
ciple, i.e. the intellectual. This labour was, as we have seen,
by no means barren of results; for it remained, when com-
pared with mediæval times, faithful to the Reformation stand-
point. But while all minds were thus eagerly concentrated on
the task of defining and analyzing notions, the other factors were
comparatively dwindling in estimation. The result was, that
those other factors which had previously been appropriated were
now again given up.
The preponderance of the doctrinal appeared in the anta-
gonistic forms of Scholasticism and the Calixtine school,-the
¹ Abriss der Brüdergemeinde, 2 pts. 1751. The theology of the blood of atone-
ment, to which he (Bengel) is also heartily devoted, must not, he says, be treated
either as a novelty or as standing alone. This would be like living for a whole
year on nothing but marrow. He blames the Count for wanting to model all
people according to his own narrow notions of doctrine, saying that his under-
taking is somewhat of the hot-house kind. The garden brings forth abundantly
better flavoured fruits in due season.
Retrospect.
249
former of which lays the chief stress upon correctness of
doctrine to its slightest particulars, the latter upon a mini-
mum of doctrinal articles, which, guided in its selection by
an historical standard, it regards as fundamental, in such wise.
that the intellectual notions of the realities stand on a level
with the realities themselves. Pietism, by powerfully recalling
attention to the practical side of Christianity, to conversion
and sanctification, and teaching men to regard Christianity as
especially a matter of the will, was the first to oppose this
twofold intellectualism, which thought to secure the stability of
the evangelical Church by doctrinal propositions. Its next op-
ponent was mysticism, which in some instances fell back in an
anti-Church spirit upon its own subjectivity, and was thus alien-
ated from the plastic and purifying power of Christian associa-
tion, and in others (e.g. Böhme) preserved a love for the Church,
and entertained no idea of separating therefrom, but was
estranged by its peculiarity, misunderstood and without the aid
of ecclesiastical ministrations. It was no wonder, then, that dis-
ordered imagination should take the place of sound reason and
knowledge, until at length the free and strong pulsations of the
religious affections being combined in Zinzendorf with a practical
understanding, a select religious society was founded. Each of
these forms advocated one important element, and each marked
in its own field a stage in advance of the other. But the defect
under which they all laboured, and from which a healthy Church
feeling alone could deliver them, was the reserve and dislike with
which they regarded each other, and in consequence of which,
though destined for unity and co-operation, they mutually refused
to receive or bestow either love or approbation. What then was
the element by which they might be convinced that this reserve
was a great fault, and incited so to correct it as to admit that
completion by the others which each required?
Certainly the result is an eloquent teacher, especially when it
happens to be the reverse of what was intended, when a general
decay and impoverishment are found instead of the prosperity
that was expected. But the desire to accuse the onesidedness of
others as the cause of the mischief is generally stronger than a
willingness to acknowledge our own, and the right road is not
found by simply discovering that the wrong one has been taken.
Besides, it is the curse of spiritual declension, that it is never
*
2
250
Retrospect and Prospects.
perceived to be such; but being, on the contrary, regarded in the
light of progress, the readiness to embrace the means of healing.
and purification is proportionately diminished. A new and
positive factor was required, by which obduracy, reserve, and
⚫ deadness might be fused and subjected to a process in which
those elements which repelled might be compelled to seek each
other. It was necessary that the cure should begin in the sphere
of the consciousness, for only that which is fully recognized to
be right can be contended for with confidence and determination.
But a very long road had to be travelled over before a renovated
theology, begotten by a perception of fundamental truths, and
capable of correcting the partialities and aberrations of the
different factors, and bringing them into organic and vital
unity in the Church, was attained. The first thing required
was that the conditions for such a theology should exist. These
are of two kinds. The first historical, including exegesis. Every
thing depended upon the mind freeing itself from the fetters of
custom and tradition, and regaining a healthy condition by bath-
ing at the fountain-head of holy Scripture. Its genuine histo-
rical sense must moreover be disclosed, and the Reformation, e.gJ.,
must be understood and reproduced, not only in its finished and
statutory results, but in its original spirit. The second condition
is the cultivation of philosophic or speculative reasoning; the third
task is the reconciliation of the historical and the ideal.
At first indeed, science, which ever seeks to originate a move-
ment independent of that which has preceded it, struck out
paths more or less divergent from historical Christianity, in con-
sequence of which elements hitherto repressed-some of which
are analogous to the natural growths of ancient heathenism,
especially the Grecian, and some to Judaism and its legal obser-
vances—were again released and broke forth. Yet even such a
result was not without its wholesome reaction upon the Church.
It not only silenced many a hurtful and fruitless controversy
within the Evangelical Church, but also taught men more clearly
to recognize that common faith, so often depreciated in the heat
of party strife, which united the different schools and confessions
of the Christian Church. This it did partly by bringing to light
the opposition which threatened all alike, and partly by that cul-
tivation of a feeling for the knowledge of first principles conse-
quent upon the reappearance of philosophy. Besides, such a
Prospects.
251
course was also favourable to a knowledge not only of principles,
but of that solid matter which was to be built upon them, and
was calculated to promote the recognition and incorporation of
the very element, the neglect of which had hitherto set the
mark of imperfection upon every department of theology. We
allude to those investigations of the relation of the nature of God
to that of man, of nature and the natural world to Christian
grace, of the first creation to the second, upon which progress,
whether in exegesis, in sacred history, in divinity, in ethics, or
in practical theology, essentially depended (see above, p. 5).
For in exegesis, and in the view taken of Scripture, the gram-
matical and historical element received but very meagre justice;
in the Gospel history, the human side of Christ's nature was
abridged of its true proportions, while a like defect apper-
tained to the doctrine of inspiration. It had been supposed
that the divine aspect of Christianity would gain by such treat-
ment of its natural and human aspect. But the result of the
great process which now set in was to be, the perception that
the more the Divine is revealed, and the more powerfully its
self-assertion is evident, the more will justice be done also to the
natural and the human, and the true realization of this latter
element be attained.
From all this it is obvious how progress, even in the under-
standing of holy Scripture and of history, depended upon in-
creased acquaintance with the general laws of the first creation,
and therefore upon philosophy; while, on the other hand, philo-
sophy and speculation had to expect their fertilization from the
light shed abroad by the emancipation of Christian ideas from
the dark integuments in which they had been enveloped.
252
Introduction.
SECTION III.
SUBJECTIVITY VICTORIOUS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
INTRODUCTION.
HEN the fiercest heat of the Pietistic controversy was over,
WH
there arose in the Church a generation which did justice.
to the mutual accusations of Pietism and orthodoxy, which
sought to avoid their faults, and combine their advantages.
It was a relatively flourishing epoch of Lutheran theology which
now set in, and when we recall the chief names by which it is
distinguished, we can but be astonished that the Lutheran Church
should still have had to pass through paths so difficult and
crises so profound, before it could be healed of the maladies
of the seventeenth century. A union seemed concluded be-
tween Church tradition and a lively interest in piety, between
Pietism and orthodoxy, between faith and the knowledge of
faith, which promised to be both beneficial and enduring. And
yet this flourishing period passed quickly by, and almost seemed
to be introductory to that of negative criticism in German
theology.
The men whose names we have now to report (not to men-
tion Bengel and his school) specially devoted themselves to
ecclesiastical history, and the history of doctrines. After Gottfr.
Arnold and Weismann, † 1747,¹ these were Christoph. Matthäus
Pfaff, the preacher of Tübingen, † 1760, in Giessen, John George
2
1 Who also wrote Institutiones Theologice exegetico-dogmaticæ, 1739.
2 Ch. Matth. Pfaff, Primitic Tubing. 1718; Acta et scripta publica Eccles.
Wirtemb. 1719; Collegium antideisticum. Also academical discourses on the
chief truths of the Christian religion, and several treatises on the history of
divinity. In behalf of union he wrote, in 1719, Die nöthige Glaubenscinigkeit der
protestantischen Kirche; in 1721, A statement of the pending controversies between
the Romish and Protestant Churches; and in 1742, Academical discourses on the
rights of the Protestant Church, whether general or German (Collegialsystem).
Commencement of the Age of German Theology. 253
Walch, 1775, John Alb. Fabricius,2 the strange Von der
Hardt, and Lorenzo v. Mosheim, † 1755.3 These all entered
1 J. G. Walch, Einleitung in die lutherischen symbolischen Bücher, 1752; Ein-
leitung in die christliche Moral, 1747; in die Dogm. und in die polemische Gottes-
lahrtheit; Bibliotheca Theol. 4 vols. 1757; Einleitung in die Religionsstreitigkeiten
ausserhalb und innerhalb der luth. Kirche, in 5 vols. 1730-1739. He was also the
editor of the Halle edition of Luther's works, 1740-1752. Historia Ecclesiast. N. T.
1744. He is a thorough scholar and a candid writer, but devoid of imagination,
His son,
atomistic, and without a notion of a history of the Church's inner life.
Chr. Wilh. Franz Walch, of Göttingen (1726-1784), edited, with diligent research, a
history of the Adoptionists, 1755, of the Roman popes, 1756, of Church councils,
1759, of heresies, schisms, and controversies before the Reformation (down to the
ninth century), in 11 pts. ; also a Breviarum theol. symb. eccl. luth. 1765, and
a Breviar. theol. dogm. 1775.
2 Joh. Alb. Fabricius of Hamburg, Codex Pseudepigraphus V. T. 1713; Codex
Apocryphus N. T., vols. i. and ii. 1703, vol. iii. 1719.
""
3 Lorentius v. Mosheim: comp. Rössler, Gründung der Universität Göttingen.
This accomplished and elegant preacher had a thorough acquaintance with
English, French, and Italian literature. It was in opposition to Toland that he
wrote his Vindicia antiquæ Christianorum disciplinæ, 1720. His other works are
his Instit. hist. eccl. 1726; De rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum M.
commentarii, 1753, and his book on Michael Servetus. He possessed an unusual
talent for reproducing doctrinal systems, and wrote also a small doctrinal work,
and one on the moral teaching of the Scriptures, in 5 vols. quarto, 1735-1753, to
which J. P. Miller added four more vols. Far from favouring the strictness and
asceticism of the divines of Halle, he advocated, on the contrary, in choice and
æsthetically moderate language, Eudæmonism and a philosophical eclecticism,
and knew how to introduce theology into good society. As an ecclesiastical
historian, he neither observes "the stately pace of the ancient fathers," nor wears
"the garment of the preachers of repentance. He is the abbé of Church
historians with a strong worldly tincture. Himself devoid of deep religious feeling,
he is incapable of understanding the independent nature of the Church with re-
spect to doctrine and practice. Nay, he has neither eye nor feeling for the idea of
the Church at all, which he looks upon as a merely human society, and chooses to
regard as not without territorial sympathies analogous to those of the State.
Although he views events in an objective and impartial manner, yet Church
history is not to him the history of the special life led by the Church according
to its own principle, but rather a narrative of the treatment it experiences at the
hand of the external powers. He looks upon Church movements, and alterations
in Church doctrines, as caused only by heretics, who oppose the Church from
alien and especially from philosophical principles; though he admits, in addition
to this, that a body social must needs have laws (in this case doctrines). He fails
to perceive that the very principle of Christianity assumes a history, and has a
tendency to develop and fashion itself into doctrines and practices. Hence
Christianity is, in his view, rather stationary than progressive; and the course of
history runs rather among those movements alien or inimical to the Church, to
which he consequently devotes his attention. In a word, his history is rather a
pathology than a biography of the Church.
Other historians worthy of mention are: Ernest Sal. Cyprian, who still belonged
to the number of the more strictly orthodox, C. B. Löscher, author of the Refor-
254
Smoothing down of Dogmas.
upon the diligent investigation and publication of documents.
They also busied themselves with divinity and morals, in which
Francis Buddæus of Jena, † 1729, enjoyed the highest reputa-
tion, after the stricter orthodoxy of Hollatius, Krakewitz, and
Fecht had died out.¹ All these writers being, however, deficient
in power of original production, applied themselves the rather to
historical theology, a study whose tendency is to emancipate and
enlarge the vision, and prepare for a fusion of doctrines.
Confidence in the orthodox system had been more shaken by
the conflicts which had already taken place than was at first
apparent. Attachment to the Church, and dislike to sectarianism
and separatism, kept up a general adherence to Church doctrine;
and where these motives were but feeble-as in the case of
Mosheim, who cared far more for the republic of letters than the
Church-the fear of offence, and of being accused of heterodoxy
even by inferior minds (marauders, as Mosheim calls them), was
not without effect. On the other hand, however, there was a
desire to be on good terms with the culture of the age and its
requirements. With a presentiment of the approaching storm,
an endeavour was made to arrest the incipient falling away of
the people from their Church, by means of anti-deistical lectures
and works, but by means also of yielding those points which were
no longer regarded as tenable. The sharp edges of dogmas were
everywhere smoothed down; controversial attacks, especially
upon the Reformed Church, were silenced; and indifferent
matters were dwelt upon rather than chief points. Dissatisfac-
tion, however, and alienation from the faith of the Church had
already taken too deep root to be allayed by the sacrifice of the
mationsacta, and especially Christian August. Salig, whose work, Geschichte der
Augsb. Confession und derselben Apologie, Halle, 1730, gives, in vols. ii. and iii. a
history of the Reformation in and beyond Germany, and in vols. iii. iv. and v. a
history of the Council of Trent. Belonging to a still earlier period are, Viti
Lodov. de Seckendorf Historia Lutheranismi, 1692, written in reply to Maim-
bourg's attacks of 1680; and Hortleder's Geschichte des teutschen kriegs.
1 Fr. Buddei Institutiones Theol. Dogmatice, 1723; Instil. theol. moralis, 1711.
He also edited the philosophical works, Elementa philosophic practice, 1697, and
Instit. philosophice eclectica, 2 vols. 1705, and the historical works, Histor.
ecclesiastica V. T. 1715, 1718, 2 vols.; Theses de Atheismo et Superstitione, 1716;
Historische und theologische Einleitung in die vornehmsten Religionsstreitigkeiten,
1724, 1828, ed. Walch; Isagoge historica ad Theolog. universam, 1727, en-
larged in 1730; Ecclesia apostolica, 1729 (an attempt at a history of primitive
Christianity, but without a life of Jesus).
Surrender of Evangelical Principles and Doctrines. 255
more stringent dogmatical assertions concerning original sin, the
Communicatio idiomatum, and the inspiration of Scripture. The
theology of the day was devoid of any new positive principle,
which might furnish both the motive and the standard of these
mitigations; and, failing in creative power, it was not to be
wondered at that it should be incapable of production. Its
external garment might be a more suitable one, but it did not go
to the root of the disease which needed healing. For, apart from
trifling apologetic remedies, it did nothing to bring revelation
and the reason of man into closer proximity, to make manifest
the need and desire existing in the latter for the former, and to
show the fertilizing and elevating effects which revelation has
upon the mind-in a word, its congeniality with reason. With
respect to Reason—the Aristotelian philosophy and the scholastic
method having fallen into discredit as pedantic and lifeless, and
no other being at hand to supply their place-it favoured an
eclectic mode of proceeding, without settled principles or method,
in which taste or the general understanding played an important
part.¹ Revelation, moreover, had for the most part been trans-
formed into its opposite, its contents having come to be regarded
as mystery. Times unfruitful in theological knowledge are ever
wont to fall back upon mystery, and upon the much-abused
demand of " taking the reason prisoner to the obedience of faith."
They fail to see that an acceptance of that which is simply un-
comprehended involves a merely formal relation to the authority
to which the mind is said to submit, and at the same time an
indifference towards the specific contents of truth; and that
therefore such faith cannot be the mother of genuine, positive,
and fruitful knowledge, but has fallen from an evangelical to a
Romish kind of belief. For by this demand it is not meant to
Some, like Fr. Buddæus, in his Moral Theology, and the acute Schomer, who
flourished at an earlier period, appropriated much of H. Grotius and Puffendorf's
philosophy.
This decrease of a lively interest in what was specifically Christian-an
interest kept up more out of respect to holy Scripture than on account of its own
acknowledged importance-is evident in those divines who still desire to advocate
orthodoxy, c.g. in Jäger (Comp. theol. positive, 1702, 1740. Systema theolog.
dogmatico-polemicum, 1715); Hebenstreit (Syst. theolog., 3 pts., 1707-17); J.
B. Carpzov (Liber doctrinalis purioris, 1767); Walch (Breviarium theol. dogm.
1775); Sartorius, Comp. theol. dogm. 1777; Seiler, Theol. dogm. polem. Erl.
1774. The Epitome Theol. Christ. 1789, of Morus also belongs to this insipid kind
of doctrinal works.
256 Surrender of Evangelical Principles and Doctrines.
express merely, in accordance with genuine evangelical truth,
that the natural reason cannot of itself rightly understand
Divine things, and that there are deep things of God which are
inexhaustible and unfathomable even by the scripturally-
enlightened reason. An absence of all desire, gradually at least,
to penetrate more deeply into the ways of God is also evident.
This resigned and indolent retreat upon the mystery of Divine
revelation was not a little contributed to by the circumstance
that the dogmatic development of important doctrines, such as
those concerning the Person of Christ, the Holy Trinity, the work
of redemption, and the Lord's Supper, had led to difficulties from
which there was no escape, except the assertion that the impossi-
bility and internal contradiction of these doctrines could not be
proved.
From the facts of revelation itself orthodoxy had separated
itself by its world of ideas, and could at length no longer attain to
a lively perception of Christian realities. In spite of the histo-
rical tendency which had now set in, it cannot be said that any
essential alteration in this respect immediately took place. The
historical view had not yet taken possession of holy Scripture
itself: this was still, as before, regarded, not as the document in
which the facts of revelation are recorded, but as revelation, and
took the place of the latter. "Faith in holy Scripture is Christian
faith." Modifications of the theory of inspiration, such as Pfaff
proposed, made no change in this respect. On the contrary, the
doctrine of the Testimonium Spiritus S. to holy Scripture (with
respect both to its contents and form) was weakened, and referred
to the instructive, reforming, consoling, and edifying power of
the words of Scripture. No new ways of exegesis were struck
out by any except Bengel: nor are such to be found either in the
works of the elder Michaelis of Halle, or in the compilation of
Joh. Christoph. Wolff.1
The lasting efficiency of this theology was however obstructed,
not only by its own nature, but quite as much so by the
widespread enmity of the age to the Church, nay, to Christianity
itself. The minds of many, in whose eyes the traditional
authority of the Church was destroyed, were constantly oscillat-
ing from one extreme to another. Others turned to mysticism,
which was still frequently combined with alchemy and magic.
1 Joh. Chr. Wolff, † 1739 at Hamburg, Curce philologica el critica in N. T., 1715.
Natural Sciences.
257
Indeed, in the process of religious decomposition which had now
set in, a variegated eclecticism, in which the profound and the
absurd, superstition and unbelief, were forced into contact, was,
as in the period of the dissolution of the ancient world, seen on
all sides. Another and an important factor was furnished by the
natural sciences, which, being now for the first time developed
from their own special principle, viz. that of experience and
observation, were beginning a course of free and independent
formation. They thus came, however, into inevitable conflict.
with the prevailing theory of inspiration-a conflict which the
theology of the age was also incapable of reconciling in a satis-
factory manner. The Copernican system of astronomy, which
at first found but little favour, had by the seventeenth century
gradually worked itself into general acceptance. This was, how-
ever, opposed, in a physical sense, to the Divine infallibility
of holy Scripture, if the latter was to be literally interpreted.
Many theologians endeavoured to parry this blow, which was
calculated to force theology to a distinction between the religious
substance-in other words, those facts of revelation which are the
end holy Scripture has in view, and their temporary clothing,
depending, as it does, upon the notions of the day concerning
nature and the world, for its material and mode of representation.
But they were unable either to convict the Copernican system of
error, or to prove that holy Scripture was itself Copernican.¹
Moreover, not only the standing still of the sun in the Book of
Joshua, but also the deluge and Noah's ark, its capability of
containing pairs of all creatures not inhabiting the waters, the
Mosaic cosmogony, the miracles in Egypt and at the Red Sea,
the command for the extermination of the Canaanites, and the
spoiling of the Egyptians, Lot's wife and the destruction of
Gomorrah, the sun-dial of Hezekiah, the whale of Jonah-in
short, a multitude of questions which seemed to bring revelation
into conflict with physical and moral laws, were discussed with
much theological acumen and scholarship. A satisfactory answer,
however, was not found; because attention was confined to
details, and not bestowed upon the higher task of discovering a
more general theory concerning Divine revelation and its
purposes. Theology dealt with these matters as though revela-
¹ As was attempted by T. J. Zimmermann, Scriptura S. Copernizans, Hamb.
1706 also, Wideburg (see Francke, ii. 234).
II.
R
258
Christian Thomasius.
tion, i.e. holy Scripture, were intended to make disclosures.
concerning physical as well as Divine truths. Meanwhile, it
seemed as if mankind in Europe, and especially in England and
France, had now for the first time opened its eyes to nature and
to its strict conformity to law; and they who yielded themselves
unreservedly to this tendency more and more lost sight of the
independence and existence of spirit. The very idea of God
gradually faded before their empiricism and sensualism, and they
drifted without restraint into the materialism and sensuous Eudæ-
monism which La Mettrie, v. Holbach, d'Alembert, and other
encyclopædists were then proclaiming. This tendency was,
indeed, as yet alien to the German nature, which still retained
an element of idealism in spite of the increasing importation of
English and French literature of the above nature. The so-called
Illuminism obtained, however, precursors and heralds, such as
Thomasius, K. Dippel, and Edelmann, the first of whom espe-
cially influenced circles of far wider extent than the theologians
above alluded to.
Christian Thomasius, born 1655, † 1728, having fallen into
odium with the university, and especially with the theologians
of Leipsic, both on account of the petulance with which he
expressed his latitudinarian views, and because, being a bad
Latinist, he was accustomed to deliver his lectures in the
German tongue, left that city and became a professor at the new
university of Halle. Having fallen out with orthodoxy, he here
for a time addicted himself to Pietism, and acted as its legal
advocate in its conflicts. He was not devoid of religious emo-
tions and good resolutions, which kept his worldly, pleasure-
seeking, and ambitious temper under some restraint. This
however soon regained its supremacy, and it was not so much
the narrowness and unscientific nature of Pietism that was an
offence to him, as its religious and moral earnestness, which in
his better days he had highly esteemed. His own scientific
mode of treatment had too little solidity, and his knowledge was
not sufficiently comprehensive. Indeed Pietism offered no field
for his peculiar talent. This consisted in an easy "galant"
rhetoric, fashioned after French models, a piquant and satirical
kind of humour, which made him one of the most dangerous
enemies of pedantry, scholasticism, and every kind of narrow-
mindedness, and by means of which he contributed more than
1
Glance at the History of Church Privileges. 259
any other writer of the eighteenth century to their expulsion,
and to the naturalization of a cosmopolitan and freethinking
tone in German literature. He essentially co-operated, by his
much-feared, biting, and ready pen, in purifying the literary
atmosphere from theological fanaticism and learned insipidity.
He exercised, however, a more lasting influence by his Theory
of Church Privileges, to which we must for a while direct our
attention.¹
After the Reformation, Church power had fallen into the hands
of the secular governments (the Politici), a fact which the theory
of the devolution of the rights of the bishops to the princes, or
the legal transfer to them of episcopal powers,³ was thought to
justify, and which was sometimes regarded as a provisional,
sometimes as a permanent arrangement. The princes exercised,
by means of their consistories, all Church authority, and there-
fore convoked the clergy in partem solicitudinis, but according
to their own judgment and measure, with the single exception,
that the internal affairs of the Church, such as its doctrine and
worship, were wholly entrusted to the clerical order. Thus the
people (the status œconomicus) were entirely excluded from a
share in the government of the Church. Decaying orthodoxy,
in the person of Carpzovius, † 1699, sought, but in vain, to give
to this so-called episcopal system a position more favourable and
deferential towards the clergy. The autocratic power of princes,
inaugurated by the seductive example of Louis XIV., was unwill-
ing to give up its prey. The "Apap" in fact took the place of the
Pope, to the great grief of the more religious among the community.
1 Comp. Stahl, die Kirchenverfassung, &c., 1840, and Richter's Kirchenrecht,
§ 52.
4
2 So Stephani († 1646), Tract. de jurisdictione (even of the clerical order) in
Imp. Rom., 1611.
³ So Reinkingk († 1664), De regimine seculari et ecclesiastico, Geiss. 1619. He
regards the transfer as effected by the restitution to the lord of the land, as
such, of his fitting and divine calling to be the guardian of both tables. The
potestas ordinis (internal Church authority) is to be left to the clergy. This
ecclesiastical calling of the governor was supported by the theory that the magis-
tratus politicus was also a hierarchical order. Comp. Bened. Carpzovius, Juris-
prud. ecclesiastica s. consistorialis, Hanover, 1645.
4 Joh. Ben. Carpzovius (the theologian of Leipsic), Disp. de jure decidendi con-
troversias theologicas, Leips. 1695. In internis it is the duty of the ruler to carry
out the decisions of divines, in externis to obtain their consent. To the laity
belongs the right of appropriation. His standpoint is advocated in all essential
particulars by Stahl.
260
Territorial System of Thomasius.
Orthodoxy was forsaken by its allies, and its augmented preten-
sions, increasingly in contrast with the actual condition of affairs,
could excite only contemptuous pity. In a Romanizing spirit it
had made the laity a mere under-age Ecclesiæ audiens, and it
now had to pay the penalty of this error by succumbing to the
secular power; for Spener's warning, which insisted on the
rights of the congregation, had been disregarded and treated as
revolutionary.
The rulers, though themselves inclining to absolutism, were
utterly weary of the theological contentions and strifes which
disturbed even the peace of the nation, and declined to make
themselves any longer the executive arm of the decrees of theo-
logians. Such was the actual state of affairs, and it was this
which was formed into a system by Thomasius, under the name
of "Territorialism." His chief propositions are as follows:-
Conscience, the inward religion of the heart, is free in every indi-
vidual, and can neither be forced nor constrained. On the other
hand, the ruler has an absolute right to the supreme decision and
maintenance of order in all matters which fall within the pro-
vince of external life. For it is his absolute duty, even by the laws
of nature, to establish peace and order in the world. The public
exercise of religion-in other words, worship-belongs to the
realm of the external. Hence it is subject to the authority of
the ruler. This authority he exercises as ruler, not as a kind of
summus episcopus, or in an ecclesiastical capacity; for the theory
of the duplex persona is, to Thomasius, a sideroxylon. But the
matter over which the ruler has no power (in which also neither
councils nor theologians nor any human authority can interfere),
is the decision of controverted points of doctrine, or departures
from orthodoxy. When, then, these occur, there is no judge and
no authoritative decision, even though there should be no lack of
accusations concerning departures from Church doctrine. Thus
the ruler must leave heterodoxy and heresy to themselves, nor is
there any human power which need concern itself about them,
so long as strife is not thereby engendered. It is, in his opinion,
of very little consequence which side is in the right in such con-
troversies. Thus, leaving all that concerns doctrine to the plea-
Vom
1 Chr. Thomasius, Vom Rechte ev. Fürsten in Mitteldingen, Halle, 1695.
Rechte ev. Fürsten in theologischen Streitigkeiten, 1696. Vindiciæ juris majestatici
circa sacra, 1699. Recht ev. Fürsten in Kirchensachen, 1713.
Pfaff's Collegial System. Dippel and Edelmann. 261
sure of the individual, he delivers the Church, even with respect
to her most vital functions, into the power of the State, to which
peace is the supreme good. The Church has not even the privi-
leges enjoyed by a trading company, of combining for its own
special aims, and of compelling its members to further them.
For exclusion from the Church would be a civil penalty, whereby
a man's honour would be touched. Of the Church as an inde-
pendent existence he has not a notion. It was, thanks to ortho-
doxy, that he viewed the Church as consisting only of the clergy,
and that, on the other hand, he contended against their claim to
be regarded as the Church, as papistical.¹
3
Pfaff's Collegial system takes far higher ground. It is akin
to the territorial system, in that it regards the Church as origi-
nating and existing in the free choice of its individual members.
Yet a certain independence of existence and privilege is awarded
to her, inasmuch as she is regarded as a collegium, as a corpora-
tion possessing corporate rights. She can make her own statutes
and laws, and can insist upon their observance. The attitude of
the State towards her is but incidental, or similar to the position
it occupies with respect to any other association. The magis-
tratus politicus does not belong to her, the Church consisting
solely of teachers and taught. It is only by transference, by
virtue of silent or express compact, that the magistracy can
receive rights originally inherent in the Church. Results were
however at first, and till after the commencement of the nine-
teenth century, in favour of the territorial system.
Dippel and Edelmann were more adventurous than Thomasius;
their attention was, however, directed less to the form, and more
to the substance, though still in a negative manner. Thomasius
surrendered himself to eclecticism and to Locke's empiricism,
and in spite of all his apparent confidence, was naturally of a
sceptical turn. He was not so much impelled by a desire of
1
¹ Stryk said that marriage, being no sacrament, is not a spiritual, but a purely
social concern. Just. Henning Böhmer, † 1749, more completely elaborated the
territorial system: De jure episcopali principium evang., Hal. 1712. Jus eccles.
Protest., vol. i. 28-30.
2 Pfaff, Origines juris cccl., Tüb. 1719. De jure sacrorum absoluto et collegiali,
1756. Academical lectures on the rights of the Church. He is influenced by
Pufendorf's opinions.
3 Pufendorf, who died 1694, had already called it a Collegium in civitate erectum,
n his work De habitu christianæ religionis ad vitam civilem, 1687.
262
Edelmann.
discovering truth and of making any sacrifice for its sake, as by
the wish of obtaining, recommending, and also profiting by the
useful and the agreeable.¹
Joh. Conr. Dippel, a physician, † 1734, was versed in alchemy,
astrology, and mysticism. He was initiated in the latter in the
Berleburg society of mystics, theosophists, and separatists (e.g.
Hohburg, Hachmann, &c.), which assembled at the court of the
Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein, but evinced amidst all his insta-
bility and love of change, a real desire and endeavour to attain
to certainty in religion. He insists upon not resting in tradi-
tional forms and ceremonies, but upon pressing onwards to the
true worship of the heart. He speaks of an inward word from
the mouth of God, instead of the external word. But he is
utterly devoid of the gentleness and repose of the true mystic,
and is indefatigable in his attacks upon both the ministers and
doctrines of the Church, especially those of inspiration, satisfac-
tion, justification, and the Trinity.2 Edelmann, † 1767, also joined
for a time the ranks of the Pietists and mystics, but acquired
nothing from his association with them except estrangement
from the Church and escape from the restraints of Church doc-
trine. In his work, Moses mit aufgedecktem Angesicht, 1740,"
he proceeded to violent and blasphemous attacks upon holy
Scripture, and took part for a short time in the Berleburg trans-
lation of the Bible, which was undertaken under Haug's super-
intendence. His restless state of mind drove him from place
3
1 For notices of other less important scoffers and imitators of Thomasius,
such as N. H. Gundling, Professor at Halle, † 1729, John Gottfr. Zeidler, and
Fassmann, comp. Francke, ii. 331, &c.; of Treiber, Professor of Erfurt, + 1727,
after a similar course of life to that led by Daumer in our own days, p. 343; of
Adam Bernhard of Breslau, † 1748, who wrote under the name of Christianus
Melodius, on the influence of divine truths on the will, and extolled the popish
in opposition to the evangelical doctrine of justification, understood by faith the
mere assent of the understanding to the teaching of Christ, i.e. to the new law,
but made this assent determine the will to the performance of good works which
merit justification, comp. Tholuck's Geschichte des Rationalismus, and Francke,
ii. 335, &c. On Dippel, see Herzog, Realencyclopädie, iii. p. 422, and Francke,
p. 346.
2 Comp. Christiani Democriti (i.c. Dippel's) Papismus Protestantium vapulans,
1698.
Orthodoxia Orthodoxorum, die verkehrte Wahrheit und wahrhafte Lügen
der unbesonnenen Lutheraner, 1697. He says that the death of Christ was not an
atoning sacrifice, but an encouragement to self-sacrifice.
3 His other writings are Die Göttlichkeit der Vernunft, and Die vernünftige lau-
tere Milch, 1744. For notices of him, see Herzog, iii. p. 640; Francke, ii. p.
350; and especially Selbstbiographie Edelmanns vom Jahr 1752, ed. Klose, 1849.
Leibnitz.
263
to place; he went over entirely to naturalism, with only this
exception, that certain pantheistic notions of Spinoza's seemed
in his case to have taken the place of religion. Many however
revolted at the wild and unregulated nature of these men, shown
as much in their style as in their lives, and their passionate and
arbitrary assaults resembled rather the attacks of skirmishers than
the more regular battles and sieges which were about to follow.
CHAPTER I.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF LEIBNITZ AND WOLFF, AND THE FIRST ATTEMPT
TO EFFECT A UNION OF PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY IN WOLFF'S
SUPERNATURALISM AND RATIONALISM.
PHILOSOPHY began its independent course in Germany with
Leibnitz, 1646-1716.1 Till his day the Aristotelian philosophy
-that is to say, the logic and ontology which, though the common
possession of scholars, were esteemed Aristotelian-had formed
the equipment, whether of Romish or Protestant scholasticism.
Well adapted as were such instruments for the formal logical
treatment of a given material, they were not calculated to
become the means of originating any knowledge which should
be substantially new, nor of carrying out a view of the universe
consistent with evangelical belief. New matter was already fer-
menting among those precursors of our philosophical era, the
mystics and theosophists (see above, p. 177), in whose estimation
however, the philosophical form and method were but the acces-
sories, and the fancifully and enigmatically expressed matter all
in all. In the writings of Leibnitz, too, the matter still prepon-
derates. His philosophy is a seed vessel full of philosophical
ideas, which do not however forthwith appear in the form of a
system, but monad-wise, as it were, in that of larger or smaller
monographs. It is as though he strove by such monographs to
exhibit microcosmically, and from ever-shifting points of view,
that whole which he had in view, but which he never carried
out symmetrically and harmoniously. And yet he laid the
foundation of a philosophical method. Clearness and intelligi-
bility were, in his esteem, the marks by which truth is distin-
1 Opp. omnia ed. Dutens, Gen. 1768, 6 vols., especially vols. i. ii.
264 His relation to Böhme, Spinoza, Cartesius.
guished. This is more closely defined in his "principle of con-
tradiction "what is true cannot contradict itself; besides this
negative quality, it must however also have the positive one, of
a "sufficient reason" for its incorporation into a wisely ordered
world. P. Bayle's dualism, nay, scepticism, would have resolved.
all knowledge, and the whole world, into contradictions. The
harmonious and speculative nature of Leibnitz resisted such a
procedure. His largest and best known philosophical work,
the Theodicée, in which he expresses himself more particularly
with regard to the relation of philosophy to theology, was written
with special reference to Bayle.
His chief peculiarity lies in his theory of monads, which again
takes up J. Böhme's notion of man as a microcosm, nay, com-
bines it with the fundamental view of Protestantism. For
monads are in his view individual centralizations of life and
spirit in their most varying grades, substantial existences or
independent forces, combining in themselves thought and ex-
tension. He thus opposes dynamics to material atomism.
Spinoza's substantial Pantheism, which makes every individual
object only a modus of God, he meets by the statement that
monads are spontaneous, self-subsisting, imperishable substances,
living from themselves, each differing in kind from another (ac-
cording to the principium individuationis and indiscernibilium)
yet all held in union by a harmonia præstabilita. He en-
deavours to surmount the Cartesian dualism between mechani-
cally conceived corporeity and the spiritual (extension and
thought) by regarding all things, even those compounded of the
greatest number of elements, as consisting of different kinds of
monads (energies with entelechy), which are moreover divided
into three chief grades, according to the proportions in which
passivity and activity are combined in them. All are in them-
selves intelligences, nay, independent worlds, with an inde-
pendent inner life. But some have only perception, sensation,
these are dreaming monads; others have apperception, conscious-
ness, and these are called souls. Soul becomes spirit when it
rises to the consciousness of "eternal truths," and of "that
which is necessary to reason; "2 and the potency of reasonable
1
¹ Essay de Theodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du
mal; S. Tentamen Theodicea; acc. Diss. de conformitate fidei cum ratione.
2 And especially of the principium contradictionis and rationis sufficientis. He
Leibnitz. His Theodicée. Relation to Theology. 265
existence becomes increasingly an actus. God, or the central
monad, is wholly actus, there is in Him no still undeveloped
potency. And as the more conscious monads are ever destined
to rule the unconscious, to become their governing souls,¹ so
does God, the absolutely conscious and reasonable monad, wisely
rule and direct all to a good end. Bayle objects that there is
evil in the world. Leibnitz replies that so far as metaphysical
evil, viz., finite limitation is concerned, a world would be impossible
without this (the limes). For if there were nothing but actus
purus, and no passivity, there would then be also no creature,
but only God. Physical evils may be viewed as a beneficial ar-
rangement, for they are of such a kind that they contribute both
negatively and positively to the promotion of good. Finally, moral
evil is connected with the limes of the creature. The difficulty
of embracing a moralis concursus Dei ad morale malum is obvi-
ated by the admission that among all possible ideas of a world,
God chose the best (optimism). In the idea of this best of all possi-
ble worlds, God found men inclining to sin and misery, in virtue of
the original imperfection of the creature. He, however, prevented
sin and misery, as far as the perfection of the universe allows.²
Leibnitz takes up a very friendly position with respect to
theology. He requires the admission that the reason is capable
of deriving certain truths from its own resources, but owns that
God may also reveal "truths" in an extraordinary manner. He
only stipulates that (according to the princip. contradictionis)
two truths cannot contradict one another.3
zealously advocated the truths belonging to the nature, though not depending on
the will of God (compare especially his treatise de fato in Trendelenburg's Beiträ-
gen, ii. 1855, p. 108, &c.), but made the freedom of the will too dependent upon
the intellect and its necessary ideas, and neither left to God the free yet harmonious
play of creative imagination, nor to man moral freedom.
1 In spite of the monads "having no windows." The monads shine forth from
God in harmonious co-ordination, Princip. phil. Thes. 1-11, 48-50.
2 Theodic. ii. § 167, 209. The Limes belongs also to metaphysical good, which
embraces all other kinds of good. Bonum metaphysicum, omne complectens, est
causa, cur dandus aliquando locus sit malo physico MALOQUE MORALI. The limita-
tio (crcatura) s. originalis imperfectio is the fons peccati, but in such wise that
even the mala voluntas belongs to this very imperfectio. A hundred years earlier,
the denial of moral freedom herein involved, would have given but little offence.
3 He pledges himself to prove, not indeed the veritas, but the possibilitas
mysteriorum trinitatis, incarnationis, eucharistiæ, in theologia revelata.
He was
opposed also to Deism, and regarded God not only as the source, but as the ruler
and object of the world.
266
Christian Wolff.
Leibnitz's Theodicée was on the whole well received. His
system, however, found but little acceptance, while his efforts to
effect a union, first of the Evangelical and Roman Catholic, and
afterwards of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, neither met
with success nor acted as a recommendation to his system.¹
It was not till the philosophy of Leibnitz was clothed in a
strictly consistent and systematic form by Christian Wolff, that
its influence became important. Wolff (1679-1754, of Halle
from 1706, then after his expulsion in 1723, of Marburg, and
again of Halle from 1740-1754) gave to the ideas of Leibnitz,
which he had derived from his tutor Tzschirnhausen, a mathe-
matical form, and claimed to have bestowed upon philosophical
the certainty of mathematical knowledge. The enthusiasm
which he excited in the youthful German mind for form and
method may seem enigmatical, especially when we reflect that
his was by no means a creative mind, and that the soaring
speculation and ideal tone of Leibnitz were lost in his stiff,
prosaic and pedantic statements; nay, that very often the ideas
of Leibnitz were scarcely recognizable, when concealed in the
garment of Wolff's formalism. The dynamics of Leibnitz, full
of vitality, seemed in Wolff to have again given place to
mechanism, to a deistic fatalism.2 And, in fact, Wolff's philo-
sophy met at first with an unfavourable reception on the part
of theology, those who inclined towards Pietism being almost
¹ He considered a union of Catholics and Protestants possible, on condition
that the Pope should-as far as Protestants were concerned-suspend the Tri-
dentinum, till an understanding should be arrived at,-a concession of which
certain Catholic prelates, such as Spinola of Vienna, Bossuet, and others, held out
a prospect. To effect this purpose he combined with Molanus, abbot of Loccum
(† 1722). To this end he pointed out certain Catholic propositions as acceptable
to Protestants, and these he published about 1680, in a work upon which the title
Systema theologic-a title not at all according to Leibnitz-has recently been be-
stowed (comp. Perthes on Leibnitz's Church creed, Allg. Zeitschr. für Geschichte
von A. Schmidt, vi. p. 65). This work is, however, by no means a personal con-
fession of faith on the part of Leibnitz, as Catholics like to regard it, but only such
a draft of a treaty as a neutral power might bring forward as the basis of an
alliance. He was, however, soon convinced of the impossibility of such union,
and, in spite of allurements on the Romish side, gave the weight of his influence
more and more to the Protestant Church. Desiring subsequently to unite, at
least, the two Evangelical Churches, he applied to Spener, who, more correctly
appreciating the state of things in both parties, dissuaded him from the attempt.
2 Besides Leibnitz's logical principles, he retained chiefly his doctrines of the best
possible world and of the constant and established concatenation of all things.
Wolff's Unfavourable Reception by Theologians. 267
unanimously opposed to it. This was the case not only on the
part of Joach. Lange, at whose instance he was removed from
Halle in 1723, but of such men as J. J. Rambach and Weis-
mann, Budde and Löscher, Walch, Pfaff and Mosheim. They
feared lest the effect of emancipating the reason might be a
repression of the religious interest, an unwillingness to believe.¹
On the other hand, however, the candour of orthodox belief had
been destroyed, and confidence in orthodox teaching shaken, by
Pietism, but not as yet to such an extent that it was not gener-
rally preferred, if only it could be justified. In such a state of
things, then, a philosophy like Wolff's seemed to have found its
It promised, in the first place, to give only fresh
mission.
1 Löscher, in particular, objected, 1735 (compare Engelhardt, E. B. Löscher,
1856), that the doctrine of the best of all possible worlds, all being imperfect,
made evil necessary, and excluded not only the state of innocence, but the state
of perfection. Evil is not mere limitation, nor an imperfect stage of good.
Löscher and Lange both found the connection between Wolff's moral principle
and religion too lax. Wolff laid down the principle of perfection, as a means of
happiness, in such wise that the reason recognizes it as that which is good in
itself and to which we must submit. He so applied his doctrine of eternal
truths necessary in and by themselves to the reason, that even an atheist, as a
reasonable man, must know and choose moral good. To do so was, in the opinion
of these theologians, to deprive the moral law of its objective foundation and
support in God. We are bound to obey God, without even thinking of our
perfection. That is good which God commands, and God does not command
anything because it is good, and will make us perfect. Hence, they felt
themselves obliged only the more decidedly to oppose the mere positivism of the
moral law, to the stress which was laid upon eternal truths, although Calixtus
had already a clearer insight in this respect. Men like Crusius and Reuss
however treated the matter more judiciously than Budde, Löscher, and Lange, by
connecting the universal human conscience with the living God, manifesting himself
in the soul, and the conscience with Christianity. Moreover, Wolff also conceives
of the natural moral law, which as such is inherent in the reason, as at the same
time of Divine origin. God he thinks made the human reason to correspond to His
own; it can consequently work out truths from itself by its own powers. Besides
the apprehension entertained by theologians that this dry and level formalism
was devoid of an atmosphere of religion and freedom, that Wolff's mathematical
method had in it an element of fatalism, converted the world into a piece of dead
mechanism, and left no room for an active providence, was not a groundless one.
His method accustomed the mind to desire that everything should be proved to
the reason, and to reject all that was devoid of such proof. The law of sufficient
reason, in particular, might be turned against the so-called "mysteries of
religion," if only that which was demonstrable, or involved in the natural connec-
tion of things, was to be esteemed as having sufficient reason. This was more-
over all the more suspicious to a theology which did not see in Christianity an
unveiling of mysteries, as well as those veiled truths which it was the duty of
faith to receive blindly, upon the ground of their authority alone.
268
Revulsion of Feeling. Canz. Bülffinger.
stability to dogmatic teaching, by proving its "possibility" to the
reason, in opposition to the attacks and doubts by which it was
assailed. Now, according to Wolff's own meaning, the establish-
ment of the possibility of anything (i.e. of its freedom from those in-
ternal contradictions which would make it impossible) was already
a criterion of its truth, an establishment of the notion as one not
merely subjective. But this fact soon ceased to cause appre-
hension, since the greater the number of subjects found suscep-
tible of the proof, the greater seemed the security thus bestowed
upon doctrine. When once religious certitude was shaken, an
intellectual surrogate could not but be welcome, and it cannot
be denied that Wolff did set up a definite standard of indepen-
dent philosophical procedure, and, as he was fond of boasting,
teach Germans to think.¹
2
Thus it came to pass that, from the third decade of this cen-
tury, Wolff's philosophy found increasing favour. Canz and
Bülffinger, the first of whom from being an opponent had be-
come a friend, prepared the way for more friendly relations on
the part of theology. They thought to withstand the increasing
attacks made upon Christianity, especially in France and Eng-
land, nay, even to win over its opponents with the weapons of this
philosophy. Büttner, Carpzovius, Reinbeck, Reusch, Ribovius,
and Schubert, were also supernaturalists of Wolff's school. The
3
¹ Wolff, Theologia naturalis, 2 pts. 1736. Philos. pract. universalis, 2 pts.
1738. Philos. moralis s. ethica, 4 pts. 1750. Vernunftige Gedanken von Gott,
der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch aller Dingen überhaupt, 1720, and
notes to this latter work, 1724. Theol. christ. in German, 1739.
2 Canz, Philosophic Leibnitiance et Wolfiance usus in Theol, 2 pts. Leipsic,
1728, and his Comp. theologiæ purioris, 1752.
3 Büttner, Cursus Theologiæ revel. omnes cœlestis doctrinæ partes ex S. S. haustæ
complectens, 1746. J. Carpzovius, Economia salutis N. T. seu Theologice revel.
dogmaticæ methodo scientifica adornatæ, vols. i.-iv. 1753-54. J. G. Reinbeck,
Reflections on those Divine verities contained in the Confession of Augsburg and
combined therewith, which are partly inferred from reason, but all deduced from
Scripture, and applied to the practice of true godliness, Berlin, 1731-41, 4 pts. ; the
five following by Canz, 1743-47. Reusch, Introd. in Theol. revelatam, Jena, 1744
(an acute divine of a speculative turn of mind). G. H. Ribovius, Institutiones
Theol. dogm. Göttingen, 1741, a proof that revealed truth cannot be proved
by the reason. J. E. Schubert, Introd. in Theol. revel. and Comp. theol. dogm.
Helmst. 1760. Reinbeck endeavours to deduce the doctrine of the Trinity from
the idea of the supreme good which is given in God. For this supreme good has
an inclination to impart itself. Hence there is plurality in the Divine unity.
Büttner seeks to prove this doctrine by that of the atonement: there must be
one Divine person to make an atonement and another to accept it. Reusch views
7
Wolff's Supernaturalism.
269
most influential however of its adherents was S. J. Baumgarten,
who taught in Halle with the greatest applause.¹ These theo-
logians endeavoured, by diluting Wolff's philosophical axioms
and modifying those of orthodoxy, to bring about an alliance
between philosophy and religion,—an alliance whose after effects
have been exhibited by many even in the present century.2
The following features are characteristic of Wolff's philosophy.
Religion is regarded as the modus Deum colendi et cognoscendi, as
a kind of will and knowledge, a summary of the ethical and
theoretical, but not as having an independent existence. Hence,
faith is viewed as a matter of demonstration. The Testimonium
Spiritus Sancti was soon distorted into something of a very
different meaning the term itself soon falling into disuse, and
demonstration being put in its place. In its original sense, it
seemed enthusiastic to the dry and reasoning spirit of the age,
so direct a relation of God to man appearing to trench upon the
Divine majesty. Such were already the notions of Less and
Baumgarten. Even in the seventeenth century, certain criteria
interna et externa were regarded as accrediting holy Scripture in
a secondary manner, in addition to its primary self-testimony
through the Holy Spirit. (See above, p. 122.) Among these
the Trinity as corresponding to the threefold order of thought in God, viz. that
of the necessary, of the possible, and of the actual-Canz, Carpzovius and Reusch
prove from the necessity of a satisfaction, the necessity of revelation, and of
the Redeemer being God-man. The truth of the Christian revelation is also
inferred from the fact of its proclaiming that satisfaction has been made. Büttner
sought to render the doctrine of original sin more palatable by accepting a pre-
existence of souls. The orthodox theologians also, who were Wolff's opponents,
embraced the doctrine of moral freedom in a measure which the sixteenth cen-
tury had rejected. Original sin was made an enticement to evil, which did not
become sin without personal consent, while separation from the Reformed Church
was no longer maintained on account of its doctrines of the Person of Christ, and
of the sacraments, but chiefly for the sake of the doctrine of predestination, which
had at first furnished no point of contention, and which was now also on the
wane among the Reformed themselves.
¹ S. J. Baumgarten, Evangelische Glaubenslehre, 3 vols. 4 ed. Semler, 1759, &c.
2 In such supernaturalists as Reinhard and Storr, and still more in such ration-
alists as Eckermann, Rohr, and Wegscheider, the influence of Wolff's philosophy
may still be perceived.
3 Comp. Klaiber on the doctrine of the older Protestant divines on the Test.
Sp. S. and its dogmatic importance; in Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, vol ii.
PP. 1-54.
Less, Christliche Religionstheorie oder Versuch einer praktischen
Dogmatik, Göttingen, 1779.
270
Rational and Historical Evidence of
were the consoling and reforming power of holy Scripture. Now,
however, it was not merely acknowledged that the Divine truth
of the contents of holy Scripture does not of itself prove the
Divine nature of its form, but the truth of the contents and the
experience of this by fides divina were also, after the manner of
Pajonism, separated from the vital efficacy of Scripture, while the
idea of the testimony of the Holy Spirit was thought obscure,
nay, fantastic. The secondary criteria were, on the contrary, still
adhered to. It was said that the chief matter was the experience ¹
which every one could make for himself that Scripture could
comfort and amend, or even that the contents of Scripture were
in accordance with the feelings of the heart and with sound
reason. Thus it is by our own progress in sanctification and
knowledge, by the logico-moral effects of the doctrine of the
Bible, that we are to become conscious of its Divine origin, and
thereby of the truth of Christianity. But, since this so-called
evidence of experience could by no means prove that the same
effects might not arise from other causes than Scripture, nay,
could not even decide what proportion of these effects was
to be attributed to Scripture, the confession was inevitable that
it did but establish a probability; and the more so because this
amendment and knowledge still remained but imperfect, while
there could be no question that this so-called evidence, of
experience, was utterly incapable of bestowing assurance of
salvation and of forgiveness, even before sanctification was
complete.
It is not, then, astonishing that a more objective proof of the
Divine origin of holy Scripture and of the truth of Christianity
should have been sought in the place of this precarious evidence
of probability. It was the testimony of the reason that was now
turned to; and this it was attempted to establish partly in a
rational, and partly in an historical manner. The older super-
naturalism of Wolff's school applied itself to the former; that of
more recent growth, and eclectic views, which had been chiefly
cultivated in the older Tübingen school (Storr, Suskind, Flatt,
&c.) to the latter. The former, starting from God's righteousness,
holiness, and goodness, in virtue of that idea of God which is
naturally inherent in the reason, proves that, sin being a fact, a
Divine revelation of atonement must necessarily follow. It first,
1 Klaiber, id. p. 20, &c.
Wolffian Supernaturalism.
271
however, establishes the possibility of supernatural revelation in
general-in other words, the fact that such a revelation involves
no contradiction, and lays down the marks which it must bear
to prove itself to be such. Among these criteria are, that it shall
contain mysteries, i.e. truths which are not accessible to reason
as such,¹ nor even to be discovered as truths by reason enlightened
by Christianity. Holy Scripture, it goes on to say, does
correspond to these criteria, and is therefore to be regarded as
the source and self-authorizing form of Christian truth. Storr's
method endeavours to avoid that obvious weakness of this
evidence which consists in laying down criteria of revelation by
means of that natural reason which is itself in need of healing,
and in appealing to the accordance of holy Scripture with these
criteria. This it does by endeavouring to furnish to faith purely
historical evidence of the Divine origin of Scripture, and thereby
of Christianity. It seeks to rise, by a chain of reasoning, from
the human credibility of Scripture (fides humana) to its divine au-
thority (fides divina). The Apostles and their disciples were the
authors of the books of the New Testament canon as at present
existing (proof of authenticity and integrity). These books are
trustworthy; the Apostles could speak the truth, they desired to
do so, and must have done so. Now, these books describe, on the
one hand, the pure and sinless character of Christ, and, on the other,
relate His miracles; and these combined prove that full credit
is to be given to what He said of Himself, and to His Divine.
mission. Again, among other things, Christ promised inspiration
to His followers; His miracles prove that He could send to them
His Holy Spirit, and His truthfulness is a pledge that they really
were partakers of inspiration. Hence, the New Testament, and,
for its sake, the Old Testament also, must be regarded as inspired,
and all that is taught by holy Scripture must be held to be a true
and Divinely-accredited revelation. In saying this, the path
upon which Grotius proceeded is entered by Lutheran divines,
and certainly not without an improvement upon his method;
but the material principle, to which reformed theology was
formerly inclined, is now almost entirely disregarded in favour
1 Wolff, in his Theol. naturalis, pt. i. § 447-496, ii. p. 576, &c., had already
begun to distinguish between what was above, and what was contrary to reason,
requiring the former inasmuch as it contains truths necessary and useful to the
reason, though unattainable by it.
272 Onesided Position of the Formal Principle.
of the formal. The whole burden of proving the truth of
Christianity is now to be borne by the latter. And that, indeed,
in such wise that the power of the contents of holy Scripture,
divinely accrediting themselves to the mind, is not even brought
into the field (for this would again bring in the material side of
the principle, and the Testimonium Spiritus Sancti), but the
truth of Christianity is made to depend upon rational and
historical proofs, addressed in a purely intellectual form to
the understanding. General natural reason is said to have the
power of proving the Divine truth of Christianity. It is obvious.
that Christianity is thus viewed as something homogeneous with
the natural reason; and equally evident is the contradiction that
the reason, which is said to be strong enough for such a proof,
undertakes also the task of proving its own need of a Divine
revelation, and therefore its own weakness. Theological morality
was also often taken in hand by the Wolffian philosophy.¹
Theologians of this school were accustomed to accept two sources
of knowledge—reason and Scripture; they asserted the harmony
of these two sources, but failed to establish their relation with
sufficient clearness. With Wolff, they embraced as the supreme
moral principle that of perfection, which is formally self-evidencing
and also susceptible of eudæmonistic filling up.
If we now turn our attention to the contents of the religious sys-
tem, we shall find that the relation of God to the world was also de-
fined in a manner essentially deistical in the supernaturalism of the
age. For while Wolff's supernaturalism regarded God as ordinarily
at a distance from the world, and the latter as governed purely by
law, and as existing without any active intercourse between it and
God, which was considered inconsistent with His sublime eleva-
tion, it admitted that occasionally a glimpse may be obtained of this
1 S. J. Baumgarten, Unterricht vom rechtmässigen Verhalten eines Christen, oder
theologischen Moral, 1738, Ausführlicher Vortrag der theologischen Moral, ed.
Bertram, 1767. A Pietistic influence is evident in this writer. In his view,
moral theology is the scriptural doctrine concerning the manner in which man
must comport himself to be in a state of union with God. Canz, Unterricht von
den Pflichten der Christen oder theologische Moral, 1749; Reusch, theol. mor. ed.
Müller, Jena, 1760; J. E. Schubert, Inst. theol. mor., Jena and Leipsic, 1759.
Akin with these is Töllner's Grundriss der Moraltheologie, 1762. Reinhard's great
work, System der christlichen Moral, four vols. 1788-1810, distinguished for its
copiousness of ethical and historical material, and for acuteness of moral judg-
ment, exhibits, in its earlier parts, an internal connection with Wolff's system,
while, as it proceeds, the influence of Kant is perceptible.
in the Era of Wolffian Supernaturalism.
273
distant God by means of miracles, which are, as it were, openings
in the connections of nature, and interruptions of its arrange-
ments. The results of this supernaturalism, engrafted upon
Deism, and depriving the world of God, except on extraordinary
occasions, are a spurious independence of the world with respect
to God, and of the individual with respect to the race. It so far
weakens the doctrine of the innate sinfulness of the human race,
that while no longer denying the natural moral freedom of the
will, it only maintains that the will may be solicited, or allowed
to sin by the natural constitution, which is not in itself evil until
its suggestions are assented to and adopted by the free will.
In like manner, it regards the Church as originating solely
in the association of believers for religious purposes, and
thus makes the subjects its founders and source, instead of the
material which it is to assimilate, or the medium by which it
is to be maintained. There is here an unmistakable affinity to
the subjective theory of the State, at this time adopted, which
made the State arise from association (contrat social). The
same tendency is exhibited in the doctrine of the Divine image,
and of restoring grace.
For man is not so viewed as to make
communion with God a necessary component, and participa-
tion in the Holy Spirit an integral element, in the realization of
his true nature. On the contrary, he is treated as in himself a
complete μкpóleos, destined to moral likeness with God, whose
gracious influences afford him external assistance, or preserve
him from evil, but do not exceed a relation of mere assistance.
So too inspiration is reduced to Divine assistance, while in
Christology, Nestorian opinions are adopted (even by Storr), in an
Arminian spirit, with respect to the doctrine of the atonement.
For a time, indeed, that is to say in the earlier days of super-
naturalism, much was still said about the mysteries of Christi-
anity. But a formal reverence for holy Scripture was no obstacle
to its being regarded more and more as a sealed book, while that
vigour of mind and dogmatic productiveness which delight in
the revelation made by Christianity were wholly absent. But
this position of merely formal reverence did not last long, the
traditionary formula, especially those in which Christology and
the doctrine of the Trinity were expressed, were soon felt to be
a mere burden by a soaring subjectivity, and an Arminian phase
of thought upon which, as we have remarked, the theology of
II.
S
274
Transformation of Individual Doctrines
Germany had now entered, prevailed even in these objective
doctrines. Subordinationism and Arianism were not only ad-
vocated on exegetical grounds by Töllner of Frankfort on the
Oder,¹ but also adopted by the elder Flatt, Döderlein,² and others,
while a kind of Sabellianism was embraced by S. Urlsperger (see
below, p. 276). As far as Christology is concerned, a declension.
from the ancient Lutheran doctrine concerning the Person of
Christ had long set in even among the orthodox divines. The
edifice of Lutheran Christology had been, for the most part,
already forsaken by its inhabitants before 1750, the communicatio
idiomatum limited to the active Divine attributes, and the union.
of the two natures to a ovvdúaσis, while a pélegis was denied.
Properties, it is said, denote the essence of natures, consequently
a real participation of the manhood in the Godhead would cause
an intermingling of essences. In opposition to this, an essen-
tial contrast and an uncongeniality between the Divine and
human was still more maintained in the eighteenth than in the
preceding century, whence it logically followed that what was
contrary to the nature of man could not really be received
thereby. Hence the capacitas humanæ naturæ for the divina
was now excluded. Scholastic questions were still discussed,
as e.g. whether Christ even in death, in which state those parts
are separated whose union constitutes a complete man, remained
truly man; whether Christ was (by Traducianism) already in
lumbis Adami, and whether therefore the preservation of a
pure mass through a series of generations must be embraced;
whether the soul of Christ had a pre-existantia seminalis in the
soul of the Virgin; whether His blood which was shed remained
1 Töllner opposed, not without much acuteness and just criticism of tradi-
He overlooks,
tionary arguments, the obedientia activa in the work of Christ.
however, the fact, that the passive obedience which he desires to embrace must
He maintains also
also be regarded, when viewed in its inner nature, as an act.
the satisfaction made by Christ, but his Christology, while ascribing to the human
nature of our Lord the obligation of obedience, and hence a full and proper per-
sonality, supposes-in order to avoid a double personality-a mere co-operation
of the Son of God in all the actions of the human nature, especially with regard
to knowledge, a co-operation however which takes place only where the human
nature is inadequate.
2 Döderlein, Institutio Theologi Christiani in capitibus religionis theoreticis nostris
Christlicher Religionsunterricht
temporibus accommodata, 2 pts., Altdorf, 1780.
nach den Bedürfnissen unserer Zeit, 12 pts. 1785, being a translation, enlargement,
and a completion of the above work by C. G. Junge.
#
in the Era of Wolffian Supernaturalism.
275
upon earth and saw corruption, or was transferred to His resur-
rection body, and such like. Many, and especially the English
divines, H. Morus, Goodwin and Edw. Fowler, embraced, with
Poiret, a pre-existence of Christ's manhood in heaven, for the
sake of teaching the true self-humiliation of His human nature.
Against such subtilties even E. B. Löscher now lifted up a
warning voice. The main thing was the common active partici-
pation of the two natures in the work of redemption, and therefore
that which the Reformed had never doubted. Chr. M. Pfaff also
denied the communication of the character personalis on the part
of the Logos to the manhood, without inculcating the personality
of the latter, by which treatment it was made a mere garment.
Löscher, on the other hand, denied this communication of the
personality of the Logos, to leave room for a real progress of the
human nature, by which the proper personality of the manhood is
admitted. This denial was soon extended to the communica-
tion of properties. Heilmann,¹ and subsequently Reinhard, in-
stead of affirming the actual possession of Divine prerogatives.
by the human nature, speak only of its "right and title" thereto.
Mosheim insists on a communicatio mediata; the Logos alone.
has and retains the Divine properties, it is only verbali modo, or
symbolically, that they are ascribed to the human nature of
Christ. Of special importance was the work of Haserung in
directing closer attention to Christ's praying for Himself, and to
His obedience to the law, and ascribing to Christ's human nature,
as created, an obligation to both. The full truth concerning
the human soul of Christ and a feeling for the ethical aspect in
His Person were now brought out with increasing distinctness.
If the opponents of this progress endeavoured to deny the moral
obligation, by means of the impersonality of this soul, they
sacrificed that key-stone of Lutheran Christology, the imparta-
tion of the personality of the Logos to the human nature, for the
sake of meeting their adversaries on equal terms. But this con-
cession had further consequences, for it not only affected the
doctrine of the idiomata, but was soon and necessarily followed
by the admission of the personality of the human nature. Even
Walch, the opponent of Haserung, referring to Buddeus and
1 Comp. theologia dogmaticæ, Göttingen, 1761. E. J. Danov, Theol. dogm.
institutio, Jena, 1772.
*Haserung, De supplicationibus Christi pro semetipso.
276
Urlsperger.
Breithaupt, adopted the doctrine, so long indigenous to Reformed
theology, of the anointing of Christ, by which His natural powers
were enhanced and increased. But if the need, nay, the possi-
bility of the unctio of the manhood of Christ is to remain, it is
necessary to limit the communicatio idiomatum. This Walch was
now ready to do; it continued however to be held for a time, though
in a traditional and increasingly restricted sense. It may be
shown that from the time of Hollatius and Buddeus onwards,
the ethical categories were more and more observed than the
metaphysical, with respect to the doctrine of the idiomata. The
result was that the communication was conceived of as gradual,
and not as complete from the first. After 1750, its proper per-
sonality is increasingly attributed to Christ's human nature, and
the attempt made to bring the Logos into closer union therewith,
(e.g. by Töllner and Seiler). This was, to those who held Subordi-
nation or Arian opinions, by no means easy; for how should two
finite existences form a personal unity? It was not so difficult
to the Sabellian notions now revived. These were however uncon-
genial with the Deistical tendencies of the age, and formed only
an intermediate stage to the Socinian and Ebionite theology.
Sam. Urlsperger, who like Zinzendorf embraced a real and pro-
gressive humiliation of the absolute Logos, was almost the only
divine whose labours in Christology bear the mark of originality.
To the questions: How should God, the Infinite cause, produce, in
creation and in Christ, a finite effect? and, How can the Infinite.
and the finite be combined? he replies as follows: The Son
of God is the link which connects opposites, and the medium
between God and the world; He is, on the one hand, God of God
and infinite, on the other God apart from God, distinct from
God. By His infinite power He is capable of self-limitation, of
self-destination to finite effects, as well as of combining with
finite powers, and elevating the finite work of the world to
infinity. The Son, the Mediator, from Old Testament times
ever dwelt more and more in the world as the , until His
voluntary humiliation and limitation of His essentially infinite
powers reached their climax in incarnation and death, in which
T
1
1 Versuch einer genaueren Bestimmung Gottes des Vaters und Christi, pts. 1-4,
1769-77.
2 A history of the self-limitation of the Logos from the Creation to the Incar-
nation, like that embraced by Hoffmann in his Evidences of Scripture.
Wolffianism passes into Popular Philosophy. 277
he humbled Himself to an apparently lifeless condition. His
humiliation was however succeeded by His exaltation, the expan-
sion of His nature and glory, so that He is no longer apart from
God, but in God.
For a quarter of a century, that is till the sixth decade, Wolff's
philosophy flourished, and there was peace between theology and
logic. From that time the relation was essentially altered.
This was owing to many causes, some of which are to be found
in the Wolffian philosophy and its further progress, some in
other factors which had meantime become important.
In the first place, this philosophy was not calculated to satisfy
the human mind for any length of time. Added to this, its dis-
position of readiness to believe, of willingness to adhere to the
faith, if only its "possibility" could be demonstrated, did not con-
tinue. With respect to the latter circumstance, the change was
brought about by the influence of French and English literature
and the example and court of Frederick II., but chiefly by the
fact that the mind, though capable of reasoning and full of self-
esteem, was still deficient in copious and appropriate material
upon which to exercise its powers. Inwardly alienated from ortho-
doxy, it felt the legal validity and obligation thereof an oppres-
sive restraint, by which the development of its own fertile germs
was stifled and encumbered, and hence it longed for space and
air in which to develop its proper nature. As for the nourishment
offered, however, by the Wolffian philosophy, its formal rigidity
might indeed be beneficial to discipline the intellect, and to give
clearness and sharpness to its ideas, but it was no magic wand
to call forth fresh knowledge. Its pedantry had always a fea-
ture of triviality, which could scarcely hide itself behind its form
of shallow science. Hence it was but natural, that when once
the course had been gone through, this form should be laid
aside and exchanged for a more popular mode of expression, and
for the arguments of common sense. Wolffianism passed into
Popular philosophy; its contents offered no opposition, and it
became increasingly shallow and commonplace. The more exten-
sively the influence of Wolffian philosophy had been felt, the
greater now became the circle of bold reasoners, confident judges,
and improvers of the world. The leaning to the ideal, the trans-
cendental, was almost extinguished in Wolffianism; its Deism and
optimism accommodated themselves as well as possible to the finite,
278
Practical Divinity.
and extolled the present world as the best. Wolffian optimism
involves, even when viewed theoretically, a non-ethical eudæ-
monistic element, nor was its practical side long left unde-
veloped.¹ The axiom of "sufficient reason" was soon applied to
moral good; virtue is good because it is the means of happiness.
Thus, finite man was rendered absolute, himself and his finite
interests being made the standard and end of everything. The
value of things was measured simply by their utility,2 this
tendency to popularity created a new kind of divinity scarcely
worthy of the name, the so-called popular or practical divinity.3
This was first enunciated by Spalding in a book of the title
stated below. Christianity, he said, was a thoroughly practical
and popular doctrine, and preaching could only fulfil its mission
by abstaining from all that was unpractical and speculative.
Among unpractical and unprofitable subjects were reckoned the
doctrines of the Trinity, of the two natures of Christ, of original
sin, of satisfaction, and of the saving power of faith apart from
works. Some however, such as Miller and Less, maintained that
even doctrines which he had pronounced unpractical were really
of a practical character. But others, as Griesbach, Niemeyer,
Ammon, consented to pare down their body of divinity to the
practical standard. From this prudent abstinence from pro-
claiming "unprofitable" doctrines there was but one step to
1 Steinbart, System der reform. Philosophie oder Gluckseligkeitslehre des Chris-
tenthums, 1778-94, among others. Basedow, Padügogisches Elementarwerk, 1785,
4 vols.
2 Even before 1750, men had grown accustomed to such views, though in a far
more innocent form. For, Wolffianism holding the cosmological evidence of the
causa sufficiens to furnish the only decided proof of the existence of God, this
kind of evidence had been most carefully carried out-often indeed in details
offensive to good taste-to a physico-teleology, for the purpose of proving the
wisdom and goodness of God from supposed finite purposes in nature. So
Brockes, Reimarus, and many others.
3 P. Miller, Theolog. dogmatica comp. theoretico-practicum, Leipsic, 1785. J.
J. Griesbach, Anleitung zum Studium der populären Dogmatik, &c., Jena, 1786.
Less, christliche Religionstheorie oder Versuch einer praktischen Dogmatik, Göt-
tingen, 1779. A. J. Niemeyer, populäre und praktische Theologic, 1792. Am-
mon, Entwurf einer wissentschaftlich praktischen Theologie nach den Grundsätzen
des Christenthums und der Vernunft, Göttingen, 1797.
4 Spalding, von der Nutzbarkeit des Predigtamts, 1772. In his remarks on the
value of the affections in Christianity (1761), he warns against the danger of
religious feeling, and desires to expunge all Pietistic elements. In his second
work, in order to render the clergy useful servants of the State, he makes them
the depositaries of public morality.
Opposition initiated by a Recurrence to Sources. 279
1
openly opposing them, whether such opposition were carried on
by attempting to improve and perfect the New Testament, or
to prove that the denial of these doctrines was in accordance
with its teaching,2 and this prepared for a further advance.
So arbitrary and superficial a manner of coming to terms with
doctrine as was practised by neological illuminism, could but ill
accord with the German mind and its conscientiousness. It
demanded a more solid mode of procedure. It had indeed found
itself ill at ease in the edifice of ancient orthodoxy, but it felt
itself secretly in alliance with Christianity, and began to inquire
whether primitive Christianity were really identical with the
doctrines of the Church, and with its claims to be regarded as
authoritative. Might not an unprejudiced and faithful exegesis.
furnish doctrines which would give less offence? Might it not
be shown that the dogmas now established in the symbols owed
their form to the Church, and to the co-operation of incidental
occurrences in the Church? Thus a return to the sources of
exegesis and history was demanded, and the battle was to be
fought out upon this neutral ground, which was admitted by all.
The German mind, instead of an arbitrary rupture with orthodox
doctrine, determined on the tedious way of a regular siege, for
the sake of gaining for a good conscience, nay, in virtue of a
good conscience, such space and freedom as should no longer be
restricted by the symbol of the Church.
At the head of this more solid, but certainly more comprehen-
sive and far-reaching work, which was afterwards to lead to
unexpected results, were Ernesti and Semler, the former of
whom devoted himself to exegesis, the latter to historical
theology.
Ernesti, a well-practised and elegant interpreter of the classics,
advocated the grammatical interpretation of the New Testament
1 W. A. Teller (of Helmstädt and Berlin, † 1804), Lehrbuch des christlichen
Glaubens, Helmstädt, 1764 (arranged according to the contrast of sin and grace
without the doctrine of God or of the Trinity). Religion der Volkommenen, Berlin,
1792. Dictionary of the New Testament, 1772. He subsequently advanced to
the perfectibility of Christianity.
2 A. P. C. Henke, Lineamenta institutionum fidei chr. 1794. Eckermann,
Comp. theol. chr. theor. bibl. histor., Altorf, 1791. Handbuch zum gelehrten
und systematischen Studium der christlichen Glaubenslehren, 4 vols., 1811, &c.
Erklärung der dunkeln Stellen N. T., 3 vols., 1806. Theologische Beiträge, 6
vols. 1790-99. J. D. Michaelis, Comp. theol. dogm., Göttingen, 1760 (subse-
quently published also in German).
