Chapter IV: The Counter-Reformation (12)

§ 181.2. =The Book of Chorales.=--In A.D. 1814, Frederick
William III. of Prussia sought to secure greater prominence
to the liturgy in the church service. In A.D. 1817, Natorp of
Münster expressed himself strongly as to the need of restoring
the chorale to its former position, and he was followed by the
jurist Thibaut, whose work on “The Purity of Tone” has been
translated into English. The reform of the chorale was carried
out most vigorously in Württemberg, but it was in Bavaria that
the old chorale in its primitive simplicity was most widely
introduced.

§ 181.3. =The Liturgy.=--Under the reign of the Illuminists the
liturgy had suffered even more than the hymns. The Lutherans now
went back to the old Reformation models, and liturgical services,
with musical performances, became popular in Berlin. Conferences
held at Dresden did much for liturgical reform, and the able
works and collections of Schöberlein supplied abundant materials
for the practical carrying out of the movement.

§ 181.4. =The Holy Scriptures.=--The Calw Bible in its fifth
edition adopted somewhat advanced views on inspiration, the canon
and authenticity, while maintaining generally the standpoint
of the most reverent and pious students of scripture. Bunsen’s
commentary assumed a “mediating” position, and the “Protestant
Bible” on the New Testament, translated into English, that of
the advanced school. Besser’s expositions of the New Testament
books, of which we have in English those on John’s gospel, had
an unexampled popularity. The Eisenach Conference undertook
a revision of Luther’s translation of the Bible. The revised
New Testament was published in A.D. 1870, and accepted by some
Bible societies. The much more difficult task of Old Testament
revision was entrusted to a committee of distinguished university
theologians, which concluded its labours in A.D. 1881. A “proof”
Bible was issued in A.D. 1883, and the final corrected rendering
in A.D. 1886. A whole legion of pamphlets were now issued
from all quarters. Some bitterly opposing any change in the
Luther-text, others severely criticising the work, so that the
whole movement seems now at a standstill.[529]--In England, in
May, 1885, the work of revision of the English version of the
Bible, undertaken by order of convocation, was completed after
fifteen years’ labour, and issued jointly by the two universities
of Oxford and Cambridge. The revised New Testament, prepared
four years previously, had been telegraphed in short sections to
America by the representative of the _New York Herald_, so that
the complete work appeared there rather earlier than in England.
But in the case of the Old Testament revision such freebooting
industry was prevented by the strict and careful reserve of all
concerned in the work. The revised New Testament had meanwhile
never been introduced into the public services; whether the
completed Bible will ever succeed in overcoming this prejudice
remains to be seen.[530]

§ 182. PROTESTANT THEOLOGY IN GERMANY.

The real founder of modern Protestant theology, the Origen of the nineteenth century, is Schleiermacher. His influence was so powerful and manysided that it extended not merely to his own school, but also in almost all directions, even to the Catholic church, embracing destructive and constructive tendencies such as appeared before in Origen and Erigena. Alongside of the vulgar rationalism, which still had notable representatives, De Wette founded the new school of historico-critical rationalism, and Neander that of pietistic supernaturalism, which soon overshadowed the two older schools of rational and supra-rational supernaturalism. On the basis of Schelling’s and Hegel’s philosophy Daub founded the school of speculative theology with an evangelical tendency; but after Hegel’s death it split into a right and left wing. As the former could not maintain its position, its adherents by-and-by went over to other schools; and the latter, setting aside speculation and dogmatics, applied itself to the critical investigation of the early history of Christianity, and founded the school of Baur at Tübingen. Schleiermacher’s school also split into a right and left wing. Each of them took the union as its standard; but the right, which claimed to be the “German” and the “Modern” theology, wished a union under a consensus of the confessions, and sought to effect an accommodation between the old faith and the modern liberalism; whereas the left wished union without a confession, and unconditioned toleration of “free science.” This latter tendency, however, secured greater prominence and importance from A.D. 1854, through combination with the representatives of the historico-critical and the younger generation of the Baurian school, from which originated the “free Protestant” theology. On the other hand, under the influence of pietism, there has arisen since A.D. 1830, especially in the universities of Erlangen, Leipzig, Rostock, and Dorpat, a Lutheran confessional school, which seeks to develop a Lutheran system of theology of the type of Gerhard and Bengel. A similar tendency has also shown itself in the Reformed church. The most recent theological school is that founded by Ritschl, resting on a Lutheran basis but regarded by the confessionalists as rather allied to the “free Protestant” theology, on account of its free treatment of certain fundamental doctrines of Lutheranism.--Theological contributions from Scandinavia, England, and Holland are largely indebted to German theology.

§ 182.1. =Schleiermacher, A.D. 1768-1834.=--Thoroughly grounded
in philosophy and deeply imbued with the pious feeling of the
Moravians among whom he was trained, Schleiermacher began his
career in A.D. 1807 as professor and university preacher at Halle,
but, to escape French domination, went in the same year to Berlin,
where by speech and writing he sought to arouse German patriotism.
There he was appointed preacher in A.D. 1809, and professor
in A.D. 1810, and continued to hold these offices till his
death in A.D. 1834. In A.D. 1799 he published five “_Reden
über d. Religion_.” In these it was not biblical and still
less ecclesiastical Christianity which he sought with glowing
eloquence to address to the hearts of the German people, but
Spinozist pantheism. The fundamental idea of his life, that God,
“the absolute unity,” cannot be reached in thought nor grasped
by will, but only embraced in feeling as immediate consciousness,
and hence that feeling is the proper seat of religion, appears
already in his early productions as the centre of his system. In
the following year, A.D. 1800, he set forth his ethical theory
in five “Monologues:” every man should in his own way represent
humanity in a special blending of its elements. The study and
translation of Plato, which occupied him now for several years,
exercised a powerful influence upon him. He approached more and
more towards positive Christianity. In a Christmas Address in
A.D. 1803 on the model of Plato’s Symposium, he represents Christ
as the divine object of all faith. In A.D. 1811 he published his
“Short Outline of Theological Study,” which has been translated
into English, a masterly sketch of theological encyclopædia. In
A.D. 1821 he produced his great masterpiece, “_Der Chr. Glaube_,”
which makes feeling the seat of all religion as immediate
consciousness of absolute dependence, perfectly expressed in
Jesus Christ, whose life redeems the world. The task of dogmatics
is to give scientific expression to the Christian consciousness
as seen the life of the redeemed; it has not to prove,
but only to work out and exhibit in relation to the whole
spiritual life what is already present as a fact of experience.
Thus dogmatics and philosophy are quite distinct. He proves
the evangelical Protestant character of the doctrines thus
developed by quotations from the consensus of both confessions.
Notwithstanding his protest, many of his contemporaries still
found remnants of Spinozist pantheism. On certain points too,
he failed to satisfy the claims of orthodoxy; _e.g._ in his
Sabellian doctrine of the Trinity, his theory of election, his
doctrine of the canon, and his account of the beginning and
close of our Lord’s life, the birth and the ascension.[531]

