Skip to main content

Full text of "Encyclopædia of theology"

See other formats 


WBsfi^- 


6R 
MS 

IS8'4 
v.) 


Just  puhlished,   in  demy  St-o,  price  lO.s-.  (id., 

THE    KINGDOM    OF    GOD 

BIBLICALLY    AND    HISTORICALLY    CONSIDERED. 

(Tenth  Series  of  Cunningham  Lectures.) 

By  JAMES  S.  CANDLISH,  D.D, 

PROFESSOR   OF  ST8TKMATIC   THEOLOGY,    FREE   CHURCH   COLLEGE,    GLASGOW. 


CONTENTS. 
Lecture  I.  The  Kingdom  of  God  the  Desire  of  all  Nations.  Lecture  If. 
The  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament.  Supplement  to  Lecture  H. 
Post-Canonical  Jewish  Literature.  Lecture  III.  The  Kingdom  of  God  in 
the  Teaching  of  Christ.  Supplement  to  Lecture  III.  The  Kingdom  of  God 
in  the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles.  Lecture  IV.  Doctrinal  Idea  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  Lecture  Y.  Attempts  to  Realize  the  Kingdom  of  God  in 
the  Past.  Lecture  VI.  The  Kingdom  of  God  in  relation  to  Modern  Social 
Ideals. 


'  Dr.  Candlish  treats  his  subject  with  an  admirable  combination  of  scholarly  com- 
prehensiveness, historical  candour,  and  regard  to  the  practical  demands  of  mankind  '- 
The  Christian  World. 

'This  work  will  receive  a  considerable  amount  of  attention,  both  on  account  of  its 
subject  and  on  account  of  the  treatment  of  it.  .  .  .  It  is  able  and  learned.  Theological 
students  will  find  it  valuable,  and  to  their  attention  we  most  earnestly  commend  it  '- 
Watchman. 


By  the  same  Author. 

Ill    crown   8i-o,  price    Is.    6d., 

THE    CHRISTIAN    SACRAMENTS. 

'It  is  an  admirable  little  book,  full  of  material  for  reflection,  and  singularly  valuable 
IS  being  representative  of  what  may  be  termed  the  generally  accepted  views  of  the 
main  subject  as  held  by  Protestants.— TAe  Christian  World. 

.olv  ''  ^'7k  "^•=^.t,°'T''^  "'  ^^T^^'^  "^^y  ^ith  great  advantage  employ  as  a  text- 
ook  in  their  Bible  classes,  and  as  intelligent  youth  (and  intelligent  old  people 
too)  may  with  great  profit  study  for  themaeWos.'-British  Messaujer.  ^ 


NOTICE    TO    SUBSCRIBERS. 


MESSRS.  CLARK  have  pleasure  in  forwarding  to  their  Subscribers 
the  Second  Issue  of  the  Foreign  Theological  Library  for 
1884,  viz.  : — 

EWALD'S  REVELATION ;  ITS  NATURE  AND  RECORD. 
RABIGER'S  ENCYCLOPEDIA  OF  THEOLOGY.     Vol.  L 

The  First  Issue  for  1884  comprised:— 

WEISS'S  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.    Vol.  III.  (completion). 
SARTORIUS'S  DOCTRINE  OF  DIVINE  LOVE. 

The  Volumes  issued  during  1880,  1S81,  1882,  and  1883  were :— 

GODET'S   COMMENTARY  ON  THE   EPISTLE  OF   ST.   PAUL   TO   THE 

ROMANS.     Two  Vols. 
HAGENBACH'S  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINES.     Three  Vols. 
DORNER'S  SYSTEM  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.     Four  Vols. 
MARTENSEN'S  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.    (Individual  Ethics.) 
MARTENSEN'S  CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.    (Social  Ethics.) 
WEISS'S  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.     2  Vols. 
WEISS'S  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.    Vols.  I.  and  II. 
GOEBEL  ON  THE  PARABLES  OF  JESUS. 

The  Foreign  Theological  Library  was  commenced  in  1846,  and 
from  that  time  to  this  Four  Volumes  yearly  (or  152  in  all)  have  appeared 
with  the  utmost  regularity. 

The  Binding  of  the  Series  is  modernized,  so  as  to  distinguish  it  from 
the  former  Series. 

The  Subscription  Price  will  remain  as  formerly,  2 1  s.  annually  for  Four 
Volumes  payable  in  advance.  (The  Subscription  Price  for  the  Volumes 
of  New  Series— 1880  to  1884— is  therefore  Five  Guineas.) 

The  Publishers  beg  to  announce  as  in  preparation — 

DR.  KEIL'S  HANDBOOK  OF  BIBLICAL  ARCH.S:OLOGY. 

FRANK'S  SYSTEM  OF  CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES. 

ORELLI'S  OLD  TESTAMENT  PROPHECY  OF  THE  CONSUMMATION  OF 

THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD. 
SCHURER'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  TIMES. 

A  Selection  of  20  Volumes  may  be  had  at  the  Subscription  Price  of 
Five  Guineas,  from  the  works  issued  previous  to  commencement  of  New 
Series. 

Messrs.  Clark  take  this  opportunity  of  expressing  their  thanks  for  the 
favour  with  which  this  New  Series  of  the  Foreign  Theological  Library 
has  been  received. 

May  they  request  an  early  remittance  of  Subscription  for  18S5, 


CLARK'S 


FOEEIGN 


THEOLOGICAL    LIBRARY. 


NEW  SEKIES. 
VOL.  XX. 


Eafiftjer's  STIjcoIorjical  CHitcgclop^tiia. 


EDINBUEGH: 
T.    &    T.    CLARK,   38   GEORGE    STREET. 

1884. 


PRINTED    BV   MORRISON   AND   (ilBB 
FOR 

T.    &    T.    CLARK.    EDIXliUKGH. 

LONDON  .  .  •  •  HAMILTON,    ADAMS,    AND   VI 

DUBLIN,  ....  GEORGE   HERBERT. 

NEW    YORK,      ....  SCRIBNER    AND    WELFORD. 


ENCYIJLOPJEDIA  OF  THEOLOGY. 


JUN    7  1910 


A 


BY 


DR.    J.    F,    RABIGER, 

'KDINAKY  ritoi.KSSOR  OF  KV.\NGKUCAL  TIIKOLOOY  AT  THK  UNIVKRSITY  OF  BRK<LAU. 


dTransIatcti, 
Mi'tfj  atiliittons  to  t!}c  ?^tstorg  nntJ  Ei'ttratiirf, 

BY   THE 

IIEV.    JOHN    MACPHEESON,   M.A., 

FINDHORN. 


V  0  L.     I. 


EDINBUEGH: 
T.     &     T.     CLARK,     38     GEORGE     STREET 

1884. 


TRANSLATOR'S    PREFACE. 


OR  the  scientific  equipment  of  the  student  of  theo- 
logy the  theological  encyclopoBdia  in  some  form 
or  other  is  absolutely  indispensable.  Not  only  in 
beginning  his  professional  course  does  the  theo- 
logical student  require  to  know  what  generally  is  included  in 
that  course  upon  which  he  is  entering,  but  the  advanced  student, 
who  has  been  face  to  face  with  the  main  problems  of  the  various 
branches  of  theological  science,  finds  it  desirable,  and  even 
necessary,  that  he  should  be  reminded  of  the  inter-relations  of 
those  theological  departments,  and  of  the  attitude  which  theo- 
logy bears  to  the  other  sciences.  It  is  the  special  function  of 
theological  encyclopedia  to  afford  to  the  beginner  an  outline 
and  a  bird's-eye  view  of  the  whole  course  of  theological  study, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  to  indicate  to  the  professional  theologian 
the  scope  and  limits  of  the  different  departments  of  theology, 
the  questions  to  be  solved,  and  the  points  of  view  to  be 
occupied,  in  accordance  with  the  demands  of  science. 

There  are  two  different  methods  of  treatment,  either  of 
which  may  be  followed  by  the  encyclopiedist.  Eabiger  has 
adopted  the  material  method,  and  he  argues  vigorously  against 
the  merely  formal  method.  Those  who  adopt  the  formal 
method  maintain  that  theological  encyclopaedia  has  simply  to 
indicate  the  arrangement  and  'distribution  of  the  various  theo- 
logical branches,  showing  their  relations  to  one  another,  and 
determining  exactly  their  range  and  scope.  They  insist  that 
encyclopoedia  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  detailed  contents  of 
the  theological  sciences,  or  the  methods  of  treatment  to    be 


8  TRANSLATOR  S  PREFACE. 

followed  in  these  several  departments.  It  is  further  argued 
that  any  adequate  treatment  of  the  materials  included  under 
each  division  would  require  so  many  distinct  treatises  by 
specialists,  and  that  any  attempt  to  sketch  the  contents  of, 
and  indicate  scientific  methods  for,  the  several  divisions  of 
theology,  within  the  limits  of  a  single  treatise,  must  result  in 
a  superficial  and  unserviceable  outline.  The  best  answer  to 
this  last-mentioned  objection  lies  in  the  presentation  of  the 
works  that  have  been  actually  produced  in  accordance  with 
tlie  material  method.  The  Encyclopsedias  of  Hagenbach,  Hof- 
mann,  and  Eabiger,  to  mention  only  the 'most  recent,  all  of 
which  give  a  material  treatment  of  theology  and  its  several 
divisions,  prove  beyond  all  dispute  how  possible  it  is,  by  the 
exercise  of  a  wise  system  of  proportion,  to  treat  suggestively 
and  instructively  all  the  departments  embraced  under  the 
theological  encyclopedia.  The  most  telling  argument  in 
favour  of  the  material  treatment  of  encyclopaedia  seems  to  be 
this,  that  it  is  impossible  according  to  the  formal  method 
accurately  to  exhibit  the  relations  subsisting  between  tl^e 
main  divisions  of  theology,  and  those  subsisting  between  the 
several  sub-divisions  under  those  leading  heads.  An  encyclo- 
paedia constructed  in  accordance  with  the  formal  method  may, 
from  its  conspectus-like  brevity,  form  a  convenient  introduc- 
tion to  the  study  of  theology,  but  the  material  method  alone 
gives  scope  for  a  scientific  treatment  of  the  subject,  inasmucli 
as  here  only  the  idea,  scope,  and  limits  of  the  tlieological 
branches  can  receive  adequate  expression. 

When  this  view  of  the  theological  encyclopaedia,  as  a 
representation  of  theology  according  to  its  scientific  contents, 
is  admitted,  it  becomes  evident  that  there  is  great  need  for 
watchful  attention  to  the  relative  importance  of  the  several 
branches  of  theological  science.  The  encyclopaedist  must  not 
be  an  enthusiastic  specialist.  Such  a  one  would  almost 
certainly  give  undue  prominence  to  the  branch  with  which  he 
is  deeply  acquainted,  and  overlook  or  under-estimate  those 


ti;anslatok  s  pkeface.  y 

branches  in  which  he  had  taken  less  interest.  The  correct- 
ness of  the  impression  produced  will  largely  depend  upon  the 
sense  of  proportion  which  has  been  present  to  the  mind  of 
him  who  undertakes  to  sketch  the  whole.  Hence  the  encyclo- 
pedist must.be  a  ripe  theologian,  who  has  carefully  traversed 
the  various  theological  departments  and  made  himself  familiar 
with  the  technical  details  of  all  the  leading  divisions  of 
theology.  AH  the  successful  encycloptedists  of  modern  times 
have  been  men  who  had  attained  distinction  in  several 
departments  of  theological  study.  Hagenbach,  for  example, 
though  chiefly  known  for  his  contributions  to  historical 
theology,  in  the  departments  of  Church  history  and  the 
history  of  doctrines,  had  also  written  a  short  hermeneutical 
treatise,  and,  under  the  department  of  practical  theology, 
had  published  a  handbook  on  homiletics  and  liturgies. 
Then  Hofmann,  again,  as  is  well  known,  was  equally  dis- 
tinguished as  a  systematic  theologian  and  as  an  exegete, 
and  had  early  won  for  himself  a  reputation  as  a  historian. 
And  this  is  true  also  of  Eabiger,  although  his  name  is  not 
widely  known  among  English  readers.  The  manner  in 
which  the  several  divisions  of  theology  are  treated  in  this 
encyclopaedia  is  the  best  proof  that  the  author  is  no  novice 
in  any  of  these  departments.  Besides  his  class  lectures  on 
various  branches  of  theological  science,  Eabiger  has  pub- 
lished approved  treatises  in  more  than  one  department. 
We  have  an  early  treatise  from  his  hand  on  the  ethics  of 
the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha  {Etliice  librorum  apocryph.  Vd. 
Test.  Vratislavire  1836,  1838),  which  is  a  contribution  at 
once  to  systematic,  exegetical,  and  historical  theology.  Then 
v/e  have  a  work,  which  is  referred  to  with  approval  by 
rfleiderer  in  his  Paulinism,  on  the  Christology  of  Paul  (Dc 
christologia  Paulina  contra  Baurium  commcntatio.  Vratis- 
laviae  1852),  which  shows  a  similar  comprehensiveness  of 
theological  study.  In  the  purely  exegetical  department  we 
have   a  volume   of   valuable   critical    discussions    on    Paul's 


10  teanslatok's  pkeface. 

Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  {KritiscJic  VnUrsuchungcn  uehcr 
den  Inhcdt  dcr  heiden  Briefe  an  die  Korinther).  Eipe  scholar- 
ship, to  the  acquirement  of  which  those  earlier  works  testify, 
and  mature  thoughtful  reflection  upon  the  fundamental  pro- 
blems and  characteristic  points  of  all  the  departments  of 
theology,  are  the  main  features  of  Kiibiger's  contribution  to 
theological  encyclopaedia. 

Rabiger's  Theological  Encyclopedia  has  been  very  favourably 
noticed  in  the  leading  theological  reviews  of  Germany. 
Hilgenfeld  says  that  no  one  can  rise  from  the  reading  of  any 
section  of  the  book  without  having  received  both  suggestion 
and  instruction.  A  similar  verdict  may  be  fairly  expected 
from  the  English  reader  who  is  prepared  to  devote  to  its 
study  the  attention  which  it  demands. 

In  the  present  edition  an  endeavour  has  been  made  to 
render  the  work  more  directly  serviceable  to  the  English 
reader  than  a  mere  rendering  of  the  original  treatise  would 
have  been.  Considerable  additions  have  been  made  to  the 
history  of  encyclopaedia  as  given  in  the  Introduction.  In 
common  with  most  German  theologians,  Eiibiger  confined  his 
review  for  the  most  part  to  the  works  of  his  fellow-country- 
men. I  have  inserted  a  few  notices  of  works  that  had  been 
thus  overlooked  by  the  author.  Then,  such  treatises  on  ency- 
clopedia as  had  appeared  since  the  original  publication  of 
Piiibio-er's  work,  those  of  Doedes,  Hofmanu,  and  Rothe,  have 
been  sketched  and  criticized  at  the  close  of  the  historical 
review.  In  the  notes  many  additional  references  to  English 
theological  literature  have  been  given,  and  special  care  has  been 
taken  to  refer  the  reader  to  English  translations  of  German 
books  referred  to,  wherever  any  such  were  known  to  exist. 
All  additions  have  been  carefully  marked  "  Ed."  or  enclosed 
within  square  brackets. 

The  first  volume  embraces  all  the  introductory  and  general 
matter,  and  the  second  volume  will  be  wholly  devoted  to  the 
treatment  of  the  several  divisions  of   theology.     In   order  to 


translator's  preface.  11 

make  the  first  volume  as  complete  as  possible,  I  have  added 
three  appendices.  The  first,  and  by  far  the  largest  of  these, 
is  simply  a  translation  of  Eabiger's  treatise,  Zur  tlieologischen 
Encydopccdic,  published  two  years  after  the  appearance  of 
the  present  work.  As  an  important  criticism  of  the  theo- 
logical positions  of  such  theologians  as  Hofmann  and  Eothe, 
it  has  been  given  entire.  The  second  appendix  is  also  a 
translation  from  this  little  treatise,  and,  as  an  answer  to  an 
able  critic,  it  serves  to  illustrate  many  of  Riibiger's  principles 
and  methods  of  treatment.  The  third  appendix  I  have 
written  in  answer  to  a  possible  objection  against  a  distribu- 
tion of  the  theological  sciences  which  allows  no  separate 
place  for  apologetics. 

Piiibiger  gave  his  treatise  the  alternative  title  "  Theologik  ;  " 
but  as  this  name  has  not  commended  itself  to  any  of  his 
theological  critics,  it  has  not  been  inserted  in  the  title-page  of 
the  present  edition. 

THE  TRANSLATOR. 

FiNDHOKX,  October  1884. 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 


'HE  addition  of  another  to  the  many  theological 
encyclopaedias  is  justified  by  the  circumstances  in 
which  theology  and  Church  are  at  the  present  time. 
It  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  theology  no  longer 
possesses  its  earlier  scientific  reputation,  and  that  for  this  decad- 
ence it  is  itself  not  without  blame.  If  theology  subordinates 
itself  to  a  traditional  ecclesiasticism,  or  sets  as  its  highest  task 
the  rendering  of  service  to  an  ecclesiastical  professionalism,  or 
loses  itself  in  an  excessively  minute  investigation  of  historical 
details,  it  need  not  surprise  us  that  from  many  sides  its 
scientific  claims  are  gainsaid,  and  a  place  in  the  circle  of  the 
sciences  denied  it,  or  that  it  is  even  branded  as  the  enemy  of 
culture,  of  which  the  sooner  an  end  is  made  the  better. 
And  if  such  be  really  the  case  with  theology,  why  should 
not  our  studious  youths  avoid  a  study  which  seems  to  demand 
of  them  the  sacrifice  of  intellect,  or,  at  least,  affords  no  food 
for  their  youthful  aspirations  ?  Owing  to  the  importance 
which  in  Protestant  circles  theology  has  for  Church,  its 
decadence  must  react  most  injuriously  on  Church  life.  The 
immediate  consequence  of  the  degradation,  undervaluing,  and 
rejection  of  theology  is  that  the  Protestant  consciousness  dies 
out,  and  the  reformation  spirit  is  no  longer  operative  in  its 
original  living  power,  that  to  many,  a  dogmatically  stable 
ecclesiasticism  seems  the  highest  end,  while  by  others,  on 
the  contrary,  the  Church  is  regarded  as  a  historical  anachron- 
ism, which  should  be  completely  eliminated  from  modern 
culture,  and  that  between  these  two  extremes  an  indifference 


author's  preface.  13 

to  forms,  yea,   a   complete  aversion  to  Churcli,  has  in  wide 
circles  firmly  rooted  itself. 

Now  theological  encyclopaidia  should  not  only  render  an 
account  of  the  condition  of  the  theology  of  its  time,  but 
should  above  all  work  for  the  up-buildiug  of  theology.  We 
have  therefore,  at  the  present  time,  incentives  of  the  most 
varied  kind  for  engaging  anew  upon  the  treatment  of  encyclo- 
paedia, and  in  those  very  incentives  themselves  we  find  the 
chief  points  of  view  which  are  of  importance  for  such  a 
treatment.  Over  against  the  modern  view  of  theology,  what 
must  be  done  is  to  vindicate  for  theology  its  scientific  inde- 
pendence and  authority  among  the  other  sciences.  But  over 
against  a  Catholicism,  which  conducts  itself  with  an  ever 
increasing  recklessness,  as  though  Protestantism  no  longer 
existed,  there  must  be  the  awakening  of  the  Protestant  spirit 
and  the  Protestant  consciousness,  the  winning  again  of  the 
German  people's  love  for  their  Eeformed  Church,  and  the 
leading  of  the  German  youth,  by  a  deep  impulse  of  the  heart, 
undeterred  by  any  outward  critical  considerations,  to  the 
study  of  theology  and  the  service  of  the  Church.  To  furnish 
a  contribution  to  this  work  is  the  purpose  which  has  led  me 
to  publish  my  treatise  on  theological  encyclopaedia.  With 
peculiar  pleasure  I  have  repeatedly  delivered  lectures  on  this 
branch  of  study.  The  brief  outlines,  however,  which  were 
sufficient  in  academic  treatment  were  not  sufficient  for 
publication,  and  have  been  expanded  by  me  in  the  present 
work.  As  in  the  lectures,  so  also  in  the  ampler  treatise,  I 
have  been  guided  by  the  conviction,  that  for  the  end  assigned 
to  theological  encyclopaedia  it  did  not  suffice  to  lay  down  a 
mere  formal  scheme  of  the  departments  of  theological  study, 
but  that  it  was  necessary  rather  to  include  in  the  scheme  the 
essential  contents  of  theology,  and  so  to  furnish  not  merely  a 
formal  but  a  material  outline  of  theological  science.  This 
mode  of  treatment  certainly  brings  with  it  no  small  difficulties 
to  the  encyclopa3dist,  inasmuch  as  it  presupposes  a  uniform 


14  author's  preface. 

mastering  of  all  the  departments  of  theology.    Nevertheless,  as 
this  is  undoubtedly  the  right  method,  I  have  not  felt  at  liberty 
to  refrain  from  myself  undertaking  those  difficulties,  trusting 
to  the  indulgence  of  the  specialists.     The  space  required  for 
this   essential  development   I  have  endeavoured  to  gain  by 
treating  the  literature  of  the  several  branches  of  study  within 
the  narrowest  possible  limits.     From  the  method  adopted,  the 
name  Theologic  has  suggested  itself  to  me  as  corresponding  to 
the  old  studium  thcolorjicum,  and  seems  preferable  to  the  name 
Theological  Encyclopaedia  commonly  given  since  first  applied 
to  the  science  by  Mursinna.     The  standpoint  from  which  I 
view   theology   and  have    sought    to    represent    it,    may    be 
generally  described    as    the   historical.       As  in  all  scientific 
departments    the    historical    method    has    in    our   time    won 
general  acceptance,  it  can  least  of  all  be  departed  from  in 
theology.     It  ought  not  therefore  to  be  said  that,  because  of  a 
temporarily  prevailing  current.  Theology  has  to  take  the  his- 
torical standpoint,  and  to  apply  itself  to  a  one-sided  historical 
investigation.       Much  rather  I  am  of  opinion  that  theology 
must  on  principle,  in  consequence  of  its  own  essential  character, 
place  itself  on  historical  ground,  and  from  that  solve  its  ideal 
problems.     No  science  is  so  much  exposed  as  theology  to  the 
danger  of  falling  under  the  sway  of  subjectivity.     The  various 
theological   systems  have  yielded  more  or  less  to    subjective 
influences.      Only  when  led  by  the  inexorable  declarations  of 
history  is  theology  able  to  avoid  the  cliffs  of  subjectivity  and 
reach  those  of  objectivity,  after  which  every  science  has  striven. 
From  this  point  of  view  have  I  proceeded.     May  God  render 
the  work  w^hich  I  have  executed  in  single-hearted  love  for 
theology  and  Church,  fruitful  for  both,  and  accompany  it  with 
His  blessing. 

THE  AUTHOR. 

Breslau,  October  1S79. 


CONTENTS. 


SEC. 
1. 

2. 

3. 
4. 


6. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  Significance  of  the  History  of  the  Theological  Encyclopedia,     , 
The  History  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia — 

(o)  In  the  Primitive  Period, 
Continuation.     {!>)  During  the  Middle  Ages, 

Continuation,     (c)  From  the  Eeformation  to  the  Period  of  Pietism, 

Continuation,     {d)  From  the  Period  of  Pietism  to  that  of  Schleier- 

macher,  .... 

(e)  From  Schleiermacher  to  the  Present  Time 

In  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 


Continuation. 
Continuation. 

7.  Survey,  ..... 

8.  The  Subject  of  the  Theological  Encyclopaedia, 

9.  The  Task  of  the  Theological  Encyclopaedia,  . 

10.  The  Idea  of  the  Theological  Encycloptedia,     . 

11.  The  Object  of  Theologic, 

12.  The  Distribution  of  Theologic, 


PAGE 

17- 

19 
26 
38 

59 
85 
143 
158 
162 
164 
169 
172 
182- 


FIRST  OR  GENERAL  DIVISION  OF  THEOLOGIC. 


THE  NATURE  OF  THEOLOGY. 


13.  The  Subject  of  Theology,        ..... 

14.  The  Church  in  its  relation  to  Theology, 

15.  Theology  as  a  Positive  Science,  .... 

16.  Orthodox,  Supernaturalistic,  and  Rationalistic  Theology,     . 

17.  Schleiermacher's  Theology  of  Feeling, 

18.  Speculative  Theology,  ..... 

19.  The  Idea  of  Theology,  ..... 

20.  The  Distribution  of  Theology,  .... 

21.  The  Relation  of  Theology  to  the  Church, 

22.  The  Relation  of  Theology  to  the  other  Sciences, 
Appendix  A.— The   Theological   Encyclop;edias   of  Hofmann   and 

Rothe,  ..... 

Appendix  B.— Remarks  on  Criticisms  by  Dr.  W.  Grimm,  . 
Appendix  C— The'  Place  of  Apologetics  in  the  Theological  Encyclo 

paedia.  (By  the  Editor),  . 


187 
190 
198 
205 
231 
244 
270 
297 
308 
315 

335 
415 

426 


THEOLOGICAL    EIN^CYCLOP^DIA. 


INTRODUCTION. 