280
Exegesis. Ernesti.
2
>>
as the only correct one.¹ In so doing he maintained, in opposi-
tion both to the mystical and allegorical method, which had
reappeared, especially in the Pietistic school, and to Coccejus'
principle of emphases-that "holy Scripture has but one sense.
Not less however did he at the same time oppose interpretation
according to the analogy of faith, by means of which current
Church doctrine was made beforehand irrefutable on exegetical
grounds. Only between such different explanations as are
equally possible on philological grounds, is a decision to be
made according to the analogy of faith, i.e. of other authors, just
as other books are to be understood according to the analogy of
the subject of which they treat. Thus he insists that exegesis
should again be perfectly free, and should proceed according to
its own law. Now its law is grammar, i.e. the science of lan-
guage, which has respect not merely to the possible significations
of words, and to the laws of their combination, but also to
which of their possible meanings was the one intended by the
author, when the age in which, and the purpose for which, he
wrote, are taken into consideration. In saying this, he certainly
goes so far as to insist upon treating holy Scripture by exactly the
same rules of interpretation as profane authors, since he demands
no special enlightenment for its interpreter, although he admits
it to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost. Hence it is not
faith which is to interpret Scripture, nor is this needed for criti-
cism. He proceeds in general as if holy Scripture were capable
of being the sole foundation on which the Church is supported,
and as if the theopneustia and divine authority of Scripture
could be established even without the material principle. The
formal principle is to be entirely independent of the material,
and is itself to be bound only by general human laws. It cannot
be said that Ernesti's requirement, that the human side of the
New Testament language should be recognized, gave a new
impulse to exegesis. And yet it was in connection with his
tendency that biblical theology, which has since attained a con-
stantly increasing importance, became a special science. To this
belong the labours of A. F. Büsching, G. J. Zacharia Hufnagel,
Ammon, and G. L. Bauer. These beginnings of biblical theo-
¹ Institutio interpretis N. T., Lips. 1761 (and often afterwards).
3
2 Hence Ernesti, even in his grammatical method, recognised the truth of the
historical method of interpretation.
3 Büsching, Epit. theolog., Lemg. 1757. Diss. exhibens Epit. theol. e solis literis
Historical Investigations. Semler.
281
logy¹ still indeed exhibited marks of strong doctrinal leanings.
By means of holy Scripture the Reformed Church was to be
brought to own the justice of the censure passed upon the
objectionable points of her divinity. Besides, exegesis itself was
not free, inasmuch as exegetical results were regarded as before-
hand doctrinally binding. It was not till Ph. Gabler of Altdorf
defined biblical theology, on the ground of Semler's leading ideas,
as being, with regard to divinity and morals, a purely historical
science, that it attained the full significance of an independent
notion.2
This brings us to Semler, with whom we must stay somewhat
longer. Though a pupil of Baumgarten, who may be called a
personified compendium of modified Church doctrine, Pietism,
s. concinnatæ, Göttingen. G. J. Zacharia, biblische Theologie oder Untersuchung
des biblischen Grunds der vornehmsten theologischen Lehren, 4 pts., Göttingen and
Kiel, 1771-75, 5th pt. by Volborth, 1786. Hufnagel, biblische Theologie, Erlan-
gen, 1785; ii. 1, 1789. E. F. Ammon, Entwurf ciner reinen biblischen Theologie,
Erlangen, 1792, 2 pts.; ed. 2, 1801, in 3 pts. G. L. Bauer, Theologie des A. T.,
Leipsic, 1796. Biblische Theologie des A. T., 2 vols, 1800. Even Bahrdt pro-
fited by the times, and attempted a biblical system of divinity, in 2 pts., Gotha
and Leipsic, 1769 (see below, p. 289).
¹ The numerous collections of and commentaries on dicta probantia, or loca
classica, illustria of holy Scripture, by Seb. Schmidt, Hülsemann. Baier, J. H.
May, Weismann, and others, were composed only from doctrinal motives, viz. as
evidences of Scripture, and that only in a disconnected and incidental manner.
* Semler, in his Vorbereitung zur theologischen Hermeneutik, 4 pts., 1760, and
especially in his Apparatus ad liberalem N. T. interpretationem, 1767 (ad V. T.,
1773), advocates the historical interpretation as the only correct one. He looked
upon historical investigations concerning the occasion and purpose of a book, the
circumstances of the times, the ideas of the age in which it was written, and its
internal structure and spirit, as parts of such interpretation. Gabler, in his intro-
ductory programme, de justo discrimine theologiæ biblicæ et dogmaticæ regundisque
recte utriusque finibus, 1787 (comp. Schmid, biblische theologie N. T., 1853, p.
1, &c., and his treatise Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1838, 4), brings for-
ward, in accordance with these principles, the demand: discerne scripta, discerne
tempora et mores. These principles, excellent in themselves, were soon applied by
Semler to justify himself in accepting the notion of an accommodation on the
part of Jesus and His Apostles to the prevailing opinions and errors of the age, so
that even in the New Testament the permanent must be distinguished from the
temporary and the local. He finds also a proof from history that Scripture has
ever been differently understood in different ages of the Church, each phase of
opinion-the Judaizing, the Gnostic, the Pelagian, the Augustinian, &c.-having
treated its own views as the ruling analogia fidei, and applied them to interpreta-
tion as elucidating hypotheses. The question therefore is, after deducting accom-
modations, &c., to discover what was the special aim and inmost intention of
Christ and His apostles (see below, p. 284, sqq.).
282
Semler.
and Wolffianism, it was chiefly through him that those friendly
relations between revelation and natural theology which had
generally prevailed in the Lutheran Church, and which Wolffian
supernaturalism seemed to have confirmed, were dissolved in
Germany. He was neither a philosopher nor a philosophical
theologian. Besides an abstruse and pedantic style, he re-
ceived from Wolff little more than such a notion of religion
as was almost merged in morality, and a tendency in his
ethical notions towards a refined kind of Eudæmonism, while
he regarded piety and Church doctrine as antagonistic in a
manner which reminds of G. Arnold.¹
All that was pre-
scribed and established by the Church appeared to him as
doctrinal restriction, and religious despotism, arising from ambi-
tion, and poisoning or repressing true piety, which can only live.
in an atmosphere of freedom. It is with real pathos that he
endeavours to fashion the whole course of Church history, and
especially the history of doctrine, into a controversy against the
Church and her teaching, and a defence of the sole right of the
individual and his subjectivity. But comprehensive as were his
studies, and diligent as were his investigations of authorities
with respect to the various schools of theology, he was unable to
combine them into an intelligible whole, or to carry out any con-
sistent view. He does not even succeed in giving a consistent
exhibition of history; for together with the idea of the Church,
which is to him partly a matter of indifference and partly a
mischievous institution, he loses both the starting-point and goal
2
1 Comp. Baur, Epochen der Kirchengeschichte, pp. 132-135; Tübinger Jahr-
bücher, 1850, p. 533, &c. On Semler, compare especially Tholuck's sketch of the
changes which have taken place since 1750, in his Vermischte Schriften, pt. 2.
Uhlhorn, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologic, ii. 3, p. 650, &c. Schmid, die Theo-
logie Semlers, 1858. Ehrenfeuchter, Geschichte der neueren Theologie, in Lucke and
Wiesler's theologischen Vierteljahrschrift, 1847. Semler wrote his autobiography,
in 2 pts., 1781-82.
2 His chief works on Church history are: Hist. eccl. selecta capita, 1767; Ver-
such eines fruchtbaren Auszugs der Kirchengeschichte, 3 vols., 1773-78; Neue Ver-
suche die Kirchenhistorie der ersten Jahrhunderte mehr aufzuklären, 1788.
Semler's other principal works are: Von freier Untersuchung des Canon, 1771, 3
pts.; De dæmoniacis, 1768. (He also re-edited Balthazar Bekker's bezauberte Welt
and L. Meyer's Philosophia scripturæ interpres.) His doctrinal writings are his
Instit. ad doctr. chr. liberaliter discendam, 1774; Apparatus ad libros symb, eccl.
Luth., 1775; Versuch einer freieren theologischen Lehrart, 1777; Ueber historische
gesellschaftliche und moralische Religion der Christen, 1786; Letztes Glaubens-
bekenntniss über natürliche und christliche Religion, 1792.
Semler's Standpoint.
283
of historical theology. Till Semler, it had been customary to
regard the primitive age of the Church as that in which its ideal
was realized-a view embraced not merely by the Magdeburg
centuriators and Arnold, but even by Schröckh.¹ This indeed
involved the admission, that the subsequent career of the Church
must be regarded not as a progressive development of the Christian
principle, but only as a declension therefrom. And thus, even if
¹ Joh. Matth. Schröckh, christliche Kirchengeschichte, in 35 pts. (down to the
Reformation), Leipsic, 1768-1803. Christliche Kirchengeschichte (since the Refor-
mation), in 8 pts., parts 9 and 10 being by Tzschirner, 1810-12. He was the first
to give up dividing ecclesiastical history into centuries, and to attempt a division
into periods according to subjects (c.g. the periods of Constantine, Charlemagne,
the Reformation, &c.). He does not attempt, like Mosheim, a history of the
community professing the Christian religion, but a history of the Christian religion
itself. Hence he concerns himself much with doctrine, of which he gives a series
of separate sketches, after the manner of a picture gallery. He does not indeed
suppose that events follow each other in a merely accidental manner, but ex-
presses his purpose of "writing a pragmatic history" (pt. i. p. 251), which is to
investigate the internal concatenation of different events. But pragmatism is
with Schröckh only subjective, and in conformity with the spirit of his age. He
inquires into the subjective impulses and causes of historical data as though the
subjects alone constituted history, and Christianity and the Church were not
themselves also a power, possessing independent vitality, carrying out its functions.
by means of its organs the subjects, and having, above all, its own aims and
purposes. But this subjective pragmatism is carried still further by Spittler
(Grundriss der Geschichte der christlichen Kirche, Göttingen, 1782), Henke (All-
gemeine Geschichte der christlichen Kirche nach der Zeitfolge, in 6 vols., 1788-
1804), and especially by Planck (Geschichte der Entstehung der Veränderungen
und Bildung, unseres protestantischen Lehrbegriffs vom Anfang der Reformation
bis zur Einführung der Concordienformel, 6 vols., 1781-1800; Geschichte der christ-
lichen kirchlichen Gesellschaftsverfassung, 5 vols. 1803-1809; Geschichte der pro-
testantischen Theologie von der Concordienformel an bis in die Mitte des 18 Jahr-
hunderts, 1831). The pragmatism of the two first is frequently made to subserve
their often violent attacks upon the Church and its doctrines. The learned Planck
is more moderate and cautious, but even his first work exhibits an indifference to
doctrine to which Henke's and Spittler's enmity is almost preferable. A pene-
trating minuteness to the patience displayed by which it would be impossible,
considering his contempt for doctrine, to refuse the tribute of admiration, if it did
not, like an obtrusive cicerone, make too great demands upon that of the reader,
everywhere discovers purpose, preconcerted design, ambition, hatred, and other pas-
sions, to have been the motive forces in the process of doctrinal history. Thus the
progressive and independent development of dogma is resolved into psychological
dispositions and tendencies, while, at the same time, the author's own doctrinal in-
difference is unconsciously transferred to the agents of the dogma-forming process,
by the axiomatic assumption, that doctrine alone would have been incapable of ex-
citing so much interest or contention. In his eyes doctrine is an antiquated matter,
which is properly destined to oblivion. In this method, the view being restricted
to efficient causes, and the inherent activity of final causes lost sight of, even the
efficient causes are not comprehended in their entirety. Comp. Baur, Epochen, &c.
284
Semler and the History of Doctrine.
general connecting ideas were not entirely lost sight of, a very
monotonous relation of all centuries to the idea of the Church
was the result. Now Semler did not admit a flourishing period of
primitive Christianity, as such, but depicted the early Church in
anything but glowing colours. And yet he too did not on that
account raise the history of the Church above the monotony of
an unproductive movement without rest or pause; for even the
history, and especially the teaching of Christ, is made by this
"historical interpretation," and the accommodations he embraced,
quite an uncertain quantity; so that at last scarcely anything
remains as certainly taught by Christ, except an advocacy of
individual liberty in religion, without any more definite matter.
With its starting-point he loses also the goal of the Church, and
thus its history, instead of showing a progress, an approximation
towards this goal, does but exhibit repeated outrages of indivi-
dual freedom, or, at least in the province of doctrine, a chaos
of fancies in which he is unable to perceive either value or
religious element. While impetuously demanding from the
Church an unbounded toleration, which is to see in countless.
individuals only the thousand-fold gradations of the one truth
whose treasures are contained in Jesus, he himself makes no
kind of arrangement for exercising this toleration towards the
Church, or for entering intelligently into the various doctrinal
phenomena. It only remains to say, that it is but the fermenta-
tion of elements dissolving, intermingling, attempting new com-
binations, undergoing fresh decompositions, unexpected even by
the spirit which set them in a state of fusion, which is generally
reflected in his mind, devoid as it is of independent and higher
ideas. For Semler is rather carried away by the process which
is going on within him, than able to guide it. His daily work
betrayed him into taking a very different part from that which
he purposed, and he was almost an unconscious instrument of
the impulses which ruled his age.¹
1
The results of his studies are deposited in 171 works, generally
on historical or exegetical subjects, but always written with a
view to doctrinal criticism. It is a fundamental characteristic
1 This is seen in his position with respect to Bahrdt's Glaubensbekenntniss, which
shocked him (Antwort auf das Bahrdtsche Glaubensbekenntniss, 1779), and to the
Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist: Beantwortung der Fragmente cines Ungenannten insbe-
sondere vom Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger, Halle, 1779.
Semler and his History of Doctrine.
285
of all that he has given to the world, to resolve every subject.
into its constituent atoms, and to exhibit the opposition existing
among the latter, while he is wholly devoid of a feeling for that
higher unity by which things differing from each other are har-
monized. Thus he resolves the history of doctrine into a count-
less number of views which oppose each other, which appear and
disappear in an arbitrary and accidental manner, but which are
all equally indifferent opinions so far as religion is concerned.
Incapable of attaining to the principle from which doctrine
originates, and of perceiving the one end which restrains and
combines the unceasing ebb and flow of its restless waves, he
can see nothing but change and variableness instead of unity
and progress. Only external powers such as Platonism, Stoicism,
Judaism, &c., are, in his eyes, the occasions of these movements.
Hence, he too knows only of a pathology, and has no acquaint-
ance with the energy and dynamics of doctrine. In a like spirit
also, he prefers solving questions of biblical criticism and exegesis,
by the adoption of glosses, appendices, and the negative or
positive influences of the notions of the age. And yet he made.
some discoveries. Thus he was the first who brought forward
the importance of the opposition between the doctrine of St.
Paul and the Judaizing party in primitive Christendom. He
views the Catholic epistles as having a conciliatory intention
with regard to both these parties. Relying upon Luther's
example, he also reopened the way for a more enlightened
criticism and investigation of the canon. Like him he insists,
in his numerous contributions to the criticism of the canon, on
not being exclusively led by historical arguments, and least of
all when these are not of an entirely reliable nature. He per-
ceives that a doctrinal principle must also concur in deciding on
the canonicity of a book, in other words, that its contents must
be in harmony with the Christian faith. He desires not to base
the authority of holy Scripture on evidence addressed merely to
the understanding. The only evidence which can fully satisfy
the candid reader is an inward conviction produced by the truths
he meets with in Scripture. This, however, he explains in the
following manner: "The proof lies in the advantages of Christi-
anity to every man," or "every man who makes use of the teach-
ing of Scripture perceives that he thereby becomes wise to his
true welfare." This he calls fides divina, which he refers to the
Uor M
286
Criticism.
Testimonium Spiritus Sancti. For he always embraces the in-
fluence of the Holy Spirit, by means especially of the word of
Scripture. While the ancient fides of the Evangelical Church
had for its object Christ and His salvation, the object of faith is,
according to Semler, the morally improving truths taught by
Christ. The feeling for truth, however, upon which he falls
back, may-as degrees of moral and religious culture differ-
assent to very different propositions, and is besides a very sub-
jective criterion. That which is not edifying, which does not
subserve the improvement of man, he regards as worthless-and
this is a standpoint which may banish much that is of intrinsic
value by designating it as unpractical, especially where the re-
ligious interest is apt to stop at generalities.
The following are the results of his critical investigations :
the Pentateuch, whose intrinsic credibility he embraces, did not
attain its present form till long after Moses, it is nevertheless
based upon Mosaic writings; Genesis is founded on pre-Mosaic
documents; the historical books, as well as many among the
Hagiographa, do not give the impression of being inspired writ-
ings; Esther contains a Jewish fable; the Proverbs of Solomon
may have been in part collected by the men of Hezekiah, and
the Psalms not till the time of Ezra. With respect to the New
Testament, the three first Gospels contain, in his view, too much
oàpέ, too many miracles, while he highly esteems the fourth, and
the writings of St. Paul. The Apocalypse is a Judaizing pro-
duction. It is worthy of remark that, at its commencement,
the whole critical movement of modern times coincided in this
assertion, and after attacking almost every book in succession,
at last arrived at the conclusion that the Apocalypse was genuine,
chiefly for the sake, indeed, of turning it against the genuineness
of the Gospel.
1
We have remarked above that, according to Semler, his-
tory is a mere stream, an incessant becoming, devoid of a real
existence for its firm foundation and uniting bond amidst all
mutations, and having no certain end in view. He is also
deficient in that "genuine historical intuition which is at once
genetic and teleologic." His vast reading showed him a muta-
bility of "theological opinions," from which he could find no
1 Kleuker, Storr, and others, are, on the contrary, the special defenders of
its genuineness.
Maou
Private Religion.
287
other means of escape than by regarding them as all equally in-
different, so far as religion itself was concerned, and by retreat-
ing from them, as well as from the orthodoxy formed by them, to
what he calls his "private religion.” A great truth, viz. the
distinction between religion and theology, is here fermenting
within him; but what he calls religion is independent not only
of divinity and scientific method, but almost entirely so of
knowledge, and is therefore something utterly indefinite, meagre
and unconnected with the public religion. Accepting a theorem
of Thomasius the territorialist, who, while assigning to the ruler
the right of regulating the external forms of religion, reserves
the freedom of its inner province, Semler allows in the subject,
the free and unrestrained prevalence of the most opposite views
and errors, because these are, in a religious point of view, in-
different. He fails, however, to perceive that this entails a con-
sequence which he does not really desire, viz. that the Church,
which cannot exist without doctrine, would be dissolved, and
that private piety would in such a state of separatism be starved
and wither. Piety, while desiring to distinguish between that
which is essential to Christian truth, and that which is incidental
to the external association, needs the support of settled positive
convictions, and these, wherever they are found, will manifest a
tendency and power to form a community. Uniformity of
doctrine would, he thinks, limit the power of comprehension in-
herent in the Christian religion (which, according to his own
view of it, he most earnestly embraces), a power extending to the
most differing ages, races, and individuals; while he regards
diversity not as a hindrance, but as a vital condition of true.
religion. But if all is thus susceptible of change, the subject is
left without any objective eternal truths, any standard of judg
ment. Hence, he is willing to admit a solid substance in the
external covering of Christianity, and regards Christianity as a
revelation arising from a Divine inspiration of those ideas and
truths, which serve to heal or improve mankind. It is, however,
obvious—from the fact that he finds in the greater part of holy
Scripture, nothing more than a repetition of that natural religion
which was sufficient for God's purpose among the heathen-how
vague and indefinite were his views both of these truths and of
the spiritual improvement of mankind. The smaller and re-
maining part of holy Scripture states the very few distinctive
*
288 Contradiction between his Efforts and their Effects.
doctrines concerning the best way of entering into union with
God. He is a Christian who orders his life according to Christ's
teaching and example. Agreement concerning non-practical
propositions is not necessary; on the contrary, each individual
needs, for his moral improvement, something different from that
which is required by another. As no two Christians are exactly
alike, so also will each have, properly speaking, a different Bible.
It is self-evident how the already described tendencies of Less,
Spalding, Miller, Jerusalem, Nösselt, &c., which estimated all
Christian doctrines according to their practical utility, and set
up for this purpose a so-called practical divinity, inwardly co-
incided in this standpoint.
Semler preserved to the last his personal piety, and his love to
the Person of the Redeemer, of which he gave some touching
instances. But this personal side, never attaining to a form in
which it might have become transferable, was therefore without
effect. That which did influence his age was rather those
negative conclusions which shocked, nay, uprooted, all that was
established, and which found the more acceptance because Semler
combined with a study of authorities, which was of most unusual
extent, an earnestness of mind far removed from all frivolity.
The adversaries of Christianity regarded him as their associate,
until his opposition of the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, which did
not, however, hinder them from appealing to him, and that with
great satisfaction. And yet Semler's method was not quite
without better fruits. Among these are Hess's works on
Scripture history, in which this is viewed as a Divine education
of the world. The same author also wrote a history of the life of
Christ. It was in connection with the labours of Semler that
divinity now again frequently took up the history of doctrines.
At all events, it is to him that we are indebted for setting the
example of the historical method. He is estimated far too highly
when he is regarded as the father of modern theology in general.
For the historico-critical mode of procedure forms but one of its
factors, nay, only one of its postulates. Neither did he carry this
out to certain principles or established inferences. It is not,
1 Hess, Kern der Lehre vom Reich Gottes, 1819. Bibl. Geschichte A. u. N. T.,
&c., 23 vols., † 1828.
1
2
2 So c.g. Döderlein, Institutio theol. dogm., 1782. Also, the Cotta edition of
J. Gerhard's Loci, with its excellent supplement. Döderlein's views are Arian
and semi-Pelagian, while Gabler goes as far as Socinianism.
Reimarus, the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist.
289
however, saying more than the fact to own that he has attained
to lasting importance by the introduction of the historical factor
into theology. The older theology had beheld in doctrines a
system complete from the very beginning, in the canon of Scrip-
ture an unalterable whole, beyond the province of criticism, in the
Old Testament essentially the same contents and an equally
direct source of instruction as in the New, and had failed to per-
ceive in sacred history a gradual and progressive revelation.
Now, Semler opened the way for an historical view of all these
questions by again agitating them; and thus one important
element of the Reformation again took the place of that absence
of all criticism which had since set in. Upon the whole,
however, the chief result of Semler's labours was rather to
destroy than to build up.
To this the above-described (see p. 268) general tendency of
the age not a little contributed. Sam. Reimarus, professor at
Hamburg, 1728, † 1768, Moses Mendelssohn of Berlin, † 1786,
Nicolai, Biester, Gedicke, Abr. Teller of Frankfort on the Oder,
Steinbart, † 1809, of Halle, Eberhard, 1778-1808, and the
superficial and low-minded Bahrdt, † 1792, were the chief
advocates of negative illuminism.¹
Reimarus was the author of the seven so-called Wolfenbüttel
Fragments, edited by Lessing from 1774 and onwards (that on
the purpose of Jesus in 1777). The "anonymous" writer was
not merely concerned for the toleration of Deism, but attacked
in the rudest and most daring manner the moral character of
Jesus and His disciples. Jesus desired to appear as a reformer
of Judaism, and to give Himself out for an earthly king, but His
plan was frustrated. His disciples then explained His plan as
having alluded to a spiritual kingdom, and invented the tale of
His resurrection, which is however self-contradictory. The
1 K. F. Bahrdt, Briefe über die systematische Theologie, 1770, Glaubens
bekenntniss, 1779. Briefe über die Bibel in Volkston, 1782-83. System der
moralischen Religion, 1787, 1791, 3 pts. Von der Gottheit Christi, 1775. Plan
und Zweck Jesu, 1784.
2 On the toleration of Deists; on the decrying of reason from pulpits; the
impossibility of a revelation in which all men could have a well-founded belief;
that the Books of the Old Testament were not written to reveal a religion; on the
history of the Resurrection; on the purpose of Jesus and His disciples. Others
were published in Niedner's Zeitschrift, 1850-52. Comp. the latest defence
of "the martyr;" Strauss's H. S. Reimarus und seine Schutzschrift für die
vernunftigen Verehrer Gottes, Leipsic, 1862.
II.
T
290
Nicolai.
author declares himself to be conducting an "historical" investi-
gation, but fails to perceive that he is himself obliged to invent a
fiction, and descend to the most unworthy and unhistorical view
of Christianity, to impress upon the character of Jesus a stamp
of ambition and fanaticism, and to represent His disciples as
deceivers.¹ The Fragments did indeed cause a commotion, but
their attacks were based upon assumptions so arbitrary that no
lengthened or productive controversy resulted. On the contrary,
the contest was soon merged in that between Lessing and Göze
(see below), of which the Fragments were rather the occasion than
the chief subjects of discussion.3 To understand the agency of
Nicolai, we must remember that, subsequently to the seventh
decade of this century, theological questions were no longer
confined to professed theologians, but transferred to the general
and increasing circle of the reading public. The widely spread
order of freemasons had aimed at a universal humanistic religion,
which, though it was sketched but in broad outlines, had in
reality a destructive influence. Since the time of Thomasius,
Latin had more and more given place to German, though this
language was, for the most part, but awkwardly handled. Rous-
seau, Voltaire, and the encyclopædists, with their naturalism and
sensualism, nay, even materialism and atheism, had been im-
ported from France, as the new learning of the most cultivated
of nations; and the court as well as the opinions of Frederic
II. were favourable to French influence. The Deistical literature
4
1 Semler, in his above-named work, makes it a matter of reproach that, with
all his Church-destroying views, he was aiming at condemning the minds of men
to uniformity, though, indeed, a negative uniformity. He desired that freer views
should be maintained in the department of private religion.
2 The assertion that the history of the resurrection involves contradictions is
certainly acutely carried out, but it is forgotten that the narrative presents far
greater difficulties on the assumption of concerted design and fraudulent invention
on the part of the Apostles.
3 Other works in a similar spirit are: Paalzow's Hierocles, 1785 (a discourse
between Michaelis, Semler, Less, and others), 1785; Rhiem, Reines Christenthum,
1789; Christus und die Vernunft, 1792 (K. Venturini, 1807); Natürliche
Geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazareth, Bethlehem, Copenhagen, 2d edit.,
3 pts., 1806; Geschichte des Urchristenthums im Zusammenhange mit der
Geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazareth, Copenhagen, 1807 (Von Langsdorf,
+1834); Gott und Natur, Religion Christi und Religion der Christenheit, 1828;
Einfache Darstellung des Lebens Jesu, 1831. According to Venturini, falsehoods
and intrigues were the sources of Christianity.
Comp. Niedner, Kirchengeschichte, latest edit., 1866, pp. 813, 936.
Eberhard.
291
of England, at first known through its refutations, was soon
translated into German and very widely spread. All this was
used by Nicolai, the bookseller of Berlin, for the purpose of
systematically setting the fashion of decided illuminism, and
ensuring its triumph by the publication of the Allgem. deutsche
Bibliothek, 1765-1806, to which he was also a contributor.
Eberhard¹ wrote in a more dignified tone. But he too regards
God as the author of Christianity only in the same sense as He
is the author of all things, viz., in an indirect manner; for
miracles would be an infraction of the order of nature, and incon-
sistent with Divine wisdom. Christianity arose, according to
Eberhard, from a union of the Eastern mind, i.e. of the feeling
for the supersensuous, with the Western Greek mind, i.e. the
sense for a reasonable inculcation of virtue.2 This union of
oriental and Greek culture gave to Christianity its character of
universality, while before its appearance all public religions were
special and national, and all morality consisted in the observance
of civil law. Semler had already made the one Church and its
canon, which included the writings of all the Fathers, originate
from two parties, the external Christians who followed Peter,
and the internal Christians who were followers of John and Paul,
each of which had its own books, gospels, &c.; and Eberhard now
adopted the notions of a strife among the apostles themselves,
between the Petrine party and the more liberal party of Paul,
who, himself superior to Jewish narrowness, was the first to
complete in himself this union of the oriental and occidental
mind.3
A deistical atmosphere seemed to have settled upon this
generation, and to have cut it off from vital communion with
God. To order one's self according to mere natural reason and
self-complacency in this finite state of existence, and to think of
nothing beyond it, were regarded as true wisdom and sound com-
mon sense. Religion was converted into morality, and morality
into the politic teaching of Eudæmonism, in a coarser or more
refined form. Reasoning and arguing were the order of the day,
1 J. A. Eberhard, Neue Apologie des Socrates oder Untersuchung über die
Glückseligkeits lehre der Heiden, 1772, and Geist des Urchristenthums, 3 vols.,
Halle, 1807.
•
Recalling Renan and Strauss in our own days. Comp. Strauss, Leben Jesu
für das deutsche Folk, 1764, pp. 168, &c.
3 Excellent humorous descriptions will be found in Schlegel's Athenæum.
$
!
292
Teller, Busching, and other Illuminists.
and the very faculty of imagination and originality seemed lost.
And though neological theologians, such as Abr. Teller, Gedicke,
and Biester, whom Spalding and Jerusalem followed at some
distance, maintained for the most part some moderation, yet the
influence of the so-called illuminism was widespread, and, till
the close of the century, unintermitting. The symbolical books
were, for the most part, consigned to oblivion, and the obligation
to receive them became an empty form. Busching discussed the
right of the Evangelical Church to impose such obligations, and
decided in the negative. The extent of the apostasy from the
confessions of the Reformation is shown by the fact, that the
edict of Wöllner, 1788, which was intended to oppose a barrier
to neology by its admonitions concerning the obligation of an
oath, and the power of the State to inflict penalties, had exactly
the opposite effect. Its abolition, which was one of the first acts.
of Frederick William III., was a declaration that the contest
which had arisen was to be allowed to take its course, without
the intervention of extrinsic force. It may be truly said that
this was not doing justice to the rights of the Church, which is
no mere association of inquirers, or of men accepting the articles
of faith of Moses Mendelssohn. But this makes it only the more
obvious that the new turn which was soon to be taken and to
press triumphantly onwards originated from the intrinsic free
power of the Church itself, and the establishment of such a fact
was of more value than all that external force or fully upheld
rights could have maintained or effected.
Harbingers of this new turn appeared as the representatives
not indeed of affected but of a genuine and deeper mental culture,
during the whole period of illuminism. The mention of these
now leads us to a review of the other aspect of the præ-Kantian
period.
•
Klopstock.
293
CHAPTER II.
THE REACTION OF THE FORMLESS BUT VIGOROUS INTELLECT AGAINST
THE DEADNESS OF ORTHODOXY AND THE EMPTINESS OF ILLU-
MINISM: KLOPSTOCK, HAMANN, CLAUDIUS, LESSING, AND HERDER.
WE are apt to undervalue, with respect to theology, the period
succeeding 1750, by conceiving it to have been more meagre and
negative than it really was. Meagre indeed it was, as we have
already seen; nay, for the most part, utterly flat and stale, so far
as the prevalent theology was concerned. Half-heartedness and
false compromises lowered the standard of Christian faith, for
the sake of satisfying the philosophic notions of the age. But
along with all this, mighty impulses were working as they
had never before done in Germany, and these called forth a new
German literature, and produced mental tendencies which at
first advanced together in a peaceful, nay, a friendly manner, but
then separated to seek, after most serious conflicts, for a new
union, and to effect a rejuvenescence of the intellectual life of the
German nation. These impulses were, some of a religious and
some of a secular kind.¹ They did not indeed at first exert any
influence upon professional theology, but as literary productions
they fertilized the soil of popular life, from which, in the fulness
of time, a higher theology was to be born. On this account
we must pause awhile at this period, for this is the atmosphere
in which the creators of modern science, theology included, were
brought up and came to maturity. It is among them that we
shall find, in the form of presentient feelings, the germs which
were afterwards developed. And first Poetry, which was now
approaching its classical period, must come under consideration.
Christian poetry took a new flight in Klopstock, Claudius,
Lavater, and Stalberg; Goethe, and Schiller, after Lessing had
opened the way, advocated the universal human, while Herder
and Jacobi occupied a middle station between these two groups.
1 Compare Schlosser, Geschichte des 18 Jahrhunderts, iii. 2; Gervinus, Gelzer,
die neuere deutsche Rationalliteratur, 3d ed. 1858; Hettner, Geschichte der neueren
Literatur, iii.; Jul. Schmidt, Geschichte des geistigen Lebens in Deutschland von
Leibnitz bis auf Lessings Tod, 1681-1781; Gesch. der deutschen Liter. seit Lessings
Tod, 1858; Vilmar, Gesch. der deutschen Nationalliteratur, vol. ii. Marburg,
1851; K. Barthel, die deutsche Nationalliteratur der Neuzeit, A. 5, 1858.
294
Klopstock.
It
Klopstock, 1724-1803, the German Milton, is distinguished
for having bathed that orthodox doctrine, which he left entirely
unaltered, in the fervour of religious feeling and imagination, and
thus implanted, with renewed youth and vigour, in a thousand
hearts, those old traditional beliefs which had hitherto been con-
fined to the understanding. He attained this end by leading
men's minds from Christian doctrine to its fountain head, to the
life of the Saviour, which he described in animated verse.
was a hopeful omen for the new literature that the "Messiah'
should stand on the threshold which separated the ancient from
the modern period, just as a new era dawned upon the German
nation with the Heliand. It may moreover be considered a
characteristic and honourable distinction of the popular mind of
Germany, that the reception of Klopstock's great poetical creation
should be so enthusiastic, at a time when, both in England and
France, a contempt of all ideality, a despair of a higher standard
of human life, was so widely spread by the chilling influences of
Deism and materialism, and by a systematic egotism. It was as
though the German mind was to be consecrated and equipped
for the approaching era of those historical and critical researches
whose central point was increasingly to be the image of the
Redeemer. It cannot be denied that the great poem did not do
justice to its subject; though narrating history, its tone is rather
lyric than epic, and the portraiture of Christ is defaced by a
certain indefiniteness and immateriality. The Divine and Eternal
element does not seem sufficiently incorporated in the earthly
and historical, and does not tread the ground with sufficient
firmness. Christ appears more as the symbol of compassionate,
saving, divine love, than as a real Person, carrying out a freely
chosen work in the midst of the opposition and attacks of
actually existing powers. A great part of the poem is occupied
by non-historical matters, the connection between which and the
subject is more or less slight. Neither do we find an adequate
representation of the fact, that the conflict in which the universe
was concerned had its centre of gravity in this world, and that
the Saviour's divine-human heart, agitated as it was by real
struggles, fought the battle and gained the victory in a corner of
this earth, which thenceforward became to the whole race a
sacred place whence inexhaustible blessing and salvation flowed
forth. The very men of the Messiah have, as has justly been
Klopstock.
295
remarked, too little individuality; they do not seem to live and
breathe, but are rather exemplifications of certain notions or
sentiments, e.g. of devoutness, humility, or fidelity, than strongly-
marked characters. Such an image of Christ was essentially in
conformity with the theology of the day, which still abridged
the human in favour of the Divine side of His nature, and failed
to perceive that the Divine, in so far as it does not become
human, remains unrevealed, and hovers in a sublime indefinite-
ness, which cannot become a subject of vivid and plastic contem-
plation, but only one of aspiration and ecstatic feeling. But
Klopstock, standing as he did on the threshold of a new era, and
already influenced by its subjective character, by making the
Son of Man, so far as he had hitherto been developed in the mind
of German Christendom, the subject of a poem, secured-as
Milton did in his days-the sacred and supreme treasure of
mankind, against the overflowing floods of a destructive age, and
preserved it in animated words, which the longing heart could
feel and understand, even at a time when its mystery was to
become an enigma, nay, a contradiction, to the more powerfully
stirred reason.
When Klopstock does descend from the sublime and the
enthusiastic to the earthly and the actual, it is to celebrate his
fatherland, whose language, customs, and independence, he
endeavours, even at the time when the German empire was at
its lowest point of depression, to maintain pure and intact. His
patriotism, which was elevated into a religious feeling, and which
tuned the lyres of a series of other poets, contributed not a little
to the impression that his piety was sound and vigorous, and to
the popularity of his poems. Yet even in this respect also there.
is a want of that moral manliness, which might have acted as a
middle term between the German mind and the realm of Divine.
He is ever the German youth, with his ideal aspirations, his soaring
imagination, his excited feelings. The life of the fully-developed
thought and will is cast into the background. If, however, the
blossoms of the ideal feelings do not set in fertile fruits, in which
they continue to operate as a power of silent but creative vitality,
such feelings do but evaporate into vagueness, or lose in inward
truth by repetition, and give an impression of the pathetic rather
than of the animated. Klopstock, it may be said, stands before
us as the venerated herald of the coming age, a herald who
296
Hamann.
directed attention to the highest object. But his works, like
sabbath bells, gave to the world and to Germany rather the
promise of living and spiritual worship than its reality.
Hamann¹ is a kindred spirit, on account both of the profundity
and inwardness of his Christian feeling and of his enthusiasm
for Christianity, which he proclaims not in verse but, like one
exercising the gift of prophecy in the primitive Church, in
language unconnected indeed, but often sublime, and still oftener
enigmatical by reason of its fulness of matter and abundance of
allusion. Hamann is a far more philosophic spirit than Klop-
stock, more fertile in new views, endowed with unusual pro-
fundity, which ever enables him to grasp things in their divine
and eternal relations, but which, through his lack of dialectic
talent, and under the pressure of immense but desultory learn-
ing, is often expressed in unconnected and oracular sentences.
Goethe, who occupied himself in collecting his works and called
him our intellectual great-grandfather, was deeply impressed by
this fertile genius, who brought forth, as from a rich vein of ore,
an abundance of original thoughts suited to the wants of the age.
Highly esteemed by the greatest men of his day, by Lessing,
Herder, Goethe, Jacobi, he obtained the name of the Magus of
the North. The freedom and largeness of his views raised him
above the anxieties entertained by the pious of his age, because
deeply rooted as he was in evangelical Christianity, he was firmly
persuaded of its intellectual superiority to the whole kin of
neologists, and could look with the triumphant certainty of
amusement at their efforts to overthrow it. Himself well versed
in classical antiquity, he recognized the affinity of Christianity to
all that was eternal in the classic world. While to the mass of
his contemporaries, Christianity and humanity, historical and
eternal truth, the human and the Divine, are terms expressing
irreconcilable opposites, he is able to perceive their unity. His
favourite thought is, omnia divina et humana omnia. The
whole world is to him full of signs, full of meaning, full of the
Divine. Man is a tree whose trunk is nourished by two roots,
one of which turns to the invisible origin of all things, the other
to the earthly and the visible. In history-and not merely in
the history of revelation in the Old and New Testaments-he
1 Hamann's Werke, ed. Roth, 1821, 8 books. For particulars concerning
him: Gildemeister, 1857, Herbert, and others.
#
Hamann.
297
sees the historicalization [Geschichtlichwerden], the incorporation
of the eternal; and faith is, in his view, the faculty of perceiv-
ing God's acts in history and His works in nature, the power of
beholding the unity of the metaphysical, the eternal and the
historical, and of intuitively discerning the divine in the tem-
poral. His mysticism is not merely the subjective mysticism of
the feelings, but is open to objective concrete matter from nature,
and especially from history; in fact it is theosophy. Thus faith
being the focus which comprehends in its entireness, and there-
fore grasps at its centre of gravity that which unbelief separates.
in either a non-ideal or material manner, he finds in such faith
the truth of things (ióσTaσis), and therefore the source of true
knowledge. Herein it is that he radically differs from the
rationalism of the age, which acknowledges none but eternal
truths and accepts none but the mathematical mode of proof.
He sees in such notions only superstition, delusion, and philo-
sophic juggling. He is however no less opposed to the mere
experience of the senses, for he perceives that this tends to
materialism and atheism. Flesh and blood know no other God
than the universe, no other spirit than the letter. He also dis-
covers the inward relation between the intellectualism of ortho-
doxy and the rationalism of the age, which alike resolved the
higher spiritual life into a work of the understanding. The
main thing is that that religious susceptibility which forms the
very basis of our existence should attain assurance, and be united
with God by realities which are their own evidence, and which
bring with them conviction to the soul. Thus are we transferred
from mere reasoning, or from the impulses and perceptions of the
senses, to the atmosphere of true life. And here it is specially
by means of the documents of the history of revelation that-
according to Hamann-we become conscious of the presence of
God in history. God, at whose bidding are the storm, the fire
and the earthquake, chooses for the token of His presence a still
small voice which we tremble to hear in His word and in our own
hearts. Grace and truth are not to be discovered or acquired,
they must be historically revealed. Revelation takes the form
of a servant both in Christ and in the Scriptures; the eternal
history bears a human form, a body which is dust and ashes and
perishable, the visible letter; but also a soul which is the breath
of God. And it is by such self-humiliation of the Spirit of God
298
Hamann.
to the pen of man, such self-abnegation of the Son of God, that
the Spirit and the Son dwell among us.
The wish "speak
All God's works
Creation itself is a work of God's word.
that I may see Thee" is fulfilled by creation.
are tokens of His attributes, all corporeal nature is a parable of
the spiritual world. At first, all God's works were a word of
God to man, emblems and pledges of a new, an unutterable
union. But sin interposed. Separated from God, the world
became an enigma to us. The knowledge of God, without which
love to God is impossible, acquaintance and sympathy being
necessary elements of love, is no longer possible through the
contemplation of His works, which less know and less reveal
Him than we ourselves. But the books of the covenant as well
as the book of nature contain secret articles, and these God has
been pleased to reveal to men through their fellow men. Hence
revelation and experience, which are intrinsically harmonious,
are the most indispensable crutch, if our reason is not to remain
hopelessly lame. God's word is heard in nature and in history;
and the noon of history, that is God's day, is in Christ. Judaism
had the word and signs, heathenism reason and its wisdom, but
Christianity is that to which neither the men of the letter nor
the men of speculation could attain; it is the glorification of
manhood in the Godhead, and of the Godhead in manhood,
through the Fatherhood of God. He regards religious spirit-
ualism, which was then appearing in a deistical form, reli-
gious materialism and literal traditionalism as inwardly allied.
Deism and Roman Catholicism, he says, have but one root, the
one expresses the secret and the tendency of the other-supersti-
tion and unbelief, which stand or fall together. On the other
hand, he holds poetry, religion, philosophy, history, scripture, and
spirit to be intrinsically united, but this union he only perceives
intellectually and indirectly, without the power of making a
connected and orderly statement of the reasons which induce
this view.
Lavater was like Klopstock, a poetic genius and full of feeling,
but his imagination was less rich, and he had more tenderness
than power. Together with a breadth and versatility for the
reception of outward impressions, he exhibits a vigorous concen-
tration upon the central point of his mental life, and it is the
loyalty of a grateful heart which binds him to the Person of
Lavater.
299
Christ.¹ His chief concern is not exactness of doctrine, but that
higher life which emanates from Christ. He, too, favours the
view which regards Christianity as the religion of humanity,
but he seeks the true man, and finds only wretched ruins of the
true human image where this has not been reinstated by the
Saviour. His lyric poetry, like his other literary productions,
aims at something more than to describe and to please; it does
not satisfy him to collect all that is great and beautiful in history,
nor to idealize reality through the power of imagination; he is
concerned for a real idealization, a moral transfiguration of the
disfigured and obscured image of man. His desire is that his
words and poetry may exert an influence, and his is not merely a
lyric but an ethic pathos, which however but too often delights
in rhetorical flights. But though he too contributed to the
formation of that mental atmosphere and temperament in which
the age became susceptible of freer and deeper views of life and
of religion, he also was deficient in the possession of solid objec-
tive truths, of truths which are not only established, but have
also been assimilated by the reason, in that philosophic mind
and in that feeling for historical criticism which alone can secure
lasting influence. Renouncing the quiet but safe path of scien-
tific thought, ever seeking after fresh excitement of feeling, and
straining his ideal emotions to their highest pitch, Lavater was
betrayed both in his doctrine of prayer and in his theory of phy-
siognomy, into extravagances which had the effect of limiting his
influence. The same may be said of Jung Stilling, who while, by
his Grauen Mann and other works, he contributed to the revival
of religion in many minds, and opposed to the dead Deism then
so prevalent a lively faith in Providence, was yet not free from
subjectivistic admixture, for he unconsciously made his faith in a
special and intentional guidance of his life subserve a certain
self-love and self-complacency, which inclined him to regard
himself as a chosen instrument of God designed for special pur-
poses. A great part of the blame however of this morbid side
of the characters of these distinguished Christians must be laid
upon the age in which they lived, characterized as it was by
general dissolution, and their consequent isolation. There was
a total absence of the corrective influences of the higher kind of
¹ So too Pfenninger, his Zurich friend, Jüd. Briefe an der Zeit Jesu von Nazareth,
1783.
300
Claudius.
social life, and it was but the reflex of such a deficiency that the
intercourse of these ardent love-craving spirits was confined to
the scattered few, the elect, the sympathizing, and Christian
love made to appear in the form not always of an "heroic" affec-
tion devoted to good works, but of a "romantic" enjoyment of
mutual love and friendship. The epistolary correspondence of
the age testifies to this fact; much of its best feeling is deposited
therein, and if subsequent times have overcome the deficiency
above alluded to, we may still wish them the possession of
equally strong and ardent affections.
Among the above-named friends the name of Claudius, 1743-
1815, is pre-eminent for that solid and thoroughly healthy faith,
which, nourished by the marrow of those facts of Christianity,
which are ever renewing their youth, was opposed both to an
ossified orthodoxy and to neology-a faith which replied in
popular and heart-reviving language to the attacks of its oppo-
nents, and which, whether they were Goliaths or pigmies,
encountered them with the weapons of humour and pungent wit.
His character exhibited a happy and delicate combination of the
love of nature and the love of God. His large blue eye rested
with joy and gratitude upon all that was beautiful, upon all the
moral excellences of the old, and even of the heathen world.
Philosophy inspires him with respect when it is an impulse to-
wards the true and the good, "for if thou wilt not honour this in
man, what else has he that is worthy of honour?" More espe-
cially has he a lively sense of the calm and simple dignity of holy
Scripture, nor does he suffer himself to be defrauded of the solid
treasure they contain, either by the manner of interpretation
then in vogue which emptied them of their meaning, or by a
senseless bondage to the letter. Among the sacred writers St.
John is his favourite. The holy image of the Saviour casts him
upon his knees. Such moral greatness and goodness as the
Bible relates of Him never entered into the heart of man to con-
ceive. He rises like a star in the night upon the poor pilgrims
of earth, and satisfies their inmost wishes and aspirations. With
such experience of the inherent power of Christianity, Claudius
has a genuine perception of its independence of theological
crises. He knows that the sacred object of faith is untouched
by its multitudinous assailers. He does not fear for God and
for Christ, but for His children, whom he seeks to withdraw
Claudius. Lessing.
301
by
from the perils entailed upon them by the spirit of the age,
endeavouring, in opposition to the prevailing mode of education,
to keep alive in them the impression of life and originality,
instead of using that reasoning and reflecting method which ac-
mits the validity of nothing that cannot be proved by argument.
In Lessing's mind (1729-1781), clear and sharp as a well-cut
and polished diamond, were accumulated, as in but few pecu-
liarly gifted spirits, all the various interests by which the intel-
lectual world of his age was stirred.¹ The chaos of a world
falling into ruins, and the superficial attempts at new formations,
were taken up by his extensive learning, to be weighed and
examined by the standard of an inexorable logic and love of
truth. His was a mind fitted by nature for the work of bringing
to a close the process of dissolution taking place in that which
was perishable, and of purifying the intellectual atmosphere like
a sharp and healthy wind. In doing this, however, he was far
from contenting himself with cheap expedients, whether old or
new, or with still cheaper contempt for all that was old. So
much feeling, nay reverence, for history was innate in him, that
he could not look upon the new as standing the test, unless
internally connected with the old, preserving its germs, and
developing them in freer forms.
To this very day uncertain and often opposite views are held
concerning Lessing. Some are inclined to ascribe to him a more
positively Christian, though not an orthodox character, in proof
of which they appeal to his construction of the doctrine of the
Trinity from the self-consciousness, or to the stress that he lays
upon the Apostles' Creed as the rule of faith. Others designate
him, with either praise or blame, as the head of the "Illuminists;"
while others again not only impute to him a change from ortho-
dox to heterodox opinions, but even deny that any settled positive
views at all are to be found in his works, because he was always
ready yvμvaσTIK@s and indifferently to side first with one party
1
¹ Compare Lessing's works by Lachmann, 13 vols. 1838. On Lessing himself,
see Ritter, Geschichte der christlichen Philosophic, ii. pp. 480, &c.; and on his
philosophical and religious principles, the Göttinger Studien for 1847. Guhrauer,
Gotthold Ephraim Lessings Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts und Lessings Leben.
Schlosser, Geschichte des 18 Jahrhunderts. Gelzer, as above. Gervinus, Litera-
turgeschichte, iv. Boltz, Lessings Protestantismus und Nathan der Weise.
C. Schwarz, G. E. Lessing als Theologe. H. Lang, Religiöse Charaktere, i.
215-257. G. R. Röpe, J. W. Göze. Eine Rettung, 1860.
302
Lessing.
then with another. Nay, in a celebrated saying, he renounces
on principle the knowledge of truth, and calls himself one ever
seeking without hope of finding. We can agree with none of
these notions, but hope that the following remarks on his philo-
sophical standpoint may lead to the formation of a certain and
correct decision.
Lessing appeared to many a Deist and an advocate of natural
religion, because he was the editor of the Wolfenbüttel Fragments,
yet he opposed three kinds of Illuminism; that of dry ethics and
tedious moralizing without imagination or sentiment; hence he
is antagonistic to Campe, Salzmann, and Nicolai, the reformers
of education, and to the profane Bahrdt. But no less so to
Eberhard, who tried to represent Christianity as Deism and
rational religion. Finally, he was also opposed to Semler and
his school, who sought, by critical operations of an anti-dogmatic
kind, to arrive at a primitive Christianity, which was but a sum-
mary of dry and abstract philosophical maxims. Jacobi declared
him to be a follower of Spinoza. But he is far from being this,
for he acknowledges a God of providence, who is a free and
conscious spirit, and who, as the Final Cause, purposes the educa-
tion of the human race. Spinoza's inactive, inert eternity of
substance is infinitely tiresome to Lessing. In his view God is
a unity which does not exclude multiplicity; for God, as the sole
Principle and Creator of all things, must bear within Himself
a multiplicity of principles. Leibnitz's theory of monads was
no useless notion to Lessing, though he makes no pretension to
be able to deduce multiplicity from the unity which is God. He
also believes firmly in the reality of God's existence and in that
of the world; and this is the starting-point of the knowledge of
God. Though he confesses himself unable to deduce the many
from the One, yet the truth of the many depends, in his view,
on the fact that the thoughts of God, in which are truth and
being, are in the many. The thoughts of God must be divided,
or they would not be many; but, by virtue of the unity of God,
the many thoughts of God are nevertheless harmonious, and
form a connected world, in which all, moved by one thought of
God, is soul or life in a higher or lower degree. Matter denotes
the limits of finite existence on the one hand, the soul, made in
God's image, on the other, takes the highest rank. But the
latter being at first subjected to the confusion of the concep-
Lessing. Education of the Human Race.
303
tions and the power of sensuous impulses, is therefore morally
enslaved; and this is in his idea the doctrine of original sin.
Since however the whole race of man, as well as each indi-
vidual, begins in the confusion of sensuous impulses, man alone
could not educate mankind, hence God is the Educator of the
human race.
This idea of a Divine education of mankind involves a view
which, Christian as it is, was long misconceived by theology.
For the withdrawal of the human side in the history of religion,
the absolutely supernatural character which was attributed to
the Old Testament religion left but a precarious position for
an actual history of the progressive stages of revelation. On
the other hand, the idea of the Divine education could not but
be more favourable to an historical view, as being adapted to
throw light upon the manifold wisdom of the love which was in
process of revealing itself. At the same time it incited to an
investigation of God's education of the whole human race, and
not of the Jewish nation only, and to the attempt to reconcile the
apostolic statements, that God suffered the heathen to walk in
their own ways, and that He left not Himself without witness.
It is in this wide sense that Lessing embraces the idea of the
Divine education. His opinion, to speak more strictly, is, that it
is an error in natural theology to assume an innate and complete
knowledge of God and of His will. It was necessary that man,
being at first in the debased condition above described, should be
educated by positive revelation, to which he must occupy a posi-
tion of believing obedience. The truths of the reason [Vernunft-
wahrheiten] are the essence of this revelation. These are clothed
in the form by means of which they become accessible to the
standpoint of each age, and this covering contains as much as the
human mind is at each epoch capable of comprehending. This
form or covering is not indeed the essence, not necessary for
salvation under all circumstances; the inner revelation is alone.
indispensable; this is a continuous miracle in demonstration
of the Spirit and of power, a miracle wrought by the Spirit
of God, since it is His thought and His creative power which
is ever present and active within us. This Spirit excites religion
within us, and this is not a matter of the understanding, but
¹ Hess also (1741-1828) carries out this idea in his Kern der Lehre vom Reich
Gottes, 1819, and in earlier works (see above, p. 288).
304
of the heart and the feeling. These feelings are inspired by
God, and are the means by which God leads us to the knowledge
of all the truths of the reason. Nevertheless, external revela-
tions are also necessary for certain stages, though these external
matters, such as miracles and prophecies, are but a scaffolding
which is to lead to the internal, to that substance of religion
which is in men inspired by God. Positive revelations are in
his view by no means an arbitrary addition, a purposely chosen
covering for ideas, or those reason-truths which these God-
inspired men possessed without any symbolical covering. On
the contrary, he sees in positive revelation the necessary primi-
tive form of truth, without entering further into the inquiry
whether such form is to be regarded as of divine arrangement,
or whether all which he reckons as pertaining to the scaffolding
is to be set to the account of men, and of that God-ordained
limitation which is God's appointment, and by reason of which
they could do nothing else than clothe the original divine im-
pulse in those forms.
Lessing. Education of the Human Race.
Lessing attempts to prove both historically and philosophically
the existence of different stages in this education. The Old
Testament was an elementary book for a childish people, hence
its temporal punishments and rewards, and its silence on the
doctrine of immortality. This nation, coming into contact with
foreign nations also children, was enlightened concerning the
revelation given it, by the reason of those nations which had
been developed without revelation. But since to stay too long
over an elementary book would only narrow the mind, it was
taken out of their hand by a better teacher, even Christ, who
was the first practical and trustworthy teacher of immortality.
The motives of moral action now become purer; for punishment
and reward are transferred to an invisible and future state of
existence. The second period, namely, Christianity is moreover
promoted to the doctrines of the Trinity, original sin, and satis-
faction. According to Lessing, even reason must conceive of the
Trinity as a necessary process of the Divine self-consciousness,
but it is not in his view essentially connected with Christology.
Satisfaction means that God forgives men their sins with re-
ference to Him, near whom, and in whom, all imperfection
disappears. Original sin has been already spoken of. The
second period however, viz. that of youth, must be followed by
1
Lessing. Education of the Human Race.
305
the maturity of manhood, which is the aim of this education, i.e.
by the time of the new and everlasting gospel, in which man
will do good neither from fear or hope, whether in this world or
the next, but because it is good. Then will all revelation be
changed into reason-truth, for revealed truths are no absolute.
mystery, but are like the answer which the teacher of arithmetic
gives his pupils beforehand, that they may arrive at it.
Thus he assumes that, in the first stage, truth must necessarily
be clothed in the form of positivity and external authority.
His Nathan seems, however, not to coincide with his Educa-
tion of the human race, inasmuch as the latter work admits a
difference of value between different religions, and especially
attributes a superiority to the Christian over the Old Testa-
ment religion, while the celebrated parable of the three rings
appears to teach that all positive religions are equally true
and equally false, that therefore religious toleration is alone the
climax of human development, and that though this toleration
must not proceed from indifference to truth and religion in
general, it will yet regard love as the substance, and as that
which is one and the same in all religions. Nay, if we look at
the grouping of the characters, it would even seem as though it
were more difficult to find humanity in the Christian than in
the Jewish or Mahometan religions. Nathan is, however, a poem
written with a tendency. Lessing's chief concern is to influence
Christians thereby; he therefore feels it incumbent on him to
put them to shame by characters of other, and even inferior
religions. The view that the more fanatical, narrow-minded,
and uncharitable his Christian characters may be, the more is
their conduct in accordance with Christianity, would be by
no means consistent with this purpose of putting them to
shame, nor is there the slightest hint that he entertains such a
notion. On the contrary, such a purpose is better served by
making Jews and Mahometans, with their imperfect religions,
act less inconsistently with that love which is the sub-
stance of all piety, than Christians whose religion is least com-
patible with fanaticism. It may also indeed be justly asked
whether the toleration of Nathan is a plant growing in a
Christian or a Jewish soil, as even the monk expresses it when
he says: "Nathan, you are a Christian; by heaven! you are more
a Christian than a Jew." It could not, indeed, have been
II.
U
306
Lessing's Nathan.
Lessing's opinion that it would be best for us to return to
Judaism, though certainly the poem is based upon the notion
that the purest morality is possible in other religions than the
Christian. He thus opposes the exclusive power of one re-
ligion to sanctify and save, and thinks that the humanity and
toleration, which are in his eyes supreme, do not arise from the
power of the positive truth contained in a religion, but from
those contents of the reason quickened by the Spirit of God,
which are not wholly absent from any religion. It is not the
aim of the poem to decide on the comparative value of different
religious doctrines; on the contrary, the fable of the rings is
precisely calculated to put this question aside, and granting
that it cannot be decided which of the rings is genuine, the
humanity and toleration of neither the religions can be denied. A
reverence for one's own religion is in his eyes compatible with a
rejection of uncharitable fanaticism, and intolerance consists not
in believing in the revelation of one religion, but in believing
that all other religions are absolutely excluded by revelation,
in other words are false religions. This is perfectly consistent
with the view advocated in the education of the human race,
that in another aspect one religion is better than another, better
not only with regard to the individuality of different nations,
but also absolutely; one being a further advance towards pure
reason-truth than another. He seems however to think it at
least possible, that the highest stage of reason and morality may
be attained without this transition from one to another. It is
further an established principle with him, that no religion can be
regarded as absolutely perfect, that revelation is not completed,
but is advancing with the development of the reason, and that
on this account none of the positive religions can attribute to
themselves the character of universality and exclusive authority.
All religions are but individualizations of reason according to
time and place, and a product on the one side of the entire cul-
ture of a nation, and on the other of Divine communications and
plans of education. Thus he embraces the view of an objective
perfectibility even of Christianity.
It was because he viewed the essence of religion as consisting
in eternal truths independent of history, that he was able to re-
gard with more composure than others the work of the Wolfen-
büttel Fragmentist. He certainly would not have edited the Frag-
Lessing's Relation to the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist. 307
ments if he had not expected from them the fruits of at least an
indirect cure of existing evils. He was himself, however, very
far removed from the standpoint of the Fragmentist. The latter
saw in positive revelations nothing but human frauds, while
Lessing desired in some sort to include the historical element.
in the Divine education, and to attribute thereto, or at least to
faith therein, an importance in the process of religious education.
The Fragmentist favours pure naturalism, and scarcely exhibits
any specific religious craving. With all his strength of under-
standing a deep mystic element is unmistakeable in Lessing.
Though he did not bind himself to write a refutation, he yet
desired, by the publication of the Fragments, to give rise also to
works by which they might be refuted; in short, he introduced
into theologic discussion that unrestrained freedom of investiga-
tion which he had at heart even in the interest of religion itself.
He had derided a Nicolai with his "Berlin freedom of thought
and writing," this freedom being confined to the mere liberty of
exposing for sale as many follies as a man might choose to utter
against religion, and such a freedom he thought any right-minded
man should be ashamed to use. Free discussion, however,
seemed to him indispensable in the existing state of theology.
An inward persuasion of Christian truth was, for the most part,
cast into the background, and it was the fashion to support
the eternal and Divine truths of Christianity by the historical
element and its evidences to confirm the fides divina by the
fides humana, faith in a Divine revelation in holy Scripture by
human testimony; a procedure whereby also the contents of
revelation had been greatly diluted, and at last reduced by in-
terpretation or by notions of accommodation to certain general
reason-truths. Lessing judged that the acceptance of a super-
natural influence of the Holy Ghost, which these new-fashioned
advocates of historical evidence rejected, had, on the contrary,
been from its first beginnings the very basis of Christianity, and
could hardly be refuted by mere philosophical reasoning. He
desired to do nothing consciously which could be an obstacle to
the realization of that direct agency of the Divine Spirit, the
possibility of which he did not dispute.
It cannot be denied that there is in his course of action a
religious and moral feature of a genuine Protestant kind. He is
not contented to stop at the outworks of Christianity, but presses
.
}
•
308
Lessing's View of Primitive Christianity.
((
(C
onward to the supreme authority, to the original vital source of
all tradition, that he may rejoice in its eternal treasures, as in a
present possession. He is governed by an ardent instinct for
truth, and that not of a merely theoretical kind; he longs for a
personal appropriation of truth by the affections, the reason,
the will. These were the motives which guided his opera-
tions in the Fragment controversy a fact not understood by
Nicolai, who had no feeling of "the wide and terrible gulf"
between the incidental historical truths" and the eternal
spiritual truths," which to Lessing's sorrow would allow of no
passage from one to the other. A mind like Nicolai's could rest
satisfied with “a natural history of the great Prophet of Na-
zareth," and an explanation thereof which, as far as possible,
deprived the world of God, and deistically viewed the Divine as
estranged from the world. Hence he also thought he must
necessarily expect from Lessing's reason a simple acquiescence in
the Fragments. This however was constantly refused by Less-
ing, in whom the desire of laying down a bridge between the
historical and the eternal, the ideal and the earthly in Christianity,
was never extinguished, but who was able neither to detect in
the eternal unhistorical truths, to which his Leibnitzian and
Wolffian training bound him, the very germ even of a movement
towards history, which he felt on the contrary constrained to
transfer exclusively to the human side, nor for this very reason
to discover in history the realization of the Divine. Hence,
Lessing's standpoint in the Fragment controversy is always an
uncertain and varying one. He tries to make the best terms
with that which he regards as settled, and while reserving to
himself an elaboration of the doctrine which makes the testi-
mony of the Holy Spirit turn to the advantage of the historical
in Christianity, opposes the confirmation of Christian truth in a
purely historical manner by means of holy Scripture.
Hence Lessing takes up a very different position from that of
the Fragmentist. The latter, as well as his supernaturalist
opponents, takes it for granted that Christianity rests upon holy
Scripture alone, and while endeavouring to prove the inter-
nal contradictions and impossibilities of the accounts given in
Scripture, nay, to attribute these accounts for the most part to a
fraud, he thinks he is thus overthrowing Christianity itself.
Lessing has a more exalted view of the sacred history; he is far
Regula Fidei.
309
He also very
from accusing the early Christians of fraud.
aptly opposes to the ten supposed contradictions in the history
of the resurrection, the practice of all history not to reject the
common substance for the sake of contradictory details. But
the chief point is that Lessing does not concede to the Frag-
mentist that Christianity must fall together with its customary
evidences. All that follows is that the supposed supports were
not the right ones, not that Christianity admits of no other
proofs. There is in Christianity an inward truth, which being
self-testifying, can dispense with all other kind of evidence.
What he does concede to the Fragmentist is, that the present
state of the sacred writings is not only unadapted to prove the
truth of Christianity, but also loads it with difficulties. He
thinks however, that these difficulties may be solved, by distin-
guishing between an oral and simpler primitive gospel and our
gospels, which are in part the deposit of oral tradition and in part
enlarged editions of this primitive gospel. A return to the simple
principle of Christianity, in the place of the more copious lit-
erature of the New Testament, seems to him to obviate the
difficulties of the latter, without obliging us to adopt, with the
Fragmentist, the idea of a wilful disfigurement of the historical.
Lardner, † 1768, had already set up the hypothesis of an origi-
nal oral gospel. Lessing so far elaborates this as to suppose
that a small collection of narratives, under the name of the
Gospel to the Hebrews, was formed from the oral narration by
the apostles of the life and teaching of Christ, before our four
Gospels, that this was partially transferred to the three first
Gospels, while St. John, acquainted with the original documents
which bore a Nazarene character, and proceeding upon a more
ideal view of Christ, wrote that Gospel by means of which
Christianity was first capable of existing as a special religion in
the heathen world. This simple principle of Christianity is con-
tained, in his view, in the Regula fidei, which he holds to be
older than the Scriptures of the New Testament, these being not
the source of the Regula fidei, but its first documents. There
was also a church before the existence of the books of the New
Testament. The Regula fidei, and not the Scriptures, is the
rock upon which the Church of Christ is built, and by appeal-
ing to this he thinks he proves Christianity to be independent of
holy Scripture. In so doing, he is placing as it seems one foot
J
310 Lessing's Relation between Truth and History.
upon the soil of dogmatic tradition, without however treading
firmly thereon or being really in earnest about it, and also with-
out expressing any more definite opinion concerning either the
historical image of Christ, or the form assumed by tradition
during about the first thirty years after the Resurrection. He is
more concerned to show that oral tradition, together with the
Regula fidei, has far more claim to be regarded as the foundation
of the Church as it is, than holy Scripture, and cares less about
actually taking his own stand on the ground of that tradition ac-
cepted by him as primitive. For that which he regards as the
inner truth of Christianity, which shall never pass away, but is
ever present, consists in those eternal reason-truths which can
neither be proved by incidental historical truths, nor fall with
them. He desires to withdraw the inner truth of Christianity
from criticism, while exposing the external and historical thereto,
and this is the entrenchment which he would secure to the
"feeling" Christian, when the latter can no longer venture, with
his bolder theologians, to take the field (of the historical). He
declares that he never means to write against religion; but
against theology; not against Christianity, but only against the
bad proofs which are brought forward for it. Christianity, he
points out, is the foundation, the Bible only the document, and
indeed the secondary form, in which the foundation appears;
Christianity is a rich and universal principle, the creative cause
of a variety of phenomena, and not fettered to a work which,
having been composed on various occasions and in detached
portions, does not contain in a final and regular form the rule of
faith. On the contrary, "a distinction must be made between
the gross, packages included, and the neat."
But this Christianity-as he views it-consists only, as we
have before remarked, in eternal and non-historical truths, and
history is to him not only no confirmation, but even a contradic-
tion of these. Historical truths are of another order, and belong
to an entirely different sphere from that of eternal reason-truths.
The former are essentially accidental, and granting their possi-
bility, even, eg. that of the miracles, to be established, he denies
the power of such historical evidence to prove the eternal truths,
and thinks the notion of fashioning all metaphysical and moral
ideas according to history, or that which claims to be such, unjusti-
fiable. Thus he recognizes no internal connection between the
Lessing's Eternal and Historical Truths.
311
eternal and the temporal, the former is to him immoveable in its
stability, non-historical; and the historical, because essentially
incidental, is not history filled with ideas. If this is really the
case, the question arises: How then can the historical be educa-
tional, how can the Bible be a book of even elementary instruc-
tion? If history cannot maintain itself in the presence of eternal
truths, or if it is devoid of any significance with respect to them,
then indeed the "terrible and broad gulf" which separates his-
torical certainty from eternal truths can never be overleaped,
and no one will-in Lessing's mind-be enabled to earn the
Divine reward by being guided to the leap. But this only
is because, when his view is more closely regarded, it may
be perceived that he does not admit that there are two firm
shores separated by a gulf, but always sees firm footing only
in the eternal truths. The land of historical and yet ideal truths
is to him a land existing in the imagination only, at a certain
stage of culture. Lessing's realm of eternal truths needed to be
penetrated by life and motion, by an inward tendency towards
reality and history. But it was here that the narrowness of his
philosophical standpoint exerted a powerful influence, and
threatened to defraud him of his grand idea-replete as it is
with vitality-of the Divine education of mankind, which must
remain only an empty saying, if idea and history are but asymp-
totes. The philosophical defect had this effect, that the world
could not, in his view, attain to an actual independent existence
and self-destination for its own sake. On the contrary, the world
originated only because God, as well as possessing and conceiving
Himself as unity, also possesses Himself as divided. Hence
there can be no real history, no progress in the world, which
must like God be ever essentially equal to itself. And the
world having neither self-destination nor freedom, but only
peculiarity, he is unable to carry out that distinction of the
world from God which he insists on. For this would require
that the distinction should be conceived of as not merely one
thought by God (an ideal one), but also one supposed by the
world, that the active world distinguishing itself from God and thus
supposing, i.c. reproducing itself, should be thought of as a real
causality. Since however, under the influence of Wolffian de-
terminism, he abolishes freedom with respect to God, there exists
for him neither the need nor the possibility of an actual inter-
312
Relation to the Material Principle.
action between God and the world, through which alone a
history both active and ideal, a course of action not human only
but also Divine, could take place. However decidedly Lessing
in other respects places himself on the side of concrete reality,
in opposition, e.g. to Spinoza, the defect pointed out leaves to
reality, nay, even to Lessing's decided love of freedom, a very
precarious existence.
One might almost think that he was desirous of again bring-
ing to remembrance that material side of the principle which had
been nearly forgotten by the theology of the age, and that he
did this from a just perception of the danger to which this side
was exposed, if Scripture were to be made the sole foundation.
But the Regula fidei is itself only a formal principle, on a reduced
scale. His eternal truths have indeed the independent certainty,
which forms an essential element in the material principle, yet
with their immoveable non-historical abstraction, they have.
nothing to do with justifying faith in Christ, and scarcely exhibit
the slightest point of connection therewith. For the Person of
Christ, as well as, His deeds, e.g. His miracles, belongs, in hist
view, to the department of history, it can therefore only inci-
dentally contribute to the awakening of faith, and can never be
the proper foundation of faith in the redemption and salvation of
Otherwise real religion would, to his mind, be constantly
in danger of being unsettled by criticism. He insists upon that
religion of Christ" which is expressed in the Testament of St.
John by love, and exalted above all criticism and doubt, while he
regards the "Christian religion" as coming into irreconcilable
collision with eternal truths, and as forming only the scaffold-
ing, which is to be taken down when the edifice is completed.
It is possible that though he speaks so much of reason-truths, he
yet in mind places practical Christianity, humanity and toleration
above that which is merely theoretical, aud gives the highest place
to the "Christianity of the heart in which the Christian feels him-
self so happy." This Christianity of the feeling however is with-
out any real reference to Christ, and to redemption through Him.
It is moral Christianity, though not after the fashion of a dry
rationalism, but reminding rather of Jacobi.
man.
There is in Lessing's standpoint much that is unmistakeably
obscure, ambiguous, nay contradictory, and which cannot be
reconciled by the consideration that he did not always remain
Unreconciled Contradictions in Lessing.
313
like himself, but that, on the contrary, after the controversy with
Göze concerning the publication of a portion of the legacy of
the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, he took up a more negative posi-
tion towards historical Christianity. On the one side, he advo-
cated, as decidedly as possible, the persuasion that the essence
of religion, nay, of religions, does not consist in doctrines inter-
woven into history, but in the saving, enkindling, strengthening
power of love. This is, in his view, the virtue of the genuine
ring upon which all depends. He embraces an affection of the
human by the Divine Spirit, not merely in the case of founders
of religion, but also in that of believers; and this would of itself,
if further developed, make religion appear as a vital relation of an
actual kind, a becoming historical [Geschichtlichwerden] of the
eternally Divine, and an elevation of historical existence to an
ideal standard. But, on the other side, he takes up a position
antagonistic to all that is historical; because, after the manner
of Leibnitz and Wolff, he always makes the eternal revert to
lifeless eternal truths, which he then sets up as truths latent in
the reason, in opposition to all historical revelation, as the chief
matter and essence, without perceiving that he is thus again
viewing religion in a purely intellectual manner. Again, on the
one side, he endeavours to explain the necessity of historical and
positive religion, by the requirements of the lower stages of the
constantly renewed generations, and those of the religious com-
munity in general; because the cold abstract propositions of
Deism cannot satisfy his warmer conceptions. On the other
side, he thinks the development of reason involves the dissolution
of the positive, the destruction of the significance of the historical,
and consequently of the bond of religious association. It is also
another contradiction, that on the one hand he gives the highest
place to universalism in religion, regarding all that is particular
as injurious, while on the other hand he grounds toleration and
his rejection of particularism on the assertion that every man can
have the truth only in an individual manner, thus renouncing
the universal validity of religious truths, and leaving nothing but
a particular, nay, an individual, religion analogous to Semler's
private religion. As may be supposed, the commandment of
love is esteemed by him as universally valid; but then this is
1 The Education of the human race, abounding as it does in positive thoughts,
was first published contemporaneously with the fourth Wolfenbüttel Fragment.