§ 182.2. =The Older Rationalistic Theology.=--The older,
so-called vulgar rationalism, was characterized by the
self-sufficiency with which it rejected all advances from
philosophy and theology, science and national literature. The
new school of historico-critical rationalism availed itself
of every aid in the direction of scientific investigation. The
father of the vulgar rationalism of this age was =Röhr= of Weimar,
who exercised his ingenuity in proving how one holding such
views might still hold office in the church. To this school also
belonged =Paulus= of Heidelberg, described by Marheineke as one
who believes he thinks and thinks he believes but was incapable
of either; =Wegscheider= of Halle, who in his “_Institutions
theol. Christ. dogmaticæ_” repudiates miracles; =Bretschneider=
of Gotha, who began as a supernaturalist and afterwards went over
to extreme rationalism; and =Ammon= of Dresden, who afterwards
passed over to rational supernaturalism.

§ 182.3. The founder of =Historico-critical Rationalism= was
=De Wette=; a contemporary of Schleiermacher in Berlin University,
but deprived of office in A.D. 1819 for sending a letter of
condolence to the mother of Sands, which was regarded as an
apology for his crime. From A.D. 1822 till his death in A.D. 1849
he continued to work unweariedly in Basel. His theological
position had its starting point in the philosophy of his friend
Fries, which he faithfully adhered to down to the end of his life.
His friendship with Schleiermacher had also a powerful influence
upon him. He too placed religion essentially in feeling,
which, however, he associated much more closely with knowledge
and will. In the church doctrines he recognised an important
symbolical expression of religious truths, and so by the out and
out rationalist he was all along sneered at as a mystic. But his
chief strength lay in the sharp critical treatment which he gave
to the biblical canon and the history of the O.T. and N.T. His
commentaries on the whole of the N.T. are of permanent value, and
contain his latest thoughts, when he had approached most nearly
to positive Christianity. His literary career began in A.D. 1806
with a critical examination of the books of Chronicles. He also
wrote on the Psalms, on Jewish history, on Jewish archæology,
and made a new translation of the Bible. His Introductions to
the O.T. and N.T. have been translated into English.--=Winer=
of Leipzig is best known by his “Grammar of New Testament Greek,”
first published in A.D. 1822, of which several English and
American translations have appeared, the latest and best that of
Dr. Moulton, made in A.D. 1870, from the sixth German edition. He
also edited an admirable “_Bibl. Reallexicon_,” and wrote a work
on symbolics which has been translated into English under the
title “A Comparative View of the Doctrines and Confessions of the
Various Communities of Christendom” (Edin., 1873).--=Gesenius=
of Halle, who died A.D. 1842, has won a high reputation by
his grammatical and lexicographical services and as author of
a commentary on Isaiah--=Hupfeld= of Marburg and Halle, who died
A.D. 1866, best known by his work in four vols. on the Psalms,
in his critical attitude toward the O.T., belonged to the same
party.--=Hitzig= of Zürich and Heidelberg, who died A.D. 1875,
far outstripped all the rest in genius and subtlety of mind and
critical acuteness. He wrote commentaries on most of the prophets
and critical investigations into the O.T. history.--=Ewald= of
Göttingen, A.D. 1803-1875, whose hand was against every man and
every man’s hand against him, held the position of recognised
dictator in the domain of Hebrew grammar, and uttered oracles as
an infallible expounder of the biblical books. In his _Journal
for Biblical Science_, he held an annual _auto da fe_ of all
the biblico-theological literature of the preceding year;
and, assuming a place alongside of Isaiah and Jeremiah, he
pronounced in every preface a prophetic burden against the
theological, ecclesiastical, or political ill doers of his time.
His exegetical writings on the poetical and prophetical books
of the O.T., his “History of Israel down to the Post-Apostolic
Age,” and a condensed reproduction of his “Bible Doctrine of
God,” under the title: “Revelation, its Nature and Record” and
“Old and New Testament Theology,” have all appeared in English
translations, and exhibit everywhere traces of brilliant genius
and suggestive originality.[532]

§ 182.4. =Supernaturalism= of the older type (§ 171, 8) was
now represented by Storr, Reinhard, Planck, Knapp, and Stäudlin.
In Württemberg Storr’s school maintained its pre-eminence
down to A.D. 1830. Neander, Tholuck, and Hengstenberg may
be described as the founders and most powerful enunciators
of the more recent =Pietistic Supernaturalism=. Powerfully
influenced by Schleiermacher, his colleague in Berlin, =Neander=,
A.D. 1789-1850, exercised an influence such as no other
theological teacher had exerted since Luther and Melanchthon.
Adopting Schleiermacher’s standpoint, he regarded religion as
a matter of feeling: _Pectus est quod theologum facit_. By his
subjective pectoral theology he became the father of modern
scientific pietism, but it incapacitated him from understanding
the longing of the age for the restoration of a firm objective
basis for the faith. He was adverse to the Hegelian philosophy
no less than to confessionalism. Neander was so completely a
pectoralist, that even his criticism was dominated by feeling,
as seen in his vacillations on questions of N.T. authenticity
and historicity. His “Church History,” of which we have
admirable English translations, was an epoch-making work, and
his historical monographs were the result of careful original
research.[533]--=Tholuck=, A.D. 1799-1877, from A.D. 1826
professor at Halle, at first devoted to oriental studies,
roused to practical interests by Baron von Kottwitz of Berlin,
gave himself with all his wide culture by preaching, lecturing
and conversing to lead his students to Christ. His scientific
theology was latitudinarian, but had the warmth and freshness
of immediate contact with the living Saviour. His most important
works are apologetical and exegetical. In his “Preludes to
the History of Rationalism” he gives curious glimpses into the
scandalous lives of students in the seventeenth century; and he
afterwards confessed that these studies had helped to draw him
into close sympathy with confessionalism. While always lax in his
views of authenticity, he came to adopt a very decided position
in regard to revelation and inspiration.--=Hengstenberg=,
A.D. 1802-1869, from A.D. 1826 professor in Berlin, had quite
another sort of development. Rendered determined by innumerable
controversies, in none of which he abated a single hair’s breadth,
he looked askance at science as a gift of the Danaides, and set
forth in opposition to rationalism and naturalism a system of
theology unmodified by all the theories of modern times. Born in
the Reformed church and in his understanding of Scripture always
more Calvinist than Lutheran, rationalising only upon miracles
that seemed to detract from the dignity of God, and in his
later years inclined to the Romish doctrine of justification, he
may nevertheless claim to be classed among the confessionalists
within the union. He deserves the credit of having given a great
impulse to O.T. studies and a powerful defence of O.T. books,
though often abandoning the position of an apologist for that
of an advocate. His “Christology of the Old Testament,” in
four vols., “Genuineness of the Pentateuch and Daniel,” three
vols., “Egypt and the Books of Moses,” commentaries on Psalms,
Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, the Gospel of John, Revelation, and his
“History of the Kingdom of God in the Old Testament,” have all
been translated into English.