§  1.  THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE 
THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

HE  beginnings  of  Christian  theology  carry  \is  back 
to  the  earliest  period  of  the  Church.  As  soon 
as  the  Christian  Church  life  had  been  in  some 
measure  consolidated,  Christian  theology  also  began 
to  shape  itself,  and  this  theology,  just  as  the  development  of 
the  Church  became  wider  and  more  varied,  has  kept  equal 
pace  with  the  Church  development  through  the  course  of 
the  centuries  down  to  the  present  time.  Advancing  from  a 
religious  interest,  at  once  deep  and  uninterruptedly  maintained, 
theology  is  the  most  important  creation  of  the  Christian 
spirit,  a  witness  of  the  living  force  dwelling  in  it,  such  as 
no  other  religious  communion  possesses.  A  comprehensive 
history  of  Christian  theology  would  require  to  take  note  of 
the  far-reaching  influences  of  theology,  not  only  upon  life 
within  the  Church,  but  also  upon  all  circles  of  life  outside 
of  the  Church,  in  so  far  as  the  Church  has  been  in  any 
measure  in  contact  with  them. 

An  encyclopaedia  of  theology  could  make  its  appearance  for 
the  first  time  only  after  theology  had  itself  been  so  far 
perfected  as  to  be  capable  of  presentation  as  a  subject  for 

VOL.  I.  B 


18  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOr.EDIA. 

reflective  study.  But,  having  once  made  its  appearance,  it 
has,  through  all  centuries,  continued  the  faithful  companion 
of  theology,  partly  determined  by  the  course  of  theological 
development,  partly  determining  that  development.  A  history 
of  theological  encyclopaedia  must,  indeed,  set  for  itself  a  much 
humbler  task  than  that  which  is  set  for  the  history  of 
theology :  nevertheless,  within  its  limited  range,  it  still 
bestows  a  glance  upon  the  development  of  theology  as  a 
whole,  and  just  thereby  secures  a  significance  for  every  new 
exposition  of  theological  encyclopa3dia.  The  theological 
encyclopaedia  of  the  present  must  attach  itself  to  the  history 
of  the  present,^  and  from  the  course  of  that  history  it  must 
seek  to  win  the  right  points  of  view,  both  for  the  general 
conception  and  for  the  systematic  arrangement  of  theology. 
An  endeavour  must  also  be  made,  by  means  of  such  an 
attachment  to  the  history,  to  attain  unto  that  objectivity,  so 
pre-eminently  desirable  in  encyclopedia,  which  has  to  estimate 
fairly  not  only  that  general  position  which  it  assumes  as  its 
own,  but  also  that  which  may  possibly  be  regarded  as 
erroneous,  if  a  proper  representation  is  to  be  given  of  the 
theological  conditions  of  the  present.  Most  of  the  encyclo- 
psedists  of  recent  times  have,  indeed,  admitted  into  their 
treatises  the  history  of  theological  encyclopaedia,  yet  the  inner 
connection  of  this  history  with  the  encyclopaidia  itself  has 
never  been  made  sufficiently  clear.  In  these  treatises,  there- 
fore, the  significance  of  the  history  falls  into  the  background 
— indeed  its  very  admission  seems  unauthorized.  The  signi- 
ficance of  the  history  of  theological  eucycloptedia,  as  well  as 
its  right  to  a  place  in  the  encyclopaedia  itself,  can  be 
vindicated  and  made  good  only  when  the  history  has  been 
accurately  conceived  as  the  foundation  upon  which  the 
theological  encyclopaedia  is  to  be  reared. 

'  That  is  to  saj',  must  describe  tlie  origin  and  growth  of  all  those  elements 
which  constitute  the  complex  phenomenon  known  as  theology  in  the  present 
day. — Ed. 


EARLY  IIISTOEV BEGINNINGS  OF  THEOLOGY.  19 


§  2.  THE  HISTORY  OF  THEOLOGICAL  EXCrCLOP.EDIA. 

(a)  In  the  Primitive  Period. 

The  germs  of  Christian  theology  are  ah-eady  discernible  in 
the  apostolic  writings.  Their  doctrine  of  Christ,  the  history 
of  His  life,  and  of  the  first  fortunes  of  His  Church,  the  decisions 
regarding  the  formation  of  the  Christian  society,  demonstra- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament,  especially  by  Paul  and  by  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  furnish  the  foundation 
for  further  theological  development.  As  the  bearer  of  a  new 
religious  life,  the  Christian  Church  entered  into  history,  and 
found  a  world  already  become  old,  which  confronted  it  with 
its  religions,  and  with  a  rich  culture  grown  up  from  them. 
In  its  struggle  with  Judaism,  and  heathenism,  and  various 
tendencies  manifesting  themselves  in  the  Church  itself,  all  of 
which  leant  more  or  less  upon  the  old,  it  had  to  make  the 
new  truth,  which  it  professed,  the  subject  of  observation  and 
research,  of  investigation  and  comparison,  in  order  to  prove  it 
to  bo  the  power  which  was  entitled  to  stand  in  place  of  the 
old.  This  was  the  scientific,  that  is,  the  theological  task  of 
the  Christian  Church.  Theology,  like  every  science,  has 
proceeded  immediately  from  the  life,  from  the  most  pressing 
needs,  which  were  present  to  individuals  as  well  as  to  the 
Christian  community  collectively,  and,  during  the  first  four 
centuries,  under  the  freest  development,  it  possessed  decisive 
authority  in  the  Church.  From  the  fifth  century,  however, 
the  independence  and  power  of  theology  were  gradually  lost 
in  the  ecclesiasticism  that  had  meanwhile  2;rown  stron^. 
which  from  this  time  forth,  in  accordance  with  the  complete 
severance  of  the  ecclesiastical  orders  into  laymen  on  the  one 
hand,  and  clergy,  priests,  and  monks  on  the  other,  dominated 
everything  as  a  hierarchical  authority. 


20  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.^DIA. 

Looking  stedfastly  into  the  Person  of  Christ,  moved  by  the 
Spirit  which  they  received  from  Him,  leaning  on  ecclesiastical 
tradition,  and  not  carried  away  by  the  Greek  wisdom,  that  old 
theology  devoted  its  strength  with  rare  zeal  to  the  investiga- 
tion of  Holy  Scripture,  the  history  of  the  Church,  and  the 
development  of  Christian  doctrine,  and,  in  a  rich  literature, 
bequeathed  to  posterity  the  treasures  of  its  Christian  know- 
ledge. As  the  result  and  pith  of  its  scientific  controversies 
and  labours,  it  has  also  given  expression  to  the  ecclesiastically 
sanctioned  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and  Person  of  Christ  in  the 
most  summary  form,  and  has  won  substantial  credit  to  itself 
by  separating  the  apostolic  writings  from  the  writings  of  the 
primitive  Christian  period,  and  joining  the  former  with  the 
Old  Testament  so  as  to  form  the  biblical  canonical  Scriptures. 
From  tliis  time  forth,  under  the  authority  of  the  Church,  all 
theological  argumentation  is  grounded  upon  oral  and  written 
tradition  (the  latter  growing  up,  through  the  decisions  of 
Councils  and  the  teachings  of  the  Church  Fathers,  into  an  ever- 
expanding  material),  and  upon  the  Holy  Scripture  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  the  sacred  dignity  of  which  was  firmly 
established  by  means  of  the  doctrine  of  inspiration. 

Owing  to  its  extraordinarily  rich  productivity,  which  had 
been  called  forth  by  the  immediate  needs  of  the  Church  life, 
theology  in  the  first  centuries  did  not  reach  such  a  calm  condi- 
tion and  systematic  form  as  to  be  able  to  set  on  foot  reflections 
upon  itself,  to  determine  theoretically  its  own  peculiar  task,  to 
fix  and  bring  into  a  systematic  connection  with  one  another 
the  principles  on  which  it  has  to  build  itself  up,  and  the 
constituent  parts  which  it  has  to  embrace — that  is,  in  short, 
theology  was  not  yet  able  to  conceive  and  represent  itself  as  a 
special  and  independent  science.  Only  after  the  end  of  the 
fourtli  century  did  any  writings  appear  in  which  the  beginnings 
of  theological  encyclopiiedia  are  discernible ;  and  even  then, 
these  were  of  the  most  elementary  kind,  inasmuch  as  even 
these    writings    followed,    not    a    theological,    but    merely    a 


EARLY  IIISTOUY CHRYSOSTOM  AND  AMBROSE.  21 

practical  tendency,  in  seeking  to  utilize  for  tlie  service  of  the 
Church  such  theological  attainments  as  had  then  been  reached. 

According  to  Chiysostom  in  his  work  on  the  priesthood,^ 
the  Church  is  the  City  of  God,  and  its  government  is  entrusted 
to  the  priests.  Priests  are  distinguished  from  laymen  as  men 
are  from  beasts.  As  dispensers  of  the  sacraments  and  as 
wielding  the  power  of  the  keys,  they  preside  over  the  entrance 
into  heaven  and  hell,  and  are  to  be  honoured  more  highly 
than  kings  and  princes,  to  be  revered  more  than  earthly 
parents.  The  higher  the  rank,  the  greater  are  the  difficulties 
and  dangers  of  the  priestly  calling.  Tlierefore,  priests  ought 
to  distinguish  themselves  from  the  laity  not  only  by  moral 
and  practical  qualities  (the  priesthood  is  a  TrpdjiuLa  ajyeXiKfj'? 
apeTi]<i  Seo/xevov),  but  also  by  uKpl^eca  Sojfjbdrcov  and  <yvoicn<;, 
that  is,  by  exact  acquaintance  with  Church  doctrine  and  by 
the  understanding  of  Holy  Scripture,  so  that,  in  accordance 
with  the  demands  made  upon  the  priestly  office,  they  may 
defend  the  Church  and  its  doctrines  against  heathens  and 
heretics,  against  Jews  and  curious  questioners  within  the 
Church  itself,  and  engage  successfully  in  the  edification  of 
the  congregation.  Chrysostom  accordingly  does  not  allow 
himself  even  to  name  the  separate  theological  studies,  but 
contents  himself  with  making  a  general  demand  that  the 
priest  should  seek  to  gain  theological  culture  for  practical  use 
in  his  official  calling,  that  is,  knowledge  of  Church  doctrine 
and  of  Holy  Scripture.  In  this  very  treatise  of  his,  however, 
when  divested  of  its  exaggerated  estimate  of  priestly  rank, 
he  furnishes  a  noticeable  contribution  to  pastoral  theology. 

In  this  connection  we  may  place  side  by  side  with  the 
writing  of  Chrysostom  tliat  of  Ambrose,  dc  officiis  ministrorum'^ 
in  the  "Western  Church.     After  the  example  of  Cicero,  de  ojfficiis, 


^  Joannis  Chrysostomi  de  sacerdotio  libri  sex.  Gr.  et  lat.  op.  Jo.  A. 
Bengelii.     Stutt.  1725. 

^  Ambrosii  Mediolanensis  episcopi  de  officiis  ministrorum  libri  tres.  Opera, 
ed.  Maur.  t.  iii.     Yenet.  1751. 


22  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.-EDIA. 

Ambrose,  with  great  knowledge  of  Scripture,  developes  the 
Christian  ethics  in  contrast  to  that  of  heathenism,  and  holds 
this  before  his  clergy  as  a  pattern  according  to  which  they 
have  to  fashion  their  lives.  The  learned  culture  which, 
according  to  Chrysostom,  is  appropriate  in  the  clergy,  is  not 
made  prominent  by  Ambrose. 

Augustine,  on  the  contrary,  lays  great  stress  upon  this  in 
his  four  books,  de  dodrina  Christiana^  which  were  intended 
specially  for  ordained  preachers.  The  vera  religio,  which  the 
Church  possesses,  and  which  the  ordained  preacher  should 
proclaim,  is  to  be  known  from  Holy  Scripture.  The  preacher, 
therefore,  should  not  only  believe  on  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  but  he  should  seek  to  gain  from  Holy  Scripture  the 
understanding  of  the  doctrine  acknowledged  by  the  Church, 
and  preach  it  accordingly.  For  the  right  understanding  of 
Holy  Scripture,  a  munus  divinum — a  divine  endowment,  to 
which  some  are  so  ready  to  appeal,  is  not  at  all  sufficient ;  but 
rather  for  that  end  special  scholarly  acquirements,  and  a 
special  scholarly  dexterity,  are  requisite.  Augustine,  therefore, 
in  the  first  three  books  of  the  work  just  quoted,  which  treat 
of  the  modus  inveniendi  quce  intdligcnda  sunt,  indicates  the 
means  and  methods  by  which  the  understanding  of  Scripture 
is  attained,  especially  acquaintance  with  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  languages,  as  also  natural  science,  astronomy,  histoi}'-, 
and  dialectic ;  and  then  in  the  fourth  book,  which  treats  of 
the  modus  ;profcrendi  quce  intelleda  sunt,  he  shows  how  the 
preacher  has  to  give  forth  what  he  has  learnt  from  Scripture. 
With  reference,  therefore,  to  the  study  of  Scripture  recom- 
mended to  the  ordained  preacher,  Augustine  simply  frames  the 
outlines  of  a  system  of  biblical  hermeneutics,  and  a  sacred 
rhetoric  or  system  of  homiletics. 

While  Chrysostom  and  Ambrose  write  for  priests,  and 
Augustine   writes    for    preachers,    Cassiodorus,   in    the    sixth 

^  Augustini  de  doctrina  Christiana  libri  qiiatuor.      Opera,  cd.  Migne,  t.  iii. 
Paris  1861.     [Translation — Messrs.  Clark's  series  of  St.  Augustine's  AVorks.j 


EAELY  HISTORY CASSIODOKUS.  23 

century,  gives,  in  his  Institutio  cUvinarum  Scripturarum}  to 
his  monks  in  the  monastery  of  Viviers  in  Southern  Italy,  an 
instruction  in  theological  science.  In  this  work  he  makes 
prominent  the  reference  to  the  religious  and  moral  life  of  the 
Christian.  It  is  the  spiritual  wellbeing  of  his  monks  that 
lies  upon  his  heart.  With  a  view  to  this,  and  to  the  higlier 
perfection  of  the  Christian  life  which  they  ought  to  exemplify, 
he  sets  before  them  what  they  should  appropriate  in  the  way 
of  clerical  acquirements,  in  order  that  they  may  become 
confirmed  in  the  faith  sanctioned  by  tlie  Church,  and  advanced 
in  holiness  of  conversation.  Above  all,  therefore,  he  recom- 
mends to  them  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture.  From  it  is  to  be 
derived  that  heavenly  truth  which  secures  for  those  who  live 
according  to  it,  eternal  salvation.  But  for  this  very  study 
he  gives  them  such  comprehensive  directions,  by  means  of 
references  to  the  most  important  exegetical  works,  and  by 
critical  and  hermeneutical  remarks,  that  to  a  certain  extent  he 
has  furnished  them  with  an  outline  of  a  complete  course  of 
exegetical  theology.  But  for  further  establishment  in  the 
faith,  and  confirmation  against  heretical  snares,  he  demands  of 
the  monks  the  study  of  the  decisions  of  Councils,  as  well  as 
those  writings  of  the  Fathers  which  treat  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church,  especially  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
or  such  as  are  useful  for  the  Christian  moral  life.  Among  the 
dogmatical  and  ethical  studies,  however,  must  also  be  included 
the  study  of  Church  history,  which  indeed,  by  means  of  res 
ccdlestes,  is  fitted  to  educate  the  minds  of  those  who  study  it. 
Secular  sciences  also  are  promotive  of  Christian  studies,  the 
disciplincc  sccadarcs,  cosmography,  grammar,  rhetoric,  dialectic, 
arithmetic,  music,  geometry,  and  astronomy :  only  he  gives  a 
warning  against  the  undue  exaltation  of  these,  as  also  generally 
against  the  over-estimation  of  learning.  {Sciamus  tamcii  non 
in  solis  Uteris  positam  esse  imiclentiam,  scd  perfectam  sapicn- 
tiam  dare  Deum  imicuique  prout  vidt.     Nam  si  tantuni   in 

1  Opera,  ed.  Caret.     Yeriet.  1729.     Yol.  ii.  p.  508  sqq. 


24  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA.    ■ 

Uteris  esset  scientia  rerum  lonarum,  qui  literas  nesciunt,  utique 
redam  sapiejitiam  non  haherent,  c.  28.)  Finally,  in  what  may 
be  regarded  as  a  contribution  to  practical  theology,  he  further 
recommends  to  the  monks  attention  to  gardening  and  agricul- 
ture, horticulture,  fishing,  and  the  study  of  medicine,  that  they 
may  be  able  in  their  cloister  to  exercise  hospitality,  and  tend 
the  sick,  but  special  care  is  to  be  given  to  the  copying  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures. 

In  the  seventh  century,  Isidorus,  Archbishop  of  Seville,  in 
his  twenty  books  of  Etymologies,^  which  form  a  general 
encyclopedia  of  the  sciences,  included  theology.  Accordingly, 
in  the  first  three  books  he  has  treated  of  the  seven  artes 
liberales  as  the  philosophical  groundwork ;  in  the  fourth  book, 
of  medicine;  in  the  fifth,  of  jurisprudence;  while  in  the 
sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  books,  he  indicates  the  principal 
parts  of  theological  study.  In  the  sixth  book  he  treats  of 
ecclesiastical  writings  and  offices,  and,  after  the  example  of 
Augustine  and  Cassiodorus,  he  gathers  together  here  every- 
thing which  in  that  time  was  regarded  as  Scripture  science, 
and  closely  joins  to  this  what  belongs  to  practical  theology. 
Then  in  the  seventh  book,  "  On  God,  Angels,  and  Believers,"  he 
treats  of  matters  belonging  to  dogmatics  and  ethics.  And 
finally,  in  the  eighth  book,  "  On  the  Church  and  the  various 
Sects,"  he  communicates  the  materials  of  Church  history,  and 
that,  indeed,  from  a  high  point  of  view,  so  that  he  draws  into 
his  description  the  Jewish  sects,  heathen  philosophers,  poets, 
and  mythologies,  and  indicates  the  influence  which  Judaism, 
heathen  philosophy,  poetry,  and  religion  exercised  upon  the 
historical  development  of  Christianity. 

A  reference  to  the  contents  of  the  writings  quoted  show 
that  none  of  them,  not  even  that  of  Isidorus,  though  it  claims 
to  have  a  scientific  arrangement,  meets  the  demands  which 
ought   to   be   answered   in   a   system   of  theological   science, 

'  Isidori  Hispalcnsis  episcopi  opera  omnia,  rec.   Faustino  Arevalo.      Eomse 
1798.     T.  iii.  iv.     Etvmologiarum  libri  xx. 


EARLY  HISTORY SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS,  25 

Nevertheless,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  they  seek  to  turn  to 
account  for  the  Church  life  the  theological  attainments  then 
reached,  with  limitation  indeed  to  the  higher  orders  in  the 
Church,  to  priests,  preachers,  and  monks,  while  the  subordinate 
order  of  the  laity  remains  unheeded,  so  that,  led  by  this 
practical  consideration,  and  leaning  on  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  and  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  Holy  Scripture,  they 
made  prominent  those  fundamental  articles  which  are  indis- 
pensable to  the  upbuilding  of  theological  science.  Thus  these 
writers  assign  to  the  study  of  Scripture  a  privileged  place,  and 
also  maintain  firmly  the  connection  of  theology  with  the 
secular  sciences,  although  at  most  they  allow  these  only  as 
helps  to  the  study  of  Scripture.  Were  the  disjecta  memlra, 
as  they  here  lie,  gathered  together,  there  would  rise  up 
straightway  a  structure  of  theology,  inwardly  indeed  wanting 
in  systematic  articulation,  but  yet  outwardly  stately,  having  as 
its  principal  parts  the  study  of  Scripture,  dogmatical  and 
ethical  study.  Church  history,  and  practical  theology. 


20  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 


§  3.  THE  HISTORY  OF  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP^DIA— 

Continued. 

(h)  During  the  Middle  Ages. 

The  same  practical  tendency,  which  from  the  writings 
referred  to  above  is  seen  to  characterize  the  first  period,  is 
found  still  prevailing  in  the  Institutio  clericorum  of  Eabanus 
Maurus,^  the  learned  Abbot  of  Fulda,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
ninth  century.  Eabanus,  too,  brings  theology  into  the  closest 
connection  with  the  idea  of  the  Church  and  its  three  orders, 
the  order  of  the  laity,  of  the  monks,  and  of  the  priests. 
Theology  is  only  for  the  priests,  and  consists  in  their 
ecclesiastical  instruction,  by  means  of  which  they  may  obtain 
those  acquirements  and  that  moral  excellence  which  are 
necessary  for  guiding  the  helm  of  tlie  Church.  {Institutio 
ecclesiastica  qualiter  ad  divimim  offieium  instrui  ojjorteat 
sanctissimuiii  ordinem  clericorum,  midtimoda  narraiione  de- 
clarat,  quia  et  scientice  plenitudi7icm  et  vitce  rectitudinem  et 
cruditionis  'perfectioncm  maximc  cos  habere  decet,  qui  in  qnodcnn 
culmine  constituti  guhcroiaculum  rcgiminis  in  ecclcsia  tcnent. 
Lib.  3,  init.)  In  the  first  two  books  of  the  work  referred  to, 
liabanus  treats  of  the  various  ranks  of  the  priests,  and  of  the 
various  spiritual  offices,  with  their  respective  functions,  which 
are  to  be  administered  on  the  basis  of  the  traditional  faith  of 
the  Church.      Consequently  he  gathers  together  in  this  part  of 

'  llabani  Mauri  opera  omnia,  ed.  Migne.  Paris  1851.  T.  i.  p.  293  sqq. 
De  clericorum  institutione  ad  Heistulplium  archiepiscopum  libri  tres.  [Besides 
this  work  Eabanus  wrote  a  treatise,  de  universo,  in  twenty-two  books,  which  is 
closely  modelled  on  that  of  Isidorus  of  Seville  on  Etynrologies,  and  is,  like  it, 
an  encyclopajdia  ;  of  interest  now  only  as  indicating  the  range  of  studies 
]ireseribed  to  theological  students  of  the  ninth  century.  In  his  later  years,  as 
Archbishop  of  Mainz,  he  enlarged  and  recast  the  first  book  of  his  Institutio. 
See  further  particulars  well  stated  in  a  concise  article  by  Hauck  iu  Herzog's 
Encyclopicdie,  Bd.  xii.  p.  459-4G5.] 


MIDDLE  AGES — HUGO  ST.  VICTOK.  27 

his  treatise  all  that  belongs  to  Cliurcli  goverument  and  to  the 
Church  service,  and  generally  whatever  would  fall  under  the 
head  of  practical  theology.  And  this  he  does,  in  order  that  lie 
may  point  out,  in  the  third  book,  that  the  priest  must 
qualify  himself  for  the  discharge  of  his  official  duties  in  the 
Church  pre-eminently  by  means  of  the  study  of  Holy 
Scripture,  which  is  the  foundation  and  source  of  all  wisdom. 
Finally,  with  the  priest  as  preacher  still  in  view,  he  produces  a 
sketch  of  homiletics,  which  is  rich  in  good  and  pointed  remarks. 
While  Eabanus  from  his  clerical  standpoint  failed  to  reach 
any  systematic  construction  of  theology,  and,  indeed,  leaves 
unnoticed  altogether  certain  of  its  essential  articles,  which  had 
been  previously  recognised,  in  the  twelfth  century  a  more 
ambitious,  more  thoroughly  systematizing  spirit  meets  us  in 
the  mystic  Hugo  St.  Victor.  In  the  seven  books  of  his 
Eruditio  Diclascalica}  he  has  drawn  up  a  universal  system  of 
the  sciences.  Man,  who  alone  of  all  creatures  is  endowed 
with  reason,  in  order  to  secure  the  restoration  of  the  integrity 
of  his  nature,  upon  the  possession  of  which  his  likeness  to  God 
depends,  and  in  order  to  secure  victory  over  the  varied  neces- 
sities and  wants  of  life,  has  to  strive  after  wisdom  as  the  highest 
good.  The  study  of  wisdom  is  philosophy.  In  the  fourfold 
partition  of  this  study  (theorica,  practica  or  ethica,  mcchanica, 
and  lofjica)  theology  occupies  in  the  scicntia  theorica,  the 
properly  speculative  science,  the  highest  place.  But  although 
Hugo  was  indeed  able  to  assign  its  place  to  theology  in  the 
collective  system,  he  did  not  succeed  in  distinguishing  it  as 
a  special  branch  of  study  from  the  study  of  philosophy  gene- 
rally, and  in  systematically  arranging  it,  like  the  general  system 
of  philosophy,  according  to  its  principal  constituent  parts. 
The  leading  divisions  of  theology,  however,  do  come  into  view 
in  this  work  of  Hugo's,  though  indeed  somewhat  inconse- 
quently.      Thus,  for  example,  he  presupposes  the  faith  of  the 

1  Hugonis   de  Sancto  Victore   opera   omnia,   ed.   Migiic,    t.   ii.    p.   7-il  s(p|. 
Eruditionis  didascalica  libri  vii. 