314
Relation to Herder and Kant.
not necessarily of a religious kind, and consequently his very
toleration and humanity do not very well stand the test by
which they are to be distinguished from indifferentism, for then
they would have had zealously to espouse the cause of truth, as
the supreme good, against the dulness and frivolity of indiffer-
entism. Indulgence towards the indifferent seems to have
become easier to Lessing than zealous opposition of frivolity and
religious obtuseness, easier too than to maintain that tolerant
demeanour towards the zealous confessors of a positive creed,
which he regarded as a toleration of intolerance. He certainly
sought to bring about the union of culture and religion, but
without preserving to the latter a position essentially distinct
from mere human morality. His words to Mendelssohn (1771)
show that he was not as yet satisfied either with general moral
and religious truths or with the position he had taken up towards
Christianity. "It is not since yesterday only that I have felt
anxious lest, in casting off many prejudices, I may not also have
cast away much which I may again have to fetch back. That I
have not partly done so already is owing to the fear of gradually
dragging all the trash as well into the house again." But,
incomplete as his standpoint may be called, it may yet be said
that his works are full of suggestive elements, which subsequently
sprang up like seeds and attained to independent maturity. This
is shown by his affinity not only with Semler and Mendelssohn
but also with Kant and Herder, nay, with Jacobi and Schleier-
macher. He by no means agrees indeed with Leibnitz and Wolff,
nor with Reimarus and Laurence Schmidt, the disciples of the
latter, in his idea of God. As little does he coincide with
Spinoza; for he adheres to a self-conscious, personal God of
providence, and assumes a living relation of the Spirit of God to
the world. To this Spirit he also leaves room for an internal
revelation, even when he attacks the external in its historical
credibility, and relegates it to the domain of mere authority.
Yet not only are his tendency to Determinism, and his ever-
recurring idea of a rigid and unchangeable relation of God to the
world, connected with the influence of Wolffianism, whereby the
latter becomes devoid of history, but the effects also of Leibnitz's
theory of monads may be seen in his insistence upon the rights
of the individual. His idea of humanity, which he regards as
the essence of all religion, unites him with Herder; while he
Lessing.
315
resembles Kant in the energetic moral feature which he displays,
and in the stress he places upon immortality. This he holds, it
must be confessed, in the form of the transmigration of souls,
and in such wise that it is by means of immortality that this
process of purification, which will certainly attain its end, is to
be realized, although, in his treatise On the eternity of Punish-
ment he admits that punishment will consist in the inextin-
guishable results of evil actions. He differs from Kant, however,
by that power of imagination and feeling, which place him in
close relation to the realm of art, and also to Jacobi and
Schleiermacher. For his "eternal Gospel" announces an ideal
age, in which the spirit of love is to animate all minds. It may
be asserted that there is a special affinity between Lessing and
Schleiermacher, inasmuch as an unusual acuteness of critical
talent is combined in both with deep and ardent feeling. A
union of these is not, indeed, uniformly exhibited in Lessing,
upon whom the star of his critical reason ever exerts the prepon-
derating influence; yet even in him both the impulse and
encouragement to his criticism are ever given, by a real interest
in, nay, possession of, his subject; and it is to be ascribed to the
disfavour of his age, as well as to his fault of burying his deeper
wants in controversy, instead of seeking their satisfaction, that
he did not carry out this positive matter in a more full and
definite form. Besides, justice to Lessing demands the acknow-
ledgment that the blame must be shared also by the general state
of theology in his days. He felt the genuine Protestant longing
inwardly and vitally to appropriate the positive, and not to suffer
his mind to be loaded with dead ballast, which could only be
brought into relation with it by means of external authority.
The theology of the seventeenth century had however so little
laboured at the work of making historical religion its special and
conscious possession, and the strength of the whole character,
that it had, on the contrary, dissolved connection with the univer-
sally human, neglected the province of morals, and exchanged
the living and saving facts of Christianity for a system of notions.
by which alone salvation was to be obtained. In such a state of
things a breach was inevitable. The universal human and the
moral, misconceived and ill-treated as they had been, stood on
their defence against the supernatural and against historical reli-
gion, which had both become inimical to them, nay, but too well
K
316
Herder.
requited the contempt they had met with. But even this result
was obliged, under the higher guidance of history, not only to
contribute to the restoration of the balance between the human
and the Christian, but also to assist in bringing into notice the
points of connection offered by the former to the latter, and to
manifest the internal relation between the fulness of Christianity
when truly understood and those various deficiencies and va-
cancies which human nature, especially in its ordinary state,
bears within it, without being able to supply them. The
vassalage in which the universal-human was still held by the
prevailing view of Christianity was to be abolished, nay, the
attempt was to be made to establish its self-sufficient indepen-
dence. But the very contest which reason began against Chris-
tianity by claiming supreme sovereignty showed that these two
powers cannot continue in a state of mutual indifference, but are
destined for mutual interpenetration and union. Lessing's noble
mind, viewed in its entirety, expresses, both by its love for truth
and its doubts, by its moral earnestness and its religious cravings,
an ardent longing for such a consummation. Undoubtedly he
was chiefly occupied in gaining a position for the universal human,
in opposition to the prevailing view of Christianity. But he was
far from conceiving of the reason of man as complete from the
beginning, or even as having always had a normal development.
On the contrary, he knew it to be plastic, and capable of educa-
tion, and that by God, whom he does not regard as an inactive
spectator of the proceedings of the world. Hence, he furnishes
us with a series of premisses, which, being powerfully taken up
by subsequent writers, and especially by Schleiermacher, secured
a worthier conception of historical religion, by the recognition
that the historical attains to an increase in eternal contents, and
that the world of eternal truths is a world full of life, a world of
divine powers of revelation becoming history [geschichtlich-wer-
dender Offenbarungs-kräfte].
A prelude to a more favourable relation to revealed religion
and its documents is exhibited in Herder, whose mind, besides
the manly spirit of Lessing, seems to bear a stamp of womanly
tenderness. His gift consisted in a special and delicate skill for
discovering the universal human in the literature of all nations,
and therefore also in the books of holy Scripture, which he was
thus the means of again bringing into more favour and respect
with his contemporaries.
Herder.
317
A new age is fermenting in Herder also. The peculiarity of
his nature lies in his perception of the indissoluble alliance
between poetry and religion. His knowledge was less exact
than extensive, and he is deficient in a talent for philosophy in
the stricter sense. The profundity of Hamann captivated him,
because it was united with a poetical view of the world, but his
relation to him was rather a recipient one. He sought to reani-
mate a dry and barren theology by means of poetry, and to
advance it to something beyond the mere exercise of a learned
profession. He desired to lead both empty rationalism and stiff
orthodoxy, both pedantry and shallowness, illuminism and feeble-
ness of faith, from their contentions, to a feeling for the original
and the divine in religion. This he attempted, not by definite
and connected doctrines and notions, not by the accurate know-
ledge which was dependent on the school, but by that poetic
fragrance and atmosphere which he knew how to shed over
whatever material he received into his mind, for the purpose of
bringing it forth again with the impress of ideality, and expressed
in noble and melodious language. He possessed the rare gift of
being ever able to discover the beautiful, the true, and the great
in secular literature and in history, as in a world of symbolism,
and especially to discern the noble and the lovely, and that
genuine human element which had been so long misconceived,
in the sacred records, which he thus commended in a new and
hitherto unperceived aspect, to the love and reverence of his
contemporaries. In this respect it is with regard to the Old
Testament that he has rendered the greatest service; indeed he
may be said to have reconquered its prophetical and poetical por-
tions for the national literature of Germany. He had a poetic,
as well as a religious feeling for that union of the human and
the divine which had been so long misconceived, and this in-
1
1 Compare his kritischen Wälder on Klotzen's Homeric letters. "I willingly
admit that, as far as representations of beauty, sweetness, and a certain human
dignity are concerned, we have much to learn from the Greeks and Romans, espe-
cially the beautiful conciseness, the absence of exaggeration, the dignity and the
consistency which are found in their descriptive passages. But of the wisdom,
power, majesty, sublimity, and, so to speak, the inconceivability of the Godhead, the
poets of the East, and the chief of these, viz. the poets of the Old Testament, are far
more copious, nay, are inexhaustible sources." Zur schönen Literatur und Kunst,
pt. 5. p. 67, 1769. "In such images the Romans, compared with Job, Moses and
Isaiah, are as a drop to the ocean; and it is a disgrace to be licking at a drop
when such fathomless depths of greatness, sublimity and dignity are before us.
318
Herder.
spired him, especially in his earlier days, with esteem for the
fundamental facts of Christianity. Yet it is rather their direct
and, so to speak, natural union that he perceives. The world of
will and of history, sin and redemption, are far less accessible to
him; hence his lack of a deeper understanding of the Person and
work of Christ. Poetic frames and inspirations everywhere testify,
he thinks, to the existence and agency of a higher power; but
though he succeeds in giving a soul-enkindling expression to his
notions, they failed to attain, in his own case, the stability, sym-
metry, and certainty of convictions. On the contrary, the lack of
a thoughtful establishment of his religious feelings, and his defi-
ciency of penetration into the world of will, brought about their
own retribution during the later period of his life, when he was resi-
dent in Weimar. For here he not only lost his former religious
feelings, but embraced, under Goethe's influence, more pantheistic
opinions, and thus abandoned his own special vocation and the
source of his strength and independence, even in the presence of
a Goethe. Having but little acquaintance with objective doc-
trine, and knowing religion chiefly as an exalted frame of mind,
it may easily be understood that humanity appeared to him to
form the central point of Christianity, and to be indeed intrin-
sically one with religion. He formed a more ideal conception
of human nature,¹ regarding the human in man as divine. Like
Lessing, he subsequently felt obliged to distinguish between
"the Christian religion" and "the religion of Christ." The
religion of Christ teaches us to honour and love the Father as
His children, the Christian religion is encumbered with dogmas.
But humanity is now independent of its Founder, and it is of
1 Compare Zur Philosophie und Geschichte, pt. 3 (Propyläen zur Geschichte der
Menscheit), p. 217: I could wish to sum up in the word humanity all that I have
said concerning man's being formed for reason, liberty, &c. For man has no
nobler word whereby to express his destination than himself, on whom the image
of the earth's Creator, as far as it could be made visible, is impressed. P. 227:
To investigate this humanity is the genuine human philosophy which the philo-
sopher said descended from heaven. But the first and last philosophy has ever
been religion. P. 228: Religion, if regarded merely as an exercise of the under-
standing, is the highest humanity, the noblest blossom of the human soul. But
it is more than this, it is an exercise of the human heart, and the noblest direç-
tion of its powers and capacities. Man runs wild when the law which he obeys is
only himself, when he does not discover and obey God's law in nature, and make
his earthly and human life an imitation of the Deity. True religion is therefore
an imitation, in human form, of the Most High and Most Lovely.
Herder.
319
no consequence whether the name of Christ is named in suppli-
cation or not. This also is a matter of indifference to Christ,
whose aim was pure love to man. Thus Christ ceases to have
any significance, and to be the living source of all true morality.
In his lawful efforts to reconcile Christianity with general cul-
ture, and to lead the mind beyond the narrowness both of the
creed and the nation, he loses in his infinite expansiveness the
counterpoise of necessary concentration, and, for this very reason,
falls into a vague and helpless universalism, and loses himself
in generalities which are contrary to history. He desired to
advance from the world of mere ideas to practice, to view the
divine as everywhere active, and therefore as active in human
self-manifestation, whether in Christ the Son of man, or in the
Scriptures, which were written by men for men. But being no
longer able to perceive in the history of Christ the organizing
centre of the world's history, he exchanges the solid foundation
of life for mere indefinite abstractions.
He interested himself in Spinoza, who makes everything turn
upon gladness of heart and freedom, upon knowledge and happi-
ness. It is true that he wants to set him right in his mode of
expression, to conceive of God as the supreme power, who knows,
enjoys, and possesses Himself; and that with all his inclination
towards Spinoza's system, there is always mingled a righteous
displeasure with its leading idea of God. Not only however
was he incapable of rightly apprehending Spinoza, but his effort
to see God in all things prevented his arriving at a perception
of the distinction between the existence and agency of God, of
a teleology and history of His self-revelation. Even the abso-
lute personality of God seems to become more indifferent to
him, when that which is supreme, the perception of universal
love, becomes all in all. The secret reason of this was, the
deficiency of his ethics, the ignoring of sin and of the moral aim
of man. This deficiency is manifested also in his Ideen zur
Philosophie der Geschichte der Menscheit, which is full of glorious.
ideas, expressed in charming language, as long as he pursues
only the progress of God from nature to man. But the history
of man is a sealed book to him; for humanity, of which he
makes Christ the Announcer, is still too indefinite and negative
a matter. The work of Christ is not in his eyes the imparta-
tion of life, but merely the stripping off of additions by which
7
320
Herder.
human nature was fettered and disfigured. In the whole period
subsequent to Christ, he sees little else than a declension from
the pure religion of humanity. He thinks that Christianity was,
by means of philosophy, changed from a principle of active love
into a system of mysteries. It is no wonder, therefore, that he
felt unhappy and impoverished in his latter days.
At the same time, it cannot be denied that he did good service
to theology, especially with respect to the Old Testament, the
general human aspect and beauties of which he pointed out
with unusual beauty of language and truth of perception. He
triumphantly opposed the profane explanations of John Dav.
Michaelis, which deprived it of all meaning, by that poetical
apprehension of its sense which raised not so much the judg
ment as the inclinations far above prosaic interpretations.
His letters on the study of theology (in four parts) had also
the effect of exciting the attention of many, and of awakening
a consciousness of the ideal aspect of the clerical calling, by
placing it in the light of a poetic sublimity and beauty. In
this respect he furnishes a wholesome counterpoise to the utili-
tarians, who would make this office nothing but one of ordi-
nary teaching for the purposes of everyday life. It must also
be confessed that he contributed not a little to the deprecia-
tion of laborious reasoning and solid scholarship, and seduced
the youthful subjectivity of the age into an over-cultivation of
the imagination, which led in some instances to romance, mental
luxuriousness and dissipation, or to an exaltation above objective
matter, and thus estranged the mind from the serious realities of
actual life. All things considered, however, it must be admitted
that, when the German nation was, in the age preceding Kant,
threatening to fall a prey to a level intellectualism, nay, to a
spirit of low utilitarianism, he was able to strike those chords
which diffused a disposition for the ideal, and thus to prepare
the soil for a new epoch. Herder did not directly lead the mind
of the nation either to theology or the Church; but he advocated
poetry and the freer and nobler aspirations of the soul, and thus
called forth the possibility of those new and deeper views which
were to be awakened by the further progress of philosophy, and
to become a lasting and assured possession.
Kant.
321
CHAPTER III.
SUBJECTIVE PHILOSOPHY. KANT, FICHTE, JACOBI, AND THEIR
RELATION TO THEOLOGY.
It was by Immanuel Kant that the fundamental questions
which agitated the age were first expressed in a manner more
corresponding to their importance, or it was at all events by him
that a way was opened for their thorough and progressive inves-
tigation. By that earnestness of moral purpose which was mani-
fested even in the strictness and conscientiousness of his method,
not only was a limit set to the superficial eudæmonism and arbi-
trary reasoning of the popular philosophy, but a more definite direc-
tion was also given to the desultory, not to say the dilletanti-like,
attacks which Lessing and Herder, with a flavour of æstheticism,
had made, in the interest of the principle of humanity, upon his-
torical Christianity. This indeed was only done at the cost of
making the opposition against Christianity far more deep reach-
ing, of directing it against religion in general, and of basing it
upon a connected antagonistic view of the world. This anta-
gonism arose both from the formal and material aspects of the
Kantian system. And yet it contained a germ which shows an
internal affinity with the principle of the Reformation. This is,
on the one side, an ardent and manly longing for certainty in
the highest concerns of human life, and on the other, the moral
tendency of his system-a tendency which was to make room
for that side of the Protestant principle which had as yet been
too little cultivated, and thereby to smooth the way for a regenera-
tion of theology. The side thus brought forward-and which
the older theology had, to its own hurt, neglected-was that of
conscience, and of a personal conviction of the intrinsic goodness
of the good. And was not this favourable to the tendency of
the Reformation to salvation and to the personal appropriation
of salvation? It would indeed be generally acknowledged to be
so, if only Kant had not stated that the grace of God might be
dispensed with, and insisted on making the hitherto neglected
element all in all.
His criticism of pure reason annihilated the rationalistic arro-
II.
X
322
Kant.
gance of popular philosophy. That which was stable, which could
keep its ground before such criticism, was not God, but morality, in
other words, practical law-giving reason, a belief in the absolute
authority of law, and in moral freedom. He has the merit of having
fixed, by means of his categorical imperative, and with a lucidity
never before attained, the specific peculiarity of morality in opposi-
tion to eudæmonism, and of having again proclaimed, like a philo-
sophical Moses, the supernatural majesty and holiness of the moral
law. Everything is however resolved into this certainly not lax
morality. Religion is only a means thereto, and a means which
it did not necessarily stand in need of, for autonomy, as well as
autarchy, befits the reason as such. Kant, who rejects all evi-
dence of the existence of God, regards Him as only the regu-
lating principle of the reason. But thrus it is possible that He may
exist only in the reason. Of his objective being we can have no
knowledge. Nor can there be, properly speaking, any revelation;
for if God were to exert an influence upon our mind, there
would be, according to Kant, an end to our freedom and to the
value of virtue. The Reformation age had at first laid such
emphasis upon the divine side and upon grace as to esteem the
freedom of man irreconcilable with the influence of God, and
consequently to deny this freedom in the interest of religion.
The Kantian philosophy now retaliated by a denial of the Divine
influence in the supposed interest of human freedom. Kant
thinks that Divine legislation would place our reason under an
external authority, and would, even in case the reason were able
to perceive its internal goodness, be either superfluous to the
choice of good for its own sake, or make such choice impossible.
For, according to Kant, we must will not what is good for God's
sake that would be courtiership, venality, heteronomy. Confi-
dent action must be based on a belief in the agreement of the
world with the moral will, this agreement being a pre-established
harmony which we cannot originate. Hence we must act as
though God were, so to speak, the power which harmonizes the
natural world with the moral.
:
On the other side, Kant does not mistake the distance be-
The
tween the ordinary reason and his conception of it.
practical reason is enslaved by radical evil, by means of which
the good is crippled, and the supreme maxim in man corrupted.
This is why he regards Christianity and the Church as valuable.
Union of Theology and Philosophy.
323
Christ indeed is not, in his view, to be regarded as an historical
Person; the notion of Him, however, which lives in the Church,
not only affords a living embodiment of law, but also ex-
hibits the ideal of human nature well-pleasing to God. He is
at the same time that Divine idea of us which expiates our sin-
ful reality when the new man strives after its attainment. The
moral, moreover, can only flourish in a moral community, and
this requires an historical apparatus.
Theology was not slow to descry that aspect of the Kantian
system which was favourable to its cause, and it was upon the
soil of a partial subjectivity that the second attempt to form a
union between theology and religion was made (comp. p. 269).
Kant's antagonism to eudæmonism, and the moral earnestness
of his system, aroused a manly enthusiasm, and refreshed the
barren land. Scarcely any other philosophical system of recent
times has left such lasting marks upon theology. But it was in
morality that his system was most directly productive. A series
of moralists sought to prove the perfect harmony existing be-
tween Kant's practical philosophy and Christianity. Among
these were J. Bartel, Tieftrunk, C. F. Ammon, S. G. Lange, and
P. S. Vogel¹ This harmony was however disputed, and that to
the prejudice of Christian morality, by other Kantians, not only
by Cannabich, but also by Stäudlin in his earlier period. The one
school of philosophers affirmed that all the moral precepts of Chris-
tianity might also be proved to be the precepts of reason, and though
they appear in a positive form with respect to their first introduc-
tion, yet Christianity does not demand obedience to them for the
1 Tieftrunk, Einzig möglicher Zweck Jesu, 1793; C. F. Ammon, die christ-
liche Sittenlchre nach einem wissenschaftlichen Grundrisse, Göttingen and Erlanger,
1793, 1798. He subsequently wrote, 1800 and 1806, two compendiums of re-
ligious and Christian morality. His last composition on morality leans more
towards Jacobi's standpoint. G. S. Lange, System der theologischen Moral, Leipsic
and Rostock, 1803; P. S. Vogel, Lehrbuch der christlichen Moral, Altdorf, 1803,
and Compendium der theologischen Moral, 1805.
2 G. L. Cannabich, Kritik der praktischen Christlichen Religionslehre, i. Leip-
sie, 1810, C. F. Stäudlin, Grundriss der Tugendlehre, 1798, and Grundsätze der
Moral, 1800, in which he makes use of Kant's metaphysical original foundations
of the doctrine of virtue, and Fichte's system of morals according to scientific
principles. He subsequently retracted much in his philosophischen und biblischen
Moral, Göttingen, 1805. Stäudlin also edited a history of the moral teaching of
Jesus in 2 vols. 1799, 1802, and a history of Christian morality since the revival
of science, Göttingen, 1808, and did good service to the history of ethics in
general, by separate treatises on prayer, oaths and friendship.
324
Kantian Supernaturalism.
sake of this their external, but for the sake of their inherent
and internal authority, in other words, for the sake of
their truth. The other school not only pointed out the fact that
Christian morality was devoid of a systematic form, but also
called attention to its employment of the sensuous motives of
reward and punishment. Cannabich disputed also the perfec-
tion of Christ's example. The difference between Kantian and
Christian morality was shown to be still greater by the non-
Kantian party. The former was reproached with its separation
of morality from religion, and its incidental relation to revelation,
and not less with its exclusion of the agency of Divine grace.
It was called cold, proud, and unfeeling, and the superiority
of living Christian love to a lifeless respect for the law of reason
was pointed out. Kant's purism also, and his antagonism to
inclination and sensuousness, were declared to be a spiritualistic
contradiction to the constitution of man.¹ Schleiermacher, in
his outlines of a criticism of the moral system, and also Fichte
coincided in this last objection. The former brought forward
the essentially formal and negative character of Kant's morality,
and accused it of stopping at the standpoint of mere legality, and
of changing ethics into a science of law in spite of its opposition to
legal enactments. Nevertheless, theology obtained, subsequently
to Kant, the solid gain of an elevation into an ideal region, above
the morality of eudæmonism and the sphere of merely finite utili-
tarianism, and Schiller may, in this respect, be designated as the
poet of the German nation who was inspired by Kantian ideas.
The Kantian system had, however, a still deeper influence upon
divinity and apologetics. In these respects it was embraced in
very different manners even by those who favoured it. Some
rejoiced in its scepticism with regard to the power of the
theoretical reason, and its appeal to the belief in the practical
reason. To others its powerful advocacy of the moral idea
seemed to promise a foundation for revelation in general, and
especially for one which taught an atonement, and thus to cast a
favourable light upon the central point of the Gospel. This was
the view of the Kantian supernaturalists.
The law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, and it showed
itself to be such in the present instance also. Theology indeed
1 Döderlein, Entwurf einer christlichen Sittenlehre, 1789, 1794.
above-named work.
Reinhard's
Its Formal Confirmation of Revelation.
325
views the law which is to lead to the Gospel as a Divine enact-
ment, Kant as the law of reason. And yet an alliance between
his philosophy and theology was attempted in two different
respects, first as a foundation for Divine revelation in general,
i.e. the Divinity of its form, and then as a foundation for a
confirmation of the contents of the Christian revelation, especially
the forgiveness of sins.
With regard to the first, Wolff's investigations concerning the
possibility and necessity of a revelation were now further carried
out by comprehensive discussions of an ethical kind. It was
asked whether Christianity were postulated or excluded by the
moral idea. Fichte's Criticism of all revelations (1791) was the
first work devoted to this subject. It was followed by the
similar works of Tieftrunk, of Kant himself (Religion innerhalb
der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, 1794, Works, x.), and of Stäud-
lin. Fichte's work, which attracted so much attention that it at
first passed for Kant's, regards the possibility, nay, necessity of a
revelation (ie. of a proclamation of God as the moral lawgiver
by a supernatural fact in the world of sense) as well founded, in
the case of a degradation of the human race so deep that it
could be remedied only by a fresh announcement of the for-
gotten moral law. Stäudlin endeavoured to extend this still
farther, and to show that revelation was of use only to morality.
Kant, on the contrary, has regard to the fact that, in the in-
dividual, the true moral law is ever and again obscured by
radical evil in the struggle with sense. This radical evil is not
an isolated feature, but an enigmatical egotism, exercising a
crippling effect upon the autonomy and freedom of mankind.
Not till a moral common will, a moral association (the Church)
exists, can the law have a stronger advocacy, or the elevation
of the individual above the natural moral condition be possible.
The moral lawgiver is then indeed, properly speaking, only the
ideal Church (the common reason), which gives a law to itself
and obeys itself. But that the ethic association may become
a real power, giving help to the individual, it must adopt
statutory enactments, and assume a sensible form.
Now a
visible Church presupposes a founder, and thus Kant arrives at
the postulate of an ecclesiastical founder for the moral com-
munity. The founder will proclaim the moral law in God's
name, in the form of a statutory enactment, and clothe it in a
326
Kantian Rationalism.
sensible covering. And this is what took place in Christianity.
This deduction of a revelation from the necessity for the Church
was afterwards carried out by Karl Ludwig Nitzsch in 1808.¹
His notion is that revelation was necessary, that the moral
standard might, by means of external authority, be brought
before the mind, until the mind, having attained to maturity,
should be capable of recognizing the internal authority and truth
of the standard. This recalls the notion already expressed by
Lessing, when he inculcated the necessity of external authority
in the childhood of the human race, for commending or bringing
to consciousness the moral truths already contained in the
reason. Others held that revelation did service by giving
stability and intelligibility to the moral truth of the reason, by
rendering it objective in a living personality. Thus Stapfer, like
Lactantius, regards Christ as the incarnate moral law. Others
again credit revelation with an extension of the cognition of the
reason, or an acceleration of its development. Thus Klein in
his Religiosismus. Such men, among whom may be reckoned
also Tzschirner, Schott, and at an earlier period Ammon and
Bretschneider, leave some remnant of the supernatural, at least
with respect to the form of revelation. But they generally
regard its contents as something which the reason has already ap-
propriated by its own powers, and scarcely any, except the older
Tübingen school (the elder Flatt and Susskind), seek, as we shall
see, to point out the practical utility of a revelation with regard
to any other truths than those of the moral law of the reason.
2
But this basing of a revelation, whose form-but whose form
only-was considered supernatural, on Kantian foundations called
forth the opposition of Kantian Rationalism. It was asserted
that an enlargement of the contents of the reason by revelation
could not be thought of. For all truths must have a moral
reference, hence the reason must itself perceive them, if it is to
embrace them; otherwise its obedience would be but blind, and
not a free moral action. Nor could the external authority of
revelation either commend or introduce those truths of the reason
which are of a practical kind; for good must be chosen purely
for its own sake. If there were, on the contrary, a demonstrative.
certainty of religious matters by means of revelation, this would
1 De revelatione religionis externa caque publica, 1808. So also Böhm.
2
Compare Schneckenburger's article on Stapfer.
Kantian Rationalism.
327
be only injurious to morality, by diverting to false motives that
free submission which should be rendered because of the intrinsic
goodness of the good. Even the possibility of knowing revelation
to be such, supposing it confined itself to being the form in which
moral law was promulgated, was disputed in Löffler's Magazine
for Preachers. And in fact the scaffolding of a miraculous
revelation, which should offer to the reason nothing more than
its own contents, would be an expenditure altogether out of
proportion. If the contents of Christianity are to be defined in
the rationalistic fashion adopted by formal supernaturalism in
general, the stricter Kantian rationalists, such as Löffler, Henke,
Schmid, Krug, Paulus, Röhr, and Wegscheider, are by far the
more consistent; and it is not surprising that they should have
been subsequently followed by such men as Ammon and
Bretschneider. The above-named stricter Kantians differ indeed
from Kant in the idea of God, which is to him an uncertain one;
but they only revert in this respect and especially is this the
case with Paulus, Krug, Röhr, and Wegscheider-to Wolffian
Deism. They regard the world indeed as having been originally
made by God, but (says Röhr¹) having made it He left it to
itself, and allowed it to go on like a good piece of mechanism.
It would be an unworthy notion of God to suppose it needful for
Him to take the clockwork of the world in hand again for the
purpose of improvements and repairs; in saying which Röhr
most strangely ignores, or subjects to the general mechanism of
the world, that human freedom which, together with God and
immortality, forms the supreme triad of Kantian rationalism.
Wegscheider, in his Dogmatik-which went through eight
editions, and was distinguished for its Latin style-carries out the
Deistical standpoint in the most undisguised manner. Religion
is defined in a Wolffian manner, and miracles said to have
originated either in superstition or in oriental rhetoric. Christ
is indebted for the high position He holds in the Christian religion
to the circumstance that the orientals refer even the natural to
God. "Non sine numine were His works performed" is the
utmost he can say concerning Him. Röhr does not scruple to
affirm that Christology is no integral element of the doctrinal
system. Paulus takes up a rather different position. He firmly
embraces the formal authority, ie. the historical credibility, of
1 Briefe über Rationalismus, 1813.
328
Kantian Rationalism.
holy Scripture, and, still feeling the influence of those reverential
feelings which were cherished by the Tübingen school, to which
he had belonged, declares it worthy of belief, but manages by his
explanations to remove from the history and teaching of Chris-
tianity every supernatural element, and tries to make Scripture
a witness for his most decided rationalism. The way for such a
process had been paved by a theory, originating with Kant, that
even the promulgators of a statutory religion might allow
themselves to use accommodations. Thus, e.g., the Apostle Paul
accommodated himself to Jewish notions in his doctrine of
Christ's sacrificial death, for the sake of doing away with the
offence of the cross. Paulus endeavours to draw the whole of
the New Testament history within the limits of the natural, by
insisting that the sacred writers only speak of the miraculous to
those who do not rightly understand their meaning. To preserve
the historical character of the New Testament and of Christianity,
nothing is needed beyond the accommodation theory, and that
we should mentally add to the supposed miraculous narratives
that which is necessary for their performance. In the feeding of
the five thousand, e.g., we have but to imagine that the necessary
bread had been previously concealed in a cave. A similar
explanation is offered of the miracle at Cana, where Jesus is said
to have furnished amusement at the wedding by the surprise
He caused. Thus the miraculous power is transferred to the
exegete, who does not indeed make something out of nothing,
but manages to change something into nothing, and then tries to
give out this nothing as something, throwing away by such
vindication the kernel of the history while retaining the shell.
But, if the alliance between Kantian philosophy and theo-
logy was concluded only on the basis of the form, or on the
assumption that certain eternal reason-truths formed the whole
contents of Christianity, and that the sole use of revelation
was to introduce or establish them, such an alliance could not
be a lasting one. For it follows that, when reason has mastered
and become assured of these truths, revelation has become
purposeless and superfluous, and may be laid aside, like the
ladder which has been used for gaining a certain height. Nay,
more, since reason, which was the learner, has now become the
teacher, since progress is a duty, and every new acquisition tends
to the perfection of knowledge, it is the privilege and duty of our
Perfectibility of Christianity.
329
age, which has proved the maturity of its reason by its cognizance
of the ideas, Godhead, freedom, and immortality, to perfect
Christianity. Thus the doctrine now reached was that of the
"perfectibility of Christianity." Certainly, if Christianity is
only an inculcation of eternal truths, it must be perfectible:
culture, development, the association of ideas-these denote an
ever improveable work of the human mind. Christianity cannot
be conceived of as raised above the possibility of superannuation,
unless the object of doctrine forms that primary element in its
constitution, of which doctrine itself is but the increasingly
perfect and more adequately expressed reflexion. Abr. Teller
had already conceived, from a Wolffian standpoint, the notion
of introducing a perfecting of Christianity in the interest of such
a merely intellectual view of that religion (see above); and
Krug's letters on the perfectibility of Christianity express the
same design from a Kantian point of view. With these coincide
Ammon's idea of carrying out Christianity into a universal
religion, from Jacobi's standpoint. Finally, Zeller advocated, in
a Hegelian aspect, the objective perfectibility of Christianity,
which notion of perfectibility will necessarily follow as long as
Christianity is regarded as teaching only those eternal non-
historical truths which are contained in the reason. For in this
case it must submit to the lot of ever leading by its agency
to something beyond itself, whether this superior something
be called the eternal Gospel or the stage of purer reason.
The other series of Kantian theologians escaped the contradic-
tion in question between natural revelation and its merely
rational contents by supposing revelation to furnish that which
was unattainable by reason. It was of less importance in this
respect that Susskind¹ should designate revelation as necessary
in order that God might be manifested as the ideal of all perfec-
tion, as the author of the moral law, as the pledge of the harmony
between virtue and happiness, and admit that other teaching
than the moral law might be practically helpful, as e.g. the
doctrine of original sin, and that of the agency of Divine grace.
But it was of very material importance that the assertion which
is connected with the central point of evangelical consciousness,
and with the material principle, viz. that revelation is necessary
on account of the pardon of sin, was now earnestly discussed,
¹ Flattsches Magazin, pts. i. iii. ix.
330
The Necessity of the Forgiveness of Sin.
and its bearing upon the principles of Kantian philosophy
investigated.
If the forgiveness of sin were regarded as necessary, revelation
might be required either for the purpose of the promulgation or
even of the acquisition of pardon. The latter, because punish-
ment was inevitable from the standpoint of justice, while a
remedy and amendment were required from the standpoint of
the moral purpose of the world. But this even the Kantian
supernaturalists scarcely ventured to advocate, and stopped for
the most part at the necessity of promulgation. Tieftrunk held
that the forgiveness of sin, being a restoration of the internal
harmony of man through consciousness of reconciliation, is a
condition of all happy progress in goodness. From this
Susskind drew the conclusion that man must, at all events, be
assured of pardon for the sake of his sanctification, but that this
consideration only involves the possibility of forgiveness, and
that its reality can only be known by the fact of a Divine pro-
mulgation. Tieftrunk objected that we can nevertheless only
believe in such a promulgation in the world of sense, if the
practical reason itself consents to such pardon-in other words,
recognizes from practical principles not merely its possibility but
its necessity. Hence, instead of this promulgation, nothing was
needed but the recognition of the doctrine of pardon as an eternal
reason-truth. Susskind replied that the notion of the execution
of punishment is easily reconcilable with that of a moral world.
If then the forgiveness of sins is not self-evident, we can only
know God's real intentions from His positive revelation. This
mongrel standpoint, which regarded moral opposites as equally
possible to God, and thus ultimately subjected the ethical to an
arbitrariness based upon no reasons, was opposed on the part of
Tieftrunk by the statement that, a decided answer might, on
the contrary, be derived from ethical principles, and this on the
mere grounds of the need of pardon, because the chief concern of
the moral law is its fulfilment in sanctification. On his part,
indeed, he overlooked the fact that if evil is forgiven at once, and
even before amendment (for the possibility of the latter is said
to be caused by the forgiveness of sins), then in the place of
justice there must be an indifference on the part of God to the
distinction between good and evil.
Hence other Kantians took up the idea of justice, and arrived
2
The Necessity of the Forgiveness of Sin. 331
by another side of the system at the absolute necessity of punish-
ment, and the impossibility of the forgiveness of sin. Kant had
already said, in his Religion within the Limits of pure Reason,
that it is never possible to abolish guilt. If man, after a change
of heart, ceases to accumulate new debts, this cannot pass as
payment of the old. For he can never earn aught to spare,
being always bound to do all the good in his power. He tried,
however, to escape the consequences of this admission, while
strict Kantians, such as Schmid,¹ more consistently insisted, that
all and every remission of punishment, on condition of amend-
ment, is opposed to the Divine justice. Others carried this so
far as to say that the practical law of reason is not merely a law
of commands but of merit, and of the most perfect justice.
Immorality deserves punishment, and a certain amount of penal-
ties must necessarily be awarded thereto. If, according to prac-
tical reason, that which practical reason declares worthy of
punishment is not to be punished, this would be an antinomy in
the law itself, by which its validity would be imperilled. Hence
punishment is necessary. Such views were long advocated by
the younger Flatt.3 He endeavours to show that there is no
atonement; that even the New Testament teaches none. We
must nevertheless labour confidently in the work of our own
amendment, in the belief of finally attaining to perfection.
According to his maxims, or rather according to his perversion
of them, every one may, even during his state of punishment, be
certain of the Divine approbation, and hope for the Divine
assistance. He does not, however, reflect that the law and the
knowledge of a God who must necessarily inflict punishment,
beget a fear with which love cannot coexist. Besides, by making
man certain before punishment of the Divine approbation of his
efforts after improvement, he does not regard the very essence of
punishment as consisting in God's displeasure, and thinks less
seriously of the power of sin than of its guilt, which absolutely
exposes to punishment. The latter indeed, being compatible
with the Divine approbation, already approximates to mere
chastening. Susskind, adhering to his propositions, rejoined: It
¹ Moral philosophie, 1793, p. 307.
2 Comp. Flatt's Magazin, ix.
3 Philos. exeg. Unters. über die Lehre von der Versöhnung, 2 pts. 1797, p. 88,
§ 43, &c.
332
Decline of Kantian Rationalism.
is possible for God to forgive, i.e. to pardon, the sinner, upon
adequate amendment; but it is possible also that punishment, as
such, may strike the repentant offender; hence a revelation to
declare which of the two is His will is necessary. This supposed
double possibility in God is, however, as unevangelical as it is
contradictory. It is the latter, because, while the motive of the
forgiveness of sins is said to be that sanctification is better pro-
moted thereby than by punishment, on the other hand merit,
and therefore amendment, is said to precede pardon. Hence
revelation could as little be proved by practical reason to be the
mere means of promulgating the forgiveness of sins, as it could
thereby be shown to be nothing more than the instrument for
proclaiming the moral law. On the contrary, it was precisely
this earnest moral philosophy which led to an antinomy not to
be solved upon Kantian principles. For, on the one side, prac-
tical reason, as the law of justice, i.c. of the connection between
virtue and happiness, demands inexorably the punishment of sin,
and regards remission as impossible; while, on the other, the
moral law, as a law of holiness which must be fulfilled, indis-
pensably requires the forgiveness of sin, unless the notion of
punishment is to be diluted. It was no wonder then that, with
such an antinomy of the practical reason, Kantian superna-
turalism should appear more and more untenable. No one any
longer ventured to advocate the Christian doctrine of the atone-
ment, which affirms both the necessity of punishment and the
forgiveness of sin, but instead of making them subsist as an
antinomy unites them, by ascribing to Christ a real mediatorial
acquisition of reconciliation, and thus announces the pardon of
sin on the basis of an expiation to Divine justice. Storr had
already turned to the acceptilation theory of Hugo Grotius.
And it was Kant himself who more than others approximated
thereto in his last-named work. Christ, he thinks, may be con-
ceived of as the ideal of a manhood well-pleasing to God, what-
ever may have been the relation of Jesus thereto. This ideal is
by substitution set to the account of the man who is sincerely
disposed to amend his ways, for God accepts the will of the
ordinary man for the deed, if only he has become in heart a new
It may also be said, since sufferings often continue after
amendment, that the new man suffers by substitution for the
man.
A Crisis for Kant's System.
333
old man.¹
It is certainly very significant that Kant should, for
the sake of legitimizing the anticipation of peace, make so much
of the idea of substitution. Knowing, however, nothing of pre-
venting grace or pardon, he is always obliged to presuppose the
goodness of the human will, in order to make substitution
applicable, while in fact the conversion of the will itself is
dependent not upon the mere hope, but upon the assurance of
pardon.
For this reason it was soon evident that a Kantian non-know-
ledge of God was but a mock support for evangelical faith, which
insists upon being an affirmation of assurance. Undoubtedly Kant's
criticism of all objective knowledge struck also at the knowable-
ness of revelation in general. Hence the Kantian foundation for
a union of religion and philosophy being found deceptive, the
supernaturalist theologians also, who depended upon it, receded
farther and farther. Orthodox theology gradually lost its power
of resistance, and one capitulation followed another. Thus those
deformities, supernatural rationalism and rational supernaturalism,
as represented by Tzschirner, Schott, Mertens, Klein, and others
named above, got the upper hand from 1810 to 1820. Even
Tübingen, which had long been esteemed the stronghold of
orthodoxy, was increasingly inclined to Arminianism; while the
younger Bengel was already tending to rationalism and to a
Socinian Christology.
A crisis, arising from internal causes, was, however, coming
upon the Kantian system itself. The distinction of "the thing
in itself," from the à priori pure intuitions of space and time,
without which no conception of a given object was possible, and
from the forms of thought or categories, the pure notions of the
understanding, without which no judgment and no experience
could take place, and finally, from the ideas or contemplated aims
of the reason, without which there can be no moral action,—a
distinction which called in question all knowledge of objective
reality was indeed adapted to humble the scientific arrogance
of popular philosophy, and to awaken a higher idea of knowledge.
At the same time, however, it turned like a two-edged sword
against Kantianism itself, and gave it an utterly sceptical tenor,
unless some terms were come to with this obscure remnant of
the thing in itself. This might, however, be done in two ways.
¹ Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, p. 69, &c., 86, &c.
334
A Crisis for Kant's System.·
Kant's criticism attempted to declare and establish the conditions.
of cognition. Since then these conditions or factors of cognition
form its prius or à priori, an insight into these conditions is an
insight into the faculty of the à priori, into pure reason, and thus
a metaphysic is asserted, nay a germ furnished thereto, which
divides itself in a threefold manner, viz. into theoretical and
practical, while the former again branches off into an à priori
knowledge of the senses and of the understanding. Thus the rea-
son contemplating itself by the critical method, perceives thereby
a series of original faculties. It has in itself sense, understanding,
and the power of conceiving practical and ideal aims. But thus
was given the problem to comprehend this multiplicity in a unity,
and, if possible, to perceive how this one and the same reason
exists in these different forms of being or functions, or deter-
mines and opens itself thereto. After Reinhold had attempted to
find the unity of sense and understanding in the representative
faculties, because both intuitions and notions are representations,
Fichte proceeded to seek also the unity of the theoretical reason
(under both its aspects) and that of the practical reason in the
fundamental activity of the reason as such, i.e. in the self-conscious-
ness or the ego. Fichte's doctrine of knowledge attempts to deduce
all knowledge from the ego, and to abolish that obscure remnant,
the thing in itself, by conceiving of the non-ego as the postulate
of the ego, a step which, in a manner to be subsequently men-
tioned, formed a transition to Schelling and Hegel, in whom the
identity of subject and object attains a clearer expression and
juster balance of both sides than in Fichte. In the latter the
object appears to be absorbed in the subject, because in his
earlier period he, in a subjectivistic manner, made the object to
be only the act of the subject, without inquiring whether the
subject were not itself fundamentally of a universal nature, and
that which it postulates only the medium by which this universal
foundation acts.¹
1
2
But just as Hume's philosophy was succeeded in Scotland by
the psychology of the Scottish school, so also-and this was the
other possibility of that dualism which remained in Kant's system
-an advance might be made in the direction of attempting to
1 Comp. Kuno Fischer, Akademische Reden, 1862; Die beiden Kantischen
Schulen in Jena, p. 86-90.
2 Thomas Reid, Dugald Stewart.
Fries.
335
overcome the scepticism therein contained, by abandoning the ten-
dency to à priori science or metaphysics, which was given in Kant's
investigations of the à priori conditions of the possibility of all
cognition, and thus degrading the criticism of reason to that
mere empiric knowledge of the human reason and its powers,
which might be attained by self-observation or inward experience,
i.e. anthropologically, and therefore in the way of psychology.
So thought Fries, whose standpoint was akin to that of Jacobi.
Fries's empiricism, to which not metaphysics but psychical
anthropology is the philosophia prima, then, however, attempts
to base metaphysical science upon this inward experience, and
to construct thereon a system of philosophy. He too insists
upon a criticism of reason, but upon "a new criticism of reason,"
which does not treat the contents of the reason as produced, but
as directly given in the mind. Since we do not create, but
merely perceive these contents, the reason must, according to
Fries, possess a faculty of passing through some kind of inward
experiences, and this he calls the feeling of truth. This feeling
is, however, at first obscure, and consequently needs a critical
revision; thus the power of reflection, which can observe the
given, and elucidate the obscure, is to be posited as a second
faculty. This power of reflexion is, in his view, the under-
standing, which however cannot produce, but only become con-
scious of that which is experienced in the feeling. The feeling
of truth and unity in Fries answers to the perception of the
Infinite in Jacobi, the exaltation to the idea of the perfect
and the ideal, which is higher and better than the ego, to the
religious feeling which becomes conscious of the true world,
while the world of sense, with time and space, is imperfection,
which the ideal feeling transcends. Faith has indeed, accord-
ing to Jacobi, also a signification for the world of sense, for as
religious faith is a consciousness of God, so is there also a direct
consciousness of the reality of the external world. But while
the understanding, with its notions, categories, and necessary
thoughts, is able to grasp in thought the world of sense, accord-
ing to its limited appearances, the same understanding, though it
can long for the Infinite and the Divine, is not merely insufficient
grasp such an object, but annihilates it in the attempt, because
it makes everything finite upon which it reasons. The understand-
ing is, by its very nature, a born denier of God; the Divine is thus
to
336
Fichte.
wholly inaccessible to our powers of definite knowledge, and only
present to our feelings in moments of ideal exaltation. Every-
day life is, on the contrary, life in the understanding, and there-
fore without God. It was Schleiermacher who, though coinciding
with Jacobi in the denial of all objective cognition of God, first
surmounted his psychological dualism between the understand-
ing and the reason, by the acknowledgment that the religious
feeling, by which alone we are conscious of God, vibrates in
every element of our being, even in the "understanding." Nay,
the two lines proceeding from Kant, the one leading from Fichte
through Schelling to Hegel, and that of Fries and Jacobi, do in a
certain measure unite in him. For in his dialectics he makes,
on the one hand, his empirical starting-point to be not thought only,
but thought desirous to become knowledge; and on the other, so
constructs from this the à priori or metaphysical conditions or
presuppositions of knowledge, as to produce a metaphysical
science, not based upon experience alone, but derived also from
the necessary idea of knowledge.¹ We must, however, pause to
consider Fichte and Jacobi more closely.
Kant's standpoint was a half one; there was no stopping at
its dualism. Either: That tendency to an à priori knowledge,
threatened as it was at every moment and about to be of neces-
sity resolved into merely subjective, though necessary intuitions
and notions, by the obscure thing in itself left in the back-
ground, must be solely and energetically carried out; in other
words, the reason itself must exorcise and overcome the threaten-
ing spectre of the thing in itself by abolishing its independent
self-existence, and regarding it as a mere assumption of the ego.
Fichte by doing this, in his first period, transformed the scepti-
cism and criticism of Kant into the absolute knowledge of ideal-
ism. The ego renders itself absolute; it produces all the non-ego,
at first as limitation, but afterwards also as material, which the ego
in its Progressus in infinitum exercises itself in overcoming, and by
which it recovers its liberty. Non-action, idleness, is the evil,
action the good, and its result is that moral government of the world
which takes the place of God. In this there remains indeed a
weak point, namely, that the ego, according to Kant, also bears
within itself the unknown thing in itself, and since morcover we do
¹ Chalybæus has carried out this thought with special vigour and independence
in his metaphysics.
Fichte's Relation to Christianity.
337
not know whether the ego, as apprehended in the immediate ap-
perception of self-consciousness, corresponds to the real ego, the
vanquishing of the thing in itself at this point also, in other
words of the ego in itself, seems to lead too far. For it threatens
to abolish the real substratum of the thought itself, and to leave
nothing behind but action, the motion of the thought, which is at
the same time an assumption, and thus we have functions with-
out anything to exercise them, and predicates without a subject
to bear them. Or: The thing in itself must be acknowledged as
something objective, something given and not supposed by the
thought, and this will be the case not only with the thing-in-itself
of things external to us, but also with that of the self-conscious-
ness; and between these two lines of connection may be drawn.
But then Kant's propositions concerning the autarchy and auto-
nomy of the reason, and his germs for a metaphysic, producing in
a creative manner a real system of knowledge by means of pure
speculation, no longer stand. On the contrary, we must then
acknowledge that the reason itself precedes its own speculations
and assumptions, not being first posited by the thought, but given
to itself as a thing in itself, and must therefore cease from its
claim to be completely absolute, because it points, on the con-
trary, to something which absolutely posits itself, to an objective
and truly absolute Being, whence our thought and existence origi-
nate. To this latter conclusion not only Jacobi, but even Fichte,
in his second period, turns, though in another form. For he now
not only gives up representing this motion of act and thought
as the assumption of the subjective ego, but proceeds to assume,
as the real substratum of this motion of the thought, instead of
the subjective ego, which is itself rather an assumption of the
motion of thought, the absolute objective Being or God, in whom
the individual is but a single point, a wave of the universal life;
and who, even though but momentarily, makes himself subjective
in individual minds, that is, treats them as mediums of trans-
mission to His assumptions. God, it is then said, loves Himself
in man, and man attains His truth by sacrificing himself to
God. Thus from the proposition: "The ego is everything, is
God," the other and opposite one: The ego has no substantial
existence, there is nothing but God, and God is also the essence
of the ego, is reached. And this is substantial Pantheism, nay,
an objectivism which absorbs subjectivity.
II.
Y
338
Fichte's Relation to Christianity.
2
In this, however, Fichte was already approaching the funda-
mental fact of Christianity. In his criticism of all revelation he
had found, like a genuine Kantian, no other importance in Christ
than that of preserving the idea of God in its purity, in the pre-
sence of the rudest sensuousness. He had seen in the doctrine
of the God-man, only a statement which made a being entirely
limited by the conditions of sense, an expression of the moral
attributes of God, an incorporate practical reason, a God as it
were of men; but he left the objective significance of Christ
undecided, and required that every one should be at liberty to
make use of it or not. Subsequently however, and especially in
his lectures on the doctrine of the State in 1813,1 he more
inclined to a recognition of Christianity and of the historical
Person of Christ. He still indeed, as before, rejected miracles in
the province of external nature, but acknowledged miracles in
the province of mind, as the products, or even the self-manifesta-
tions, of that God who was to his ardent conception a wise and
loving Providence. The more his moral judgment advanced to
the perception that the legal stage was subordinate, discordant
and enslaved, and that the Kantian categorical imperative was
barren, and mere dead law, the more decidedly did he turn to
love as the supreme principle specially proclaimed in St. John's
Gospel. This love he regards as not, in the first place, a pro-
duct of human effort and will, but a Divine gift and appoint-
ment, which he compares with geniality. He sees that the
categorical imperative and self-respect bear but dead and cold
fruits, devoid of benefits either to their producers or receivers,
and accompanied by an ever increasing hatred to the law, and
an absence of joy, enthusiasm and liberty. By the Divine gift
however, a firm will, in which liberty and necessity are com-
bined, and which was in Kant merely a matter of desire and
endeavour, becomes actually existent. He also applies the
notion of geniality more comprehensively to the progress of
the world's history. This progress is effected by elect per-
sonalities, the organs of the Godhead, who do not first become
1 Works, vol. iv. 370, &c., and especially 535, &c.
2 Works, iv. 546: They would be magical means, and would presuppose an
iii. 100: It
arbitrary God, their reception would be a denial of the law of God.
would even be immoral to think of producing moral effects by means of miracles;
in the kingdom of God nothing must be altered within the world of sense, except
through freedom, under the Divine command.
Fichte's Relation to Christianity.
339
what they are in the way of development or reflexion, but ·
directly through God, who not merely prescribes law, or an
order of the world, but Himself operates as the creative order of
the world.¹ Theirs is a spiritual nature, and reason acts in them
with the irresistible power of instinct. Now if the manifestation
of absolute truth in an inspired personality in general is logically
inexplicable, and to be regarded as an act of Divine freedom, i.e.
a miracle, then the existence of Jesus is the greatest miracle in
creation. Jesus was, without any act of will or reflexion, by
His very existence a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. His
will was absorbed and captivated in a higher will, of which He
was the instrument, and as such became conscious of Himself.
He was what we call a decided, an artistic, a practical genius,
with an innate impulse for founding the kingdom of heaven.
Contemplating then and comprehending Himself, He knew Him-
self to be not merely thus impelled, generally speaking, but to bear
within Him also the notion and the character of this fact. He
both knew and chose, that it should be his destination to be the
founder of the kingdom of heaven. He had by His very being
power over all. We may also perceive that this Person was
absolutely necessary. Mankind is by the exertion of its freedom
to destroy an antagonistic condition, and to form itself into a
kingdom of God, into a world in which God alone is the prin-
ciple of all activity, and in which nothing is done without Him
from whom all human freedom proceeds, and to whom it is
surrendered. This must indeed take place in detail through each
individual, and that power of freedom which determines him.
But for this purpose there was needed an example of this deter-
mination to self-immolation and self-surrender. Whence was
mankind to have this? It could only have it by means of a
previously possessed freedom, and yet in its present state it can only
obtain freedom by means of this example. Thus a circle arises:
freedom presupposes the example, the example presupposes freedom.
This circle is only to be abolished by the fact that the example
should once be actual reality, absolutely original, beginning from
the very roots, and realizing itself in a person. Now this did take
1 Fichte already advanced in his definition of man from Forberg's definition of
God as the order of the world, which is the product of man (ordo ordinatus), to
God as the ordo ordinans, and afterwards from this formal definition to the real
one, that God is, after all, the creative principle of a living and moral order of the
world, and also of freedom and love.
340
Fichte.
place in Jesus. He is unique through His originality. All who
enter the kingdom of heaven attain it only through Him, through
the example which He sets up in Himself for the whole race;
for all are to be born again through Him, while He is the first,
and the first-born Son.
Thus does Fichte endeavour to infer from an à priori law the
necessity of the Person of Jesus. But, he continues, that which
Jesus had in so original a manner, all may have, now that they have
such an example for contemplation, in other words, they may now,
without special geniality, become, by means of their freedom, what
He was.
He calls Jesus absolute reason, or religion become direct
self-consciousness, the perfect sensible manifestation of the eternal
word: it was only the imperfection of subsequent ages; which
made Him an unapproachable ideal; it was His design to be
entirely and undividedly repeated in the character He exhibited.¹
His blood and His mind having entered into us make us pure. If
by our freedom and understanding we have so far attained that God
lives in us, His Person is a matter of indifference to us, and the
historical element in Christ loses its importance; we do not need
the ladder after we have gained the height.2 It is contrary to
Christianity to make belief in the Trinity-even in that economic
sense which he alone embraces-and in the person of Jesus, a
condition of salvation. That none indeed can come to God
without the Son and the Spirit is ever true, but the Son and
the Spirit can save a man without his knowledge or gratitude.
Not to comprehend the Trinity is but an obscurity which, as
such, shall be abolished. All multiplicity, even though only
duality, is but in the image, in the appearance; in another world
this will be absolute unity. Hence we have only to teach that
God has manifested Himself as Father, Son, and Spirit, not in
words, but in act. The Father is that which is absolutely given
previous to the appearance of, and the separation into, individ-
uality; the Son is the absolute enhancement of the appearance
to the intuition of the kingdom of God. The great eternal
miracle is that God (as the Spirit) gives a new heart to all who
draw near to Him. For we must teach that there is in the
world of spirits a living and active God."
Jacobi goes still more deeply into the nature of man, advanc-
ing from Kant's ego of the will, which makes itself absolute, to
1
√.
489.
2 iv. 552.
3 iv. 555.
Facobi.
341
the sphere of feeling [Gemüth], of direct perception of God; from
the province of morals to that of religion; though still equally
building upon only a subjective basis. This subjective inward-
ness, this directness of feeling, is inimical to all interposition of
means in the matter of religion. The objective history is regarded
as the mere symbol of this inward sentiment, and not as the
source and rule of healthy religious feeling. So too, as has been
already hinted, the world of intellectual speculation is, in his
view, opposed to that world of religion which absolutely with-
draws from conception. The intellect cannot help conceiving
that on which it speculates as finite. Spinoza rightly said, omnis
determinatio est negatio. He regards God as higher and better than
the ego, because He is infinite, though His nature is undefinable,
and His properties cannot be expressed. Every positive state-
ment concerning God is anthropomorphic or anthropopathic,
hence it is idolatry to designate Christ as both God and man.
Great as was the influence of Jacobi as the advocate of feeling,
and the enthusiastic prophet of religion and its primary rights,
his standpoint is involved in self-contradictions, in a constant
and innate dualism between reason and faith, intellect and feel-
ing, and not less in a dualism between the inner world of high
ethereal feeling and the outer world. Within is "noble nature,"
which conceives of itself as pure and divine, the fair soul which
breathes forth its feelings; without is the hard, stony, unideal
world, in which the laws of gravitation, of mechanics, and of cold
reason prevail. Regarding nothing as certain but negation, and
conceiving of the Divine as separate from the world of the visible,
or at most as merely reflected thereby, he can admit no ex-
ternal revelation, and tries to make that which is found in man
sufficient.
If however we only know that God is, but are absolutely in-
capable of knowing what He is, we cannot know whether pan-
theism, against which Jacobi so decidedly pronounces, is not in
the right; whether God, that Being who is better than the ego,
is not after all the ideal ego becoming conscious, in its so-called
religious feeling, of itself, or of that which is infinite and divine
in its own nature. So, too, is the moral element, of which we are
sensible, and which he defines as that which corresponds with the
divine element, utterly indefinite, nay, subjective in his system.
The ego, as that noble nature which esteems itself divine, is to decide
342
Third Union of Theology and Philosophy.
in individual instances what is good, and is itself superior to
law. This ego does not choose aught that is objective because
it is good, but it is good because this ego chooses it. Fries and
Schmid, as before pointed out, try to fill up this undefined out-
line of the moral psychologically, and attain at best to that
only which is adapted to human nature, but not to that which
is good in itself, and therefore that universal good by means of
which alone human consciousness can become reason.
It was an easier and more attractive task to unite theology
with Jacobi's standpoint than with Kant's, or even with the
earlier teaching of Fichte. This called forth the antagonism
between supernaturalism and rationalism in a new and third
form. The rivals now appeared not in their intellectual or
moral, but in their æsthetic forms. On the side of æsthetic
supernaturalism are Eschenmayer (formerly a Schellingian),
Vater, Steudel, Emmerich, Heydenreich, and others. Like
Jacobi, they are opposed to all scientific apprehension or know-
ledge of things divine, on the ground of the absence of all
proportion between the finite intellect and the infinite God.
Steudel¹ disputes our right to make either the holy feeling or
the holy presentiment the exclusive source of knowledge. We
must," he says, "derive our religious knowledge from all that is
authenticated, especially from holy Scripture." He then incul-
cates reverence for the historical side of revelation in general,
and is the last advocate of any importance of so-called biblical
supernaturalism. For the rest he takes up a freer position
towards the symbolical books, especially with regard to the doc-
trines of natural sinfulness, and of the atonement; and insists
upon the freedom of the will. But the stricter followers of
Jacobi, such as Koppen and Schmid, declare with negative
mysticism that the eternal cannot enter into time without making
itself finite; that language itself is but the symbol, not the ex-
pression, of thought, and that even supposing there were an
objective revelation, man could not therein find truth for the first
time, but only find again that which he already bears within him.
No external revelation, accredited by miracles, &c., can attain
the power of conviction possessed by the primitive perception of
God within us; as a thing external it cannot grow together, or
1 Von der Haltbarkeit des Glaubens an geschichtliche höhere Offenbarung Gottes,
1814.
Esthetic Supernaturalism and Rationalism. 343
in like manner, with the mental organism, nor become an element
of its freer and higher knowledge. To speak of an incarnation of
the infinite is a self-evident contradiction, and nothing but super-
stitious idolatry. It was here that Jacobi came into violent
collision with friends to whom his heart was united, with
Matthias Claudius, and Hamann, who would neither regard his
irreconcilable antagonism between the intellect and the percep-
tion of God as an irreversible decree, and the mind of man as
involved in a necessary discord, nor deprive the mental life,
whether of the pious or the intellectual, of its unity. The last
objective reason of the dualism in which Jacobi's noble mind
was involved, is his view of the absolute antagonism of the divine
and the human, which he shares with Wolff, Kant, and Fichte,
and which his own pious feelings struggle, at least momentarily
and at intervals, to overcome, as eg. when, in spite of Fichte's
saying that personality is limitation and finiteness, he clings to
the idea of a personal God, or when he appropriates to himself
Goethe's saying-
“Wär' nicht das Auge sonnenhaft,
Wie könnten wir der Sonne Licht erblicken?
Lebt' nicht in uns des Gottes eigne Kraft,
Wie könnt' uns Göttliches entzücken?"
Jacobi is the philosopher who, with the intellect of a heathen
and the heart of a Christian, stood between two opposing currents,
and when carried upwards by the one was as constantly borne.
down again by the other. Ever alternating between seasons of
piety and periods in which he was utterly without God, he was
continually in that state of conflict which we observed in pre-
Reformation mysticism, in its interchange between seasons of
rejoicing in God and seasons of deploring His absence.
The rationalism based upon Jacobi's foundation was more
lasting than that æsthetic supernaturalism, whose place was soon
occupied by Schleiermacher and his influence. For æsthetic
rationalism was the form which was variously assumed by all
those who, on the one hand, turned away from the dryness and
poverty of so-called vulgar rationalism of the Wolffian or Kantian
kind, and who yet, on the other, were unable to perceive the
1
1 As e.g. Hase, who in his controversial works against Röhr, has rendered
essential service with respect to the older rationalism.
344 Esthetic Supernaturalism and Rationalism.
dogmatic importance of holy Scripture, and thereby to find
themselves in more internal harmony with Church doctrine.
Among these may be enumerated Ammon in his later period,
Hase, de Wette, and Rückert. Hase, of whose services in the
department of historical theology we shall hereafter have to
speak, and who commenced the long series of works of the kind
by his Leben Jesu, in which he embraces the perfect sinlessness
of Jesus, affected in his youth by the writings of Schelling, nay,
even of Schleiermacher, was unable to stop at a dead conception
of the relation of God to the world. Instead, however, of assum-
ing in man an infinite receptivity for the acts of God and for
communion with Him, he defines Him after the manner of Pela-
gianism, as of divine nature, as "becoming God" through His
freedom, while he also calls God "the absolute man." There is
however, in his view, a progressus in infinitum between the two.
Atonement and redemption are to take place by means of free-
dom, i.e. by man's appropriation of the infinite through love.¹
He had at an earlier period² held that the appearance of Christ
was necessary for the purpose of a divinely-accredited announce-
ment of the forgiveness of sin, an announcement which His own
perfection confirmed and proclaimed. This was a bond of alli-
ance between him and Tübingen supernaturalism, but a bond
which was soon broken. De Wette, a prolific writer in exe-
gesis and criticism, author of many works which manifest a noble.
and truth-loving nature, though he did not in his doctrinal state-
ments scientifically overcome Jacobi's dualism, was personally
increasingly favourable to historical Christianity."
5
1 Ev. Dogmatik, § 51.
3
2 Lehrbuch der evangelischen Dogmatik, 1526, p. 367, &c.
4
3 The standpoint of the learned Baumgarten-Crusius, who however too slightly
organizes his material, is a similar one.
4 First expressed in Religion und Theologie, 1815, and subsequently in his
Wesen des christlichen Glaubens vom Standpunkt des Glaubens, 1846.
5 Commentar zur Apokalypsc, 1848, Preface. (The conclusion of his Exe-
getisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament.)
6 At the present time a tolerably large contingent is furnished to æsthetic
rationalism by those who, falling away from Schleiermacher and stopping at that
standpoint of reflection which makes the object of theology a matter of argument,
have revived that antagonism between rationalism and supernaturalism, feeling
and intellect, ideal and real, which had been reconciled by Schleiermacher. To
these belong the majority of the contributors to the protestantischen Kirchenzei-
tung, and the writers of many articles in Schenkel's Zeitschrift, while H. Lange's
Zeilstimmen, retrograding still farther and misconceiving the independent rights of
Retrospect.
345
RETROSPECT.
We have thus in our third section pursued that development of
subjectivity, whose course was one of uninterrupted victory.
Blow followed blow in rapid succession; secession from the
authority of the Church, self-severance from holy Scripture from
all external, and from even the Christian revelation, surrender
too of that internal revelation for which Semler, Lessing, and
Jacobi had still left room, in favour of Kant's moral self-cer-
tainty of the subject shut up in itself, nay, of Jacobi's claim of the
subject to be supreme, and superior even to the objective moral
law, and of Forberg's rejection of religion itself.
In a dangerous malady, the constitution rallies its vital powers
to struggle for the mastery. So also did Protestantism during
the period when subjectivity was most in the ascendant, viz.
from 1750 to 1800, when philosophy with its successive systems
was the order of the day, shake off all that it felt to be the cause
of the bondage into which it had fallen, all that oppressive nar-
rowness of external form which its inner nature could not assimi-
late, and which yet sought to lord it over that nature. That
which thus cramped its energies and stifled its breath was not the
Divine itself, but the human additions and form which had been
mingled with it, and which made the historical appear unspiritual,
nay the Divine uncongenial, and destructive to thought, free-
dom, and will. For supernaturalism too, with its deistic admix-
ture, had just as little knowledge that reason and Christianity
harmonized with each other as the idea of true manhood and
Godhead. To such a human addition had human science
grown, nay, overgrown. Antiquated theology went down to its
grave, but the Christian faith remained, nay, was even now
reviving with fresh vigour, to bring forth in due time a new
theology. To this result philosophy, even in its specially critical
religion, transfer them to the practical or intellectual interest. A theological and
philosophical eclecticism makes this group appear very numerous.
The key-
word by which they are held together is "culture," which has taken the place of
the older watch-word "illuminism," but has for the most part preserved the same
negative signification. The fact that there was on the other side also a relapse to
the older forms of supernaturalism, and especially to its ecclesiastical form, con-
tributed not a little to this state of things.
.
346
Retrospect.
period, furnished its contribution. Its attitude indeed was, dur-
ing the above-mentioned period, for the most part alien, nay,
antagonistic to Christianity. Its labours nevertheless subserved
a higher cause than its own, and formed a regularly advancing
process, which was not all loss, but also profit, because it showed
beforehand how intrinsically akin were the factors of the human.
and the divine, of nature and grace. For that tendency, which
first appeared in the three aspects mentioned in the second sec-
tion, in a positively Christian form, viz. in Protestant mysticism,
in Calixtus, and in Spener and the Church of the Brethren,
was now seen to advance consciously, and by similar stages, in a
philosophic form, modern science now, in the form of philosophy,
opposing the forerunners of the modern period (from Klopstock
and Hamann to Herder), and attacking this modern correlative
of the ancient mysticism, teeming as it was with fertile germs.
Its assaults were made first in an intellectual form by Leibnitz
and Wolff, the self-assurance of the mind was next sought in a
practical and ethical form by Kant and Fichte, this being the
philosophical correlative of Spener's movement, while, finally,
Jacobi carried on the process in the form of religious feeling.
Not one of the subjective aspects of consciousness was indeed
self-sufficing; each was attacked by the advocates of the others
who could make a case against it, yet each again represented a
true aspect of the nature or the idea of man.
The whole process
was inwardly connected with Protestantism and its intrinsic
tendency, especially with the material principle. For as the
material principle promises inward assurance and freedom in
God, nay, makes these a duty, so also the fundamental feature in
this subjective process is, that whatever would exercise autho-
rity over man, or claim his submission, must be homogeneous with
his nature, feeling, perceptions, and will, and capable of being
assimilated thereby, that so it may become his personal possession
and his personal assurance. Even the essential affinity between the
human and the divine was brought to light by the efforts of that
very subjectivity, whose desire it was to pause at and to ponder
over itself, and which subserved such a purpose involuntarily,
and, it might be said, to its own surprise. For the absolutely
valuable predicates of knowledge of truth, desire of good, and
feeling for the infinite and the divine, being acknowledged not to
transcend human nature, but to be elements of the true nature
Retrospect.
347
of man, so many lines of communication were thus drawn
between the idea of the human and the Divine, in opposition to
their traditional separation. Hence the idea of their mutual
exclusion and alienation appeared no longer tenable. It is true
that the strong desire for subjective self-assurance led philosophy
at this stage zealously to decide agaiust objectivity; but the
rapid succession of systems in the line of subjectivity, and their
ceaseless conflicts with each other, suffered neither a premature
repose nor a true self-assurance to be attained, but rather im-
pelled them, though in the form of conflict, towards seeking
their union and interpenetration.
That remarkable apparition Fichte, who pushed subjectivity
to the furthest conceivable limits, not only showed that it must
necessarily be exchanged for objectivity, but, besides consis-
tently carrying out subjectivity, gave philosophical expression
to the principle of objectivity. Thus the spirits of two ages
exhibit themselves as comprised in him in all distinctness.
It is true that their manifestation is successive; but at the same
time they approximate so closely, as most absolutely to demand
that union, which alone could put a stop to the restless exchange
of one for the other which had hitherto been taking place on
both sides,¹ and introduce, instead of an ever fruitlessly repeated
circle, the straight line of progress, in virtue of the combination
of these two antagonistic factors.
The theological problem as yet left unsolved by the Reformation,
viz. the scientific union of the material and the formal, of the sub-
jective and objective principles, is only a concrete expression,
with reference to the Christian religion, of the philosophical
problem of the union of subject and object, of thought and exist-
ence. It is very significant that at about the same time when
philosophy was in the state of agitation we have pointed out,
a respectable theologian should, from the ranks of the biblical
supernaturalists, have recalled attention to the material principle
of the Reformation, which had been almost buried by the one-
sided emphasis laid not indeed upon Church teaching, but upon
the formal principle."
¹ In the eighteenth century, from objectivism to subjectivism, and then vice
versa.
2 Reinhard's Reformationspredigt, 1800.
BOOK III.
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, OR THE REGENERA-
TION OF PROTESTANT THEOLOGY.
Į
1
FIRST DIVISION.
The German Protestant or Evangelical Church.
ONE
NE of the most important results of the commotions which
during the eighteenth century had agitated the Evangelical
Church, was the altered attitude of the different Christian, and
especially the different Protestant, confessions towards each
other. In the seventeenth century their controversies had too
often been characterized by self-exaltation, want of charity, and
a spirit of binding opponents to conclusions which they repudi-
ated. Both confessions had ignored those treasures of evangelical
faith which were common property, and shown a disposition to
disparage their common Christianity, or to restrict its natural
effects. The onesided dwelling upon what was individual, and
the morbid depreciation of what was common, weakened the
feeling for evangelical catholicity, the obverse of which could
only be a tendency towards sectarianism. This was chiefly
shown on the part of Lutheran theologians by their claim that
their Confession, as being in possession of correct doctrine, was
the only true Church of Christ on earth, and in the most flourish-
ing condition. Opposition to this error, which turned attention.
from the fundamental evangelical truths, and placed in their
stead those doctrinal distinctions which were morbidly over-
valued, was never indeed wholly absent, though it continued
without result till the commencement of the present century.
It was carried on in the seventeenth century, not merely by the
efforts of Dav. Pareus, Rud. Maldenius, and the unceasing but
somewhat unintelligible productions of the Scotchman Dury,
but also by public transactions, among which was the colloquy
of Leipsic, 1631, between Matthew Hoë of Hoënegg, Polyc.