§ 182.5. The so called =Rational Supernaturalism= admits the
supernatural revelation in holy scripture, and puts reason
alongside of it as an equally legitimate source of religious
knowledge, and maintains the rationality of the contents of
revelation. Its chief representative was =Baumgarten-Crusius=
of Jena. Of a similar tendency, but more influenced by æsthetic
culture and refined feeling, and latterly inclining more and
more to the standpoint of “free Protestantism,” =Carl Hase=,
after seven years’ work in Tübingen, opened his Jena career in
A.D. 1830, which he closed by resigning his professorship in
A.D. 1883, after sixty years’ labour in the theological chair.
In his “Life of Jesus,” first published A.D. 1829, he represents
Christ as the ideal man, sinless but not free from error, endowed
with the fulness of love and the power of pure humanity, as
having truly risen and become the author of a new life in the
kingdom of God, of which the very essence is most purely and
profoundly expressed in the gospel of the disciple who lay upon
the Master’s heart. The latest revision of this work, issued
in A.D. 1876 under the title “_Geschichte Jesu_,” treats the
fourth gospel as non-Johnannine in authorship and mythical in its
contents, and explains the resurrection by the theory of a swoon
or a vision. In his “_Hutterus Redivivus_,” A.D. 1828, twelfth
edition 1883, he seeks to set forth the Lutheran dogmatic as
Hutter might have done had he lived in these days. This led to
the publication of controversial pamphlets in A.D. 1834-1837,
which dealt the deathblow to the _Rationalismus Vulgaris_. His
“Church History,” distinguished by its admirable little sketches
of leading personalities, was published in A.D. 1834, and the
seventh edition of A.D. 1854 has been translated into English.

§ 182.6. =Speculative Theology.=--Its founder was =Daub=,
professor at Heidelberg from A.D. 1794 till his death in
A.D. 1836. Occupying and writing from the philosophical
standpoints of Kant, Fichte, and Schelling successively, he
published in A.D. 1816 “Judas Iscariot,” an elaborate discussion
of the nature of evil, but passed over in A.D. 1833, with his
treatise on dogmatics, to the Hegelian position. He exerted
great influence as a professor, but his writings proved to most
unintelligible.--=Marheineke= of Berlin in the first edition
of his “Dogmatics” occupied the standpoint of Schelling, but in
the second set forth Lutheran orthodoxy in accordance with the
formulæ of the Hegelian system.--After Hegel’s death in A.D. 1831
his older pupils =Rosenkranz= and =Göschel= sought to enlist his
philosophy in the service of orthodoxy. =Richter= was the first
to give offence, by his “Doctrine of the Last Things,” in which
he denounced the doctrine of immortality in the sense of personal
existence after death. =Strauss=, A.D. 1808-1874, represented
the “Life of Jesus,” in his work of A.D. 1835, as the product
of unintentional romancing, and in his “_Glaubenslehre_” of
A.D. 1840, sought to prove that all Christian doctrines are
put an end to by modern science, and openly taught pantheism
as the residuum of Christianity. =Bruno Bauer=, after passing
from the right to the left Hegelian wing, described the gospels
as the product of conscious fraud, and =Ludwig Feuerbach=,
in his “Essence of Christianity,” A.D. 1841, set forth in all
its nakedness the new gospel of self-adoration. The breach
between the two parties in the school was now complete. Whatever
Rosenkranz and Schaller from the centre, and Göschel and Gabler
from the right, did to vindicate the honour of the system,
they could not possibly restore the for ever shattered illusion
that it was fundamentally Christian. Those of the right fell
back into the camps of “the German theology” and the Lutheran
confessionalism; while in the latest times the left has no
prominent theological representative but Biedermann of Zürich.

§ 182.7. =The Tübingen School.=--Strauss was only the advanced
skirmisher of a school which was proceeding under an able leader
to subject the history of early Christianity to a searching
examination. =Fred. Chr. Baur= of Tübingen, A.D. 1792-1860,
almost unequalled among his contemporaries in acuteness,
diligence, and learning, a pupil of Schleiermacher and Hegel,
devoted himself mainly to historical research about the
beginnings of Christianity. In this department he proceeded to
reject almost everything that had previously been believed. He
denied the genuineness of all the New Testament writings, with
the exception of Revelation and the Epistles to the Romans,
Galatians, and Corinthians; treating the rest as forgeries of
the second century, resulting from a bitter struggle between
the Petrine and Pauline parties. This scheme was set forth in
a rudimentary form in the treatise on “The So-called Pastoral
Epistles of the Apostle Paul,” A.D. 1835. His works, “Paul, the
Apostle,” and the “History of the First Three Centuries,” have
been translated into English. He had as collaborateurs in this
work, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, etc. =Ritschl=,
who was at first an adherent of the school, made important
concessions to the right, and in the second edition of his
great work, “_Die Entstehung d. alt-kath. Kirche_,” of A.D. 1857,
announced himself as an opponent. =Hilgenfeld= of Jena, too,
marked out new lines for himself in New Testament Introduction
and in the estimate of early church doctrine, modifying in
various ways the positions of Baur. The labours of this school
and its opponents have done signal service in the cause of
science.