28  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

Church,  and  then,  for  the  establishment  thereof,  he  urgently 
recommends  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture ;  to  this,  again,  he 
gives  a  very  thorough  treatment,  co-ordinating  therewith  the 
study  of  the  Church  Fathers,  and  then  he  brings  to  the  front 
what  we  would  now  reckon  Church  history  and  the  history  of 
dogmas.  And  then  finally,  in  the  seventh  book,  he  draws  up 
an  outline  of  dogmatics,  which  to  a  certain  extent,  as  the  first 
part  of  the  scicntia  theoi'ica,  may  be  called  his  theologia  in  the 
highest  sense. 

jSText  to  Hugo  St.  Victor,  as  still  belonging  to  the  thirteenth 
century,  may  be  placed  the  Dominican,  Vincent  of  Beauvais, 
vir  immcnscc  Icctionis.  According  to  a  fundamental  view 
essentially  Christian,  he  expounds  in  his  Bibliotheca  Muncli^ 
which  is  divided  into  speculum  naturale,  dodrinale,  morale,  and 
historiale,  the  whole  range  of  contemporary  knowledge.  After 
having  treated  in  the  speculum  naturale  of  natural  science,  and, 
towards  its  close,  of  human  nature  according  to  its  original 
condition,  and  according  to  its  corruption  through  sin,  he  goes 
on  in  the  second  treatise  to  doctrine,  that  is,  to  science  in  its 
special  sense,  to  which  everything  belongs  which  pertains  to 
the  preservation  or  restoration  of  the  temporal  and  spiritual 
wellbeing  of  mankind :  so  that  he  treats  here  of  philosophy 
in  general,  and  of  that  science  which  is  the  grand  end  of  all 
the  sciences,  that  is,  of  theology.  But  the  true  divine  theology 
is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  false,  heathenish  theology, 
which  moves  only  in  the  sphere  of  nature,  whereas  the  true 
becomes  first  possible  by  means  of  the  Word  become  flesh, 
from  whom  Holy  Scripture  is  derived.  Divine  authority 
therefore  enters  in,  and  every  believing  and  pious  mind  must 
submit  himself  to  it.  In  divina  scriptura  there  is  contained 
divina  sajncntia,  and  all  the  aries  must  be  placed  at  the  service 
of  divina  sapicntia,  which,  in  the  form  of  dogmatics  and  ethics, 
leads  back  fallen  man  to  his  original  innocence  and  dignity, 
and  enables  him  to  attain  unto  the  enjoyment  of  eternal 
^  Viucentii  Bellovacensis  bibliotheca  munJi.     Duaci  162-1. 


MIDDLE  AGES VINCENT  OF  BEAUVAIS.  29 

blessedness.  This  last  point  is  specially  elaborated  in  the 
spccuhim  morale}  which  embraces  a  system  of  Clu-istian  ethics, 
into  which,  at  the  same  time,  rich  dogmatic  material  is 
admitted.  Thus  has  Vincent  assigned  a  place  to  theology 
among  the  other  sciences ;  but  for  the  systematic  arrangement 
of  the  parts  of  theology  itself,  he  has  indeed  contributed 
nothing.  Viewing  theology  as  a  whole,  he  does  not  regard  it 
from  the  theoretical  point  of  view  of  knowledge,  but  rather 
from  an  ethical  point  of  view.  According  to  Vincent,  it  is 
essentially  the  task  of  theology  to  restore  again  man  hurled 
by  the  fall  into  destruction  and  misery,  and  to  make  him  a 
partaker  of  that  eternal  salvation  ordained  for  him. 

Theology,  then,  as  it  has  been  represented  in  the  writings 
hitherto  referred  to,  judged  of  according  to  its  scientific  cha- 
racter, not  only  leaves  out — w^hat  for  every  science  is  indispens- 
able— the  organic  arrangement,  according  to  a  strict  inward 
connection,  of  particulars  under  the  sections  to  which  they 
belong ;  but  also,  what  is  of  principal  importance,  it  is  want- 
ing altogether  in  that  independent  spiritual  energy  which  pene- 
trates the  given  material,  and  makes  it  a  unity  by  imparting 
to  it  its  own  character.  This  theology  is  throughout  bound  to 
the  authority  of  the  traditional  faith  sanctioned  by  the  Church, 
and  to  the  divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  so  that  it  has  to 
maintain  in  reference  to  this  authority  an  attitude  that  is 
essentially  passive  and  receptive.  The  study  of  Scripture, 
invariably  recommended,  is  again  subordinated  to  the  authority 
of  the  faith  of  the  Church,  and  is  indeed  only  demanded  in 
order  to  reach  the  right  understanding  of  that  faith.  But  in 
order  that  the  letter  of  Scripture  may  j)rove  itself  pliable  to 
the  various  purposes  which  it  is  to  serve,  a  fourfold  sense  of 
Scripture  is  laid  down  in  the  hermeneutical  axioms  which 
occur  in  those  treatises  before  referred  to,  scnsus  litcralis,  allc- 
goriais,  moralis,  or   tropologicus,  and   anagogicus,  so  that  the 

1  Neudecker  in  Herzog's  Eeal-Encyclop.Tdie,  under  the  word  Vinceutius, 
proves  that  the  speculum  morale  is  not  gi'nuine. 


30  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYGLOP.EDIA. 

theologian  need  never  get  into  any  embarrassment  over  a 
passage  of  Scripture  in  regard  to  its  signification,  or  in  regard 
to  the  purpose  that  should  be  served  by  its  application.^  The 
scientia  or  dodrina  tlieologica,  as  it  here  presents  itself,  is 
therefore  not  so  much  an  actual  scientific  branch  of  study,  but 
rather  a  mere  acquirement  resting  upon  authority,  which  is 
useful  for  practical  purposes  of  the  most  varied  kinds, — it  may 
be  for  vindication  of  the  faith  of  the  Church,  or  for  the  refut- 
in<T  of  heretics,  or  for  the  edification  of  individuals  and  of  the 
community,  or  for  the  guidance  of  the  Church,  or  generally, 
for  spiritual  furtherance  or  advancement,  to  which  also  the 
other  sciences,  outside  of  theology,  ought  to  contribute. 
Theology  appears  here  as  a  mere  scholarly  exercise,  which 
nevertheless  continues  to  be  constantly  applied  to  the  life  of 
the  Church  and  to  its  real  needs. 

If  you  look  away  from  the  theoretical  representations  of 
theological  study,  and  consider  theology  as  it  shows  itself  in 
its  practical  results  during  this  mediaeval  period,  then  this 
so-called  scholastic  theology,  which  from  the  eleventh  to  the 
fourteenth  century  was  essentially  dominant,  does  not  in 
f^eneral  succeed  in  meeting  that  demand  which,  we  saw,  has 
hitherto  been  always  made  of  theology, — the  demand,  that  is 
to  say,  for  study  of  the  Scriptures,  in   such  a  way  that  by 

1  In  the  earliest  Christian  times  the  allegorical  method  of  interpretation  was 
universally  favoured,  and  as  it  had  been  already  largely  employed  by  Greeks  and 
Jews  in  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  awakened  no  opposition.  Then 
Origen,  early  in  the  third  century,  advocated  a  threefold  sense,  and  was  followed 
by  Ambrose,  Augustine,  and  all  the  great  teachers  of  these  centuries.  Even 
this,  however,  did  not  afford  sulhcient  scope  for  spiritualizing,  and  so,  by  the 
fifth  century,  we  find  the  fourfold  sense,  as  referred  to  above,  advocated  by  lead- 
ing divines,  and  securing  a  firm  place  in  theology.  P.onaventura  (1-221-74),  who 
ultimately  recommended  a  sevenfold  sense,  as  supported  by  the  seven  seals  of 
the  Revelation,  vindicated  the  fourfold  sense  by  reference  to  the  Trinity,— three 
and  one,— one  literal,  then  the  oHa^oj/icoZ  referring  to  the  Father,  the  allegorical 
to  the  Son,  and  the  tropological  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Beus  est  trimis  et  umts.  In 
essentia  unus,  in  2}ersonis  triims.  Ideo  Scriptura,  quoi  est  de  ipso,  habct  in 
unitate  literm  triformitatem  intelligent i(V.  See  Doedes,  Manual  of  Hermeneu- 
tics,  Edin.  1867,  p.  19-2i'.  Reuss,  Geschichte  der  Heilig.  Schr.  N.  T.  §  525. 
—Ed. 


MIDDLE  AGES THE  SCHOLASTIC  THEOLOGY,  31 

means  of  it  a  religious  quickening  and  elevation  should  be 
continuously  communicated  to  theology,  its  ethical  contents 
preserved,  and  also  its  connection  with  the  practical  life  of 
the  Church  maintained.  That  type  of  doctrine,  too,  which 
had  been  elaborated  by  the  primitive  Christian  theology, 
remained  firm  in  the  scholastic  tlieology,  as  an  unimpeachable 
holy  thing  under  the  sanction  of  the  Church.  It  sought, 
however,  to  arrive  at  the  understanding  of  this  doctrine,  not 
by  means  of  Scripture  investigation,  but  by  means  of  dialectic 
elaboration.  The  spiritual  interest  which  was  excited  by 
acquaintance  with  Platonic,  and  especially  Aristotelian  philo- 
sophy, showed  its  influence  upon  the  scholastic  theology,  in 
the  treatment  which  this  latter  gave  to  the  traditional  dogma, 
which  was  an  endeavour  by  means  of  philosophizing  methods 
to  get  near  spiritually  to  the  dogma,  and  then  to  make  it 
accessible  to  the  understanding  through  dialectic  elaboration. 
The  Christian  spirit,  urged  on  by  an  indwelling  impulse,  has, 
in  the  scholastic  theology,  accomplished  a  wonderful  work, 
and  by  means  of  this  has  impressed  its  signature  upon  the 
medieval  period ;  but  because  of  its  bondage  to  traditional 
dogma  on  the  one  hand,  and  because  of  the  philosophical 
restraint  thereby  laid  upon  it  on  the  other  hand,  it  could  not 
produce  out  of  this  unclear  mixture  of  philosophy  and 
doctrinal  propositions  any  clear  scientific  result  which  would 
survive  its  own  time.  Scholasticism  is,  speaking  generally, 
a  onesided  theological  intellectualism,  which  being  altogether 
self-contained,  ever  more  and  more  lost  itself  in  a  logical 
formalism ;  and  being  in  this  way  divorced  from  religious 
interests,  it  not  only  failed  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the 
Church  life  upon  theology,  but  upon  this  Church  life,  as  well 
as  upon  the  general  guidance  of  the  Church  and  the  Church 
service,  it  exerted  a  most  baneful  influence. 

From  a  directly  ethical  point  of  view,  a  reaction  soon  set  in 
against  the  onesidedness  of  scholastic  theology.  Already,  in 
the  second   half   of   the  thirteenth  century,  the    rranciscan 


32  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

Eoger  Bacon  discovered  its  weak  points,  and  the  injuries  done 
by  it  to  the  interests  of  the  Church.     His  Compendium  studii 
jphilosophice^  comes   here    specially   under  consideration.      In 
spite  of  the  many  dodores  maxime  in  thcologia,  the  period  is 
one  in  which  the  grossest  errors   and  profoundest  ignorance 
prevailed.     Especially    the    Eomish    Curia,     and,     after     its 
example,  the  religious  orders  and  the  clergy,  were  corrupted. 
The    days  of  Antichrist   had   come.     But   the   corruption  of 
morals  is  evidence  of  the  corruption  of  science.      Et  ideo  cum 
tantam  corrwptionem  vitcc  videmus  uhique  et  maxime  in  dericis, 
neccsse    et   quod   eorum   studium    sit  corruptum,   p.   398    sqq. 
Original  sin,  individual  sin,  the  domination  of  an  unworthy 
authority,  the  low  taste  of  the  inexperienced  multitude,  the 
power  of  custom,  and  olstinatio  animi  humcoii,  qua  in  sola- 
tium sum  ignoraniice  reprdbat  omnia  quce  ignorat,  are  the  chief 
causes  of  ignorance.      Many  have  expressed  themselves  con- 
temptuously about  mugistri  and  dodores  of  theology  and  philo- 
sophy, while  they  themselves  have  learnt  nothing,  and  are  still 
unable  to  learn  anything,  occupati  aiopetitu  deliciarum,  devi- 
tiarum   d   lionorum,    d    corrupti  causis  ignorantiw  pradictis, 
p.   428.     The  study   of  theology  must    enter  upon  a   quite 
different  course,  et  tanto  oicquius  laid  error,  quanto  maior  fit 
apparentia  sapiential.  .  .  .  Nunc  nunquam  fuerunt  tot  studentes 
7iec  tot    doctores,  .  .  .  d  tamen   infinitus   est   error  in  studio 
theologice  et  per  conscquens  p>liilosopUa;  propter  mcdos  theologos. 
While  Bacon   demands   the  removal    of  existing  evils  by  a 
summus   pontifex   aliquis   optimus  and    a    concilium   generate, 
p.  429,  he  exerts  all  the  powers  of  his  mind  and  his  compre- 
hensive scholarship  in  order  to  turn  science  about  again  into 
right  paths,  or  by  this  means  to  work  a  reformation  upon  his 
times.     Led  on   by  a  profoundly  Christian    intuition,  Bacon 
places  himself   at   a    thoroughly  universal    standpoint.     All 

1  Fr.  Eogeri  Bacon,  Opera  qusedum  hacteiius  inedita,  vol.  i.  Edited  by  J.  S. 
Brewer,  London  1859.  Contents:-!.  Opus  tertium.  2.  Opus  minus. 
3.  Compendium  studii  philosophise. 


MIDDLE  AGES KOGER  BACON.  33 

wisdom,  according  to  him,  is  derived  from  God.  God  Las 
revealed  it  to  the  unbelieving  philosophers  as  well  as  to  the 
believing.  First  to  His  saints,  to  whom  also  He  gave  the 
law,  has  He  communicated  philosophy,  and  this  is  handed  down 
in  the  Hebrew  tongue ;  it  was  renewed  through  Aristotle  in 
the  Greek  tongue  ;  and  after  liini  through  Avicenna  in  the 
Arabic  tongue,  0})us  Tcrtium,  p.  32. 

The  study  of  philosophy  is  identical  witli  the  study  of 
wisdom,  and  falls  into  two  parts — the  one  speculative,  the 
other  practical.  The  branches  of  study  belonging  to  practical 
philosophy  are  practical,  quia  considcrant  opera  utilia  in  ecclesia 
d  republica  ct  toto  iiiundo.  Opera  principalia  quoi  talent 
homiyii,  sunt  ista,  quo;  ipsum  ordinant  in  vitam  ccternam  et 
retrahnnt  ah  inferno.  Comp.  Studii  pildl.  p.  393  sqq.  The 
scientia  practica  sive  moralis  is  the  domina  partium  omnium 
2oMlosop)hiai  ct  utitur  eis  et  imperat  propter  utilitates  civitatum  et 
rcgnorum.  Of  its  six  leading  divisions,  of  which  jurisprudence 
has  to  Ije  set  forth  last,  the  first  five  belong  to  the  department 
of  theolofry,  as  docrmatics,  the  doctrine  of  Church  and  State, 
ethics,  apologetics,  and  homiletics,  Opus  Tcrtium,  p.  47  sqq. 
But  scientific  knowledge  is  to  be  attained  by  three  different 
methods,  by  the  method  of  authority,  of  reason,  and  of 
experience.  Mere  auctoritas  leads  only  to  crcdulitas,  for  which 
intcllcctus  must  give  the  ratio,  but  even  the  ratio  itself  again 
must  approve  itself  to  experience.  Comp.  Studii  phil.  p.  396. 
The  sciences  necessary  for  all  study,  but  despised  by  modern 
theologians,  are  scientia  linguarum  sayientialium,  mathematica, 
p)ersp)ectiva,  alkimia,  scientia  experimentalis,  p.  433.  The  lingua) 
sapientalcs,  that  is,  the  languages  in  which  all  wisdom  has  been 
handed  down,  are  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  Arabic,  and  Chaldean 
languages.  As  the  knowledge  of  these  is  indispensable  for 
general  study,  it  is  specially  so  for  the  studium  princip)ale, 
theological  study.  The  seven  defects  from  which,  according 
to  Bacon,  that  study  suffered  during  his  time  {Opus  Minus, 
p.  322   sqq.),  can  be  removed  only  by  means  of  a  thorough- 

VOL.  I.  <^ 


34  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.EDL\. 

going  study  of  Scripture.  In  Holy  Scripture  the  sum-total  of 
wisdom  is  contained.  Theology,  which  ought  to  secure  for 
itself  the  possession  of  that  wisdom,  must  extract  it  from  the 
vessels  in  which  it  was  originally  deposited,  that  is,  from  the 
original  tongues,  p.  4:65  sq.  Bacon  proves  by  thirteen 
reasons  the  necessity  of  the  study  of  languages,  and  is  against 
all  translations  being  accepted,  so  that  he  would  rather  like 
to  see  all  the  vile  Latin  translations  of  Aristotle  burnt,^  if 
thereby  the  old  philosophy  would  be  studied  in  the  original 
language,  p.  469.  While  in  all  departments  of  science  Bacon 
strives  after  the  highest  acquirements,  still  no  kind  of  scien- 
tific knowledge  has  value  for  him,  except  in  so  far  as  it  shows 
itself  fruitful  for  practice.  This  is  pre-eminently  true  in  regard 
to  theology.  Hence,  without  express  reference  to  it,  he  contends 
against  the  scholastic  theology,  because,  separating  itself  from 
life,  it  went  on  with  its  abstract  speculations  ;  but  he  places 
theology,  as  such,  at  the  head  of  the  other  sciences,  just  because 
it  is  called,  by  means  of  that  divine  wisdom  with  which  it  is 
invested,  to  exercise  a  moral  influence  upon  Church  and  State. 
Towards  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  and  the  beginning  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  Petrus  de  Alliaco  and  John  Gerson  prove 
worthy  successors  of  Bacon,  both  of  them  celebrated 
chancellors  of  the  University  of  Paris,  which  was  itself  a  chief 
stronghold  of  the  scholastic  theology.  They  fought  strenu- 
ously, not  indeed  against  scholasticism  generally,  but  against 
the  unreality  which  characterized  its  discussions.  Gerson, 
especially  in  his  Epistles  De  Rcfurmationc  thcologicc,  and  in 
his  Epistles  to  the  students  at  the  College  of  Xavarre  at  Paris 
(epistolce  duce  ad  studentcs  collcgii  Navarrce  Parisiensis:  quid 
ct  qiialitcr  studere  debeat  noviis  theologice  auditor,  et  contra 
curiositatem  studcntiwn)^  with  respect  to  the  (lencralis  ccclcsicc 

^  This  statement  does  not  appl_y  to  the  writings  of  Aristotle  generally,  as  Fron- 
miiller  wrongly  expresses  it  in  Herzog's  Encyclopiedia,  i.  p.  656.  [The  passage 
objected  to  has  been  struck  out  of  the  article  in  the  new  edition  of  Herzog, 
where  it  appears  in  vol.  ii.  p.  54-56.] 

2  Joaimis  Gersonii  opera  ed.  Ellies  du  Pin.  t.  i.  p.  120  sqc]^. 


MIDDLE  AGES GERSOX  AND  ERAS.MUS.  35 

clades,  which  lias  gone  so  far,  iit  dcsit  remcdii  locus,  quia  quce 
fuerunt  vitia,  mores  fiunt,  as  he  says  with  Seneca,  laments  the 
general  decay  of  theology  under  bishops  and  clergy,  and  dis- 
suades them  from  the  subtle  and  superficial  scholastic  doctrines, 
on  account  of  which  the  students  of  theology  only  make  them- 
selves ridiculous  to  those  of  the  other  faculties,  and  which,  for 
the  Church  and  its  faith,  are  not  only  unfruitful  but  injurious. 
In  opposition  to  all  this,  he  demands  of  theology  that,  in 
order  to  reach  again  a  solida  Veritas,  it  should  turn  its  attention 
to  ethical  studies,  and  fall  back  again  on  the  old  Church 
teachers,  but  especially  on  Holy  Scripture.  And  this  is 
altogether  in  harmony  with  Petrus  de  Alliaco,  who,  in  his 
Eccommendatio  Scripturm  sacrm^  by  way  of  explanation  of 
Matt.  xvi.  18,  maintains  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  everlasting 
rock  on  which  the  Church  rests. 

Alongside  of  those  already  named,  the  scholar  of  Alliacus, 
Nicolaus  de  Clemangis,  takes  his  place  with  his  work  Dc  studio 
thcologico?-  He  gives  an  extraordinarily  high  place  to 
theology.  As  the  spiritualis  et  sacrosancta  sapientia  it  is  for 
him  the  noUlissima  scientia ;  but  it  must  not  be,  as  in  the 
ordinary  scholasticism,  a  mere  theology  of  intellect ;  it  must 
also  be  a  theology  of  feeling.  It  is  not  only  scientia,  but  also 
charitas,  and  has  for  its  purpose  the  personal  edification  of  the 
theologian,  and  through  him  the  edification  of  others.  In 
accordance  with  this  view  Nicolaus  comprehends  the  whole 
study  of  theology  in  the  study  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  especi- 
ally recommends  the  study  of  the  leathers  of  the  early  Church, 
whose  works  were  written  under  the  enlightening  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  chief  representative  of  this  anti-scholastic  tendency 
was  Erasmus.  He,  too,  paints  with  glaring  colours  the 
serious  defects  from  which  the  Church  of  his  time  suffered,  and 
represents  them  as  brought  in  principally  by  its  pastors,  the 

^  In  Gersonii  opera,  t.  i.  p.  603  sqq. 

^  In  D'Achery  Spicilegium,  cd.  tie  la  Barre,  t.  i.  p.  473  sqq. 


36  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP/EDIA. 

bishops,  theologians,  and  priests  ;  and  then,  in  his  Ratio  com- 
pendio  'pervcniendi  ad  veram  theolorjiam,  and  in  his  Adlwrtatio 
ad  Christiana  philosopUm   studium}   he   sets   forth    the  vera 
theolofjia  and  Christiana  philosophia  by  way  of  contrast  with 
the  scholastic  pliilosophy.     This   true   theology,  however,  he 
views  strictly  from  the  standpoint  of  the   practical  Church 
purpose.     It  should  promote  the  vera  rcligio  in  all  circles  and 
among  all  orders  in  the  Church,  whatever  their  occupations 
and  tendencies.     But  true  religion  can  only  be  drawn  from 
the  Holy  Scripture,   therefore  its    study    before   all   else    is 
incumbent  upon  the  theologian.     Instead  of  learning  by  rote 
sophistical  doctrinal  propositions,  commentaries  on  Aristotle, 
and  formal  scholastic  inferences,  it  rather  befits  theologians 
opcrani  dare  lihris  divinis,  ex  quorum  fontihus  universa  scatet 
thcologia,  qum  modo   vcre   sit  thcologia.      Among    the    sacred 
writings,  those  of  the  New  Testament  take  the  first  rank  ;  and 
among°the  Old  Testament  writings  those  take  the  first  place 
which  are  most  in  harmony  with  them.      (Sit  igitur  apud  nos 
primus  honos  novo  testamento,  per  quod  christiani  sumus,  et 
ubi  Christus  nobis  multo  expressius  quam  in  vetere  depingitur, 
proximus  veteri  et  in   hoc  his  libris,  qui  cum  novo  maxime 
consentiunt,   quales    sunt   Esaiie  libri.)      For    the    study    of 
Scripture    Erasmus     demands    the    acquiring    of  the    Latin, 
Greek,  and  Hebrew  languages,  as  well  as  the   study  of  the 
seven  artcs  liherales,  especially  of  cosmography,  history,  and 
poetics,  and  recommends  for  advancement   in  the   study   of 
Scripture  the  use  of  the  old  interpreters,  especially  of  Origen 
and  Jerome.     Erasmus  will  not  altogether  discard  the  study 
of  scholasticism,  only  he  warns  against  the  overvaluing  of  the 
scholastic   system  of  doctrine,  and   refers  rather  to  the   old 
theologians,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  who  kept  themselves  to 
Holy   Scripture,   and   have   nothing    of    scholastic    subtlety. 

1  Ratio  sen  nietliodus  compendio  perveniendi  ad  veram  theologiam  per 
Erasmum  Roterod.  postremum  ab  ipso  autore  castigata  et  locupletata.  Coloiuffi 
1523. 


MIDDLE  AGES SUMMARY  OF  KESULTS.  37 

Under  the  influence  of  the  reawakened  interest  in  classical 
humanist  studies,  he  developed  a  hermeneutical  system,  not 
free  indeed  from  the  customary  method  of  Scripture  treatment, 
but  still  even  to  this  day  worthy  of  attention ;  and,  entering 
upon  the  contents  of  Holy  Scripture  itself,  he  makes  an 
advance  toward  the  science  more  recently  called  biblical 
theology,  and  the  history  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  He  also 
furnishes  particularly  valuable  contributions  to  practical 
theology,  especially  to  homiletics,  although,  because  of  the 
immediately  practical  Church  interest,  which  from  the  circum- 
stances of  the  time  had  a  preponderating  influence  upon  him, 
he  could  not  rise  to  the  setting  forth  of  the  full  significance 
of  Church  history  for  theology. 

The  anti-scholastic  theologians  referred  to  have  contributed 
but  little  to  the  encyclopaedic  development  of  theology.  Their 
merit  lies  rather  in  this,  that  they  emphasized  the  ethical 
significance  of  theology,  in  accordance  with  a  view  truly  reli- 
gious, and  animated  by  a  desire  for  the  elevation  of  the  whole 
Christian  life,  in  opposition  to  a  theoretical  scholasticism,  one- 
sided and  divorced  from  life,  while  they  too  still  acknowledged 
the  authority  of  Church  and  tradition.  This  merit  remains 
with  them  undiminished,  even  although  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  they  themselves,  because  in  general  they  laid  the  blame 
of  the  decay  of  the  Church  upon  scholasticism,  placed  in  the 
foreground  the  practical  tasks  of  theology,  and  so  fell  into  a 
onesided  practicalism,  on  account  of  which  the  theoretical  tasks 
of  theology  did  not  get  their  proper  place. 


THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPiEDIA. 


§  4.  THE  HISTORY  OF  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA— 
Continued. 

(c)  From  the  Reformation  vp  to  the  period  of  Pietism. 

The  Eeforniation,  by  means  of  those  principles  which  it 
had  enunciated,  brought  about  a  complete  rupture  with  the 
Eomish  Church.  For,  inasmuch  as  it  grounded  the  Eeformed 
idea  of  the  Church  on  the  principles  of  Scripture  and  faith,  it 
repudiated  the  foundation  of  the  Eomish  idea  of  the  Church, 
the  divine  authority  of  the  hierarchy  and  tradition.  But,  in 
order  to  build  up  the  new  idea  of  the  Church  on  its  inner  side, 
and  to  render  it  secure  on  its  outer  side,  there  was  need  of  very 
energetic  labour,  which,  in  the  exercise  of  that  freedom  of  the 
Christian  spirit  which  w^as  characteristic  of  the  theology  of 
the  earliest  age  of  the  Church,  the  leaders  of  the  Eeformation 
in  Germany  and  Switzerland  undertook  with  rare  talent  and 
unwearied  zeal.  Owing  to  the  importance  which  was  always 
attached  to  theology  in  the  Eeformed  Churches,  an  attempt  was 
very  soon  made  at  its  systematic  instruction,  in  order  to  rear 
upon  the  new  foundations  a  new  theological  structure  answer- 
ing to  the  Eeformed  idea  of  the  Church.  A  beginning  thereof 
was  already  made  by  Melanchthon,  while  Luther,  engaged  in 
uninterrupted  theological  activity  and  labour,  expressed  him- 
self on  theology  only  occasionally. 

In  his  Brcvis  Disccndce  Theologies  Ratio}  Melanchthon,  alto- 
gether in  the  spirit  of  Luther,  sketched  the  outlines  of  the 
Eeformed  theology,  which  was  soon  more  thoroughly  developed 
by  his  immediate  successors.  The  foundation  of  theological 
study  is  the  study  of  Scripture.  The  method  for  this  is  gained 
by  adopting  a  purely  religious  point  of  view.  The  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  faith,  which  alone  leads  to  justification 
before  God,  is  the  middle  point,  from  which  the  Scripture 
1  Jlelanchthonis  Opera.     "Witteb.  1562.     T.  ii.  p.  35-37. 


EEFORMATION  TERIOD MELANCHTIIOX.  39 

investigator  has  to  proceed  and  expound  Scripture.  He  must 
tlierefore  begin  with  the  New  Testament,  and  in  that,  with  the 
PauHne  Epistles,  especially  with  Eomans,  Galatians,  and  Colos- 
sians ;  and  then  he  must  advance  to  the  Old  Testament,  in 
which  tliat  summa  dodrincc  christiancc,  that  essence  of  Christian 
doctrine,  is  also  contained.  The  Old  and  the  New  Testaments 
are  the  one  divine  revelation,  and  contain  essentially  one  and 
the  same  divine  doctrine  of  salvation.  But  in  order  to  com- 
prehend this  exegetically,  the  theologian  has  to  keep  to  the 
one  ruling  sense  as  the  meaning  of  tlie  words.  With  great 
decision  Melanchthon  protests  against  the  fourfold  sense  of 
Scripture  assumed  in  the  earlier  theology,  and  demands,  in 
opposition  to  such  arbitrary  interpretation  of  the  word  of 
Scripture,  the  simple  grammatical  exposition.  The  study  of 
Scripture  thus  with  Melanchthon  corresponds  essentially  to 
dogmatic  study.  But,  with  the  study  of  Scripture,  the  theo- 
logian has  to  join  the  study  of  the  Church  Fathers  and  the 
ecclesiastical  canons,  so  that  he  may  become  acquainted  with 
the  Church  doctrines  and  decrees.  And  further,  the  theologian, 
who  must  be  expert  in  the  understanding  of  Scripture  and  in 
the  niceties  of  apologetics  and  polemics,  has  to  familiarize 
himself  with  the  litercc  humancc,  the  necessary  knowledge  of 
the  languages,  grammar,  rhetoric,  and  dialectics,  and  also  to 
make  himself  acquainted  with  philosophy,  guarding  himself, 
however,  against  any  confusion  of  philosophy  and  Christian 
doctrine.  The  theology  thus  framed  upon  Scripture  study  is 
then  only  suitable  to  clerical  preachers,  whose  task  it  is,  by 
means  of  preaching  and  catechizing,  to  introduce  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  to  the  people.  Practical  theology,  therefore, 
with  Melanchthon,  consists  principally  in  homiletics  and 
catechetics,  of  which,  in  his  writing  De  Ojfficiis  Concionatoris} 


1  Opera,  t.  ii.  p.  30-34.  A  supplement  to  this  work  takes  more  of  the  form 
of  an  abstract  of  homiletics  adapted  to  the  schools  iinder  the  title  :  Ratio  lirevis 
sacrarum  concionnm  tractandarum,  a  quodam  docto  et  pio  rhapsodo,  Philippi 
Mel.  familiari,  coiigesta.  T.  ii.  p.  7  sqq. 


40  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

he  gives  an  outline,  with  full  instruction  about  the  study  of 
Scripture. 

Theology  is  represented  in  the  same  way  as  by  Mel- 
anchthon,  by  his  own  and  Luther's  scholars — Thamer/  Weller,^ 
Chytrceus,^  and  Selneccer  "* — in  their  writings  on  theological 
study.  All  of  them  show  a  very  high  regard  for  theology. 
It  is  arcana  ct  divina  sapientia,  longe  supra  humancc  d  angdicce 
rationis  conspednm  posita,  quam  nemo  principium  scculi  huius 
sine  spiritu  sando  intdligit  (Chytrseus).  Fons,  ex  quo  omnes 
TcliqucB  scientioi  2'>''^ofiuunt  et  in  quern  rursum  defiuunt  d  ad 
eundem  tanquam  ad  initium  et  finem  referuntur  (Selneccer). 
But  it  is  particularly  worthy  of  notice,  that  they  have  already 
expressly  declared  Holy  Scripture  to  be  the  first  and  only 
principle  of  dogmatic  theology,  and  maintained  that  it  is  to 
be  immediately  identified  with  the  word  of  God  ;  that  they 
further  specially  recommend  dogmatic  study  on  the  basis  of 
Melanchthon's  Loci  Thcologici,  and  in  the  study  of  Scripture, 
follow  his  direction  for  the  establishment  of  the  several 
doctrinal  articles.  Also,  it  deserves  to  be  made  prominent, 
that  they  view  theology,  not  as  a  mere  scholarly  acquirement, 
but  rather  in  the  light  of  Luther's  proverb :  Oratio,  mcdUatio, 
d  tcntatio  thcologum  facit  (compare  especially  Chytra^us). 
Consequently  they  set  very  earnestly  before  theologians  the 
ethical  claims  made  by  theology,  and  emphasize  particularly 
the  ethical  influence  which  the  study  of  theology  must  exercise 
upon  the  edification  of  the  theologian  himself,  if  he  is  to  be 
qualified  to  edify  others.      The  thcologia   Christiana  consists, 

^  Adhortatio  ad  theologia;  studium  in  academia,  Marburgensi  1543.  Compare 
Herzog's  Real-Encyclopfedie  under  "  Tliamer." 

^  Katio  formandi  studii  thcologici.  Item  de  modo  et  ratione  concionandi. 
Autore  D.  Hieronymo  Wellero.     Noribergse  1563. 

*  De  studio  theologire  recte  inchoando  et  aliis  ali(|Uot  utilibns  materiis  com- 
monefactiones.     David  Cliytmeus.     Kostochii  1572. 

*  Notatio  Nicolai  Selnecceri  de  studio  sacraj  theologi?e  et  de  ratione  discendi 
doctrinam  cadestem.  Lipsite  1579.  In  this  same  book  is  contained  :  De  ratione 
methodica  discendi  doctrinam  ecclesise  proprium.  Isagoge  in  usum  studiosorum 
scripta  a  Kic.  Selneccero. 


EEFOmiATION  PErJOD IlYrERIUS.  41 

not  in  sola  cognitione  ct  scieniia  et  curiosarum  ac  inanium  dis- 
jmtationum  suUilitate,  seel  in  verm  pietatis  usu  et  praxi  potissi- 
mum  (Chytrseiis).  And  just  because  they  make  piety  the 
point  of  departure  and  the  end  of  theology,  and  set  the 
practical  task  thereof  above  the  theoretical,  it  not  seldom 
happens  with  them,  that  Christianity  and  theology  are  inter- 
changed, and  that  that  is  demanded  as  a  special  acquirement 
of  theologians,  which  really  concerns  Christians  generally. 

Side  by  side  with  those  Lutheran  theologians,  the  lieformed 
theologian  Andreas  Hyperius,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  may 
be  compared  with  Melanchthon  in  comprehensive  learning  and 
ecclesiastical  zeal.  We  have  from  his  pen  a  ratio  studii 
theolocjici}  in  four  books,  in  which  he  takes  a  comprehensive 
survey  of  theological  study.  To  him  also  it  is  the  sacrosanda 
thcologia  disciplinarum  omnium  imnceps.  Quantum  divina 
prccsiant  humanis,  coslestia  terrenis,  tantum  thcologia  reliquis 
disciplinis  est  anteponcnda.  According  to  him,  too,  agreeably 
to  the  inner  relationship  of  piety  and  culture,  theology  ought 
to  subserve  the  personal  edification  of  the  theologian  and  the 
edification  of  others ;  but  its  higher  aim  has  reference  to  the 
Church  catholic,  to  contribute  to  the  guidance  and  advance- 
ment of  the  Church,  the  eccUsia  catholica  et  ortliodoxa,  quce  nititur 
fundamcnto  aposfolorum  ct  prophctarwn,  prcctcr  quod  poni  aliud 
nullum  potest,  atque  secundum  spiritum  sanctum  ac  verlum  Dei 
incorrupte  judical.  And  so,  after  having  in  his  first  book 
enumerated  the  characteristics  and  preliminary  culture  which 
are  to  be  required  of  one  beginning  the  study  of  theology,  he 
points  out  to  the  student,  in  the  following  books,  the  course 
which  has  to  be  pursued  in  theological  study.  Theology, 
according  to  Hyperius,  falls  into  tw^o  divisions,  theory  and 

^  De  theologo  sen  de  ratione  studii  theolor;ici  libri  iv.,  Andrea  Hyperioautore. 
Basilew  15S2.  (Ed.  1,  ib.  1556.)  [Hyperius  was  not  strictly  a  Reformed,  but  a 
conciliatory  Lutheran  theologian.  He  had  a  hearty  appreciation  of  the  Reformed 
doctrine,  and  was  inclined  to  advance  a  good  way  in  securing  a  mutual  uiidi  r- 
standing  between  the  two  parties.  Corap.  Dorner,  History  of  Protestant  Theo- 
logy, vol.  ii.  p.  15,  note.     Engl,  translation  pub.  by  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edin.J 


42  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOr^DIA. 

practice.  The  former  embraces  the  study  of  Scripture  and 
the  study  of  dogmatics.  This  last  stands  in  close  connection 
M'ith  the  former ;  for  the  several  passages  of  Scripture  are  to 
be  reduced  under  their  proper  doctrinal  heads,  and  have  to 
afford  to  dogmatics  its  foundation.  The  literm  humance  are 
to  be  adopted  by  theology  in  so  far  as  they  may  contribute  to 
the  study  of  Scripture.  Philosophy,  too,  should  be  admitted 
in  theological  study  only  as  a  handmaid,  as  famula,  as 
23cdissequa,  like  Hagar  in  relation  to  Sarah,  who  was  alone  in 
full  authority.  The  second  division  of  theology,  the  practical, 
embraces  Church  history,  which  is  specially  serviceable  as 
affording  an  insight  and  giving  hints  concerning  the  guidance 
of  the  Church,  together  with  ecclesiastical  archaBology  and 
patristics,  and  besides,  what  belongs  to  pastoral  theology,  in 
the  wide  sense  of  the  word. 

After  this,  up  to  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the 
theology  of  the  Eeforraed  Churches  assumed  a  very  extreme 
dogmatic  activity,  and  the  new  dogmas  which  it  produced 
on  the  basis  of  the  principles  of  Scripture  and  faith,  as  well 
as  the  dogmas  descending  from  the  primitive  Church  and 
enshrined  in  special  confessional  writings,  secured  general 
acceptance.  From  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century, 
this  doctrinal  tendency,  to  which  already  ChytraBus,  Selneccer, 
and  Hyperius  themselves  inclined,  won  decided  preponderance 
in  the  Eeformed  theology.  That  which  theology  had  accom- 
plished, and  for  which  it  had  secured  the  acceptance  of  the 
Church,  must  also  be  preserved,  more  firmly  established,  and 
developed  by  the  Church.  In  tlie  Lutheran  Church,  its  two 
greatest  dogmatists  of  the  century  may  be  considered  the  chief 
representatives  of  this  theology — John  Gerhard  and  Abraham 
Calov,  from  both  of  whom  we  have  still  in  our  possession 
special  expositions  of  the  course  of  theological  study. -^     In  one 

^  Metliodus  studii  theologici  publicis  pvrelectionibus  in  academia  Jenansi, 
anno  1617,  exposita  a  Jolianne  Gerliardo,  Jeiire  1622.  Abraham  Calovi  insti- 
tutionuni  theologicarum  to.  •prpofAyo/iiva.     Dantisci  1649. 


EEFORMATIOX  rEKIOD GEKHAKD  AND  CALOV.  43 

particular   point    tliis    tlieology   gives   expression   to   a    clear 
judgment   concerning  itself,  inasmuch  as  in  general  it  holds 
fast  to  the  earlier  practical  tendency.      According  to  Gerhard, 
Studium  thcologice  ignoranticG  in  rchis  spirihicdibus  nobis  con- 
natcc     cdque     ara^la'^    in    affectihus     hccrentis    re^nedium,    ad 
sanditatis  d  'pidatis  culturam  opfjb-qrijpiop,  quotidie  Dmvi  in 
vcrbo  audicndi  d  cum  Deo  ]jer  preces  colloquendi  medium  adcoque 
sandissimce  ct  beatissimce  illius  socidatis,  qicam  in  ccclo  cxinc- 
tamus  quoddam  prmludiiim,  a  definition  which  would  equally 
apply  to  Christianity.     Yet  more  decided  is  the  definition  of 
Calov :   Thcologia  est  habitus  practicus  cognitionis  e  revelatione 
divina  liaustm,  dc  vera  religione,  qua  homo  post   lajDsum  per 
fidcm    ad    salutcm    mternam    perduccndus.       Theology   is   the 
knowledge  of  the  true  religion,  directed  to  the  furthering  of 
the  life  of  the  Church,  derived   from    divine  revelation,  by 
means  of  which,  since  his  fall,  man  may,  through  the  exercise 
of  faith,  be  led  to  eternal  salvation.     The  one  and  character- 
istic    principle    of    this    theology,    therefore,    is    the    divine 
revelation  which   is   deposited    in    the    Holy    Scripture,  and 
everything    else   is   brought   in   simply   for    the    purpose    of 
dogmatically   establishing   this   principle   as   such.     Yov  this 
end  the  theory  of  inspiration  is  now  thoroughly  elaborated. 
Divine   revelation  and   Holy  Scripture   precisely  correspond. 
Holy  Scripture  is  the  revealed  word   of   God,  and  the  word 
of  God  is  that  which  has  been  committed  to  writing  by  virtue 
of  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  prophets,  evangelists, 
and  apostles,  as  the  amanuenses  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (compare 
Calov).      Holy  Scripture,  therefore,  according  to  its  contents 
and  verbal  expression,  is  the  actual  word  of  God.     Inasmuch 
then  as  theology  is  derived  from  those  pure  divine  sources,  it 
receives  for  its  whole  contents  a  certainty  and  infallibility,  by 
means  of  which  it  is  not  only  distinguished  from  all  other 
sciences,  but   is    elevated   over   them,  so   that   these  are  all 
subordinated  to  theology,  while  it  is  itself  subordinated  to  none. 
Then   also   those   secular   sciences,  with  which  theology  has 


44  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDIA. 

associated  itself,  have  yet  for  it  an  importance  only  as  sciences 
contributing  their  aid.  This  is  specially  true  regarding  philo- 
sophy, of  which  indeed  theology  can  make  a  manifold  use ; 
which,  however,  can  always  be  properly  only  a  ministeriuin, 
but  in  no  case  a  magisterium,  for  in  that  case  a  yu,f^o^tXocro</)o- 
OeoXoyla,  as  in  scholasticism,  might  be  again  introduced.  On 
the  contrary,  philosophy  is,  as  Gerhard,  following  Luther's 
example,  phrases  it,  the  serving  ass,  whereas  theology,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  the  Christ  who  rides  upon  the  ass. 

Such  an  assertion  of  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  deter- 
mining and  deciding  everything  with  its  word,  made  it 
necessary  that  the  most  thorough  and  exact  acquaintance 
with  its  contents  should  be  required  of  the  theologian. 
Hence,  exegetical  theology  receives  a  prominent  place  in 
this  theology,  so  that  Gerhard  demands  an  uninterrupted 
study  of  Scripture  during  the  five  years  which  he  claims 
for  theological  study.  Dogmatics  attaches  itself  im- 
mediately to  exegetical  theology.  If  Melanchthon  placed 
the  study  of  Scripture  under  the  religious  point  of  view, 
it  is  here  placed  completely  at  the  service  of  dogma ;  for 
true  religion,  the  knowledge  of  which  is  to  be  derived  from 
Holy  Scripture,  is  the  religio  lutherana,  that  is,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  as  laid  down  in  the  confessional 
waitings.  All  investigation  of  Scripture  must  be  directed  to 
the  more  perfectly  developing,  in  accordance  with  the  word  of 
Scripture,  of  doctrine  already  formulated,  and  to  the  more 
thorough  establishing  of  this  by  means  of  Scripture.  And 
thus  dogmatic  theology  is  essentially  the  middle  point  of 
theological  study,  and  for  this  Gerhard  assigns  a  course  of 
unremitting  study  during  five  years.  Dogmatic  theology  is 
followed  by  polemics,  which,  on  the  basis  of  dogmatical 
efticiency  already  acquired,  is  to  qualify  for  controversy 
with  those  who  oppose  the  doctrines  of  the  Church.  This 
again  is  followed  by  Church  history,  which  may  now  first 
be  prosecuted  without  danger,  and  with  the  proper  insight 


REFORMATION  TERIOD LUTHERAN  ORTHODOXY.      45 

into  the  true  doctiino  as  already  here  and  there  it  comes 
forward  in  history.  Practical  theology,  again,  is  substan- 
tially comprised  in  homiletics,  which  ought  to  qualify  the 
theologian  for  preaching  the  true  doctrine. 

This  Lutheran  theology,  treated  encyclopaedically  as  a 
system  of  orthodox  theology,  according  to  Gerhard  totiivi 
doctrince  christiance  sijstcma,  in  accordance  with  which  it 
must  develope  itself  under  the  conditions  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical position  of  the  present  day,  has  in  no  small  measure 
promoted  the  systematic  construction  of  theology.  Inas- 
much as  it  proceeds  from  a  definite  notion  of  theology 
which  embraces  all  the  essential  elements  of  the  system, 
the  principle  is  dogmatically  established  wliich  forms  the 
only  foundation  thereof:  the  principal  divisions  will  then  be 
clearly  distinguished  from  one  another,  and  these  parts  them- 
selves, with  reference  to  the  doctrine,  which  theology  should 
acknowledge  and  preach,  will  be  brought  into  inner  relation 
with  each  other.  Nevertheless  this  acknowledgment  can  yet 
have  reference  only  to  the  formal  distribution  of  the  parts  of 
theology.  According  to  its  scientific  character,  this  orthodox 
theology  stands  altogether  under  the  dominion  of  the  positive. 
It  assumes  a  simply  receptive  attitude  toward  the  doctrine 
conveyed  to  it  in  the  Confessions  of  the  Church,  and  toward 
the  word  of  Scripture,  by  means  of  which  its  dogmas  are 
accredited  ;  and  if  now,  indeed,  it  treats  the  material  so  received 
with  that  extraordinary  learning  which  we  meet  with  in  the 
great  dogmatic  works  of  Gerhard  and  Calov,  it  nevertheless 
does  not  reach  to  a  scientific  knowledge  of  that  material,  but 
only,  as  it  freely  confesses  regarding  itself,  to  a  co(jnitio  de 
vera  rdujionc,  that  is,  in  fact,  only  to  a  taking  cognizance  of 
the  true  religion.  By  its  striving  after  this  cognitio,  and  by  its 
identifying  of  the  vera  religio  with  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  which 
it  has  laid  down  as  the  one  and  only  condition  of  salvation, 
during  the  seventeenth  century  it  fell  into  that  dogmatism, 
which  resembles  the  pre-lieformation  scholasticism,  inasmuch 


46  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOFJSDIA. 

as  it  too  lays  all  stress  on  dogmatic  theory,  only  with  the 
difference,  that  while  the  latter  wrought  upon  a  philosophical 
basis,  the  former  wrought  on  the  divine  basis  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, and  hence  all  the  more  recklessly  presses  its  dogmatic 
theory  into  the  practical  Church  life.  If  the  presuppositions 
on  wliich  the  whole  system  rests,  that  the  Holy  Scripture  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  the  absolute  divine  revelation, 
and  that  the  Lutheran  Church  doctrine  is  confirmed  and 
proved  true  by  this  same  Scripture,  were  in  reality  objectively 
established,  then  this  orthodox  theology  would  in  fact,  as  in 
its  own  estimation  it  does,  surpass  in  certainty  all  other 
sciences,  and  would  rightly  make  these  subordinate.  It  is, 
however,  just  these  presuppositions  which  challenge  criticism, 
and  the  farther  they  extend  themselves,  so  much  the  more 
deeply  must  the  orthodox  system  be  shaken,  and  the  longing 
after  theological  progress  be  stimulated. 

Already  in  the  seventeenth  century  itself  Calixtus^  broke 
in  upon  the  neatly  closed  joints  of  the  orthodox  system  and 
disordered  it.  According  to  the  definitions  of  theology  which 
he  lays  down  in  the  Apparatus  theologicus  and  in  the  Epitome 
theologiw,  Calixtus  evinced  complete  sympathy  with  the  ortho- 
dox theologians  in  their  general  conception  of  theology,  with 
their  practical  tendency,  and  with  their  inclination  to  place 
doctrine  in  the  foreground.  He  also  firmly  adheres  to  the 
orthodox  theology  in  regard  to  the  principle  of  Scripture, 
and  vindicates  this  with  great  ingenuity  in  the  treatise 
annexed  to  the  Epitome  against  the  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine  which  makes  the  Pope,  principium  fidei,  where 
he  exposes  the  vicious  reasoning  in  a  circle,  when  it  is 
argued  that  the  infallibility  of  the  Scripture  is  established 
by  the  Pope,  and  then,  that  the  Pope's  own  infallibility  is 

^  Georgii  Calixti  apparatus  theologici  et  fragmenti  historic  ecclesiaj  occiden- 
talis  editio  altera,  e.b.  autoris  MS.  aucta  a  Fridr.  L'lr.  Calixto.  Helmst.  166L 
(Ed.  1,  1628.)  G.  Calixti  Epitome  theologire.  Adjecta  est  ejusdem  disputatio 
peculiaris  de  principio  tlieologico  contra  Pontificios.     Brunsv.  1647. 


EEFOKMATION  TEKIOD CALIXTUS.  47 

established  by   means    of  that    Scripture.      Calixtus  also,  in 
common  with  the  orthodox  theologians,  1ms  the  same  pariitio 
thcologia  into  dogmatics,   exegesis,  Clnircli   history,  polemics, 
and    practical    theology,   distinguishing,  however,   a  theologict 
scholastica,  or  rather  acadcmica,  whicli  essentially  consists  in  a 
complete  dogmatic,  and  a  thcologia  ecchsiastica,  or  didadica,  or 
23ositiva,  which   should   embrace  what  it  is  necessary  that  the 
clergy    as   such    should     know.       But,    notwithstanding    all 
this    agreement,  Calixtus   steps  beyond   the    bounds    of    the 
orthodox    system,  when   he   demands  for  dogmatic  proof,  not 
only  Scripture,  but  also  the  perjjctuus  et  unanimis  aijostolicoi 
ct   catholiccc   ccdesice   consensus,   and   so,  to  a   certain   extent, 
m     addition     to     the     principle     of     Scripture,     introduces 
tradition   as    a   secondary  principle.       He   further  even  dis- 
tinguishes between  the  different  value  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments    for  dogmatic   proof,   and    besides,   is   willing    to 
demonstrate  the  evidence  for  the  doctrine  by  means  of  the 
lumen  naturale,  by  means  of  the  ratio.     How  dangerous  these 
doctrines    seemed     to    the    orthodox     theologians    is    shown 
by    the     great     excitement    which    the    Calixtine     theology 
occasioned    among  them,  by  the  charge   of    syncretism    and 
crypto- Catholicism  which  they  raised  against  Calixtus  and  his 
followers,  and  by  the  vehemence  and  bitterness  with  which 
they  persecuted  them. 