Leyser, and H. Höpfner on the one side, and J. Crocius, J.
Bergius, and Theoph. Neuberger on the other, although osten-
1
¹ It was held in the same year as the Synod of Charenton, which granted to
Lutherans the right of partaking the Lord's Supper without accession to the Re-
formed Church.
352
sibly this was only a private discussion between the divines of
Brandenburg, Hesse, and Saxony. Hoë had ten years before
proved that the Reformed Church agreed in ninety-nine points
with Arians and Turks (the "Eastern Antichrist," who was as
bad as the Western and Roman), while the articles of the Con-
fession of Augsburg were, with the exception of those on the
impartation of the divine properties to the manhood of Christ,
and on the Lord's Supper, unanimously consented to at Leipsic.
In the question of predestination, foreseen faith was indeed
insisted on on the part of the Lutherans; but this was declared
to be entirely and exclusively the work of God. While the
colloquy of Thorn (1645, see above) had rather contributed to
exasperate the antagonism of the two Churches, the great Elector
carried his point against Saxony, of obtaining in the Treaty of
Westphalia, 1648, a recognition of the political equality of such
subjects of the German Empire as were members of the
Reformed Church. In 1653 the Corpus Evangelicorum—which
included both parties, and had been in formation, though in a
looser fashion, since 15821-was formally organized at the diet
under the directorium of Saxony. Still more favourable than
even the Leipsic discussion was the Union colloquy at Cassel in
1661, between the Lutheran divines, Peter Musaeus and John
Heinichen of Rinteln, disciples of Calixtus, and the Reformed
theologians, Seb. Curtius and John Hein of Marburg. Here a
far-reaching agreement, even in distinctive doctrines, was mani-
fested. By these colloquies it was shown that the protest against
an exclusive and inimical position of the two confessions towards
each other was, even in the seventeenth century, not only con-
stantly carried on, but that it had obtained, so to speak, to
citizenship within the Lutheran Church. This was, however,
not less the case with the opposite position, which continued to
be the dominant one till the times of Pietism. The Lutherans
would not even give up the Nominalelenchus (the condemna-
tion and opposition by name of the doctrines of other confes-
sions), and princely mandates had to come to the rescue in the
cause of the Church's peace. Even Pietism at first hesitated at
an approximation to the Reformed Church. A union, Spener
thought, would but make four parties instead of two. Since
however he called to purity of life as well as doctrine, the value
1 V. Bülow, über Geschichte und Verfassung des Corp. Evang., 1795.
Union Movements in the Lutheran Church
during the whole of the Seventeenth Century.
1
353
of distinctive doctrines could not but fall, the interests both of reli-
gion and morality forbidding their being placed on a level with
the cardinal doctrines which were common to both confessions.
Hence Pietism furnished but few contributions to confessional
controversy, while Lutherans were abundantly occupied in
attacking Pietism. They nevertheless found time, in the first
half of the second century, to carry on, though certainly with
gradually increasing moderation, the controversy against the
Reformed. Such controversialists became however an ever-
diminishing minority, and so greatly had the disposition of the
Protestant States altered about the year 1700, that many
esteemed their reproofs as praise. In Southern Germany also
Wurtemburg, through the influence of Pfaff and Klemm, and
Franconia through that of Urlsperger, were in the eighteenth
century well-affected towards union. Zinzendorf however set
up, in his three tropes of doctrine, a typical Protestant com-
munity, which, while maintaining its own doctrinal peculiarities,
combined the different Protestant confessions into one Church,
on the ground of the fundamental doctrines of salvation. Few
attempts at union were however made by the several national
churches during the eighteenth century. The critical, nay,
destructive spirit of the age since 1750, removed one obstacle,
but at the same time extinguished almost all motive and inclina-
tion to union. Confessionalistic zeal, seizing upon accessory
points, had, as we have shown, resulted in the neglect of funda-
mental doctrines and of insisting upon their decisive importance,
and this was a preliminary condition favourable to those attacks,
which now came like a judgment upon the Church, and washed
away, together with the fundamental doctrines, those accessory
dogmas which had so long been subjects of contention. But
illuminism had no real desire for union, its aspirations were
rather for the total dissolution of the Christian Church, for its
evaporation into a cosmopolitan ideal of humanism. Negations
1 An exception is formed by such men as Fecht, who, irritated by Pfaff's zeal
for union, exerted his ingenuity to prove that the Reformed Church was guilty of
heresy in respect of each of the twelve articles of the apostolic symbol.
2 The Collegium charitativum of Berlin, 1703 (consisting of Bishop Jablonski
and Strimesius, and on the Lutheran side of Propst, Lütkens, and Winkler, under
the presidency of Bp. Ursinus), was ineffectual, and even came into bad odour,
through Winkler's work, Arcanum Regium, in which he came forward as an advo-
cate of union in a territorial, imperial, and papistical sense.
II.
Z
354
Union in the Nineteenth Century.
are not of a creative nature. Unbelief can have no hearty
interest in any bond of religious union.
On the other hand, the great intellectual revolution of the
eighteenth century certainly helped to moderate expectations,
and to break through the narrowness to which the mind had
hitherto been subjected. If the torrent had swept away all
Christian doctrines, and involved them in a common destruction,
this necessarily called for deliberation as to what really
constituted those vital articles of evangelical faith, for whose
recovery or preservation it was needful, with all earnestness, to
contend. The result of this newly acquired knowledge and
reawakened love was the inward alliance of those kindred spirits
in both confessions, whom their common faith enabled to over-
come confessional restrictions. The judgments and deliverances
of the subsequent Napoleonic era were instrumental in reviving
a truly Christian fear of God and love to the Church, and these
were the conditions whence a desire for union arose a desire to
which Frederick William III. of Prussia gave a simple expres-
sion, but one which was joyfully re-echoed on all sides, by his
summons of Sept. 27, 1817. The third centenary of the Reforma-
tion was to be the signal for the retraction of the injustice and.
narrowness which had attached to the great spiritual act of the
German people. What the king at the same time effected
against the liturgical anarchy which had set in, was equally to
bear the impress of the spirit of the Reformation.
Nassau was united by a general synod (August, 1817) even
before Prussia; Anhalt-Bernberg in 1820; Waldeck, with Pyr-
mont and Baden, in 1821; Hesse in 1818-1823; while Marburg
became a united university. Dessau was united in 1827. As
far as Prussia was concerned, the points of difference were over-
looked in the midst of that first enthusiasm for union, in 1817,
which was hailed by all Protestant Germany, and the revived
appreciation of the saving value of the fundamental truths.
According, however, to Harms' prediction, the fulfilment of
which was hastened by the violence and blunders of the
authorities, a Lutheran movement against the union arose, and
a Lutheran separation was formed by Scheibel, Steffens, and
Huschke about 1830. This, though confined within narrow
limits, served to show, after a few decades, the consequences of
giving free course to an arbitrary spirit of separation. After this
Union in the Nineteenth Century.
355
the distinctive doctrines were allowed ecclesiastical existence
within the union, and after many fluctuations, which need not
be related here, the original and absorptive idea of union was so
modified that the two confessions, with their mutual distinctions,
were to be regarded as different tropes of evangelical doctrine,
in the one evangelical national Church, which was conscious of
possessing a common and copious treasure of evangelical and
fundamental truths and facts, and had therefore a church govern-
ment independent in interim of the State, and one and the same
constitution. The feeling of unity on the ground of a common
faith was to be proved by their mutually admitting each other
to a participation in the Lord's Supper, without requiring a
previous change of confession, and by their maintaining a spirit
of mutual peace and forbearance. That which was thus legally
enacted in conformity with the principle of the Reformation, was
voluntarily adopted as a custom in other countries, without any
formal appointment, so that we can now speak with truth of One
German evangelical Church, whose living members manifest a
lively sense of mutual fellowship, both by activity in various
Christian works, and by sympathy in each other's sufferings.
Such a feeling is shown in the "Evangelical Conference" in
Eisenach, of deputies from the several governing bodies of Ger-
man churches, the Gustavus Adolphus society, the German
1
1 Schleiermacher was, both by his course of action and his own inclination and
purpose, the chief intellectual leader of the union. Its supporters after him were
C. J. Nitzsch and J. Müller. Schleiermacher (see below) had, in 1804, already
spoken in its favour in the first of his zwei unvorgreiflichen Gutachten in Sachen
des protestantischen Kirchenwesens, but had expected too much from, and made too
much, to depend upon a declaration of the State, insisting that the State should
not regard a participation of the Lord's Supper, or an arrangement with other
confessions, as a change of confession. Subsequently he desired, without sur-
rendering the distinctive doctrines for a barren and indefinite vagueness, to have
their separating agency abolished by the declaration of a synod. Of such a synod
there was for some time a prospect, but it never came to pass. Schleiermacher's
important principle of individuality leaves neither the right nor the need of
abolishing peculiarities, but only that of freeing them from any morbid elements,
among which may especially be reckoned a position of separatism towards other
individualities. The unity of the Church not only subsists, but becomes more
vital and complete when its life is carried on in different branches, provided
these branches mutually acknowledge each other, and an interchange of gifts is
not prejudiced by this consciousness of unity on the ground of the same Christian
grace. Thus Conf. Aug. vii. "That subordinate differences do not abolish the
unity of the Church," was applied also to subordinate doctrinal differences, an
application already effected by the apology and the Smalkaldic articles.
356
Union in the Nineteenth Century.
evangelical diet, the Central Committee for the Inner Mission
in Germany, the Committee for Foreign missions, the Bible, and
other societies. Thus the German evangelical Church of the
nineteenth century, viewing the progress already made, may
confidently encounter the future, while her science may also
rejoice in the broader basis now furnished for its development
by this co-operation of forces.
To this latter subject, and to the history of its progress since
the commencement of the present century, when a onesided
subjectivity had reached its climax, we now proceed. We shall
find that the union forms an important factor even in the move-
ments of the theology of the last decade.
Schelling.
357
A
SECTION I.
SCHELLING, HEGEL, SCHLEIERMACHER.
NEW era of German science in general was inaugurated,
first by Schelling and Hegel, and then by Schleiermacher.
But it was the latter who laid the foundation for a revival of
theology by establishing principles which overcame the twofold
partiality of the preceding epoch, viz. the partiality of objectivism,
which had prevailed from 1600, and that of subjectivity, which
had been dominant since 1750, and by raising to the rank of a
ruling idea the persuasion of the intrinsic connection between.
the objective and the subjective.
The development of subjectivity to that absolute climax which
it reached in Fichte, exhibited the unexpected result that the
ego, however highly it may rate itself, cannot conceive of itself
as primary and constant, but that, on the contrary, Being properly
so called rests only in the objective absolute. But egoism
being thus swallowed up in God, Fichte's second standpoint
could only lead, after Spinoza's pantheistic fashion, to a renewed
prevalence of partial objectivity, and was incapable of uniting
the contending factors which had, since 1600, been in vain, and
with alternating success, struggling for supremacy.
Before, however, Fichte's transition to this his pantheistic
mysticism, Schelling, who, instead of retreating to a stand-
point which had been surpassed by the Reformation, ad-
dressed himself boldly to the work of inward reconciliation,
had already appeared. His efforts were followed up by those
of Hegel, who, even in his Phänomenologie, 1807, declared
it to be the fundamental problem, to mould into one another
Spinoza's substance and Fichte's subjectivity. So, too, Schleier-
macher, after speaking in his Discourses on Religion in 1799
of the intention or feeling of the absolute ("of the universe "),
and of absolute dependence thereon, proclaimed the very next
year, in his Monologues, the divine freedom of the true ego
united with God. These writers, acknowledging, as they do,
¹ Phänomenologie, p. xx. xxi.
1
358
Schelling.
the equal rights of subjectivity and objectivity in true knowledge,
and not less so the necessity of indissolubly and inwardly con-
necting them, are forced to seek for an ultimate principle in
which both are united and involved. This ultimate principle is
in their view the absolute," which can, if there is to be any
knowledge at all, be neither mere substance, the inflexible objec-
tive existence of Spinoza; nor, on the other hand, mere primary
subject, the self-contained primary monad on which Deism
insists. On the contrary, it is the original combination and
unity of subject and object which forms, in their view, the pre-
supposition of the possibility of any knowledge. The absolute
is, especially according to Schelling, to be assumed as the ori-
ginal unity in which the two-viz., substantial existence and
subjectivity-interpenetrate each other, even to absolute identity.
As substance is of its own nature also subjective, so also is sub-
ject of its own nature substance or object, the absolute is subject-
object. As such it is neither the one nor the other only, but is
by its own nature both, and may thus be the principle of both
the subjective and the objective in the world also, and the
pledge and rule of the unity both of thought and being. Since
then subject and substance thus interpenetrate each other in
God, the idea of God becomes animate; and this living God, the
contrast to the immovable God of Deism and of Spinoza, is thus
the ideal of knowledge, because in Him thought and being are
combined into absolute knowledge. He is, moreover, the ideal
of the ethical, the supreme point of union for all the antagonisms
of existence, even those of nature and mind. If, then, He is the
ideal of knowledge, nay, its first principle, that process of thought
which abstracts and detaches itself from Him can no longer lead
to knowledge; and the jealousy of the subject and of its freedom
with respect to God is proved, on the contrary, to be a self-depriva-
tion as unnatural as it is foolish. On the other side, that know-
ledge is alone worthy of the name which is neither mere sub-
jective reasoning and assumption, nor a merely passive relation
to its object, whether in a materialistic, a purely empiric, or an
authoritative form. On the contrary, the fertile idea of know-
ledge, and its living principle now is, that the old twofold
exclusive dualism of God and the world, of infinite and finite, of
freedom and necessity, of subject and object, in which also the
inferred antitheses of mind and nature, individual and species,.
Schelling.
359
participate, is surmounted as untrue, and that the indispensable
and hopeful means of attaining to truth is, in opposition to such
a view, now admitted to be the perception of the mutual inter-
penetration of these antitheses. Hence the claim was now set up
that the movement of the subjective thought is at the same time
the movement of the matter, which is present in the thought,
and is that power over the mind which is the source of its know-
ledge, and to which it occupies not merely a passive, but a vitally
receptive and reproductive relation. Truth and certainty are
rendered possible to the mind by this power, which fills it with its
presence, and obtains it as the organ, to which it testifies of itself
and makes itself evident. And this is to say, first of all, that it
is only through God that we can know God. It is obvious how
akin these fundamental thoughts of modern philosophy are to the
creative principle of the Reformation, and that the Reformation is
their native soil. Hence, too, it arose that attention was now
directed to those objective notions of God, of the Trinity, &c.,
which the Reformation, from its anthropological starting-point,
left untouched, and which subsequent ages obscured or denied,
and that the work of the Reformation was now for the first time
continued. Science, from the time of Schelling onwards, seems
to be animated, as it were, by a new breath, and to have found
again its true centre. Schelling himself expressed his conscious-
ness (in his Statement of the True Relation of Natural Philosophy
to the amended Fichtian Doctrine¹) that a great turning-point of
time had arrived.
But there was room enough on the common ground of the new
era for widely differing views, and much labour was needed
before those various stages were passed through, the earlier of
which, far from grasping Christianity in its central point, fur-
nished, at most, certain prerequisites for its recognition, espe-
cially with respect to the nature of God and of man, in general.
The first stage of the new era grasps the absolute with physical,
the second with logical, the third with ethical precision. The first
result was brought about by Schelling as the founder of natural
philosophy, the second by Hegel, the third especially by Schleier-
macher. In analogy with this progression was that of ancient
philosophy from physics to dialectics, and thence to ethics.
Schelling in his earlier period views the absolute as universal
Schellings Werke, div. i. vol. vii., 1806.
360
Schelling.
life, as the universe rich in forms and beauty. He limits the
contents of knowledge chiefly to the physical, whether of a real
or ideal kind. This universal life of nature, however, subjec-
tuates itself in man, and in his consciousness for the purpose
of knowing itself. His organ of higher knowledge is genial
and "intellectual" intuition. Religion is, in his view, only
the living and conscious union of the subject with the har-
monious universe, and hence not as yet definitely distinguished
from the æsthetic, from life in the beautiful and in art. The
universe itself is the union of the many and the One, the abso-
lute organism.¹ God is related to it as the universal soul, which
ever has its actuality in the world. The absolute is the union
of the soul of the universe and the organized world. God is ever
by means of the process of nature, becoming man. The deistical
standpoint, its naturalism or rationalism, can indeed see nothing
but pantheism in all this. And yet more inwardness of reli-
gious life, though of an elementary kind, was compatible here-
with than with Deism, which separated God from the world.
Spiritualism and the idealism which avoided nature regarded it
as error, nay, as materialism. But contempt for nature, which
prevailed not only in Kant and Fichte, but also, though in
another manner, during the middle ages and down to the seven-
teenth century, is, as Oetinger especially already perceived, any-
thing but favourable to Christian science. This is shown not
merely by the Christian doctrine of creation and eschatology, but
also by Christology and the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and, to
the greatest extent, by the requirements of Christian ethics, which
cannot, without nature, attain to a doctrine of ethical entities.
Nature or corporeity is the essential condition of real history.
According to Schelling, it is also in itself a world of thoughts
which have become real, and is therefore not without mind.
is the reality, the lively manifestation of valuable ideas.
Oetinger had already thus expressed the same truth in the
saying, "Corporeity is the end of the ways of God," since with-
out an adequate corporeity the mind cannot be aught but mere
ceaseless motion, nor attain to a condition of permanence, an
indwelling in nature [Naturirung]. By such views Schelling
was no abettor of materialism, but rather, like Fr. v. Baader, an
adherent to the realism of J. Böhm and Oetinger, who endea-
1 Schelling, Bruno, ein Gespräch, 1802; Works, div. i. vol. iv., 213, &c.
It
Hegel. Panlogism.
361
voured to find the roots of nature in God Himself, and thus to
prove its absoluteness. In his period of natural philosophy,
however, he made nature the end as well as the beginning, and
did not attain to an actual philosophy of mind, to a true system
of ethics, nor to a philosophy of religion, even if, as he subse-
quently declared, he had these also in view from the very first.
Even the contents of the mind are made by him too much a
mere knowledge of nature. In the universal life he does not
actually distinguish between the One and the organism, and is
hence unable, as yet, to get beyond a physical kind of pantheism.
Hence, too, superior as Schelling is to Jacobi in his perception
of the scientific problem and in method, the opposition of the
latter, with his postulate of a personal God, is justified on reli-
gious grounds.¹
Hegel and his great school aspire to surpass the natural phi-
losophy of which the absolute will, immanent in nature, but only
as a plastic element, as a principle tending to consciousness, is
the motive power. Conscious that if by virtue, so to speak, of
a philosophical eclecticism, the aristocratic gift of "intellectual
intuition," of geniality, is required as the condition of true know-
ledge, exactness and universal sufficiency of method and of philo-
sophical proof may be sacrificed to a desultory or artistic imagi-
nation, Hegel, carrying out more especially the second part of
Kant's criticism of pure reason to a speculative form, demands
that the stage of speculative consciousness should first of all be
gained by means of a general phenomenology of mind, and then
that logic, or the self-perception of thought, should be therewith
combined; in other words, the insight how the thought in its
necessary processes, which are not only of formal and logical, but
also of ontological importance, develops itself to the multiplicity
of the different stages and matters of knowledge, and at the same
time comprises this multiplicity in the unity of the mind. He
perceives that it is inadequate to suppose the contents of the
mind to be merely physical, and makes the form of the mind as
thinking, in other words, the reasoning dialectic process which
logic represents, to be the true and substantial contents of the
mind. By his ontological logic, however, he gains only a
1 Compare Jacobi, Von den göttlichen Dingen, und ihrer Offenbarung, 1811.
Schelling, Denkmal der Schrift von den göttlichen Dingen des Herrn J. H. Jacobi,
1812; Works, div. i. vol. viii.
362
Hegel. Panlogism.
shadowy kind of knowledge, a knowledge of knowledge in
general, or of its idea, which, as such, has yet to be realized by
the fulness of solid and lasting reality. Instead of acknowledg-
ing that his logic gives only a knowledge of possible knowledge,
but not as yet a knowledge of reality, his system makes logic so
much the whole of truth that both nature and the intellectual
provinces of ethics and religion, are therein resolved into logic,
etherealized into mere notions.
CC
·
We alluded to the trilogy which led in ancient philosophy
from physics to dialectics (or logic), and thence to ethics and to
laying down a philosophy of religion, and which was now repeat-
ing itself in regular succession in the development of modern
science. Schleiermacher, as an ethical and religious philosopher,
not only represents the third member, but while Schelling and
Hegel confined themselves chiefly to the provinces of their
special talents (natural philosophy and logic), also awards to
physics and dialectics their necessary position in his system.
Schelling, in his second period, i.e. from his "Doctrine of Free-
dom" onwards, was, in his "Philosophy of Mythology," and his
Philosophy of Revelation," more and more decidedly tending to
mind, will, and a personal God, but did not apply himself in a
connected manner to logic, (unless we should adduce under this
head his "Negative Philosophy," or doctrine of potencies, the
world of external possibilities,) and did but little for ethics. He
insists upon a history of mankind, a history ruled by providence;
but the history of the world is to him at the same time the
history of God. There are, in the eternal God, three potencies.
in original and indissoluble unity. In the primitive man, made
after God's image, these were in soluble combination. Schell-
ing conceives the world to have originated in the following
manner, which is to solve the enigma how the imperfect should
be developed from the perfect. Since God intended there should
be a world, the material of a possible world must first be posited.
This came to pass because God excited the first potency,
which is ever in Him, and in unity with others, the potency
of "boundless being," and permitted its independent agency.
Thence arose, not indeed the actual material, but the possibility
and postulate, still in the ideal world, of all creative formation.
1
1 Potential existence, real existence (actus), and the power of remaining in the
actus, or of continuing to exist.
Schelling's New System.
363
This forming and fashioning of an ideal world is accomplished by
the two other potencies, and the creative will in the ideal world
forthwith hastens onward without restraint towards its end,
which it attains in the primitive man, who, being in the likeness
of God, manifests in the world also the same union of potencies
which is ever in God. The primitive man however fell, and an
overthrow was thus brought about. God could, without con-
tradiction of His nature, and without thereby causing evil, set
free the potency of the boundless within Him, because He has
absolute and eternal power over it, and can again restrain and
reduce it to its original state. The primitive man also had in
his freedom this potency of boundless sovereignty. He too could
excite this potency within him, and allow it to act independently,
but he ought not to have done this; on the contrary, he
should have maintained his position, and preserved the union of
the potencies within him. By doing then what only God might,
and what he ought not, viz., setting free the potency of the
boundless within him, he caused a disturbance; a subversion of
potencies, and the lowest became the highest. Such a world as
this, in which gross matter and the elements of chaos must be
contended with, can only be understood by means of a disturb-
ance in which man involved the whole universe. This he did
freely, yet almost inevitably. The union of these potencies in
the world also, is, however, still the end to be attained. For the
conquest of the principle of the boundless, and for the restoration
of harmony, God suffers the two other potencies also, which were
eternally in Him, to separate in history. He acts in a restrictive
and formative manner upon matter, ever introducing new and
higher forms, in which matter is more and more subjugated by
thought, by the form according to which it is to be fashioned.
This ascending process, which is at first carried on in nature, and
reaches its climax in the earthly man, is then repeated on the
higher stage, or in an intellectual manner, in human history,
whose central point is the history of religion, which, beginning at
abstract monotheism, advances through the different stages of
mythology, and through the Old Testament to Christianity.
The mythological stages especially answer to that series of steps
by which boundless existence was fashioned and vanquished till
it reached man. Thus it is by means of an historical process
364
Influence of the Philosophy of
that human nature, which had fallen a victim to the subversion
of the powers of nature, becomes, through the agency of the
second potency in man and his reaction, the master of these
powers through culture. This second potency, which again be-
came the lord of existence, becomes man in Jesus of Nazareth,
but ethically sacrifices its sovereignty and glory, because all
mere humanity and culture, though good in themselves, still
pertain to existence apart from God, and devoid of the central
life. Hence the God-man sacrifices His glory, i.e. existence apart
from God, in order to re-enter entirely into the original Divine
arrangement, and then there proceeds from Him the Holy Ghost,
who leads back to God the rest of mankind. In the beginning
a tautousia of principles prevailed in God by the fall of man; this
became a heterousia, a struggle of divine potencies against each
other. For the effects of the fall reached even to God. The
certainty, however, of that perfection which is ever realizing
something higher than that which previously existed, shows that
God ever remains master of these His potencies, although He
actually suffers Himself to be in a state of struggle. For while
at first the principles were only in tautousia in the Father, the
end is the homousia of the second and third principles, which,
by means of history, have also become persons as well as the
Father, who is eternally such.
The reason why this conception, grand as are many of its
features, met with little favour, nay, even with little criticism,
may perhaps lie in the hovering position between ideality and
reality thus given to the ideal world, and especially to the
primitive man. It may be found also in the obscure ambi-
guity by which the Divine potencies are conceived of as being, on
the one hand, properties which may become common to many,
and, on the other, substances with the power of independent
existence, and thus as having a duplex existence, in God and
apart from Him. Under one aspect they are ever harmoniously
united in God, under the other they are exposed to disturbance
and to participation in the effects of the fall of the primitive man.
Such participation could not be conceived, without Divine self-
detriment, unless God be thought of in a definitely ethical
manner, and thereby as a union of self-assertion and self-sacrifice.
And this would be to assume that God could, without deteriora-
tion of His nature or obscuration of His eternal glory, make that
Schelling and Hegel upon Theologv.
365
which was His own common to all, and give to His potencies an
existence apart from Himself.
With respect to the application of Schelling and Hegel's
philosophy to theology, it may be said that both have exercised
a reviving influence upon many recent theological works. Schel-
ling especially zealously adopted the doctrines of the Trinity.
and the atonement, which were almost given up by theologians,
and showed that far more profound and important matter of
thought was involved therein than was usually supposed. Daub,
Marheinecke, Bockshammer, and Eschenmayer, followed him in
this respect. The Trinitarian scheme was, first, God in Himself;
secondly, an objectuation of the world in the Son of God, which
Sonship found its perfect manifestation in Jesus Christ; thirdly,
the return of the world set free from God into oneness with Him
("the Odyssey following the Iliad, or the kingdom of the Holy
Ghost"). Daub, whose mind was of a strictly ethical tendency,
and full of speculative energy,¹ captivated in his youth, first by
Kant, then by Schelling, applied himself, in his Judas Iscariot,
1816, 1818, to clearing up the problem of evil. Starting from
Schelling's standpoint of natural philosophy, he arrived, like
Eschenmayer in his Philosophy of religion, at the view that good
and evil were in a state of polar opposition; this indeed made
the existence of good dependent upon evil, and involved the
eternal co-ordination of both, in other words a dualism. Justly
desiring a stricter method, he subsequently turned to Hegel.
This was also the case with Marheinecke, after an ingenious and
imaginative first attempt in divinity. His original sketch was,
with respect to God, the world, the God-man, left essentially
unaltered in his second design. The impression of the whole
was, however, more formalistic, and with respect to evil and the
doctrine of the last things of a more negative kind. A trinity
apart from the world is not admitted. In his view the world is
God in His state of existence apart from Himself, the Son of
God is God objectuating Himself, the Holy Ghost is mankind
3
1 Daub, Theologomena, 1806, Einleitung in das Studium der Dogmatik, 1810.
We must begin from God. We can only know God through Himself, i.e. by
means of His revelation, at first in the reason, then objectively. Reason is the
organ, not the source of the knowledge of God. History is the symbol of the idea.
2 Marheinecke, die Grundlehren der christlichen Dogmatik, 1819.
3 Marheinecke, die Grundlehren der christlichen Dogmatik als Wissenschaft,
1827.
366
Influence of the Philosophy of
returned to God, as in the Church. God is the nature of man,
and man the reality of God. This reality goes through a process
which is at the same time human and a process of God, that by
which He is ever becoming subjective in man. He, as well as
Hegel, regards evil as belonging to the vitality of the process;
while freedom, as the power of decision for or against God, is
denied; immortality is the (w) aiúvios in this world, and the
resurrection the self-liberation of the spirit to itself. These
speculative explanations of doctrine are clothed in Church ex-
pressions, but are yet not so disguised as to conceal their real
meaning. On the other hand, Marheinecke embraced the
historical God-man Christ Jesus, and unwearyingly opposed
supernaturalism, rationalism, and the artificial revival of ortho-
doxy. He looked upon supernaturalism as nothing else than
disguised rationalism, because it leaves the treasures of reve-
lation unutilized, while rationalism, which he therefore calls
obscurantism, denies all real speculative knowledge of God. He
also directed his attacks against the extravagant speculations of
Strauss and Baur, and was for a long period at the head of
Hegel's school, so far as it desired to be in union with Church
doctrine. Christ is in his view a pure manifestation both of the
race and of God, and the introducer of the process of reconcilia-
tion, i.e. of the knowledge that the true God is in us and we in
God. Daub, who was much occupied about the method of
speculative knowledge, and who maintained a still greater
attachment to church doctrines than Marheinecke, is more
distinguished by his exalted idea of theological science, hist
enthusiastic pursuit of it and the energy with which he officially
advocated it, until his happy death, than even by his extensive
works. He displayed a singular and penetrating knowledge of
the nature of supernaturalism-especially of so-called biblical
supernaturalism—and rationalism, and showed the necessity of
surmounting this antagonism. He sought to give a position of
necessity to the miraculous, which he designated the point of
union between the ideal and the historical. He also contributed
to the improvement of ethical science. The first edition of
Daub, die dogmatische Theologie jetziger Zeit oder die Selbstsucht in der Wis-
senschaft des Glaubens (originally a recension of Marheinecke's Divinity), Jahr-
buch für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1827, 1828; Prolegom. zur Dogmatik Theol.
Moral.
Marheinecke and Daub.
1
367
Rosenkranz's Encyclopedia, which was written with youthful
ardour, and attracted many disciples to this school, was of a still
more positive tendency. In the second edition, after the appear-
ance of Strauss' Leben Jesu, this earlier standpoint was con-
siderably altered, the phenomenology of the religious conscious-
ness being changed into a theogony. Conradi, who at first
shared this tendency, increasingly absorbed the Person of Christ
in the universal spirit. Göschel may also be included with the
above-named, though he sought to enter into closer relations
with orthodoxy, and differed from Hegel especially in the doc-
trines of evil and of the atonement.3 These, together with a
few others, formed the so-called right side, which at first alone
gave the key-note in matters theological.+
The supposed peace, however, between theology and philo-
sophy proved but illusive; for neither orthodoxy nor indeed
Christianity can be restricted within a system which reduces
everything to an affection of the thinking powers. Richter, in
his work Von den letzten Dingen, 1833, proclaimed the denial of
immortality to be the secret doctrine of the school, and main-
tained that this was the necessary consequence of the endless
process in the Divine life. He was opposed in this assertion
especially by Rosenkranz and Göschel, who espoused the part
of the school, but without producing much effect. But it was
¹ To this tends that chain of reasoning on the part of Rosenkranz, which makes
the world to be of the nature of God, to form His manifestation, to arise and to
have arisen through His abstention; comp. his Encycl. p. 49, &c. On the other
hand, he insists indeed that the world is made for freedom, and that the Triune
God must be conceived of as the absolute subject, pp. 53, 47. He also seeks, in
opposition to Strauss, to establish the uniqueness of Christ, an absoluteness of His
self-consciousness which is far more than mere geniality. His mission was to
manifest the necessity of freedom as the truth of the mind, and only this, p. 66.
The two sides in his idea of God seem to me, however, not satisfactorily har-
monized.
2 Selbstbewusstsein und Offenbarung, 1839, and Kritik der Dogmen; Christus
in der Vergangenheit Gegenwart und Zukunft.
3 Göschel, Beiträge zur spekulativen Philosophie von Gott, den Menschen und
dem Gottmenschen, 1838.
E.g. Petersen, Idee der Kirche, 1839, 1842; Jul. Schaller, der historische
Christus und die Philosophic, 1838. Gabler endeavoured to show that Hegel's
system, rightly understood, assumes a self-conscious absolute reason before the
world-process.
* Göschel, die Beweise für die Unsterblichkeit der Sccle im Lichte der spekulativen
Philosophic, 1835. Erdmann and Conradi also dealt with this subject. Beckers
and Jul. Müller wrote on it from an anti-Hegelian point of view.
368
Strauss' Leben Jesu.
chiefly Strauss ¹ who destroyed this semblance of union. Strauss
rejected those rude attacks upon Christianity which endeavoured,
after the manner of the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist, to attribute
it to fiction, fraud, and supposed accommodations, and also
treated with derision Paulus' natural explanations of the
miracles. He, on the contrary, opposed that biblical super-
naturalism which sought to base the truth of Christianity upon
inspiration, miracles, and prophecy, by the mythical view. This
regards the image of Christ in the Gospels as the result of
certain legends whose historical basis is obscure, and upon which
Old Testament and especially Messianic figures bestowed an
element of unintentional fiction. He insists, moreover, that
since Christ, to whom the Messianic predicates were attributed
by the Church, could not have been a supernatural phenomenon,
because miracles in general are impossible, the four Gospels
could not have originated with apostles or eye-witnesses, to
whom, with their better knowledge, an intentional fraud would
thus be imputed. He then seeks also for internal contradictions
in the Gospels, for the sake of proving thereby their non-historical
character. These contradictions being, however, but unimportant,
it was obvious that they were not to be regarded as that which,
properly speaking, was to determine the point. Strauss demands
a criticism free from all assumptions, and yet makes, according
to what has been stated, a double, i.e. a dogmatic and an historical
assumption for his mythical theory.
The dogmatic presupposition is a pantheistic, nay, a naturalistic
idea of God, which excludes a moral government, and a moral
end of the world, æsthetically confounds the ethic and the
physical, and would, if it could be established, render all further
discussion superfluous, nay, make a scientific course of argument
a mere delusion, because the result would, with regard to Divine
revelation, have been already decided in the negative. He holds,
with modern philosophy, that God is no rigid existence, but
active life, and opposes Deism and the supernaturalism which
alienates God from the world, by the doctrine which admits an
inward and essential relation between God and the life of man.
He does not, however, conceive of this inward relation as unity
in distinction, but identifies God with the world. The finite, the
negative, must not be viewed as apart from God: the Infinite
1 Leben Jesu, 2 vols. 1835; Dogmatik, 1839.
Strauss' Leben Jesu.
369
takes limitation and negativity into His own nature, and thereby
becomes active. In accordance with Schelling and Hegel, he
desires so to fashion the idea of God that the idea of the divine-
human life, so long rejected, should form one of its essential
elements, but to apply to mankind in general that which the
Church ascribes to Christ alone, and to teach a universal
incarnation of God. The infinite extension of the Infinite in
But
finite reality is the expression or actuality of the Infinite.
for this very reason it is not possible to treat one single quantity
of the infinite universe, which can only adequately represent
God in its totality, in its ever equal harmony, as a self-manifesta-
tion of God. It is not the manner of the idea to pour out its
fulness in one specimen and to be niggardly towards others.
On the contrary, every individual form is imperfect, finite, and
therefore sinful, and needs completion by other specimens of its
genus. The predicates which the Church bestows on Christ are
due, not to the historical, but to the ideal Christ, .e. to mankind
in its ideality. This it is which is ever begotten of God, which
works miracles, suffers, dies, which is ever moreover rising again
and ascending to heaven. Hence the species and not the
individual Jesus is the God-man. Thus Strauss thinks that if
an individual were possessed of perfect goodness, holiness, and
knowledge of God, there would be nothing left for others; while
Origen had, on the contrary, long before perceived that the
peculiarity of spiritual possessions consisted in this-that they
never diminished by being shared by many. But Strauss again
treats the spiritual like a physical quantity, by believing the
moral and spiritual perfection of mankind and also of Christ to
be excluded by finity, and by conceiving in a thoroughly
unethical manner a compensation for the deficiencies of some by
the excellencies of others. He rests so much upon the external,
the province of differing vocations and partial performances, that
he entirely overlooks the fact that every individual, so far as the
disposition and desire of his secret soul is concerned, can will,
nay, must will, all goodness and therefore all truth; because not
even the most trifling individual good action is really good unless
goodness in general is willed therein. His depreciation of the
ethical is also seen in his lavish use of the term “God-man.”
For he thus designates all, even on account of their natural
dispositions; while in moral estimation everything depends not
II.
2 A
370
Strauss' Leben Jesu.
on the mere disposition or possibility, but upon its realization.
The same physical standpoint which suffers him to bestow the
title God-man upon all, suffers him also to say-nay, this is but
its reverse side-that men are only specimens of the species. If
Strauss had comprehended the ethical idea, he could not have
found the notion of the Divine and the human, and consequently
of the divine-human, in merely physical existence, or in the
logical, and could not have made its relation to the moral
indifferent. Then, too, a more exalted, another idea of the
Infinite and the finite would not have been absent. If the moral
constitutes the supreme in God, then His majesty and un-
changeable nature consist in His holy love. In this, moreover,
is secured both His activity and distinction from the world, which
He nevertheless created from love, and also His self-impartation.
to the finite without self-diminution. On the other hand, the
ethical point of view leaves room, even in that which, meta-
physically viewed, is at first but finite, i.e. in man, for the
absolutely valuable, for the intensively infinite in knowledge and
will, without the limits of personality being thereby surpassed-
that personality whose infinite recipiency cannot, on the contrary,
be satisfied with any less attainment.
Strauss' dogmatics also share this purely physical standpoint.
He says that, while animals are but races, men have the
knowledge that they are a race. But knowledge is not action;
conscious nature is, as yet, not mind, not a principle of history.
In nature, life does but revolve upon itself. Thus Strauss too
knows nothing of a history, nor of an end of history. The world
is to him ever entire and perfect; the restoration of all things is
ever taking place by the constant production of good out of evil.2
The world is good as being a union of good and evil. If evil
were to die out, good, i.e. life, would die out too. Hence, to
require holiness from an individual would be in contradiction to
his nature. If any one should regard himself as evil, and
therefore feel that his conscience condemns him, Strauss regards.
this as an abstract and isolated view. In the right view of things,
every one knows himself to be reconciled, if only he knows
himself to be a completed member in the complex of all creation.
Consequently it would be erroneous or evil to strive to surpass
those necessary limits of good which pertain to metaphysical
1 ii. 697.
2 ii. 696.
Strauss' Leben Jesu.
371
goodness. Strauss does not indeed thus get rid of evil, which
returns in another form; and he leaves this notion as an
enigma, an unexplained phenomenon. This enables us to judge
what becomes of German science, philosophy, and theology, of
religion and morality in Strauss' views, or rather his assumptions
and hypotheses. Religion is to Strauss something to be surpassed,
an inferior, nay, an erroneous, stage of consciousness-that in
which man, not as yet conscious of his own Divine nature, does
not venture to conceive of the Divine as his own, but, on the
contrary, mistakenly transfers his own nature to an extraneous
object, i.e. to a God not merely in the world (immanent) but also
above the world. The ethical idea is broken up into the absolute
infinity of works, powers, and virtues mutually completing each
other, and occupies much the same position which the moral fills
in fables of animals; while the true view is said to be that which
sees in every defect and in every moral imperfection only the
obverse of some quality or virtue possessed by others. Thus the
whole is to answer vicariously for the deficiencies of the individual.
And what is this but a pseudo-protestant, degenerate naturaliza-
tion of the Romish dogma of a magical, substitutionary virtue of
the whole of the Corpus Christi mysticum for the individual, to
whom this needful completion is said to be imputed without his
will or knowledge? It is a caricature, no doubt, of the Romish
doctrine, but it is at the same time full of instruction, as an
undisguised exposure of those unchristian and immoral elements
which are left, when this false idea of substitution is deprived of
the positive and miraculous covering in which it is enveloped;
full of instruction also as the consistent, i.c. the pantheistic,
carrying out of the depreciation of free moral personality.
Religion and ethics having been thus treated by Strauss,
æsthetics still remained. Modern culture" is indeed Strauss's
spell. This culture, for which he uses that word so indispensable
to a physical mode of reasoning, "humanity" has begun to create
for itself a cultus, that worship of the geniuses among mankind,
to which the learned, "the cultivated," dedicate themselves,
whether by giving or receiving homage. The learned possess in
philosophy what the multitude have in faith; the cultivated
have also their secular saints or demi-gods, their Walhalla, into
which "culture" is ready to admit Christ also. Strauss is aware
that here too he is but effecting a secularization of the Romish
372 The Historical Assumption of his Criticism.
notion, and affords a proof of the truth of the old saying, that it
is impossible to swerve from the evangelical standpoint without
in one way or another falling back upon the Romish one.
The second assumption made by Strauss, in his criticism of the
life of Jesus, is of an historical kind. It is that the gospels could
not have been written by eye-witnesses, because they narrate
miracles, and apply to Christ such exalted predicates as, admitting
the sincerity of His disciples, could only have arisen in the unin-
tentionally fictitious legends of a subsequent generation, and must
have entered into the faith of Christians through their desire to
enhance the glory of their founder. But here too it is obvious
that such a hypothesis prescribes beforehand the result of that
criticism to which the historical documents are subjected, and
that therefore the cause of the evangelists has fallen into the
hands of a partial judge. For if the apostolical origin of even
one gospel or miraculous narrative were admitted by Strauss,
there would be nothing left for him but to fall back upon the
theory of intentional fiction and fraud, like the Wolfenbüttel
Fragmentist, whose standpoint he had previously so decidedly
rejected, but who certainly, as far as the criticism of historical
documents is concerned, was relieved from many a difficulty to
which the mythical view is exposed. For its fundamental view
is at variance with those arguments which attribute to the three
first gospels, to the portraiture of Christ in the New Testament,
and to primitive Christian literature in general, a high antiquity.
1
This leads to another deficiency in Strauss's work. He denies,
à priori, the genuineness, and not merely the credibility of the
gospels. Now these, as well as the other books of the New
Testament, being actually in existence, require some historical
position, and indeed one within primitive Christianity, from
which they may be historically comprehended. Strauss does
indeed remove them from their place, but even this work cannot
be called complete, till some historical quarters are provided
for them. With respect to all this, and to the actual character
of the apostles and chief apostolic men, Strauss says as good as
1 More recently, indeed, in his work on G. Reimarus, he threatens theologians,
in case they do not accommodate themselves to his mythical standpoint, to join
the standard of Reimarus. In so doing, however, he unintentionally passes
sentence on his own standpoint. We shall soon see that this lapse from the
mythical level to that of the Fragmentist, is not a matter of choice, but the
inevitable result of opposition to Christianity.
•
Ludwig Feuerbach.
373
nothing in the way of historical explanation. These gaps were
not filled up till Baur's works farther and significantly carried
on the critical process.
Powerful as was the first impression produced by Strauss's
Leben Jesu, this impression was neither deep nor lasting. Five
and twenty years after its first appearance, he alluded, not
without a touch of humour, to the jubilee which ought to be
held, lest it should be forgotten or overlooked. The joint effect
of the numerous counter-works of Hase, Neander, Ullmann, Tho-
luck, W. Hoffmann, Osiander, Lange, Ebrard, Ewald, Schweizer,
Weisse, Baumgarten, Riggenbach, &c., showed itself to be equal
to the impression which Strauss's work had made, so that in less
than ten years, many manifested a security, almost amounting
to levity, which neglected unsolved and important questions,
and was occupied with subordinate points of controversy. This
was induced not only by the really solid and talented contents
of these counter-writings, but by the discredit in which the left
side of the Hegelian school had involved itself, by its farther
development of the philosophical and dogmatical assumptions
from which Strauss too had started. Those irreligious and
immoral consequences, which had been partly concealed even
from himself by Strauss's elegant diction, were drawn in the
most offensive manner in Ludwig Feuerbach's work, Das Wesen
der Religion. Strauss still insisted that the Divine should be
acknowledged as reality, i.c. as the universal nature of mankind.
Feuerbach, however, pressed onward, and urged that if God is
nothing more than the nature of man, it is not He who exists,
but man, who cannot indeed be conceived of apart from his
own nature. To continue to speak of God is to continue that
religious self-delusion in which man, not having as yet become.
conscious of his own Divine nature, projects the same from
himself, transfers it to another and an imaginary being, and per-
sonifies it in God. Absolute anthropology is to be the word.
There is nothing absolute and universal, but everything is indi-
vidual, each man with his own instincts and desires is his own
standard. How far removed was such language from the dizzy
yet still ideal elevations of Fichtian self-deification, and what
utter shipwreck did it make of philosophy, ethics, religion, for
which, if there is nothing general, nothing of absolute value, no
place is left! The language held concerning the natural, Divine,
374
Schleiermacher.
or Divine-human glory of our race is a mulier formosa superne,
but it ends in making man nothing but a specimen of a genus,
an intelligent natural being, without feeling or calling for that
which alone ennobles him, i.e. for the Divine. This naturalism.
paves the way for materialism, the denial of spirit and reason.
Ed. Zeller endeavoured still to preserve a place for religion, by
recognizing it as a pathological necessity implanted in our nature.
In his criticism, however, of Feuerbach, he too treats it as merely
a psychological function, employing with such subjective ideas as
may address it, but indifferent as to whether they are false or
true: a dualism between the religious craving and the reasoning
intelligence, which in a speculative manner unexpectedly reminds
of De Wette and Jacobi.
The chief obstacle, however, to more lasting effects being pro-
duced by Strauss's work was the influence of Schleiermacher
and his theology, an influence which the schism in the Hegelian
school could not but augment.
Schleiermacher rises above both physical and logical pan-
theism, and that deistic idea of God held by rationalists,
with which even supernaturalism was infected. On the one
hand he opposed certain ancient and deeply-rooted errors by
asserting the independence, the special character and rights of
religion, as also its distinction from the moral and intellectual
spheres, while on the other, by thus recurring from the derived
to the original, he brought forth, and deeply impressed upon
science, with a clearness found neither in a Herder nor a Lessing,
the difference between religion and theology, between faith and
dogma, between the Church and the school of theology.
His heartfelt piety, nourished in the midst of the Moravian
Brotherhood, together with his great talents, and the methodical
power of his constructive genius, fitted him to form a point of
transition to a revived evangelical theology. The Moravian
Brotherhood was his Monica, but the Grecian mode of thought,
particularly the philosophy of Plato, was the nurse of his mind.
It was more especially by the restoration of the Scriptural and
Reformation principle of faith, and the doctrine of the necessary
self-authentication of Christian truth through the continued
agency of the Holy Ghost upon the consciousness, that he
effected a regeneration of the doctrine of belief. With this most
decided advocacy, however, of the independence of the individual,
Schleiermacher.
375
he united a no less vigorous feeling for the association; it was he
who first restored to power and energy the idea of the Church.
It was here that he found the combination of the religious and
ethical factors, of the individual with the social consciousness, of
tradition and history with the present and the future, and hence
he exercised an invigorating and purifying reaction even upon
the Romish Church. He effected a transformation of ethics by
his doctrine of ethical entities and the highest good, and his
recognition of the importance of individuality, and it was through
these two principles that mankind, and especially Christendom,
formed, in his view, one moral organism composed of many
members. In exegetic theology he gave the example of a criti-
cism arising from faith, and inspired it with new life, both by
insisting that Scripture should be used and consulted as a whole
instead of being only searched for in single passages in proof of
any matter (dicta probantia), and by distinguishing between the
different types of doctrine found in the New Testament, in whose
variety he saw not the divisions but the organic unity of primi-
tive Christianity. He set before ecclesiastical historians the
task of making Church history a real exhibition of Christian
morals, and by certain monographs on the history of dogmas (on
Athanasian and Sabellian teaching, and the doctrine of election)
gave an impulse to this kind of writing also. While he thus
set forth the Divine and human aspect of the Church in divinity
and ethics, he also, by his clear perception of the essential laws
and vital functions of the Church, was the first to raise practical
theology to the rank of a science.
It was in 1799 that, as an enthusiastic preacher of religion, he
first began, in opposition not only to Fichte and Kant, but also to
the Philosophy of nature, to maintain the absolute rights, dignity
and independence of religion against those who despised it, and
to prove in a classical manner, which was a general boon, that
religion is no mere work of either the intellect or the will, but
something quite peculiar in its nature, the affair of a God-sur-
rendered heart, a contact with, an apprehension by, God Himself,
a vital communion with Him. Though often favourable to the
founder of the Philosophy of nature, he yet maintained and de-
fended a philosophy of mind by means of religion and religious
science,¹ and allotted to it, together with physics and ethics, a
1 This is shown especially in his recension of Schelling's method of academical
study in the Jena Allgem. Literaturzeitung.
376
Schleiermacher's Discourses aud Monologues.
secure position in his dialectics. If pantheistic elements are
sometimes found in his writings they exhibit no deification of
self, but rather a touch of overweening mysticism; this again
finds its corrective in his vigorous moral consciousness, which
asserted its freedom with respect to the world on the ground of
its absolute passive dependence upon God. This was first
expressed in his Monologues (1800). An air of originality and
experience pervades both these productions of his youth, and
already announces the future of the man and the comprehensive
nature of his mind.
We must pause awhile at his theological standpoint. The
chief service which he rendered to theology, and that which
above all else makes him an important figure in its history, is
that he overcame that antagonism of rationalism and super-
naturalism which prevailed till about 1820. This he did in an
internal manner, i.e. radically, a scientific achievement which
could only be effected by combining such true elements as were
found in each, not eclectically, but by means of a higher prin-
ciple surpassing both. This principle was his more vital con-
ception of religion, which both, as we have shown, regarded as
only a function of the will and intelligence, a modus Deum cogno-
scendi et colendi, while their notion of God was essentially deistic.
That which was true and just in rationalism was its desire for
personal conviction and mental appropriation of truth, instead
of blind subjection to merely external authority, and its conse-
quent tendency to a strict combination of man's natural and
moral being. Supernaturalism, on the other hand, was right in
its assumption that man, in his highest relations, does not stand
upon his own resources, but needs the Divine agency; in more
specific terms, that Christianity is not a natural growth; Christ
in His peculiar excellences is not a product of the race which pre-
ceded him, but a supernatural phenomenon, which being his-
torical, and therefore not a supposition of the reason, is above
the reason. Now Schleiermacher, by his recurrence to the funda-
mental Reformation views, united freedom and authority, per-
sonal appropriation and tradition, the ideal and the historical, upon
the foundation of religion or faith, in the evangelical sense of
the word. This faith, the vital material principle of the Evan-
gelical Church, he restores to the post of honour, and proclaims
its rights, its independence and its internal certainty, as distin-
Return to the Principles of Faith.
377
guished both from a merely historical faith, and from the con-
clusions and persuasions of the reason. This evangelical faith
he advocated not by merely standing on the defensive, but
especially by an exhibition of the rich abundance of its matter,
which of itself creates an impression both of the inward reason-
ableness of Christianity, and of its being a compact and united
whole. True faith is in his eyes, as in those of our ancient
worthies, a fides divina, a thing of Divine origin, a restoration
of direct vital communion between God and man, brought about
by a mental contemplation of the historical image of Christ,
and by its attractive power. This faith submitting to the
Redeemer, participates, by means of His continuous agency¹ in
His Spirit and life, and attains at one and the same time to the
consciousness of personal salvation and of the power of redemp-
tion which dwells in Christ,-in other words, to a conviction of
His redeeming glory. This process, viewed from our natural
and redemption-needing life, is supernatural, a miracle; while
viewed from that community which, founded by Christ, inalien-
ably partakes in His life and likeness, it is but the continua-
tion of a state naturalized in history, and destined before the
foundation of the world for mankind, an element in the idea of
man, and the accomplishment of that end for which he was
created. Hence, so far as the starting-point of the Church itself,
i.e. the Person of Christ, is concerned, the super-rational and
supernatural are here also both truly rational and natural, when
viewed from the side of God and His eternal counsel, which em-
braces all things, and which ordained even a need of redemption
for the reception of redemption. The spiritual part of man (voûs)
though as λoyikór, it is the centre to which all else bears the re-
lation of circumference (for all in man that is not reason must
be organism for reason), is in its natural state powerless, nay, so
little in a condition to deliver itself from its impotence, that the
sensuous part, on the contrary, obtains the supremacy. Hence
arise the abnormal and the immoral, and hence the vous being
under the dominion of sense (vyn and oôua), is justly regarded
by Christianity as belonging to the flesh. On the other hand,
however, it is with the rous alone that the Divine Spirit can
directly unite, that thence, as from a centre, He may take
possession of the entire psychical and corporeal organism. We
1 Christlicher Glaube, ii. § 104, 5, 105.
378 Relation of Christianity to Nature and Reason.
must therefore teach¹ that the appropriation of Christianity pre-
supposes a primary communion with Christ, viz. an inward
longing of human nature for Christ, which finds its satisfaction,
and becomes a vital power of reception, when His manifestation
is presented before it. On the one side, the human voûs is so far
from being as yet the Christian Tveμa, that, apart from Christ,
it is incapable of transforming its receptivity into spontaneity;
in other words, the spirit, in the Christian sense, is not as yet to
be taken for granted by the existence of the spirit in the
universal human sense, and this is the truth of supernaturalism
in opposition to all Pelagian notions. On the other side, how-
ever, it must be admitted, for the sake of the unity of the world
and the constancy of the ethical process, that the unity of the
Christian spirit and the vous was also assumed, namely, in that
longing of the latter for the Christian Tveûμa, which cannot in-
deed be satisfied by itself, but only by the manifestation of
Christ. The view, according to which the veûua of Christ is
nothing more than a higher development of the spirit in the
general human sense, is indeed rationalistic, but the distinction
ceases to be one merely fluctuating between less and more, if
combining what is true both in rationalism and supernaturalism,
we say the voûs is indeed, in itself, one with the veûpa, and
is Tveûμa of inferior potency; but this inferior potency could not
be raised to the higher grade by any self-produced increase; an
increased desire of the vous for the veμa is only an increased
consciousness that the veμa, as such, is not yet implanted as
power, though present as a presentient perception, and therefore
as a harbinger to announce that the fulness of the time for the
communication of the Christian Tveμa is come. Thus the
difference between these two forms of opinion is reduced to a
nullity, a result which is always necessarily arrived at when the
opposition is carried out to the uttermost." What we call spirit
in a general human sense, and what we call veûpa in a Christian
sense, belonging essentially to each other, there is a certain
original identity between them; the reason can only be under-
stood as a transition of the other human functions to the Divine
principle manifesting itself in Christ, and the reûpa is but a
higher development of what we call reason, such development not
π
1 Comp. Christliche Sitte, pp. 300-306; 312 sqq. 370, and Christliche Glaube, ii.
p. 186 sqq. 108, 6.
Relation of Christianity to Nature and Reason. 379
being brought about by the reason. Christianity itself, however
much it may differ from the limited reason of man, is reasonable in
itself; it is a revelation of the Divine wisdom which is itself reason.
Hence it is no self-contradiction to say, on the one hand, that
Christianity is above the reason, inasmuch as it can absolutely be
no product of unassisted human reason, and, on the other hand,
that it is for the reason, which it raises from the stage of desire
to that of possession; and similar to its relation to the rational and
the super-rational is that which it fills to nature and grace. The
notion of nature teaches what the voûs may become, whether
viewed independently or in combination with the other functions;
but the manifestation of Christ, and that propagation of the veμa
which arises therefrom, is grace. If this is the case, there is no
absolute opposition between nature and grace. On the contrary,
nature is only what it is—its receptivity for grace being thus
assumed-on the presupposition of the existence of grace; and
grace is only what it is with reference to human nature. Now
naturalism says that the development of man by grace and
his natural development are but one and the same process;
but supernaturalism says that the natural development of man
by reason is entirely different from his development by grace.
This opposition also is annihilated, and may be comprehended
from a higher standpoint as a merely relative one. It is only
important because we refer our empiric constitution to the
historical appearance of Christianity. Supernaturalism is in the
right when the matter is viewed from the side of the empiric
human agency and what it is capable of effecting; for then that
which is given in Christianity surpasses nature, in other words,
is supernatural, and never could have been produced by all
the continuous agency of the reason left to itself, without the
agency of the Divine principle which appeared in Christ, was
implanted in human nature in the Person of Christ, and is
communicated thereto by Him. But supernaturalism is in the
wrong when it designates the manifestation of Christ as abso-
lutely supernatural, i.e. as so with regard to God and God's idea
of man; and rationalism is in the right when it only says that,
viewed from the unity of the Divine counsel, the supernaturalness
of the manifestation of Christ appears, on the contrary, perfectly
natural, inasmuch as the Divine counsel is one, and has eternally
ordained the connection and coherence of that which to us and
380
Person of Christ.
in time is divided. Thus regarded, God's counsel of creation
cannot be separated from that of redemption and perfection.
Both are equally natural and consistent with the Divine character;
and hence there can also be no counsel of redemption and
perfection, unless combined with that of creation. Again, creation
can only be perfected by that counsel in which Christ is included,
and must therefore be conceived of as possessing from the first
recipiency for the redeeming and perfecting power of Christ.
Although the deterministic view of Schleiermacher, which
admits even evil into the Divine counsel, is traceable in the last
named detail, yet the matter in question is not affected thereby,
because the intrinsic unity of the Divine counsel, the interdepen-
dence of its true elements, is not abolished by making the Fall the
free act of man, unless it were supposed that God had not foreseen
it, and that, so to speak, it surprised and found Him unprepared.
On the one hand, we cannot but say with Schleiermacher that
nature is only the accomplishment of the Divine counsel in time
and space; but to admit this is to insist upon a higher idea of
nature than rationalism and Pelagianism are wont to advocate.
It is to hold that in the notion of nature is included even the
appearance of Christ, while such a view is taken of this appear-
ance that it is regarded as not possibly deducible from the
agency of the collective reason or of the powers of the race that
preceded Him, but must, on the contrary, be referred to an
original Divine intervention, an act of God. This act, however,
combines, in the Divine counsel, of which all nature is an expres-
sion, into unity with the Divine counsel of creation.
It is by faith in Christ that we participate in His sinlessness
and blessedness, that we experience a deliverance from the con-
sciousness of guilt and sin. We are reconciled because "God
beholds us in Him," as quickened by Him, or as parts of His
manifestation. He has implanted in the Church the principle,
at least, of His divine life, a pure and blessed commencement of
that manhood which He has united to Himself. This life, there-
fore, the Church propagates and diffuses by means of her faith-
ful reception of the image of Christ, until the limits of Christen-
dom are at the same time the limits of the human race. All
religions are destined to be transformed into the Christian reli-
gion. The essence of Christianity, however, consists in redemp-
1 Christlicher Glaube, ii. 99, &c., § 100, 101; p. 139, § 104, 4.
Essence of Christianity, Person of Christ. 381
tion through Jesus of Nazareth,¹ which is destined to be the
ever-present, all-ruling power in the life of the Christian, and
is capable of being implanted in every element of the con-
sciousness, as the purest form of the consciousness of God,
which again is, on its part, the highest stage of self-cons-
ciousness. By this definition of Christianity the Church is, as
he shows, sufficiently distinguished from all that is non-Chris-
tian. For the definition includes two notions, that of the
redemption of mankind and that of the Person of Christ. The
former would be destroyed if mankind possessed, without Christ,
the power of self-redemption, or if human nature were incap-
able of redemption. The first supposition is the Pelagian, the
second the Manichean heresy, and redemption would be in the
one case superfluous, in the other impossible. The second
notion, that of the Person of Christ, depends upon attributing to
Him full and complete redeeming power. Granting that His
peculiar pre-eminence in this respect were admitted, but His true
humanity denied, as in the Docetic heresy, He would lack the
possibility of historically affecting human nature, and would
hence be deprived of full redeeming power. If, on the other
hand, He was indeed, like us, a true man, but devoid of that
absolutely perfect Divine nature which alone renders His
redeeming power sufficient for all times and all men, if He were
therefore, c.g., only a distinguished human being without specific
dignity, this would be the "Nazarite or Ebionite heresy," which
would again do away with the notion of the Redeemer. All
opinions, however, which keep themselves within these limits het
regards as Christian, and, in virtue of their acknowledgment of
these limits, as corrigible if needing correction. In the Redeemer,
who thus forms, in his view, the central point of all that is
Christian, he sees the union of the ideal and the historical. In
Him the consciousness of God was developed to absolute vigour,
nay, became in Him the perfect Being of God, so far as human
nature in general is susceptible thereof. In Him God was mani-
fested not only as the almighty, the holy, the righteous, but also
as that love and wisdom which He Himself is, and no higher
revelation is either to be expected or necessary, the believer
knowing himself to be a partaker through Christ of a principle
which is sufficient for His perfection, because all that could
1 Christlicher Glaube, i. 67, &c., § 11.
2 Ibid. ii. 165, &c.
382
Person of Christ.
obstruct or disturb such perfection finds no support from this
principle, but stands in direct antagonism thereto. If it is said
that this union of the ideal and the historical in the Person of
Christ must remain problematical, or be designated an impossi-
bility, because the notion of ideality, even if it be embraced, in-
volves no guarantee for its historical realization, nor, on the
other hand, is the recognition of the historical any pledge of ideal
purity and perfection, these being spiritual and internal, his
answer is: To affirm the impossibility of the ideal being realized,
is to affirm the impossibility of our moral destination, and is a
combination of Manicheism and Ebionitism. If then it must
be regarded as possible that the ideal did appear in Christ,
the assertion that it is impossible to recognize the ideal in the
historical must be met by the statement, that they who make
the experiment, and surrender themselves, as beings need-
ing redemption, to the impression of Christ, do receive the
assurance of His redeeming power and specific dignity. He
admits that a construction from the notion of ideality is not
commensurate with the historical, and in like manner that
there is a certain perception of the historical in which the
ideal worth of the object is lost. But there is in his view
still a medium, and this is the view which is at once historical
and spiritual. In this view that which is not in other
ways possible is produced, viz. a real perception of the union
of the ideal and the historical effected in the Person thus
offered to the gaze. Just as a work of art may be long con-
templated without being understood until the happy moment in
which the ideal conception of the artist, the idea realized in the
work, is, so to speak, raised up again in the spectator through
the medium of the empiric, so is the spiritual glance of faith far
from being a merely subjective conception. On the contrary, it
points back as a specific effect to a specific cause, viz. the his-
torical view. And this is, though differently expressed, what
Schelling's philosophy of revelation states, when it demands a
"metaphysical empiricism" which faith is to effect, not a merely
historical faith, or a mere speculation on certain "eternal truths,"
but a perception of the unity of the metaphysical and the his-
torical.¹ And that which the living intuition of faith thus per-
1 So too Fichte, Works, iv. p. 53. Schelling, in his doctrine of freedom, already
says: only the personal can heal the personal, Div. i. Works, vii. 317, &c.
Person of Christ. Faith and Dogma.
383
ceives is not the mere notion of the ideal, but ideal reality and
real ideality.
The dignity of Christ is thus established. But since the seat and
nature of this dignity lie entirely within the provinces of the con-
sciousness of God and the being of God, it is certainly not estab-
lished for that province for which He did not directly appear. It
is, however, established in the most decided way, and in such wise
that nothing is lacking to the central, i.e. the religious province.
For that knowledge of the Person of Christ which is accessible to
true faith, is not only satisfying and certain in itself, but where
it is genuine, there also will be experienced a communication,
at least in principle and sufficiently for full development, of the
unclouded happiness and sinless perfection which were in Him.
This communication took place, and is taking place, by means of
His threefold and still continued office, especially by His high-
priestly acts and sufferings. He is still full of sympathy, and
able to put Himself in our place, that He may, by feeling for us
and communicating His grace to us, appropriate us to Himself.
God beholds those whom Christ has drawn into His fellowship
as it were through Him, and therefore as reconciled. They are
partakers of His Spirit, and are therefore regarded as part of His
appearing. Viewed from this point, supernatural proofs of the
divinity of Christianity, and the Divine-human nature of Christ
by means of miracles, prophecy, inspiration, appear but weak.
These are however abundantly compensated by that demonstration
of the Spirit and of power, which Christianity in its continual re-
juvenescence never ceases to furnish. From this point, too, the
unevangelical character and the weakness of a dread of criticism.
are manifested. For the obverse side of that trust in evidence
offered to the understanding as the proper confirmation of the
Christian faith-a trust which can never rise to certainty-is a
mistrust of the special power of Christianity to commend and
evidence itself to the mind.
That central position which Schleiermacher awards to faith,
and by which he reverts to the Reformation basis, also teaches
him to distinguish between faith and dogma, which it is always
so easy to confound. This is especially the case in intellectual-
Schleiermacher, moreover, frequently reiterates: Christ must above all things
operate upon our self-consciousness by the entire impression of His Person. E.g.
Christlicher Glaube, § 10, appendix.
384
Church and Tradition.
ism, and even in supernatural intellectualism, which is ready
to bestow the name of faith upon a reception of doctrines
supernaturally revealed, i.e. mysteries. But doctrine is not
redemption, nor the power of redemption; we are, moreover,
destined to real communion with God through Christ. Not till
this exists is there real Christian piety. And this is something
more than changing our system of notions or our maxims of life.
Doctrine, too, is regarded by him as independent of faith, viz. as
a proclamation of the gospel (kýpvyμa), for without such a pro-
clamation faith could not exist. It is, moreover, distinguished
from dogma as being originally simple, its power lying in pro-
claiming Christ, and faithfully and vividly bringing His image
before the mind. Dogma, on the contrary, when regarded as to its
origin, has no existence till after faith, and is the scientific ex-
pression of the appropriation already made by the Church of the
proclamation of the gospel. It arises through reflection and
from the expressions of the Christian state of mind; it therefore
depends upon the constitution of the latter, and has neither the
unchangeableness of the proclamation of the gospel, nor the
fixity and self-consistency of the New Testament Scriptures, to
which a normative importance, as the treasury of all pure
primitive tradition and the original historical documents of
revelation, must be ascribed.¹
According to this it is obvious that Schleiermacher awards a
more important position to the Church and Tradition than was
customary in evangelical teaching before his time. In his view,
indeed, Catholicism is distinguished from Protestantism by the
fact that the former makes the condition of the individual
depend on his relation to the Church, while the latter makes
the relation to the Church depend upon the relation of the
individual to Christ. But he does not hereby deny that the
individual only attains to faith through the Church and her min-
istrations; nay, he says that the Church propagates the Holy
Spirit in individuals, and will own no other agency of the Holy
Ghost than that which is brought about by means of the Church.
Of this, indeed, he reckons also the Holy Scriptures which it
preserves, and the sacraments which it dispenses, component
2
1 This is carried out farther in a very luminous manner by Rothe, Zur Dog-
matik.
2 Christlicher Glaube, i. § 6 and 24.
Church and Tradition.
385
parts, and assumes that the continued agency of the Holy Spirit.
is combined with its ministrations, without, of course, advancing
to the position, that the Holy Spirit is so bound to the Church,
or even to certain of its institutions, that whatever the empirical
Church does the Holy Spirit does also. But for the sake of
conceiving of Christianity in its continuity, and as a historical
power, he accorded a high position to tradition, and did in a
measure infuse life and pliability into this hitherto rigid notion,
a circumstance which did not fail to exercise a great after-effect
upon the Romish Church, and certain of its distinguished theo-
logians, e.g. Drey, Möhler, Klee, Staudenmaier, Leop. Schmidt,
and others. In his free and broad views of the Church, its vital
laws, sufferings, and sorrows, he ever kept in view its unity as
the work of Christ upon earth; and laboured unwearyingly for an
ecclesiastical reconciliation of the differences between Protestants,
whether as a practical advocate of the union or as a divine. In-
deed his Glaubenslehre, 1821, which appeared three hundred
years after Melanchthon's Loci, is consciously intended to be a
body of divinity for the Protestant Church returning to unity
after its division, just as Melanchthon's work was actually the
divinity of the as yet undivided Protestant Church. He also
takes up an extremely conciliatory position with regard to the
Roman Catholic Church, notwithstanding his persuasion, that
the antagonism between the two churches had not yet reached
its climax. The basis of this friendly feeling is his conviction
that the Catholic Church is separated from our own, not merely
by its non-evangelical tenets, but also by a special Christian in-
dividuality, which he finds in its tendency to symbolics.
By his whole method, calculated as it was to build up and
repair, and especially by his above described discussion on the
nature and limits of Christianity, Schleiermacher accustomed
theology to a freer and juster estimation of individual doctrines,
because an estimation according to principles. Every doctrine
was to be estimated exactly in proportion to its approximation to
the principle, and this again brought to consciousness and threw
fresh light upon a never wholly forgotten, though often obscured,
distinction-the distinction between the foundation which is to
support the whole fabric, and that which is built thereon (1 Cor.
iii. 10-15). It was by this distinction that his conduct with regard
to the various theological tendencies and also his ecclesiastical
II.
2 B
386
Union.
position were determined. For with respect to his relation to the
two evangelical confessions, the inmost reason of his love for the
union was not a liberty averse to all Church creeds; for at first,
and indeed on principle, he positively embraced the symbols of
the Church. Neither was it a doctrinal indifferentism; for he
dedicated his best energies to theology, and reckoned an advance
to greater definiteness in its tenets as one of the vital functions
of the Church.¹ Nor, lastly, did it arise from merely external
considerations. That which exercised a deciding influence on
his mind was, on the contrary, the conviction, that there is no
fundamental difference between the two communions, that their
distinctive doctrines meet on the basis of a common principle,
and that the peculiar religious view of each being therefore
essentially identical, can have no significance capable of destroy-
ing full church union, for otherwise the principle of which it is
the expression could not be one and the same. But, if this be
so, the necessary consequence is, that the separation of the two
evangelical confessions cannot be justified on moral grounds, and
that at a time when far more important differences have to be
tolerated in the same church, the way to expiate an old fault is
to abolish the separation, not, as already remarked, by the level-
ling of dogma, but by mutual accordance of full church-mem-
bership. Not till such an act of reconciliation is effected can
the Evangelical Church, now consciously returning to the Re-
formation standpoint, harmonize her ecclesiastical practice with
her theological admission of the necessary distinction between
the foundation and that which is built thereon, and between
religion and dogma. By such an act only can those morbid
tendencies, which at all times necessarily ensue from con-
founding distinctions, be decidedly and consciously repulsed.
We allude to Intellectualism, whether negative or positive,
ecclesiastical or subjective, which ever derives its power from
confounding religion and dogma, and to that obscuration of the
principle which checks its vigorous development. Nor is this
1 These thoughts are very lucidly argued and carried out by Twesten, art.
Union in Herzog's theol. Realencycl. He shows that there can be no church at
all if absolute ideality of doctrine be required, that every existing church does in
fact acknowledge the validity of church membership, in spite of differences of
doctrine, for the sake of a common faith, and that when this identity of principle
exists in fundamental articles of doctrine, church communion with different con-
fessions, especially in the same place, is a duty. See above, p. 355.
Relation of the Material and Formal Sides. 387
the only result of such obscuration; which also makes it easy to
put a false accent unconsciously, and according to individual in-
clination, upon this or that side of church doctrine, which being
thus made the central point, works with disorganizing effect.
upon the whole.
To such a decomposition of evangelical
doctrine, by weakening the influence of its principle, is it alone
to be ascribed, that the main stress was laid by the Evangelical
Church upon, e.g., its tradition, its sacraments and clerical office,
or upon the authority of the canon alone, without regard either
to criticism or to the security of the material principle. If the
Reformation principle of justification through faith in Christ is
in any degree removed from its position, other doctrines must of
necessity become at least co-ordinate therewith. Such a de-
position from its sovereign station is a necessary transition to
making the ruler a subject. For as there must be a power which
accredits all doctrines, this, if withdrawn from the evangelical
principle, is transferred to something else, whether to the
authority of the Church, or of the canon, or of human reason.