§ 182.8. =Strauss=, who had meanwhile occupied himself with the
studies of Von Hutten, Reimarus, and Lessing’s “Nathan,” feeling
that the researches of the Tübingen school had antiquated his
“Life of Jesus,” and stimulated by Renan’s “Life of Jesus,”
written with French elegance and vivacity, in which he described
Christ as an amiable hero of a Galilæan village story, undertook
in 1864 a semi-jubilee reproduction of his work, addressed to
“the German people.” This was followed by a severe controversial
pamphlet, “The Half and the Whole,” in which he lashed the
halting attempts of Schenkel as well as the uncompromising
conservatism of Hengstenberg. He now pointed out cases of
intentional romancing in the gospel narratives; the resurrection
rests upon subjective visions of Christ’s disciples. His
“Lectures on Voltaire” appeared in A.D. 1870, and in A.D. 1872
the most radical of all his books, “The Old and the New Faith,”
which makes Christianity only a modified Judaism, the history
of the resurrection mere “humbug,” and the whole gospel story
the result of the “hallucinations” of the early Christians. The
question whether “we” are still Christians he answers openly
and honourably in the negative. He has also surmounted the
standpoint of pantheism. The religion of the nineteenth century
is _pancosmism_, its gospel the results of natural science
with Darwin’s discoveries as its bible, its devotional works
the national classics, its places of worship the concert rooms,
theatres, museums, etc. The most violent attacks on this book
came from the _Protestantenverein_. Strauss had said, “If
the old faith is absurd, then the modernized edition of the
‘_Protestantenverein_’ and the school of Jena is doubly, trebly
so. The old faith only contradicts reason, not itself; the
new contradicts itself at every point, and how can it then
be reconciled with reason?”[534]

§ 182.9. =The Mediating Theology.=--This tendency originated
from the right wing of the school of Schleiermacher, still
influenced more or less by the pectoralism of Neander. It adopted
in dogmatics a more positive and in criticism a more conservative
manner. It earnestly sought to promote the interests of the
union not merely as a combination for church government, but as
a communion under a confessional consensus. Its chief theological
organs were the “_Studien und Kritiken_,” started in A.D. 1828,
edited by Ullmann and Umbreit in Heidelberg, afterwards by
Riehm and Köstlin in Halle, and the “_Jahrbücher für deutsche
Theologie_” of Dorner and Leibner, A.D. 1856-1878.--Although the
mediating theology sought to sink all confessional differences,
denominational descent was more or less traceable in most of its
adherents. Its leading representatives from the =Reformed church=
were: =Alexander Schweizer=, who most faithfully preserved the
critical tendency of Schleiermacher, and, in a style far abler
and subtler than any other modern theologian, expounded the
Reformed system of doctrine in its rigid logical consistency.
In his own system he gives a scientific exposition of the
evangelical faith from the unionist standpoint, with many pious
reflections on Scripture and the confession as well as results of
Christian experience, based upon the threefold manifestation of
God set forth without miracle in the physical order of the world,
in the moral order of the world, and in the historical economy
of the kingdom of God.--=Sack=, one of the oldest and most
positive of Schleiermacher’s pupils, professor at Bonn, then
superintendent at Magdeburg, wrote on apologetics and polemics.
=Hagenbach= of Basel, A.D. 1801-1874, is well-known by his
“Theological Encyclopædia and Methodology,” “History of the
Reformation,” and “History of the Church in the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Centuries,” all of which are translated into
English.--=John Peter Lange= of Bonn, A.D. 1802-1884, a man
of genius, imaginative, poetic, and speculative, with strictly
positive tendencies, widely known by his “Life of Christ” and the
commentary on Old and New Testament, edited and contributed to by
him.--=Dr. Philip Schaff= may also be named as the transplanter
of German theology of the Neander-Tholuck type to the American
soil. Born in Switzerland, he accepted a call as professor to the
theological seminary of the German Reformed church at Mercersburg
in 1843. He soon fell under suspicion of heresy, but was
acquitted by the Synod of New York in 1845. In 1869 he accepted
a call to a professorship in the richly endowed Presbyterian
Union Theological Seminary of New York. Writing first in German
and afterwards in English, his works treat of almost all the
branches of theological science, especially in history and
exegesis. He is also president of several societies engaged
in active Christian work.