More  lasting,  and  richer  in  its  consequences,  was  the 
opposition  whicli,  like  that  of  the  fifteenth  century  against 
scholasticism,  now  in  a  similar  way  arose  against  the  dog- 
matism of  the  orthodox  theology.  Pietism,  originated  by 
Spener,  raised  the  question  as  to  the  worth  of  that  very 
object  unto  which  all  their  toil  had  been  directed.  Quite 
in  the  spirit  of  the  Reformation,  he  protested  in  the  name  of 
Christian  piety  against  the  orthodox  Scripture  dogmatism,  and 
assailed  it  with  its  own  weapons.  If  the  orthodox  theology 
establishes  itself  with  its  whole  doctrinal  system  upon  Holy 
Scripture,  and  directs  its  habitus  irraeticus  principally  to  the 


48  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.EDLV. 

conserving  of,  and  gaining  currency  for,  the  orthodox  doctrine 
derived  from  Holy  Scripture  in  the  interest  of  eternal  salva- 
tion theoretically  and  practically,  then  over  against  this  there 
was  full  justification  for  the  demand  to  fall  back  upon  the 
word  of  Scripture  itself,  and  to  seek  salvation  in  it,  but  not 
in   a   dogmatic  wisdom   of  the  schools.       Pietism,  therefore, 
leaves  the   principle  of   dogmatism,  the  Holy  Scripture,  un- 
touched, but  raises  against  dogmatism  itself  the  charge  that 
it  has  set  aside  Scripture,  and  with  its  scholastic  learning  has 
entered  on  a  course  fraught  with  peril   to  the   Christian  life 
of  holiness.     Spener   had  himself  already  given  utterance  to 
these  fundamental  thoughts  in  his  Plis  desideriis  in  the  year 
1675,  and  yet  more  definitely  in  his  preface  De  Imimlimmtis 
stiiclii  thcologici  to  the  tables  prepared  by  him  from  Dannhauefs 
Hodosophy  in  the  year  1690.     His  followers,  too,  have  mani- 
fested a  great  zeal  in  endeavouring  to  give  a  new  construction 
to  theological  study.      Besides  J.  J.  Breithaupt,^  and  Joachim 
Lange,^  especially  A.  H.  Francke  has,  in  numerous  writings, 
expounded  theology  in  the  sense  of  pietism.     Not  scholarship, 
eruditio,  but   piety,  ^JiV^Sfts,  is  the   principal   thing.     For  the 
promotion  of  piety,  before  everything  else  must  be  prosecuted 
that  study  of  Scripture,  which  by  the  orthodox  theology  was 
placed    altogether    at    the   service    of   doctrine,   so    that    the 
interests    of   piety    were    more    and    more    neglected.       The 
right  method  of  study  is  that  procedure  by  means  of  which 
the  end  of  theology  is  attained.^     Now  the  end  is  Christ ;  as 
He  is  the  end  of  Scripture,  and  so  also  the  end  of  theology. 
Him  must  the  theologian  appropriate,  in  order  to  break  the 
tyranny  of  Satan  in  himself  as  well  as  in  others,  if  he  is  to 
advance  the  glory  of  God  and  attain  unto  eternal  life.*     The 

1  Exercitationes  de  studio  theologico.     Hal.  1702. 

■^  De  Genuina  studii  theologici  pvfficipue  thetici  indole  ac  methodo.  Hal.  1712; 

and  Institutiones  studii  theologioi  literariffi.     Hal.  1723. 

■■*  Definitio  method!  studii  theologioi  proposita  ab  Aug.  Herm.   Fiauckio. 
Halffi  1708. 

■•  Institutio  brevis  dc  fine  studii  theologiei.    Halre  1708. 


EEFOKMATION  PEKIOD ALSTED.  49 

study  of  Scripture  is  followed  in  order  by  dogmatics,  polemics, 
and  liomiletics,  while  Church  history  remains  unheeded.^ 

This  pietistic  theology  enters  wholly  into  the  service  of 
practical  Christianity,  and  classes,  as  requirements  of  the 
theologian,  qualifications  that  should  rather  be  expected 
generally  of  the  Christian,  and  therefore,  of  course,  of  the 
theologian  too,  but  not  of  him  as  such.  In  its  practical 
tendency,  it  has  its  historical  justification  as  contrasted  with 
the  orthodox  theology :  but  as,  in  the  case  of  the  orthodox 
theology,  the  theological  scientific  interest  was  absorbed  in 
the  dogmatic,  so  in  the  case  of  pietism  it  was  absorbed  in  the 
interest  of  edification.^ 

In  the  Eeformed  Church,  theological  development  had  a 
similar  course  to  that  which  it  had  in  the  Lutheran  Church. 
The  works  on  Encyclopasdia  by  John  Henry  Alsted  afford 
evidence  that  already  a  scholastic  spirit  had  penetrated 
even  into  the  Eeformed  Clmrch.  Although  Alsted  indeed 
emphasizes  the  ethical  purpose  of  theological  study,  and, 
after  the  example  of  Hyperius,  maintains  the  connection  of 
theology  with  the  Church,  yet  his  discussions  on  theology 
and  on  Holy  Scripture  bear  likewise  the  mark  of  that 
dogmatic  scholasticism  which  at  the  same  time  gained  the 
ascendency  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  Study  of  Scripture, 
dogmatics,  polemics,  ethics,  and  practical  theology,  are,  accord- 
ing to  Alsted,  the  chief  subjects  in  theological  study,  while 
Church  history  is  absolutely  ignored.  But  just  here  a  reac- 
tion set  in,  which,  in  opposition  to  a  one-sided  dogmatism, 
fell  back  upon  Holy  Scripture,  and  would  make  known 
its  contents  instead  of  a  complex  of  dogmas  as  the  ground 
of  salvation.      Stephen    Gaussen,^  a  theologian  of  the  semi- 

•  Sumnia  proslectionuni  aliquot  de  studiis  recte  et  ordinate  tractandis. 

^  I^Iethodus  sacrosanctaj  theologian,  Hanoviai  1623 ;  and  Encyclopaedia 
omnium  scientiarum,  Herborn  1830.     4  voll.  F. 

^  Staph.  Gausseni,  S.S.  theol.  in  Acad.  Salmur.  Prof.,  Disscrtationes — 1.  de 
studii  theol.  ratione ;  2.  de  natura  theologiiij  ;  3.  de  ratione  concionandi. 
Ed.  7.     Traj.  ad  Rh.  et  Hardowici  1790.     (Ed.  1,  1670.) 

VOL.  I.  D 


50  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

nary  of  Saumiir,  and   J.    L.    Frei^  and    Samuel  Werenfels," 
the  Basel   theologians,  were  representatives  of  this  tendency 
at  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  and  beginning  of  the  eighteenth 
century.     While  the  last-named  theologian  claims  the  right 
of  investigation  of  Scripture  for  the  laity  against  every  kind 
of  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  denounces   all  compulsion  in 
matters   of  faith  as  impiety,  he  claims  the  right  of  reading 
Holy  Scripture,  not  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  the  interests 
of  dogmatics,  but  for  the  purpose  of  learning  from  it  the  true 
religion,  for  preserving  this  in  its  simplicity,  and  keeping  it 
free  a  scoriis  hmnanarum  traditionum  omnisque  philosojjJiice  et 
sophistics.     But  the  truth  of  this  religion,  which  the  Deistce 
and     Eationales    view    as    a    product    of   human    reason,    is 
o-uaranteed    by  means    of    an  immediata   and  extraordinaria 
rcvelatio  divina,  which  Werenfels,  in  some  separate  treatises, 
seeks   to   prove.       That    the  word   of   God    is   contained  in 
Holy  Scripture  is  what   all  Christians  believe.     This,  how- 
ever, is  not  to  be   established  by  means  of  the  infallibility 
of  the  Eomish,  that   is,  the  clerical-hierarchical   Church,  but 
by  means  of  the   testimony  of  the   whole  Christian  Church 
collectively.       Still  even  this  is  only  an  argumentum  summcc 
prohahilitotis,  and  has  to  be  itself  established  on  the  witness 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  means  of  whicli  the  hearts  of  believers 

1  J.  L.  Frei,  Meletemata  de  officio  doctoris  ehristuini.     Basil  1711-15. 

2  Sam.  Werenfelsii  opuscula  theologica,  philosophica  et  philologica.  F.d.  nova, 
t.  1-3.  BasiL  1782.  8vo.  (Ed.  1,  Basil.  1728.  2  voll.  4to. )  [Werenfels  is 
widely  known  as  the  author  of  the  sarcastic  lines  in  which  the  mauucr  of 
using  the  Bible  prevalent  in  his  times  is  characterized  : 

Hie  liber  est,  in  quo  sua  qurerit  dogmata  quisque, 
Invenit  et  pariter  dogmata  quisque  sua. 
It  was  in  the  interest  of  Scripture  study  that  he  protested  against  dogmatic 
prepossessions  on  the  part  of  the  exegete,  whether  these  were  entertained  by 
sceptical  or  believing  students  of  the  Word.  "The  so-called  'believing 
exegesis'  is  not  always  the  most  faithful  and  unprejudiced  exegesis." 
(Doedes.)  Those  who  most  strongly  express  their  reverence  for  Scripture 
arc  often  conspicuous  for  their  attachment  to  a  special  type  of  doctrine,  and 
are  strongly  tempted  to  seek  and  find  that  to  which  they  arj  attached  set 
forth  in  the  Scriptures  which  they  revere.  Extreme  men,  in  the  broad  and 
in  the  orthodox  schools,  are  alike  exposed  to  this  danger.— Ed.] 


REFOEMATION  PERIOD WERENFELS.  51 

are   made    certain    of  the  truth  contained  in   Scripture.     Ne, 
igitur, — says  Werenfels,  in  his  dissertation,  De  triplici  teste  de 
verho   Dei  testante, — qumranius  ecclesiam,  ut  in  ea  rejMriamus 
veritafem ;    prcc2-)osteni7n    hoc    est:     nomen    ingcns,    splendor 
cxternus  oculos  fascinare  potest.     Sed  quceramus  veritatem,  ut 
inveniamus  cui  associew.ur  ecclesiam. — In  Polemics  the  question 
is  as  to  the  sincerus  consensus  circa  fundamentalia  fidei  christianon 
dogmata,  and  as  to  toleration  in  regard  to  opinions  which  do 
not  affect  the  very  essence  of  Christianity.     Werenfels  treats 
of    the    significance    of   the    theology    for    the     Church,    in 
his    dissertation,    De   scopo  doctor  is    in    acadc7nia  sivc  literas 
doccntis.      Commune  ecclcsim  honum  est  thcologus.     The  salus 
wtcrna  of  the  members  of  the  Church  is  dependent  upon  the 
pastoral  office.       The    chief  end,  therefore,  is   honum   ovium 
Christi  jMstorejn  instituere,  that  is,  to  make  sure  that  young 
theologians  are  qualified  for  the  office  of  pastor.      The  task  of 
theology  is  thus  reduced  to  a  practical  training  for  the  pastoral 
office.     Guided   by  his  practical  purposes,  and   in   proportion 
to  his  dogmatically  unfettered  fundamental  view,  Werenfels 
gives  the  most  excellent  exhortations  in  favour  of  the  union 
of  the   Lutheran  and  Eeformed    Churches  in  his  cogitationes 
generales   de  ratione   uniendi   ecclesias  protestantes,   qum  mdgo 
lutheranarum  et  rcformatorum  nominihus  distingui  solcnt,  and 
in  his  dissertation  De  ratione  uniendi  ecclesias  protestantes.    Both 
Lutherans   and   Eeformed   are   reciprocally   to   recognise    one 
another  and  ecclesiastically  to   unite,  because  they  liold  the 
same  vera,  viva  et  salvifica  fides,  which  constitutes  the  essence 
of  true  Christianity.     Whether  the  oralis  manducatio,  and  the 
sterna  Dei  ijrccdcstinatio  are  included  therein,  does  not  come 
into    consideration.       With    reference    to    its    predominantly 
practical  ecclesiastical  tendency,  with  reference  to  its  deprecia- 
tion of  dogma  and  its  bringing  into  prominence  of  Christian 
piety,  with  reference,  further,  to  the  conflict  against  the  sterile 
orthodoxy,  and  against  the  injury  sustained  by  the  moral  life 
and  true  piety  as  occasioned  by  that  orthodoxy, — the  tlieulogical 


52  THEOLOGICxVL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

tendencies  represented  by  Werenfels  may  be  classed  along 
with  those  of  Pietism  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  Here,  as 
there,  we  have  the  most  decided  struggle  against  dogmatism, 
but,  at  the  same  time,  an  equally  decided  adherence  to  the 
divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture. 

The  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  at  least  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Eeformation,  could  tolerate  a  theological  tendency 
like  that  of  Erasmus,  which,  in  the  interests  of  Christian 
piety,  grounded  theological  study  upon  Holy  Scripture,  but,  in 
accordance  with  its  real  character,  very  soon  again  sought  to 
return  to  the  paths  of  scholastic  theology.  Already  Latomus,^ 
in  his  writing  directed  against  Erasmus,  makes  the  assertion 
that  Christian  piety  is  not  bound  to  the  letter  of  Scripture, 
and  that  therefore  Scripture  itself,  and  also  the  knowledge  of 
the  three  languages  demanded  by  Erasmus  for  the  study  of 
Scripture,  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin,  may  be  dispensed  with. 
Scripturcc  impiis  quidem  inutiles,  piis  vero  non  necessarice. 
The  pious  have  to  keep  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and 
its  understanding  of  Scripture.  Latomus  distinguishes 
between  a  tlieologia  corporcdis  and  S2nritualis.  The  former 
is  the  popular  theology,  which  is  intended  for  preachers 
who  have  to  teach  the  laity  about  virtue  and  vice :  the 
latter  is  the  speculative  theology,  which  has  for  its  task 
pre-eminently  the  study  of  the  schoolmen,  and  the  study 
of  Scripture  with  the  help  of  ancient  commentaries. 

Erasmus,  in  his  Apology,"  ridiculed  the  idea  of  making  a 
twofold  distinction  in  theology,  qua  Dmm  sapimus  and  qua 
docemus  Deum.  Theology  as  a  whole  must  be  bound  up  with 
piety,  and  the  Church  doctrine  must  be  received  not  only 
with  the  intellect,  but  also  with  the  heart,  and  for  this  end 
the  Scripture   must   be  studied   thoroughly,  that  is,   in   the 

1  De  triuin  linguarum  et  stndii  theologici  ratione  dialogus.  Per  Jacobum 
Latomum,  theol.  licentiatum.     1519. 

"  Erasmi  Rot.  Apologia,  rejiciens  quoruudam  suspiciones  ac  rumores,  natos  ex 
dialogo,  qui  eximio  viro  Jacobo  Latomo,  S.  tlieol.  licent.  inscribitur.  Lovauii 
1519. 


REFORMATION  PERIOD LAUKENTIUS  A  YILLAVICENTIO.       53 

original  languages.  The  Institutio  which  Latomus  demands 
for  his  theologus  spiritualis,  is  treated  by  Erasmus  in  his 
ironical  manner,  for  he  will  not  scruple  to  allow  even  to  the 
schoolmen  their  value,  if  only  they  will  not  put  themselves 
above  the  fathers  and  above  Holy  Scripture. 

On  the  other  hand,  Laurentius  a  Villavicentio  ^  not  un- 
skilfully endeavours  to  link  on  those  demands  of  Erasmus  to 
the  interests  of  the  Church.  Thoroughly  possessed  by  the 
conviction  that,  for  the  wellbeing  of  the  Church,  a  sound 
theological  culture  of  its  teachers  was  of  supreme  importance, 
he  introduces  tlie  students  of  theology  to  its  study,  after  a 
vigorous  attempt  to  prove  for  the  Church,  that  Christ  from 
the  Cathedra  Petri  points  out  by  means  of  His  vicar,  not  only 
quod  sit  veruin  ct  legitimum  Dei  verhnn,  but  also  qucc  sit  sana 
certaquc  ejus  intelligent ia.  Among  the  preliminary  studies 
regarded  by  him  as  necessary  along  with  philosophy,  mathe- 
matics, and  history,  he  would  also  include  a  knowledge  of 
languages,  especially  of  Hebrew  and  Greek.  A  beginning 
has  to  be  made  with  the  study  of  Scripture,  but  the  writings 
of  such  interpreters  as  have  departed  from  the  apostolic 
doctrine  of  the  Romish  Church  ought  not  to  be  used.  For 
the  right  method  of  the  explanation  of  Scripture  complete 
hermeneutical  rules  are  given.  But  the  chief  thing  for  the 
student  is  the  dogmatic  study,  by  means  of  which  he  must 
appropriate  to  himself  the  knowledge  of  all  dogmata  ecclcsiw, 
verho  Dei  ant  divina  traditione  vel  conciliorum  autoritate  aperte 
confirmata.  For  the  attainment  of  this  end  Laurentius,  after 
giving  a  special  warning  against  ]\Iartin  Luther,  the  hestia  infer- 
nalis,  the  hwreticcc  pravitatis  auctor,  recommends  the  most  im- 
portant representatives  of  the  scholastic  theology,  and  adds  to 
Augustine,  John  of  Damascus,  and  Peter  the  Lombard,  and  his 
own  compendium  of  Scholastic  Dogmatics.  In  the  fourth  book, 
Laurentius  treats  of  practical  theology  as  directed  to  the  life 

•  De  recte  formando  theologize  studio  lihri  qnatuor,  restituti  per  Laureutiuin 
a  Villavicentio,  Xerezanum.    Antverpia;  1565. 


54  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

of  the  Church,  under  which  he  includes  Church  history  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  service ;  and  he  concludes  with  a 
treatise  on  the  purpose  of  theological  study  which  is  two- 
fold, for  the  theologian  himself, — advancement  in  piety,  for 
others, — edification. 

Here  already,  in  opposition  to  the  Eeformed  doctrines, 
the  authority  of  the  Pope  in  matters  of  doctrine,  and  the 
scholastic  theology,  as  the  bulwark  of  this  dogma,  are  placed 
in  the  foreground.  When,  however,  Jesuitism  had  afterwards 
frown  up  to  maturity  as  the  defensor  ecclcsice  contra  omncm 
hccreticam  'pravitatem,  and  for  the  realization  of  its  plans  had 
gained  possession  of  the  common  schools  and  of  the  higher  edu- 
cational seminaries,  it  was  its  influence  especially  that  carried 
matters  further  in  this  direction,  and,  with  the  help  of  scholas- 
ticism, rendered  even  theology  wdiolly  subservient  to  its 
purposes.  The  works  of  the  Jesuit  Possevinus  are  a  proof  of 
this.^  In  his  Bibliotheca  seleda  he  has  sketched  a  comprehen- 
sive plan  of  studies,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  set  the  true 
cultura  ingeniorum  over  against  the  heresy  that  had  begun  to 
prevail.  Theological  study  is  placed  at  the  head.  This  has  to 
begin  with  the  study  of  Scripture,  but  that,  again,  has  to  rear 
itself  chiefly  on  the  scholastic  theology  and  casuistry.  This  is 
followed  by  practical  theology,  and  by  polemics  which  is  directed 
asainst  schismatics  and  heretics.  In  immediate  succession  come 
philosophy,  jurisprudence,  medicine,  mathematical  studies, 
among  which  music,  architecture,  and  geography  are  to  be 
included,  history,  the    art  of   poetry,   painting,    and    finally, 

1  Antonii  Possevini  Mantuani  Societ.  Jesu,  bibliotheca  selecta  de  ratione 
studiorum.  Romae  1593,  F.  Also,  Apparatus  sacer,  in  duos  tomos  distributus. 
Colon.  1608,  F.  [Professor  Schmidt  of  Strasburg,  writing  in  Herzog's  Encyclo- 
pcedie,  vol.  xii.  p.  143,  characterizes  both  of  the  works  here  referred  to  :  "The 
Bibliotheca  is  overloaded  with  much  that  is  useless  and  irrelevant,  and  is  gene- 
rally of  little  importance.  Very  much  superior  is  the  Apparatus  sacer  ad  scrip- 
tores  veteris  et  novi  Testamenti,  eorum  interpretes,  synodos  et  patres,  etc., — a 
book  even  yet  most  useful,  in  spite  of  its  defects  and  errors,  published  at  Venice, 
in  three  folio  volumes,  1603-1606, — a  connected  presentation  of  the  sources  ot 
all  the  dilTerent  departments  of  theology,  made  with  great  industry,  but  without 
the  exercise  of  the  necessary  criticism." — Ed.] 


EEFORMATION  PEKIOD MABILLON.  55 

eloquGiicej  with  which  sacred  eloquence  is  joined,  as  the  rcdio 
concionandi, — these  all  are  destined  to  bear  the  train  of  theology. 
The  A^yparatiis  sacer,  which  is  set  forth  with  an  equipment  of 
great  learning,  embraces  an  alphabetical  list  of  all  sacred 
ecclesiastical  writers,  from  whose  works  illibcdum  fidei  ac 
dodrincc  catliolicce  depositum  is  to  be  derived. 

Here  there  is  not  in  any  case  the  very  slightest  contribution 
made  to  systematics,  either  in  reference  to  the  general  sciences, 
or  in  reference  to  theological  science.  Nevertheless,  by  means 
of  the  intellectual  activity  of  the  Jesuits,  that  again  became  do- 
minant in  the  theology  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  whicli 
at  the  same  time  appeared  in  Protestant  theology  as  the  result 
of  its  historical  development.  The  same  scholastic  dogmatism 
now  gained  prominence  in  Protestantism,  as  had  before,  on  very 
different  grounds,  been  favoured  by  Catholicism.  The  doctrines 
ecclesiastically  sanctioned  by  the  Tridentine  and  Eeformation 
symbols  appear  now  as  theological  systems  opposed  to  each  other. 
This  fact  explains  the  inexhaustible  abundance  of  theological 
controversies,  by  which  those  theologies  are  distinguished,  as 
well  as  the  importance  which  must  always  belong  to  polemics, 
as  occupied  with  the  preservation  of  the  treasured  possessions 
of  the  Church.  The  thcologica  jpolcmica,  which,  on  the  Catholic 
side,  was  cultivated  especially  by  the  Jesuits,  now  forms  a  prin- 
cipal constituent  part  of  theological  study.  In  it  expression  is 
given,  with  all  possible  emphasis,  to  the  contrast  between  the 
Catholic  and  the  Protestant  principles.  Jesuitism  finds  the  gua- 
rantee of  the  truth  of  the  Church  doctrine  in  the  infallibility  of 
the  Pope  ;  Protestant  confessionalism  finds  this  in  the  infalli- 
bility of  Holy  Scripture.  Meanwhile,  however,  a  theological 
tendency  made  itself  felt,  and  that  first  of  all  in  the  French 
Church,  which  affirmed  its  independence  of  that  Jesuitical  spirit 
which  was  now  dominant  in  theology.  IMabillon,  with  his  Trait6 
des  diudcs  monastiqucs^  is  in  this  connection  worthy  of  notice. 

1  Traite  ties  etudes  monastii[ues,  diviso  en  trois  parties,  par  Jean  Mabillon, 
reliffeuse  Benedictiu  de  la  couOTef'ation  de  St.  Maur.     Bruxelles  1692. 


56  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOIVEDIA. 

He  writes  for  his  young  brethren  at  St.  Maur  a  guide  for  their 
studies.     According  to  the   prescribed  rule  of  Benedict,  the 
monks  have  to  prosecute  theological  studies,  and  that  for  their 
own   edification.       Scripture    study   forms   the   ground    upon 
which  the  study  of  the  Church  fathers,  which  is  of  the  greatest 
importance  for  the  understanding  of  Scripture  and  for  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Church  doctrine,  and  the  study  of  the  councils, 
and  of  canon  and  civil  law,  have  to  be  arranged.     To  this,  the 
study  of  positive  and  scholastic  theology  succeeds.      Positive 
theology  is  essentially  dogmatics,  which  leans  upon  Scripture 
and  tradition ;  while  scholastic  theology  seeks  to  reach  the 
knowledge  of  the  Church  doctrine  by  the  help  of  the  reason. 
With  these  studies,  then,  the  monks  might  occupy  themselves, 
if  the   questions   chimdriques   et   inutiles,  with  which,  in   the 
course  of  the  centuries,  they  might  get  mixed  up,  should  be 
banished  from  them.     In  conclusion,  the  study  of  profane  and 
ecclesiastical  history  is  recommended  to  the  monks,  as  well  as, 
under  certain  restrictions,  that  of  philosophy  and  the  Belles 
Lettres. 

Of  yet  greater  importance  is  Ellies  du  Pin.-'  AVithout  the 
sacrifice  in  any  measure  of  Catholic  principles,  Du  Pin,  inspired 
by  a  true  Christian  spirit,  is  the  most  decided  opponent  of  the 
Eomish  curial  system,  wdiich  had  found  a  champion  in  the 
Jesuits,  and  of  its  scholastic  formalism.  In  his  Mdhodus 
studii  theologici  he  bases  Christian  theology  on  divine  revela- 
tion alone,  as  it  is  contained  in  Holy  Scripture,  in  tradition, 
and  in  the   Church  doctrine  formulated,  in   accordance  with 


1  Ludovici  Ellies  du  Pin,  methodus  studii  theologici  recte  instituendi.  Ex 
gallico  in  lat.  sermonem  vertit  J.  M.  Christell.  Aug.  Vind.  1722.  The  work 
appeared  first  anonymously  under  the  title  :  ilethode  pour  Etudier  la  th^ologie. 
Paris  1716.  The  importance  of  the  work  itself,  and  the  attitude  -which  Du 
Pin  assumed  toward  Protestantism,  caused  the  Protestant  theologians 
Christell  and  Frickius,  the  former  to  translate  the  writing  into  Latin,  the 
latter  to  prefix  to  this  translation  a  Prefatio  de  vita,  scriptis  et  fatis  Du  Pinii. 
[Scheurl,  in  Herzog's  Encydopcvdie,  says  of  Du  Pin,  that  he  wrote  with 
extraordinary  facility,  showing  much  cleverness  and  taste,  but  by  no  means 
great  profundity.] 