When the principle is obscured, and its sovereign position
yielded, there always follows an adulteration which causes the
entire evangelical system to be called in question. At the same
time we thus perceive that the high importance given by
Schleiermacher to tradition, when viewed in that active sense in
which he regards it, contributes essentially to the purity of the
character and principle of the Evangelical Church. For tradi-
tion, as he views it, is that power of Christian testimony which
is ever being renewed by the Holy Ghost-a testimony which
has such a certainty in itself, through the Holy Spirit, as neither
arose nor arises from the authority of the canon, but is produced
by that proclamation of Christianity whose rule and standard are
found in holy Scripture. Thus holy Scripture is accredited to
evangelical Christians, not by rational proofs and historical
evidences, nor by the authority of the Church, but by a real
experience of the act of redemption through Christ. Hence it
is, by means of Scripture, or of that proclamation of Christ of
which it is the standard, that we believe, for Christ's sake, in the
divine authority of holy Scripture. From this it is obvious that
tradition, rightly understood, consists in the continued genera-
tion of consciously believing personalities by the agency of the
Holy Ghost, by means of a preaching of Christ in conformity
388 Schleiermacher. Relation to Reformed Confessions.
with Scripture. This world of new personalities, moreover, takes
up a relatively independent position with regard to holy Scripture;
for the latter owes the decisive corroboration and recognition of
its authority only to the authority of Christ, who has, through
the Holy Spirit, revealed Himself to faith as the Redeemer.
2
Schleiermacher, originally a member of the Reformed Church,
but educated and brought up among the Moravian Brotherhood,
which is specially indigenous in the Lutheran Church, belongs
exclusively to neither of the two confessions. By combining
Lutheran mysticism with Reformed reflection and dialectics, he
attained that original mode of viewing his subject, which gave
such animation to his scientific operations. He restored to its
rightful authority, with regard to the criticism, exposition, and
canonicity of holy Scripture, that relative independence of the
material side of the principle upon which Luther especially had
laid so much stress. A Lutheran tendency is also discernible
in the facts, that he enters into closer alliance with ecclesi-
astical tradition and history, though not at the expense of
Christian liberty, and assigns to nature and corporeity a more
important position than they had hitherto occupied, a change
which, while it had a specially fruitful influence upon ethics, was
also of importance in respect of the relation of the word and
sacraments to the Holy Spirit, and of the whole manner in which
vital religion manifested itself in Christian worship. His strict
insistence upon the universalism of grace, in opposition to Cal-
vinistic particularism, and the greater stress which he lays on
love than on justice, both in his estimation of the Old Testament
with relation to the New, in the doctrine of God, and in the
ethic relation of the regenerate Christian to the world, are also
Lutheran features. On the other hand, his denial of human
freedom, in respect of the Divine Omnipotence, his adoption of
the Reformed counterpoise against absolute predestination, his
more lively feeling for the ethic world, for the moral features
of the Christian life, and especially for Church organization,
are the particulars in which he leans towards the Reformed
1 He first restored the Church authentication of the theses on faith, from the
Reformation confessions.
2 Comp. Löwe, Luther, Schleiermacher, and the Mecklenburg Church, 1858;
also Schleiermacher's Grundlinien einer Kritik der Sittensysteme, pp. 349-352,
in which he reproves Fichte's idealism and Kant, for an avoidance of nature.
Compare also the introduction to his philosophical ethics.
Relation to Deism and Pantheism.
389
theology. It was thus that he combined with the high position
assigned to the doctrinal idea of the Church in the Lutheran,
the ethical notion of the Church prevailing in the Reformed
confession. In the above exposition of the boundary lines by
which Christianity is separated from possible fundamental errors,
it is to be regretted that he mentions only anthropological and
christological, but not theological errors, such as the opposites,
Deism and Pantheism. Having established monotheistic
opinions by his notion of religion, namely, as involved in the
consciousness of absolute dependence, his purpose was to assign
to Christianity the highest station among the various forms of
monotheism, and to distinguish between Christian theology and
the merely philosophical conceptions of God set up by so-called
natural theology, by the fact that the latter have never been
capable of forming religious communities. He regards both
Pantheism and Deism as belonging to these philosophical con-
ceptions. It is nevertheless to be wished that he had joined
to his two pairs of heresies-in each of which the individual
members have again a near affinity to the respective individual
members of the other-Deism and Pantheism as a third pair.
For these may be designated as the theological opinions which
correspond, on the one hand, with Pelagianism and Ebionitism,
and on the other with Manicheism and Docetism, and both have
undoubtedly a religious, nay, a fundamental importance. It is
just here, however, that a deficiency, fertile in results, is found
in Schleiermacher's system. His doctrine of God is developed
no further. In his zeal to exhibit religion in its self-sufficiency
and its independence of philosophical systems, he goes so far as
to find in the religious self-consciousness, primarily and specially,
only a motion of the personal feeling, and not also a concrete
objective knowledge of God. Certain forms, indeed, of Deistic
opinion are already excluded by him through the consciousness
of absolute dependence, which is conceived as perennial, so too is
a false God, as being a self-dependence of the world with respect
to God, which supposes limited individual life. This absolute
dependence also refutes such pantheistic opinions as would make
the world God, and attribute to man either absolute knowledge
or an absolute feeling of liberty. On the other hand, his theory
of belief makes no sufficient protest against regarding everything
1 Christlicher Glaube, i. 19, &c. § 4.
1
390
Non-Knowledge of God's Nature.
as taking place in virtue of eternal determinations, whether
these be conceived of in so distinct a manner that each detail
is eternally determined by the order of nature, or in so pan-
theistic a manner that recourse is had at every moment to the
principle of the supreme world-power itself,¹ and even the world
of mind regarded as no freely moving, relatively independent
causality of its causation, i.e. of its formative agency, nor as an
independent self-existing life. There is unmistakably a some-
thing which is Docetic in the latter view, as there is in the
former the same false self-dependence and reality of the world
as a whole, which Pelagianism and Ebionitism think must be
ascribed to the human side. His Deterministic opinions, in
which the chief weight falls upon absolute causality, or the omni-
potence of God, is then the reason why so precarious a position
is left to those Divine attributes which, in their full conception,
are the conditions of the moral nature of man, his freedom,
responsibility, accountability, and guilt-in other words, to the
justice and holiness of God. Hence he is unable adequately to
appreciate the dignity and abiding value of the Old Testament,
although he insists that omnipotence must be conceived of as
spiritual, and views it as transfigured into absolute love and
wisdom in Christianity.
In Schleiermacher, however, all this is combined with a denial
of a knowledge of God, and a firm persuasion (in which again he
resembles Jacobi) that the subjective pious affection is the only
form in which the mind can receive the Absolute. The category
of personality he deems inadequate, and too low for the infinite
nature of God; and this again is a notion capable of being
combined with laying undue stress upon His physical infinity
in comparison with His spiritual and moral nature. According
to Schleiermacher, as surely as there is a knowledge, in which
knowledge the necessary duplexity between thought and being
finds its unity, as surely, moreover, as there is on the part
of the will the necessary antagonism between what is being
willed and what has been willed, which again must be capable
of combining into unity in the actions, so surely must we grant
that there is an absolute transcendental principle, or God, in
whom also the ultimate antagonisms of the world find the absolute
possibility of their union secured.2 Without their absolute union
1 Dialektik, 527.
2 This is fully carried out in his dialectics.
1
Non-Knowledge of God's Nature.
391
in God, even their partial union in the world would be impossible,
and they would necessarily remain absolutely separated ("as
qualitative opposites"), and so exclude the possibility both of
knowledge and action. Hence, so surely as knowledge and action
are possible, so surely must the reason admit the existence of God.
But as to what God is, he thinks that it is impossible for us to know
His nature, and that philosophy is merely a knowledge of the world,
though certainly a knowledge which presupposes the transcen-
dental God. Theology, too, which also can be no real knowledge
of God, is in his view only the knowledge of Christian conscious-
ness, or Christian piety. It is therefore only self-contemplation,
self-consciousness, proceeding upon a presupposition of God as the
absolute causality and supreme unity, a knowledge which, being
at the same time essentially at the service of the religious com-
munity, the Church, is therefore not animated by an interest for
theory as such, or objective knowledge, but refers everything to
the Church. Hence, theology is to be kept free from philosophy,
and the fluctuations of its systems, and may as certainly be kept
distinct therefrom as the religious life is a thing independent
with regard to thought and will. Since, moreover, we know
nothing of God's nature in general, an intrinsic Trinity in God is
excluded. And it is so especially by the way in which he arrives
at God, whom he considers necessary as the absolute unity of all
antagonisms. All distinctions originate only from the world;
hence his trinity is but an ceconomical one. In this he only carries
out the notion of God held by the old divines, especially their doc-
trine of the simplicity of God and of the non-objective distinctness
of His properties, with an inflexible consistency which must of
necessity declare itself against the doctrine of an immanent Trinity.
But in doing this he avoids the consideration how the opposites
found in the world-if they are not merely apparent and the
result of subjective contemplation, which fact would itself be an
enigma demanding its solution-could possibly have originated
from this supreme unity, if God is only absolute simplicity
entirely excluding distinctions. Nor does he discuss how the
Divine counsel, or idea of the world, with its multiplicity of forces
combining into unity, could be possible, if there were not in God
also a principle of multiplicity as well as of unity. And yet
God is again, in his view, not only the one Being, the supreme
1 Comp. Encyclopädie, Einleitung, § 6.
392
Schleiermacher's Doctrine of God.
1
2
unity of all antagonisms, but that Being also who developes from
Himself the supreme antagonism and all the antagonisms
combined therewith. It may be thought that all this may be
reconciled if Schleiermacher supposes God to be simply the unity'
of the ever multiplex world, and conceives of the world as the
correlative of God, or as the Absolute, the unity embracing God
and the world. But this again is not sufficient; because he
regards God, as we have said, not only as the supreme world-
power, but as its absolute principle, the principle of the order
and laws of the world, as the causality of its existence. Besides
this, God is not the supreme unity, but forms, together with the
world, that supreme antagonism above which an absolute unity
has to be sought. Hence, a sensible gap is here all the more
apparent, inasmuch as this reduction of God to simple and
absolute unity removes Him so far from the world that many
propositions result therefrom resonant of Deism, and incon-
sistent with his own vivid feeling of God's presence. It must
also be confessed that the infiniteness which he ascribes to
the Divine unity is too much akin to indefiniteness (άópɩτov).
If we conceive of God as the Being absolutely devoid of
definition, as the union of antagonisms in such a sense as to
make His nature indifferent to all antagonisms, He is then
indifferent also towards the antagonisms of the finite and the
infinite, towards being and becoming, true and false, good and
evil. He must be the union of even these opposites, and thus
something logically impossible. Indeed, it cannot then be said
what He is not, since He is the union of all opposites, even
of those which are self-contradictory. Schleiermacher, how-
ever, does not go so far; consequently it must be possible, nay,
necessary, to say something definite, whether of a positive or
negative kind, concerning God. In fact, he does this himself,
as Christianity also requires, when he says that the notion of
God can be only in God Himself, that He is the primal form of
knowledge, that He is not merely the supreme conception
including all others, that as existence He is not only the supreme
2 Ibid. p. 527.
5
1 Dialektik, § 135.
3
E.g. the exceedingly negative relation of God to time and space, the doctrine
of God's unchangeableness, according to which His operations are always the
This is stated in detail in my treatise on the unchangeableness of God.
same.
4 Dialektik, p. 56, note. In saying this, self-consciousness is in fact attri
buted to God.
5 Ibid. p. 87.
The School of Schleiermacher.
393
force or species, the identity of the ideal and the real, occupying
one and the same position as all besides, and only so conditioning
all things as to be itself conditioned by all; and when, on the
other hand, he calls God the unity which also is not identical
with the totality of knowledge and being, but their absolute
foundation; when he says, further, that God must not be called
the indifference of consciousness and the lack of consciousness,
but that He is that Being the notion of whom can be only in
Himself, and not in us; and when he finally calls God not merely
spiritual omnipotence, but says also that He is love and wisdom.2
With regard to the school of Schleiermacher, little as he, who
was a lover of liberty both for himself and in others, desired to
be the founder of a school, there is not one, at least among the
more famous of modern systematic theologians, who is not
indebted to Schleiermacher for essential assistance. Those,
indeed, who profess most decidedly to be his heirs are not, for
the most part, those who most manifest the truly progressive,
fertile and constructive genius of Schleiermacher (see above, p.
343). Many among them, on the contrary, fall back to earlier
standpoints, especially to æsthetic rationalism, or were eclectic
popular theologians who, more influenced by ecclesiastico-poli-
tical than by theological interests, entered into alliance with
every shade of rationalism, even in its speculative form, and
even combined with theological pamphleteers in whose eyes
Schleiermacher was a romancer, and Lessing a mere illu-
minist. There are others, on the contrary, who, notwith-
standing their independence, may be regarded as the genuine
cherishers and preservers of the spirit he introduced, and who
carried on the regeneration of theology in its various departments.
In that of New Testament exegesis may be named the acute
Lücke, the trustworthy Bleek, also Usteri, Neander, Schmid,5
Olshausen, Tholuck, Osiander, Messner, Riehm, Weiss, Lechler,
1 Dialektik, p. 135, &c. Comp. p. 115.
3
2 Christlicher Glaube, ii. § 167 p. 516. Comp. § 168; 1, § 55, p. 291.
3 Lücke, Commentar über die Schriften des Johannes, vol. i. and vol. ii.
Evangelium, vol. iii. Briefe, ed. 3, 1856; vol. iv. Einleitung in die Apokalypse.
4 Bleek, Hebräerbrief, 3 vols. 1828-40. Beiträge; Einleitung ins N. T.;* Synoptiker.
5 Schmid, biblische Theologie, 4th edit.
6 Olshausen, Commentar zum N. T. 1835, &c.*
7 Tholuck, Bergpredigt;* Glaubwürdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte; Evang
Johannes, ed. 7, 1857;* Römerbrief, ed. 4, 1857; Hebräerbrief, ed. 3, 1850.
These have all been translated in Clark's Foreign Theological Library.
394
Influence upon New Testament Exegesis.
Holzmann, and many others. In historical theology: Neander,¹
the father of modern ecclesiastical history, with Hagenbach,¹
Jacobi, Piper, Uhlhorn, and Reuter, also Gelzer Hundeshagen,
Stähelin, and A. Schweizer, as well as Hase, Henke and Baum-
garten-Crusius, in all of whom traces of Schleiermacher's influ-
ence are not wanting. In dogmatic theology: K. J. Nitzsch,
Twesten, Jul. Müller,¹ Rothe, Tholuck, Sack, Vogt, Hagen-
bach, Martensen,¹ Liebner, v. Hofmann, Auberlen,¹ Ehrenfechter,
Schöberlein, Lange,' Ebrard,¹ Landerer, Pelt, Thomsen, W. Hoff-
mann, J. Köstlin, Reuter, Erbkam, Beyschlag, Gess, and others,
in spite of their independence and individuality, and the mani-
fold diversities they exhibit, are they who most exhibit the
impress of Schleiermacher's genius. The Deterministic side of
his system was, however, embraced by hardly any except Alex.
Schweizer of Zürich, Romang of Bern, and Scholten of Leyden.
All these construct their doctrine of belief, which they distinguish
from biblical theology, no longer upon the formal principle of
holy Scripture, as biblical supernaturalists, nor upon natural rea-
son, as their opponents insisted on doing, but upon the material
principle of the Reformation, viz. faith, combined with holy
Scripture. Nor was the animating, exciting, and renovating
power of Schleiermacher's influence less productive of results in
the province of ethics. This is proved by the works on specu-
lative ethics of J. N. Wirth, 1841, of Chalybäus and Rothe; as
well as those on Christian morality of Schmid and-in spite of his
opposition to Schleiermacher and Rothe-of Wuttke.2 By again
bringing into prominence the idea of the Church, Schleiermacher's
creative mind, together with his skill as a preacher, first opened
the way to a scientific treatment of practical theology. The fruits
of his ideas are to be found in the independent labours in this
department of K. J. Nitzsch, Ehrenfeuchter, Palmer, Liebner,
Schöberlein, and Brückner.
There was but one field in which Schleiermacher did not labour,
nay, which he scarcely redeemed to Christian theology, and that
was the Old Testament. Hence, Old Testament exegesis re-
mained yet awhile oscillating between the old antagonisms, viz.
a traditional handling after the manner of biblical or old orthodox
1 All translated in Clark's Foreign Theological Library.
2 Handbuch der christlichen Sittenlehre von Ad. Wuttke, 2 vols. 1861.
Sartorius, Thomasius, Philippi, Harless, Harnack, and Beck are less directly
influenced in systematic theology by Schleiermacher.
Influence upon New Testament Exegesis.
395
supernaturalism, and the various forms of rationalism, without
experiencing a parallel and similar regeneration to that which
took place in other branches of theology. The more closely,
however, the Old Testament and the history of the ancient
covenant are connected with the historical side of Christianity,
the more sensibly must the want of a really historical view of the
Old Testament necessarily react upon the view of Christianity,
and contribute towards an idealistic treatment of the latter.
396
The Decades after Schleiermacher.
THE
SECTION II.
FROM THE FIFTH DECADE TO THE PRESENT TIME.
HE period during which the influence of Schleiermacher, and
of the tendency to which he had given the first impulse, was
at its height began about the year 1820, and lasted till the middle
of 1840. From about 1827, indeed,¹ till the appearance of
Strauss' Leben Jesu in 1835, Hegel and his school were able to
dispute its pre-eminence. This work, however, revealed the
contradiction of the Hegelian philosophy to Christianity, and, at
the same time, introduced into the former a process of dissolution,
nay, in part also a transition to a Hegelian popular philosophy.
The consequence was that Schleiermacher's far more enduring
influence upon theology was again triumphant.
After the commotion caused by Strauss' Leben Jesu was allayed,
and confidence in the historical basis of Christianity restored, a
vigorous Christian life began to revive in ever-increasing circles.
A lively and faithful proclamation of the Gospel again resounded
from the pulpits, the people turned to their Church with renewed
affection, and the Church began to bethink herself of her so long
neglected moral duties, especially of those of church organization
and of home and foreign missions. The hope that the ground
Iost by evangelical religion in the German nation, during the
eighteenth century, might be recovered by an internal and
peaceful development, without farther storms, without violence,
and without legal intervention or prohibition, and that the period
of both internal and external prosperity now setting in for the
Church might no longer be such to a merely clerical Church,
seemed to be justified. Such hopes, however, were not so
speedily fulfilled. Certainly very much had still to be done
with respect to multitudes, who were either indifferent to, or still
averse from Christianity. Redoubled zeal, however, the higher
education of the clerical order, and the application of the talents
1 When the Jahrbücher fur wissenschaftliche Kritik began to appear.
Various Tendencies after Schleiermacher.
397
of laymen to Church work, seemed equal to accomplishing the
task, if the positive forces would but-now that a feeling for the
idea of the Church had chiefly, by means of Schleiermacher, been
revived in the minds of the pious-faithfully and harmoniously
co-operate in cautious, patient, and persevering efforts to set up a
worthier form of the same. The forces collected for the positive
building up of the Church were, it must be confessed, not entirely
homogeneous. Not to mention the diversity already mentioned
of the circles led by Schleiermacher-which still, and for some time
longer, remained within the limits of such divergence as is caused
by that reception of more or less of evangelical faith and doctrine
at all times existing-there were others who represented rather
a revived biblical supernaturalism, without at first being conscious
of its fundamental weakness, but also without laying stress upon
the symbols of the Church. Upon this second class, who had
hitherto been accustomed to regard Christianity as wholly and
exclusively based upon the formal principle, i.e. upon the
inspiration and Divine authority of holy Scripture, a deep
impression was made by the work of Strauss and the critical
assertions concerning the New Testament connected with it.
The many unsolved difficulties, the perseverance with which
critical investigation was carried on, combined with a feeling of
uncertainty as to its final results, awakened in many a doubt as
to whether the formal principle of the Reformation were of itself,
as they had so long assumed, capable of supporting the entire
edifice of Christianity. For, according to the standpoint of
biblical supernaturalism, faith must be suspended so long as the
proof of the inspiration of the Canon remains imperfect—a proof
which, while the rights of biblical criticism are admitted, can
never be regarded as perfected and concluded once for all. Now
the legitimate deliverance from the discomfort of this justifiable
doubt would have been found by surmounting the stage of
biblical supernaturalism, and returning to the power and self-
certainty of the material principle, whence critical operations
may be contemplated with serenity and confidence, nay, actively
shared in without anxiety. But very many stopped short of
seeking deliverance from their uneasiness concerning the sup-
porting power of the formal principle alone in that evangelical
truth which makes itself certain to faith, and of attaining
satisfaction by finding a higher than a merely historical certainty
398 Church Phase of Biblical Supernaturalism.
-which of itself can never amount to more than probability-in
the self-corroboration of Christian truth through the Holy Spirit.
On the contrary, they struck out a path which was, from the
evangelical standpoint, an illegitimate one, even the authority of
the Church to determine and interpret the Canon, and sought in
this authority a compensation for what was lacking in the formal
principle when standing alone. Thus this tendency of biblical
supernaturalism entered also, in accordance with the leanings of
the age, into the Church phase, and Strauss, instead of over-
throwing Christianity, as he expected, powerfully contributed to
revive the principle of tradition, i.e. catholicizing ideas of
authority, and to seduce many to a denial of the Protestant
axiom of the sufficiency and perspicuity of holy Scripture for
the purpose for which it is given. It is easy to understand how
this class-such is the power of an adopted principle-gradually
glided into that third class which we have yet to describe.
This consisted of those whose theology, though they had
partially forsaken Pietism, had not as yet been sufficiently
imbued by the material principle of the Reformation, and among
whom there arose, as the product of reflection, a churchmanship
of such a kind as to put the stability of objective Church doc-
trine in the first place, and expect the safety of the Church from
the restored authority of the symbols. But aiming at this
authority not in the way of free inward reproduction and appro-
priation, but in the apparently shorter one of law and external
enactments, they did not keep themselves free from that spirit
of unevangelical legality which, according to the saying, “the
law worketh wrath," soon called forth discontent among hitherto
friendly fellow-labourers.
All these differences, however, amongst the constructive forces
might, in the further progress of a self-renovating theology, have
been accommodated, if only the desire for renovation had stopped
at generality, if the intellectual, moral, and religious process
which had been inaugurated had been unimpeded by force and
external means, and the Church left free to follow the laws
of her own life, unrestrained by hindrances from without. An
interruption, however, occurred, partly in consequence of Strauss's
Leben Jesu and the movements connected with it, and partly in
consequence of the claims of the last-named party to pronounce
for the whole Church. The course of events was as follows:-
Movement of Opposing Powers within the Church. 399
Rationalism had, by reason of that regeneration of theology
which had set in, found itself compelled to retreat from one
position to another, and had for a long period seen with regret
that "the mystical tendency" was spreading in even wider
circles through the influence of Schleiermacher and his theology.
In order, then, to make a stand against the power of a regene-
rated theology, the still existing remnants of those different kinds
of rationalism which had been wont to despise and contemn
one another, now gathered themselves together. Among these
were found the so-called vulgar, i.e. Wolffian and Kantian, and
the æsthetic rationalists; nay, even certain "speculativists" of
the Hegelian school joined their ranks. Their one purpose was
to form a barrier against the revival of Reformation faith; for
liberty of thought and doctrine seemed to those who had
appropriated only the negative side of Protestantism to be
threatened by a restoration of evangelical church order. En-
couraged by the movement dating from Strauss, they united
themselves into an association known as the "friends of light,"
and claimed, as enemies to all "constraint of symbols," an
unlimited freedom of doctrine within the Church. None, indeed,
of the before-mentioned positive parties agreed in this desire for
the abolition of all confessions. Even the most doctrinally
undecided demanded that the development of the individual and
of the Church" should proceed from Christ and tend to Christ."
The difference, however, between the more legal, and the freer
evangelical standpoint was very obviously manifested on this
occasion. They who belonged to the former betook themselves,
in the place of more patient, but in this case safer and surer
transactions, to monster protestations, which, by putting a stop
to scientific and ecclesiastical intercourse, looked like a desire to
determine the personal creed of their opponents, and to obtain
verdicts against them, rather by majorities than by arguments.
The leaders of this party showed more confidence in the power
of the State, and in the juridical administration of the symbols,
and therefore in the effect of depositions and intimidations, than
in the silent but increasingly triumphant power of evangelical
conviction. They chose rather, by a hasty demonstration, to
produce an appearance of general unity in doctrine, than to bear
patiently and loyally the consequences of that common fault of
the Church, which they knew to be the reason that faith, where
400
Friends of Light.
it still existed, was so meagre and impoverished. And they
chose this course of action, although these consequences had
been, already so much alleviated in the way, not of law but of
internal remedies.
But the effect of these proceedings within the party whose
positive tendencies had united it against rationalism and against
Strauss, was, that some opposed this warfare of protests, and
the danger with which they believed evangelical liberty to
be threatened by the proceedings just described, by counter
protests, enhanced by declarations on the parts of the magis-
tracies of great cities. Separated from their former associates,
and setting themselves up as the party of "the friends of union,"
they took up a more negative position than they had hitherto
done.
An extreme right and a left were now in decided opposition to
each other, while a middle and numerously represented ten-
dency, consciously distinct from either, adhered to the original
standpoint.
Such "protests" against the fundamental characteristics of a
whole ecclesiastical or theological standpoint involved separation,
if not a kind of excommunication, in the place of agreement,
while such a mode of contest transferred the right of the Church
to decide on Church-membership, to believing or unbelieving
individuals, to the disturbance instead of the promotion of intel-
lectual labours. Hence the judicious and enlightened Eichhorn,
Minister of Prussia, which was the very centre of the strife,
perceived that the decision concerning such things, and espe-
cially concerning the obligatory power of the confessions of the
Reformation, must be taken out of the hands of a subjective,
though ever so well-meaning, arbitrariness, and must, on the
contrary, be made the basis of enactments in accordance with the
spirit of the age, which might secure the conditions indispens-
able to the existence of an ecclesiastical community, as well as
the rights of Protestant liberty. This was necessary, that the
Church might, upon the basis of the immovable principles of the
Reformation, be preserved in a course of peaceful and internal de-
velopment, and of progressive acquisition of convictions, without
being exposed to the tumultuous waves of anarchical caprice.
For this purpose it was that the general synod of 1846 was con-
vened, and it was in this sense that it laboured for the peace of
The Prussian General Synod of 1846.
401
the Church. Every shade of opinion was represented in this
synod, from moderate rationalism to strict orthodoxy, but, on the
whole, its determining and uniting power was that tendency
which sought to combine liberty with loyalty to the confession,
and without making any alteration in the confession itself which
had descended from former days, to define as accurately as the
necessities of the times rendered possible and desirable, the
position which the clergy must be expected to occupy thereto.
It was in the earnest and strenuous labours which were con-
centrated upon such questions as the form of the ordination
oath, the arrangements concerning union and the constitution.
of the Church, that the practical fertility of the recently attained
perception of the principle of the Reformation and its con-
fessions, and of the distinction therewith admitted between
religion and theology, fundamental and non-fundamental, was
manifested. With such a feeling did the synod draw up the
famous "ordination formulary" and the order of instruction,
which, after long and instructive debates, in which these subjects
were thoroughly discussed, were accepted by all its members,
with the exception of an insignificant minority. Frederick
William IV., however, thought himself obliged to withhold his
sanction from the decisions of the synod, through which alone
it seemed possible to secure the Church from anarchy and from
falling back into a fresh nomism, and to preserve it without vio-
lence in a course of healthy development. He was led to this
course by the above described third party, which expected the wel-
fare and restoration of the Church from theological legislation,
especially from a judicial administration of the existing symbols,
and found an obligation to except the fundamental facts and
truths of the confessions inadequate, demanding that the latter
should, on the contrary, be made binding in their full extent,
though intending in practice to deal leniently with noncon-
formity.
This victory of the party inclined to judicial restrictions im
posed upon it the task of proposing better measures for settling
the questions of confession and union than those of the general
synod. The period, moreover, of mental exhaustion, and general
reaction against innovations, which set in after the unfortunate
revolution of 1848, and the shipwreck of the national hopes com-
bined therewith, together with the powerful patronage of the
II.
2 C
402
The Prussian General Synod of 1846.
minister V. Raumer (1850-1858), afforded them both opportunity
and power to attempt the carrying out of their ideal of the unity,
purity and security of the Church.
What then, it may be asked, was effected by that party in the
German evangelical Church which had the upper hand for about
ten years after the general synod?
It endeavoured to enter into closer connection with history
and tradition, made the age conscious that the Church was a
vital power of no slight importance, and promoted the vitality of
the Church by reviving the affection for its ancient treasures of
confession, hymnology, liturgy, &c. But it committed also great
and grievous faults.
It opposed with its utmost power that church organization
which was a widely felt necessity, and for which the general
synod had proposed a scheme, and it succeeded in putting a stop
to the work thus commenced. It consequently laboured by the
use of every means at its disposal to effect the dissolution of the
union. It had formerly advocated the union, even in opposition
to seceding Lutherans; it now sought to bring about an ex-
plosion of the union, and especially of the union of the Prussian
national churches, from within. The motives of this change
were rather juristical and canonical than doctrinal. For design-
ing to give full authority to the confessions by means of the
external assistance of the executive, the union appeared to them
an obstacle to the unlimited validity of the symbols, which must.
above all things be got rid of. Regarding the confessions of faith
in the light of a code of law, this party perceived in the union
as such a fatal danger to the plenary authority of the symbols,
because it was through the union that a portion of the confes-
sions, viz. the dissensus, had lost its absolutely binding obligation,
and therefore its separating power, in the national church. In
this diminution then of the authority of a portion of the con-
fession, which was not legally excluded, they believed the
authority of the whole to be threatened; and in vain was it
represented that simple evangelical intelligence was well able to
discover, as far as was needful, those fundamental doctrines
which are common to all, and that when these are sincerely be-
lieved and maintained, danger to the Evangelical Church is out of
the question. That it was a juristic motive, and not a doctrinal
interest in the subject-matter of the distinctive doctrines and
The Contest against the Union.
403
their value, which was here at work, is obvious from the demand
that the Reformed should, on their part, be bound by their own
symbol to its full extent, as well as the Lutherans by the
Lutheran symbol-a demand at which our old Lutheran ortho-
doxy would have been horrified, as sanctioning and promoting
false doctrine. When one and the same individual, e.g. a mem-
ber of the Reformed Church, makes such a demand on behalf of
both sides, what can such a proceeding be called but a doctrinal
indifferentism, which can scarcely be reconciled with an interest
in truth and its victory?
It must be confessed that this tone was far more frequently
held by Lutherans than by the Reformed, and especially by
those who had quitted the Reformed for the Lutheran Church.
But even these could not but pay unconscious tribute to the
union, by introducing into the Lutheran Church old-reformed
elements, or elements more akin to the Reformed confession, in
virtue of that possibility of intercourse between the two com-
munions which had been brought about by the union. Such
elements however it would have been more historically correct not
to regard, or call Lutheran or High-Lutheran. Among these may
be reckoned a decided Old Testament tinge of theology in general,
a onesided stress upon the formal principle, for which indeed, as
regards matter, tradition was substituted, a certain tone of legality,
and the construction of the whole fabric of theology upon a theory
of inspiration which, if not the Alexandrine, was yet that of the
seventeenth century. The stress laid upon the confession of
faith in the form of dispensing the Lord's Supper, recalls the
Zwinglian Professio, that intellectual human performance, while
the objection to the admission of others than Lutherans to the
"Lutheran" Supper, evidences that more importance was at-
tributed to the exhibition of church membership in this ordinance,
than to Christ's impartation of Himself. And finally, while
the English and Scotch alone, among Reformed churches, had
hitherto ascribed Divine authority and institution to their
respective forms of church government, and the Lutheran had
decidedly renounced any such claim, certain members of this
party, in their zeal for the legal and governmental establishment
of the Church, suffered themselves to be so far carried away as
to impute to the governing body (Kybernesis), and therefore to
the consistories and high-church councils, or to the clergy, direct
404
(C
German Puseyism.
divine appointment and authority. Nay, in many German lands
there were not wanting those who designated the pastors as
successors of the apostles, claimed for them a priestly character,
made the "ministry of the means of grace" [Gnadenmittelamt]
the condition of spiritual blessing, and insisted on regarding
the sacraments administered thereby as the central point of the
Lutheran system of doctrine, instead of justifying faith. This
priestly character was, moreover, said to show itself in the power
of the keys, which the clerical order alone could exercise, and in
the requirement of private confession and absolution, and it
seemed as if the fundamental doctrine of the Church, i.e. of the
Church according to this clerical fashioning, were about to be-
come-that Christian piety is of no value apart from modern
churchmanship." Of the two aspects of the Church, viz. its
invisibility and its visibility, the former was, in opposition to the
entire testimony of the Reformation, opposed, and the latter
alone dwelt on, while this was only considered valid if specifically
Lutheran. "Churchmanship," which had to authenticate itself
chiefly by its rejection of Reformed and Unionists, nay, for a time
by its enmity to all Christian association, in so far as the laity
should take any other than a passive share therein, was esteemed
the flower and essence of Christian piety. Old customs, old
liturgical forms, hymns, and catechisms, were zealously restored
in most of the countries of Germany, and these were not un-
accompanied by the benefits proceeding from the recovery or
readoption of these forgotten treasures. But their introduction
was, in many instances, accompanied by a painful and repulsive
adherence to antiquated forms, and too hastily and dictatorially
effected, without previous preparation, and the free acquiescence
of the congregation. Safety was hoped for from a restoration of
the Church of the seventeenth century, nay, frequently pre-
Reformation times were recurred to, and the Reformation itself
retracted in a Catholicizing fashion. Attacks were even made
upon the Protestant freedom of teaching of the theological
faculties, and these were successful in Göttingen and Rostock,
while in Prussia the downfall of the evangelical union seemed
imminent. This was the stage corresponding in Germany to
that of English Puseyism, which preceded it by some decades.
Such proceedings, however, brought this party into conflict
with the genius of the German Protestant people. In its zeal for
German Puseyism.
405
restoration it also broke through the thread of history, a pro-
cedure which was, in its manner, of as revolutionary a character
as the opposite one in the eighteenth century. The priestly
pretentions gave the greatest offence. For a long period the
Protestant laity regarded the acts of their spiritual leaders
with silent, or with only muttered disfavour. When, however,
they were directly affected by these antiquated changes and
Catholicizing principles, and, disturbed by their being carried out
into practice, great commotions arose among the people, who
rejected these tendencies, and opposed these attempts. The
ecclesiastical authorities experienced in many instances bitter
disappointments, the effects of which were however salutary, if
they served to bring to remembrance the true source and nature
of the strength of the Protestant Church.
Thus this party not only learnt that it had over-estimated its
powers, but found by experience that the real wants and
susceptibilities, as well as the ecclesiastical inclinations of the
people, had been more correctly appreciated by the other side,
whose opposition was the more successful now that the party
which specially gloried in being called "the Church" party
began to be rent by internal dissensions. Some, though sym-
pathizing with this party in its opposition to the union,
supported the rights of the Protestant laity against Romanizing
desires of a priestly kind, and powerfully and lucidly set forth,
that they who desired to naturalize hierarchical tendencies in
the Lutheran Church, were forfeiting all right to use the sym-
bols as a weapon against the opponents of church doctrine, and
to maintain that their obligation was binding, for this would be
to take out the mote from another's eye while a beam was in
their own. Others, better affected towards the union, desired
to advocate freedom of theological research and science, against
a legalized petrifaction of doctrine, which ignored unsolved
problems, and sought to merge theology in a mere defence of
tradition.2
1
Hence these attempts at restoration were unable to effect any-
thing permanent, and at best succeeded more or less in putting
old cloth upon a new garment in certain German churches.
¹ So Höfling, v. Hofmann, Guericke, and Ströbel, the enfant terrible of the
age for Lutheran theology.
2 V. Hofmann, Baumgarten, Kahnis, and others.
406 Consequence of Efforts for Church Restoration.
This tendency had, in the year 1860, passed its culminating
point by about a decade. In certain countries, as Bavaria,
Saxony, and Hanover, the Church governments profited by these
experiences,¹ for they proceeded upon a more correct apprecia-
tion of the positive tendencies, each of which might have
perceived that not one of them, apart from or in opposition to
the others, could accomplish anything complete, and that the
first step to be taken was to endeavour to surpass that narrow
idea of the Church which had been the cause of so much per-
nicious separation.
In the year 1867, the parties mentioned p. 405, impelled by
certain external ecclesiastical motives, combined with each other
for the purpose of opposing that forcible introduction of uni-
formity with the Prussian national Church, into the Lutheran
provinces recently acquired by Prussia, which was at that time
unjustly apprehended. Facts having already made it obvious
that this apprehension is ill-founded, it is to be hoped that the
natural relations and the actual state of affairs will soon make
themselves felt again. The new political arrangements inspired
many with the hope that German Protestantism was now making
a rapid advance towards the high aim of a German Protestant
national Church. Others, on the contrary, entertained the fear
or hope that the Prussian national Church, and that union with
it which sanctioned the retention of a special Church govern-
ment, might be dissolved. Premature as were, however, the hopes
thus cherished of a Protestant national Church for Germany, the
latter expectations are still less the goal towards which the spirit
of German national Protestantism is tending, and the ecclesias-
tical condition in which it is seeking repose and satisfaction.
It is much to be desired and hoped that a good understanding
upon the basis of the recovered perception of the power of the
1 In Hanover a church government with lay elders was, soon after the com-
motion concerning the catechism (1862), unanimously adopted by the synod;
while here, as well as in Saxony and Bavaria, lay agency was increasingly
developed in the work of the inner mission. Wurtemburg, with its thoroughly
educated clergy, and its church firmly rooted in the affections of the people,
which, while rationalism was elsewhere dominant, was still feeding on the whole-
some nourishment afforded by Bengel's school, also received deep and lasting
benefits from Schleiermacher's teaching. The progress of this church was com-
paratively free from the tumults in North Germany, and was not materially
interrupted by opponents such as Strauss and Baur. It also remained favourable
to the union in the sense indicated above, p. 355.
Consequences of Schisms in the Evangelical Church. 407
Reformation principles, and the danger of any alteration of them,
may continue to increase in the whole German evangelical
Church. There is not only in the whole course of our Church's
history, but also in her present state, a serious warning to all who
wish well to the evangelical Church, and are averse to anarchical
agitation, from whichever side it may arise, against the insatiable-
ness of controversy, and a no less serious admonition to appreciate
and to satisfy the real and urgent needs of the age. For it is
unmistakeable that the process, so happily begun, of regaining
to their Church the hearts of the German nation, came to a
standstill through the variance of their spiritual leaders, who still
embraced the faith of that Church, and especially through their
warlike attitude against the union and the Reformed, together
with their archaic and hierarchical tendencies. For it thus
became uncertain to the masses what true Christianity was.
On
the one side, many even worthy and pious clergymen, in
consequence of the failure of their well-meant efforts at restora-
tion, fell into a state of variance and irritability with public
opinion in general, and lost that joyful hope, courage, and
enthusiasm in their work, nay, even that hearty certainty about
it, which subserves the good of all. Hence, certain eschatological
theories, announcing the approaching end of the world, were the
only consolation left to many, when they perceived the impossi-
bility of effecting what they had accustomed themselves to
regard as indispensable to the welfare of the Church. On the
other side, such a disposition, avoiding, as it did, the duties of
testing and revising its self-made theories, naturally evoked the
mistrust of the people against the clerical order and against
Christianity itself. And yet it was so doubly needful, now that
the tendency to materialism was so widely spread and fashioned
into a theory, whose influence was hitherto unexampled in
Germany, and when so many destructive forces were at work,
that the hearts of the people should be opened to the Gospel, that
thus a new creation, resulting from the energy and unity of the
German nation, might be brought forth from the mental chaos.
The schism in the positive tendency of the modern evangelical
Church, and the temporary domination of the third party, with
its threats against Protestant freedom of teaching, and its frustra-
tion of an evangelical Church-constitution, produced another
effect, viz. the formation of the "Protestant Association" in 1863.
408
Renan. Strauss.
This association seemed at first to insist upon an ecclesiastical
organization upon the broadest and most democratical basis, one
in which civil and political qualifications should avail for Church
membership. It soon, however, adopted a more moderate tone
in this respect, the Church authorities themselves having seriously
taken the matter in hand. Its present aim is chiefly the advocacy
of Protestant liberty of teaching, and the reconciliation of
Christian faith with modern culture. In opposition to the
tendency which gave the tone at the Prussian General Synod, it
has no absolute antagonism to that liberty of teaching which is
innate in the principle of the Protestant Church, if accompanied
by its correlative of freedom of hearing, and feels that the ques-
tion is not what essentially Christian element may be sacrificed
to propitiate modern culture, but how to win for the latter new
modes of exhibiting Christian truth, and how more and more to
animate it with a spirit of Christian morality.
3
2
These ecclesiastical complications moreover, while they alien-
ated the people and interrupted the progressive development
of the evangelical Church, upon the soil of the newly-acquired
basis of evangelical faith, had also their effect within the province
of theology. They contributed both negatively and positively, if
not to produce, yet certainly to give more widespread importance
to that recent movement with respect to the life of Christ and
to Christology, which was called forth by Renan,¹ Strauss, and
Schenkel. Theology, after the first appearance of Strauss' Leben
Jesu, instead of setting itself to solve the problems thereby
suggested (see above, p. 373) with regard to the Person of Christ,
had, during a period of many years, been for the most part.
occupied with the questions of the union, confession, the Church,
the ministry, the power of the keys and the sacraments, and had
been building with security or contending with vigour, as if all
were settled about the foundation. Hence the unexpected
appearance of Renan's book, and the works of Strauss and
Schenkel, produced a sudden alarm, disseminated all kinds of
uncertainty among the different ranks of society, and found a
favour out of all proportion to their scientific value. They were
not, however, merely external causes which led to the outburst
1 Renan, La vie de Jesus, 1863 and 1864.
2 Strauss, das Leben Jesu für das deutsche Volk bearbeitet, Leipzig, 1864.
3 Schenkel, das Charakterbild Jesu, ein biblischer Versuch, 1864.
Renan, Strauss, and their Refutation.
409
of these fresh attacks upon Christianity: the internal progress
of the matter, which could only, to a very superficial survey, have
seemed satisfactorily settled in the first stage of the discussions
on the Leben Jesu (see above, p. 373), contributed quite as much
to this result. These fresh, and at this time unexpectedly
combined, attacks mark a new phase of the contest.
Even the popular form of these works, and their rejection of
a learned and theological apparatus, was new. They were
addressed to the people, to the educated world in general, and
hence it was quite in keeping, that, in a large number of towns,
popular apologetic lectures should have been delivered in reply.
Among these were the thankfully received lectures of Held,
Luthardt, Versmann, v. Zetzschwitz, the works of Weidemann
and Schaff, and especially the excellent lectures of Uhlhorn and
Niemann in Hanover. But these popular efforts by no means
satisfied the existing need. For the treatises of Renan, Strauss,
&c., agree in professing to give a real concrete image of the
history and Person of Jesus, which they oppose as true history
to the faith of the Church. Hence the question is not merely
to answer these attacks, or to defend isolated posts, but to
awake from the careless security induced by trusting to the
authority of the Church to answer for the canon and its con-
tents, or by devoting the energies to the defence of such disputed
points as lay within the province of the Church, but were
devoid of a more deep-reaching importance. What is wanted
is to attain, by means of the earnest labours of evangelical science,
a criticism-proof, faithful portraiture of the Person of Jesus, one
in which a sincere love of truth may do ample justice to all the
lawful objections of criticism.
In this respect the history of criticism, since the first appear-
ance of Strauss' Leben Jesu, offers most instructive hints as to
the course to be pursued.
The decades next following the appearance of the mythical
standpoint were extremely prolific in critical works on the New
Testament. Those of Baur of Tübingen and his school, of Zeller,
Schwegler, R. Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Holsten, and others,
appeared during this period. Nor were their opponents idle, as
the works of Weisse, Schweizer, Bleek, Lücke, Uhlhorn, Ewald,
Weiss, Holzman, Meyer, and others, bear witness. Baur's
criticism of the New Testament seemed at first simply favourable
410
Modern Criticism of the New Testament,
to Strauss' mythical theory, Strauss, he said, "had tried to surprise
the fortress and take it by storm; it had been shown, however,
that a regular siege was still necessary, and this he was now
about to undertake." Agreeing with Strauss in his denial of the
supernatural, he perceives that there is no historical foundation
for that interposition of a longer period between the era of the
Apostles and the origin of the gospels which Strauss had
stipulated for, in order to be able to carry out his mythical
standpoint, instead of adopting the view of fraud or delusion on
the part of the evangelists. In short, he is sensible that the
removal of the gospels from the position they have hitherto
occupied, without assigning them a definite one elsewhere, does
not avoid the appearance of à priori arbitrariness in a matter
of historical criticism. Hence he endeavours, from certain
scattered historical data, to make it probable that the Gospel
of St. Matthew first appeared about 130, that of St. Luke some
twenty years later, St. John's Gospel subsequently to the year
150, and that, with the exception of the four larger Pauline
epistles and the Apocalypse, no book of the New Testament
is of apostolic origin. Thus an open field seemed to be gained
in which the mythic theory might revel at pleasure.
But the support afforded to the mythical standpoint by Baur
was but one side of the matter, the other was soon to be exposed
and to lead to unexpected results.
The fact was, that Baur's investigations introduced a new
phase in the researches of criticism concerning the life of Christ,
and one more favourable to Christianity than the obscurity of
the mythic theory, because it reduced everything to a simple
alternative.
Baur, endowed with more historical feeling than Strauss,
perceived that historical matters cannot be discussed without
historical documents, and that a criticism without documents
degenerates into an à priori construction of possible hypotheses,
which may be opposed by other possibilities without any kind
of historical knowledge being obtained by the process. While
then Strauss simply denies off-hand the credibility of almost all
the books of the New Testament, without giving himself any
farther trouble about their origin, Baur plants at least one foot
upon the soil of historical data, and tries to connect them therewith.
And even this one step was to be fatal to the mythic hypothesis.
and of the History of Primitive Christianity. 411
Baur, indeed, trod this historical soil with scarcely any refer-
ence to Jesus as an historical personage. Like Strauss, in his first
Leben Jesu, he keeps Him quite in the background, and is able to
say scarcely anything more about Him than that, in opposition to
the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, He preached righteousness and pure
love, and thereby invited men into, nay, opened the kingdom of
Heaven. But he charges Strauss with endeavouring to give a
gospel history without a criticism of the gospels. His tactics con-
sist in refuting the three first gospels by that of St. John, and
the latter by the former; thus creating a confusion as to what is to
be adhered to with respect to the sacred history. He reminds
his readers that whatever they may think of the life of Jesus,
the fact of the New Testament literature exists, and is an his-
torical quantity, which must be historically accounted for, as
being incapable of originating itself.
The Christianity then of the New Testament literature forms
a contrast to Judaism and heathenism; and how is it to be
explained? To answer this question Baur starts from the his-
torical fact, that in the apostolic era Judaizing and heathen
Christians, "Petrine and Pauline" as he calls them, formed a
contrast to each other. The former, among whom he reckons
the original apostles, were and continued in the main thorough
Jews, being only distinguished from their co-religionists by
their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. They embraced the
necessity of circumcision for salvation, the law, and Jewish par-
ticularism, hence too their Christology was necessarily Judaistic,
i.e. Ebionite. In Paul, on the contrary, who was converted by a
subjective vision, a way was made for the recognition of the
calling of all nations to salvation, and for a more ideal concep-
tion of the Person and work of Christ.
Paul had, all his life, to contend against this Judaism. After
his death, however, the sharpness of the antagonism between these
two parties was somewhat lessened. The increasing enmity of
the Jews to even the Jewish Christians, and the tragic fate of
this people, contributed to deprive the Petrine party of their
external hold upon Judaism. A series of conciliatory writings,
the memorials of which are the remaining books of the New
Testament, continues Baur, caused a growing union between
these parties, till after the first half of the second century, the
Catholic Church, with its peaceful formula, faith and works,
412 Baur's Construction of Primitive Christianity
to serve.
arose from their combination. The gospels especially were works
of later date, written in accordance with the aim of these parties
at this stage of their existence. Hence their contents must be
understood according to the tendency which they were designed
Matthew represents the Jewish Christian, Luke the
Pauline standpoint, Mark, who follows them, already exhibits
complete neutrality, while in the Gospel of John the Gnosticism
which proceeded from Paul is naturalized in the Church. Thus
Christ and His apostles are held guiltless of the supposed
fictions of the gospels, a result which cannot indeed be arrived
at, if the books of the New Testament are allowed a greater
proximity to the era of the apostles, who cannot then be regarded
otherwise than as implicated in the unanimous "glorification of
Jesus."
Upon this view Christianity might indeed have had, properly
speaking, no personal founder; it might have first arisen as a
gradual alienation from Judaism, in consequence of these trans-
actions between a Petrine and a Pauline party. Baur thinks the
persons themselves are of no consequence, they are but names,
the idea is everything.¹ But light cannot be thrown at this
cheap rate upon the primitive history of Christianity, while
silence concerning the Person of Christ is thus persevered in, or
an unpersonal conciliatory process substituted for a personal
founder. The question concerning the historical origin of the
books of the New Testament involuntarily leads on to the question
concerning the historical founders of Christianity. Whence, we
ask, do we obtain the two factors which are said to be the cause
of this historical movement, and which being, in spite of their
diversity, constantly under the influence of a force which keeps
them together, are ever tending towards each other till they
unite?
How was it that a party arose in the midst of Judaism
believing Jesus to be the Messiah, and therefore enduring
sufferings and death for following Him? The Tübingen school,
acknowledging, as it does, the historical existence of Jesus,
cannot but admit that it was He who by His words, His actions,
and His fate gave rise to this faith. How then could the
primitive apostles have remained essentially Jews, when, in
direct opposition to the prevailing Jewish faith in a Messiah,
1 Comp. Uhlhorn, die moderne Darstellung des Lebens Jesu, 1866, p. 12.
•
and Impossibility of his Historico-Critical System. 413
manner.
which had also been their own, they believed in a lowly and a
crucified Messiah? If they were thus anti-Jewish in their
Messianic faith, that cardinal article of the Jewish creed, what
brought them to this faith, this rupture with Jewish prejudices ?
This is the point at which, without something analogous to what
the Gospels narrate of the acts and resurrection of Jesus, of the
marvellous impression made by His Person, and of His own
teaching concerning His Divine dignity, the historical enigma
baffles all solution. It is, however, a self-made mystery, which
the Gospels explain in a natural, psychological and transparent
Least of all can the exalted eschatological utterances
of Christ concerning His own Person be, with even an appearance
of historical justice, impugned; for the entire primitive Church,
its Jewish no less than its Gentile portion, was filled with
eschatological expectations, the central point of which was the
appearing of Christ. If to this it is added that the Apocalypse,
which is esteemed genuine by the Tübingen school, gives a most
exalted representation of the majesty of Christ, speaks of Him
as the Lamb who was slain for us, and in whose blood believers
have washed their robes and made them white-in other words,
speaks just as St. Paul does of the atoning death of Christ,
of the rejection of that self-righteousness which feels no need of
redemption, and of other matters; so rich a treasure of common
faith between St. Paul and the primitive Apostles is exhibited,
that Baur's hypothesis of their hostility falls to the ground.
The original Apostles did not remain Jews, but became Christians,
though at first they adhered more closely than St. Paul did to
their Jewish nationality and the Jewish law. The supposed
result of the long conciliatory process had already actually taken
place in the association of the original Apostles with the Apostle
Paul. Finally, it was Christ Himself, and not " a process of the
¹ An unprejudiced mind, maintaining that high estimation of the character of
St. Paul, which even Baur does not entirely deny, will never be able to
understand by the "false brethren" (Gal. ii. 3) the original Apostles, nor to
impute to St. Paul, who pronounces an anathema upon every other, and especially
every Judaizing gospel (Gal. i. 8), that he nevertheless gave the right hand of
fellowship to Judaizing Apostles (Gal. ii. 9). If he had done so, he would have
been a greater dissembler than St. Peter, whom he reproved. He reproved him,
moreover, because, though not at heart a Judaizer, he acted in a Judaizing
manner (ii. 11-14). But perhaps the criticism of the nineteenth century is better
acquainted with the opinions of St. Peter, than St. Paul was when he gave his
testimony concerning them.
414
Necessary Advance from the Criticism of the
idea," nor this nor that apostle, who was the Founder of
Christianity, the Founder in the first place of the faith of the
apostles, a faith unanimous in all essential matters, because
defined by the impression made by His Person in its entire self-
manifestation.¹ Besides the impossibility of carrying out Baur's
mode of constructing the early history of Christianity, a mode
which creates new enigmas, and is involved in contradictions,
the fact must be added that his hypotheses concerning the dates
and authors of the books of the New Testament are regarded as
extreme, even by a portion of his own school. His disciples,
Volkmar, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, hit upon the first century as the
date of portions of the synoptical Gospels; while Ewald, and also
Weiss and Holzmann, think the time before, and immediately
after, the destruction of Jerusalem the period in which they were
most probably produced. But this admission of their earlier
date involves the view that the Gospels originated in a tendency,
and implicates the apostles in the fictions supposed to be
contained in them. That first step taken by Baur upon the soil
of history-his declaration that the New Testament literature
was an historical fact-required and involved, as we have seen,
a second. The historical fact of the existence of Jewish and
heathen Christians distinct from Judaism and heathenism, and
forming, though not without internal differences, a unity, points
irresistibly to the unity of a Founder, around whom both were
gathered, though they gave, after their own manner, different
impressions of the impulses they received from Him. Criti-
cism was no longer able to take shelter, as it had so long
attempted, under a skilfully maintained silence concerning Jesus
Himself, which made it appear as though there were nothing
positive, nothing certain, to be said concerning His Person.
the contrary, it was at last driven to attempt the solution of this
problem which had been so often urged on the part of theology;
and it was just a last attempt to avoid this, by transferring the
main matter to a process after Christ, or to make it appear
On
¹ Even Baur confesses that Christianity was in Christ, but that a deep gulf
separates the apostolic era from the life of Jesus (comp. Uhlhorn's before-named
work). This may show a certain reverence for Christ's Person, but it not only
makes His personal greatness impotent to produce decided effects upon others,
though the fulness of the time was come, but represents even "the idea" itself
as effecting but a vain work, if the treasures lavished upon Him could not
really be transferred from Himself to mankind, and first of all to the apostles.
New Testament to the Life of Jesus.
415
superfluous, which made the task of advancing from the first
acknowledged fact of a duality of tendencies within primitive
Christianity, to a second fact explanatory of the first, inevitable.
It is to Strauss that we are indebted for perceiving this; and
in his new edition of the Leben Jesu "for the German people," he
attempts to bring forward an historical and positive portraiture
of Jesus as He really was.
In his first work he can scarcely be said, more than Baur, to
have accomplished such a task: he had rather stated what Jesus
could not have been, and had even, by this negative tone, exposed
himself to the deserved reproof, on the part of Baur, that he had
given a criticism of the Gospel history without a criticism of the
Gospels themselves. He may now, on the contrary, with equal
justice, reproach Baur with having given a criticism of the Gospels
without a criticism of the Gospel history (id. p. 98). The results
arrived at by Baur's criticism of the Gospels, which is essentially
adopted by Strauss, necessarily involves farther historical con-
clusions; and Baur's standpoint can no longer, by withdrawing
Christ into the region of the mysterious, elude that application
of those conclusions which forms, at the same time, an
unanswerable test. The idealistic period of thirty years since.
had lost the feeling for real history, and was contented with a
history of the formation of "ideas," though even this, if it is to
lead to any established results, must also fall back at last upon
facts. But what a revolution had taken place, what an alteration
of feeling had been introduced in the interval, by the revival,
nay, the sway of the feeling for accurate investigation both in
nature and history! The tendency of the age, from being
philosophical and inclined to à priori construction, had become
empirical; and even in theology the numerous investigations of
historical details, the various monographs and the arduous labours
in New Testament theology and criticism of documents, showed
traces of a return to the same path and method. It was this
newly-awakened craving that Strauss desired to meet in his new
edition of his Leben Jesu, and in doing so he pushed Baur's
standpoint beyond its own limits.
1
1 In the place of an idealism which avoided history, the endeavour was now
frequently made to resolve even systematic theology into history, and that not
merely, after the manner of Hase or Schleiermacher, into a description of present
or past faith, but into a history of the past acts of God, which, if consistently
carried out, would again transfer us to the stage of a mere fides historica.
416
Relation between Renan and Strauss.
It was not indeed in Germany, but in France, that negative
criticism first gave up its affected non-knowledge of the Person
and history of Jesus, and set itself to attain a concrete and real
portraiture of His character. Renan admits the synoptical
Gospels, whose antiquity he places at its usual date, and partially
even that of St. John, to be historical documents. But by bringing
these narratives into so near proximity to the facts, he takes a step
the portentous result of which is that he can only carry out his denial
of the miraculous and the supernatural in the appearance of Jesus,
at the expense of the character of Jesus and that of the Apostles. He
acknowledges that the origin of Christianity must be sought in
Christ. If, however, He was the Founder of the Church, He
could not have been simply a moral teacher, that impression of
Him which is reflected in the Church demanding a personal and
mental phenomenon of an overpowering kind, combined with a
life corresponding thereto. Renan perceives also that the
Christian faith in the Divine majesty of Jesus which the Apostles
already possessed cannot be explained, unless by the admission
that Jesus Himself gave rise to it by His own testimony to His
Divine nature, and the claims He made to be the Son of God.
Jesus is in his view a highly endowed "colossal" genius, filled
at first with pure impulses, but who subsequently, when He met
with opposition, contended against it by a gloomy fanaticism and
undue self-exaltation, nay, who even advanced, for the sake of
gaining adherents, to a frantic attempt at self-deification, to a
participation in falsehood and deception, and who at last perished
just at the right time.
Renan's step in advance is one in appearance only. He gives,
indeed, a history of the life of Jesus, drawn in many of its
details with much vigour and distinctness, but one which is, on
the whole, romantic, capricious, nay replete with fictions, and
which places Him on a level with other Eastern founders of
religions, such as Buddha, Mani, and Mahomed.
Strauss avoids this romantic element. He regards the
character of Jesus as being, in an historical and religious light,
a higher union of the Hellenic and the Judaic spirit. "He
derived his purely spiritual and moral representation of the One
God from his Jewish education. To this was added the purity
of his own nature. The Hellenic feature in his character was
the cheerful activity arising from the joyousness and gladness
Strauss' View of the Person of Christ.
417
of His excellent disposition." Jesus appears to him to have been
of a radically excellent nature, otherwise the scars of the conflicts
He had gone through, a touch of the discordant, the harsh or the
gloomy, would have appeared in his case as in that of a Paul, an
Augustine, or a Luther. On the contrary, Jesus demanded, in
opposition to the gloomy and servile feeling of Judaism and its
self-righteousness, the affections of the heart. He thought of
and knew God, not as the wrathful, jealous, and punishing
Jehovah, but as a kind and long-suffering Father (Matt. v.
45), i.c. as of a moral disposition similar to His own, in the most
exalted moments of His religious life. "Jesus, by cultivating a
cheerful disposition, at peace with God, and by embracing all men
as brethren, realized in Himself the prophetic ideal of a new
covenant with the law written in the heart. To speak with the
poet, He received the Godhead into His will; hence, in His case,
the Godhead descended from the throne of the universe, the
abyss was filled up, the fearful vision vanished. His nature had
only to be developed from itself, to become conscious of itself
with increasing distinctness and certainty, and needed not to be
converted, or to begin a new life." Hence the fundamental
thoughts of His religion were humanity, gentleness, toleration;
he transferred the contemplations of heathen philosophers into
religion. But all this, according to Strauss, is nevertheless only
preliminary to the still future and greater perfection of buman
development. For Jesus was not free from isolated instances of
vacillation and error; but, besides this, even if in the pattern which
he exhibited in His life and teaching, everything relating to the
love of God and one's neighbour, to individual purity of life and
heart, were clearly and fully developed, still the true feeling for
the state, for trade, for art, and for the pleasures of life, was absent
in Jesus, and it is in these particulars that, according to Strauss,
completion is needed.¹ Nay, the time is to be hoped for, in
which the delusion of a supernatural, a personal God ranking
above the world, and operating in it by His Spirit, will be over-
come.2
Such is essentially what Strauss regards as historically
established concerning the Person of Jesus Himself as a founder
of religion. Such are the results he obtains from the ascertained
facts of His public ministry and His fate, from the influence of
1 Ibid. p. 626.
2 Ibid. dedication, p. ix., preface, p. xix.
II.
2 D
418
His life and teaching upon the people, and from His conflict
with the different Jewish parties. But, mindful of Baur's
censure with respect to historical documents, he now, for the
sake of getting rid of all supernatural elements, helps himself
freely and according to fancy to Baur's hypothesis of the post-
apostolic authorship of the New Testament and of the tendency
which its writers had in view-a procedure which really
approximates him to Renan. He confesses¹ "to having, in con-
sequence of the proofs adduced by Baur—who puts the notion
of tendency in the place of that of myth-allotted more space than
formerly to the view of conscious and intentional fiction." And,
in fact, it is not conceivable that subsequent involuntary fiction.
could have fashioned such circumstantial narratives with all their
details of times, places, and names. Baur is certainly in the right
when he says, that the only choice left is between intentional
fiction composed with a tendency, and the admission of the actual
authenticity of the narrative. But in saying this, Baur-though
agreeing with Strauss in the conclusion that the gospels are not
history because of their supernatural character-is already com-
mencing the destruction of the mythical explanation, while Strauss,
by helping himself to Baur's labours, is unfaithful to the funda-
mental thought of his first work, and confesses the impossibility
of carrying it out. Compared with the prosaic, nay, coarse
accusation of voluntary and designing fiction, in other words, of
fraud, on the part of the writers of the New Testament, the
mythic theory wore an agreeable, a flattering, nay, a poetic
But now that it is necessary to come to closer
appearance.
quarters with history the charm disappears, the mythic theory
disperses, and there remains only the alternative between fiction
with a tendency, and truth. Strauss, indeed, seeks to mask this
retreat, this retrograde movement to the position of the Frag-
mentist, by saying2 that fiction may also be called myth if it is
subsequently believed. He insists upon still calling his view
the mythical in this altered sense, and surrounds the simple stem
of his merely natural history of Jesus with groups of myths,
resulting in part from involuntary fiction, and in part from in-
tentional fabrication. Thus he regards the whole of the narrative
preceding Christ's public ministry as being-apart from certain
scanty historical allusions-a tissue of doctrinal notions. In the
1 lbid. p. 158. Compare p. 99. 2 Ibid. p. 159. 3 Ibid. p. 402.
Baur puts Tendency in the Place of Myth.
3
Opposition between the two Theories.
1
419
public life of Jesus, he considers the narrative of His relations
to the Baptist, as recorded in the gospels, to have been fashioned
with a tendency. He thinks that John, indeed, administered to
Jesus the baptism of repentance, but neither inaugurated Him
in His office, nor was His forerunner. The miracles are all
mythical, some being wilful fabrications, others narratives of
certain natural cures performed by Jesus. The Transfiguration,
much of the history of the Passion, and the Ascension, are
equally mythical, whether invented with or without a tendency.
The resurrection, however, is based upon the subjective visions
of the followers of Jesus. Thus we see that Strauss' method has
become an eclectic one, and that he is driven to this by Baur, in
like manner as he, on his part, by insisting on the necessity of
a critical Life of Jesus, urges the latter beyond the attempt to
deduce Christianity from a process after Christ, and onwards to
a founder.
#
By the adoption of a post-apostolic origin of the Gospels,
Strauss-as also Baur-holds himself aloof from the view of
Renan, who makes no ceremony of supposing Jesus Himself to
be the subject of delusions, and implicating the apostles in
literary fictions. But this half-standpoint is scarcely tenable.
even if the probable date of these writings is alone considered
(see above, p. 414); and still less so, because the main question
still is: Does the portrait of Christ, as sketched by Strauss, satisfy
the just demands of science, and can Baur's criticism of the
documents stand the tests which science would apply? Or has
criticism not yet run its course by these performances, and is it,
on the contrary, pressing towards a new phase?
The portrait of Christ drawn by Strauss, far from being
satisfactory in an historical sense, is not even free from internal
contradictions, or historically possible.
First of all, it is insufficient to explain the fact in question, viz.
the historical fact of Christianity and the Church. The task of
the historian is to find a sufficient cause for every effect. Now,
Christianity exists among other religions, as the religion of
reconciliation and peace. Hence he will have historically to
account for that consciousness of peace and redemption which the
Church possesses, and which has from the very first distinguished
her from the heathen and the Jewish world. He must not
1 Ibid. p. 403, &c. and 409.
420
Opposition between the two Theories.
ignore that historical nature of the Christian Church by which it
is characterized as a redeemed community, neither may he violate
in this instance the law of causality, by admitting an effect with-
out a corresponding cause, while appealing to this same law of
causality against the possibility of the supernatural. He will thus
be led, by the Church's consciousness of redemption, to fall back
upon One in whom the power of redemption must have dwelt.
But this Strauss does not do. That he thinks he may disregard
this nature of the Christian Church, is proved by the fact that he
treats the holiest and most certain experience of Christendom,
viz. that of having found redemption in Christ, as non-existent.
Thus, as far as in him lies, he denies the Christian Church, as
that which it actually is, instead of attempting to account for it
historically. The explanation of this may be partly found in his
lax view of sin, and his naturalistic treatment of morality. It is
this which makes it seem possible to him that one born free
should proceed from a race of sinners under the bondage of the
Law, this which enables him to overlook the need of reconcilia-
tion with God, a need which does not indeed exist where the
highest attribute of God is said to be a kindness indifferent to
the distinction between good and evil.
Again: it must be reckoned among the best-established data
of history that this characteristic of the Christian religion points
to its Founder, to His ministry, and to His own statements. It
is utterly inconceivable that the post-apostolic era should, as
all admit, have regarded Him as the Mediator between God
and man, and as the Redeemer, if such had not been already,
as even the Apocalypse shows, the tenor of apostolic preach-
ing. And, further, such could not have been the preaching
of the Apostles, the preaching for which they lived and
suffered, unless Jesus Himself had declared Himself to be the
reconciler of mankind, and the Redeemer from sin, guilt, and
death, and had in this sense required faith in His Person,
as a religious act, because such faith was the powerful means
of bestowing peace through the Holy Spirit upon His Church.
If this, however, is settled, it is fruitless to deny that the
Apostles, nay, Christ Himself, are implicated in those state-
ments which glorify Him, by relegating the New Testament
literature to a later and post-apostolic period; and thus the
motive for assigning to it a late date, in opposition to external
Strauss' View of the Person of Christ.
421
evidence, for the most part disappears. To this must be added,
as Strauss himself admits, that the eschatological expectations
which animated the primitive Church, and even its Jewish
portion, undoubtedly arose from Christ's own statements con-
cerning His return in the glory of the Father for the resurrection
and judgment of the whole world. By these, as well as by the
former statements, He placed Himself, as the Sinless One, in
contrast to every other human being; for one who himself
needed redemption could neither be the redeemer from sin nor
the judge of the world. But if Jesus made these statements
concerning Himself, as Strauss admits with regard to the
eschatological expectations, and cannot deny with respect to His
office of Redeemer, Strauss cannot escape the alternative, which
leads to farther consequences, that either Christ was (as Renan
does not hesitate to affirm) a fanatic, whose spiritual pride was
even blasphemous; or that His statements were in consonance
with his inmost consciousness and with truth.
Now, the moral and religious excellence of Christ being raised
above all doubt, as even Strauss, according to what has been
stated, admits, and self-knowledge and humility being, as every
one knows, the basis of all vigorous, moral, and religious life,
nay, growth in humility and in the consciousness of sin, where
sin exists, being always proportionate to growth in religion and
morality, Strauss' delineation of the character of Jesus cannot
but be rejected as a self-contradiction, an historical impossibility,
and a moral and religious monstrosity, inasmuch as it both
insists upon His being thought of as a sinner, and yet is obliged
to admit these exalted statements to be authentic. If He had
been a sinner, and possessed of only an ordinary measure of
humility, He could not possibly, against His own better know-
ledge, have ascribed to Himself sinlessness or even Divine
Sonship, and have spoken of Himself with such boundless
self-exaltation and falsehood. But He did make these statements
concerning Himself. Hence it is not enough to concede to Him
a surpassing moral and religious elevation, not wholly exempt
from human weaknesses. It is the very nature of Christianity
not to rest till it urges upon inquirers the last and extreme
alternative. And this is: If He did not make these statements
because they were true, He is a blasphemer, who would build up
the Kingdom of God after having destroyed its very foundations
422
Impossibility of Strauss' Delineation
in Himself. This reduces the decision to a simple one, which
may be confidently left to the moral and religious feeling of
every unprejudiced mind.
Thus negative criticism, beginning with the Wolfenbüttel
Fragmentist, irresistibly hastens to complete its circle. If the
above mentioned statements of Jesus concerning Himself cannot
be denied, it is a trifle to concede also, as Renan readily does,
that He made Himself the Son of God, not merely in an official
but also in an ontological sense, or one which had respect to His
essential nature. For in saying this, Jesus did but attribute to
Himself that which was the alone sufficient foundation for the
predicates He appropriated. In saying this, He did but specify
the inmost source of that image of Christ held forth—to omit
mention of others-by Paul, and in the Apocalypse. If, in His
case, fanaticism and undue self-exaltation overstepped all human
boundaries, there is absolutely no reason for denying that the
faith of His followers in His Divine nature and majesty must
have originated in His own declarations to that effect. In fact
every motive for denying that the life of Jesus, and His state-
ments concerning Himself, as contained in the New Testament,
were recorded by the apostles, and for asserting them to have
been the production of a later age, has then disappeared.
If we look forward to what will, in the nature of things, be
the further development of that latest phase of modern negative
criticism, in which Renan has somewhat the start, it is evident
that the whole mythical hypothesis, even in that wider significa-
tion, according to which earlier or later disciples of Jesus are
said to have allowed themselves to compose fictions with a
tendency, which were subsequently believed, falls to the ground
and becomes worthless, so far as the main question is concerned.
If Jesus Himself affirmed concerning Himself the very utmost
that could be stated, whether by the involuntary fiction or
voluntary invention of his followers, it is a vain and almost
meaningless inquiry whether the Church may not have fabricated
certain lesser details for the embellishment of His image; and it
is a matter of even greater indifference whether this were done
purposely or not. Thus the mythical view, even in its more
modern form, the moment it sets foot upon the ground of the
actual history of Christ's words and deeds, begins to destroy its
own foundations and to bring on its own crisis, and, though no
of the Life of Jesus.
Penelope, to unravel the web it had itself woven.
423
This its latest
phase must moreover be its last. For if once it returns in
essential matters to its first and older form, namely that of the
Fragmentist, which opposes every moral, religious, and historical
feeling, its sentence is passed, its course run. At first it en-
deavoured to keep aloof from the Fragmentist by interposing so
lengthened a period between Jesus and His apostles, and the
time when the gospels were written, as to be able to represent
them as innocent of their contents. But historical common
sense will be increasingly convinced that the apostles cannot but
be regarded, as we have already shown, as implicated in the
most important of those statements which the mythic theory
attributes to involuntary fiction, or to fiction written with a
tendency-because tradition could never have assumed such a
form at the end of the century, if that which the apostles de-
livered had been entirely opposed thereto-nay, that the most
exalted statements found concerning Jesus in the gospels must
be referred to Himself. All this is, as has been said already,
partly admitted by Strauss, and still more by Renan. Such
admissions, however, lower very considerably the wall of parti-
tion between modern negative criticism and the Fragmentist.