§ 182.10. Among those belonging originally to the =Lutheran
church= were Schleiermacher’s successor in Berlin, =Twesten=,
whose dogmatic treatise did not extend beyond the doctrine of
God, a faithful adherent of Schleiermacher’s right wing on the
Lutheran side; =Nitzsch=, professor in Bonn A.D. 1822-1847, and
afterwards of Berlin till his death in A.D. 1868, best known by
his “System of Christian Doctrine,” and his Protestant reply to
Möhler’s “Symbolism,” a profound thinker with a noble Christian
personality, and one of the most influential among the consensus
theologians. =Julius Müller= of Halle, A.D. 1801-1878, if we
except his theory of an ante-temporal fall, occupied the common
doctrinal platform of the confessional unionists. His chief work,
“The Christian Doctrine of Sin,” is a masterpiece of profound
thinking and original research. =Ullmann=, A.D. 1796-1865,
professor in Halle and Heidelberg, a noble and peace-loving
character, distinguished himself in the domain of history by his
monograph on “Gregory Nazianzen,” his “Reformers before the
Reformation,” and most of all by his beautiful apologetical
treatise on the “Sinlessness of Jesus.”--=Isaac Aug. Dorner=,
A.D. 1809-1884, born and educated in Württemberg, latterly
professor in Berlin, applied himself mainly to the elaborating
of Christian doctrine, and gave to the world, in his “Doctrine of
the Person of Christ,” in A.D. 1839, a work of careful historical
research and theological speculation. The fundamental ideas of
his Christology are the theory favoured by the “German” theology
generally of the necessity of the incarnation even apart from sin
(which Müller strongly opposed), and the notion of the archetypal
Christ, the God-Man, as the collective sum of humanity, in whom
“are gathered the patterns of all several individualities.” His
“System of Christian Doctrine” formed the copestone of an almost
fifty years’ academical career. Christ’s virgin birth is admitted
as the condition of the essential union in Him of divinity and
humanity; but the incarnation of the Logos extends through the
whole earthly life of the Redeemer; it is first completed in
his exaltation by means of his resurrection; it was therefore
an operation of the Logos, as principle of all divine movement,
_extra carnem_. His “System of Christian Ethics” was edited
after his death by his son.[535]--=Richard Rothe=, A.D. 1799-1867,
appointed in A.D. 1823 chaplain to the Prussian embassy at Rome,
where he became intimately acquainted with Bunsen. In A.D. 1828
he was made ephorus at the preachers’ seminary of Wittenberg,
and afterwards professor in Bonn and Heidelberg. Rothe was one
of the most profound thinkers of the century, equalled by none
of his contemporaries in the grasp, depth, and originality of
his speculation. Though influenced by Schleiermacher, Neander,
and Hegel, he for a long time withdrew like an anchoret from the
strife of theologians and philosophers, and took up a position
alongside of Oetinger in the chamber of the theosophists. His
mental and spiritual constitution had indeed much in common with
that great mystic. In his first important work, “_Die Anfänge
der chr. Kirche_,” he gave expression to the idea that in its
perfected form the church becomes merged into the state. The same
thought is elaborated in his “Theological Ethics,” a work which
in depth, originality, and conclusiveness of reasoning is almost
unapproached, and is full of the most profound Christian views
in spite of its many heterodoxies. In his later years he took
part in the ecclesiastical conflicts in Baden (§ 196, 3) with
the _Protestantenverein_ (§ 180, 1), and entered the arena of
public ecclesiastical life.[536]--=Beyschlag= of Halle, in his
“_Christologie d. N. T._,” A.D. 1866, carried out Schleiermacher’s
idea of Christ as only man, not God and man but the ideal of
man, not of two natures but only one, the archetypal human, which,
however, as such is divine, because the complete representation
of the divine nature in the human. From this standpoint, too,
he vindicates the authenticity of John’s Gospel, and from Romans
ix.-xi. works out a “Pauline Theodicy.”--=Hans Lassen Martensen=,
A.D. 1808-1884, professor at Copenhagen, Bishop of Zealand
and primate of Denmark, with high speculative endowments and
a considerable tincture of theosophical mysticism, has become
through his “Christian Dogmatics,” “Christian Ethics,” in three
vols., etc., of a thoroughly Lutheran type, one of the best known
theologians of the century.

§ 182.11. Among =Old Testament exegetes= the most distinguished
are: =Umbreit=, A.D. 1795-1860, of Heidelberg, who wrote from
the supernaturalist standpoint, influenced by Schleiermacher
and Herder, commentaries on Solomon’s writings and those of the
prophets, and on Job; =Bertheau= of Göttingen, of Ewald’s school,
wrote historico-critical and philological commentaries on the
historical books; and =Dillmann=, Hengstenberg’s successor in
Berlin, specially distinguished for his knowledge of the Ethiopic
language and literature, has written critical commentaries on
the Pentateuch and Job.--Among =New Testament exegetes= we may
mention: =Lücke= of Göttingen, known by his commentary on John’s
writings; =Bleek=, the able New Testament critic and commentator
on the Epistle to the Hebrews; =Meyer=, A.D. 1800-1873, most
distinguished of all, whose “Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the New Testament,” begun in A.D. 1832, in which he was
aided by Huther, Lunemann, and Düsterdieck, is well-known in its
English edition as the most complete exegetical handbook to the
New Testament; =Weiss= of Kiel and Berlin, author of treatises
on the doctrinal systems of Peter and of John, “The Biblical
Theology of the New Testament,” “Life of Christ,” “Introduction
to New Testament,” revises and rewrites commentaries on Mark,
Luke, John, and Romans, in the last edition of the Meyer
series.--A laborious student in the domain of New Testament
textual criticism was =Constant. von Tischendorff [Tischendorf]=
of Leipzig, A.D. 1815-1874, who ransacked all the libraries
of Europe and the East in the prosecution of his work. The
publication of several ancient codices, _e.g._ the _Cod.
Sinaiticus_, a present from the Sinaitic monks to the czar on
the thousandth anniversary of the Russian empire in A.D. 1862,
the _Cod. Vaticanus N.T._, a new edition of the LXX., the most
complete collection of New Testament apocrypha and pseudepigraphs,
and finally a whole series of editions of the New Testament (from
A.D. 1841-1873 there appeared twenty-four editions, of which the
_Editio Octava Major_ of 1872 is the most complete in critical
apparatus), are the rich and ripe fruits of his researches.
A second edition, compared throughout with the recensions of
Tregelles and Westcott and Hort, was published by =Von Gebhardt=,
and a third volume of Prolegomena was added by C. R. Gregory.
As a theologian he attached himself, especially in later years,
to the Lutheranism of his Leipzig colleagues, and on questions
of criticism and introduction took up a strictly conservative
position as seen in his well known tract, “When were our Gospels
written?”

§ 182.12. Among the university teachers of his time =John Tob.
Beck=, A.D. 1804-1878, assumed a position all his own. After
a pastorate of ten years he began in A.D. 1836 his academical
career in Basel, and went in A.D. 1843 to Tübingen, where he
opposed to the teaching of Baur’s school a purely biblical and
positive theology, with a success that exceeded all expectations.
A Württemberger by birth, nature, and training, he quite ignored
the history of the church and its dogmas as well as modern
criticism, and set forth a system of theology drawn from a
theosophical realistic study of the Bible. He took little
interest in the excited movements of his age for home and foreign
missions, union, confederation, and alliances, in questions about
liturgies, constitution, discipline, and confessions, in all
which he saw only the form of godliness without the power. Better
times could be hoped for only as the result of the immediate
interposition of God. His “Pastoral Theology” and “Biblical
Psychology” have been translated into English.

§ 182.13. =The Lutheran Confessional Theology.=--=Sartorius=,
A.D. 1797-1859, from A.D. 1822 professor in Dorpat, then from
A.D. 1835 general superintendent at Königsberg, made fresh and
vigorous attacks upon rationalism, and supported the union as
preserving “the true mean” of Lutheranism. He is best known by
his “Doctrine of Divine Love.” =Rudelbach=,--a Dane by birth and
finally settled in Copenhagen, occupying the same ground, became
a violent opponent of the union.--=Guericke= of Halle, beginning
as a pietist, passed through the union into a rigorous Lutheran,
and joined Rudelbach in editing the journal afterwards conducted
by Luthardt of Leipzig.--Alongside of these older representatives
of Lutheran orthodoxy there arose a =second generation= which
from A.D. 1840 has fallen into several groups. Their divergencies
were mainly on two points:

1. On the place and significance of the clerical order, some
viewing it as based on the general priesthood of believers
and resting on the call of the congregation for the orderly
administration of the means of grace, others regarding it
as a divine institution, yet without adopting the Romanizing
and Anglican theory of apostolic succession; and

2. On the more important question of biblical prophecy, where
one party maintained the spiritualistic, widely favoured
since the time of Jerome, and another party, attaching
itself to Crusius and Bengel, insisted upon a realistic
interpretation.