REFORMATION  PERIOD DU  PIN.  57 

tradition,  by  the  Councils.  Divine  revelation,  as  thus  given 
expression  to,  is  the  sanctum  depositum  of  the  Church,  and 
constitutes  the  essential  object  of  Christian  theology,  as  well 
of  the  positive  as  of  the  scholastic.  In  the  view  of  Du  Pin 
the  scholastic  theology  is  especially  the  systematic  exposition 
of  Christian  truths,  and  reaches  back  to  the  earliest  age  of  the 
Church;  while  the  positive  theology  treats  the  separate  doc- 
trinal propositions  as  need  and  occasion  require.  Medieval 
scholasticism  made  a  wrong  use  of  philosophy,  introduced 
many  things  into  theology  which  did  not  belong  to  it,  and 
lost  itself  in  empty  and  fruitless  discussions.  The  theologian 
has  to  make  only  a  formal  use  of  philosophy.  In  presence 
of  the  mysteries  which  are  contained  in  Holy  Scripture  and 
in  traditional  doctrine,  the  reason  (ratio)  of  the  theologian 
must  be  silent.  In  accordance  with  these  fundamental  prin- 
ciples the  study  of  theology  takes  shape.  Its  foundation  is 
the  study  of  Scripture,  and,  as  indispensable  to  this,  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin  tongues.  But  Scrip- 
ture has  a  double  sense,  scjis7is  litcralis,  and  sensus  mysticus. 
The  former,  which  was  originally  intended  by  the  author,  is 
alone  to  be  employed  in  dogmatic  proof.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  sensus  allcgoricus,  trojjologicus,  and  anagogiais,  into  which 
the  scnsiis  mysticus  is  partitioned,  are  merely  sensus  arUtrarii, 
which  are  only  suitable  for  edification.  In  exposition  of  Scrip- 
ture, however,  the  theologian  must  be  led  by  the  sensus  ecclesice 
atque  unanimis  ijcdrnm  intcriorctatio.  The  study  of  Scripture  is 
followed  by  the  study  of  tradition,  under  which  the  entire 
history  of  the  Church  is  embraced,  and  alongside  of  this  the 
history  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  is  placed.  Dogmatics, 
moral  and  practical  theology,  form  the  conclusion ;  the  latter, 
however,  with  reference  only  to  preachers  and  such  as  have 
the  cure  of  souls. 

The  spirit  of  Erasmus  has  unquestionably  had  an  inliuence 
on  the  treatment  of  theology.  We  cannot  certainly  refuse  to 
Du  Pin  a  hasty  acknowledgment  of  the  way  in  which,  with 


58  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

that  unmistakeable  decideclness  which  is  characteristic  of  Pro- 
testantism, he  makes  Holy  Scripture  the  foundation  of  theology ; 
we  recognise  also  his  anti-Jesuitical  tendencies,  and  the  pains 
which  he  took  to  free  theology  from  all  scholastic  accessories. 
Nevertheless,  even  with  Du  Pin,  regard  for  the  Church 
doctrine  exerts  a  determined  influence  upon  his  whole 
theology,  and  prejudicially  affects  its  systematic  and  scientific 
construction. 


PERIOD  OF  PIETISM PfAFF  AND  BUDD^EUS. 


§  5.  HISTORY  OF  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA— 

Continued. 

(d)  From  the  Period  of  Pietism  to  thai  of  Schleiermacher. 

rietism,  with  its  preponderating  practical  tendency  and  its 
individualistic  character,  though  indeed  it  has  attained  no 
scientific  independence,  has  nevertheless  exercised  a  whole- 
some influence  on  the  wider  development  of  the  prevailing 
theology.  Inasmuch  as  it  did  not  on  principle  diverge  from  the 
orthodox  theology,  and  did  not  contest  the  doctrine  maintained 
by  this  theology  as  such,  but  only  the  over-estimation  of  that 
doctrine,  orthodox  theology  was  stimulated  in  the  direction  of 
Christian  piety,  under  the  influence  of  which  pietism  had  been 
moving,  and  thereby  the  force  of  the  pietistic  opposition  was 
weakened.  The  writings  of  Pfaff,^  Buddseus,^  and  J.  G.  Walch,^ 
relating  to  this  subject,  which  appeared  in  the  first  half  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  are  evidence  of  this.  All  three,  quite  in 
the  sense  of  the  orthodox  theology,  firmly  maintain  the  Church 
doctrine,  as  it  is  laid  down  in  the  confessions,  and  the  principles 
of  Scripture,  by  means  of  which  theology  holds  a  position  of 
scientific  certainty  such  as  is  held  by  no  other  science ;  but 
not  only  do  they  very  urgently  recommend  the  writings  of 
pietist  theologians,  such  as  Joachim  Lange,  and  August  Herm. 
Francke,  for  theological  study,  they  also  themselves  point  out 
in  the  most  forcible  way  that  the  Christianismus  piricticus  must 
always  be  kept  in  view  by  the  student ;  that,  for  the  theo- 
logian and  Church  teacher,  not  only  are  the  cognitio  and  cruditio 

^  Clir.  M.  Pfatiii  introdiictio  iu  historiam  thcologin;  literaiiam,  pp.  1-3.  Tu- 
bings 1724-26. 

-  Jo.  Fr.  Buddiiji  Isagoge  liistorico-theologica  ad  theologiam  universam  singu- 
lasque  ejus  partes,  t.  1,  2.     Lipsioe  1727.     4to. 

3  Johann  Georg  Walch's  Eiiileitung  in  die  theologisclien  Wissenschaftcn  (lu- 
troduction  to  the  Theological  Sciences),  2ud  edition.     Jena  1753. 


60  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

of  consequence,  but  also  the  sapientia  frudentiaque  divina  and 
vitce  intcgritas ;  that  theology  must  be  prosecuted  with  oratio, 
mcditatio,  and  tcntatio,  and  for  the  advancement  of  God's  glory 
and  the  eternal  wellbeing  of  the  Christian.  Fieri  sold,  ut 
homines  eruditi  sint  pessimi  eccUsiarum  ministri.  (Pfaff.)  The 
scholarliness  into  which,  during  its  contest  on  behalf  of  pure 
doctrine,  orthodox  theology  had  been  developed,  associates  itself 
here  with  the  Christian  practical  tendency  of  pietism,  and  is 
itself  thereby  led  over,  in  its  judgment  on  orthodoxy,  from 
dogmatic  severity  to  mildness  and  toleration.  Orthodox 
theology  passes  over  into  the  theological  system  that  is  dis- 
tinguished by  the  name  of  Supernaturalism.  The  three  theo- 
logians just  referred  to  have  contributed  little  to  the  construc- 
tion of  a  theological  system.  The  task  which  they  set  before 
them  was  rather  a  literary  one.  They  attached  themselves,  there- 
fore, to  the  theological  scheme  which  had  already  come  into  use, 
in  order  to  provide  the  separate  branches  of  study  with  that 
literary  apparatus  proper  to  them,  without  troubling  themselves 
much  about  their  inner  relations  to  one  another.  The  importance 
which  they  attach  to  Church  history,  only  shows  that  they  are 
not  unaffected  by  the  theology  of  Calixtus,  who,  by  means  of  the 
position  which  he  assigned  to  ecclesiastical  tradition  after  Scrip- 
ture, must  have  also  stimulated  the  orthodox  to  a  study  of  Church 
history.  The  tendency  referred  to  prevailed  especially  with  Pfaff 
and  Buddaeus.  The  former,  in  a  literary  historical  style,  treats 
of  the  theolofjia  exegctica,  of  the  theologia  dogmatica,  tarn  tltcorctica 
quam  morcdi,  of  the  theologia  ijolemica,  ccclcsiastica,  and  jyastoralis, 
under  which  are  to  be  included  the  jurisprudentia  ecclesiastica, 
theologia  casualis,  catechetica,  homiletica,  and  mystica.  In  exe- 
getical  theology  and  Church  history  the  material  is  distributed 
under  fifteen  rubrics,  in  order  to  enter  the  literature  in  its  proper 
place,  but  no  attempt,  indeed,  is  made  to  divide  this  material 
according  to  the  different  branches  of  study,  and  to  bring  these 
into  a  systematic  connection.  Buddreus  in  the  general  part  of 
his  work  expresses  himself  in  a  very  complete  manner  regarding 


PEKIOD  OF  PIETISM WALCII  AND  MOSHEIM.  61 

the  method  and  the  end  of  theological  study,  regarding  the 
talents  and  special  qualities  desirable  in  one  studying  theolof^y, 
regarding  helps  and  preliminary  acquirements  ;  and  then  in  the 
special  part  he  places  the  thcologia  thctica,  symhoHca,  patristica 
ct  moralis,  under  which  the  theologia  mystica,  jurisiyrudmtia 
divina  ct  2^'>'udentia  turn  humana  tuvi  pastoralis,  are  to  be 
included,  and  theTeahev  jurisprudc7itia  ecclesiasHca,  Mstoria  cede- 
siastica,  thcologia  ijolcmica,  and  cxcgctica  are  allowed  to  follow  in 
a  group.  Walch,  again,  after  he  has,  with  reference  to  natural 
and  revealed  religion,  distinguished  revealed  theology  from 
natural  theology,  and  pointed  out  as  the  subject  of  the  former 
the  divine  truths  which  are  established  as  such  by  the  witness 
of  the  Holy  Scripture,  makes  an  attempt  at  systematic  arrange- 
ment, which,  however,  cannot  be  regarded  as  successful.  In 
reference  to  its  subject,  theology,  according  to  him,  falls  into 
two  main  divisions,  theoretical  and  practical,  of  which  the 
former  embraces  thetic  or  dogmatic  theology,  the  latter  moral 
theology ;  while  the  rest  of  the  theological  branches  are  dis- 
tinguished, partly  with  reference  to  form  and  method,  partly 
with  reference  to  order  of  treatment,  and  are  placed  under  the 
two  main  divisions  as  merely  subsidiary  sciences.  Accordino- 
to  the  scheme  sketched  out  in  his  Introduciio7i,  Walch  gives 
in  detail  in  his  Bihliothcca^  in  nine  chapters,  the  literature 
belonging  to  the  several  branches. 

The  theologians  named  are  succeeded  by  Mosheim.  In  his 
Brief  Method  for  the  Rationed  Acquiring  of  Sacred  Learning^ 
he  places  theology  altogether  under  the  point  of  view  of  prac- 
tical use.  In  the  first  main  division,  he  treats  of  the  purpose 
of  theological  study  and  the  necessary  preparatory  acquire- 
ments. Theology  should  communicate  dexterity  in  doing  that 
which   is   incumbent  upon  one   who  is  to  be  a  minister   of 

1  Jo.  Georgii  Walchii  bibliotheca  theologica  selecta  literariis  adnotatiouibus 
instnicta,  t.  1-4.     Jenaj  1757-65. 

'^  Johann  Lorenz  von  Mosheim,  Kurze  Anweisunrr  die  Gottesgelalirthcit  ver- 
niiuftig  zu  erlenien.  Nach  desseu  Tode  zum  Druck  befordert  durch  Chr.  E. 
von  Windheim.     Helmstadt  175G. 


62  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

the  gospel.  Among  the  numerous  preliminary  acquirements 
philosophy  receives  a  prominent  place,  but  in  theology  itself  it 
ought  to  be  only  sparingly  employed.  In  the  second  main 
division,  dogmatics  and  morals  are  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
theological  sciences.  The  study  of  Scripture  follows,  since  the 
doctrines  are  to  be  proved  from  Scripture.  A  system  of 
polemics  is  particularly  serviceable  to  the  clergy  against  free- 
thinkers, atheists,  and  deists,  as  well  as  against  papists.  In 
the  department  of  Church  history,  the  cleric  needs  only  to  fami- 
liarize himself  with  a  few  leading  points.  More  important 
for  him  are  the  practical  sciences,  pastoral  theology.  Church 
law,  homiletics,  and  catechetics.  In  the  third  main  division,  the 
distinction  is  laid  down  between  the  theologian  and  the  pastor. 
The  theologian,  who  has  to  educate  and  train  the  pastors,  must 
have  a  comprehensive  acquaintance  with  all  the  sciences  which 
are  necessary  for  the  pastor,  and  in  this  he  must  be  far  more 
thorough  and  exact  than  the  pastor  himself  need  be. 

The  Reformed  theologian  too,  Mursinna,^  who  introduced  the 
name  "  Encyclopaedia "  for  our  branch  of  study  in  theology, 
follows  the  interest  rather  of  a  literary  historical,  than  of  a 
scientific,  method.  He  ranks  the  study  of  theology  extraor- 
dinarily high,  and  would  have  theologians  equipped  with  all 
possible  accomplishments ;  but,  in  the  first  eleven  chapters  of 
his  Enci/dopcccUa  he  puts  these  general  requirements  together 
in  quite  an  external  manner,  without  bringing  them  into  inner 
connection  with  theology.  Toward  philosophy,  after  the 
manner  of  the  reformed  theologians,  he  assumes  a  more 
generous  attitude  than  the  Lutheran  theologians  do.  PJiilo- 
sopJiia,  says  he,  non  est  ancilla,  sed  potuis  soror  theologice.  For 
the  most  part,  what  Mursinua  treats  of  in  these  first  eleven 
chapters  does  not  belong  to  a  theological  encyclopaedia.  In 
chapter  twelfth  he  distinguislies  between  true  and  false  reli- 
gion.    Holy  Scripture  is  the  book  which  contains  the  divine 

^  Primoe  linese  encyclopredife  theologicre  in  usum  prrelectionura  ductas  a  Sam. 
Mursiima,  ed.  2.     Halte  1784  (1  ed.  1764). 


PERIOD  OF  PIETISM PJSE  OF  EATIONALIS:\I.  G3 

revelation  concerning  the  true  religion.  Eevealed  religion 
must  be  in  harmony  with  natural  religion,  and  must  supplement 
it.  Exegetical  theology,  therefore,  is  made  prominent.  Then 
the  other  branches  are  enumerated  according  to  the  ordinary 
distribution ;  for,  in  a  purely  formal  manner,  the  task  of  each 
separate  branch,  and  the  literature  belonging  to  it,  are  laid 
down. 

While  pietism  does  not  come  into  opposition  with  orthodox 
theology  on  any  matter  of  principle,  yet,  on  the  other  hand, 
since  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  foundations 
upon  which  the  orthodox  system  rests,  the  identity  of  Holy 
Scripture  with  divine  revelation,  and  the  identity  of  the  Church 
doctrine  with  Holy  Scripture,  have  been  questioned.  Eational- 
ism,  which  now  as  rationalistic  theology  makes  its  advance 
into  the  Protestant  Church,  began  its  comprehensive  criticism 
of  those  orthodox  presuppositions.  Protestant  theology  had 
in  general  decidedly  refused  to  have  any  connection  with 
philosophy.  Notwithstanding  the  many  points  of  contact 
which  exist  between  philosophy  and  theology,  from  their 
having  in  part  a  common  object,  since  the  Reformation  both 
went  on  their  own  ways,  and  developed  their  systems  inde- 
pendently of  one  another,  and  without  any  reciprocal  refard. 
The  more  independently,  however,  that  philosophy  was  able  to 
make  her  movements,  after  she  had  been  freed,  by  means  of 
the  Pieformation,  from  all  external  ecclesiastical  bonds,  the 
more  regardlessly  did  she,  and  that  very  soon  too,  drag 
into  her  department  the  subjects  of  Christian  theology,  and 
assume  in  many  ways  a  hostile  attitude,  not  only  towards 
the  ecclesiastical  dogmas,  but  toward  Christianity,  yea,  even 
toward  religion  itself.  (Deists.  Naturalists.)  And  notwitlistand- 
ing  the  temporary  unanimity  that  prevailed  between  orthodox 
theology  and  the  Wolffian  philosophy,  the  opposition  was 
always  significantly  coming  into  consciousness,  which  exists 
between  the  philosophical  and  theological  provinces,  the  con- 
tradiction between  the  light  of  nature  and  tlie  liglit  of  grace. 


64  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP^DLV. 

between  reason  and  revelation,  Ijetween  knowledge  and  faith, 
between  the  wisdom  of  the  world  and  that  which  is  learnt  of 
God.  At  length  it  became  impossible  for  theology  to  avoid 
consideration  of  this  contradiction.  And  this  is  the  merit  of 
rationalism,  that  it  received  into  theology  itself  the  contradic- 
tion which  must  lead,  if  unaccommodated,  to  a  thoroughgoing 
estranf^ement,  and  by  this  means  contributed  to  a  reconciliation, 
in  that  it  sought  to  represent,  on  the  one  hand,  the  interests 
of  Christianity  over  against  philosophical  negation,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  interests  of  reason  over  against  those  of  revela- 
tion. On  the  part  of  rationalism,  it  was  before  all  else  enjoined 
that  the  orthodox  theory  of  Scripture,  and  the  dogmatic 
argumentation  founded  thereupon,  should  submit  to  criticism. 
Over  against  this,  the  orthodox  and  supernaturalistic  theory 
had  now  to  do  its  utmost,  in  order  to  affirm  the  principle 
of  its  own  supernatural  revelation,  and  to  save  as  much  as 
possible  of  the  ecclesiastically  sanctioned  doctrines.  The  be- 
crinninf^  was  thus  made  of  a  spiritual  conflict,  through  which 
theology  has  experienced  a  complete  revolution,  and  has,  at 
least,  advanced  on  the  way  to  scientific  freedom. 

The  numerous  writings  of  Semler,^  all  of  them  prosecuting 
the  same  end,  have  proved  of  far-reaching  consequence  in 
regard  to  the  system  of  traditional  theology.  While  already 
Ernesti,^  in  opposition  to  the  subjective  method  of  expounding 
Scripture,which  prevailed  in  the  orthodox  and  pietistic  theology, 
had  brought  into  prominence  the  objective  treatment,  by  means 
of  which  an  exposition  was  offered  of  the  literal  sense  originally 
intended  by  the  authors,  Semler,  in  essential  agreement  with 

1  The  following  works  at  this  place  are  deserving  of  special  consideration  :— 
Joanuis  Salomonis  Semleri  Institutio  brevior  ad  liberalem  eruditionem  theolo- 
cicam,  lib.  1  et  2,  Halie  1765-66  ;  and  the  German  reproduction  of  this  work  : 
Johann  Salomo  Semler's  Versuch  einer  freiern  theologisehen  Lehrart,  zur  Bestati- 
"ung  und  Erliiuterung  seines  lateinischen  Buchcs.  H.-ille  1777. 
"^  2  Institutio  interpretis  Novi  Testamenti.  Lips.  1761.  [This  work  has  been 
translated  into  English  by  the  late  Bishop  Terrot  of  Edinburgh,  forniing  vols. 
i.  and  iv.  of  the  Biblical  Cabinet,  published  by  T.  &  T.  Clark,— Ernesti's 
Principles  of  Biblical  Interpretation.] 


PERIOD  OF  riETISM SEMLEK.  65 

Ernesti,  made  a  beginning  of  the  historical  treatment  of  Scrip- 
ture. In  his  long  preface  to  the  Versuch  einer  frekrn 
theologischen  Lehrart  (Attempt  at  a  freer  method  of  theological 
teaching),  Semler  brought  out  the  two  principal  points  which 
constituted  the  issue  between  him  and  his  orthodox  opponents, 
his  attitude  toward  Holy  Scripture,  and  toward  the  Lutheran 
Church  doctrine.  The  Old  and  Xew  Testament,  so  he  puts 
it  in  the  third  and  fourth  books  of  the  treatise  referred  to,  is 
a  collection  of  writings  which  have  been  composed  at  differ- 
ent times  and  with  reference  to  different  requirements ;  the 
Old  Testament  writings  answering  to  the  religious  require- 
ments of  the  Jews,  the  New  Testament  writings  answering 
to  the  requirements  of  different  Christian  individuals  and 
Churches.  Hence  a  distinction  has  to  be  made  between  its 
historical  and  its  divine  contents,  between  the  canon  and  the 
word  of  God.  Not  all  the  Old  and  New  Testament  writings, 
but  only  those  writings,  and  those  constituent  parts  of  them, 
which  contain  divine  truths,  that  is  to  say,  truths  belonging 
to  religion,  are  to  be  regarded  as  canonical.  Eeligion,  more- 
over, consists  essentially  in  moral  worship  of  God,  and  in  the 
inward  blessedness  of  man  which  is  thereby  secured.  Only 
in  reference  to  these  subjects  is  inspiration  to  be  ascribed  to 
the  sacred  authors  of  Scripture,  not  according  to  a  dogmatic 
theory  brought  out  in  an  external  way,  which  gives  the  title 
"  inspired "  to  the  entire  Old  and  New  Testament  writings, 
with  their  whole  contents,  down  to  the  very  sound  of  the  words. 
The  Holy  Scriptures  do  not  contain  a  system  of  doctrine  valid 
and  binding  for  all  time,  nor  can  they,  according  to  their  con- 
stitution, serve  for  the  establishment  of  doctrinal  propositions 
maintained  by  the  Church.  A  distinction  is  to  be  made 
between  dogma  and  religion.  The  salvation  of  Christians  is 
not  dependent  on  the  unanimous  profession  of  the  Church 
dogmas ;  but  the  principal  thing  is,  that  they  receive  from 
Holy  Scripture  the  truths  necessary  for  their  moral  advance- 
ment according  to  their  individual  requirement,  and  that  they 
VOL.  I.  E 


66  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

regulate  their  lives  in  accordance  with  these  truths.  Non 
prmciimam  rem  esse,  says  Semler  in  the  preface  to  the  Institutio, 
in  decretorum  numero  et  sente7itiis  perpetuum  consensum,  scd 
vitam  Deo  et  Christo,  qnem  servatorem  omnes  fatentur,  dignam. 
It  is  necessary  that  all  Christians  should  know  and  believe 
the  universal  truths  belonging  to  religion ;  but  the  dogmas, 
which,  in  the  course  of  centuries,  have  been  set  forth  for 
Church  purposes  in  varying  forms,  belong  to  the  domain  of 
the  theologian.  It  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  reli- 
gion and  theology.  The  acknowledgment,  however,  of  the 
universal  truths  of  religion  must  be  left  quite  free,  according 
to  the  capacity  and  requirement  of  the  Christian,  and  is  not 
to  be  put  under  the  constraint  of  the  Church  doctrine.  A 
distinction  is  to  be  made  between  private  religion  or  private 
theology,  in  regard  to  which  each  Christian  has  his  own 
indisputable  right,  and  public  religion  or  the  theology  of  the 
Church.      (Compare  the  second  book  of  the  Vcrsuch.) 

Theology,  which  is  suitable,  not  for  all  members  of  the 
Church  communion,  but  only  for  a  few  individuals,  is,  accord- 
ing to  its  conception,  "  a  dexterity  proper  to  the  teachers  of 
the  Christian  religion,  in  order  that  they  may  recommend  the 
Christian  religion  to  their  contemporaries  in  the  best  style,  as 
weU  as  in  order  that  they  may  rightly  estimate  the  different 
representations  and  connections  thereof,  by  means  of  which 
the  various  sects  and  parties  in  the  Christian  religion  have 
originated."  Every  teacher  of  the  Christian  religion  has  the 
task,  liheralem  Dei  cognitionem  promovere,  and  must  there- 
fore himself  know  univcrsam  Christi  doctrinam  et  disciplinam, 
and  imitate  the  example  of  Christ  {Institutio,  §  4).  To 
eruditio  theologica  belongs  scie7itia  theologia  exegeticw,  dog- 
maticce,  polemicce,  moralis,  syiiibolicce,  patristiccc,  historian  ecde- 
siasticce,  antiquitatum  et  juris  ecclesiastici  vetustioris.  But 
inasmuch  as  in  the  Institutio,  as  well  as  in  the  Versuch, 
Semler  speaks  only  about  exegetical  and  dogmatic  study,  it  is 
evident  that  these  two  were  regarded  by  him  as  of  the  greatest 


PERIOD  OF  PIETISM SEMLER.  Q  7 

importance.     For  the  study  of  Scripture  lie  claims,  in  accord- 
ance with  his  fundamental  principle,  a  position  in  relation  to 
Holy  Scripture  quite  independent  of  the  formulated  doctrine 
of  the  Church.     (Compare  the  third  book  of  the  Versuch.)     For 
dogmatic  study  he  claims  that  a  distinction  be  made  between 
Christian  articles  of  faith  and  the  varying  articles  of  the  Church, 
to  which  (s.  204  ff.)  he  adds  some  excellent  thoughts  in  refer- 
ence to  union.     For  criticism  of  the  Church  doctrine,  not  only 
Holy  Scripture,  but  also  reason,  is  to  be  used.      Religion  and 
reason  are  not  contrary  to  one  another  (s.  206  ff.).     "  There 
may  be  difference  of  opinion  among  theologians  de  mysteriis 
dodrinalibus,  without  any  injury  being  thereby  done  to  any 
fundamental  article  of  the  faith  to  be  found  in  Holy  Scripture, 
or  to  the  circle  of  doctrine  which  is  bound  up  with  our  own 
true  wellbeing"  (s.  26).     The  right,  too,  of  private  religion 
or  private  theology  is  to  be  admitted  ;  only,  on  its  part,  it  must 
not  interfere  with  the  publicly  valid  Church  doctrine,  for  by 
means  of  this  latter  the  unity  of  the  Church  communion  is 
constituted  {Institutio,  §  28). 