Indeed the difference between them now consists only in the
fact that the former mingles a modicum of fanaticism with the
supposed false self-exaltation of Jesus, and thus attributes to
Him a certain amount of self-deception. But even this dis-
tinction cannot last long, partly on account of that lucidity of
mind, that passionless tranquillity and moderation, which the
portraiture of Jesus displays; and partly because His assertion
that He, as the Sinless One, stood opposed in this respect to the
whole race, must have been uttered against conscience and
better knowledge, and could therefore have originated only in a
deceitfulness that did not hesitate to deceive others for the sake
of attaining its own aims, which in this case can only be con-
ceived of as impure and selfish. This is actually to retreat
entirely to the standpoint of the Fragmentist, so that the
necessity of either advancing or retreating is in this case
inexorable.¹
1 A. Schweizer, Keim, Weizmann, Ritschl, and others, as well as Ullmann, em-
bracing Christ's sinless perfection-which even Schenkel admits-draw the inevit-
able conclusion of His miraculous origin, and show that that uniqueness of His
424
The Present Condition of
We have thus more closely considered the latest controversy
affecting the central point of Christianity, in connection with the
positions and progress of the chief ecclesiastical and theological
parties. Having then hitherto followed the history of German
theology, and considered its movements with regard to funda-
mental principles, we shall endeavour, in conclusion, to bring
forward a short sketch of its present condition. We may thereby
be convinced that, notwithstanding the serious contests just
discussed, unanimity on the most important points has, on the
whole, been to a very considerable extent reintroduced and main-
tained.
In doing this we shall be chiefly concerned to inquire whether
unity with the Reformation principle has been preserved, in that
regeneration of theology which began in the present century.
At the same time we shall not less anxiously ask whether any
acquisitions can be shown in the way of profounder views, firmer
establishment, and further development of this principle. If we
are justified in answering both these questions in the affirmative,
there can be no doubt that this voluntary, conscious, and more
complete reunion with the Protestant principle must-after such
storms as the Church has experienced-be so a strong proof of
its intrinsic authority and Christian necessity, as may well fill
us with confidence in the future of the Protestant Church, and
in the vitality and fruitfulness of its principle.
This principle itself has indeed been frequently agitated even
during the present century. It was necessary that the process
should be repeated by which conviction of the indispensable
necessity of embracing both its sides in their essential combination,
and of overcoming all apparently possible divergences, had been
arrived at.
The older rationalism took offence at the material prin-
ciple, and only maintained its general tendency to mental cer-
tainty, while surrendering that evangelical matter which was
connection with God, which they also acknowledge, leads of itself, when doctrinally
utilized, beyond an Ebionite Christology, and at least to the economical or
Sabellian doctrine of the Trinity. Schweizer strikingly says, in opposition to
Idealism, that Christ separated from His idea is unhistorical and unreal, that if
His Person can be distinguished from the idea in His state of humiliation,
its correspondence with the idea is first absolutely effected in the state of
glorification.
German Evangelical Theology.
425
itself to furnish certainty of its truth, either subordinating the
principle of Scripture to the subjective reason, or frittering
away its meaning by criticism and exegesis. It was after the
period during which this rationalism prevailed, that Delbrück
again took up Lessing's not yet exploded question of substituting
the apostolic symbol, or rule of faith, for the principle of Scrip-
ture, and was followed in this particular by Grundtvig and his
school. It was shown, however, that the apostolic symbol, or
the Church's rule of faith, cannot be set up as formal principle
instead of holy Scripture, unless ecclesiastical tradition and the
authority of the Church are made the supreme principle in the
authentication of all Christian truth, and the material principle
is consequently desiccated and deprived of its independence.
For if once binding authority is in principle vested in the
Church, instead of in Christ and His apostles, it is mere arbitrari-
ness to deny the same authority to its subsequent centuries and
decisions—decisions by which the material principle, though
required by the Canon, is not only impugned but denied.
Hence the necessary consequence of such declension from the
principle of Scripture, to that tradition which is to explain it,
is a Catholicizing tendency, the extent of whose pretensions is
ever increasing with respect to its power of securing reliable
depositaries of genuine tradition, i.e. with respect to priesthood,
ordination, the idea of the Church, the sacraments, &c. When
the conviction that there was a Christian necessity for acknow-
ledging holy Scripture to be the formal principle once more pre-
vailed, this acknowledgment was frequently made in such wise
that the material principle only existed as the chief doctrine of holy
Scripture, i.e. because, in its turn, holy Scripture in nuce,3 or that
2
1 Delbrück, Phil. Melanchthon der Glaubenslehrer, 1826; Grundtvig in the
Theologischen Monatschrift, x. 122, &c., 133, &c. published by him in conjunction
with Rudelbach.
2 Compare the three theological epistles of Sack, Nitzsch, and Lücke, on the
respect due to holy Scripture, and its relation to the rule of faith in the Pro-
testant and in the primitive Church. Bonn, 1827. Also my treatise on the
internal relation of the Protestant principles. Theologische Mitarbeiten, by Pelt,
&c., iv. 3, 1841, p. 16, &c.; Martensen, Til Forfear mod den saakaldte Grundt-
vigianisme, Kjöbenhavn, 1863; also his works, I Anledning af Pastor Grundtvigs
Oplysninger om Altarbogs-Daaben, 1856, Et Gjensvar i Striden om Altarbogs-
Daaben, 1856, Apostlenes Inspiration, 1863.
3 As Kahnis still thinks; see his recent work, Ueber die Principien des Pro-
testantismus; Reformationsprogramm, 1865.
#
426
The Evangelical Principles in
holy Scripture in general was regarded as the whole and sufficient
principle of Protestantism. This enabled Strauss to show, and
not without success-though this might, since Schleiermacher,
have been obvious to all-that the formal principle, if it stood
alone, was an insufficient foundation. From this defensible
position, however, he proceeded, besides attacking the Scriptural
principle in general, to the assertion that even the material
principle, together with the Testimonium Spiritus S., could be
no support of the formal, but must of itself necessarily lead to
fanaticism.¹ Thus he, who had formerly bestowed upon holy
Scripture a treatment which utterly ignored the saving contents
of Christianity and of holy Scripture, among which the recon-
ciliation and justification of man hold the first place, and who
was therefore obliged à priori to deny also the external miracles
of holy Scripture, now proceeded to isolate the material prin-
ciple and to separate it from the formal. But while he was
thus pursuing a policy of Divide et impera, which was not
without the effect of agitating some, and driving many into the
paths of a spurious ecclesiasticism, theology was turning with
increasing certainty to a perception of the indissoluble combina-
tion of the two principles in their relative independence, and
was applying herself to the task of showing that while neither
of the two sides of the one Protestant principle is capable, if it
stands alone, of furnishing all that is needed for the establishment
of faith, and of the Church, each points through itself to the
other, and secures and affords to the other that which it lacks;
and therefore that their genuine union is proved to be the in-
separable and energetic principle of Protestantism and of its
theology. It may be designated as the common conviction
2
1 Strauss, die christliche Glaubenslehre in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung
und im Kampfe mit der modernen Wissenschaft, 2 vols. 1840-1841, i. pp. 75-356,
especially p. 282, &c.
2 Schaff, das Princip. des Protestantismus; Chambersbury, 1845; Reuter,
Abhandl. zur syst. Theologie, 1855. On the nature and duty of doctrinal proof,
pp. 155-260, v. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, i. p. 1, &c. ; Rothe, zur Dogmatik, 1863, p.
22, &c., in which it is remarked, in opposition to Schenkel, that when he opposes
the duality of the principles, or sides of the principle, he overlooks the distinction
between Protestant Christianity and the Protestant Church. Hence also
Schenkel's attempt at improvement, by the addition of a third principle, namely
that of the forming of a community, could meet with but little favour. Kahnis
too, in his exhibition of the principles of Protestantism (Leipzig, 1865), finds in the
Modern German Theology.
427
attained by modern theology,¹ that the two sides of the Pro-
testant principle must, when viewed as distinct, receive equal
acknowledgment; and that holy Scripture alone must not be
regarded as the sole principle of Protestantism, whether after
the old orthodox fashion by an appeal to that testimony of the
Holy Spirit which is bound to holy Scripture, for the Divine
authority of its form, or after the fashion of so-called biblical
supernaturalism by an appeal to rational and historical demon-
stration. Also that, on the one hand, holy Scripture does of itself
point to the believer, whose education it is intended to subserve,
and who alone other requisite qualifications existing-is com-
petent to the task of interpretation and critical investigation of
what is truly canonical and normative; while, on the other hand,
evangelical faith is in need of holy Scripture both for its origin
and its continuance and assured increase in strength and know-
ledge; that it needs it also that its consciousness may be
historically acute, removed from the danger of subjectivism and
imagination-a consciousness which may, on the contrary, be
regarded as subjectively objective. It may farther be reckoned
a common conviction-though some still continue to attempt a
demonstration of Christianity, by means especially of historical
proofs addressed to the understanding, after the manner of the
nature of Protestantism three principles, viz., Scripture, the principle of salvation
(fellowship with God), and the principle of the Church (p. 20). This last cannot
be accounted a principle in the same way as the other two, because it is not
characteristic of Protestantism as such, but is, according to the evangelical notion
of the Church, one of the effects of the principle. Notwithstanding this, Kahnis
now arrived at those results of mine to which he was formerly opposed, on which
account I can well pass by his remaining misconceptions and inaccuracies. J.
Beck (Einleitung in das System der christlichen Lehre, 1838, Christliche Lehrwis-
senschaft, i. 1, 1840), who has done such distinguished service, by promoting a
reverent love for holy Scripture, gives, on the other hand, to the principle of Scrip-
ture too indifferent a position with respect to history and the Church. His
views evidently afford no room for criticism, and he leaves the material principle
as devoid of self-support, and as dependent upon holy Scripture, as was done
in the early days of old orthodoxy.
1 A conviction only strengthened by means of the recent discussions con-
cerning the doctrine of justification. For the attacks upon this doctrine,
directed from the self-styled Lutheran camp, could not but evoke the strongest
reaction on the part of evangelical consciousness, and impel to fresh and deeper
apprehension thereof. When this is attained, a process of purification com-
mencing from within, and extending thence to externals, will have been effected,
and those Romanizing views and practices which have crept in expunged.
428
Modern German Theology.
old English evidences-that, to use the words of Twesten,¹ it is
not possible to prove, independently of Christian faith, that there
is a Divine revelation, and that this is deposited in holy Scripture,
nor can such proof be the foundation of faith; and also that the
method which would build upon a supposed self-evidencing theory
of revelation and inspiration, as though it were a matter of
knowledge that which is a matter of faith, and therefore rests
upon an entirely different basis in the human mind, was that
which had been opposed by Lessing in the controversy with
Göze, which had called forth such objections, and exposed
Christianity to such attacks, as those of the Wolfenbüttel Frag-
mentist. Such convictions imply that theology must not, as
has been so long the case, act as if the very first thing to be
evoked were faith in the normative authority or inspiration of
holy Scripture, or of the apostles, but faith in Christ as the
Redeemer, in other words, experience of justification before God
through faith in Him. This it is which holy Scripture, as a
means of grace, and as the documentary history of Christ, helps
either directly or indirectly to produce; and this it also is which,
when it has attained Divine assurance of the salvation to be
found in Christ, cannot but ascribe with willing submission a
normative authority to the apostles of Christ, and to their
writings, through which alone reliable information concerning
Him has been transmitted to us, nay, which still form part of
the original facts of revelation. For the "word," or the perfect
revelation of God, must either be contained in the memorials of
the apostolic era, or be no longer found anywhere with certainty.
It is however to be found; for the saving contents of holy
Scripture accredit themselves, through the agency of the Holy
Spirit, as that genuine truth which, being destined to be a blessing
to the whole human race, can never be wholly lost to it.
Besides, since it is on those truths of holy Scripture which are
necessary to salvation, and which must have been delivered to
mankind in their purity by the apostles, that faith lays hold, the
existence and growth of faith are independent of such questions.
as whether holy Scripture is in other matters also-such as purity
of diction, style, description of the historical stage upon which
revelation appeared, &c.-raised above all imperfection and
inaccuracy. For divine and self-conscious faith has a more
¹ Twesten, Vorlesungen, &c. i. 286, &c. 19, &c.
Exegesis of Scripture.
429
important object to contemplate, and possesses far more in the
sacred authors when it feels the union of the Divine and human
spirit realized in them, and recognizes in their writings the
pulsations of a human heart, than if it were to regard them as
the merely passive speaking-trumpets of Heaven, and their
writings as the codex of Divine law. Hence, evangelical faith
may fearlessly allow its full rights to criticism and to an
exegesis now no longer under tutelage. To criticism-for it is
just as much a matter of conscience to faith to regard nothing as
normative which cannot accredit itself as canonical, as it is, on
the other hand, to submit to the normative authority of every
book to which such authority belongs. Genuine criticism can
never renounce the sway of faith, but is, on the contrary, as has
been shown above, bound by that vital law which ever requires
its acknowledgment of historical documents, if it is to carry on
historico-critical operations, instead of expatiating upon that
which is devoid of all foundation. Criticism is, moreover, itself
conditioned by faith, while faith maintains a relative inde-
pendence with respect to criticism; for the fact of salvation.
experienced by faith cannot be made untrue by any critical
conclusions whatever. Criticism is conditioned by faith, partly
for the sake of the interpretation of documents, partly because
without faith the correct eye for perceiving when a biblical book
“does not deal in Christ," or when anything in it contradicts
that Gospel which has proved its power to accredit itself to the
heart, would be wanting. Since, however, such decisions of
believing criticism must ever fall back upon the mutual support
and independence of the different elements of the Canon, it
follows that the work of theological criticism, especially in so far
as it touches upon doctrinal matters, must always at last become
a criticism, or a measuring, of Scripture by Scripture-in other
words, the self-criticism of the Canon through the instrumentality
of believing inquirers. And this is a work which must be
beyond almost any other, a wholesome incentive to the attain-
ment of a profounder acquaintance with Scripture, for the
purpose of increasingly exhibiting the internal harmony and
consistency of Christianity, as well as the abundance of its
treasures under every aspect. So also, with respect to exegesis,
it is admitted both that the laws of language, that grammatical
and philological interpretation must form its immovable basis,
430
Modern Exegesis.
and that the exegete must be as mentally homogeneous with the
author whom he would explain, as is universally required in the
case of a profane author, e.g., of a poet. But the exegete can be
homogeneous with the Christian documents only through
Christian faith, the theological element in interpretation; and if
this be present there is no need of an ecclesiastical rule of faith
as a standard for exegesis; nay, it is in faith that the Analogia
fidei will be found in true and vigorous existence, and it is faith
which will conduce to the discovery of that analogia Scripturæ
sacra which is to be attained by the self-interpretation of Holy
Scripture.
It may be said that, in all these respects, modern German
theology and its literature exhibit a more flourishing stage of
exegesis than has existed in any previous age of the Christian
Church, and that catholic theology also has its share in the same.
Not only have the laws of interpretation been strictly investi-
gated, and a science deserving the name of hermeneutics formed
out of hitherto unconnected good rules; not only have those.
auxiliary sciences of exegesis, history, geography, and philology
been greatly advanced by a comparison of the dialects, an
investigation of the lexicology of the New Testament, and of the
laws of Hebrew, Chaldee, and especially of New Testament
1
2
1 After Bretschneider (1806), Keil and Griesbach, Lücke edited (1817) a sketch
of New Testament hermeneutics and its history for academical lectures, as also
(1838) Schleiermacher's Hermeneutics and Criticism with special reference to the
New Testament; while Clausen and Wille wrote on the (1843) hermeneutics of
the New Testament, and Lutz (1849) on biblical hermeneutics. When Olshausen
(Ein Wort über tieferer Schriftsinn, 1824; Die biblische Anslegung, noch ein Wort
über tieferer Schriftsinn, 1825) and R. Stier (Andeutungen für gläubiges Schrift-
verständniss im Ganzen und Einzelnen, 1824) again advocated, though in a new
aspect, a multiplicity of meanings in holy Scripture, and, together with Meyer of
Frankfort, demanded a mystical interpretation besides the literal meaning, they
were opposed from many quarters, because that which was justifiable in their
demand seemed secured by the above-described theological exposition. Germar
proposed a pan-harmonic interpretation of Scripture, Schleswick, 1821, and
recommended it in 1828 and subsequently.
2 Comp. Winer, biblisches Realwörterbuch, 2 vols. ed. 3, 1847. Keil's biblische
Archäologie, 1859; die Archäologie A. T. by De Wette, 1814, 1842, and Ewald,
1844. Bähr's Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus, 2 vols., 1837-39. And the
monographs of George, Hengstenberg, Kurtz, and Baur on festivals, sacrifice,
circumcision, &c.; also the geographical works of K. Ritter, Erdkunde, pt. 15, 1,
and K. v. Raumer, 1835, ed. 4, 1860, über Palästina and Kieperi's Bibelatlas in
8 maps.
Types of Doctrine in the New Testament.
431
grammar; not only has excellent service been rendered towards
the settlement of the original text, especially of the New Testa-
ment, by a series of labours as meritorious as they have been
arduous;2 but exposition also, especially that of the New Testa-
ment, has, during the last forty years, received an extraordinary
impulse. The numerous excellent commentaries which we now
possess on almost all the books of the Bible form a treasury of
scriptural information and exposition, which not only furnishes
an ever increasing corroboration of the fundamental évangelical
views of Christian doctrine, but contains also a multitude of
germs and incitements for a freer and more copious elaboration
of the evangelical principle, in doctrinal, moral, and practical
respects.
The results of all these labours, collected as they are in the
modern and now important science of the types of New Testament
doctrine,¹ lead, by the very similarity and diversity of these types
1 Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 1822, ed. 6, 1855;
Al. Buttmann, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch, 1859; and the
works of Schleusner, 1792; Wahl, 1822, 1843; Bretschneider, 1824, ed. 3, 1840;
Wilke, 1839, &c., 2 vols.; Schirlitz and Dalmer (1859) on the lexicology of the
New Testament.
2 Since the older editions of the Old Testament by Buxtorf, 1611; Jablonsky,
1699; van der Hooght, 1705; Michaelis, 1720; Houbigant, 1753; J. Simonis,
1752, &c.; Kennicott, 1776, 1780, no new acquisitions of any importance have
been made in the modern editions of the text by Kahn, Theile, and Rudolph Stier.
The text of the LXX. still requires much critical revision. All the more has
however been effected with regard to the New Testament by the help of the
Patristic (Lachmann), and the recent codices (Codex Ephraem. and Sinaitic.) of
Tischendorf. Knapp, Schott, Lachmann, Göschen, Theile, Ph. Buttmann, and
Tischendorf's, are good editions, Reiche's Comment. criticus in N. T. 3 parts,
1853 (uncompleted), is also a meritorious work.
3 Besides those mentioned above p. 393, may also be named the critical and
exegetical commentary on the New Testament of H. A. W. Meyer, distinguished
for its sound criticism, as well as for a critical revision of the text. This, like
Rückert's commentary on Galatians and Romans, is a work of much philosophical
accuracy. The same quality also marks Harless's commentary on Ephesians, ed. 2,
1858. The works of Stier and Olshausen, and Lange's Bibelwerk, though lack-
ing this accuracy, are copious and thoughtful. The exegetical labours also of
Philippi, Delitzsch, Luthardt, Lünemann, Huther, Düsterdieck, deserve mention.
For the Old Testament we have, on the one side, the works of Drechsler, Keil, and
Kurz, on the other those of Berthean, Thenius, Hitzig, Hupfeld, Ewald, Gesenius,
J. Olshausen; and finally those of v. Hofmann, Beck, Auberlen, Schlottman,
Diestel, and Sommer.
4 After the works on biblical theology of Baumgarten-Crusius, 1828, and Dan.
v. Cölln, ed. Dav. Schulz, 1836, on divinity, of De Wette, 1831, and Lutz, 1847,
appeared Schmid's excellent work, Biblische Theologic N. T., ed. Weizsäcker, ed.
432
Biblical Theology.
of doctrine, onwards towards that fruitful notion of the mutual
support and independence of the different elements of the Canon.
Now distinction as well as union being indispensable to organiza-
tion, the prerequisite was thus obtained for substituting in place
of that former unhistorical view of holy Scripture which regarded
the whole as uniform, accumulated passages taken at random
from all parts of the Canon, and made the sacred books nothing
more than an aggregate held together by that Divine signature
which was common to them all, a view of holy Scripture and
sacred history which was at once more vivid, historical, and organic,
which entered more deeply into the matter of the Divine facts
3, 1864. Messner treated on the teaching of the apostles, 1856; and G. L. Hahn
undertook a theology of the New Testament, 1854. Neander also discussed the
whole system of the New Testament in his history of the foundation and progress
• of the apostolic Church; as also Reuss in his Geschichte der h. Schriften N. T.,
1842, ed. 2, 1853, and in the Histoire de la theol. chrétienne au siècle apostolique,
2 vols. 1852, ed. 2, 1860. Baur, Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologic,
1864, ed. Ferd. Fr. Baur, 1864. Numerous monographs have besides appeared on
the separate doctrinal views of the New Testament, e.g. on St. James by Kern and
Schneckenburger; on St. Peter by Meyerhoff and Weiss; on St. Paul by Usteri
(1824), Dähne, Schrader, Baur (Paulus, 1845), Lipsius (the doctrine of justifica-
tion); on the epistle to the Hebrews by Riehm (2 vols. 1858-59); on St. John by
Fromman, R. Köstlin, Weiss. Biblical psychology was treated after Magn. Fr.
Roos by Tob. Beck, 1843, and Delitzsch, 1855, ed. 2, 1861. The life of Christ was
written on after Herder, Hess, Reinhard, Greiling, H. E. G. Paulus, and the
authors mentioned p. 373, by Hase, 1829, ed. 4, 1854; Weisse (die evangelische
Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, 2 vols. 1838); Ammon (die
Geschichte des Lebens Jesu, 3 vols. 1842-47); Theile, Lange (das Leben Jesu nach
dem Evangelium dargestellt, 3 vols. 1844-48); Ebrard, Wissenschaftliche Kritik
der evangelische Geschichte, 2 vols. 1842, ed. 2, 1850); Lichtenstein, Lebens-
geschichte des Herrn Jesu Christ in chronologischer Uebersicht, 1856; W. Hoffman,
Leben Jesu, 1838-39; Kern, die Hauptsachen des Lebens Jesu in der Tüb. Zeitschr.,
1838. Ullmann, Historisch oder mythisch? 1838. Die Sündlosigkeit Jesu, ed.
7, 1863. Also, for general readers, in the writings of Krabbe, 1839, Stirm
(Apologie, ed. 2, 1856), Jul. Hartmann, 1837, &c., A. Francke, 1838, Riggenbach,
1856, M. Baumgarten, 1859. The chief works on the apostolic age are, besides
that of Neander, those of Rothe, die Anfänge der christlichen kirche, i. 1837;
Gfrorer, Schwegler, after his own fashion (das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 1846, 2
vols.; Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters bis zum Tode der Apostel
Paulus und Petrus, 1848); Schaff, Geschichte der apostolischen Kirche, ed. 2, 1854;
Lechler, das apostolische und nachapostolischer Zeitalter, 1853-54; W. Baumgar-
ten, die Apostelgeschichte oder der Entwicklungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem
nach Rom., 1852, ed. 2, 1859, 2 vols.; Thiersch, die Kirche im apostolischen
Zeitalter und die Entstehung der neutestamentlichen Schriften, 1852, ed. 2, 1858;
and Ewald, Geschichte des apostolischen Zeitalters bis zur Zerstörung Jerusalems
(the 6th part of his Geschichte Israels), ed. 2, 1858.
Theology of the Old Testament.
433
their distinction and intimate connection. It is thus increasingly
perceived that the thoughts of God concerning man's salvation,
as communicated to us in holy Scripture, form an organic whole,
composed of different members, and the subject of an historical
progress. In this sense and style it is, that the best modern
masters of exegesis are fellow-labourers in a BIBLICAL THEOLOGY,
which though it remains, indeed, an historical science, and is by
no means capable of supplying the place of divinity and ethics,
would hold up before these branches of knowledge, which form
in a narrower sense the systematic course of theological instruc-
tion, that genuine and in many respects fuller model which is to
be their standard. The normative importance of holy Scrip-
ture is being realized, and justice increasingly rendered to the
claims of the formal principle of the Reformation, by the suc-
cessful progress made in the construction of that biblical theology
which must, as material canonics, take its stand beside formal
canonics, ie. the doctrine of the age, genuineness and integrity
of the books of holy Scripture. This material canonics has both
the right and the power to exercise a salutary and invigorating
reaction upon the many vacillations into which formal canonics
(or the "introductory science," as it has been called) is still
frequently betrayed.¹ (Comp. above, pp. 415, 419, sq.).
It has been already remarked (p. 394) that theology had
comparatively neglected the Old Testament. The old orthodox
identification of the Old with the New Testament was followed
by the rationalistic view which treated the religion of the Old
Testament as a power uncongenial with, or indifferent towards,
Christianity, and sought to explain the fundamental law of the
Old Testament in particular, by mere respect to neighbouring
nations and religions, or by the peculiar idiosyncrasy of Israel.
This was done either in Spencer's manner (see above, p. 61), by
ascribing it to Divine policy in the interest of monotheism, or, as
1 Comp., c.g. with respect to the Old Testament, Hengstenberg's introduction,
Beiträge zur Einleitung ins A. T. 3 vols. 1831-1839; Keil's Lehrbuch der hist.
krit. Einleitung in die canonischen Schriften des A. T. 1868 (translated in Foreign
Theological Library); on the other hand de Wette's Beiträge zur Einleitung ins
4. T. 1870, or the critical works of Ewald, Hupfeld, and Riehm; and with respect
to the New Testament, not to mention the extreme negative tendency, the still
continuing controversy as to whether the Gospel of St. John or that of St. Mark,
as many are now inclined to think, or that of St. Matthew, as Baur and Strauss
insist, is to be considered the most trustworthy.
II.
2 E
434
Commentaries on the Old Testament.
by J. D. Michaelis of Göttingen, to human legislative wisdom.
The miracles and predictions by which the history of Old
Testament revelation is accompanied, were got rid of by referring
them to orientalisms or poetical language. A purely empirical
view of the people and literature of the Old Testament, on the
plea of judging of the Old Testament according to its own merits,
and of being for this purpose unfettered by any kind of doctrinal
prepossession, placed its internal connection with the New Tes-
tament, the monotheism of each perhaps excepted, entirely in
the background. It cannot be denied that great progress has
been made through the diligence and distinguished talents which
many famous scholars have devoted to the fundamental work of
understanding the text of the Old Testament. Gesenius has not
only transformed its lexicology by the copious employment of
other dialects, but has also, as well as Rödiger, rendered important
service in Hebrew and Chaldee grammar. Ewald, endowed with
an innate feeling for the spirit and organic constitution of oriental
tongues, has given a still more rational form to Hebrew grammar;
while J. Olshausen and Hupfeld are distinguished by the accuracy
and acuteness of their philological observations. Progress has
also been made in the exegesis of the Old Testament, and settled
results to a great extent arrived at. This is shown by the
commentaries of Rosenmüller, Kuinöl, and Maurer, and still more.
by the works of Gesenius, de Wette, and especially Ewald; also
by the compendious exegetical handbook to the Old Testament,
the Apocrypha included, 1841-61, in which, besides Hitzig,
Bertheau, Knobel, Olshausen, Thenius, and Hirzel were fellow-
labourers; while A. F. Fritzsche and Grimm treated on the
Apocrypha. Also by the numerous recent commentaries on
Genesis (by Bohlen, Thiele, Tuch, Knobel, Delitzsch), the many
critical works on Genesis or on the whole Pentateuch by Bleek,
De Wette, Ewald, Bertheau, Stähelin, Hupfeld, and Riehm; and
on the other side by Kurtz (Genesis), Schulz (Deuteronomy),
Ranke, Hävernick, Keil, and especially Hengstenberg (Authentie
des Pentateuch u. A.). Likewise by the commentaries on Isaiah,
by Gesenius, Knobel, Hendewerk, Umbreit, Hitzig, Ewald,
Drechsler, and others, with treatises on different portions of the
same book in Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament
(3 vols. ed. 2, 1854-56, translated in Foreign Theological Library),
by Caspari, Stier, Kleinert, and others; on Jeremiah by Hitzig,
The Contending Schools.
435
Umbreit, Nägelsbach, and Neumann; on Ezekiel by Hitzig and
Hävernick; on Daniel, by Hitzig and Lengerke; and on the other
side, by Hävernick, Auberlen (with reference to the Apocalypse,
ed. 2, 1856, translated), as well as the portions respecting this book
in Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament, and especially
in Bleek's treatise on Daniel. The poetical books of the Old Testa-
ment have been translated and explained by Ewald.¹ The Psalms
in particular have been expounded by De Wette, Hitzig, Hupfeld
(in 3 vols., 1856-61), J. Olshausen, 1853, Tholuck, Baihinger,
Kramer, Hengstenberg (in 4 vols., 1850-52), and Delitszch (in 2
vols., 1867), translated into English, 1871; the Book of Job, by
Umbreit, Ewald, Hirzel, Baihinger, Schlottmann, and Hahn;
while Hengstenberg, Simson, Oehler, and others have also dis-
cussed the fundamental idea of this book. Solomon's Song was,
after Herder, treated on by Kaiser, Ewald, Meier, Hitzig, Umbreit,
Delitzsch, Hahn, and Hengstenberg.
The very names, however, which we have thus brought forward
by way of examples from the recent copious literature of the
Old Testament point to the great, and as yet unsettled, disputes
which run through the whole of this branch of science. These
relate both to questions of criticism-such as eg. those concerning
the Elohistic and Jehovistic records and their relation to Moses,
the composition and authorship of the Pentateuch, especially of
Deuteronomy, the authenticity of the second part of Isaiah and
of parts of Zechariah and Daniel-and also to questions of
interpretation. All these differences, however, evidently spring
from the different views of the Old Testament religion and its
history with which these questions are approached by different
individuals, and would be substantially rectified by the genuine
historical view of the Old Testament if once it could be obtained
and become common property.
And hopeful beginnings are not wanting. We still suffer
indeed from the after-effects of the identification of the Old and
New Testaments of a former period. For some, in their opposi-
tion to such a view, regard with indifference the internal
connection of the two Testaments, and acknowledge scarcely
1 Die Dichter des alten Bundes. New edit. 4 vols. 1854.
2 Oehler, Bleek, and Dillmann are among the most impartial of critics.
Ueber die Bildung der Sammlung heiliger Schriften 4. T., Jahrbücher für
deutsche Theologie, 1858, p. 419, &c.
436
3
Steudel.
Hengstenberg.
more than an external one.¹ Others still insist upon identifying
the two Testaments, as much as possible,2 whether, on the one
hand, by explaining the Old Testament in a new Testament sense
by means either of torturing the text, or of allegorical and mystical
interpretations, or, on the other, by suppressing all that is new
in the New Testament, and making it nothing more than a
purified Judaism.4 Traces of this latter method often appear in
combination with the former. Both parties, however, whether
that which ignores the union between the Old and New Testa-
ments, or that which would identify them in either of the above-
described opposite modes, are, on the whole, affected by the same
fundamental error, in other words, by the intellectualistic view
of religion which prevailed in the times of old orthodoxy and
biblical supernaturalism. For both assume it to be self-evident
that religion is composed of doctrines or ideas. It is at this
point that the neglect or contempt of the results obtained for the
Church by Schleiermacher is avenged. It is here also, that a soil
is deposited for those rationalistic elements which creep into the
works of the staunchest supernaturalists, when treating of Old
Testament subjects.
5
The supernaturalistic identification of the Old and New Testa-
ments appears in a modified form in the older Tübingen school
from Storr to Steudel. Though Steudel, as well as his prede-
cessor Hess, insists on Lessing's notion of a Divine education of
the human race, as specially applicable to Israel, he yet makes
this education consist merely in the gradual introduction of new
doctrines, without bringing into view any development of know-
ledge, not to say any development of religion. Hengstenberg, on
the contrary, recurring to the standpoint occupied by the super-
naturalism of the older orthodoxy, not only endeavours, like
Steudel, to exhibit general religious truths as common to both
Testaments, but also to prove that those which are most peculiar
to the New were already completed and established doctrines of
1 So c.g. Eichhorn, De Wette, v. Cölln (biblische Theologic), Gesenius, Hitzig,
Knobel; also Schleiermacher and many of his school.
So, above all, Hengstenberg, on the other side, however, also Ewald.
3 So c.g. Rud. Stier. (Foreign Theological Library.)
4 So Ewald.
5
Compare Oehler, Prolegomena zur Theologie des A. T., 1845, p. 64, &c.; also
his excellent remarks on Storr and Steudel (Vorles. über- Theologie des A. T.,
1840).
Ewald. Bertheau. Oehler.
437
the Old.¹ Ewald's labours have been devoted to a careful
treatment of the external history of the people of Israel, the
obscurities of which he has frequently cleared up, and to a res-
toration to their historical relations of many passages, especially
from the Psalms and Prophets, which earlier theology had
wrested from their actual connection, for the sake of referring
them directly to the Messiah and His kingdom. But the internal
and religious history of Old Testament development is not
brought out by him. On the contrary, the religious matter of
the Old Testament, the Messianic idea not excepted, dwindles in
his writings into a few general abstract truths devoid of life or
motion. He fails to perceive the progress of the history of
revelation and its internal connexion with that national his-
tory which prepared for it. The true reason of this deficiency
lies in the fact that he regards history in general, even with
1 Comp. Oehler, ibid. p. 67, &c. Oehler continues: "This was required by
this theologian's vigorous faith in revelation-a faith which denied all (?) the
concessions made to rationalism-as well as by that tendency of his mind which
urged him in all cases to final conclusions;" in proof of which he adduces that,
in his treatises on the Divinity of the Messiah in the Old Testament and on the
sufferings and death of Messiah in the Old Testament, the entire doctrine of the
divine-human nature of Christ, and of an intrinsic distinction in the Divine nature,
is transferred to the Old Testament, the only difference admitted being that these
doctrines were there kept more in the background than in the New Testament.
Hävernick also took up a similar standpoint in his Daniel, though in his case-
as also in that of M. Baumgarten, in another fashion-a way was made for a more
just appreciation of the difference between the Old and New Testament religions
(comp. Hävernick's Vorlesungen über die Theologie A. T.). Hengstenberg also subse-
quently attempted to leave more room for an historical view of the Old Testament
(see his work die Bücher Moses und Egypten, 1841 (translated), and the concluding
section of his Christology of the Old Testament, on the nature of prophecy, ed. 2,
vol. 3, pp. 158-217). But even when he desists from showing a literal fulfilment
f Old Testament prophecies, he still denies the admission of the limited nature
of the Old Testament stage of revelation; and when he finds it impossible to
carry out a literal interpretation, goes over to the "idealistic" treatment of the
Old Testament. He thus makes prophecy nothing more than the symbolical
covering of general eternal truths—a covering known to be such by the prophets,
and the product of their conscious reflection. Comp. Oehler, ibid. p. 68. The
bond of union between these two opposite methods is that zeal for formal evidence
for which this theologian, like the older biblical supernaturalists, is distinguished.
This it is which regards the chief labour of theology as completed, when the in-
spiration of the Old Testament is triumphantly maintained, and thereby favours
a theory of inspiration in which the human element is so dwarfed that no more
room is left for an actual history of the gradual development of revelation, which
would need to be brought about by human instrumentality, than in those theories
which diminish the Divine factor in favour of the human.
438
Efforts to attain to an Historical View
respect to Christianity, as a religious accessory, a mere means
of communicating ideas and doctrines, but not as representing
an integral aspect of the idea itself, viz. its saving reality.
Hence he cannot recognize in the Old Testament, its history and
literature, a growing preparation for the salvation of the New
Testament. With regard to these opposite standpoints, however,
we shall be constrained to say, with Oehler, that "the entire
notion that the New Testament did but remove from the
knowledge of truths contained in the Old Testament a certain
imperfection of form is a wholly untenable one. It ascribes to
the Old Testament too much, inasmuch as there is not a single
scriptural doctrine which it does not view as fully disclosed in
the Old Testament, and consequently as transferred, in an already
mature state which required no farther development, to the
New." 1
On the other hand, however, it would also be easy in
this manner to ascribe too little to the Old Testament; for this
view is always inclining to an idealistic evaporation of the con-
crete life of an ever-pulsating religion into abstract doctrines, and
neglecting to follow with historic glance that movement towards
a real union of God and man sought after in the Old Testa-
ment, and ever mutually carried on between heaven and earth.
Hence, also, many of those germs contained in the Old Testa-
ment history which enable us to say that "there is in the New
Testament no doctrine entirely new, but that, on the contrary,
evangelical truth in its full extent and in all its parts, finds its
fitting corresponding preparation in the Old Testament," are
often unnoticed.
It may still cost much labour, and many conflicts may have
to be waged, before this truth and the tasks it imposes are
generally recognized. Theology, however, is evidently upon the
right path towards the attainment of this end, and even the
theologians already mentioned have, while pursuing other aims,
furnished valuable contributions thereto. In Hengstenberg
especially we have profound views of the holiness of God, of sin,
of the law and its work in the heart of man. To this must be
added another important element.
A higher, a vital, and an organic view of their history is now
naturalized in almost all sciences. In this respect also, much is
owing to Herder's suggestions, especially as concerns the history
1 Oehler, ibid. p. 66, &c.
of the Religion of the Old Testament.
439
1
of religions. He regarded, indeed, even the Old Testament more
in an æsthetic and poetical than a theological manner, and was
hence unable to effect a regeneration of its treatment. Eichhorn
too, who goes hand in hand with him in his poetical view, but
has a more decided feeling for the religious sense of the "poetry
of the Old Testament," which he seeks solely in religious
truths or doctrines, finds the narratives of the Old Testament
very unsatisfactory in this respect. He regards them as in-
voluntary fictions corresponding with the lower religious stand-
point of their authors, a view which led to the mythic theory of
the Old Testament. Such is also the view of Gabler, Bauer, and
De Wette. Genesis especially was subjected to this kind of
observation, and the Pentateuch declared to be a great epic.¹
But the idea of humanity by which Herder was animated be-
came a powerful incitement to regard the human race with its
medley of religions as a unity, and thus to satisfy the higher
requirements of science. While then it had hitherto been
customary to theology to regard the Old Testament as a special
world in itself, and as removed from all connection with other
nations and their religions, such boundaries were now destroyed,
and the zeal aroused for investigating the religions of antiquity,
their origin, connection, and history, did not fail to react upon
the view taken of the Old Testament. The study of the different
national mythologies revived, chiefly by Heine of Göttingen,
flourished to a degree never before attained, and certainly had
this reactionary effect upon the theology of the Old Testament,
that the religion of the Old Testament was now treated as a
mythical religion like that of other nations, and placed merely
on a level with them, if, indeed, it was not sometimes considered
inferior. This, however, could only be done while the different
religions were regarded as essentially one and the same, though
under different names, and so long as no attempt was made, in
consequence of a perception of progress in the religious process,
to understand each according to its peculiar principle, instead of
its external characteristics.2 Creuzer's method, which inter-
¹ Gabler, Anmerkungen zu Eichhorns Urgeschichte; L. Bauer, Mythologie der
Hebräer, 1802; De Wette, Beiträge, 1807, v. Cölln, Bibl. Theol. 2 parts, ed. D.
Schulz, 1836.
2 The notion cherished by Fr. v. Schlegel, Görres, Windischmann and others,
that a sublime and pure religion, a golden age of piety, at first prevailed, and that
from the earliest ages downwards, history has exhibited only an increasing decay
440 The Old Testament and the Mythological Religions.
mingled all religions, and dealt in arbitrary etymologies, for the
sake of establishing either their connection or actual identity,
and which was for a time embraced also by Baur, was opposed by
the flourishing school of Gottfr. Hermann, and Lobeck. Little
as was the religious intelligence possessed by this school, it
rendered, nevertheless, the important service of calling forth
those more accurate investigations which were so successfully
carried on by Ottfr. Müller, Stuhr, Gerhard, K. Fr. Hermann,
Nägelsbach, Welcker, Schömann, Preller, Curtius, Hartung,
Mommsen, and others, and which have been materially supported
and encouraged by those oriental, philologic, and historical studies
which have now again been so vigorously prosecuted with respect
to the different Arian races.¹ On the one hand, access to the
Chinese, Japanese, and various Buddhist archives, and the
investigation of the religions of North and South America," have
constantly extended the sphere of these inquiries; on the other,
religious philosophy has seized with corresponding zeal these rich
materials, many as are the gaps which they still exhibit, and has
sought first to understand each of the religions according to its
own nature and the principle by which it is governed, and then
to arrange them all in homogeneous groups, and assign them
their places in a series of progressive developments. Hegel's
philosophy of religion, excellent as is much that it contains, does
not indeed do justice to the Hebrew religion, which as "the
religion of sublimity," a term more appropriate to Islamism,-
is supposed absolutely to separate God from the world, and to be
inferior to the religions of Greece and Rome, which, by the ideas
of beauty and law, advocated the union of God with subjectivity.
which has now left nothing but defaced ruins, contributed not a little to prevent
the recognition of a progress in the history of pre-Christian religion. Thus the
same fact was repeated in the history of religion in general, which we have before
noticed in the history of the Christian Church, cent. xvi. and xvii., viz. an
idealistic view of the commencement, combined with a pessimist view of suc-
cceding ages.
1 By Bopp, Lassen, Weber, Benfey, Max Müller, with regard to the Indians,
by Roth, Spiegel, Westergaard, Anquetil du Perron, Kleuker, with regard to the
Persians, and by W. Grimm, Lachmann, Müllenhoff, and others of this school,
also by W. Müller, and Limrock, with regard to the ancient Germans.
2 Compare Wuttke, Geschichte des Heidenthums, vols. i. and ii. 1852, 1853;
Köppen, die Religion des Buddha, 1857, Die Lamaische Hierarchie und Kirche,
3 J. G. Müller, Geschichte der amerikanischen Urreligionen, Basle, 1855.
1859.
Schleiermacher.
441
Hegel.
He fails, however, to perceive that the Hebrew religion advances
the mind of man by the stage of law, from the category of God's
omnipotence to that of His holiness, whereby deeper aspects of
subjectivity are called forth than the aesthetic or the legislative,
and the conditions therefore furnished for a deeper union. Hence
even Rust and Baur differ in this respect from Hegel, by placing
the Old Testament, which, from its very beginning, bore within
it the germs of an internal universalism, above the religions of
Greece and Rome, which did but create an external and political
universalism as a preparation for Christianity, and in other respects
treated religion—-after the fashion of heathenism in general-
more as a means of common prosperity. Schleiermacher divided
religions into the groups of fetishism, polytheism, and mono-
theism. In the last group, however, he places Islamism, which
he distinguishes as an aesthetic form, from the Christian and
Hebrew as the theological forms of religion-a view which,
logically considered, curtails Christianity of its due proportions,
by assigning to it no rank peculiar to itself. At the same time
the distinction which he makes between Judaism, as still infected
with legal and eudæmonistic elements, and Christianity, is not
devoid of injustice to the religion of the Old Testament.
Religious philosophy, however, was generally inclined to regard
the history of religions more as a mere evolution of the inner
nature of man-a purely immanent, and so far a subjective
process—a notion which most injured the religion of the Old
Testament, and denied the character of the revelation and com-
munication of the transcendent God to the human race.
1
Schelling's philosophy of religion, which was built upon a
theosophic foundation, opposed this view by carrying out the
notion, that the history of the heathen religions also was con-
ditioned not merely by human subjectivity, nor even, as Lobeck
thinks, by the contingencies of empiric arbitrariness, but by the
intervention of objective divine potencies, which, ever press-
ing onwards, increasingly bestowed upon life a more human
form. This process continued until the absolute union of the
Divine and human was attained in Christ, who after His
1 Compare Schelling's Einleitung in die Philosophie der Mythologie, 1856,
Philosophie der Mythologie, 1857, and his Philosophie der Offenbarung, 2 vols.,
published after his death by his son Fr. Schelling. Works, div. ii. vol. i. 4; see
above, p. 362.
442 The Incarnation the Central Point of Religion.
previous agency in heathenism and Judaism-in which, on
account of sin, He left His tautousia with God, and passed into
heterousia,—appeared as the Lord of being, and by His moral
self-sacrifice passed into homousia with the Father. The im-
portance of this conception of the entire history of religion as a
unity, lies in the fact that Schelling brings the whole process
into relation with its object, viz. Christianity. And justly so.
For if the aim of religion is the union of God and man, and if
this union expresses its inmost tendency, an inward tendency
towards Christianity must be innate in all religion; for in it alone
is reconciliation and communion with God, the all controlling
centre. But if this is certain, and if the absolute religion alone fur-
nishes the key to the understanding and to the arrangement of all
other religions, if in this process the distinction between God and
man is, in opposition to every kind of Pantheism, embraced, and
the nature of sin, which so enhances this distinction, appreciated,
without which appreciation union with God would forfeit its moral
character; if, moreover, the importance of the difference between
polytheism, together with æsthetic or merely philosophical mono-
theism, and genuine teleological monotheism is perceived—as it is
by Schleiermacher-then, even though the unity of that religious
process which is ever aiming at Christ be admitted, the special
dignity and uniqueness of the Old Testament religion cannot fail
to be perceived by an unprejudiced mind. For it is in this reli-
gion alone, that a normal and continuous preparation for, and
approximation to, Christianity takes place, in this alone that the
twofold motion, viz. that arising with God and that proceeding
from man, which is needed for the attainment of the goal in
view, does not come to a standstill, but is carried on in spite of
the power of sin, until the absolute union of both is accom-
plished. In the heathen religions, on the contrary, this process
was interrupted, and though they are not to be thought of
as simply forsaken by God, yet when compared to the well-
fenced and carefully cultivated vineyard of Jehovah, they are
rightly termed by Schelling "religions growing wild," and Israel
the only nation in which God carried on connectedly the work
of religion. They too were struggling in various manners.
towards the idea of the incarnation of God, but they were doing so
amidst misconceptions of the nature of sin, impatient and arbitrary
anticipations and mythical fictions, because they lacked the
Braniss. Tholuck. Beck.
Chalybaus. Braniss.
443
great and firmly established discipline of the law. When it is
considered, on the other hand, that the power of sin was present
in Israel also, the continuous regular process of preparation for
Christianity, the formation and maturing of a vital recipiency
for it, which were here found, form as strong a proof of the in-
terposition of Divine revelation and guidance in Israel's history,
as it is possible, in a historical point of view, to require. Hence
the extension of the range of vision in modern theology to the
entire history and philosophy of religion, has already produced
not only new problems, but brilliant and fruitful results, profit-
able not only to the theology of the New Testament, but also
to the elucidation and historical confirmation of Christianity
itself. One consequence is that apologetics have already under-
gone a change and assumed a broader basis.
4
2
1
Among those philosophers who view the history of religion in
this sense may be mentioned Schiller, Wirth, and especially
Chalybæus, and Braniss.¹ On the part of theology, Tholuck,
Auberlen, Tobias Beck, v. Hofmann, and Baumgarten,3 and
especially Oehler, have applied the problems hence arising to
the scientific knowledge of the Old Testament. The entire
Old Testament and its religion is beginning to be treated-ac-
cording to Herder's saying, which was taken up by Tholuck-
as one great prophecy, a rich compensation for those individual
prophecies which had to be given up as exegetically untenable.
Thus the prophecy of events, including the typology thereby
revived, has been brought into close connection with verbal
prophecy. On the one hand, however, typology is too much
1 Chalybæus, Philosophic und Christenthum, 1853; Braniss, Uebersicht des
Entwickelungsgang der Philosophie, 1842.
Tholuck, die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, Gotha, 1860; Auberlen, die
göttliche Offenbarung, ein apologetischer Versuch, 1861, vol. i. (translated); J. T.
Beck, Einleitung in das System der christlichen Lehre, 1838; Die christliche Lehr-
wissenschaft nach den biblischen Erkunden, div. 1, 1840.
3 V. Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfüllung, 1841, 1844, Schriftbeweis, div. 2,
1852, ed. 2, 1857; Baumgarten, Theologischer Commentar zum Pentateuch, 1843,
Einleitung.
4 Compare Prolegomena zur Theologie A. T., 1845; also his many excellent
articles in Herzog's Realencyclopädie, and his Programm of the year 1854; Dic
Grundzüge der alttestamentlichen Weisheit. He gives a sketch for the construc-
tion of an Old Testament theology in the Proleg. pp. 83-85.
5 Especially in Sack's Apologetik, and Hofmann's Weissagung und Erfüllung,
also by Baumgarten and Delitzsch.
444
Typology and Prophecy.
treated as the source of verbal prophecy: on the other, the
prophecy of events is too coarsely conceived of, when the view
is embraced that a corporeal pre-existence of Christ was mani-
fested in Israel, or when the theophanies of the Old Testament,
e.g. in the Angel of the Lord, are treated as preparatory steps
[Anbahnungen], or as it were (to speak with Tertullian) an-
ticipative acts of the Incarnation of God. On the contrary, the
notion that even the history of the Old Testament people is
prophetic, and that it announces the existence of progressively
higher forms of those ideas which find in it their initiative
realization, cannot but be approved. All that is required is that.
the typical and the prophetic-properly so called—should be
more clearly distinguished. For in the Old Testament a pro-
gress is accomplished not only by means of ever enhanced
anticipations of Christ, whether in word or act, and therefore
in a direct and positive manner, but also by reason of sin, by
means of an increasing consciousness of the interruption of
fellowship with God. We find not merely a consciousness of
what Israel already possesses, and of the ever-growing fulness
involved therein, but also a feeling of the emptiness and inade-
quacy of the Old Testament dispensation to allay the religious
craving. In this respect it is that justice is not done in Hof-
mann's works, any more than formerly in those of Coccejus, to
the legal dispensation, and that a main lever in the progress
of the historical view is removed. Oehler, on the contrary, takes
a more accurate view of the different periods of the inward
history of the Old Testament people, and brings forward, as
sources of that direct and indirect prophecy which was ad-
vancing together with their history, not only the positive, the
symbolic, and the typical elements, but also the heaven-ordained
reaction of the religious spirit against the merely legal stand-
point, its deficiencies and limitation.
A review of the whole present state of science with regard to
the Old Testament, and of those efforts which have led the way
in this respect, scarcely as yet exhibits any definite tendency
directing the whole course of individual labours. This shows
most convincingly that a biblical theology of the Old Testament,
corresponding to the claims and needs of the day, is still lacking,
because no one with a special vocation for this important work
has yet appeared. Still a retrospect of the fate of this science,
Task of Old Testament Science.
445
and the laws of its progress, also points surely onwards to
the goal.
If we do not as yet behold the land in its whole
extent, yet peak after peak is coming into sight. It is, however,
obviously of the utmost importance to Christian theology, in the
narrower sense, that we should take full possession of the land
itself. For it is of great moment, both to the confirmation of
the historical character of primitive Christianity, especially of
the portraiture of Christ, and to the unity and continuity of the
history of Christianity, that the distinction between the Old and
New Testaments should be duly estimated, while their firm and
indissoluble connection is also made evident. If the historical
succession is not here very strictly preserved, the misconceived
mutual relation of the Old and New Testaments will be turned
into a dangerous weapon for attacking Christianity. If, on the
one hand, the connection between them is either severed or
depreciated, Christianity will, by means of that character of
novelty which is thus, in a onesided manner, impressed upon it,
be placed in an insecure position, deprived of its historical basis,
and exposed to the suspicion of having originated in subjective
arbitrariness. If, on the other hand, the connection of the two
is enhanced to actual identity, and not viewed as exclusively
the connection between a deeply felt want and its supply (Matt.
v. 3), the suspicion will arise as many recent appearances
show-that a transference of Old Testament occurrences, images,
and Messianic features to the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, is
the source of the gospel history. Such a suspicion it will be
difficult to obviate on historical grounds, and all that is new in
Christianity will thus be reduced to its carrying out of these
principles to universalism. And the more literal the fulfilment
of Old Testament sayings found in the New, the more difficult
will it be to dispel the suspicion that the former is the source of
the latter. But the more we succeed in showing, in a truly
historical manner, that the essentially self-consistent image of
Christ, found in the books of the New Testament, is by no means.
simply identical with the Messianic idea of the Old, and still
less so with the discordant and self-contradictory Messianic
expectations of His contemporaries, that, on the contrary, the
fulfilment, both on the whole and in particulars, far surpassed
those limitations by which even prophecy was restricted; that
there is, moreover, a real teleological connection between the
446
Ecclesiastical History.
gospel in general, and the one organic whole formed by the
history of the Old Testament, so that what was deposited and
prepared in remote ages attains its fulfilment in Christ-the
more will both the novelty and originality, as well as the histo-
rical basis of the appearance of Christianity, "when the fulness.
of the time was come," be established.
Monu-
Nor has modern theology manifested less progress in the
department of ecclesiastical history. The history of all religions,
as well as the history of civilization, and especially of philosophy,
has been duly appreciated, the history of the age in which
Christianity arose is being accurately investigated from all
hitherto known and recently acquired documents.¹
mental theology" too, has, by a most diligent employment of
every kind of memorial, as well as of literary documents, con-
tributed to throw much light upon and give much security,
to the history of the Church and the history of doctrines.2 The
new science of the ecclesiastic statistics of the present has also
been added by Schleiermacher to theology, and promises to be
as fertile in results with respect to an enlargement of view, and
an internal and external association of the different Evangelical
Churches for mutual intercourse and assistance, as statistics in
general have been in the department of politics. The com-
paratively recent science of the history of doctrines has been
most diligently cultivated and enriched by labours whether of a
monographic or more comprehensive kind. There are few noted.
3
1 E.g. J. C. Thilo, Codex Apocryphus N. T. 1832; De la Garde, Homil. Cle-
mentinæ, 1866; Duncker, Hippolyti Refutat. Hares. 1859.
2 To this belong the works on Christian art and archæology of Augusti, W.
Böhmer, 1830, 1839, H. Alt, 1850, &c., Rheinwald; Schnaase, Geschichte der
bildenden Künste, 1844-1856, 5 vols.; H. Otte, Handbuch der kirchl. deutschen
Kunstarchäologie des Mittelalters, ed. 3, 1854; Kugler, Handbuch der Kunst-
geschichte, 2 vols. ed. 3, 1855-1859; Lübke, Grundriss der Kunstgeschichte, 1860,
and especially F. Münter's Sinnbilder und Kunstvorstellungen der allen Christen,
2 nos. 1825, and F. Piper, Mythologic und Symbolik der christlichen Kunst von
der ältesten Zeit bis ins 16 Jahrhundert, vol. i. 1, 2, 1847, 1851, Einleitung in der
monumentale Theologic, 1867.
3 W. Münscher, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 4 vols. 1797, &c. His Lehrbuch
der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, first became valuable through the edition, with
original authorities from the Reformation downwards, by Cölln and Neudecker,
also Augusti, Bertholdt, 2 vols. 1822, &c. Ruperti and Lenz wrote on the history
of doctrine. The more important modern works are Baumgarten-Crusius' Hand-
buch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 2 vols. 1832, and his Compendium der
christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 2 vols. 1840-1846; the Lehrbücher of Engelhardt,
Recent and Former Church History.
447
church dogmatists who have not received their due monographic
treatment.¹ With reference to the entire history of theology, ad-
mirable collections have furnished every kind of completeness, and
a historical criticism of high pretensions is promoting their utiliza-
tion. Moreover, the very art of writing history, though differently
practised by its various masters, shows unmistakeable signs of
general progress. For while it must ever be the first duty of
the historian to assign to historical data a rank proportionate to
their documentary authority, such a foundation will not be laid
to be followed by a mere chronicle-like narrative, but by a con-
nected review of the work of Christianity with regard to the
human race, its knowledge and practice. Not that uniform pro-
gress is or always can be shown. History is the realm of freewill
agency. The intensive and extensive processes alternate with
each other in the Church's history, and the latter, though natu-
rally arising from the former, brings the Church into a defiling
contact with the world, from which it can only be delivered
by a fresh concentration, and a recurrence to the purifying and
intensive process. But the work of Christianity upon the human
race is nevertheless a progressive one: hence the view is no
longer favoured which supposed the highest point to have been
already attained in the first days of the Church, which beheld in
subsequent ages nothing but increasing declension, restrained
perhaps for a season at the Reformation, and which-as though
sin and man's need of redemption on the one hand, and the
power of Christianity on the other, were not still the same as
ever-could find comfort for the present only in arbitrary eschato-
logical hopes and expectations. But as little can modern church
history and the history of doctrine be satisfied with that so-called
practical treatment, which regards history as the mere sport of
human caprice and passions, without any independent objective
aims to be attained by means of the intervention of specially
gifted individuals, and of the joint course of human history.
And though individuals may, in a onesided manner, view this
1839, 2 vols.; F. K. Meier, 1840; Hagenbach, ed. 4, 1857; Baur, ed. 2, 1858,
(with his Kirchengeschichte der neuern Zeit, 1863, and his Kirchengeschichte des 19
Jahrhunderts, 1862); Mahreinecke ed. Matthies and Batke, 1849; Neander, 2
vols. 1857, ed. Jacobi; Gieseler, ed Redepenning, 1855.
1 The chief monographs on church history and the history of doctrine are col-
lected in Hagenbach's Encyclopädic, ed. 6, § 67, pp. 226-232, and § 73, p. 250.
448
Recent and Former Church History.
1
aim from an exclusively Lutheran point of view, and make
Lutheranism the critical standard of history, while others regard
the increasing prevalence of some philosophical idea which
evaporates all that is essentially Christian as the standard of
progress,2 yet the majority maintain a freer standpoint and
entertain a wider notion of Christianity and its mission.3 The
materials indeed are far from being as yet sufficiently sifted and
separated, yet it is by this purer and freer idea of Christianity that
the judgments of most are formed and the arrangement of materials
is governed. In opposition to the harsh anathemas pronounced
by a former age against Roman Catholicism and the middle ages,
and especially against the hierarchical element as a hell-born
iniquity—an age which went so far as to make it a principle to
embrace whatever the Roman Catholic Church rejected-that
historical justice has asserted itself, which not only has a more
correct appreciation of the manner in which the hierarchical
form of the Church originated, but which also impartially
acknowledges the services it rendered to the nations in their
nonage, whose first need was to be placed under legal discipline.
The same impartiality, moreover, has become more or less preva-
lent, so far as doctrine is concerned, with respect to heretics and
opponents of orthodox doctrine, the teaching or conscious faith
of the Church, whether of primitive or reformed times, being
no longer regarded as perfect, nor opponents looked upon as
merely wilful enemies to the truth, already shining in full
splendour. On the contrary, since the dogmatic form of Church
teaching has been admitted to be one of continuous develop-
ment, it is perceived that the incompleteness attending each
of its stages gives a certain relative right to attacks and cen-
sures, and that even heretics fall into their errors, because, as
Irenæus says, like unskilful wrestlers, they seize convulsively
upon that limb of the truth which they fear will be miscon-
ceived. According to such a view, even erroneous doctrines
form elements in the process of dogmatic history-elements
indeed whose onesidedness must be, and is overcome, but which
furnish at the same time a lever and an actual impulse to pro-
gressive motion.
1 E.g. Guericke, Lindner, Kurtz.
2 So Baur.
So, besides Neander, Gieseler, Hase, Schleiermacher, and Niedner, Reuter,
Hagenbach, Jacobi, Fricke, Schaff, Lange.
Neander.
449
Though these features are more or less common to recent
historical theology, there are still among its chief representatives
differences, in the mode of delineation and in the form of treat-
ment, so considerable, that the excellences of each may be said
to supplement and complete those of others. Neander,¹ the
father of modern ecclesiastical history, chiefly pursues, with true
feeling for his subject, the theme of Christian life in its religious
aspect; Ullmann treats on the same topic during the pre-Reforma-
tion period. Baur devotes himself to investigating the history of
dogmas (of, e.g., Gnosis, Manicheeism, the Trinity, and the Incar-
nation). His writings exhibit rare powers of combination, which
indeed, with his idealistic standpoint, and his inclination to his-
torical constructions, often lead him astray, but even in these
instances never fail to afford important suggestions for farther
research, and to open up new fields or new aspects, especially in
the history of heretics. Niedner enlarges especially upon the
ethical features of church history, even in its greater events.
Hase brings forward, with much acuteness, the relations of the
Christian Church to general culture, and especially to art; and,
himself an artist, draws speaking pictures with a refined, nervous,
portrait-like handling.. Hundeshagen, endowed with a more
profound comprehension of the Reformation synthesis of the
intellectual, and the religious and moral factors, exhibits also an
enlightened perception and a lively feeling for national and
political life in its relations to Christianity. Finally, Gieseler,
though still more nearly approximating the Kantian standpoint,
shows himself a trustworthy and well-read author, by his copious.
and apt references to authorities-to which indeed the text of
his works rather holds the proportion of a mere heading—and thus
keeps faithful watch against all partial, arbitrary, or superficial
treatment of the history, whether of the Church or of doctrines.
Symbolics and the history of post-Reformation divinity have
also been abundantly cultivated. The greater number of the
more important works in the latter department have already
1 The works of Hagenbach, Piper, Jacobi, Erbkam, and Schaff, are in the same
spirit as those of Neander.
2 The History of the early Church (down to about A. D. 600), by Ph. Schaff (3 vols.
Clark, Edinburgh), is also, on account of the beauty of its descriptions, the lucid
arrangement of its materials, and the moderation of its decisions, a very praise-
worthy work. It has also done special service by its abundant employment of
English literature.
II.
2 F
450
Symbolics
2
been incidentally mentioned.¹ Symbolics, which is akin to
divinity, has certainly been often influenced by the latter, and
treated with a party spirit at variance with history. The
science of symbolics has also, since the publication of Möhler's
Symbolik and its attacks upon Protestantism, frequently assumed,
in the hands of Protestants, a more controversial character³ with
respect to the Roman Catholic Church. Numerous works on
the two evangelical confessions are, however, characterized by
historical impartiality, and have been on this account more
favourable to the union. Nor are just and impartial represen-
tations with respect to the Catholic Church lacking.5 Nay,
certain recent writers are more inclined to fundamentally catho-
licizing views than are compatible with the Protestant principle,
4
1 Those, e.g., of Tholuck, Gass, Henke, Hundeshagen, Göbel, Schmid (Dog-
matik der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche; syncretistische Streitigkeiten; Pietis-
mus), Schneckenburger, Franck, and others.
2 E.g. by Rudelbach, Reformation Lutherthum und Union, 1859; Guericke, in
his Kirchengeschichte, 3 vols., ed. 8, 1855, and in his Symbolik; also by Kurz, in
his Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ed. 4, 1860 (translated, 2 vols., Clark); and
most of all by Graul. Schenkel's recompilation of his Wesen des Protestantismus,
1862 (the first edition of which, in three volumes, excited very general interest);
also, Die Reformatoren und die Reformation im Zusammenhang mit der evan-
gelischer Kirche, 1856, is a similar work on the other side.
3 Marheinecke's important work, Die christliche Symbolik, vols. i. iii., System
des Katholicismus, 1810-1813, was still written in a pacific tone. But Nitzch's
reply to Möhler's Symbolik, 1834, and Baur's Gegensatz des Katholicismus und
Protestantismus nach den Principien und Hauptdogmen der beiden Lehrbegriffe,
1834, as well as his reply to Möhler's Neue Untersuchungen, 1844, recurring to
those principles which separate the two bodies, again make powerful attacks.
The tone of Hase's Polemik, 1862, is irritating and provoking; instead of bring-
ing out the full strength of the positive principle of the Reformation, which has
also a pacific side, it deals too much in accessory matters, which cannot be laid
to the charge of Catholicism, when viewed according to its principles.
4 As M. Göbel's Die religiöse Eigenthumlichkeit der lutherischen und der refor-
mirten Kirche, 1837; Hundeshagen's Die Conflikte des Zwinglianismus Lutherthums
und Calvinismus, Bern, 1842; Matthes' comparative Symbolik aller christlichen
Confessionen vom Standpunkt der lutherischen Confession, 1854; A. Schweizer's
Die Prolestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformirten
Kirche, 2 vols. 1854; R. Hofmann's Symbolik, &c., 1857; J. Müller's Die evan-
gelische Union, ihr lesen und ihr göttliches Recht, 1854.
5 Winer, comparative Darstellung des Lehrbegriffs der verschiedenen Kirchen-
parteien nebst vollständigen Belegen aus der symbolischen Schriften derselben in der
Ursprache, ed. 2, 1837, 4; Baier, Symbolik der christlichen Confessions- und Reli-
gionsparteien, vol. i. 1; Idee und Principien des römischen Katholicismus, 1854;
Marheinecke's Symbolik, and especially Köllner. See the next note. Hahn,
1853; Böhmer, 1857.
Recent Systematic Theology.
451
whether with respect to tradition, the doctrine of justification, or
the hierarchy.¹
With regard to systematic theology, and especially divinity, its
most directly fundamental question, viz. that of the evangelical
principle, has been already discussed. There is none of the more
notable theologians who does not, though under manifold varieties
of method, acknowledge, at least in thesi, living faith, or the
material principle of the Reformation, to be the most direct
assumption or source of dogmatic statements; none who denies
the normative authority of holy Scripture, and therefore the formal
principle. The majority entertain a firm persuasion that these
principles are independent of the fluctuations of biblical criti-
cism, and hence they can calmly contemplate its ever-recurring,
but ever self-correcting excesses. Their methods, however, are
certainly very various. With some faith or the material prin-
ciple, is transformed into the common faith of their own confes-
sion, and they desire to construct a "church" system of doctrines,"
a predicate which seems to them to express more than the
epithet "Christian," which was used by the older great and truly
orthodox divines of the evangelical Church. They are in danger
of suffering the material principle to be again choked by tradition,
and therefore by a spurious formal principle. With others faith
is transformed into Scriptural doctrine. Regardless of the pro-
gressive labours of the Church in forming a body of doctrines,
also unconscious how large a share subjectivity has in their
own interpretation of Scripture, they desire to give simply the
contents of Scripture, as though this were already an organ-
1 E.g. Stahl's before-named work; Köllner's Symbolik aller christlichen Confes-
sionen, 2 vols. 1837, 1844; and Thiersch's Lectures on Catholicism and Protes-
tantism, 2 vols. 1845, 1848.
2 As, e.g., Philippi, Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, vols. i.-iv., 1854-63; Kahnis,
Lutherische Glaubenslehre, 2 vols. 1861, 1864. (The latter, in spite of the title
he has chosen, takes up a freer attitude towards the symbols; his doctrine being
with regard to the Trinity subordinationist, to the Lord's Supper Calvinistic,
while his Christology is of a “"Kenotik” tinge (see note, p. 105). He demands,
in the place of a petrified Lutheran tradition, a development of Lutheran indi-
viduality, but does not sufficiently consider that neither collective Christian
individuality, nor the individual is, according to the apostolic model and its types
(Eph. iv.), justified in leading an always isolated existence, but is bound, while
maintaining its own characteristics, to a life of social intercourse, especially where
unity of principle exists, and the merely secondary importance of the complex
Church is admitted). Thomasius, Lehre von Christi Person und Werk ; Darstel-
lung der evangelisch-lutherischen Dogmatik vom Mittelpunkt der Christologie, 3rd
pt. ed. 2, 1856-59.
L
452
Doctrine of God.
ized body of divinity. They still, moreover, see the proof
of the truth of a doctrine in the fact that the self-confirmation.
of its divine origin is inherent in holy Scripture in toto, and that
therefore all that is contained in it bears for theologians the
stamp of divine truth.¹ Others, and these are the majority, per-
ceiving that this is not sufficient, award to the material principle
its relative independence, and seek to develop therefrom doc-
trinal propositions in harmony with holy Scripture, whether in
the way of reflection upon Christian consciousness, or of recur-
rence to a more objective basis, or progressively in a speculative
manner. On the other hand, it is pretty generally admitted
that the requisite conditions of a body of divinity are that it
should be scriptural, ecclesiastical, and scientific.
4
3
2
With regard to the doctrine of God, the first thing to be done
was to recover and to advocate, in a scientific manner, the idea of
a self-conscious God, free from the world, in opposition to the
pantheistic systems of Hegel and Schelling. This was so effec-
tually done, amidst essential assistance by the post-Hegelian
philosophy of the younger Fichte, Weisse, Chalybæus, Trendelen-
burg, Wirth, Ulrici, and others, that about thirty years since the
watchword was "the Absolute Personality of God," though H.
Ritter, while substantially acquiescing in that absolute perfec-
tion, spirituality, and freedom of God which it was designed to
express, maintained his objection to this formula. In fact, Her-
bartian religious philosophers also employed the word person-
ality in such a sense as to distinguish God from other individuals
only as an individual, though the Highest, without reflecting
that He must also be the Being in whom all existence was
originally comprised, and who must ever be the universal and
1 As S. Beck, christliche Lehrwissenschaft, i. 1, 1840 (see above, p. 427).
2 So Romang, in a religious and philosophical manner, like Schleiermacher;
Schweizer, Christliche Glaubenslehre nach prot. Grundsätzen, 1863, pt. i.; Schen-
kel, die christliche Dogmatik vom Standpunkt des Gewissens, pt. ii., 1858-59.
Also, v. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis (Lehrstücke), 2 vols., ed. 2, 1857-60; Twesten,
Vorlesungen über die Dogmatik der evang.-luth. Kirche nach de Wette's Compen-
dium, vol. i. 2, ed. 4, 1837.
3 As J. Müller, Nitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, ed. 6, 1851; Lange,
3 pts., 1849, &c. ; Ebrard, 2 pts., 1851, &c.; Hahn, Lehrbuch des christlichen
Glaubens, ed. 2, 2 pts., 1857, 1858.
* As Weisse, Philosophische Doymatik, 3 vols., 1855-62; Liebner, 1 pt., 1849;
Martensen, Rothe, Schöberlein. Rothe, indeed, insists that "divinity" should
only be regarded as such, if in accordance with Church teaching, and discusses it
only in a critical and historical manner, but requires, besides divinity, a specu-
lative theology, physics, and ethics. Comp. Rothe, Zur Dogmatik, 1863,
Doctrine of the Trinity.
453
vital potency of all existence. In this manner, moreover, the
doctrine of the Absolute Personality might acquire a deistic
tinge, and God be withdrawn to a state of false transcendentalism.
It seems also that, subsequently to the prevalence of Pantheism,
a deistic current set in. This was increased not merely by the
physical sciences, which in many minds transferred the con-
sciousness of God's existence to the background, by the promi-
nence given to the fixity of natural sequences, but also on the
theological side by that inherited, and not yet regenerated idea of
God-carried out to its necessary results by Schleiermacher-
which embraces the abstract simplicity and consequent unchange-
ableness of God, although the principles of cosmical multiplicity
and historical organization must also be in God, who cannot pos-
sibly be conceived of as maintaining a perpetual indifference with
respect to the world. Finally, this deistic feature has been much
favoured, in our days, by the tendency which would treat the
Church, or the ministry, or the means of grace, as substitutes for
the presence of God, instead of connecting direct communion
with God with these means for enjoying it. The elaboration of
the ethical idea of God, now for the first time seriously taken in
hand, seems to promise the attainment of the medium between
the extremes of Pantheism and Deism, and of a correct combina-
tion of the self-equality and activity of God, of His transcen-
dency and immanency.¹ Such labours continue the work of the
Reformation, which found in the principle of faith the proto-
typical union of necessity (authority) and freedom, and provide
it with an objective or absolute basis, by exhibiting in the moral
God the same, but primary, union of necessity and freedom, which
is to be manifested in a derivative manner, in man made in
God's image.2
It is partly owing to the above described particulars in the
modern doctrine of God, but still more, as in the first centuries
of the Christian era, to Christology, that the doctrine of the Trinity
has become the subject of renewed discussion.
According to pantheistic opinions God was only the unity imma-
nent in the world for its multiplicity, and besides the fundamental
1 It also furnishes the objective scientific basis for the idea of miracles. Comp.
Rothe, Zur Dogmatik, 1863, and J. Köstlin, De miraculorum quos Christus et
primi ejus discip. fecerunt, natura et ratione, 1860; and, in an historical point of
view, Steinmeyer, die IV underthaten des Herrn, 1866.