At the head of the =first group=, which maintained the old
Protestant theory of church and office and looked askance
at chiliastic theories, supporting the old doctrines by all
available materials from modern science, stands =Harless=,
A.D. 1806-1879, professor in Erlangen and Leipzig, the chief
ecclesiastical commissioner in Dresden, and finally at Munich.
His theological reputation rests upon his “Commentary on
Ephesians,” A.D. 1835, his “Christian Ethics,” A.D. 1842.
Alongside of him =Thomasius= of Erlangen, A.D. 1802-1875, wrought
in a similar direction.--=Keil=, A.D. 1807-1888, from A.D. 1833
professor in Dorpat, since A.D. 1858 living retired in Leipzig,
of all Hengstenberg’s students has most faithfully preserved
his master’s exegetical and critical conservatism. He began
in A.D. 1861 in connexion with Delitzsch his “Old Testament
Commentary” on strictly conservative lines. We have an English
translation of that work, and also of his “Introduction to the
Old Testament” and his “Old Testament Archæology.”--=Philippi=,
A.D. 1809-1882, son of Jewish parents, during his academic
career in Dorpat, A.D. 1841-1852, exercised a powerful influence
in securing for strict Lutheranism a very widespread ascendency
among the clergy of Livonia. From A.D. 1852 till his death in
A.D. 1882 he resided in Rostock. As exegete and dogmatist, he
has, like a John Gerhard and Quenstedt of the nineteenth century,
reproduced the Lutheran theology of the seventeenth century,
unmodified by the developments of modern thought. He is known to
English readers by his “Commentary on Romans.” His chief work is
“_Kirchl. Glaubenslehre_,” in six vols.--Alongside of him, and
scarcely less important, stands =Theodosius Harnack=, who went
from Dorpat in A.D. 1853 to Erlangen, but returned to Dorpat
in A.D. 1866, and retired in A.D. 1873. He has written upon
the worship of the church of the post-apostolic age, on Luther’s
theology, and practical theology.

§ 182.14. At the head of the =second group=, characterized
by a decided biblical realism and inclined to a biblical
chiliasm, stands =Von Hofmann= of Erlangen, A.D. 1810-1877, whose
“_Weissagung und Erfüllung_,” 1841, represents the very antipodes
of Hengstenberg’s view of the Old Testament, placing history and
prophecy in vital relation to one another, and studying prophecy
in its historical setting. In his “_Schriftbeweis_” we have
an entirely new system of doctrine drawn from Scripture, the
doctrine of the atonement being set forth in quite a different
form from that generally approved, but vindicated by its author
against Philippi as “a new way of teaching old truth.” In his
commentary on the New Testament, he takes up a conservative
position on questions of criticism and introduction.--=Franz
Delitzsch=, in Rostock, A.D. 1846, Erlangen, A.D. 1850,
in Leipzig since A.D. 1867, more intimately acquainted with
rabbinical literature than any other Christian theologian, became
an enthusiastic adherent of Hofmann’s position. His theology,
however, has a more decidedly theosophical tendency, while
his critical attitude is more liberal. He is well known by his
“Biblical Psychology,” commentary on Psalms, Isaiah, Solomon’s
writings, Job, Hebrews, and a new commentary on Genesis in
which he accepts many of the positions of the advanced school
of biblical criticism.--=Luthardt= of Leipzig in the domain of
New Testament exegesis and dogmatics works from the standpoint of
Hofmann. His “Commentary on John’s Gospel,” “Authorship of Fourth
Gospel,” and “Apologetical Lectures on the Fundamental, Saving
and Moral Truths of Christianity,” are well known.--Hofmann’s
conception of Old Testament doctrine is admirably carried out
by =Oehler=, A.D. 1812-1872, with learning and speculative
power, in his “Theology of the Old Testament,” and in various
important monographs on Old Testament doctrines.--The most
important representatives of the =third group=, which strongly
emphasizes the extreme Lutheran theory of the church and office,
are =Kliefoth= of Schwerin, liturgist and biblical commentator;
and =Vilmar=, who opened his academic career at Marburg, in
1856, with a controversial programme entitled “The Theology
of Facts against the Theology of Rhetoric.” Vilmar’s lectures,
able, though sketchy and incomplete, were published after his
death in A.D. 1868 by some of his disciples. To the same school
belonged =Von Zezschwitz= of Erlangen, A.D. 1825-1886, whose
“_Catechetics_” is a treasury of solid learning.

§ 182.15. Among Lutheran theologians taking little or nothing to
do with these controversial questions, =Kahnis=, A.D. 1814-1888,
from A.D. 1850 professor at Leipzig, occupied a strict Lutheran
confessional standpoint, diverging only in the adoption of a
subordinationist doctrine on the person of Christ, a Sabellian
theory of the Trinity, and a theory of the Lord’s supper in
some points differing from that of the strict Lutherans. His
historical sketches are vigorous and lively.--=Zöckler= of
Giessen and Greifswald has made important contributions to
church history, exegesis, and dogmatics, and especially to the
theory and history of natural theology. In 1886 he began the
publication of a short biblical commentary contributed to by the
most distinguished positive theologians, he himself editing the
New Testament and Strack the Old Testament. It is to be in twelve
vols., and is being translated into English.--=Von Oetingen=
of Dorpat has devoted himself to social problems and moral
statistics.--=Frank= of Erlangen has proved a powerful apologist
for old Lutheranism, and in his “System of Christian Evidence”
has introduced a new branch of theology, in which the subjective
Christian certitude which the believer has with his faith is
made the basis of the scientific exposition of the truth set
forth in his “System of Christian Truth,” a thoughtful and
speculative treatise on doctrine, followed by “The System
of Christian Morals” as the conclusion of his theological
work.--Lutheran theology had also zealous representatives in
several distinguished jurists: =Göschel=, president of the
consistory of Magdeburg, who wrote against Strauss, sought
to derive profound Christian teaching from Goethe and Dante,
and wrote on the last things, and on man in respect of body,
soul, and spirit; =Stahl=, A.D. 1802-1861, professor of law at
Erlangen and Berlin, leader since A.D. 1849 of the high-church
aristocratic reactionary party in the Prussian chamber, supported
his views by reference to the Scripture doctrine of the divine
origin of magisterial authority.