With  a  stedfast  piety,  not  untouched  by  pietism,  with  clear 
decision  on  behalf  of  Christian  freedom  of  faith  and 
conscience,  with  unwearied  diligence  and  many-sided  scholar- 
ship, Semler  fought  a  long  theological  battle  against  the 
dominion  of  orthodoxy.  It  must  always  be  admitted  that  his 
conception  of  religion  and  Christianity  was  superficial,  one- 
sided, and  individualistic  in  an  undue  degree,  that  the  position 
which  he  assigned  to  religion  in  respect  of  dogma  and  in 
respect  of  theology,  rested  upon  an  abstraction  to  which  there 
was  no  corresponding  reality,  and  that  the  relation  assumed 
by  him  between  private  religion  and  the  publicly  valid 
Church  doctrine  is  not  reconcilable  with  the  practice  of  the 
evangelical  Church ;  yet,  just  as  little  can  it  be  denied,  that 
Semler,  by  means  of  his  investigation  of  Holy  Scripture  on 
historical  grounds,  and  by  means  of  that  separation  of  religion 
and  theology,  of  Christianity  and  dogmatic  Church  doctrine, 


08  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOr.EDIA. 

not  only  shook  violently  the  foundations  of  orthodox 
theology/  but  also,  in  spite  of  the  faultiness  of  his  own 
definitbn  of  theology,  contributed  the  building  stones  which 
theology,  in  its  wider  development,  had  to  adopt  and  to 
employ  in  its  new  scientific  structure. 

The  men  of  the  illumination  {avfUarung)  who  had  modelled 
their  logic  on  the  Wolffian  philosophy,  lightly  disregarded  the 
pious  awe  which  Semler  cherished  toward  the  existing 
institutions  of  the  Church,  and  which  caused  him  to  avoid  an 
open  breach  with  these.  To  them  it  seemed  that  there  was 
value  only  in  the  results  which  Semler  had  reached  by  means 
of  his  learned  investigations.  In  accordance  with  the  indica- 
tions given  by  Semler,  they  assumed  a  relation  toward  the 
Church  dogmas  and  Christianity ;  and  just  as  Christianity  has 
only  an  essentially  ethical  significance,  so  must  theology 
concern  itself  no  further  with  the  orthodox  institutions  of  the 
Church,  but  must  cast  off  all  unfruitful  learned  researches, 
and  so  adjust  itself  as  to  be  in  a  position  to  promote  the 
o-eneral  welfare  by  means  of  moral  influence,  and  to  turn  it 
to  the  greatest  possible  practical  advantage.  Bahrdt,^  in  his 
treatise  on  theological  study,  demands  a  thorough  remodelling 
of  the  course  of  theological  study.  The  importance  of  the 
clerical  order  for  the  State  lies  in  this,  that  the  clergy  are  the 

1  H  Schmid,  Die  Theologie  Seviler's,  Nordlingen  1858,  was  imable  from  his 
standpoint  to  estimate  the  significance  of  this  distinction.  [Oosterzee  gives  a 
less  favourable  view  of  Semler's  theological  position:  "A  theologian  of  con- 
scientious  mind  and  of  astounding  reading,  but  at  the  same  time  of  a  restless 
spirit  seizing  with  a  revolutionary  hand  on  almost  every  field  of  thought,  and 
with  an  eye  rather  for  ever  varying  forms,  than  a  heart  for  the  spirit  and  essence 
of  Christianity  "  (Dogmatics,  §  xiv.  9).  Dorner  has  estimated  very  fairly  both 
sides  of  Semler's  character,  recognising  his  personal  piety,  and  indicating  also 
the  strong  rationalistic  taint  in  his  theology.  (Comp.  Hist,  of  Prot.  Theology, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  287-289.)  He  thus  sums  up  and  gives  his  verdict:  "Semler 
opened  the  way  for  a  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."— Ed.] 

*  C  F.  Bahrdt,  Ueber  das  theologische  Studium  auf  Universitaten.  Berlin 
1785. 


PERIOD  OF  riETTSM THE  ILLUMINATION.  69 

teachers  of  the  people.  Tlie  clerical  order,  however,  has  de- 
stroyed its  own  respectability  and  influence  :  for  just  among  the 
clergy  does  "  the  least  illumination  in  religion  "  prevail ;  their 
sermons  are  in  contents  and  in  style  poor,  and,  for  a  cultured 
auditory,  unpalatable  :  for  the  arts  and  sciences  the  clergy  have 
no  taste,  are  wanting  in  good  manners,  and,  what  is  particularly 
injurious,  are  negligent  in  the  management  of  children.  The 
foundation  of  the  evil  lies  in  the  altogether  perverted  system 
of  education  which  theologians  receive  at  the  universities.  The 
problem  is  to  educate  the  young  theologians  at  the  university 
into  generally  useful  teachers  of  the  people.  What  does  not 
contribute  to  this  end,  does  not  belong  to  the  theological  sciences. 
The  learned  stuff,  which  they  are  taught  at  the  university,  is  not 
only  of  no  use,  but  is  actually  hurtful,  inasmuch  as  it  obstructs 
in  tlieni  the  insight  into  the  essence  of  religion.  Above  all,  the 
distinction  between  religion  and  theology  is  to  be  made  clear 
to  them,  and  according  to  this  should  their  study  be  arranged. 
The  truly  "  useful  branches  "  are  philosophy,  religion,  the  New 
Testament,  natural  history,  with  anatomy  and  physics, 
arithmetic  and  geometry,  Greek  and  Eoman  classics,  history, 
literature,  and  therapeutics.  All  these  sciences  serve  for  the 
illumination  of  the  spirit,  improve  the  gifts  which  advance  the 
interests  of  relicrion,  and  are  useful  for  their  future  calling.  But 
religion,  as  "  the  system  of  the  general  religious  sciences,  in  so 
far  as  the  blessedness  of  all  cultured  nations  rests  thereupon," 
has  the  essentially  moral  task  of  confirming  the  blessedness,  that 
is  to  say,  the  constant  condition  of  rest  and  cheerfulness  of  dis- 
position. The  Old  Testament  may  be  dispensed  with  by  the 
theologian;  only  with  the  New  Testament  has  he  to  occupy  him- 
self. Christianity  has  a  great  moral  value,  but  still  the  sayings 
of  Jesus  and  the  apostles  are  to  be  believed  and  obeyed,  only  in 
so  far  as  they  are  in  agreement  with  the  teaching  of  reason. 
After  the  young  theologian  has  been  confirmed  by  means  of 
these  studies  in  the  illumination,  then  there  may  be  given  to 
him  in   the  last  session   of  his  three  years'  course,  without 


70  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

danger,  a  general  sketch  of  technical  theology,  dogmatics, 
history  of  dogmas,  Church  history,  symbolics,  introduction  to 
the  New  Testament.  But  by  far  the  chief  thing  is  to  develop 
his  capacity  for  teaching.  He  is  not  only  to  gain  acquire- 
ments, he  must  also  learn  to  communicate  them :  hence, 
ptedagogic  exercise  in  the  Socratic  method  of  teaching, 
rhetoric,  exercise  in  the  elaboration  of  discourses  in  German, 
examinations,  declamations.  So  equipped,  the  clergy  should, 
in  the  absence  of  public  school  teachers,  act  as  preachers  and 
schoolmasters,  and  also  as  physicians  in  practical  life ;  and  the 
candidates,  instead  of  becoming  family  tutors,  should  enter  into 
practical  preparatory  training  under  the  clergy  as  their  assistants. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  Bahrdt  says  much  that  is  forcible 
against  the  old  academical  style,  which  in  his  time  was 
adhered  to  in  the  theological  course,  and  against  an  unfruitful 
kind  of  theological  learning  divorced  from  practical  life,  and 
that  he  sought  in  his  contest  against  this,  by  means  of  his 
practical  strokes,  to  elevate  the  pastorate  which  in  his  opinion 
had  been  degraded,  and  to  realize  his  conception  in  some 
profitable  way.  But  inasmuch  as  he  laid  down  practical 
usefulness  as  the  standard  measure  of  theological  study,  and 
degraded  even  this  into  a  mere  training  for  the  practical 
calling,  he  simply  shows  that  he  has  no  idea  of  theological 
science  as  such,  and  its  significance  for  life,  and  just  as  little 
of  the  Church,  and  the  service  which  the  clergyman  has  to 
give  in  it.  With  him  all  conduct  (Praxis)  pertains  to  the 
State ;  and  the  clergyman,  as  a  teacher  of  the  people,  has  no 
other  problem  to  solve  than  the  training  of  sound  citizens  for 
the  State,  in  order  that,  in  the  department  of  the  State,  the 
enjoyment  of  blessedness  and  the  comforts  of  life  may  be 
always  increasing. 

In  this  theology  of  the  illumination  there  is  no  trace  of  the 
Christian  spirit  of  the  Eeformation.  Nevertheless,  under  the 
surface  upon  which  it  moves,  that  spirit  was  still  alive,  and  called 
attention   to  its  presence  by  significant  utterances.     In  the 


rEllIOD  OF  PIETISM LESSING  AND  HERDER.  71 

general  culture  of  the  times,  religious  and  theological  questions 
were  pressed  forward,  and  men  like  Klopstock,  Hamann, 
Lavater,  Jung  Stilling,  Claudius,  conveyed  to  that  spiritual 
impoverishment,  into  which  the  opposition  to  the  theology  of 
the  Church  had  fallen,  a  wealth  of  religious  and  philosophical 
ideas,  which,  freed  by  a  Lessing  and  Herder  from  its  partially 
chaotic  form,  and  its  pietistic  and  mystical  admixtures,  and 
with  clear  consciousness,  was  now  turned  to  account  on 
behalf  of  theological  science/  These  two,  Lessing  and  Herder, 
the  former  more  as  a  philosopher,  with  critical  acuteness,  the 
latter  more  as  a  theologian,  with  poetic  sensibility  and  insight, 
have  contested  the  illumination's  standpoint  of  reason  and 
utility,  as  well  as  the  life  and  spirit  of  the  restrictive 
dogmatism  of  the  Church  theology.  Eeligion  is  regarded  by 
both  of  them  as  an  original  life  in  the  spirit  of  man ;  not  as  a 
product  of  human  reason,  but  a  divine  revelation ;  not  a 
matter  of  moralizing  reflection,  but  of  the  heart  and  feeling, 
and  as  being  intended,  besides,  to  penetrate  all  the  spiritual 
powers  of  mankind,  and  the  whole  course  of  human  culture, 
and  the  humanistic  studies,  by  means  of  which  its  indwelling 
divine  light  is  to  be  manifested.  In  many  points,  indeed,  the 
systematic  establishment  and  reconciliation  may  have  been 
missed  by  them,  yet  incontestably  they  have  the  merit  of 
having  brought  into  theological  development  germs  which 
have  given  evidence  of  their  productive  powers,  under  various 
degrees  of  heat  and  cold,  up  to  the  present.  Herder,  in  his 
letters  in  reference  to  the  study  of  theology,"  as  indeed  the 

'  Compare  Dorner,  Gescliichte  der  Protestantischen  Theolof^ie.  Miinclien 
1867.  s.  714  ff.  [In  Engli.sli  translation,  published  byT.  &  T.  Clark,  History  of 
Protestant  Theology,  1871.  "VVe  have  here  an  important  criticism  on  the 
thinkers  named  above,  and  the  summary  reference  here  made  to  the  school  may  be 
amplified  from  Dorner's  careful  study  of  each  individual.  Comp.  vol.  ii.  pp. 
293-320.]— Carl  Schwarz,  G.  E.  Lessing  als  Theologe.  Halle  1854.— A.  "Werner, 
Herder  als  Theologe.  Berlin  1871.- [Life  and  "Writings  of  Lessing,  by  James 
Sime,  2  vols.     London  1877.] 

^  J.  G.  von  Herder's  Sammtliche  "Werke.  Zur  Religion  und  Theologie.  Th. 
13,  14.     Stuttg.  und  Tiib.  1829. 


72  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDLA.. 

epistolary  form  shows,  lias  not  set  forth  a  systematically 
arranged  encyclopedia,  but  still  he  lays  down  his  fundamental 
theological  opinions  with  the  design  of  winning  over  to  these 
the  young  race  of  theologians.  "  The  best  study  of  divine 
learning  is  the  study  of  the  Bible,  and  the  best  reading  of 
this  divine  book  is  human."  He  begins  with  these  words, 
and  dedicates  the  first  two  divisions  of  his  letters  to  the  study 
of  Scripture.  All  religion  has  its  roots  in  history.  The  Old 
and  the  New  Testaments  are  the  original  sources  of  the 
Christian  religion.  The  Old  Testament,  which  had  been  set 
aside  by  Semler  and  the  theologians  of  the  illumination,  is 
brought  back  again  by  Herder  to  a  place  of  honour.  In  the 
spirit  of  the  olden  time,  it  is  conceived  with  poetic  sensi- 
bility in  accordance  with  its  religious  contents.  What  has 
principally  to  be  distinguished  in  the  Bible  is  between  the 
eternal  and  the  temporal,  between  the  divine  and  the  human ; 
and  the  end  of  Scripture  exposition,  in  regard  to  which 
Herder  now  also  lays  down  hermeneutical  rules  which  are  of 
the  highest  value  still,  must  therefore  lead  us  to  understand 
the  eternal,  divine,  religious  contents  of  Scripture.  Hence 
Herder,  in  the  third  division  of  his  letters,  joins  dogmatics 
immediately  with  Bible  study.  "Dogmatics  is  a  philosophy 
drawn  from  the  Bible,  and  this  must  always  remain  its 
source  "  (s.  48).  No  contradiction  exists  between  reason  and 
Scripture,  between  nature  and  grace,  between  nature  and 
revelation:  they  are  the  gifts  of  the  one  God,  and  the 
question  only  is,  how  to  use  them  both  well  (s.  16).  As 
with  him  theology  is  the  most  liberal  of  all  sciences  (s.  8),  so 
with  him  is  dogmatics  "  a  system  of  the  noblest  truths  for  the 
human  race,  relating  to  man's  spiritual  and  eternal  happiness," 
by  means  of  which  "  it  reaches  to  manifest  truth,  pure 
exposition  of  Scripture,  and  sound  simplicity"  (s.  106). 
These  truths  the  theologian  as  well  as  the  preacher  has  to 
proclaim,  and  in  this  connection  too  Herder  gives  excellent 
instructions  of  enduring  worth.      After  he  has,  in  the  forty- 


TEKIOD  OF  riETISM— KANT.  73 

eighth  letter,  set  forth  in  brief  outline  the  importance  of  Ciiurch 
history,  he  goes  on  in  the  forty-ninth  letter  to  treat  of  pastoral 
theology  in  verses  "  On  the  good  life  of  an  upright  servant  of 
God,  by  Johann  Val.  Andrea,"  and  then,  in  the  fiftieth  letter,  he 
treats  of  the  value  of  theology  for  the  Church.  A  supplement 
to  the  letters  consists  of  "  A  sketch  of  the  employment  of  tlic 
three  academical  years  by  our  young  theologians  ;"  and  specially 
in  reference  to  practical  theology,  which  is  treated  in  a  very 
cursory  manner  in  the  letters,  there  is  an  appendix  of  six 
letters  to  Theophron,  intended  for  those  looking  forward  to 
the  clerical  office,  and  besides  these,  twelve  provincial  papers 
for  preachers.^  The  ends  contemplated  by  the  Church  are 
superior  to  those  of  the  State ;  and  the  Church  must  resist 
every  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  State  at  intermeddling  with 
her  tasks.  The  clergy  are  not  to  place  themselves  at  the 
service  of  mere  civil  purposes,  but  in  the  prophetical  and 
apostolical  spirit  to  declare  divine  truth,  and  thereby  to  serve 
the  universal  purposes  of  humanity. 

In  Kant,  there  came  forward  an  exclusive  philosophical 
system,  as  an  important  opponent  of  the  Church  theology, 
which  at  the  same  time  contributed  to  the  firmer  establish- 
ment of  the  rationalistic  theology.  While  Kant,  by  means  of 
his  Critique  of  the  Pure  Reason,  destroyed  the  metaphysics  of 
philosophical  and  theological  dogmatism,  he  raised  the  theology 
of  the  illumination  above  the  low  sphere  of  utility,  and  in 
place  of  a  frivolous  eudfemonism,  set  up  an  ideal  moralism.  The 
moral  law  is  an  imperative  demand  of  the  practical  reason, 
and  morality  alone  is  an  independent  autonomic  life  of  the 
human  spirit.  But  for  its  realization  it  demands  belief  in 
God,  freedom  (virtue),  and  immortality.  Eeligion  is,  according 
to  Kant,  the  conviction  that  the  moral  laws  set  up  by  the 
reason  are  divine  commands.  The  result  is  an  ethical 
commonwealth,  in  which  the  moral  ideas  reach  to  universal 
dominion.  Christianity  coincides  with  moral  religion,  the 
^  "Werke,  zur  Religion  uml  Tlu'ologic.     Th.  15. 


74  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

Cliristiau  Church  with  the  idea  of  the  ethical  commonwealth. 
The  formulated  faith  of  the  Church  is  a  means  for  furthering 
the  true,  that  is,  the  moral  religion.  The  highest  interpreter 
thereof  is  pure  religious  faith.  Eevelation  is  to  be  expounded 
according  to  the  universal  practical  rules  of  the  religion  of 
pure  reason.  Reason,  with  its  natural  religion,  must  be 
acknowledged  and  esteemed  in  the  Christian  system  of  belief 
as  the  supreme  principle  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine 
of  revelation  must  be  acknowledged  and  esteemed  by  the 
reason  as  the  means  for  furthering  natural  religion.  This  is 
the  true  service  which  the  Church  has  to  yield.  It  becomes  a 
dis-service  when  the  relation  is  inverted,  when  the  means  is 
mistaken  for  the  end.  The  Church  faith  must  gradually  pass 
over  into  the  pure  religious  faith :  in  this  the  coming  of  the 
kinfrdom  of  God  consists.  The  Church  militant  must  rise 
into  the  all- comprehending  and  the  all-dominating  Church 
triumphant,  into  the  ideal  ethical  commonwealth. 

Eeligion  was  regarded  by  Kant  as  a  vehicle  for  morals, — 
Christianity,  the  faith  of  the  Church,  and  the  Church  itself,  as 
a  transitory  means  for  the  furthering  of  morals.  As  Kant 
robbed  religion  of  its  independence,  so  he  deprived  theology  of 
its  scientific  character.  In  his  writing  entitled  Dcr  Strcit  dcr 
Facultdtcn  ^  {The  Contest  of  the  Faculties),  he  assigns  to  the 
theological  faculty,  in  accordance  with  the  position  assigned 
it  by  the  governing  body,  the  highest  but,  scientifically 
considered,  a  very  subordinate  place.  The  three  superior 
faculties,  the  theological,  the  juristic,  and  the  medical,  have  no 

•  Kant's  "Werke.  Herausgegeben  von  Rosenkranz.  Tli.  10,  §  251  ff.  [On  the 
Kantian  view  of  religion,  especially  as  set  forth  in  his  work,  ReH<jion  wit/tin  the 
Limits  of  the  Pure  Reason,  Kuno  Fischer  has  expressed  himself  in  agreement 
with  what  is  said  above  :  "  Moral  belief  is  the  only  perfectly  certain  one.  .  .  .This 
moral  belief  forms  the  basis  and  ground  of  religious  belief.  Now,  if  it  is  the 
problem  of  theology  to  explain  religious  belief,  according  to  the  canon  of  the 
Pure  Reason  there  can  be  only  a  moral  theology  ;  that  is,  not  a  morality  based  on 
theology  (theological  morality),  but  a  theology  based  on  morals.  And  this  is  the 
only  theology  which  the  critic  of  the  Reason  had  still  left  as  a  possible  alterna- 
tive." Comm.  on  Kant,  trausl.  by  Mahally,  p.  299.  See  also  Prof.  Edward 
Caird's  Kant.] 


PERIOD  OF  PIETISM KANT.  75 

other  task  but  to  teach,  in  the  interest  of  the  State,  their 
doctrines  as  sanctioned  and  appointed  by  it ;  while  philosophy, 
in  the  interest  of  truth,  has  to  exercise  criticism  upon  the 
positive.     Hence  theology  has  only  to  record  the  faith  of  the 
Church  acknowledged  by  the  State,  without  concerning  itself 
about  the  religious  faith  established  in  every  man's  own  reason. 
What  is  required  of  it  is,  that  by  its  doctrines  it  should  meet 
the  requirements  of  the   State,  but   not  that  it  should  place 
itself  at  the  service  of  truth.      In  this  way,  Kant  sought  to 
come  to  terms  with  the  State,  and  with  the  dominant  ecclesias- 
ticism,  in   order   as   a   philosopher,   with   so   much   the   less 
trouble,  to  deal  with  Christianity  and  the  faith  of  the  Church; 
nevertheless   he   must  have   gained  the   experience    that  the 
absolutism  of  the  State  can  allow  no  freedom  to  any  science, 
not  even  to  philosophy.^     All  this,  however,  was  transitory, 
and    even    theology   refused    to    take    the    academical    place 
assigned  to  it  by  Kant,  but  rather  maintained  its  position  in 
accordance  with  the  spirit  of  his  philosophical  system.     With 
his  deep  grounding  of  morals,  with  his  moral  estimation   of 
Christianity,  with  his  high  ethical  ideals,  he  could  not  fail  to 
exercise  an  important  attractive  influence  upon  the  theology  of 
his  times.      When,  therefore,  Kant,  in  his  Religion  within  the 
Limits  of  the  Pure  Reason,  expresses  himself  so  decidedly, — 
"  a   religion   which   unhesitatingly   declares  war    against  the 
reason  will  not  permanently  hold  out  against  it," — theology 
felt  itself  called  upon  all  the   more   vigorously  to   turn   this 
religion  of  reason  to  the  account  of  Christianity  and  the  faith 
of  the  Church,  and  to  restore  the  greatest  possible  harmony 
between  theology  and  philosophy.     Eationalistic  theology  took 
up  its  position  at  the  standpoint  of  the  religion  of  reason.     The 
three  postulates  of  the   practical   reason,   God,  freedom,  and 
immortality,  are  in  force  as  irrefutable  dogmas,  which  indicate 
their  importance  by  means  of  their  ethical  effect,  and  are  con- 
firmed in  the  Christian   revelation.      The   orthodox   theology 
*  Compare  the  preface  to  the  "Streit  der  Facultaten." 


76  ^  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.EDL\. 

gradually  withdrew  altogether  from  the  circle  of  scientific 
activity,  but  sought  to  conserve  the  supernatural  in  opposition 
to  rationalism,  and  still,  while  sending  forth  manifestoes  more 
or  less  explicit  of  the  old  faith  of  the  Church,  endeavoured, 
above  all,  to  preserve  as  far  as  possible  biblical  Christianity. 
The  commotion  which  was  occasioned  by  Kant  in  theological 
circles,  and  the  vacillation  in  theological  schools  between  the 
supernatural  and  the  rationalistic  principle  which  now 
appeared,  are  witnessed  to  by  the  numerous  theological 
encycloposdias  which  were  issued  toward  the  close  of  the 
eighteenth  century. 

The  encyclopaedias  of  Nosselt,^  Planck,^  Thym,^  Tittmann,* 
represent  the  standpoint  of  rational  supernaturalism.  Nosselt 
and  Planck  begin  their  writings  with  complaints  about  the 
dulness  of  their  times,  about  the  want  of  interest  and  zeal  in 
theological  study,  about  the  pietistic  disregard  of  theology 
as  carnal  learning,  and  the  defamation  of  theology  proceeding 
from  men  of  the  illumination,  who  treated  it  as  unnecessary 
and  purposeless.  In  order  anew  to  fan  the  zeal,  and  to  place 
in  a  true  light  the  worth  and  importance  of  theological 
science,  they  wrote  their  encyclopaedias  for  students  of  theology 
and  for  those  who  were  to  be  teachers  of  religion.  Hence 
they  treat  with  great  completeness  of  the  philological,  philoso- 

^  Anweisung  zur  Biklung  angehender  Theologen  von  Johann  Aug.  Nosselt. 
Herausgegeben  von  Aug.  Herm.  Niemeyer.  Bd.  1-3.  3  Aufl.  Halle  1818, 
1819.  (1  Ausgabe,  Halle  1786  ;  2  Ausgabe,  1791.)  [Hagenbach  refers  to  this 
treatise  as  "the  excellent,  solid  work,"  "a  handbook  which  may  be  used  in  the 
present  time  always  with  advantage."     Comp.  p.  106.] 

*  G.  J.  Planck,  Einleitung  in  die  theologischen  Wissenschaften.  Th.  1,  2. 
Leipzig  1794,1795. — Grundriss  der  theologischen  Encyclopa'die  zum  Gebrauche 
bei  seinen  Vorlesungen.  Von  G.  J.Planck.  Gottingen  1813.  [Of  the  latter 
work  Hagenbach  says  that,  though  now  obsolete,  it  is  useful  as  a  short  treatise 
for  beginners  :  of  the  former  work,  he  remarks  that  it  is  still  valued  on  account 
of  its  historical  matter  and  its  criticism,  while  for  methodology  it  is  of  little 
worth  (p.  107).] 