2 For further particulars, see Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1856, i. 2,
ii. 3, iii. 4.
454
The Trinity.
notion that the world was the Son of God, the Holy Ghost was
conceived of as, at most, the principle ever re-conducting the
world into God. By applying these notions to the history of
the human race, and regarding Christ as the turning-point of
history, a kind of Sabellian view of the Trinity might arise. As
little too could Deism admit a triplicity in the inner life of God.
The ethical idea of God was more favourable to the doctrine of
the Trinity, because the moral activity of God will be conceived
of as conditioned by a plurality of divine factors or modes of
existence. Hence the view that Divine love multiplied itself,
repeated itself in a threefold manner, that it might be able to
exercise itself absolutely, or might have an absolute object for
itself,¹ found great acceptance. This is a view however which, if
no distinction is shown between the three Divine "Persons" (no
character hypostaticus of the old divines), threatens to become
Tritheism, in which the unity is only one of species, and a mere
repetition of the same being; and which, if this self-repetition in
the two other Divine Persons is ascribed to the Father alone, with-
out participation by the Son and Spirit in the ascitas, involves
subordinationism.2 But subordinationism, by ascribing to the
Father alone proper absoluteness of nature (ascitas), is on the
very brink of a transition to recognizing in the Son of God only
the very highest of creatures, or the sum total of creation, and
denying an intrinsic Trinity. The former view, on the contrary,
actually required three absolute, perfect, Divine egos, fully and
essentially equal, but was in danger, on the one hand, of again.
forfeiting the advantage of the one absolute Personality of God
(p. 452), and making the divine unity vanish in a mere oneness of
species, while, on the other, Christological difficulties presented
themselves if the Divine hypostases, especially those of the Son,
were taken in the sense of absolute Personality. Hence Rein-
hard had already called the Divine hypostases personas incom-
pletas, and Martensen-with whom Kling agreed-understood
by them the ego-points [Ichpunkte] of the One Divine absolute
Personality. The question then still was to prove a plurality,
¹ So Sartorius, Liebner, Schöberlein and others.
3
2 So c.g. Thomasius, Kahnis, Gess, die Lehre von der Person Christi, 1856, p.
157, &c.
3 This is very plainly apparent in Plitt's above quoted work, i. p. 156, &c., which,
after the manner of Zinzendorf, applies the image of the family to Father, Son and
Spirit.
The Trinity.
455
not of parts, or of mere qualities, but of modes of being, or, more
strictly speaking, a triad of special modes of being, constituting
the full idea of the one absolute Divine Personality. For this
however, the derivation of the Trinity from the self-activity of
Divine Love will not suffice. And this for two reasons, first,
because this one Divine Personality is thus itself assumed, and
secondly, because there results from it only that multifold repeti-
tion of equality which inclines to Tritheism, while love also
requires distinctions which are not distinctions of mere number.
Hence it seems that the demand must be made to conceive of
the triplicity in the inner nature of God, not as, in the first
place, the product of the activity of the absolute Divine Per-
sonality, or of God as absolute Love, but contrariwise, as the
three diverse modes of existence of the one personal God,
which after the manner of correlatives constitute, as indis-
solubly connected and mutually related co-efficients, the One.
Personal God in all His properties from aseity up to absolute
self-consciousness and love; these all from aseity to self-con-
sciousness and love being conceived of in a Trinitarian manner.¹
These threefold modes of existence in God, of which the constant
result is the one absolute Divine Personality, and of which each
bears in itself, after its own manner, all the Divine properties,
will then all participate in this result. The one Divine Per-
sonality, knowing and willing itself in each of these (as the soul
is present in the whole organism, and gives thereto a share in
itself) eternal Divine modes of existence, has also its share in
the Divine Personality, and hence cannot be called impersonal,
but must, not indeed directly and separately, but indirectly,
and in eternal union with the other modes of existence in the
Divine nature, be designated personal.2
When the question: How the One absolute Personality of
God can be reconciled with eternal triplicity in God, is correctly
solved, the Christological difficulty may be obviated. This diffi-
culty may be stated as follows: How the union of God, not
merely under the type of an impartation of power, but of the
incarnation of God, according to one of His special eternal modes
1 As Nitsch especially strikingly requires.
2 From the standpoint of orthodox divinity there arises out of the doctrine of
the immanentia, the meрixwpnois of the hypostases into each other, to which also
an effect must be attributed.
456
Original State of Man. Moral Freedom.
of existence, viz. the mode of being of the eternal "Son," who as
the absolute image of the "Father" is also the archetype of the
world and of mankind, can be consistent with the existence of a
perfect, i.e. a personal man.¹
Recent divinity, including that of the Reformed Church, is dis-
tinguished from that of the Reformation era, with respect to the
doctrine of man's moral freedom, inasmuch as being influenced
by the ethic interest, it leaves to this freedom an actual position
both with respect to man's original state and the decision of his
ultimate destiny. It thus rejects the doctrine of absolute pre-
destination, both in its infralapsarian and supralapsarian forms,2
without encroaching upon either the doctrine of the power of
sin or that of the certainty of the salvation of the elect. In
its doctrine of the original state, modern theology-again in
the interest of ethics-turns to the second view left open by
Melanchthon's apology, according to which perfect righteous-
ness and holiness were the natural dowry of man only as an
aim attainable but not as yet realized. In doing this, however,
it does not consequently so regard the primitive condition of
man as to make the realization of evil necessary.
In the doctrine of evil, the view that this consists in sensuous-
ness is opposed by the view that it is essentially selfishness. A
union of the two has been sought by saying, in accordance with
Augustine, that evil is creature love, whether of self or of the
world, of a spurious kind, i.e. as isolated from God and self-
centred.³ Of more importance is the fact that the notions of sin
and personal responsibility play a more important part in
modern divinity than in that of former times; and though the
train of thought by which the most distinguished writer on sin
of recent times is led to the acceptance of a pre-temporal indi-
vidual fall of each human being has experienced, besides indi-
1 The solution of this difficulty is the special endeavour of Beyschlag's Christo-
logical labours. It seems to me that his attempted solution is, according to what
has been stated above, insufficient. But it is unbecoming in evangelical theology
to attempt, as it has done, to suppress or intimidate by passionate and there-
fore unjust attacks, such earnest labours on a problem whose existence ignorance
alone can misconceive, instead of co-operating in the work, and assisting such
efforts by a profounder investigation of truth, in place of an imperious appeal to
frequently misunderstood church tradition.
2 Schweizer, Scholten, and Romang alone embrace Schleiermacher's absolute
doctrine of predestination and denial of freedom.
3 As by Liebner, who tries to unite the views of Röthe and J. Müller.
Christology.
457
vidual instances of agreement, much opposition, yet the necessity
of so carrying out the traditional doctrine of natural corruption,
as to make the ultimate decision upon the definitive merit of
the individual and his final lot depend not upon original sin,
but solely upon personal relation to Christ, is admitted. At the
same time a deeper personal consciousness of sin is evidenced in
the recognition of the common guilt.
With respect to Christology, it is, as has already been shown,
Christ's true humanity which has, with special zeal and success,
been kept in view. This has been done both from an ethical
motive and for the sake of implanting in the consciousness of
His believing Church, a more vivid conception of His Person.
Hence the doctrine-frequently advocated in older divinity,
though expressed in no Church symbol-of the non-personality
of the human nature of Christ has been pretty generally given
up. The human conflicts and struggles of Christ and His real
human development have also been more strictly kept in view,
for the sake of a more just appreciation both of His example and
of the value of His merits. The consequence of this has been
however, in many instances, an Ebionite view, which places
Christ only in the rank of those human heroes who may be suc-
ceeded by similar, or even more exalted beings. Against such a
view, however, there has necessarily been a reaction on the part
of evangelical theology, based as it is upon a divinely certain expe-
rience of Christ's redeeming power, and therefore requiring that
God should be in Christ in a sense quite unique and enduring, in
other words, an indissoluble union of God with the Man Christ
Jesus. This, since God is in Christ not merely by His will, but
by His being, points to an eternal and special mode of being of
God truly manifested to the world in Christ. We have here the
point of union which unites Christology to an immanent view of
the Trinity, and will not suffer it to stop at a Sabellian one. The
notion of the Second Adam or of the Son of Man, of the "express
image of the Godhead," or of the "Ideal Man "1 has become very
important, as furnishing the middle term between the orthodox
1 Or the central individual of the human race. This must not however be con-
founded with the universal personality [Allpersonlichkeit] a monstrous notion
against which I have already more than once expressed myself. Nevertheless.
this very view has been imputed to me by Hase, Kirchengesch., ed. 9, p. 580,
while in vol. xi. of my Christological work, p. 1145, the opposite may be read.
458
Person and Offices of Christ.
doctrine of the God-man and the Ebionite view.
Christian con-
sciousness, however, forbidding an equalization of the redeemed
individual with the Redeemer, even after the perfecting of the
personality of the former, this middle term is only true when it
does not trench upon, but subserve, the universal and eternally
unique importance of Christ to the spiritual world. This it does
by the acknowledgment that Christ can only be the Second
Adam and the Son of Man because He is the Son of God, be-
cause a separate mode of existence of the Triune God is mani-
fested in Him. It is indeed frequently the case that the mode
of existence of God as the Son is, in opposition to those Church
doctrines of the fourth and fifth centuries which were laid down
for the establishment of the doctrine of the Trinity, so endowed
with absolute personality as to make this belong directly to His
own triune character. If this be done, the union of the Son of
God with the human nature of Jesus, which must not be
assumed to be non-personal, threatens a double personality, a
Nestorianism which many seek to escape by modern “Kenotik.”1
This however, though appealing to divine self-abasing love, sup-
poses an act of violence which shakes the foundations of the
Divine nature and of the Trinity, without really contributing
anything positive to the actual union of the Divine and human
natures. The removal of this difficulty, if it is to be attained
without making the human the central point in Christology, can
only be effected by carrying out that form of the doctrine of the
Trinity which ascribes indeed to God the Son a separate divine
mode of existence, but only indirectly, and not directly, a parti-
cipation in absolute Divine personality. This makes a perfect
self-impartation of God, as the Son, to the human nature pos-
sible, without coming into collision with human personality.
And since through the Tepixóρnois, and therefore indirectly, the
Son participates in the one absolute Divine Personality, which
wills and knows itself in three different modes, the human nature
also is thereby inwardly united with the Divine personality.
In the rationalistic period, the prophetic office, the teaching
and example of Christ, had been made all in all. This was fol-
lowed by a frequent tendency to cast it into the
misconceive its special and saving value, although it forms the
indispensable bridge to that Christian salvation which is, so to
1 See note, p. 105.
shade, and to
Offices of Christ.
459
speak, spanned thereby. An increasing importance with respect
to sanctification was attributed to it, just in proportion as a
more lively perception of the genuine human character in the
image of Christ was attained. Nor can the miraculous power of
Christ offer any real difficulty, if the miraculous origin of His
Person in the midst of the human race is admitted.—an admis-
sion which even those who merely recognize in Christ One abso-
lutely pure and sinless, although they are unable to comprehend
the ethical features of His manifestation in an ontological
manner, must of necessity make. The doctrine of His high-
priestly office has been, since Schleiermacher, somewhat discussed,
but scarcely with any perceptible results. Some declare war
against any reference thereof to the penal justice of God in
general, and, opposing both substitution and satisfaction, fall back
at most upon the conformation thus given by Christ to Himself, in
opposition to the temptations of the world and the devil, and
thus see in His death nothing more than His personal moral
perfection. Others embrace the theory of a juridical atonement,
to the extent of making Christ the object of absolute Divine
wrath, and representing Him as bearing intensively even the
torments of hell, without indeed being able to show how it is
that in this case forgiveness of sins is not a matter of lawful
claim on the part of man, since the double discharge of a debt
cannot be demanded from a merely juridical standpoint. In
opposition to this a middle view has begun to prevail. This,
instead of dwelling on the notion of the punishment inflicted
upon Christ, turns to the notion of expiation, and from the idea
of the Head, and of substitutionary love, developes the notion
that Christ necessarily bore by His sympathy our guilt and its
consequent unhappiness before God, the just for the unjust, for
the purpose of honouring, or offering expiation to, the justice of
God, on the part of that humanity of which He forms a part, for
the sake of which expiation God can regard the whole race of
man, seen in Him, as reconciled, and can save them.
2
¹ In v. Hofmann's Schriftbeweis and his Schutzschriften, 1856. Thomasius,
Philippi, Schmid, Delitzsch, Harnack, Ebrard, Weizsäcker, Ritzehl (de ira Dei and
Jahrbuch für die Theologie, v. 4), Weber (vom Zorn Gottes. 1862), have chiefly
taken part in this controversy. The treatise of Gess on the New Testament doe-
trine of the atonement, Jahrb. für deutsche Theologie, 1857-58, has found much
acceptance.
2 As by Stahl. Comp. Delitzsch, Commentär zum Hebräerbrief, 1854, p. 729, &c.
460
The Church.
The Means of Grace.
The legitimate efforts of the age to attribute more power to
the Church and to its actual organization have called forth in
many a tendency to oppose the application of the predicate
invisible to the Church (see above, p. 404 sq.). This has chiefly
taken the form of making baptism, i.c. infant baptism, the sole
constituent factor of the Church, to the neglect of faith and the
word. This attempt, however, at a retrograde movement on the
part of Protestantism has encountered as persevering opposition
as the revival of those hierarchical notions of the ministry of
which we have spoken above. These, too, were founded on the
legitimate feeling that it was not sufficient to conceive of the
ministerial office as a purely human institution, or as dependent
on human subjectivity or caprice. These hierarchical notions
which had a tendency to combine with a catholicizing view of
ordination, and had been zealously opposed at the period of the
Reformation, made the constitution of the Church, a matter of
doctrine, and, as was rightly perceived by Höfling, Guericke, and
v. Hofmann, even adulterated the material principle of the
Reformation by making the agency of the "ministry of the means
of grace
a new condition of salvation: thus exchanging one
error for another of a still more dangerous nature. This anta-
gonism can only be reconciled by the ethical view of Church
organization, i.e. by the perception that, while arbitrariness must
indeed be excluded, the legitimate Christian order of every
age meets with the approval of the Holy Spirit, and that the
province of ethics, in general, must not be regarded as merely
human, but as having in its measure a Divine value also.
respect to the means of grace themselves, the magical view has
been justly opposed by J. Müller, who insists on maintaining the
independence of the agency of the Holy Ghost in a genuine
Reformation sense.¹ This independence is not, however, infringed
upon by the admission that spirit-engendered productions of
every kind, where they meet with corresponding recipiency, show
themselves to be indeed a beneficial causality. The question of
Infant Baptism in particular has again been frequently discussed,
and many have, in the interest of personal faith, if not of the
possibility of a choice between differing forms of religion, declared
themselves in favour of adult baptism, while several have insisted
With
1 J. Müller's treatise on the relation of the agency of the Holy Ghost to the
word of God as a means of grace.
Baptism. The Lord's Supper.
461
on at least regarding Confirmation as the necessary completion of
Baptism. The latter view, as involving an admission that
Baptism is not complete in itself, undoubtedly encroaches upon
the objectivity of the sacrament, and seeks to complete it in a
subjective manner, which must certainly be lacking in the
objective agency of Baptism in the case of infants. Those who
embrace adult Baptism act, on the contrary, as if the direct
benefits of that sacrament and a disposition affected by contact
with Christianity had no actual share in the normal process of
man's salvation, as though everything in the moral development
were, on the contrary, to be based purely upon acts of reflection
and of conscious life—a notion which would banish also the best
influences of education, of Christian family life, &c., in short, of
a Christian atmosphere. Nay, they ignore the fact that the basis
for the prosperous development of a Christian's life is not his own
acts or powers of action, but the fertile soil of God's preventing
grace, the aim of which, indeed, must be self-conscious personality.
This aim certainly gives to adult baptism a certain amount of
justification, in opposition to the sloth-inviting view that Baptism,
apart even from the consciousness and will of the baptized, can
of itself really regenerate and impart salvation. This magical
effect is, however, obviated when the preventing grace manifested
in Baptism is regarded as a serious act indeed on the part of God,
and an adoption into His family, but yet, so far as final salvation
is concerned, as something only preliminary though fundamental,
as that which does not receive its conformation till a personal
decision is made a decision whose favourable issue, however, is
only prepared and effected by the proffer of God's preventing grace.
With regard to the Lord's Supper, the dissension between the
two evangelical confessions is not indeed as yet entirely obviated.
An important mutual approximation is, however, perceptible in
a doctrinal point of view, though much timidity and bondage to
forms which were in use neither in the primitive nor the
mediæval Church, and cannot be essential to the Lord's Supper,
are apparent. This approximation on the part of the Reformed
is obvious from the fact that in Germany they almost universally
entertain a higher view of the Lord's Supper than they formerly
did, and recognize therein a Divine gift, and not a merely human
act. On the Lutheran side it is manifested by ceasing, while
insisting on the objectivity of the Sacrament and Christ's presence
462
The Last Things.
therein, from any longer dwelling upon the participation even of
the ungodly, and by urging the importance of the Lord's Supper
in the aspect also of an act of mutual communion among believers.
This had always been done by the Reformed, and had in many
instances degenerated into a onesided view, which (as Zwingli
desired) made the Lord's Supper an act of confession on the part
of the Church, and one indeed which had respect to the doctrine
held concerning this Sacrament; nay, the attempt had been made
to make the form of distribution express such a confession.
With regard to this Sacrament, however, the Union, especially in
Prussia, gave legal protection to the standpoint of Reformation
liberty and truth, and thus checked the introduction of an
erroneous Zwinglian principle into the doctrine of the Lord's
Supper, and secured the objectivity of the Sacrament against the
advancing notion of a merely human act.
Finally, with respect to the last things, the doctrine of the
immortality of the human soul had met with scarcely any
opposition, except from the idealism of a portion of the Hegelian
school, and from materialism. It now, however, received confir-
mation by being connected with the doctrine of Christ's Person,
as the pledge of that perfection of individual personalities which
makes them worthy of eternal duration. There were but few
besides Rothe and Weisse who restricted immortality to the
regenerate, and taught that the lost are to undergo a process of
annihilation. The assumption that the termination of the earthly
life is, in every case, the termination of the Day of Grace, has
been pretty generally given up, on account of non-Christians who,
never having heard of the Gospel, cannot be ripe for judgment.
This has been a step towards naturalizing an alteration in the
Reformation doctrine held concerning the intermediate state-an
alteration which teaches that, even in the other world, a spiritual
development, nay, probably a process of conversion, is conceivable,
-and has already begun to exert a reactionary influence upon
liturgies. With respect to the end of the world, successful
attempts have been made to introduce millenarian opinions, not
merely into certain sects, but within the province of theology,
and thus to secure to the present stage its eminent importance
1
1 Comp. Stirm: Darf man für Verstorbene beten? Jahrbücher für deutsche
Theologie, 1861. Also Leibbrand, and a pastoral letter of General-Superintendent
Hahn, 1864.
Ethics.
463
in the kingdom of God. It would detain us too long to describe
the various modern forms of millenarianism, whether within
the Church or among the Swedenborgians, Irvingites, Darbyites,
Hofmannites, &c. Their common error, however, is to lay too
much stress upon externals-upon sight instead of faith--with
respect to the perfection of spiritual life, and thereby to damage
the ethical origin of faith. One good result may, however, be
hoped for. Millenarian notions, both in the early ages of the
Church, and again in the times of Spener, were the means of
presenting a concrete image of that kingdom of God which is yet
to be expected on earth-a kingdom to be established, not,
indeed, by abrupt acts on the part of God, but, as is ever His
pleasure, by human co-operation. So now also these hopes, which
hold up before the Church the end to be aimed at, may become
moral impulses contributing to realize the highest purposes of
the kingdom of God, according to the necessities of our age.
When we direct our attention to ethics, it is evident that, since
the time of Schleiermacher, this younger and weaker sister of
divinity has been diligently and successfully cherished. The
impulse proceeding from Schleiermacher continued in full opera-
tion, and resulted in the acceptance, by all ethicists of note, of
an ethical doctrine of the highest good, whether as the foundation
or the result of the ethic process, and also an admission of the indi-
vidual, as well as the general and identical factor. In consequence
of this, it may already be perceived that the hitherto varying
arrangement of material is gradually giving place to a settled and
progressive organization. The deduction of individual obliga-
tions from the idea of individual gifts-an idea to be realized by
the power of virtue in corresponding actions, has produced an
increased perception both of the glory of the kingdom of God
and of the vast, numerous, and varied excellences of its members,
as well as given more objective support to the doctrine of
individual obligation, and led from the ethics of the individual
soul to that common ethic spirit by which the individual must
be also animated in the performance of duty. Thus, besides the
task imposed on each man of saving or perfecting his own soul,
the whole scope of moral labour is now increasingly brought
before the consciousness as a task in which each must co-operate;
and thus individual morality is rescued from its former narrow-
ness, and from that limited horizon by which its views were
464
Practical Theology.
bounded. This is a progress which assuredly demands caution
and effort, lest the intrinsic value should lose in intensity as it
gains in extension, but which must nevertheless be hailed as an
advance. And this is the very progress which may chiefly be
expected if the evangelical Church has indeed emerged, in this
her fourth century, from a more spiritual and hidden existence
in faith and doctrine, and entered into the more objective form
of an organized association, whose bond of union is love. In
fact, the habit of association, so powerful in the present age, has
already made various practical beginnings; and Christian morality
has enriched itself by a more thorough discussion of concrete
moral questions of a social kind, such as the relation of the State
to the evangelical Church, the nature of membership in the latter,
the labour question, the state of prisons and the affairs of the
inner mission in general, as well as of missions to the heathen.
The endeavour to discuss all these questions on settled principles
has begun to appropriate to morals departments of the utmost
importance, which, though they always appertained thereto, had
been hitherto left uncultivated. It may be said that, generally
speaking, the increasingly deeper dealing of modern theological
science with the essence of the Gospel, has contributed to open
those practical sources whence a revival of the whole realm of
theoretical theology proceeds. And this brings us to our last
division, namely that of practical theology.
It is since the idea of the Church and of her essential functions
and attributes has been more clearly recognized that practical
theology, which was formerly, for the most part, an aggregate of
rules and regulations without any organic connection between its
several precepts, has been reconstructed. Nitzsch's practical
theology, in particular, brings forward its connection with the
other branches of theology.¹ Systematic theology, which is based
upon exegetic theology and faith, and developed by the history
of doctrines, exhibits Christian truth in the abstract, and therefore
the ideal of faith and practice. Historical theology, finishing with
a delineation of the present state of the Church, opposes the
empiric reality and its defects to this ideal. The contrast between
1 C. J. Nitzsch, praktische Theologic, 1847, &c., vol. i.: Allgemeine Theorie
des kirchlichen Lebens; vol. ii. Das kirchliche Verfahren oder die Kunstlehre.
Div. i.: Dienst am Vort, 2: Der evangelische Gottesdienst, 1848, 1851, vol. iii.,
div. i., Seelenpflege, 1857.
Catechization.
465
the two, the variance between the ideal and the real, produces
the effort to reconcile this opposition by means of theological
usages, in conformity with the requirements of the age. Thus
practical theology, as a science, owes its origin to the ecclesiasti-
cal procedure of the times; and, as this is necessarily technical,
practical theology is also a technical study. For this we are
indebted to Schleiermacher, who called practical theology the
crown of a theological course of study, and was the first to bestow
upon it a scientific organization. In this labour he was laudably
followed, not only by Nitzsch, but especially by Marheinecke,
Ehrenfeuchter, Moll, Palmer, Hagenbach, and Schweizer. Most
are agreed in describing practical theology as a science for the
clergy, and thus not doing full justice to the vocation of the
believing laity to Church work. Their rights, in this respect,
have been chiefly made apparent by the hitherto much neglected
theory of Church government, and by voluntary associations for
inner missions. On the other hand, the just notion that, since
the Church's existence and increase is brought about by constant
reproduction, it is necessary to start from the origin of the Church
in individuals, to proceed to their gathering together, and thence
to the Church, may be designated as the prevailing tendency in
the construction of a practical theology. Hence the theory of
missions (called also Halieutics) and catechization, the aim of
which is reception among the confirmed, form its first main
division. The second embraces the doctrine of worship, or of the
construction of the public services of the Church (Liturgics, with
hymnology and sacred music and homiletics), the superintendence
of the spiritual interests of individuals (cure of souls), and the
direction of the flock (the pastoral office); while the organization
of the Church, and the entire system of Church law, by which
the activity, whether of the individual or the community, must
be limited, forms a third division.
•
Catechization has,
The theory of missions is in its infancy.¹
after Spener so promoted it, been from the time of Mosheim
onwards chiefly devoted to the sharpening of the intellect.
Hence, there necessarily arose, as the deposit of the rationalistic
system which sees in Christianity nothing more than eternal
1 Comp. Ehrenfeuchter: Die praktische Theologie, div. i. Gottingen, 1859. W.
Hoffmann, Missionsfragen, Heidelberg, 1847. Calwer, Beleuchtungen der Mis-
sionssache, 1842.
II.
2 G
466
Liturgy.
ideas or truths, that so-called Socratic or erotectic method which
seeks to elicit everything from the catechumens. Such a method
was, however, partially justified by its opposite, which imparted
instruction in an utterly mechanical and external manner. The
conviction is now general that, in instruction, the voluntary
activity of the intellect and the religious affections must be
claimed for the matter to be imparted, and that therefore
the natural talents should be enlisted in such wise as to
lead to an intelligent appropriation of the Gospel as a thing
given.2
With respect to public worship in general, its idea is admitted
to be that neither should God and His word be the only active
element therein-the congregation maintaining a merely passive
attitude-nor should man alone be active, but that a combination
of the Spirit of God with the congregation should take place.
In such combination, one or other element may, in the various
acts of worship, have the preponderance, but both must be
present in all; the human in prayer or sacrifice, the Divine in
the word and Sacrament as the gift of God. The minister
must indeed conduct the worship; yet he is not above the con-
gregation, but of it.
On the one hand, he is the representative of the Church in
the individual congregation, and bound to her order in doctrine
and ritual, especially when performing sacred acts in the name
of the Church, and in common prayer. On the other hand, he
is a member of the Church, appointed to speak both by the
Church and congregation, and may, upon the foundation of the
common faith, let his individuality appear for the general edifi-
cation in prayer, exposition and prophesying, the chief matter
of which is preaching. An agreement has been come to, in
which the Reformed Church also coincides, that even art is a
lawful element in evangelical worship. And that not merely in
1 So Grässe, Dinter, &c.
2 Palmer, Katechetik, 1844, ed. 4, 1856. Christliche Pädagogik, ed. 2, 1862.
Stier, Harnisch, Kraussold, also Rütenick (of Schleiermacher's school) von
Zezschwitz, System der christlich-kirchlichen Katechetik, vol. i., 1863.
3 Comp. Marheinecke, Entwurf der praktischen Theologic, 1837. Grundlegung
der Homiletik, 1811. Also the works of Gass, Nitzsch, Vetter, Gaupp, Kapp
(1831), Ebrard, Höfling (1837), Ehrenfeuchter, Klöpper (Liturgik, 1841), Kliefoth,
Bähr, Schöberlein (see below), Harnack, der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst im
apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeiluller, 1856. Liebner, Studien und Kritiken,
1844.
Liturgy.
467
church architecture, and the decoration of sacred places, but also
in symbolical actions, in poetry and sacred music. Art must
however never be the end in view, but only a subservient ele-
ment, and must always show itself to be the natural and har-
monious incorporation of the religious spirit. While during the
last century Protestant worship had dwindled into dry preaching,
rhetorical and sentimental prayers, and the singing of moralizing
verses, the revival of the religious spirit introduced fresh vigour,
fulness, and unction. A desire for a suitable form of public
worship, combining its various parts, and a perception of the
true idea of worship, from which its whole theory has been
reconstructed, are widely spread, and the still frequently varying
usages are approaching to a typical harmony, of which freedom
and variety are the settled components. This result is becoming
more certain in proportion as the recently discovered treasures
of antiquity¹ form both the mind and taste, and fashion the skill
and productivity of the age. The result of such an agency
would be that the word of God, as the active principle of public
worship, would be developed in all its various services, and,
exerting an influence neither palæological, palæontological, nor
neological, one equally removed from the deadness of an imita-
tive Renaissance and from arbitrary experiments and artifices,
would create services of worship not only beautiful in form but
filled with spiritual energy.
With respect to preaching, the science of homiletics had, from
the days of Pietism, risen superior to the luxuriant formalism of
those numerous methods of preaching by which it was formerly
attempted to compensate for the lack of matter, or, if possible, to
invoke it, and returned to that more affectionate manner by
which words spoken from the heart may reach the hearts of
1 Daniel, Codex liturgicus, iv. pts. 1847-55. Thesaurus hymnologicus, 1841-46,
3 vols. Höfling, liturgisches Urkundenbuch, 1854. Koch, Geschichte des Kir-
chenliedes und des Kirchengesangs der Christen, insbesondere der deutschen erange-
lischen Kirche, 4 vols. Stuttgart, 1852-53. Ph. Wackernagel, das deutsche Kir-
chenlied von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts, 1863, &c.
(2 vols.) Schöberlein, Schatz des liturgischen Chor- und Gemeindeyesangs, &c.
Göttingen, 1864. Kliefoth, liturgische Abhandlungen, i.-iv., Schwerin, 1854-59.
Ehrenfeuchter, Theorie des christlichen Cultus, 1840. Schöberlein, der evan-
gelische Gottesdienst nach den Grundsätzen der Reformation mit Rucksicht auf
das gegenwärtige Bedürfniss, Heidelberg, 1854. Das Wesen des christlichen
Gottesdienstes, Göttingen, 1860. Ueber den Ausbau des Gemeindegottesdienstes in
der deutschen evangelischen Kirche, 1859.
1܂
468
Preaching.
others. But the Church element was already receding before the
subjective. This was still further the case in Mosheim, whose
style rather resembles that of the models of classic eloquence,
and reminds of Tillotson, and who may be said to form the
point of transition to the rationalistic mode of preaching. This,
in its earlier period, evinced, as far as its matter was concerned,
a strong tendency to eudæmonism and secularity; the preaching
of the word of God being exchanged for persuasive and intel-
lectual advice, sage admonitions concerning the useful, directions
for the preservation of the health, the cultivation of land, &c.
Contemporary with such a state of preaching was the fact that,
during the territorialist period, the Church was almost merged
in the State. Later rationalism, since Kant, was the parent of
moral discourses addressed to the will, with which were com-
bined sentimental sermons appealing to the feelings. In the
present century, Reinhard was long esteemed a model of correct
style, though this correctness was devoid of animation, and
exercised too much restraint upon his matter. He was suc-
ceeded by Harms, whose lively and popular manner revived
the demand for individuality and animation in preaching.¹
Schleiermacher regarded preaching as a contemplative exer-
cise, according to the measure given to each by the Spirit, as
the utterance-though not without dialectic additions of divine
mysteries, in that faith which unites the preacher and the flock.
Such a view is opposed to awakening preaching, which he
leaves to missionary efforts. Some, on the contrary, make this
very feature, viz. the awakening of the conscience, the main
point; while others make the didactic the chief element, con-
fining themselves principally to the form of lectures on church
doctrines a form which necessarily leads to the liturgical. It
may be designated as the common persuasion, formed by the advo-
cacy of all these methods, and by the classical models which are
found of each, that preaching must be a growth of the word of
God grafted upon the stock of a personality vitally rooted in
evangelical truth, and therefore in the common faith; that it
must be moreover neither entirely argumentative, nor merely
monitory, hortative, or affecting; that one or other indeed of these
1 Claus Harms, Postillen und Predigten; Pastoraltheologic, bk. i.; Der Prediger,
bk. ii.; Der Priester, bk. iii.; Der Pastor, ed. 2, 1837. Compare his article on
the gift of tongues, Studien und Kritiken, 1833, 3.
Church Law.
469
elements may predominate, according to the gifts of the preacher
and the circumstances of the flock, but yet that it must be
expected if not of every sermon, yet of a course of preaching, if
it is to be of a really edifying character, that it should have
regard to the whole man, and truly exhibit the instructive, the
hortative, and the heart-appealing features. It is generally felt
that while its structure and language must not be devoid of
artistic excellence, yet that this must be seen to be not an inde-
pendent object, but only the natural incorporation and mani-
festation of a mind which lives and moves and has its being in
the element of Christianity.¹
With regard to Church law, the territorial system was con-
stantly extended during the past century, until e.g. even con-
sistories were abolished in Prussia, and the minister of worship
became the supreme ecclesiastical authority. In the beginning
of the present century Schuderoff again advocated the collegial
system, but he, as well as Wiese, Schmalz, Stephani, Krug, and
Pfahl, did this from a rationalistic standpoint. Schleiermacher
carried out this same system from his higher notion of the
Church, and specially laboured, like Vinet, for the separation of
Church and State, while Rothe, idealizing the Hegelian view,
designated the independence of the ecclesiastical organization
as an injustice sooner or later to be expiated in the Chris-
tian state which will comprise all that is Christian and moral.
Stahl also advocates the idea of the Christian state, but in the
form of an alliance between the State and the clergy, to whom
he assigns the episcopal position, and thus attempts a new appli-
cation of Episcopacy. He urges too directly the solidarity of
their mutual interests, to the prejudice of the development of
national and ecclesiastical liberty. His views are homogenous
with those of the theologians described, p. 398 sq. On the other
hand, a reconstruction of Church law has been commenced by
Eichhorn, Puchta, and especially by Ludwig Richter, E. Herr-
mann, H. Jacobson, and Dove. The aim of the better ten-
dency is the separation of the law of the Protestant Church
from canon law, by the development and realization of Pro-
Palmer, Homiletik, ed. 4, 1857.
Schweizer, 1848. Gaupp, prak-
1 Compare Nitzsch's before-named work.
Stier, Kerytik, ed. 2, 1844. G. Baur, 1848.
tische Theologic, 2 pts., 1848-52. Hagenbach, theologische Encyclopädie, 1861,
§ 106, &c.
1
470
Church Law.
testant ideas concerning the form and government of the Church
in its intrinsic independence of the State, but in unison
with the spirit of a national or congregational church, which
seeks an organization conformable to its nature in the union
of the fixed consistorial, and the variable presbyterio-synodal
elements.
SECOND DIVISION.
The Reformed Nations beyond Germany during the
Nineteenth Century.
NE common phenomenon distinguishes the churches of the
It is that after the great intellectual revolu-
tion of which England was the subject in the former, and
Germany in the latter half of the eighteenth century, they
approximated each other in many important respects. This was
manifest on the part of the Reformed out of, as well as in
Germany. About 1750 the controversial element gave place
among German-reformed, Swiss theologians, to a peaceful co-
ordination with the Lutheran branch. This was exemplified
in the divines J. C. Stapfer and D. Wyttenbach.¹ The Cal-
vinistic doctrine of predestination was almost universally aban-
doned, the German philosophy, viz. that of Leibnitz and Wolff,
and subsequently of Kant, also attained an influence among
them, though the standpoint of biblical supernaturalism, so
homogenous to the Reformed Church, was adhered to. After
1750, the boundary lines between Lutheran and Reformed
1 Stapfer, Grundlegung zur wahren Religion, Zürich, 1746-53, 12 pts. Wytten-
bach of Berne, Prof. at Marburg, Tentamen theolog. dogm. methodo scientifica
pertractate, 3 vols. Berne, 1741; Francof. 1747. Compend. theol. dogm. et mor.
Francof. 1745.
2 Bernsan (Theol. dogm. methodo scientifica pertract. pt. i., Hal. 1745, pt. ii.,
Lugd. 1747, 4to.), subsequently of Franeker, was, like Stapfer and Wyttenbach,
a Wolffian. The polemical works of Stapfer (5 vols. 1744, &c.) and Wyttenbach
(2 vols. 1763-65) treat Lutheran doctrine as essentially one with Reformed.
Stapfer wrote also a course of ethics (in 6 pts. 1756). So also did Wyttenbach
and Endemann.
3 E.g. by Endemann of Hanau (Institut. theol. dogm. 2 vols. 1777, and Comp.
theol. dogm. 1782), by S. Mursinna of Halle (Comp. theol. dogm. Hal. 1777), and
Stosch of Frankfort on the Oder (Introd. in theol. dogm. et Institutiones theol.
dogm. 1779). Muntinghe of Harderwyk (Pars theol. christ. theoretica, 2 vols.
1800) and Heringa of Utrecht occupied, long after, a similar position both with
respect to conciliation and biblical supernaturalism.
472
Approximation of the Two Confessions
theology are so obliterated that a separate theological literature
can scarcely any longer be spoken of amongst German-speaking
Protestants as pertaining to one or other of the two Protestant
confessions. And analogous with the relation existing between
the foreign German-Reformed churches and the entire Protes-
tant Church of Germany is that between the latter and English
and Dutch theology, which may be described as one of mutual
friendly intercourse.
It was not only that the differences between the two evan-
gelical confessions appeared comparatively unimportant in the
eyes of a religious indifferentism; not merely that confessional
controversy was silenced among the representatives of orthodox
theology, because they were engaged in deeper and more serious
conflicts than those with their fellow Protestants. The most in-
telligent, the most vitally religious, were the very men who were,
in virtue of the critical element inherent in sound faith, most
profoundly convinced that a distinction must be drawn between
religion and hereditary forms of belief, between faith and theology,
and that it is not every member of the body which can occupy
the position, or assume the importance of the head or the heart,
unless an adulteration of truth is to be the result. Hence, even
so early as the latter half of last century, the two confessions
often exercised upon each other a salutary influence, which each
acknowledged with gratitude. Such men as v. Haller, Euler,
Lavater, and Hess, had as large an influence in Germany as in
Switzerland. It was, however, the Zürich school of poets
(Breitinger, Sal. Gessner) that was the first thus to affect its
German neighbours. On the other hand, the influence of a
Herder was widely felt in Switzerland, and, even from the be-
ginning of the present century, Basle on the one hand, and
Nuremberg on the other, were centres of friendly intercourse, and
of a common spirit of Protestant freedom unrestrained by the
obligation of forms. As the first streams of fresh life began to
pour forth over the Protestant nations, this spirit of union busied
itself in extensive Christian undertakings, on a far larger scale
than the Christian associations founded by Urlsperger. Among
these mention must be made of the missionary society of Basle.
This, after the decline of the Halle associations, which were
dependent upon Denmark and England, was the first to give the
signal for a native fulfilment of this essential vital function of a
out of Germany also.
473
flourishing church. It was this institution which, in conjunction
especially with that of Wurtemburg, first made the cause of mis-
sions to the heathen and the Jews popular. At about the same
time a powerful impulse proceeded from England, which resulted
in the foundation of hundreds of Bible societies in Germany.
Its guidance and nutriment by means of holy Scripture were not
to be lacking to the revived material principle, in other words, to
conscious individual piety. All this, though proceeding from the
Reformed Church, experienced the less opposition, and found the
more willing reception, inasmuch as the positive Lutheran theo-
logy of the age had, as biblical supernaturalism, clothed itself in
a form which was scarcely any longer distinguishable from the
positive tendency in Reformed theology. On the other hand,
regenerated German theology exercises, in the present century, a
very powerful influence upon foreign Reformed churches. Since
about 1750, indeed, their own theological activity may be said,
in many instances, to have stagnated; they have therefore been
the more easily affected, though some decades subsequently, by
the movements of German theology.¹
It is, moreover, another common feature of the churches of the
Reformation that, after a period of prevailing unbelief again gave
way to renewed love for the gospel, they recurred to the Re-
formation era, and chiefly to its unanimous confession, for the
sake of giving permanence and stability, as well as historical and
ecclesiastical standing, to religious movements. In the Reformed
Churches out of Germany however, dissensions, nay, divisions,
as to the best kind of church regeneration have arisen even
among friends of the Church. This has been the case wherever
a revival of religion has been experienced in different proportions
by the different classes of society, and the zeal for such revival
has not been unmixed, on the part of the party of progress, with
impatience; wherever this zeal has in a rash and uncritical
1 The more important works of German theology, whether exegetic, historical,
or systematic, have, during several years, been translated into English. Clark's
Foreign Theological Library gives an entire series of translations from German
works. An interest in German theology and literature was first introduced into
Britain from America. It first and gradually found acceptance in Scotland and
Ireland. Recently, however, a more intimate relation with German theology has
prevailed in England also. The negative tendencies having been transplanted
from Germany, the necessity of taking notice also of the opposition these have
there experienced was at last recognized.
474
France.
manner struggled to restore the decayed or discarded authority
of the confession, advancing even so far as to insist, e.g., on a
double doctrine of predestination, and has at the same time
delighted in ancient forms of worship; or wherever the enthu-
siasm for the primitive idea of a free church government has
insisted upon a speedy decision to carry out this idea in its
purity, before the church feeling necessary for such a purpose
was regained. The dissensions alluded to have taken place in
France and Geneva, in Holland and England; the divisions in
the Canton de Vaud and Scotland. The fact indeed must be
admitted that in the above named Reformed Churches, that of
England excepted, the parties which laid claim, and for the most
part justly, to special Christian zeal, have proceeded to secessions
from the national Church. Such secessions have weakened
the power of extension, and interrupted the process of recovery,
a result to which, indeed, the indifference and dulness of the
opposite party has not a little contributed. In such instances
there has been an absence of theological science able to fulfil its
rightful office of estimating such differences at their true value, of
guarding the movement from a premature decision on one side or
the other, of approximating the opposing parties, and bringing them
for their mutual advantage to a better understanding, both by re-
viving and spreading among them a feeling of deeper wants, and
by developing those germs of truth which are common to both.
In France¹ the Protestant Church had been almost ex-
tinguished by its terrible dispersion under Louis XIV. It was
not till towards the close of the eighteenth century (1787) that
she again entered, with the recognition of government, among the
ranks of her sister churches, after having passed her "life in the
wilderness, poor in scholarship but rich in faith," amidst the
sufferings of Ant. Court, Paul Rabaut, Russel, Durand, Desubes,
Benezet, and others. But the times were unfavourable, society
was stirred to its very depths, not only by a political, but especially
by a mental and religious revolution, which affected even her
evangelical convictions, and her theology assumed a defensive or
even passive attitude in the presence of the superficial culture
1 G. de Felice, Histoire des Protestants de France, depuis l'origine de la Réfor-
mation jusqu'au temps present, ed. 2, 1855, translated into German by Pabst,
1855; Guizot, Méditations sur l'état actuel de la religion chrétienne, Paris, 1866,
pp. 111-374, especially p. 127, &c.
Geneva. Lausanne.
1
Encontre. Haldane.
2
475
and illuminism of the age. Direct attacks upon the Trinity,
indeed, such as that made by Prof. Gasc, of the newly acquired
theological faculty of Montauban, were not tolerated, and the
Protestant faith found in Danl. Encontre a staunch defender in
Montauban. Men, however, like Sam. Vincent, to whom the
essence of Protestantism consisted in free inquiry, or still more
like Athan. Coquerel, who failed to perceive that a common
belief was necessary to a church, were those whose opinions were
more followed. This was a consequence not only of the influence
of German rationalism, but of the state of the Church of Geneva,
which, together with that of Lausanne, had, since the eighteenth
century, become the spiritual metropolis of French Protestantism.
For the Genevese Church had long been caught in the toils of
Rationalism. The absolute adoption of the theocratic system
during the seventeenth century had been succeeded by a shallow
formalism; and the confessions of the Reformation were given
up first in Geneva, and afterwards in France. A new religious
movement, however, of a somewhat methodistical tinge arose in
Geneva after 1816, chiefly through the efforts of Robert Haldane,
a pious Scotchman. This movement was joined by Malan, Bost,
Gonthier, Merle D'Aubigné, and Gaussen, and soon spread into
France, Encontre entering into friendly relations with Haldane, and
Mark Wilks, an English dissenting minister, exercising a similar
influence in Paris. Hence this revival in France was, at first, to
a certain degree dependent upon the religious history of Geneva
and its Methodism. The more zealous Methodists in Geneva,
with Malan and Bost at their head, seceded from the Genevese
national Church, because it forbade them to express their own
"opinions," or to combat the opinions of others, concerning the
union of the two natures in Christ, the agency of grace, and
original sin. This secession was followed by the foundation of
the dissenting theological school and Church (Oratoire) under
Merle, Gaussen, Steiger, Hävernick, and others. The movement,
which had spread into France, there stumbled at similar obstacles
as in Geneva and the Canton de Vaud, and refused to accede to
the acceptance of a settled confession of faith. Hence, in France
1 J. Vernet, Instruction chrétienne, 3 vols. Geneva, 1754, already shared such
opinions.
Comp. H. v. d. Golz, die reformirte Kirche Genfs im 19 Jahrhundert, 1861,
i. 22, &c. 49, &c.
14
476
Monod.
also, a certain portion, consisting for the most part of men worthy
of all honour, and bearing by this very deed active testimony to
the power of Christianity, separated from the national Church,
determining to rely upon their own resources instead of deriving
their dignity and power from the State, and became models of
zeal for the salvation of souls. Men like Felix Neff, Pyt,
Gonthier, Audebez, Cook, Wilks, and Haldane, exercised upon
´ youthful theologians, as well as upon the people, an influence
which entails a debt of gratitude upon the Church. Haldane
and Gaussen, however, introduced into the movement elements
of dogmatic legality, of intolerance, and arbitrariness which
materially contributed to a separation, which was joined by
Count Agenor de Gasparin, Fr. Monod, and others.
1
This dogmatic legality, which also partially leant towards.
dualistic predestination, and a most unyielding theory of in-
spiration, met with opposition within the French Church from
men of a genuine church spirit, such as Encontre and Ad. Monod.¹
It was also soon afterwards opposed by names of note in the
ranks of the separatists or "Free Church," c.g. by Alex. Vinet
and E. de Pressensé.
Ad. Monod especially expected success, and looked for a gradual
victory, not from the legal stringency of symbolical obligations,
but from the united power and perseverance of religious courage
and theological attainments, without desiring to fetter the free
development of the Church by the ordinances of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries, such as the Calvinistic doctrine of
predestination, &c. The uncongenial elements which had been
engrafted into the French Reformed Church were gradually
banished, and while the relation of the Church to the State was
still variously regarded, all were agreed that it was advisable
to allow a certain amount of latitude in doctrinal matters,
and to require an acknowledgment of fundamental facts and
truths only.
But a conscious recovery of the complete Reformation prin-
ciple, for the sake of possessing an internal standard of all further
theological movement, and of directing its course, was now the
question. Especially was it necessary, with regard to the formal
principle, that the ancient form of the doctrine of inspiration-
the last appeal of which was, after all, to the authority of the
¹ Ad. Monod, Pourquoi je demeure dans l'Eglise établie, Paris, 1849.
Ed. Scherer.
477
Church-should be altered, for the purpose of its due combination
with the material principle. In fact, further movement in this
direction did not at first proceed from rationalistic tendencies. It
was, on the contrary, in the Free Church that the perception was
first arrived at, that the Evangelical Church cannot be based
solely upon the formal principle (to which the Réglement orga-
nique for the Genevese National Church, after its reconstruction
in 1849, alone recurred), but that to rest satisfied with historical
or rational proofs of the Divinity of holy Scripture is to lessen and
obscure the standpoint of Protestantism, and to abridge the claims.
of the material principle. In fact it was not till the Christian
experience of faith and the power of the Gospel to be its own evi-
dence to the mind were recurred to, that the Reformation position
was really recovered. Now this could not, for any length of time,
tranquilly endure that antiquated form of the theory of inspira-
tion so strictly insisted on by Haldane and Gaussen. The two
would be sure to come into collision, both on account of the
authority claimed by this merely ecclesiastical dogma, and
because the material principle had, from the first, occupied an
important position among the Seceders, while this theory of
inspiration, suppressing the claims of the human element, re-
mains entirely exterior to the analogy of the process of faith.
It was at all events necessary that the consciousness of what
evangelical faith and its claims are, should be revived, in opposi-
tion to Gaussen and his friends. Adolphe Monod has, in most
attractive language, and with heartfelt delight in holy Scripture,
brought forward, in his Adieux, the thought, how much we lose
when we insist upon regarding holy Scripture as only divine,
while its divine-human character "lets us also feel the pulsa-
tions of a heart filled with human thoughts and emotions." But
it was chiefly Alex. Vinet, with his deep piety, his large and
highly cultivated mind, his elevated and ardent eloquence and
powers of description which recall Pascal, who sought, like
Schleiermacher, to supply this deficiency in a scientific manner
also, and to advocate, under the certainly unfortunate term of
"individualism," the material side of the Reformation principle,
nay, to associate it on equal terms with the formal. Edm.
Scherer, whose disposition was a happy one, and whose mind was
truly penetrated by the material principle, showed himself to
have been originally a man of a kindred spirit. But the sharp
478
Alex. Vinet.
conflict with Gaussen's standpoint unfortunately made him lose
his balance. Not being able to attain to that inward union of
the formal principle, or of Christian objectivity with the freedom
of the subject, which he required, he retreated to an even more
reserved and inimical position towards this objectivity, without
whose complete interpenetration the religious consciousness is
barren and unformed, while faith and assurance, being without an
object, must consequently become extinct. Scherer by degrees ad-
vanced so far in a negative direction that it was only his energetic
moral consciousness that any longer afforded him any firm support.¹
Vinet's influence, on the contrary, favoured by the Government
persecution of the Church in the Canton de Vaud, and the sym-
pathy excited for its sufferings, and also by the position which
he took up with regard to the State as essentially inimical to the
Church, a position readily accepted by the Free Church of France,
spread increasingly in the Romance countries, and produced a
powerful effect among the free Churches which had originally
adopted Gaussen and Gasparin's standpoint.
Edm. Scherer is a monument of the fact that the material
principle will in the end be undermined if it is exalted to the
sole supremacy, that a subjectivity which severs itself from all
objective power, for the sake of freedom, is sure to languish under
the doom of a restless motion and an aimless activity, of effort
without progress, of desire without satisfaction. In him one of
the most hopeful spirits fell a sacrifice, not indeed without his
own concurrence, to the obstinacy which supposed itself to be
advocating pure Christianity in opposing him, and which took
offence at the claims of faith, even with respect to the criticism
of the canon. Vinet's "individualism" also was undoubtedly
inspired by opposition to a legality alien to the spirit of evan-
gelical piety, and expressed in a literal scripturalism. His view
is unclouded when the question is, to rebuke that false self-
destroying standpoint of objectivism which he saw must logically
culminate in pantheism. Vinet eloquently brings forward the
fact, that moral personifications, e.g. the Church and the State,
cannot, as such, be pious, or virtuous, or possess faith; that
¹ Colani of Strasburg also advocated with much ability the ethic consciousness.
He, however, unnaturally severs the ethic element from ontology and meta-
physics, and thus attains to no metaphysical importance of Christ. The ultimate
reason for this will be found to be his failing to develop the ethical idea of God.
Edm. de Pressensé.
479
religion, on the contrary, can dwell only in individuals. At the
same time, however-and in this respect Schleiermacher appears
in advantageous contrast with him as the far more reflective and
moderate spirit-he neither perceives that that alone is the truly
evangelical idea of a community which has its existence in indi-
viduals animated by a common spirit and its vital law; nor that
moral personifications are not truly such until the common con-
sciousness of the genus is in harmony with the personal con-
sciousness of the individual, nay, until they are voluntary
instruments of the genuine common spirit.
1
A medium tendency however, obviously not uninfluenced by
recent German theology, arose, occupying a position between
that of Scherer and of biblical supernaturalism, which was also
advocated in the National Church of France and Geneva. Its
chief representative is the clever and talented E. de Pressensé.
A firmer adherent than his opponents to the Reformation prin-
ciple of faith, he was able, by this very fact, to occupy a freer
position towards the old theory of inspiration and the criticism
of the canon, and has boldly and intelligently espoused the inter-
ests of true theological science, and asserted its necessity for the
French Church. In his history of the three first centuries, he
has shown himself a worthy disciple of Neander, and has, both
by his acute criticism of Renan's work, and more especially by
an excellent larger work of much research on the same subject,
taken part, in the most efficient manner, in the modern discus-
sions on the life of Jesus.? His periodicals gathers to it a
numerous staff of talented young writers, both in and out of the
National Church (e.g. E. Bersier, Bonifas junior, and others),
forces the rationalistic party in that Church to a crisis whose
issue can scarcely be doubtful, proves that the spirit of genuine.
theological science can, at least inwardly, rise above a schism,
and shows that even a minority may keep clear of a spirit of
sectarianism, and be led by a true Church spirit. It may be
¹ Histoire des trois premiers siècles de l'église chrétienne, 2 vols. 1858. Deux-
ième série, 2 vols. 1861.
2 E. de Pressensé, Jésus Christ, son temps, sa vie, son œuvre, ed. 2, 1866, xv.
and 684.
3 Revue chrétienne, with the Bulletin théologique.
On the left side may also be named Mich. Nicolas, Coquerel fils, A. Reville,
and Pécaut; on the right, Astié, L. Thomas of Geneva, Lutteroth, R. Hollard,
Bois, Bouvier, Jean Monod, A. Schäffer, and Sabatier.
J
480
German Switzerland. Holland.
hoped that a theology exercising a rejuvenescent power upon
the
whole French Church may proceed from the men of this tendency.¹
And it is a special cause of rejoicing that a man of Guizot's mental
calibre should be essentially in its favour, and combine with it in
its opposition of both a deistic and pantheistic denial of the super-
natural, and in its juster view of the inspiration of holy Scripture.
While the wrong position in which the Free Church had at
first placed itself is thus being corrected from within, and a more
friendly relation to the National Church restored in France, the
latter has, by means of such men as Ernest Naville,2 Godet (of
Neufchatel), Fred. de Rougemont, Bungener, and others, su
intellectually and efficiently regained French Switzerland, that
all excuse for separation is fast disappearing.
With respect to German Switzerland, the history of her
theology has, since the preceding century, been identical with
that of Germany, as is shown by the names of Hess, Lavater, J.
G. Müller, Hagenbach, Gelzer, Auberlen, Stockmeyer, Stähelin,
and Riggenbach the younger, and also of Schulthess and Alex.
Schweizer. Numerous German theologians, such as de Wette,
Hitzig, Elwert, Schneckenburger, Beck, Hoffmann, Auberlen,
Gess, Held, Keim, and Schulz, all found there a field of activity
during a longer or shorter period. Basle is the chief point of
communication between German and Swiss theology. Berne is
more akin to Basle, through such men as Güder, Immer, Romang,
and Wyss, while Zurich rather represents the tendency to mode-
ration in the midst of a fermentation whose free course is re-
strained by the authority and partiality of the secular Church
government. It must, however, be considered that the revival
of the Protestant Churches both of Switzerland and France has
proceeded from foreign, and especially from methodistical influ-
ences, which have restrained a healthy development on the part
of science, between which and this revival a certain amount of
opposition has existed.
Holland also, whose theology, distinguished during the
eighteenth century for linguistic attainments,³ went over into
1 See above, and Méditations sur l'Essence de la Religion Chrétienne, 1863.
2 Comp. E. Naville, La vie eternelle, 1861; Maine de Biran; Le Père céleste.
3 Besides Clericus and the critic Wetstein, Alb. Schultens, the creator of Modern
Hebrew Grammar (1748), 1686-1750, and his grandson, Heinrich Alb. Schultens,
the orientalist, are names of note.
Schools of Gröningen and Leyden.
481
biblical supernaturalism, which, on its side, mingled more and
more, as far as matter was concerned, with rationalism, expe-
rienced a revival during the first thirty years of the present
century. We do not here allude so much to the "separated
church," with its narrow, old-Reformed spirit, for after its partial
departure it acquired but little theological leadership of any
importance. More efficient with respect to the arousing of the
Dutch people was the religious and methodistic influence of
England and Scotland, but most important and enduring of all
has been the influence of German theology and science upon the
Dutch universities. It was chiefly by means of Schleiermacher,
Neander, and Ullmann that more life and activity entered the
Dutch universities. The Gröningen school, which regards the
Socratic Van Heusde as its founder, and numbers among its
followers Hofstede de Groot, Pareau, Van Oordt, and others, is
tinged by Schleiermacher's views. It opposed the rationalistic
supernaturalism which prevailed in a very moderate form
(Heringa, Royards) at Utrecht. It seeks to give prominence,
both theoretically and practically, to the human and moral
elements of Christianity, to connect itself with à Kempis, Wessel,
and other pre-Calvin forerunners of a native Reformation,
denies predestination, but also the immanent Trinity, and
expresses itself vaguely as to the doctrine of God and the Person
of Christ in general. It acknowledges all the miracles in the
life of Christ, but denies His Godhead, and seeks especially to
give prominence to His human nature. Its most flourishing
period was from 1840 to 1850. Since that time its influence
has been eclipsed by the Leyden school, at the head of which is
Scholtens, author of an historical work on the doctrine of the
Reformed Church according to its fundamental principles.¹ He
resembles Alex. Schweizer, and brings prominently forward the
idea of God, dwelling, however, chiefly upon His infinity and
power. Like Schweizer, he transforms the predestination of the
Reformation era into philosophical supralapsarian Determinism,
with an apokatastasis. He lays more stress upon the meta-
physical necessity resulting from the Divine omnipotence than
upon moral bondage by reason of sin. His speculation is defi-
cient in deep moral and religious feeling. Christ is, in his view,
1 De Leer der Hervormde Kerk in hare Grundbeginselen, 1855. He was opposed,
among others, with much critical acumen, by Dr. Chantepie de la Saussaye, 1859.
II.
2 H
482
Scholtens. Opzoomer.
the man who perfectly manifested the Divine image. He fluc-
tuates between deistic and pantheistic notions. He regards the
testimonium Spiritus Sancti as a testimonium rationis Christum
agnoscentis, while the material principle is the acknowledgment
that the absolute sovereignty of God, and especially His grace, is
the sole cause of salvation. No metaphysical interest leads him
to deny miracles, while, on the other hand, no religious interest
induces him to maintain them. His denial of free will, more-
over, being necessarily identical with dependence upon the course
of nature, tends towards Deism, unless religion obtains a more
essential and independent position. Hence, while in his avoid-
ance of mysticism, he would willingly stop at theological idealism,
others, partly of his school, have allied themselves with the
so-called exact or empiric method introduced into theology from
natural philosophy. Among the advocates of this method is
Opzoomer, professor of moral philosophy at Utrecht, who for-
merly adhered to the Krausian philosophy, represented at
Brussels by Ahrens. In 1845 he proclaimed man's reconcilia-
tion with himself by means of reasoning, but subsequently,
like Pierson and Busken Huet, he made external experience,
in opposition both to external authority and speculation, the
only means of certainty: as if there could be a knowledge
worthy of the name without self-evident ideas, or as if the reli-
gious were not, as well as the sensuous, a matter of experience.
Hence his position is inimical to Christianity.
All these schools, however, including the first-named, do not
satisfy the national religious feeling of Holland, and there has
now for a long period existed, besides these, another tendency
akin to modern German theology, though without academical
patronage, which promises to be prolific of theological results.
Its beginnings were rude and austere, nay, it inclined to a legal
juridical theology, after the manner of Stahl, and sought to put
a stop to the above described separation, by more strictly
enforcing the ancient ecclesiastical confessions and ordinances.
It numbers among its adherents the statesman and scholar,
Groen van Prinsterer, the poet Wilhelm Bilderdyk († 1831),
and the converts from Judaism, Isaac da Costa († 1859) and
Abr. Capadose, the latter of whom entertains hopes of the latter-
day glories of Israel similar to those of Auberlen, Baumgarten,
and v. Hofmann. From this school was gradually separated an
The Scotch Church. Chalmers.
483
estimable company of closely allied friends, who more duly
appreciated science and laboured for a regeneration of believing
theology, unfettered by a literal adoption of the symbols. They
established journals of their own, viz. De Vereeniging and Ernst
en Vriede. To this party belong, besides the practical Heldring
and Van Rhyn, the theologians Van Oosterzee¹ and Doedes, now,
together with Ter Haar,2 professors in Utrecht, Chantepié de la
Saussaye of Haag, and Beets.4 These insist upon maintaining
the mystical element of faith, which was increasingly lost sight
of by the Gröningen school. They seek to construct a theology,
uniting the speculative and the historical, the real and the ideal,
and advocate also the Reformation synthesis of the ethic and
religious with the intellectual. It is upon its internal strength
that the hopes of the Dutch Church, which since its re-
organization and the declaration of the general synod of July
25, 1865, has been wholly deprived of all legal protection
of its reformed or Christian confession," must henceforth chiefly
depend.
We must now glance at the Scotch Church. After the "dark
age" of the eighteenth century, the evangelical party, then called
the "Wild-men," who opposed the moderates, and especially
Robertson, attained increasing importance. The piety of the
more peaceable, who adhered to the customs of their forefathers
and maintained their form of worship, their diligent Bible-reading,
the ministerial office of the head of the household, and the strict
observance of the Sabbath, and who were also reinvigorated by
English Methodism, gradually obtained eminent spiritual leaders,
among whom Chalmers was the most celebrated. With him
were associated the noted Church historian Thomas M'Crie,
Welsh, Candlish, and others. The question concerning the
rights of patrons however arose, and entailed serious conse-
1 Van Oosterzee's work on Christology, in 3 vols., 1859. Evangelium Lucä,
Pastoralbriefe, and Jacobus in Lange's Bibelwerke (translated in Clark's Foreign
Theological Library). Jahrb. für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1853, &c.
Doedes has treated on baptism and the Lord's Supper, as well as on the Resur-
rection of Christ. Ter. Haar, Geschiedenis der christelyke Kerk,
3 Gedanken über das Wesen und das Bedürfniss der Kirche, and other works.
See above, p. 481.
+ Paulus, translated by Gross, 1857.
5
Comp. Contemporary Review, March 1866; The Freest Church in Christendom,
pp. 159, &c.; and Köhler, die niederländische reformirte Kirche, 1856.
484
The Disruption.
quences to the Church. Christ's sole sovereignty in the Church,
which had already been insisted on in the Westminster Confes-
sion, seemed to a powerfully stirred Church consciousness irre-
concilable with the right of patrons to nominate a minister to
his parish.¹ Parliament protecting the rights of patrons, a seces-
sion from the Established Church took place, and the Disrup-
tion of 1843 divided the Scotch Church into two almost equal
parts. The Free Church, with Chalmers at its head, was obliged
to turn to the voluntary principle, though Chalmers still advo-
cated the idea of a national church, in opposition to Dr. Ward-
law, a celebrated Independent minister. Much as this schism
may be lamented, the devoted love of a nation to its Church, and
the power of self-sacrifice, never received a more striking exem-
plification. The matter itself in question was one concerning
relation to the State-viz. whether the latter could be entitled
to maintain and defend a privilege, in opposition to the declared
will of the Church, because this privilege had assumed the
character of a private right, while the Church, which had also
formerly esteemed it such, was now convinced that it was an
important and public concern of the Church. The contest was
analogous to that against patrimonial jurisdiction within the
State. But certain as it is that the opponents of patronage had
a more exalted notion of the Church than its advocates, it is
equally so that their proceedings were also materially influenced
by the fact that they were transforming into doctrine not a doc-
trinal, but an ecclesiastico-political proposition. Neither could
they make it self-evident that absolute independence of the State
and of the patron is a necessary and essential quality of the
Church, nor that every kind of dependence thereon is a violation
of the sole sovereignty of Christ. For this sovereignty is not in
such wise abdicated to the existing Church, that an injury to its
sovereignty is an injury to that of Christ, nor is it necessary
absolutely to deny that Christian laymen may, in virtue of a
privilege formerly conceded to them, co-operate, as representa-
tives of the common choice, in the appointment to benefices.2
1 The Westminster Confession admits indeed an intimate connection between
the Church and the civil power, but one more of a theocratic than of a Cæsaro-
papistical kind.
2 It seems possible to reduce the right of patronage to co-operation, by increas-
ing the strictness of the tests and conditions of qualification for the ministerial
ollice, since the patron can choose none but such as are ecclesiastically approved.
Scotch Church and Theology.
485
Such opposition to the State, which can only be carried out in
cases where a school system common to both Church and State
is wanting, must consistently, though involuntarily, lead to
opposition to a national existence of the Church in general.
This fact is increasingly evident in the Free Church of France,
and its significant expression is a growing opposition to infant
baptism, which is however strenuously upheld, in opposition to
the Baptists, by both the Presbyterians and Congregationalists of
Scotland. The Free Church of Scotland, true to the instinct of
Chalmers, still seeks to maintain its national character,-an
endeavour in which it is restrained by no doctrinal impediments.
A mutual understanding, moreover, with numerous previous
seceders (the United Presbyterian Church) has been brought
about. The Free and the National Churches vie with each other,
not only in practical expressions of Church vitality, but also in
scientific labours. On the whole, the formal principle still pre-
ponderates, and Gaussen's work on The Verbal Inspiration of
Holy Scripture expresses the present prevailing orthodoxy of
Scotland. Many Scottish divines, however, have already taken
up a somewhat freer position with regard to the doctrine of pre-
destination. The modern Church of Scotland is also far removed
from the flights of a theocratic spirit, and the claims therein
involved of prescribing both means and end to the State. Finally,
it must be admitted that Scotland is increasingly entering into
contact with the German Church and German science, and that
her youthful theologians are manifesting a lively feeling for
science.¹ The names of chief note are those of Candlish, Hanna,
Fairbairn, Cairns, and Norman Macleod.
1 With all respect for the mental acuteness of Sir William Hamilton (see above,
p. 97) and his conciseness of language, the Scottish mind has not yielded itself
captive thereto. He has found in Mansel of Oxford (Limits of Religious Thought)
a follower who carries his doctrine, that the Unconditioned, the Infinite, must be
believed, while the reason, the organ of all knowledge, can see only contradictions
therein, so far as to make non-knowledge the basis of theology, and to evaporate
faith into an utter vagueness, which can only be filled up by positive authorities,
i.e. by holy Scripture, the divine nature of which he considers sufficiently proved
by the old English system of evidences. He has been however encountered not
only by such men as Maurice (not to mention J. Mill, the positivist, in the
sense of Auguste Comte's absolute sensualism), but also by the Presbyterian theo-
logians M‘Cosh (Divine Government, ed. 3, 1852, and Intuitions of the Mind, 1860)
and Calderwood (Philosophy of the Infinite, ed. 2, 1861). For further particulars,
see below, p. 494.
486
Edward Irving.
2
On the other hand, Scotland has exercised an influence upon
the Continent, and especially upon Germany, by means of
Irvingism. Edward Irving was a famous Scotch preacher in
London, 1822-32, whose leading ideas can only be understood
when viewed as the result of a reaction against the supre-
macy of the formal principle.¹ He perceived that by the latter
alone, Christianity can neither be correctly expounded nor proved
to be truth. The usual evidences, whether in their historical or
their rational form, did not content him, while Romish tradition
appeared to him petrified and immovable, as well as convicted
of manifold errors. On the other hand, he does not so far
comprehend the active tradition of the Holy Spirit in believers,
in whom the fact of redemption is continually renewed, as to
perceive that the outward form and organization of the Church
are fitly relegated to the second place, when compared with
present salvation through justifying faith, the principle both
of love and wisdom, and of genuine Church organization. On
the contrary, he has a Catholicizing preference for the outward
form of the Church, and also places sanctification before justi-
fication through faith. He requires a Divine origin for church
organization, and divine authority for the interpretation of
Scripture, for which faith is in his view insufficient. He thus
arrived, not without an admixture of Millenarian notions, at
the view, that the safety of the Church depends upon a return
to a divinely-instituted apostolate, by which both the right
interpretation of Scripture and the distribution of powers and
offices is to be determined. In Germany, Irvingism obtained the
advocacy especially of Thiersch. It is however obvious that in
the course of generations, if the sect last so long, the inordi-
nate craving for liberty, appeased as it is in an enthusiastic form,
must, as in Montanism, degenerate into the legalism of autho-
rity and a dependence of posterity upon a dead and past tradi-
tion, because that true union of liberty and authority found in
1 Irving, For the Oracles of God, ed. 3, 1824. Babylon and Infidelity Fore-
doomed of God, 1826. The Last Days, 1828. Homilies on the Sacraments, 1828.
Sermons, Lectures, and Discourses, 1828. Explanation of the Apocalypse, 4 vols.
The Orthodox and Catholic Doctrine of Our Lord's Human Nature, 1831.
(Sin was in His flesh, but not in His will.)
1831.
2 Of which Haldane's work, Evidence and Authority of Divine Revelation, 2
vols., edit. 3, 1839, is a recent specimen.
The Anglican Church and its Three Parties. 487
the combination of the formal and material sides of the evan-
gelical principle is lacking.
1
With respect to the Anglican Church, the horrors of the French
Revolution, and the conflicts waged till 1815 by England against
France, contributed to revive the fear of God and an active Pro-
testant feeling among the people, while the nation received, by
means of those after effects of the Methodist movement which were
felt within the Church, a new religious impulse without a new
schism. On the contrary, this revival of the Church from about
the end of last century was of a scriptural and Christian, but not
of a specifically confessional character. The deistic period had
resulted in an extension of the right-hand of fellowship over
many a wall of separation both within and without the Church.
Churchmen and dissenters co-operated in missionary, tract, and
Bible societies. Men full of faith, like Rowland Hill and the
noble layman Wilberforce, Jos. Gurney and F. Buxton, jointly
advocated Christianity and the principles of humanity, c.g. the
emancipation of slaves, both in Parliament and in private circles.
The flourishing period of this movement, whose organ was the
Christian Observer, extended to about 1830. Its tendency being
however an entirely practical one, its advocacy confined to three
points, viz. the necessity of conversion, justification through
faith, and the sole authority of holy Scripture, and its logical
deficiencies obvious, it was not long before a uniformity of ex-
pression and a tradition leading to a mechanical and got-up
phraseology were formed. Thus the "Evangelical," called also
the Low Church party," became, in the opinion of its adver-
saries, the low and slow church. A more active movement how-
ever again burst forth among a portion of the evangelicals.
This was occasioned by schemes for the conversion of England
on the part of the Romish Church, and by the Catholicizing ten-
dencies of Puseyism. Something of the old Puritanism revived
among the Recordites (so called after their organ, the Record), but
in such wise that they took up too legal an attitude, and in their
doctrinal timidity, nay, narrowness, regarded with suspicion every
freer movement of even believing science. They again partly
bring forward the old-reformed doctrine of predestination, and
indeed lay stress upon personal assurance of salvation, in the
1 R. Hill, Village Dialogues, 1829. W. Wilberforce, A Practical View of the
Prevailing Religious System contrasted with Real Christianity, 1826.
488
High Church and Tractarians.
form, however, of a consciousness of belonging to the elect, the
totality of whom they regard as constituting the Church. They
view holy Scripture as verbally dictated by the Holy Spirit. They
are most strenuously opposed to all Romanizing and hierarch-
ical tendencies, and require, when seeking to fashion the Church
after their notions, in place of the three above-named funda-
mental dogmas of the evangelical party, the prevalence of what
is almost equivalent to old-Reformed orthodoxy.
The second leading tendency is the High Church party, which
till about 1830 was chiefly represented by a political party (the
Tories) and by formalistic Churchmen,¹ who treated the Church
as a means, and dwelt chiefly upon the baronial rights of the
episcopate. When however the independence of religious life
increased and the Church inclined to reforms, when admission.
to Parliament was conceded to dissenters and Roman Catholics,
the danger of the close alliance hitherto maintained with the
State became obvious. Hence a movement arose which desired
to recur to something whereby the Church would be an associa-
tion independent of the State. This was found by a circle of
young men in Oxford, and chiefly members of Oriel College, in
the Sacrament as the internal, and in the episcopate as the ex-
ternal bond of union. Pusey, Newman, Keble, Oakley, Palmer,
Ward, Hook, and others, united for frequent participation of
the Lord's Supper, and for the development of those ideas on
which they believed the regeneration of the Anglican Church to
depend. Among themselves again there arose this distinction,
that while some, especially Keble and Pusey, favoured poètical
and sacramental mysticism, after the fashion of Port-Royal Jan-
senism, others, as J. H. Newman, manifested chiefly an interest
for the outward form of the Church, its constitution and autho-
rity. The latter soon seceded in considerable numbers to the
Church of Rome. And even the former oppose the objectivity
of the Sacrament, not only to an anti-mystical subjectivism,
whether intellectual or moral, but also to evangelical justifying
faith, in so far as this, being an independent source of divine
assurance of salvation, assumes a critical position with respect.
to the authority of the Church. They require, on the contrary, a
1 Wordsworth and others are not however Puseyite High Churchmen. The
organs of the High Church party are at present the Quarterly Review and the
Guardian. The organ of the Puseyites is especially The Christian Remembrancer.