§ 182.16. As zealous representatives of =Reformed
Confessionalism= who set aside the dogma of predestination
and so show no antagonism to the union, may be named: =Heppe=,
opponent of Vilmar in Marburg, who devoted much of his career
as a historian to the undermining of Lutheranism, then wrought
upon the histories of provincial churches, of Catholic mysticism
and pietism, etc.; and =Ebrard=, A.D. 1818-1887, a brilliant
believing theologian who combated rationalism and Catholicism,
professor from A.D. 1847 of Reformed theology at Erlangen, known
by his “Gospel History: a Compendium of Critical Investigations
in Support of the Historical Church of the Four Gospels,” his
“Apologetics,” in 3 vols., “Commentary on Hebrews,” etc.

§ 182.17. =The Free Protestant Theology.=--This school originated
in the left wing of Schleiermacher’s following, and has as its
literary organs, Hilgenfeld’s _Zeitschrift_ and the _Jahrbücher
für prot. Theologie_.--The distinguished statesman, =Von Bunsen=,
A.D. 1791-1860, ambassador at Rome and afterwards at London, at
first stood at the head of the revival of the church interests
and life; but in his “Church of the Future,” conceived a
constitutional idea on a democratic basis, for which he sought
support in historical studies on the Ignatian age, etc., and
the historical refutation of the orthodox Christology and
trinitarianism. His elaborate work on “Egypt’s Place in the
World’s History,” full of arbitrary criticism, negative and
positive, on the chronological and historical data of the
Old Testament, seeks to show that, by restoring the Egyptian
chronology, we for the first time make the Bible history fit
into general history. “The Signs of the Times” comprise glowing
philippics against the hierarchical pretensions of Papists
and even more dangerous Lutherans, insists on Scripture being
translated out of the Semitic into the Japhetic mode of speech,
to which end he devoted his last great works, “God in History”
and his “Bible Commentary,” the latter finished after his
death by Kamphausen and Holtzmann.--=Schenkel=, A.D. 1813-1885,
professor at Heidelberg from A.D. 1851 till his resignation in
A.D. 1884, from the right wing of the mediating school, through
unionism and Melanchthonianism advanced to the standpoint of his
“_Charakterbild Jesu_,” which strips Christ of all supernatural
features, yet proclaims him the redeemer of the world, and
strives to save his resurrection as a historical and saving
truth, and explains his appearances after the resurrection as
“real manifestations of the personality living and glorified
after death.” In later years he sought to draw yet more
closely to positive Christianity. =Keim= of Zürich and Giessen,
A.D. 1825-1878, the ablest of all recent historians of the
life of Jesus, and with all his radicalism preserving some
conservative tendencies, is best known by his “Jesus of Nazareth,”
in six vols.--=Holtzmann= of Heidelberg and Strassburg, passed
from the mediating school over to that of Tübingen, from which in
important points he has now departed.--To the same rank belongs
=Hausrath= of Heidelberg, whose “History of the New Testament
Times” is well known. Under the pseudonym of George Taylor he
has composed several highly successful historical romances.--The
organs of this school are Hilgenfeld’s _Zeitschrift_, and since
1875 the Jena “_Jahrbücher für protest. Theologie_.”

§ 182.18. =In the Old Testament Department= a liberal critical
school has arisen which has reversed the old relation of “the law
and the prophets,” treating the origin of the law as post-exilian,
and as in not coming at the beginning, but at the end of the
Jewish history. =Reuss=, whose “History of the New Testament
Books” marked an epoch in New Testament introduction, was the
first who moved in this direction, in his lectures begun at
Strassburg in A.D. 1834, the results of which are given us in
his “History of the Theology of the Apostolic Age” and in his
“History of the Canon.” Meanwhile =Vatke= of Berlin had, in
A.D. 1835, undertaken to prove that the patriarchal religion was
pure Semitic nature worship, and that the prophets were the first
to raise it into a monotheistic Jehovism. Little success attended
his efforts. Greater results were obtained by Reuss’ two pupils,
=Graf= in A.D. 1866, and =Kayser= in A.D. 1874. The most brilliant
exposition of this theory was given by =Julius Wellhausen=
of Greifswald, transferred in A.D. 1882 to the Philosophical
Faculty of Halle, in his “History of Israel.” In his “Prolegomena
to History of Israel,” and article “Israel” in “_Encyclopædia
Britannica_,” he gives expression with clearness and force to
his radical negative criticism, and develops a purely naturalist
conception of the Old Testament. Professor Kuenen of Leyden
transplanted these views to the Netherlands, and Robertson Smith
has introduced them into Scotland and England, while in Germany
they are taught by a number of the younger teachers, Stade in
Giessen, Merx in Heidelberg, Smend in Basel, etc. And now at last
in A.D. 1882 the venerable master of the school, =Edward Reuss=,
has himself in his “_Geschichte d. h. Schr. d. A. Test._” given a
brilliant and in many points modified exposition of these radical
theories. The history of Israel, according to him, divides itself
into the four successive periods of the heroes, of the prophets,
of the priests, and of the scribes, characterized respectively
by individualism, idealism, formalism, and traditionalism. Even
before the close of prophetism the priestly influence began
to assert itself, but it was only in the post-exilian period
under the domination of the priests that the construction and
codification of the law began to make impression on the Jewish
people. So too in the age of the kings there existed a Levitical
tradition about rites and worship, which traced back its first
outlines to the time of Moses, though at this period there could
have been no written official codex of any kind. In regard to
Moses, we are to think not only of his person as historical,
but also of his career as that of a man inspired by the
divine spirit and recognised as such by his contemporaries and
fellow-countrymen.--Also =Wellhausen=, who has hitherto concerned
himself only with the critical introduction to the Old Testament
books, not with their historical or theological interpretation,
supplied this defect to some extent by his “Prolegomena to the
History of Israel.” He admits that much of the history of Israel
related in the Old Testament is credible. He even goes so far as
to allow that this history was a preparation and forerunner of
Christianity, but without miracle and prophecy, and without any
immediate interposition of God in the affairs of Israel.