Puseyism or Tractarianism.
489
subjection to the Church involving a renunciation of religious
independence. Thus the mysticism of this party is not a mysti-
cism free towards God, but one which makes itself passively
dependent upon the ordinances of the Anglican Church, its
tradition and episcopate. Robt. Wilberforce, who subsequently
seceded to Rome, raised the latter to the importance of an official
continuation of the incarnation-a notion which was hand in hand
with the inclination to return to the doctrine of transubstantia-
tion. The Puseyites stated their views in the Tracts for the
Times, whence they obtained the name of Tractarians.
Apostolical succession is regarded by them as essential to the
idea of the true Church. Christ, say they, not only chose to
have a visible Church, but also to arrange and settle its consti-
tution. The duly constituted bishop is the representative of the
apostles, and the laying on of his hands endows the priest with
power to consecrate the elements, to bestow absolution upon
penitents, and, as the mediator of the congregation, to offer a
priestly sacrifice in prayer. Especially have priests, in virtue of
their ordination, which is regarded as a sacrament, power to
regenerate and wash away sins by baptism, and to combine the
elements with the body and blood of Christ by consecration.
Both sacraments operate ex opere operato. It is for the clergy to
exercise discipline; there is no right of private judgment in
matters of faith. Doctrinal decisions rest with the episcopate.
There is no divine assurance of faith; in other words, no assur-
ance either of personal salvation or of the truth of Christian
doctrine, but it is by the authority of the Church that this truth
is guaranteed. Sanctification is extended to the inclusion of
justification; and the latter being weakened, nay, the assurance
of it denied, the Christian is deprived of the possibility, nay, of
the right, to be anything else than a dependent member of
the Church. It is indeed admitted in thesi that the Church, i.c.
the hierarchy, may err, but asserted that she never did err so
long as she remained one, i.c. previous to the great schism be-
tween the Greek and Western Churches, and that therefore
ancient Catholic doctrine must be combined with holy Scrip-
ture in forming the rule of faith. This necessarily involves the
fact, that patristic studies have obtained a certain degree of cul-
tivation among this party. The Church in England moreover is
said to be at present the only still genuine continuation of the
490
Opposition to Tractarianism.
Catholic Church. To designate the uniqueness of her advan-
tages, it is said that she is distinguished from the Romish Church
by purity of doctrine and an anticurialistic episcopacy, from
the Greek Church by at least purity of doctrine, and from the
Continental Churches by her apostolical succession. She is the
true Catholic Church on earth. Since the sacraments can be
lawfully and efficaciously administered only by episcopally or-
dained pastors, many Puseyites doubt whether the Continental
Churches have efficacious sacraments. They have introduced
an oblation at the Lord's Supper, as an unbloody sacrifice of the
body and blood of Christ offered by the priest, sanctioned a belief
in a purgatory, though not in the Romish doctrine of purgatory,
and allowed the veneration of pictures and relics and the invo-
cation of superior spirits as intercessors. Robt. Wilberforce
sought to give a doctrinal substructure to these views, by the
theory which strives to conceive the whole life of the Church as
a continuous incarnation of the Divine life in the form of the
ecclesiastical ministry--a theory which reminds of Möhler. It
can be no matter of surprise that many clergymen and laymen
of this party have gone over to the Church of Rome, a proceed-
ing from which others have been restrained only by feelings of
patriotism and English independence. Pusey himself has been
preserved from such secession by the secondary importance
which he ascribes to the external validity of the Church when
compared with piety. Many have remained in the hope of
transforming the whole Church by a counter-reformation. This
party, which at first increased with great rapidity, sought also
to fashion the customs and worship of the Church according to
its own principles (Ritualism). This practical development of
its principles however brought Puseyism into collision with the
English people, who are Protestant at heart. In their horror of
a hierarchy, they only the more firmly embraced an episcopate
appointed by the Crown. Besides the opposition of the evan-
gelicals, and especially the Recordites, scientific attacks, upon
Reformation principles, have been undertaken against this ten-
dency.¹ The controversies, which naturally discussed its theory
1 E.g. by W. Goode and the Contemporary Review, Jan. and April 1866; by
Isaac Taylor, Ancient Christendom and The Restoration of Belief, 1855; and by
the Congregationalists, Halley, Dr. Vaughan, Davidson. Comp. Judgments of the
Privy Council, 1865, pp. 117, 154, 176.
Opposition to Tractarianism.
491
of ministerial sacramental grace, proceeded from Holy Baptism
to the Lord's Supper, and thence to confession in the form of
private auricular confession. In the contest between Gorham
and Philpott, Bishop of Exeter, 1848, it became evident that they
laid more stress upon baptismal regeneration than upon justify-
ing faith; that while their doctrine of baptism would transform
regeneration into justification, the personal faith required for the
latter is by no means specially taken into account. Baptism
not only operates without previous faith, but it also operates
beneficially without producing personal faith. Baptism bestows
the forgiveness of sins and justification; the latter however still
denotes rather indwelling than imputed righteousness. Judg-
ment was given in favour of Gorham, but the Puseyite doctrine
of baptism was left uncensured. The second stage of the con-
troversy, viz. that which touched on the Lord's Supper, placed
the Puseyites in a less favourable position. The Puseyite
Denison not only approximated to the Lutheran Church, in
opposition to the Thirty-nine Articles, with respect to the real
presence of Christ's body and blood, but laid excessive stress
upon their reception by the unworthy as well as the worthy, and
united with this magical notions of the power of priestly conse-
cration. The leaders of his party made his cause their own, but
he was condemned by the archiepiscopal court of Canterbury.
Puseyites are gradually disappearing from the episcopacy, their
chief supporters being chiefly the Bishop of Oxford and a few
Scotch bishops. Finally, Poole endeavoured to restore private
and auricular confession. This however excited much commo-
tion, and sentence was pronounced against him. A widespread
reaction against this catholicizing tendency is already evident
among the English people; but, unfortunately, when the people
turn from their teachers as heretics, the result of such a state of
affairs is, that they fall into irregularities of all kinds, that an
anti-Christian spirit is aroused, to which the materialistic dispo-
sition nourished by the restless spirit of commerce, and the
powerful development of the natural, without an adequate coun-
terpoise of the moral, sciences, not a little contributes. On the
whole, the English mind has shown an antipathy to a symbolical
religion which delights in twilight and sentimental obscurity,
and the Puseyite movement is already rapidly declining.¹
1 Comp. Contemporary Review, Jan. 1866.
492
Broad Church.
A third party, on which the name of Broad Church has been
bestowed, is more favourable to the progress of science than
either of the two last described. It must not be confounded with
the latitudinarianism of the Anglican Church of the seventeenth
century, which fell into Arminian superficiality, and reappeared
about 1750, after the prevalence of Deism. The freer tendency
which has increasingly prevailed since the revival of the
religious spirit about 1830, assumed a nobler and more solid form.
Without desiring themselves to form a party, the men of this
tendency occupy a middle position between the High Churchmen,
to whom the Church is everything, and the Low Churchmen,
to whom the individual believer is everything. They seek to
unite both, for the purpose of thus elevating and ennobling the
national mind of England in moral, religious, and scientific
respects. Thomas Arnold, the well-known master of Rugby
school, who was at the head of this tendency, was, together
with the talented writer and poet Coleridge, favourable to the
Reformation synthesis of the intellectual and the moral. A
number of highly-gifted men, e.g. Julius Hare, Stanley, Kingsley,
Temple, Pattison, Wilson, Tait, and others,2 may be reckoned
as belonging to his school. Maurice, formerly professor of
King's College, an advocate of a general restoration of all things,
and of a doctrine of redemption which reminds of Schleier-
macher and v. Hofmann, is a man of kindred tendencies. He
exhibits a congeniality of mind with Coleridge, the disciple of
Schelling. His friend Trench, Archbishop of Dublin, has treated
the Sermon on the Mount, the idea of miracles, and the miracles
and parables of Christ, in an admirable manner, and one which
1
3
¹ Sermons, Church Reform, Miscellaneous Works, Life, by Stanley, ed. 2, 1844.
2 Julius Hare, Archdeacon: Charges, Victory of Faith, The Mission of the Com-
forter, Vindication of Luther against his recent English assailants, The Contest
with Rome (against Newman, in opposition to whose Essay on Development
Archer Butler's Letters on Romanism were also written); Charles Kingsley,
Alexandria and her Schools, and other works; Stanley, besides his Sermons and
Essays, wrote a Commentary on the Epistle to the Corinthians, 1847, and a History
of the Jewish Church, 2 vols. 1865.
3 Maurice, Kingdom of Christ, ed. 2. 1842; The Religions of the World, 1847;
Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy, 1850; Theological Essays, 1863; The Word;
Eternal, and the Punishment of the Wicked; Eternal Life and Eternal Death. He
has also discussed the scriptural doctrine of sacrifice, and written on the patriarchs
and lawgivers, the prophets and kings of the Old Testament, and on the Gospel
of St. John.
{
Present State of Theology in England. Alford. 493
shows him to be conversant with German literature.. These
men are not only intimately acquainted with, and favourable to,
German theology, but have also in some respects equalled it.
A glance at the general condition of theology in Great Britain
shows that a lack of scientific activity is, as has been already
hinted, a main defect of the evangelical party, while the Puseyite
tendency has confined its services in this respect chiefly to the
revival of patristic studies. Exegetic and critical investigations
have, for the most part, been hampered by the old theory of in-
spiration. Alford, however, who has published a commentary
and edition of the New Testament (1849), and some others, form
notable exceptions.1 In systematic theology, apart from the
above mentioned controversies, works of an apologetic character
(evidences) have alone excited much interest.2
Till very
recently, works of the former century, the productions of Lardner,
Butler, and Paley, were regarded as so classical and unsurpassable,
that the youth of Britain had to learn them by heart, and were
then held to be fully armed and equipped against all attacks,
although the method of these writers is only that of biblical super-
1 Other exegetes are, Webster and Wilkinson (Greek Testament with notes);
Trollope, Conybeare, and Howson (on St. Paul); Ellicot, Bishop of Gloucester,
Pauline Epistles and Life of Christ; Jowett, Commentary on the Pauline Epistles,
and opposed to him Davies, St. Paul and Modern Thought; Westcott, History of the
Canon of the New Testament; Exegesis of the Old Testament; Wright, Candlish,
J. J. Howard, On Genesis; A. B. Davidson, Commentary on Job, 1862; Henderson,
On Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the minor prophets; Pye Smith, The Scripture Testimony
to the Messiah; Tregelles and Pusey, On Daniel. Dr. S. Davidson has written
Introductions to the Old and New Testament, Kitto, Smith, Fairbairn, biblical dic-
tionaries. The Judgments, p. 247, &c., leave room for biblical criticism.
2 The Congregational Lectures contain a valuable collection of doctrinal and
moral articles, e.g. Henderson, On Divine Inspiration, which he does not view as
literal; Payne, On Original Sin; Gilbert, On the Christian Atonement; Pye
Smith, The Sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ; Halley, The Sacraments, 2 parts;
Wardlaw, Christian Ethics. Many treatises on the atonement, by theologians
speaking the English language, have lately appeared. Jowett advocates Socinian
notions, F. D. Maurice insists upon regarding the work of Christ from the point
of view of an ethical sacrifice, without seeking any closer relation between Divine
penal justice and the atonement. A third view, approaching to that of Park of
Andover (see below, p. 500), is advocated by John Cotter Macdonnell, The
Dotrine of the Atonement, London, 1858. This follows in the steps of Archbishop
Magee's work (Atonement and Sacrifice, about 1800), and insists on the distinction
between expiation and punishment (p. 197), since Christ, being guiltless, could
not have suffered punishment properly so called, but might bear an expiatory
penalty proportionate to the requirements of the law. Thompson, Beysie, John
Macleod Campbell, and others, hold similar views.
494
Evidences.
naturalism, which arrives, by means of a contemplation of nature
and historical considerations, at certain probabilities in favour of
Scripture. The progress of German theology, however, began to
take effect in England also, and to shake the confidence felt in
this method by stirring the minds of men to demand greater
certainty and more knowledge, while Puseyism was regarding
personal assurance of salvation as enthusiastic, Methodistic, and
destructive to the Church, because leading to private judgment.
It was then that Professor Mansel of Oxford¹ attempted to regain
a more favourable position for the old formal system of evidences,
and to revive its authority by trying, with considerable acquaint-
ance with German philosophy from Kant to Hegel and Schleier-
macher, to prove that there are in the doctrines of revelation no
difficulties to the reason which are not also difficulties, nay, con-
tradictions which the reason cherishes in itself. Basing his
theory upon Sir W. Hamilton's philosophy of the conditioned
(see above, p. 97), he sought, and not without acuteness, to
prove that man, as a finite being, cannot help conceiving of God
as finite, ¿e. in an anthropomorphic manner. On the other hand,
however, man has the feeling that God is not finite; hence a
necessary error is already imposed upon him by his mental con-
stitution, if he attempts to know anything in the province of
religion. He can only be free from contradictions when, ab-
solutely renouncing the knowledge of things divine, he admits
that he exists only for what is practical. Far from attempt-
ing to construct a theology on the feeling for the Infinite, he
denounces it under the name of intuitional theology, and is
driven by his thesis that the reason cherishes within itself the
same enigmas or contradictions that revelation does, to admit
that there is not only no religious knowledge, but no know-
ledge of what is good, or absolutely valuable or moral. For
this too would be a knowledge of something infinite. On the
contrary, the moral is, in his view, nothing else than that
which God wills that we should do or leave undone. There
is nothing good in itself, nor any knowledge of such good, but
only a knowledge founded upon the positive assertions of his-
torical revelation. Hence what God has commanded at one time
He may forbid at another. According to Mansel, God may even
break the moral laws, and this he calls moral miracles. Now
1 Limits of Religious Thought.
Mansel.
495
even revelation can, on the other hand, reveal to man nothing
that is infinite and Divine, if such matters are absolutely inac-
cessible to him. Hence he also asserts that revelation is only
symbolical. Human reason is, moreover, incapable of criticizing
revelation. Nevertheless, reasoning may lead towards revelation,
if only too much be not required, ie. if we will renounce know-
ledge in things Divine, and rest satisfied with probabilities.
And these, he thinks, are sufficiently given in those works of
Paley and Butler, to which he finally refers in the hope that he
has revived their fading glory. His intention is to serve the
cause of orthodoxy, but such an orthodoxy as would finally
subject us to the mere authority and assertions of the Church.
He regards rationalism and dogmatism as equally erroneous,
because both maintain the possibility of knowledge, but does not
perceive that he makes the incarnation, atonement, &c., mere
symbols, transforms the Christian into a pre-Christian religion, a
religion of symbols, and thus, with all his opposition to specula-
tion and intellectual knowledge, falls into the very midst of
rationalism. Finally, he does not see that he is condemning
man to a perpetual dualism and bondage, by asserting that
though he possesses a certain notion of God, without which no
religion could exist, yet, that this idea of God is not of a positive,
but only of a negative nature, and must have the effect of
denoting all our thoughts of God as necessarily untrue. He has
been triumphantly encountered by Maurice¹ and Professor
M'Cosh of Belfast; both have exposed the obscuration of the
Reformation principle of faith involved in this theory, and many
men of note in England have been led, by means of this con-
troversy, to turn their attention to that restoration to their
proper position of the much misconceived material principle of
the Reformation, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit to
Christianity, which may prescribe more modest limits to formal
evidences, and involve the admission that it is as impossible,
as it is superfluous, to found upon them the assurance of faith
properly so called.
3
1 What is Revelation? 1859.
2 Intuitions of the Mind, 1860.
3 The author of Ecce Homo, a survey of the life and work of Jesus Christ,
ed. 4, 1866, has entered, in an original and attractive manner, into the Continental
controversy on the life of Jesus. Possessing a sound and acute vision for reality,
such as the theologically trained eye seldom enjoys, and appealing to those
+
496
1
Oxford Essays and Reviews.
But in connection herewith another serious crisis for old Eng-
lish and Scotch theology seems to be approaching from the other
side. A more negative tendency has also been formed, and has
found speech in the Essays and Reviews, which produced, as it
were, an explosion in England, especially because the authors of
these seven treatises were mostly dignitaries of the Anglican
Church. In this work, Temple, Arnold's successor at Rugby, so
conceives of the education of mankind as to make the develop-
ment of the human race appear an immanent one, and the result
of inherent powers, without maintaining a secure position for
Divine agency. Jowett, a meritorious and acute commentator
on the Pauline epistles, denies inspiration, original sin and the
atonement. Roland Williams, an enthusiastic admirer of Bunsen,
denies the Divinity of Christ and the incarnation. Baden
Powell attacks the evidences of Christianity, and especially
miracles, without apparently seeking to prove the truth of
Christianity in any other manner. On the other hand, some
of the labours of the essayists are praiseworthy, and in keeping
not only with science but with positive church teaching.2 Con-
vocation pronounced its condemnation of the work in 1864, but
it is self-evident that questions of this kind can neither be
decided nor silenced in this official manner, nor could a sentence
against its authors be obtained from the highest court of appeal.
Hence nothing remains but a scientific refutation of its errors,
and this will not misconceive the amount of truth which is to
be found in the essays with respect to Puseyite notions of
authority, biblical supernaturalism, and unscientific notions.
This negative tendency has already been opposed with sound
scientific ability by (see above p. 493) the able exegete and
facts and sayings of the life of Christ which are most indisputable, he brings for-
ward, in a striking and simple manner, the new pneumatico-ethical nature of
Christianity, and showing that the teaching, life, and sufferings of Jesus are
intimately connected with the nature of the Gospel, he both produces an impres-
sion of the internal truth of Christianity, and naturally rises above the theories
of both an intentional and an unintentional invention of such a life and
personality.
1 Essays and Reviews, Oxford, 1860, a work which was regarded as the pro-
gramme of a party distinguished for scientific acquirements. It has been opposed
by Tait, Taylor, and others.
Especially Pattison's excellent article on the History of the English Church,
from 1689 to 1750.
Most Recent Positive Theological Tendency. 497
critic, Alford, Dean of Canterbury (†), Stanley, Dean of West-
minster, Conybeare (†), Kingsley, C. T. Vaughan, Laing, Ayre,
Cowper, and especially by Maurice and Trench.¹ These writers,
incited for the most part by German theology, either by means
of Schleiermacher or of Coleridge's version of Schelling's ideas,
take up a somewhat freer position than the old English and
Scotch theologians. Some of them also perceive the weakness of
their old system of evidences, and recur to the Reformation way
for the attainment of certainty. When we consider the exalted
mission entrusted to Britain with regard to Protestantism and its
future, in other parts of the world, in Africa, in Asia, and espe-
cially in India and China; when, on the other hand, we reflect
that the reception given to Bishop Colenso's work on the Penta-
teuch, the reviving spirit of inquiry and the progress of natural
science give reason to anticipate that the as yet inconsiderable
party of the Essayists may expect important accessions in the
immediate future; it is much to be wished that the advocates of
Christian theology, against adversaries whose attacks are sharpened
by German weapons, may cultivate an increasing acquaintance.
with that German science which is of a positively constructive
kind, and derive therefrom that which may turn to their own
advantage. A promising beginning for fresh flights in the realm.
of science was made by the establishment of that great periodical,
the Contemporary Review, in 1866, among whose contributors
may be named, besides many of the above, Cheyne, Tulloch,
Stead, Cheetham, Benj. Shaw, Perowne, Plumptre, J. C. Howson,
and Lake. It is their intention to advocate a spirit of true
catholicity, and instead of forcibly repelling the Puseyite party
from the Church, they hope that it may be overcome from
within, if only free scope is given to the spirit of Christian.
science. · Dr. Pusey has lately (1866) published his Eirenicon,
a work in which (as in Tract 90 of Tracts for the Times) the
strictly binding nature of the Thirty-nine Articles is denied for
those of his own tendency. The Contemporary Review (April
1866), in an article by Stanley, is willing to leave him this
resource, though upon other grounds; but requires from him, on
1 We may here include the whole of the new Cambridge School in general, to
which belong the historians Hardwick and Merivale. the divines Harold Browne
(Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, ed. 2, 1854), Westcott, Thos. Birks, and
others.
II.
2 I
498
North America.
the other hand, a more large-hearted disposition towards dis-
senters and theologians who deviate from the Thirty-nine Articles
in another than a Romish direction. They are to be made
binding in a general, and not in a particular sense. It may, in
any case, be asserted that in the Anglican Church unity does
not depend solely on the Thirty-nine Articles, but is based also
upon the Common Prayer Book and the constitution of the
Church.
In North America, theology, so far as we are able to survey it,
has as yet no connected literary history.¹ The numberless
parties there existing, immersed for the most part in practical
matters, have not as yet been able to do much for the cultiva-
tion or advancement of theological science. But the introduc-
tion of English, Scotch, and especially of German theology now
abundantly taking place, is transporting into that country many
elements of culture, and theology will, in the midst of this
increasing scientific traffic and intercourse, undoubtedly obtain.
in that country-though it may do this by first passing through
a process of fermentation-a new, and indeed an independent
form and combination, which by reason of the perfect indepen-
dence of the State enjoyed by religious communities, may in
many respects resemble the development of the Church in the
first centuries. German theology, represented especially by Pro-
fessor Schaff and his like-minded colleague Nevin, but more or
less known to all the more able theologians through its litera-
ture, may expect to obtain, by means of the German immigra-
tion, and the educational institutions connected therewith, a
lasting hold upon the country.
After the Presbyterians, the Baptists and Methodists have
become the most influential sects. A feeling for science has
chiefly been shown among the Presbyterians and Congrega-
tionalists, who are also gradually effecting a union, though indeed
in a superficial manner, both having, till about 1830, in many
¹ Henry Smith of New York has written a History of the Church of Christ, in
chronological tables (with two supplementary tables on the History of the Church
in North America), 1861; he has also edited and enriched with copious additions
a text-book of the History of Doctrines by D. Hagenbach (translated by C. W.
Buch), 2 vols. 1867. In this work there is an admirable and intelligent arrange-
ment of British and North American theological literature. On the other hand,
comp. the Bibliotheca Sacra and Biblical Repository of Edwards, Park and Taylor
(1830), &c.
Channing. Parker.
499
instances degenerated, especially in Massachusetts, into Rational-
ism, Socinianism, and Unitarianism. The most able among the
Unitarians are Channing and Parker. The former († 1842)
was a man of profound genius, refined moral judgment, and
energetic character, distinguished also by his ardent patriotism.
His writings display a mystic element, a lively faith in the
supernatural world, and its wonderful influence upon the visible;
he also embraces the inspiration of Scripture, and, though
rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, entertains not an Ebionite.
but a Sabellian view of Christ.2 Parker, on the contrary, gave
more promise than was justified by the result, and gradually fell
a prey to a passionate negativism. Like modern Unitarians in
general, he surpassed the deistic idea of God, but did so by
the assistance of pantheistic influences. He admits of inward
influences or revelations of God, but denies miracles and the
inspiration of Scripture. The talented Congregationalist Bushnell
teaches Sabellianism in a theopaschitic form.3 It seems, indeed,
as if the new world were about to repeat, theologically and
christologically, the advance exhibited during the first Christian
centuries, from the most indefinite to the more definite tenets.
Since the Revival of 1831 and Parker's extravagances, a reaction
against Unitarianism and Ebionitism has taken place, even
among the Unitarians, whose organ is the Examiner.
4
A separation took place within Presbyterianism (1837) subse-
quently to the attempted union with the Congregationalists. It
resulted in the " Old School" with its essentially Scotch theology,
which prevails in the Princeton Seminary and Review, and in
the "New School," whose theology is scarcely to be distinguished
from that of the modern Congregationalists (in Andover, &c.).
This modern American theology, which is supremely anthropc-
logical, though far from being either rationalistic or Socinian,
modifies Calvinistic doctrine in the dogmas of original sin, its
1 Compare Cheetham's admirable work Theodore Parker and American Uni-
tarianism, Contemp. Rev. March, 1866. It contains also an excellent delineation
of Channing. Also Gelzer's Monatsbl. Feb. 1866; Will. Channing, Charakterbild
cines amerikanischen Unitariers.
2 Compare his excellent treatise on the moral character of Christ.
3 In a recent work, Bushnell approximates to Irving's Christology. He
embraces a power of evil even in the nature of Jesus.
4
Comp. Bibliotheca Saera, 1863, pp. 561-635. To the Old School belong
Breckenridge, Rice, and H. Woods. Its present leader is Hodge.
500
Channing. Parker.
1
guilt and imputation, of freedom, grace, atonement, and regene-
ration. Among its representatives may be numbered Wither-
spoon, Taylor, Robinson, the famous traveller in the Holy Land,
Moses Stuart, the New Testament exegete, Park, the editor of
the Bibliotheca Sacra, the most widely circulated of theological
periodicals, the philosophical Church historian, Henry Smith of
New York, and others. In the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, the
Presbyterians have, in many respects, turned from Calvin's fuller
view to those of Zwingli, while Nevin, of the German-Reformed
Church of North America, who brought to mind the genuine doc-
trine of Calvin," and lamented the endless sectarian divisions, was,
on this account, suspected by many of catholicizing tendencies.
America is, as yet, merely on the threshold of its theological
existence; but the future of Protestantism greatly depends upon
the further development of this powerful nation, delivered, as it
now is, from the curse of slavery. It is on this account that the
1 Edwards A. Park, The Atonement; Discourses and Treatises by Edwards,
Smalley, Maxey, Emmons, Griffin, Burge and Weeks, with an Introductory Essay.
Boston, 1860. The sufferings of Christ, upon which he lays the chief stress, were
not designed, he says, to render God propitious towards us, or to pay a price for
the favour which He will show us; they had not to satisfy a justitia commutativa
or distributiva, nor to take away guilt by such a special amount of penal suffering
as would be the exact equivalent of our debt of obedience, or of the punishment due
to us, but to remove an obstacle to our forgiveness, by manifesting the righteous-
ness of God notwithstanding His grace. The main object was that God's law and
His holiness should be as fully honoured by the Atonement as they would have
been by the execution of legal punishment (lxix.). It is not a matter of mere
sovereignty that God forgives sin only for the sake of Christ's sufferings: if He
did so without them He would be unjust to His law, His kingdom, nay, to Him-
self. The objective fact, however, of the sufferings of Christ gives no man a claim
to grace this remains subject to the absolute sovereignty of God; for the merits
of Christ are not a matter of trade or barter, as between mcum and tuum. These
merits are nevertheless universal and all-sufficient, in support of which he cites
Watts, the Synod of Dort and Calvin (pp. 375-388, 525); God's sovereign will,
however, has determined to impart the grace made possible by Christ's merits to
believers only (xi. xliii. lii. lvii. 59, 525, 527, 513-17, 525-27). This is most
essentially the leading theory of this work, though with recurrence to the holy
self-consistent nature of God.
2 Recently the Old and New Schools seem again to have approximated [re-united
in 1870]. Besides the above, may be mentioned Shedd, the Church historian
(Discourses and Essays; Lectures upon the Philosophy of History); Hackett,
Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, 1858; Conant (a Baptist), The Gospel
by Matthew (revised version, with critical and philological notes), for the American
Bible Union, 1860.
3 The doctrine of the Reformed Church on the Lord's Supper, by J. W. Nevin,
Mercersburg, 1850.
A
Channing. Parker.
501
maintenance and increase of its acquaintance with German
theology and its acquisitions is of incalculable importance. At
present the disruption of parties is great, and their opposition
often more a matter of caprice or external interests than one
likely to result in earnest scientific controversy. But the more a
feeling for theological science increases, and with it that power
of reasoning in which a unifying power is inherent, because its
aim is the universally and absolutely true, the more will many
of the existing denominations necessarily disappear, and others
enter upon such a process of mutual understanding as will secure a
common history of their intellectual and religious life, which, like
that of Great Britain, may vie, on equal terms and with fruitful
results, with German theology.
•
INDEX
OF
PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS.
ABELARD, i. 36.
Adamic Sin, the controversy respecting
the consequences of the, ii. 26-28.
Eneas Sylvius, as Pope Pius II., i. 35.
Agricola, his antinomianism and attack
on Melanchthon, i. 345.
Alber, Matthaus, Zwingli's letter to, i. 312.
Alford, Dean, ii. 493.
Altdorf, the University of, and its pro-
fessors, ii. 107.
Alter Deus, the Church of Rome makes
herself an,
i. 45.
America, North, the theology and religious
parties of, ii. 498.
Amsdorf, i. 349.
Amyraud, Moses, and the Amyraldian
controversy, ii. 25, 26.
Anabaptists, the, i. 134, 135; the spread
of, 138; different kinds of,-forbid to
take civil offices, 140, &c. ; relation of,
to Catholicism, 141; Zwingli's contest
with, 300, &c.
Andreä, Jacob, i. 381.
Anglicanism, conflicting principles in, ii.
51.
Anglican Church, the, ii. 487, &c.
Anselm of Canterbury, i. 36.
Antilegomena, the, ii. 133.
Antinomian and Majorist controversies,
the, i. 344.
Antinomianism, Luther's opposition to,
i. 346, &c.
Anton, P., ii. 206, 207.
Apokatastasis, Petersen's views of the, ii.
154.
Aquinas, Thomas, i. 37; and Duns Scotus,
43.
Arminius, Jacob, and the Arminian con-
troversy, i. 417.
Arminianism, i. 418, &c.; its doctrine of
Scripture, 420; its doctrine of God, 422;
its doctrine of the Trinity, 423; its doe-
trine of the Atonement, 423-426; the
logical sequence of, 427.
Arnold, Gottfr., ii. 224 and note.
Art, Luther's estimate of, i. 270.
Articuli puri et mixti, the, of Lutheran
divinity, ii. 114.
Ascendency over the State, the aim of the
Papal Church, i. 30.
Assurance of Salvation, i. 223, 240; Views
of Zwingli on, 292.
Atonement, English treatises on, ii. 493,
note.
Avignon, transfer of the Papal Chair to,
i. 33.
Babylonian Captivity at Avignon, the, i..
23.
Bacon, Sir Francis, ii. 66-69.
Baptism, Luther's doctrine of, i. 162-164;
infant, 164-170; views of infant, during
the period of Lutheran scholasticism,
ii. 156 views of, at the present time,
460, 461.
Baumgarten, Unterricht, &c., and Ausfur-
lichen, &c., ii. 272.
Baur, his history of primitive Christianity
criticized, ii. 410-414; and Strauss, the
opposition between their views of the
character and person of Christ, 418,
419; his investigation of the history of
dogmas, 449.
Beck's Einleitung and Christliche Lehr-
wissenschaft, ii. 427.
Bengel, John Albert, ii. 227; his friendly
relation to science, 228; his churchman-
ship and unfettered attitude with re-
spect to divinity, 228, 229; his New
Testament criticism, edition of the
Greek Testament, and Gnomon, 230,
231; his expository works, 231, 232
his chronological researches, 232, 233;
his school, 233, 234, &c.
Bentley, Richard, his exposure of deism,
ii. 82-84.
Bernhard, Adam, of Breslau, ii. 262.
Bible, the, editions of, ii. 431; commen-
taries on, 41, 433, 434, 435.
Biblical factor, the, in the Reformation,
i. 63, &c.
Biblical theology, works on, ii. 431, 432,
433; of the Old Testament, 433, &c.
Bibliotheca Sacra, the, ii. 500.
Blondel, David, ii. 24.
Böhme, Jacob, ii. 181, 182.
504
Bolingbroke, Lord, ii. 90.
Botscher, ii. 112.
Brenz, i. 364.
Index.
Britain, theology, and religious parties and
movements in, ii. 49-65; present state
of theology and religion in, 493.
Broad Church party, the, ii. 492.
Brotherhoods, i. 68.
Buddæus, Francis, the works of, ii. 254,
note.
Busching, ii. 292.
Butler's Analogy, ii. 95.
Bütner, his Cursus Theologice, ii. 268,
269, note.
Buxtorfs, the, and their exaggerated views
of the purity of the Hebrew Text, ii.
29, 30.
Calixtus, George, ii. 106, 110, 185, 186;
and Calovius, 125; his broad views,
186; his eminence as a theologian, 187;
his services to theology, 188; his Appa-
ratus Criticus, 189; his Manual of
Divinity, 190; his Theologia Moralis,
191; his doctrine of principles, 192;
his views of the Church, 193, &c.; and
the syncretistic controversy, 197, &c. ;
his following, 202.
Calixtus, Frederick Ulrich, ii. 106, 202.
Calovius, on the Testimonii Spiritus
Sanctus, ii. 125; his theory of inspira-
tion of the holy Scriptures, 128, &c.,
131, 136.
Calvin, his outset and first work, i. 384;
his Institutes, 385; his first visit to
Geneva, 385; his second visit to Geneva,
settlement, and influence there, 385,
386; his personal appearance and men-
tal character, 386; points of resem-
blance and difference between Zwingli
and, 387; attempts to unite the evan-
gelical confessions, 387, 388; his views
in reference to the holy Scriptures, 389
his view of the material principle of
Protestantism, 391; his view of faith,
its object and effect, 391-394; on the
relation of faith to justification and re-
generation, 394, 395, 396; his doctrine
of election and reprobation, 396-400;
criticism of his doctrine of predestina-
tion, 400-404; his views of baptism and
of the Lord's Supper, 404-407; attempts
to bring the Zurichers to his views of
the Lord's Supper, 407-410; his contro-
versy with Westphal, 410-414; the
school of, 415.
Campanus, Johann, i. 191.
Canonicity of the holy Scriptures, the,
Luther's views of, ii. 133, &c.
Canz, ii. 268.
Carlstadt, i. 126; his religious views and
speculations, 126, &c.; his views of
Scripture, 127, &c., 129, &c.; his views
of the means of grace, 130-133; and the
prophets of Zwickau, 133-134; his view
of the Supper, 311-312.
Carpzovius, Joh. Ben., ii. 259, 268, 269.
Cartesianism, and Coccejanism, i. 41; the
influence of, 45, &c.
Cartwright, Thomas, ii. 53.
Cassel, the Conference of, i. 333.
Catechisms and catechizing, ii. 168.
Catechization, ii. 465.
Catholic Church, the, of the Middle Ages,
its services in its day, i. 17, &c.; the
position of, in relation to the Gospel,
22-27.
Charles I. of England, his proceedings, ii.
54, 55.
Charles II. of England, the restoration of,
ii. 58.
Chemnitz, his Loci Theologici quoted, ii.
126 note; opposes the Swabian Christo-
logy, 366.
ii.
Christ, Strauss' view of the Person of,
411, &c.; the impossibility of Strauss'
delineation of, 412, 422; the Person and
offices of, 457-459.
Christian Observer, the, ii. 487.
Christianity, its aim, i. 22.
Christology, Luther's progressive, i. 195,
201; 322, 323; views of, during the
period of Lutheran scholasticism, ii.
147, &c.; the, of the Swabians, 364,
&c.; views of, at the present time, 457,
&c.
Chubb and Morgan, ii. 88, 89.
Church, the, the exhibition of the evan-
gelical principle in the foundation of,
i. 220, &c.; views of during the period
of Lutheran scholasticism, ii. 165, &c.;
Luther's views of, 276-278; Melanch-
thon's views of, 278, &c.; views of, at
the present time, 460.
Church Law, ii. 469.
Church, the Mediæval, i. 22, 23, &c.
Church, the papal, aims at ascendency
over the State, i. 30.
Church parties in England, ii. 50, 487, &c.
Civil obedience and the limits of, Luther's
views respecting, i. 272-274.
Claudius, ii. 300.
Clergy, the, of the Mediæval Church, i. 23.
Coccejus, his character and theological
opinions, ii. 31, &c.; 35, &c.; the
school of, 39, &c.; and Cartesianism,
41, &c.
Collegial System, the, of Pfaff, ii. 261.
Collegium Philobiblicum, the, in Leipsic,
ii. 206.
Collins, the deist, ii. 84, 85.
Colloquy, the, at Leipsic, ii. 351; at
Cassel, 352.
Commentaries, critical, on the Old and
New Testaments, ii. 431.
Consensus Tigurinus, the, i. 408, 410.
Concordia, the, of Wittemberg, i. 333, &c.
Confessio Augustana, 1. 280, &c.; Hel-
vetica, 413.
Confessions, the two evangelical, i. 9, 10,
11; attempts to unite, 387, 388.
Congregation, the rights of the, i. 181, &c.
"
Index.
Congregational Lectures, the, ii. 489, note.
Contemporary Review, the, ii. 497.
Conversion, the doctrine of, during the
period of Lutheran Scholasticism, ii.
146, 147.
Conybeare, and the Deists, ii. 82.
Copenhagen, the University of, ii. 108.
Corpus Evangelicorum, ii. 352.
Criticism of the New Testament, modern,
ii. 409, 410.
Cromwell, Oliver, ii. 55, 56, 58.
Crusius, C. A., ii. 234, note.
Cudworth, Ralph, the school of, ii. 72,
73, 74.
Dantzig, the University of, ii. 105.
Decrees, the divine, Lutheran Views of,
ii. 33.
Deism in England, ii. 76, &c.; opponents
of, 81, 82, &c.
De Imitatione Christi, i. 58, note.
Denk, i. 191.
Deutsche Theologey, i. 58, and note, 59,
60.
De Wette, ii. 344.
Dippel, ii. 261, 262.
Doctrine, the Public Body of, in the Re-
formed Church, i. 336, &c.
Doderlein's Institutio, &c., ii. 274.
Dodwell, Henry, ii. 87.
Dort, the Synod of, i. 426.
Dualism, the, of the Medieval Church,
i. 35, 40, 48.
Duns Scotus, i. 38; and Thomas Aquinas,
42.
Eberhard, ii. 291.
Ecce Homo, ii. 495, note.
Ecclesiastical History, progress in, ii. 446-
418.
Eck, Luther's disputation with, i. 94,
95.
Eckhardt, i. 58.
Elelmann, ii. 262.
Education of the people, previous to the
Reformation, i. 69.
Eichhorn, Minister of Prussia, ii, 400.
Election, as taught in the Formula of
Concord, i. 376; Calvin's doctrine of,
396; the doctrine of, during the period
of Lutheran Scholasticism, ii. 152.
English theologians and scholars, ii. 60-
63; theology, 63; theology and theo-
logians, modern, 487-497.
Episcopacy and Presbyterianism, the con-
lict between in Britain, ii. 49, 50.
Erasmus, i. 71; relation of, to the Re-
formation, 202; Luther's controversy
with, 203-220; Luther's superiority to,
217.
Ernesti, advocates the grammatical in-
terpretation of the New Testament,
his Institutio Interpretis Novi Testa-
menti, ii. 279-281.
Eschatology, ii. 169-172.
Essays and Reviews, the, ii. 496.
505
Ethics, the investigation of, since the
time of Schleiermacher, ii. 463.
Evangelical theology of Germany, the,
at the present time, ii. 424, &c.
Evangelical principle, exhibition of the,
in the foundation of the Church, i. 220,
&c.; the natural sides of, 227; the sur-
render of, in the 18th century, ii. 255, &c.
Evil, the doctrine of, ii. 456.
Ewald, ii. 437.
Excommunication, Luther on, i. 179, &c.
Exegesis and Criticism, modern, -im-
provements in, ii. 429, 430.
Exegetical theology in England, ii. 493,
and note.
Fabricius, John Albert, his works, ii. 253.
Faith, Luther's views of saving, i. 230,
&c.; and the exposition of Scripture,
241, &c.; internal connection of, and
Scripture, 249, &c. ; requires the Holy
Scripture for its origin and mainten-
ance, 254, &c.; Scripture the rule and
nourishment of, 256, &c. ; controversies
regarding the object of, 353, &c.
Faith, the self-certitude of, ii. 29; and
Revelation, 115.
Faith and Knowledge in the Mediæval
Church, the conflict between, i. 35, &c.
Family, the, i. 270.
Fanatics, disturbers of the Reformation,
i. 125, &c.; dogmatic confutation of,
142, &c.; the ethical side of the con-
troversy with, 172, &c.
Farel introduces Calvin to Geneva, i. 385.
Feuerbach, Ludwig, ii. 373.
Fichte, his system, ii. 336, &c.; relation
of, to Christianity, 338-340.
Finitum and infinitum, Lutheran and
Zwinglian views of, i. 325, 326.
Flacian and Synergistic controversies, the,
i. 370, &c.
Flacius, i. 357, 371, 372.
Flatt, the younger, ii. 331.
Formula Concordia, the, i. 350, 360, 361,
&c. ;
its decision in the Flacian con-
troversy, 373; on election, 376, 377;
the construction of, 379; the character
of, 381.
France, theological controversies in the
Reformed Church of, ii. 24, &c.; the
Protestant Church in, at the present
time, 474.
Francke, A. H., ii. 206, 223, and note.
Francke, Sebastian, i. 192-195.
Freedom of the human will, the, con-
troversy between Luther and Erasmus
respecting, i. 204-220; controversy be-
tween Strigel and Flacius respecting,
371, &c.
Friends of Light, and of Union, ii. 399, 400.
Fries, ii. 335.
Func, the court preacher, i. 360.
Gallican liberties, the, i. 33, 34.
Gaussen, ii. 469, 470, 471.
506
Index.
Geneva, Calvin in, i. 384; introduced to, by
Farel, 385; influence of, on France, 415;
influence of, on Holland, 415, 416; Pro-
testantism in, in recent times, 475.
Gerhard, ii. 109, 114, 127.
German Universities, ii. 14, &c.
Germany, the seat of Protestant Theology,
i. 8; condition of evangelical theology
in at the present time, ii. 424, &c.; the
literature of, 430, &c.
Gichtel, founder of the Angelic Brothers,
ii. 184, 185.
Gieseler, ii. 449.
Giessen, the University of, and its theo-
logians, ii. 105.
Goch, John von, i. 73, 74.
God, an immoral idea of, involved in the
Romish doctrine of Salvation, i. 47; the
doctrine of, during the period of Lutheran
Scholasticism, ii. 141-144; doctrine of,
at the present time, 453.
Gomarus, Franz, i. 417.
Gorham controversy, the, ii. 491.
Grace, and freedom, the controversy re-
specting, i. 42.
Grace, irresistible, the controversy respect-
ing, ii. 28, &c.
Grace, means of, Luther's Views of, i. 146,
&c.; Views of, at the present time, ii. 460.
Greifswald, the University of, and its
theologians, ii. 105.
Groningen, the school of, ii. 481.
Grotius, Hugo, i. 419, 421, 424; and Puf-
fendorf, ii. 114, note.
Haldane, Robert, in Geneva, ii. 469, 470,
471.
Hamann, ii. 296-298.
Hamburg, the University of, and its
theologians, ii. 105.
Hamilton, Sir William, ii. 485.
Hardenberg, Albert, i. 413.
Hase, his Leben Jesu, ii. 344; as a Church
historian, 449.
Heathen, the, Views respecting the state
of, ii. 153, &c.
Hegel, ii. 361; influence of the philosophy
of, on theology, 364, &c.; his philoso-
phy of religion, 440, 441.
Helmstadt, the University of, and its pro-
fessors, ii. 106.
Helvetica Confessio, the, i. 413 note.
Helveticus Consensus, the, ii. 30.
Hengstenberg, as an interpreter of the
Old Testament, ii. 436, 437.
Henke's Allgemeine, &c., ii. 283, note.
Herbert, Lord, of Cherbury, ii. 69.
Herder, his peculiar genius, rare gifts, and
religious views, ii. 317-319; his services
to theology, 320; his view of the Old
Testament, 438, 439.
Hermeneutics, works on, ii. 430.
Hetze, Ludwig, i. 191.
High Churchism, German, ii. 404, &c.
High-Church parties in Eugland, ii. 488.
Hobbes, Thomas, ii. 70-72.
Hoe, Matthew, of Hoenegg, ii. 351, 352.
Hoen, or Honius, the Jurist, his views of
the Supper, i. 310.
Hoffmann, Daniel, and the Hoffmann con-
troversy, ii. 110, 111, &c.
Holland, the Reformation in, i. 415, 416;
chief theologians and Universities of, ii.
10, 11, 12; theology of, 480, 481.
Hollatius, ii. 125.
Homiletics, the Science of, ii. 467, 468.
Huber, his view of election, i. 377, 378,
quoted, ii. 48.
Hulsius, Henry, quoted, ii. 47.
Hunn, Ægidius, his view of election, i. 378.
Humanism, i. 69.
Hume, David, his Essay on Miracles, ii.
87, 91.
Hundeshagen, ii. 449.
Hunnius, Nicolaus, ii. 138.
Huss, John, and his followers, their re-
ligious opinions, i. 66, 67.
Hutten, Ulrich von, i. 98.
Hutter, Leonhard, ii. 108.
Independency and the Independents, ii.
56, 57.
Indulgences, opposition to, i. 75.
Infallibility, i. 29.
Infant Baptism, Luther's Views of, i. 164,
&c.; Calvin's Views of, 405; Views of
during the period of Lutheran Scholas-
ticism, ii. 156.
Innocent III. Pope, i. 33.
Inspiration of the Scripture, Calovius'
views of, ii. 128, &c.
Investiture controversy, the, i. 32, &c.
Irving, Edward, ii. 486.
Isidorian Decretals, the, i. 35.
Jacobi, ii. 340.
James I. of England, ii. 54.
Jesus, the Life of, necessary advancement
from the criticism of the New Testa-
ment to, ii. 415.
Joris, David, i. 192.
Justification, Luther's views of, i. 262, 263 ;
Calvin's views of, 387, 394, 395; the
gradual change respecting the doctrine
of, during the period of Lutheran
Scholasticism, ii. 158-164.
Juterbock, Jacob von, i. 75.
Kalnis' Principles of Protestantism, ii. 426,
427, note; his Lutherische Glaubens-
lehre, 451, note.
Kant, ii. 321; his criticism of Pure Rea-
son, 321, 322; Relation of the philoso-
phy of, to theology, 323; his super-
naturalism, 324; the formal confirma-
tion of revelation by the philosophy of,
325; philosophers who professed to
follow, their views, 328, &c.; a crisis
for the system of, 333, &c.
Kantian Rationalism, ii. 328, &c.; decline
of, 332.
Kenotists and Kenotism, i. 365, 368, 369,
Kempis, Thomas a, i. 58.
Index.
Keys, Luther's view of the power of the,
i. 175, &c.
Klopstock and his Messiah, ii. 294; the
defects of his Messiah, 295.
Knowledge and faith, the conflict between
in the Medieval Church, i. 35, &c.
Konigsberg, the University of, and its
Professors, ii. 107.
Lange, ii. 223.
Lardner, ii. 87.
Last things, the doctrine of, ii. 464.
Latitudinarianism in England, ii. 64.
Laud, Archbishop, ii. 55.
Lautensack, ii. 181.
Lavater, ii. 298-300.
Leibnitz and his philosophy, ii. 263; his
Theodicee, and theory of Monads, 264 ;
his position with respect to theology,
265; the philosophy of, as modified by
Wolff, 266, &c.; considered a union
between the Romish and Protestant
Churches possible, 263, note.
Lessing, ii. 301; opposite views held of,
301, 302; appeared to many a deist,
302; his views of the education of the
human race, 303, &c.; his Nathan, 305,
&c.; his relation to the Wolfenbüttel
Fragments, 306, 307; his view of
primitive Christianity, 308; the rela-
tion of, to truth and history, 310; his
standpoint obscure, ambiguous, and con-
tradictory, 312, 313; the relation of, to
Herder and Kant. 314.
Levellers, the, in England, ii. 57.
Leyden, the school of, ii. 481.
Literature of Modern German Theology,
the, ii. 430, &c.
Liturgy, the English, attempts to intro-
duce it into Scotland, ii. 55.
Locke, John, ii. 77, 78.
Lord's Supper, the, Luther's view of, i. 104,
&c.; Controversy regarding, 306, &c. ;
Zwingli's views of, 308; Honius' views
of, 310; Carlstadt's views of, 311;
Zwingli's letter to Alber on, 312; 313;
the Swabian Syngramma on, 313;
Luther's controversial treatise on, and
Zwingli's reply, 317; the dogmatic
grounds rested on by the two parties
in the controversy respecting, 318;
Zwingli's last utterances on, 330, 331;
views of, during the period of Lutheran
scholasticism, ii. 164; views of, at the
present time, 461.
Löscher, ii. 208; opposes the views of
Wolff, 267.
Luther, his personality and piety, i. 81,
82: his monkish vow and experience,
82-85; his visit to Rome, 85; is made
Doctor of Theology, 85, 86; his oppo-
sition to indulgences-Tetzel, 86, 87;
his Ninety-five Theses, 87, 88; the three
stages of his contest with Rome, 88-91 ;
his negotiations with Miltiz, 92, 93;
507
his dispute with Eck, 94, 95; is excom-
municated by the Pope, 95, 96; his con-
sequent conduct and feelings, 96, 97;
BURNS THE POPE'S BULL, 97; his writ-
ings containing his reformatory ideas-
three classic reformation treatises, 79,
&c.; Address to the Christian Nobility,
98; overthrows three Romish walls, 99-
103; his treatise on the Babylonish
Captivity, 104; his view of the Lord's
Supper, and of Baptism, 104, 105, 152,
&c., 162, &c.; on vows, 105, 106; his
treatise on the Freedom of a Christian
Man, 106, &c.; on the Word of God,
107, 146; on faith and good works, 110-
113; his last epistle to the Pope, 113;
and Melanchthon, 115-119; in Worms,
119, 120; in his "Patmos," and events
which occurred while there, 120; his
confutation of the fanatics, 142; on the
means of grace, 146, &c.; on faith and
the sacraments, 151, &c. ; on infant
baptism, 164, &c.; on the ministry of
the Church, 172, &c.; on the power of
the keys, 175, &c., 179; on excom-
munication, 179, &c.; on the Trinity,
195, 196; his progress in Christology,
197, 198, &c.; his controversy with
Erasmus, 202-220; denies human free-
dom, 206, 208; his doctrine of natural
corruption, 211; superiority to Eras-
mus, 217; progress of the inward de-
velopment of, 221, &c. ; his view of sav-
ing faith, 230, &c.; on the assurance of
salvation; on the possibility of faith
in relation to the holy Scriptures, 241,
&c.; 249, &c.; his FUNDAMENTAL PRIN-
CIPLE, 263; his view of marriage, 268-
270; his view of the family, 270; of
art, 270; of the State, 270, &c. ; on the
limits of civil obedience, 272-274; his
view of the Church, 276, &c.; the agree-
ment with, and independence of each
other of him and Zwingli, 304. &c.; his
controversy with Zwingli on the Supper,
315, &c.; his manner of conceiving the
finite and infinite, 325; the Christology
of, and of Zwingli, 325-328; at the Mar-
burg Conference, 328-330; his percep-
tion of the evil which resulted from the
schism between the Churches, 332; pro-
poses a convention to be held at Wittem-
berg, which issued in the Formula Con-
cordiæ, 333.
Lutheran Church, the, i. 338, &c.
Magical Substitutes for the Divine, i. 46.
Magistrate, the civil, his authority and
duties, i. 272, 275.
Major, George, i. 345; and Melanchthon,
on faith and works, 348.
Malan, Cæsar, ii, 469.
Man, the doctrine of the original state of,
during the period of Lutheran scholas-
ticism, ii. 144; view of recent divinity
as to his moral freedom, 356.
508
Index.
Mansel, Professor, his Limits of Religious
Thought, ii. 485, 494.
Marburg, the Conference of, and articles
drawn up at, i. 328, &c.
Marheinecke and Daub, ii. 366, 367.
Marriage, Luther's views of, i. 268, &c.
Mary, the Virgin, her position in the
Romish Church, i. 47.
Means of grace, Carlstadt's views of, i.
130-133; Luther's views of the, 146;
Zwingli's views of, 298-300.
Mediaeval Church, the, its services, i. 17;
its position in relation to the Gospel.
22; in relation to the reconciliation of
man to God, 23; in relation to sancti-
fication, the ethics of, 25; in relation
to truth, 27; the two works it had to
accomplish, 30; dualism in the doctrine
of,-conflict between faith and know-
ledge, 35, &c.; the great schoolmen of,
43, &c.; the mingling of superstition
and unbelief in, 44; magical substitutes
for the Divine in, 45, &c.; want of an
ethical idea of God in, 47; the life of,
in its concrete opposites,--moral aud
religious aspects of, 48; the life of, had
no reconciliation, 49.
Medieval papacy, the, i. 22, &c.
Melanchthon, his connexion with Luther
and services to the Reformation, i. 115,
&c.; on the Trinity, 195, 196, &c. ; on
human freedom, 218, 219; on Christian
morality, 267; his view of the Church,
278, &c.; the organizing spirit of the
German Reformation, 279; his mental
character, 339; parties hostile to, 340,
341;
his connexion with the Treaty of
Passau, 442; attacked by Agricola, 345;
on faith and works, 342.
Melchioris, Johann, ii. 48.
Messiah, the, of Klopstock, characterized,
ii. 294.
Meth, Ezekiel, ii. 181.
Methodism, the rise and influence of, ii.
91-95.
Miltiz, his negotiations with Luther, i. 92,
93.
Ministry of the Church, Luther's views
of, i. 172.
Missions, the theory of, ii. 465.
Möhler quoted respecting the popes, i. 35.
Monod, Adolph, ii. 270, 271.
Morals, Christian, the province of, under
the point of view of the Reformation
principle, i. 264, &c.
Moravian Brethren, the, ii. 246.
Morgan, Thomas, and Chubb, ii. 88, 89.
Morlin, Joachim, i. 352.
Mosheim, Laurentius, his works, ii. 253,
note.
Muller's Relation of the Agency of the
Holy Ghost to the Word of God as a
Means of Grace, ii. 460.
Müntzer, Thomas, and his religious
opinions, i. 135; his chiliastic views,
137.
Musæus, John, ii. 116, &c.
Mysticism, the, of the Middle Ages, i. 51
Greek, 56; Latin, 56, 57; German, 57;
false theoretical, 182; naturalistic side
of the theoretical, 189, &c.; the Refor-
mation in opposition to false theoretical,
195, &c.; Protestant, ii. 177, &c.
Natural Sciences, the, the conflict of, with
the prevailing views of Inspiration, ii.
257.
Neander, as a Church historian, ii. 449.
Newman, Dr. J. H., ii. 488.
New Testament, the, the controversy re-
specting the purity of the language of,
ii. 134, &c.; modern criticism of, 410,
&c.; Giammars of, and Commentaries
on, 431.
Nicolai, ii. 290.
Niedner, ii. 449.
Nitzsch's Practical Theology, ii. 464.
Obedience, civil, the limits of, i. 272-274.
Occam, i. 38.
Ochler, ii. 436, 437.
Oetinger, opposes the Wolffian philo-
sophy, ii. 234, &c. ; his views of God
and heaven, 235, 236; views of the phi-
losophy of nature, 237; on the pliilo-
sophy of mind and history, 238-240;
similarity of the views of, to those of
Immanuel Swedenborg, 240, 241.
Old Testament, the, editions of, and com-
mentaries on, ii. 431; the theology of,
433, &c.; unsettled disputes respecting,
435; effects of the identification of, withi
the New Testament in former times,
435, 436; efforts to attain an historical
view of the religion of, 438, 439; and
the mythological religions, 440; the
task of the science of, 444, 445.
Oliver Cromwell, ii. 55, 56, 58.
Opzoomer, ii. 482.
Oriental Church, the, i. 18, 19.
Original sin, i. 211; ii. 144, 145.
Orthodoxy, reformed, the prevalence of,
till a.d. 1700, ii, 9, &c.
Osiander, Andreas, i. 353; the contrast
between him and Melanchthon, 354; on
righteousness and justification, 355;
misunderstood, 357; found fault with
by Melanchthon, 358; and the Swa-
bians, 358, 359, 360.
Pajon, Claud, and Pajonism, ii. 28, 29.
Paley, Leland, and Lardner, ii. 95.
Papacy, the climax of the, i. 33.
Paracelsus, ii. 179, 180.
Park, Edward A., editor of the Biblio-
theca Sacra, on the Atonement, ii. 500.
Parsimonius, i. 354.
Petersen, his views of the Apokatastasis,
ii. 154.
Pfaff, the works of, ii. 252; his Collegial
system, 261.
Philosophy, the controversy about the re-
Index.
lation of religion to, ii. 110, &c.; of
Leibnitz, 263, &c. ; of Leibnitz clothed
in a consistent and systematic form by
Wolff, 268, &c.; of Wolff, 268, &c.;
subjective, 321, &c.
Pietism, the history of, first epoch, ii. 203;
the second epoch of the history of, 204,
&c.; internal character of, 208, &c. ; its
view of theology, 209; its view of the
Church, 209, 210; in relation to the re-
formation of morals, 210; insists on
sanctification, 215; the ethical factor in,
216; defects of, 218; unjust reproaches
of, 222; the relation of, to science, 222,
223; the relation of, to exegesis, 224;
the inward decline of, 225.
Placæus, or David La Place, ii. 24; the
controversy occasioned by, relating to
the consequences of Adamic sin, 26-28.
Planck, his Church History, ii. 283, note.
Plitt's Glaubenslehre and Erfahrung, ii.
247, note.
Poach and Otto, i. 351.
Practical theology, ii. 464.
Preaching, methods of, ii. 168, note; at
the present time, 467, &c.
Predestination, decision of the Formula
Concordiæ on, i. 375-377; Calvin's doc-
trine of, 396-400; criticism on Calvin's
doctrine of, 400-404.
Pressensé, Ed. ii. 479.
Presbyterianism and Episcopacy, the con-
flict between, ii. 49, 50, 51.
Prierias' conference with Luther, i. 90, 91.
Protestant Mysticism, ii. 177, &c.
Protestant theology, i. 1.
Protestantism, origin of the name, i. 2, 3 ;
the comprehensiveness of, 4.
Prussian Ĝeneral Synod, the, of 1846, ii.
400, 401.
Puritans, the, ii. 54.
Puseyism and Tractarianism, ii. 488, 489,
497.
Puseyism, German, ii. 504, 405.
Quakers, the, ii. 58, 59.
Rambach, his Commentatio de idoneo Sac-
rarum Literarum interprete, and Insti-
tutiones Hermeneutica, ii. 223, note.
Rationalism, ii. 399.
Rathmann, and the Rathmann contro-
versy, ii. 129, &c.
Rebellion, when justifiable, i. 273.
Reconciliation, the papal doctrine of, i. 23,
&c.; none in the Medieval Church, 49.
Recordites, the, ii. 487.
Reformation, the, countries, of, i. 5, &c. ;
preparation for, 7; positive preparation
for, 50, &c.; the Biblical factor in, 63,
&c.; the necessity of, recognized, 79,
80; the opposition of, to two extremes,
122, &c.; opposition of, to false theo-
retical mysticism, 195, &c.; relation of
the principle of, to different provinces
of thought, 250, &c.; the Swiss, 282,
509
&c.; the essential agreement of the
Swiss and German, and differences be-
tween, 293, &c. ; the original harmony
of the Swiss and German, 303, &c.; the
public body of doctrine in the Churches
of the, 336, &c.; in Geneva, 384, &c.;
in Holland, 415, &c.; Churches of, the
features which they have in common,
471, &c.; the state of things subsequent
to, ii. 1, &c.; the principle of, during the
period of the prevalence of Lutheran
orthodoxy, 118, &c.; changes in the
principles of, 124, &c.
Reformation of the Papal Church frustrated
-how? i. 34.
Reformed nations, the, beyond Germany,
ii. 471.
Reid, Dr. Thomas, ii. 96.
Reinbeck, J. G., his Reflections, ii. 268.
Reinhard, his System der Christlichen
Moral, ii. 272, note.
Reinkingk, De Regimine Seculari et eccle-
siastico, ii. 259, note.
Reimarus, and the Wolfenbüttel Frag-
ments, ii. 289, 290.
Renan, and Strauss, ii. 408, 409; relation
between Strauss and, 416.
Reprobation, Calvin's doctrine of, i. 396,
&c.
Reuchlin, Johann, i. 71.
Reuss, Jer. Fr., ii. 234, note.
Richter's Von den letzen Dingen, ii. 367.
Robinson, John, ii. 54.
Romanism, contests of the Lutheran
Church with, ii. 174-176.
Romish Church, the, makes herself an
Alter Deus, i. 44, 45.
Rosenkranz's Encyclopædia, ii. 367.
Rostock, the University of, and its theo-
logians, ii. 105, 106.
Rothe, ii. 426, note.
Rule of faith, the Church's, ii. 137.
Sacraments, the, Luther's doctrine of,
i. 151, &c.; Calvin's doctrine of, 404,
&c.
Sadolet, Cardinal, i. 385.
Salvation, the doctrine of the appropria-
tion of, ii. 149-157.
Samson, Bernhardine, the Swiss Tetzel, i.
284.
Sanctification, the doctrine of the Papal
Church respecting, i. 25; Luther's
doctrine of, 266, 267.
Savonarola, Hieronymus, i. 76.
Schaff, Philip, ii. 449.
Schelling, the philosophy of, ii. 357-361;
his philosophy of religion, 441, 442.
Schenkel, ii. 426, 427.
Scherer, Edmund, ii. 477, 478.
Schisms in the Evangelical Church,—con-
sequences of, ii. 407.
Schleiermacher, ii. 374, 375; his Dis-
courses and Monologues, 376; relation
of, to the principles of faith, 377; his
view of the relation of Christianity to
510
Index.
Nature and Reason, 378, 379; his view
of the Person of Christ, 380; on faith
and dogma, 383; on the Church and
Tradition, 384; his view of the Union
of the two Confessions, 386; his rela-
tion to the Reformed Confession, 388;
relation of, to Deism and Pantheism,
389; his view of the non-knowledge
of God's nature, 390; his doctrine of
God, 392; the school of, 393; the in-
fluence of, on theology and exegesis
393-395; various tendencies after, 396,
&c.; the groups into which he divides
religions, 441.
Schmidt, Conrad, i. 285.
Scholten, ii. 481, 482.
Schoolmen, the, i. 36, &c. ; 43, &c.
Schröckh, his Kirchengeschichte, ii. 283,
note.
Schwenckfeldt, his theological views, i.
182-189.
Science, the relation of the Reformation
principles to, i. 258; the conflict of
natural, with the prevailing views of
inspiration, ii. 257, &c.
Science, Old Testament, the task of, ii.
444, 445.
Scotch Church, the, 483, &c.; the dis-
ruption of, 484; the theology of,
485.
Scotch philosophy, ii. 96, &c.
Scotland, attempts to introduce the Eng-
lish Liturgy into,-results, ii. 55.
Scripture, faith and the criticism and
exposition of, i. 241-245; the inde-
pendence of, in respect to faith and the
Church, 245, &c. ; the internal connec-
tion of, and faith, 249, &c.; Zwingli's
views of, 287-290; made the sole prin-
ciple of theology, ii. 127; Calovius'
views of the inspiration of, 128, &c.;
power and efficacy of, 131; Luther's
view of the canonicity of, 133-136; his-
torical discrepancies in,-how treated
by Calovius and others, 135, how
treated by Rationalism, 425, &c., evan-
gelical faith in need of, 427; the exe-
gesis of, 429; commentaries on, 431;
of the Old Testament, 433, &c.
Semler, his character and works, ii. 281,
282; his standpoint, 283; and the his-
tory of doctrine, 286; results of his
critical investigations, 286; his private
religion, 287; contradiction between
his efforts and their effects, 288.
Servetus, Michael, his theological views,
i. 189-191.
Shaftesbury, Arthur, Earl of, ii. 78-81.
Sherlock's Trial of the Witnesses of the
Resurrection of Jesus, ii. 86.
Socinianism, the rise of, i. 427, 428; ex-
pounded, 429-431.
Socinians, the, ii. 114.
Socinus, Faustus, i. 428.
Song, Sacred, ii. 167.
Sozzini, Lelio, i. 428.
Spalding, his Von der Nutzbarkeit des
Predigtants, ii. 278.
Spangenberg, his Idea Fidei Fratrum, ii.
247, note.
Spener, ii. 203; made provost of the
Nikolaikirche, 207; attacks on, 207,
208; his views of theology, the Church,
and Christian morality, 208-218.
Spittler's Grundriss der Geschichte der
Christlichen Kirche, ii. 283.
Stancarus, Franz, i. 353, 354.
State, the, Luther's views of, i. 270, &c.,
272, &c.
Staudlin, ii. 323, 325.
Steudel, ii. 436.
Stiefel, Esaias, ii. 181.
Stow, ii. 271.
Strasburg, the University of, and its
theologians, ii. 104.
Strauss, his Leben Jesu, ii. 368-373, 396,
398, 408, 409, 411, 414; relation be-
tween Renan and, 416; his view of the
Person of Christ, 416-418; opposition
between his views and those of Baur,
418, 419; his portrait of Christ not
satisfactory nor historically possible,
419-422.
Strigel, Victorin, and Flacius, i. 371,
372.
Subjective philosophy, ii. 321.
Subjectivity, the triumph of, in the
eighteenth century, ii. 252.
Supernaturalism, biblical, various phases.
of, ii. 397, 398.
Supper, the Holy. [See Lord's Supper.]
Suso, Heimiel, i. 57.
Swabians, the, and Osiander, i. 358, 359,
&c.; the Christology of, 364; opposed
by Martin Chemnitz, 366; negotiations
between the Lower Saxons and, 367.
Swedenborg, ii. 240; a sketch of the
system of, 241-245.
Swiss Reformation, the, i. 282, &c.
Switzerland, German, history of the theo-
logy of, i. 480,
Symbolics, and works on, ii. 449, 450,
451.
Symbols of the first type of Evangelical
doctrine, i. 280.
Syncretistic controversy, the, ii. 197.
Synergistic and Flacian controversies, i.
370, &c.
Syngramma, the Swabian, i. 315.
Synod of Dort, the, i. 246, &c.
Synod, the Prussian, of 1846, ii. 400, 401.
Systematic theology, ii. 451, &c.
Tauler, i. 58.
Territorialism, the, of Thomasius, ii. 260.
Testaments, Old and New, critical edi-
tions of, ii. 431, note; New, commen-
taries on, and types of doctrine in, 431,
432; Old, the theology of, 433; com-
mentaries on the Old, 434, 435; on the
effects of the identification of the Old
and New, 135, &c. ; religion of the Old,
Index.
438, &c.; how the Old is beginning to
be treated, 443; task of the science of
the Old, 444, &c.
Testimonii Spiritus Sanctus, the, ii. 125,
&c.
Tetrapolitana, the, i. 336, 337.
Thamar, Theobald, i. 192.
Theodice, the, of Leibnitz, ii. 263, 266.
Theologians, eminent English, ii. 60-63.
Theology, the history of, in the Reformed
Churches, ii. 22, &c.; in France, 24, &c.;
in Holland, 31, &c. ; in England, 49, &c.,
60-64; present state of German Evangel-
ical, 424, &c.; biblical, 431; of the Old
Testament, 433; systematic, 451; prac-
tical, 464.
Theophrastus Paracelsus, ii. 179.
Theosophy, ii. 179.
Thomasius, Christian, ii. 258; his "Terri-
torialism," 260.
Tieftrunk, ii. 323, 330.
Tindal, ii. 81.
Tolner, his view of the obedience of Christ,
ii. 274.
Tractarians and Tractarianism, ii. 488, 489;
opposition to, 490.
Trinity, the, Luther and Melanchthon on,
i. 195, 196; the Arminian doctrine of,
423; renewed discussion of the question
of, ii. 453.
Triple Crown, the, i. 23.
Truth, how the Medieval Church stands
related to, i. 27, &c.
Tübingen, the University of, and its theo-
logians, ii. 104.
Tübingen and Giessen theologians, the
Christology of, i. 368, 369.
Typology, and Prophecy, ii. 443, 444.
Uniformity, the Act of, ii. 53.
Union, the, of the two Confessions, ii. 400,
&c.; opposition to, 406; consequences of
efforts for, 406, &c.
Union movements in the Lutheran Church,
ii. 352-356,
Universities, and theological schools,-of
Halle, ii. 10-12; of Germany, 14-17;
of Switzerland, 18-20; those which were
the homes of Lutheran doctrine, 103-
109; others-opposed to the strictly
orthodox, 106, 107.
Urlsperger, Samuel, his Christology, ii.
276.
Vinet, Alexander, ii. 470, 471, 478.
Walch, John George, the works of, ii. 253.
Waldenses, the worship and religious prin-
ciples of, i. 63, 64.
Walls, the three Romish, overthrown by
Luther, i. 99, 101, 102.
Warburton, his Divine Legation of Moses,
ii. 88, note.
Wartburg, Luther in the, i. 120, 123.
511
Weigel, Valentin, ii. 180, 181.
Wesley and Whitfield, ii. 92.
Wessel, John, i. 61, 75, 76, 77.
Western Church, the, its practical ten-
dency, i. 20.
Westphal, a persecutor of the brethren,
Calvin's controversy with, i. 410, &c.
Whiston, William, ii. 84.
Whitfield and Wesley, ii. 92.
Whitgift, Archbishop, ii. 53, &c.
Will, the freedom of the, discussion on,
between Erasmus and Luther, i. 204, &c.
William IV. and the Prussian Synod of
1846, ii. 401.
Winer, his Biblisches Realwörterbuch and
Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen
Sprachidioms, ii. 430, 431.
Wittenberg, the University of, i. 113, &c. ;
commotions at, 120; the Convention and
Formula Concordiae of, 333; one of the
houses of Lutheran doctrine, ii. 103.
Wolff, Christian, modifies the philosophy
of Leibnitz, ii. 266; his unfavourable
reception by theologians, 266, 267; the
philosophy of, finds increasing favour,
268; features characteristic of the philo-
sophy of, 269, &c. ; his supernaturalism,
271; the religious system of, 272, &c. ;
the philosophy of, passes into popular
philosophy, 273, &c.
Wolfenbüttel Fragments, the, ii. 290.
Woolston, ii. 85, 86.
Worship, public, ii. 466, 467.
Wycliff, John, his religious and ecclesi-
astical opinions, i. 65.
Zwickau, the heavenly or inspired pro-
phets of, i. 133, &c.; Luther's refuta-
tion of, 143, &c.
Zwingli, Ulrich, i. 282; a sketch of, 284;
his controversies, 285; his position in
reference to the holy Scriptures, 287,
&c.; on the exposition of Scripture,
289; his material principle, 290; on the
salvation of the heathen, 291; on faith
and assurance, 292; his conception of
guilt and sin, 294; difference between
the views of, and those of Luther, 294,
295; on moral action and on the com-
munity, 295, 296; his view of the right
of the Christian congregation, 296; on
the inward and outward word, 297; on
the means of grace, 298; his conflict
with the fanatics, 300; his recognition
of Luther's merits, 304; his agreement
with, and independence of, Luther, 304,
305; his doctrine of the Supper, 307,
&c.; his letter to Alber on the Supper,
312; his Christology, and that of Luther,
323-328; his last utterances, respecting
the Holy Supper, 330, 331.
Zinzendorf, Count, and the Moravian
Brethren, ii. 245-248.
P.S

}

!
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 01139 1086
BX
4844
.D713
Dorner
V. 2
History of Protestant
theology
고고
​7667
Jean B. Walis
The
Cha
71
!