§ 182.19. Among the most distinguished free-thinking =dogmatists=
of recent times, =Biedermann= of Zürich, A.D. 1819-1885,
has occupied the most advanced position. His principal work,
“_Christliche Dogmatik_,” A.D. 1869, defined God and the origin
of the world as the self-development of the Absolute Idea
according to the Hegelian scheme, recognises in the person of
Christ the first realization of the Christian principle of the
divine sonship in a personal life, then proceeds with free
exposition of the Scripture and church doctrines, and combats
openly the doctrines of the church and through them also those
of Scripture, as setting religion purely in the domain of the
imagination.--=Lipsius= of Leipzig, Kiel, and Jena, in his
earliest treatise on the Pauline Doctrine of Justification in
A.D. 1853, held the position of the mediating theology, but under
the influence of Kant, Hegel, and Baur has been led to adopt
the standpoint of the “Free Protestant” school. His history of
gnosticism and his researches in early apocryphal literature
are important contributions to our knowledge of primitive
Christianity. His “_Lehrbuch d. ev. prot. Dogmatik_,” 1876,
2nd ed., 1879, on the basis of Kant and Schleiermacher, fixing
the limits of science with the former, and maintaining with the
latter the necessity of religious faith and life, not rejecting
metaphysics generally, but only its speculations on God and
divine things lying quite outside of human experience, seeks
from the common faith of the Christian church of all ages, as
it is expressed in the Scriptures and in the confessions, by
the application of the freest subjective criticism of the letter
of revelation, to secure a theory of the world in harmony with
modern views.--=Pfleiderer=, Twesten’s successor in Berlin,
in his “Paulinism,” “Influence of Paul on Development of
Christianity” and “History of the Philosophy of Religion,”
occupies more the Hegelian speculative standpoint than that
of Kantian criticism.

§ 182.20. =Ritschl and his School.=--=Ritschl=, 1822-1889, from
A.D. 1846 in Bonn, from A.D. 1864 in Göttingen, on his withdrawal
from the Tübingen party, applied himself to dogmatic studies
and founded a school, the adherents of which, divided into
right and left wings, have secured quite a number of academical
appointments. After the completion of his great dogmatic work
on “Justification and Reconciliation,” Ritschl resumed his
historical studies in a “History of Pietism,” which he traces
back through the persecuted anabaptists of the Reformation age
to the Tertiaries of the Franciscan order and the mysticism
of St. Bernard. He earnestly maintains his adherence to the
confessions of the Lutheran church, and regards it as the task
of his life to disentangle the pure Lutheran doctrine from the
accretions of scholastic metaphysics. Even more decidedly than
Schleiermacher, he banishes all philosophy from the domain of
theology. The grand significance of Kant’s doctrine of knowledge,
with its assertion of the incomprehensibility of all transcendent
truth except the ethical postulates of God, freedom and
immortality, as set forth in a more profound manner by Lotze,
is indeed admitted, but only as a methodological basis of all
religious inquiries, and with determined rejection of every
material support from Kant’s construction of religion within the
limits of the pure reason. Ritschl rather pronounces in favour
of the formal principle of Protestantism, and declares distinctly
that all religious truth must be drawn directly from Scripture,
primarily from the New Testament as the witness of the early
church uncorrupted by the Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysic, but
also secondarily from the Old Testament as the record of the
content of revelation made to the religious community of Israel.
The truthfulness of the biblical, especially of the New Testament,
system of truth, rests, however, not on any theory of inspiration,
but on its being an authentic statement of the early church of
the doctrine of Christ, inasmuch as to this witness the necessary
degree of _fides humana_ belongs. Ritschl’s Christology rests on
the witness of Christ to himself in the synoptists, through which
he proclaims himself the one prophet who in the divine purpose
of grace for mankind has received perfect consecration, sent by
God into the world to represent the founding of the kingdom of
God on earth foreshadowed in the Old Testament revelation; but
no attempt is made to explain how Christ became possessed of
the secrets of the divine decree. To him, as the first and only
begotten Son of God, standing in essential union with the Father,
belongs the attribute of deity and the right of worship. But of
an eternal pre-existence of Christ we can speak only in so far
as this is meant of the eternal gracious purpose of God to redeem
the world through him by means of the complete unfolding of the
kingdom of God in the fellowship of love. Whatever goes beyond
this in the fourth gospel, its Johannine authenticity not being
otherwise contested, as well as in Paul’s epistles and in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, resulted from the necessity felt by their
writers for assigning a sufficient reason for the assumption of
such incomparable glory on the part of Christ. As the archetype
of humanity destined for the kingdom of God, Christ is the
original object of the divine love, so that the love of God to
the members of his kingdom comes to them only through him. And
as the earthly founding, so also the heavenly completion, of
the kingdom of God is assigned to Christ, and hence after his
resurrection all power was given to him, of the transcendent
exercise of which, however, we can know nothing. The universality
of human sin is admitted by Ritschl as a fact of experience,
but he despairs of reaching any dogmatic statement as to the
origin of sin through the temptation of a superhuman evil
power. But that sin is inherited and as original guilt is
under the condemnation of God, is not taught or pre-supposed
by the teaching either of Christ or of the apostles. Redemption
(reconciliation and justification) consists in the forgiveness of
sins, by which the guilt that estranges from God is removed and
the sinner is restored into the fellowship of the kingdom of God.
Forgiveness, however, is not given on condition of the vicarious
penal sufferings of Christ, whose sufferings and death are of
significance rather because his life and works were a complete
fulfilment of his calling, and witnessed to as such by God’s
raising him from the dead. Justification secures the reception
of the penitent sinner into the fellowship of the kingdom of
God, preached and perfectly developed by Christ, and the sonship
enjoyed in its membership, prefigured in Christ himself, which
contains in itself the desire as well as the capacity to do good
works out of love to God.--The school of Ritschl is represented
in Göttingen by its founder and by =Schultz= and =Wendt=,
in Marburg by =Herrmann=, in Bonn by =Bender=, in Giessen by
=Gottschick= and =Kattenbusch=, in Strassburg by =Lobstein=,
in Basel by =Kaftan=, formerly of Berlin.[537]