^  Johann  Fr.  W.  Thym,  Theologische  Encyclopredie  und  Methodologie. 
Halle  1797. 

■*  Encyclopsedie  des  theologischen  Wissenschaften  von  Johann  Aug.  Heinricli 
Tittmann.     Leipzig  1798. 


PERIOD  OF  PIETISM NOSSELT  AND  PLANCK.  77 

pliical,  and  Iiistorical  iircliminaiy  studies,  sciences  preparatory 
to,  and  Jielpful  for,  the  study  of  theology, — treatises  wliich, 
when  given  in  this  detailed  fashion,  do  not  belong  to 
theological  encyclopaedia.  That  the  orthodox  theology  has 
outlived  itself,  of  this  they  have  a  clear  conviction.  Planck, 
in  the  introdaction  to  his  treatise,  frankly  admits  that  there  is 
a  difference  between  the  old  theology  and  the  new.  It  would 
not  be  his  task  "  to  introduce  the  theological  student  to  the 
system  of  orthodoxy  according  to  the  old  theology,  but  to  set 
him  in  a  position  from  which  he  might,  by  means  of  his 
study,  acquire  a  capacity  for  coming  to  free  and  unfettered 
judgments,  for  engaging  impartially  in  investigations,  and  for 
attaining  unto  a  decided  personal  conviction."  "  The  question 
is  not  how  to  produce  theological  scholarship,  but  how  to 
educate  in  independent  thinking — how  to  form  independent 
thinking  theologians."  And  hence  both  of  these  writers  take 
a  freer  position  in  reference  to  Holy  Scripture,  as  well  as 
in  reference  to  the  Church  doctrine.  Inasmuch  as  they 
distinguish  between  natural  and  revealed  religion,  between 
natural  and  revealed  theology.  Christian  theology  is  with  them 
the  scholarly  knowledge  of  revealed  religion.  Christian 
doctrine  then,  for  as  such  they  conceive  of  Christianity,  can 
only  be  known  from  the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  if  it  be 
admitted  that  Holy  Scripture  contains  in  part  purely  popular 
and  temporary  representations,  then  the  Christian  doctrine,  as 
the  eternal,  must  raise  itself  above  this,  and,  as  revelation, 
receive  its  divine  verification  by  means  of  the  authority  of 
Scripture.  From  this  point  of  view  exegetical  theology  is  set 
down  as  the  first  part  of  theology,  and,  as  its  first  branch, 
Planck  names  apologetics,  which  has  as  its  task  to  vindicate, 
upon  new  grounds,  the  divine  view  of  Scripture  and  the  divine 
origin  of  Cliristian  doctrine,  against  objectors,  who  have 
destroyed  faith  in  tlie  divinity  of  Holy  Scripture  in  regard  to 
its  principal  and  fundamental  contents.  For  the  old  theory 
of  inspiration  by  an  immediate  supernatural   influence  of  the 


78  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOr.^DIA. 

Holy  Spirit  has  been  deprived  of  its  earlier  prestige,  and 
therefore,  as  Planck  says  (s.  458),  a  crisis  has  come  about, 
"  upon  the  issue  of  which  not  only  the  fate  of  science,  but 
perhaps  the  fate  of  our  whole  theology  may  depend,  and 
which  will  at  least  introduce  an  altogether  new  epoch  in 
theology."  Historical  theology,  as  the  second  part,  is  of 
importance  principally  in  furthering  an  insight  into  tlie  truths 
of  faith  by  means  of  the  history  of  these.  Systematic 
theology,  as  the  third  part,  in  which  I'lanck  includes  besides 
dogmatics  and  ethics  also  symbolics,  has  pre-eminently  to 
establish  by  Scripture  proof  the  Christian  truths  of  religion, 
but  also,  besides,  has  to  prove  their  inner  conformity  to 
reason,  and  to  expound  their  moral  significance  in  accordance 
with  the  Kantian  philosophy  (Planck,  s.  487).  "  Pically 
indisputable  propositions  of  reason,  and  actually  revealed 
propositions,  cannot  really  contradict  one  another"  (Nosselt, 
§  199).  While  Nosselt  sets  down  symbolical  theology  as 
the  fourth  part  of  theological  science,  and  in  this  way 
distinguishes  himself  from  Planck,  the  one,  as  well  as  the 
other,  has  relegated  practical  or  applied  theology,  theologia 
applicata,  to  a  place  outside  of  the  organic  theological  system, 
which  is  to  be  explained  in  this  way,  that  they  limit  theology 
to  the  knowledge  of  religious  truths,  without  giving  it  a 
comprehensive  application  to  Christianity  and  the  Church. 

Thym  intended  by  his  encyclopajdia  only  to  afford  a  guide 
for  his  academical  lectures.  Inasmuch,  too,  as  he  distinguishes 
between  mere  scholarly  acquirement  and  scientific  knowledge, 
he  gives,  after  the  example  of  Nosselt  and  Planck,  a  complete 
synoptical  schematism  of  theology  according  to  its  four  prin- 
cipal divisions, — exegetical,  historical,  systematic,  and  practical 
theology, — yet  without  referring  to  tlieir  inner  connection  or 
their  particular  subordinate  branches. 

Tittmann  acts  more  independently  and  more  scientifically. 
In  accordance  with  the  usual  encycloptx^dic  point  of  view,  he 
thus  indicates  the  task   of  the   encyclopsedia  of  a  particular 


TERIOD  OF  PIETISM TITTMANN.  79 

science,—"  to  determine  exactly,  and  to  represent,  the  connec- 
tion and  relation  of  all  the  parts  of  a  science  with  one  another, 
as  well  as   the    relation   of    that   science   to  all   the   other 
sciences."      Theology   is  a  scholarly   acquaintance   with   the 
Christian  religion,  and  therefore  is  a  historical  science.     The 
Christian  revealed  religion  stands  distinguished  from  natural 
religion.      It  has  as  such  its  own  principles,  and  upon  these, 
but  not  upon  the  principles  of  a  philosophy,  is  the  theological 
system  to  be  reared.      This  system  consists  only  of  two  pJirts, 
theoretical  and  practical,  a  doctrine  of  faith  or  a  doctrine  of 
morals.      All  the  other  acquirements  concern  the  study,  but 
not  the  system.     AU  these  acquirements,  which  were  once 
included  in  exegetical  and  historical  theology,  Tittmann  em- 
braces under  the  subsidiary  theological  acquirements,  among 
which  he  gives  an  altogether  special  attention  to  the  philoso" 
phical,  in  order  to  make   clear  the  proper  relation  between 
theology  and  philosophy.     "Freedom  for   philosophizing  on 
i-eligion  is  given  in  and  with   reason  itself,  and   is  not  taken 
away    unless    one    misuses    it;     but    even    this    freedom    is 
adequately  determined  by  means  of  the  reason's  limitation  of 
knowledge"  (s.   228).       Philosophy   and   revelation  have  to 
mutually  acknowledge  one  another,  and  can  stand,  each  in  its 
own  department,  independent  the   one   of  the   other.     In  a 
special  section  Tittmann  lays  down  a  theological  doctrine  of 
method,  which  embraces  theological  discipline,   that  is,  tlie 
arrangement  of  study  according  to  a  determined  plan ;  theo- 
logical architectonic,  that  is,  the  scientific  treatment  of  theology; 
and  theological  psedantic,  that  is,  practical  theology.     Tittmami 
exhibits  great  acuteness  in  representing  theology  as  science, 
and  in  demonstrating  tlie  harmony  of  revealed  religion  with 
the  religion  of  reason.     Xevertheless,  althougli  his  endeavours 
to  vmdicate  for  theology  its  characteristic  principles  are  to  be 
acknowledged,  yet  his  conception  of  revelation  is  of  so  external 
and  historical  a  kind,  that  the  theology  founded  thereon  can- 
not maintain  its  independence  as  a  science  over  against  philo- 


80  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP--EDIA. 

sophy.  His  definition,  too,  of  the  subject  of  theology  is  such 
a  narrow  one,  that  the  significance  of  exegetical,  historical,  and 
practical  theology  for  the  theological  system  does  not  come 
into  view,  and  this  system  itself  is  identified  with  systematic 
theology,  while  theological  architectonic,  which  is  treated 
theoretically  in  the  last  section,  would  much  more  suitably 
find  its  practical  application  in  the  eucyclopredia  itself. 

From  a  decided  supernaturalistic  standpoint,  Kleuker  ^  has 
expounded  the  theological  encyclopaedia.  He  divides  his 
outlines  into  two  parts.  In  the  first  part  he  places,  in  a 
purely  formal  manner,  a  science  of  theological  knowledge,  in 
order  that  he  may,  according  to  the  plan  here  laid  down,  com- 
municate in  tlie  second  part  the  material  of  theology,  "  the 
encyclopedia  of  theological  science,  or  a  brief  summary  of  all 
the  principal  and  fundamental  exercises  of  the  whole  of 
theology  or  the  science  of  religion."  Christianity  is  a  divine 
revelation, and  Holy  Scripture  is  the  original  source  of  revelation. 
Hence  it  comes  to  this,  that  divine  truths  are  to  be  derived 
from  Holy  Scripture  :  in  so  far  as  they  are  contained  in  Holy 
Scripture,  they  are  divine  truths,  and  bear  in  themselves  the 
evidence  of  their  truth.  Hence  Kleuker  puts  in  the  first 
principal  division  the  theology  which  concerns  itself  with 
Scripture,  under  the  title  of  fundamental  theology,  and 
connects  with  it  apologetics,  which  has  to  produce  proof  for 
the  divinity  and  truth  of  the  Christianity  contained  in  Holy 
Scripture.  The  second  principal  division  embraces :  (1)  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  salvation,  as  dogmatics  and  morals ;  (2) 
Elenchtic,  or  the  justification  of  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
salvation.  The  third  principal  division  gives  the  theory  of 
practical  or  applied  theology,  and  contains  :  (1)  the  theory  of 
the  art  of  teaching  or  didactic,  (a)  systematics,  (b)  homiletics, 
and  (c)  catechetics ;  (2)  the  theory  {a)  of  Church  science  or 

1  Grundriss  eincr  Encyclopffidie  der  Theologie  oder  der  Christlichen  Religions- 
wissenscliaft.  Von  Johauu  Friedr.  Kleuker,  ord.  Lehrev  der  Theologie  auf  der 
Universitiit  zu  Kiel.     Bd.  1,  2.     Hamburg  ISOO,  ISOl. 


PERIOD  OF  PIETISM KLEUKEK.  81 

ecclesiastics,  {h)  of  pastoral  science  and  liturgies.     The  fourth 
principal  division  consists  of  «  the  so-called  historical  theology 
or  the  history  of  Christianity,  and  of  the  science  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  as  put  in  practice,  and  also  of  the  manner  in 
M^hich  it    is    practised."       The  superiority  which  marks  out 
Kleuker's  encyclopasdia    from    many  previous    ones    lies   in 
the    objectivity  with  which    it    represents    theology    in    its 
scientific  distribution.       But    the    distribution    itself   suffers 
from  very  evident  imperfections,  which  are  to  be  explained 
m  part  from  the  standpoint    occupied  by  Kleuker,  such  as 
the  connecting  of  apologetics  with  exegetical  theology,  and 
the  introduction  of  a  special  elenchtic  after  dogmatics  and 
morals.      But  the  placing  of  historical  theology   after  prac- 
tical theology  is  altogether  unjustifiable  ;  for  thereby,  not  only 
is    the    latter   withdrawn    from    its    historical    ground    and 
sphere,  but  also,   tlie  value    which    historical    theology  pre- 
eminently has  for  the  theological  system  is  not  brought  into 
prominence. 

On  account  of  their  connection  in  respect  of  theological 
standpoint,  in  respect  of  conception  and  exposition  of  theology, 
Bortholdt,^  Staudlin,^  and  Clarisse  ^  may  be  classed  along  with 
the  last-named  encyclopjedist.     With  reference  to  the  general 

]  Theologiscbe  Wissenschaftskimde  oder  Einleitimg  in  die  theolo-ischen 
A\issenschatten,  namlich  Vorbereitungs-,  Hulfs-  und  angewandte  Wissen- 
schaften  des  theologischen  Studiums.  Ein  encyclopffidisch-literari.sches  Hand- 
buch  lur  Theologen.  Herausgegeben  von  L.  Bertholdt.  Bd.  1,  2  Erlaneen 
1821,  1822.  i-iumgtu 

'  C.  Fr.  Stiiudlin,  Lehrbuch  der  Encyclopanlie,  Methodologie  und  Gescbichte 
der  theologischen  Wissenscbaften.  Hannover,  1821.  [What  is  said  above  refers 
to  the  later  period  of  Stiiudlin's  theological  activity.  Earlier,  as  an  extreme 
Kantian,  he  occupied  a  position  unfavourable  to  religion,  but  later,  he  exerted 
himself  in  the  endeavour  to  harmonize  Kant's  moralism  and  those  Christian 
moral  precepts  which  he  regarded  as  constituting  Christianity.  He  does  not 
seem  to  have  ever  regarded  the  Christian  revelation  as  of  any  conse-iuence 
except  m  morality.  Compare  Dorner,  Hist,  of  Protestant  Theologv,  vol  ii 
pp.  323-325.]  °~' 

3  Encyclopedia;  theologies   Epitome,  perpetua  annotatione,  literaria  potis- 
simum,    illustrata.      Futuris  theologis   scr.    Jo.    Clarisse,    theologire   in   Acad 
Lugduno-Batava  professor.     Ed.  alt.  Lugd.  Bat.  1835  (1  ed.  1832) 
VOL.  I.  J. 


82  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP/EDIA. 

survey  of  the  sciences,  Bertlioldt  represents  theological  encyclo- 
pedia as  a  survey  of  the  theological  sciences.       It    has  to 
develop  not  only  the  formal  distribution  of    the  theological 
branches,  but  also  the  essential  contents  of  these.     Theological 
encyclopedia  has  a  fourfold  division  :   (1)  Sciences  preparatory 
to   theological   study   (theological   propedeutic),  (2)   sciences 
contributing  to  theological  study   (theological  boethetic),  (3) 
sciences  fundamental   to   theology  (theological  pedeutic),  (4) 
practical  sciences  (theological  pragmatic).      Although  Bertholdt 
rightly  requires  an  architectonic  for  the  representation  of  every 
separate  science,  yet  he  himself  does  not  succeed  in  represent- 
ing theology  according  to  a  rule  of  architectonic.     The  theory 
of   theological   science   must,  in  its  distribution,  be  itself   a 
systematic    classification   of   theology :    and    hence    the    first 
division,  the  propedeutic,  is  to  be  excluded  from  the  theo- 
logical system,  whereas    the    second  division,  the    boethetic, 
which   embraoe.s  the  whole  of    exegetical  theology,  is  to  be 
admitted  into  it.     After  the  example  of  Tittmann,  Bertholdt 
regards  only  the  doctrine  of  faith  and  of  morals  as  constitut- 
ing the  essential  core  of  theology,  and  is  led  on  this  account 
to  represent  the  exegetical  branches  as  mere  subsidiary  sciences. 
In  the  third  division.  Church  history  presents  itself,  next  to 
dogmatics  and  morals,  among  the  fundamental  sciences,  and 
can   be   connected   with   the   former   only  by  means   of  the 
history  of  dogmas.     The  fourth  division  again,  pragmatic,  so 
named  by  Bertholdt  with  a  reference  to  the  theologian  in  his 
official  activity  as  TrpayfiariKcx;,  is,  in  accordance  with  this 
reference,  brought  into  no  demonstratively  necessary  connec- 
tion with  the  theological  system. 

Staudlin  quite  systematically  divides  his  encyclopedia  into 
a  general  part,  which  occupies  itself  with  theology  as  a  whole, 
and  a  special  part,  which  occupies  itself  with  the  several 
theological  sciences.  Christian  theology  belongs  to  the  mixed 
sciences,  inasmuch  as  it  is  derived  partly  from  reason  and 
nature,  and  partly  from  history  and  revelations.    It  is  thus  partly 


rEPJOD  OF  PIETISM STAUDLIN.  83 

rational,   partly   empirical;    partly    natural,    partly   positive. 
Christianity   is   rationalism    and   supernaturalism     combined. 
Those   of  its   doctrines   which   are   natural  and   are   already 
grounded  in  the  reason,  and  its  revealed,  positive,  historical 
doctrines,  that  is  to  say,  rationalism  and  supernaturalism,  are 
not  contradictory  the  one  to  the  other.      A  rationalism  wliich 
denies   all    supernatural  revelation   is   to    be    rejected.       As 
religious  philosophy  is  by  itself  incapable  of  an  exact  scientific 
treatment,   so   also    Christian   theology   cannot   be    an   exact 
science.      It  has  before  it  the  purely  practical  aim  of  helping 
to  render  one  qualified   for  a  spiritual  office.     "  By  the  theo- 
logical  course   of   study   we  understand  all   spiritual    efibrts 
and  strivings  for  developing  a  capacity  for  a  clerical  office  " 
(p.  15   ff.).     Staudlin  declares  himself  decidedly  opposed  to 
that  reference  of  exegetical  and  historical  theology  to  the  order 
of  mere  subsidiary  sciences  which  was  favoured  by  Tittmann, 
but    considered    that    exegetical     theology   should   rather   be' 
ranked   as   the   first  part   of  theology,  inasmuch    as   all  the 
doctrines  essential  to  Christian  theology  are  already  contained 
m  Holy  Scripture.      The  second  division  treats  of  the  doctrine 
of  faith  and   morals  ;    the   third,    of  the    Christian   religion, 
theology,  and  Church  ;  the  fourth,  of  the  practical  applicrtion 
of  Holy  Scripture  and  its   contents,   of   Christianity,   and  of 
theology  in  the  whole  range  of  its  activity,  which  embraces 
also  the  clerical  office.     The  encyclopaedia  of  Stiiudlin  is  kept 
throughout  purely  formal.     He  is  satisfied  with   determining 
the  problems  of  the  separate  theological  branches,  and  with 
giving,  as  the  title  of  his  book  promises,  an  exposition  of  its 
history.     He   does   not  set   down   methodology  as   a  special 
division,  but  to  each  branch  he   attaches   the   methodological 
remarks  proper  to  it. 

The  carefully  elaborated  encyclopa3dia  of  the  reformed 
Dutch  theologian  Clarisse,  in  close  connection  with  Mursinna, 
moves  along  the  path  marked  out  by  those  who  preceded  him' 
without  any  independence  or   peculiarity.     Clarisse  only  in- 


84:  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPJiDL\. 

tended  to  set  forth  the  acquirements  necessary  for  the  theo- 
logical student  in  the  most  systematic  connection  possible. 
After  having,  in  a  general  division,  treated  of  the  gifts 
requisite  on  the  part  of  theologians,  and  such-like  themes, 
and  after  having  very  completely  sketched,  in  a  special  division, 
the  philological,  historical,  and  philosophical  preliminary  studies, 
there  follows  (1)  thcologia  philologica  {exegetica),  (2)  thcologia 
historica,  (3)  thcologia  systematica  or  pJiilosophica,  with  which 
is  also  joined  thcologia  naturalis,  and  (4)  thcologia  pastoralis. 
Under  all  the  separate  divisions,  the  literature  is  very  fully 
given,  and  likewise  the  method  is  indicated  which  should  he 
followed  in  the  study  of  each. 

The  supernaturalistic  theologians  who  have  been  referred 
to,  by  means  of  their  encyclopedias,  which  throughout  mani- 
fest a  living  religious  sensibility,  and  an  earnest  endeavour  to 
exhibit  divine  revelation  in  its  harmony  with  reason,  have, 
over  against  the  depreciation  of  theology  and  hostility  toward 
it  issuing  from  various  sides,  made  a  contribution  worthy  of 
acknowledgment  to  the  solution  of  the  problem  set  by  Nosselt 
and  Planck,  wdiich  has  helped  to  bring  theological  science 
again  into  a  position  of  honour  and  consideration.  On  the 
other  hand,  by  reason  of  their  attitude  toward  Holy  Scripture, 
by  their  a  priori  acknowledgment  of  the  doctrine  of  Scripture 
as  a  divine  revelation,  and  their  consequently  limited  apprecia- 
tion of  the  rational  element  in  theology,  they  have  failed,  as 
encyclopaedists,  to  acquire  any  special  merit  in  the  construction 
of  theology  according  to  principle  and  system.  The  import- 
ance which  is  to  be  assigned  to  them,  and  which  ought  not  to 
be  underestimated,  lies  in  this,  that  by  maintaining  connec- 
tion with  the  older  theological  schemes  of  arrangement,  they 
have  conserved  the  traditional  material  to  the  theological 
encyclopaedia. 


MODEKX  TERIOD SCHLEIEKMACHER.  85 


§  6.  HISTORY  OF  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPyEDIA— Con^/ni/ec/. 
((■)  From  Schleicrmacher  doion  to  the  i^resent  time. 

While  rationalism  made  its  moral  theology  the  strict 
measure  of  what  is  positive,  and  remorselessly  dismissed 
everything  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Scripture  and  of  the  Church 
which  did  not  answer  to  this  measure,  and  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  supernaturalistic  theology  swung  uncertainly 
hither  and  thither  between  revelation  and  reason,  Schleier- 
macher  led  theology  back  to  the  immediate  believing  con- 
sciousness, and  found  in  Christian  piety  itself  the  standard, 
in  accordance  with  which  all  that  is  positive  may  be 
estimated.  In  this  way  Schleiermacher  was  led  to  a  con- 
ception of  theology  quite  peculiar,  widely  differing  from 
any  that  had  previously  prevailed.  The  systematics  of  this 
theology  he  has  developed,  with  a  sharp,  clear  insight  into 
the  consequences,  in  his  treatise  : — Kurze  Barstcllung  des 
tlicologisckcn  Stndmms  zum  Bcliiif  Einlcitender  Vorlcsungen 
cntivorfm.  Berlin  1811.  2  Ausgabe,  1830.^  [Translated 
into  English  by  Farrar,  under  the  title.  Brief  Outline  of 
the  Study  of  Theology,  drawn  up  to  serve  as  the  basis  of 
introductory  lectures.  Edinburgh:  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1850.] 
Christian  theology  is,  according  to  Schleiermacher,  a  positive 
science,  the   parts   of   which   are    bound  into   one  whole  by 

'  "  It  is,"  says  Hageubach,  "a  sketch  rapidly  drawn  with  a  finn  hand, 
which  wants  only  the  pencil  of  a  Herder  to  make  it,  by  a  finishing  stroke,  a 
rich,  fair  picture.  Thankfully,  however,  are  the  hints  to  be  received  scattered, 
yet  sparingly,  over  the  second  edition  of  1830,  which  help  to  a  clearer  under- 
standing of  the  little  book.  This  significance,  at  least,  belongs  to  the  treatise, 
that  it  furnishes  a  key  to  the  general  system  of  Schleiermachcr's  theology  " 
(p.  108).  Lange,  however,  seems  to  be  of  opinion  that  the  extreme  conciseness 
of  the  outlines,  and  the  special  characteristics  of  the  work  admired  by  Hagen- 
bach,  have  restricted  the  influence  of  the  treatise  upon  the  construction  of  the 
theological  system.     Compare  Lange's  Encyclopajdie,  p.  13. — Ed. 


86  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

means  of  their  relation  to  Christianity,  and  which  as  such  a 
whole  has  a  practical   problem  to  solve.   §  1.  The  study  of 
theology  is  incumbent   only  upon  those   in  the  Church  who 
take  part  in  the  guiding  of  the  Church.   §  3.     "  Consequently 
Christian  theology  is  to  be  defined  as  the  sum  total  of  those 
scientific    acquirements    and    technical     rules,    without     the 
possession    and  exercise  of   which  a  harmonious   guiding  of 
the  Christian  Church,  that  is,  a    Christian    church  govern- 
ment, would  be  impossible."      The    Christian    faith    in  and 
for  itself  is  not  in  need  of  such  an  apparatus.      §  5.  (Com- 
pare Schleiermachcr's  Dogmatics,   2nd  edition,  vol.   1,  p.   84.) 
Christian  piety,  which  carries  its  certainty  in  itself,  does  not 
require  a  theology.      The  distribution  of  theology  under  its 
principal    divisions    is    determined    in    accordance    with    its 
practical  tendency  in  the  matter  of  Church  guidance.      The 
interests  of  this  Church  guidance  require  an  assurance   that 
"the  existence  of   the    religious  community,  the  guiding  of 
which  is  incumbent  upon  the  Church,  can  be  proved  to  be 
a    necessary  element    in    the    development    of    the    human 
spirit."   §  22.      The  proof  of  this  in   respect  of  Christianity 
is  the  business   of    the    philosophy  of   religion    and  ethics. 
It  is  from  them    that    theology  has    to  borrow  the  idea  of 
Christianity  and  of  the  Christian  community  ;    and  therefore, 
in  the  first  division,  it  has  to  work  out  the  idea  of  philosophical 
theology.      §  24.  Inasmuch  then  as  the  purpose  of  Church 
guidance  is  at  once  conservative    and    progressive,  a  special 
technology,  relating  exclusively  to  matters  connected  with  this 
activity,   makes  its  appearance   as    practical   theology.   §  25. 
Finally,  Church  guidance  demands  a  knowledge  of  that  whole, 
which  constitutes  the  subject  of  this  guidance,  in  respect  of 
its  actual  condition.      But  its  actual  present  condition  can  be 
understood  only  when  regarded  as  a  product  of  the  past.     To 
present  this,  therefore,  is  the  task  of  historical  tlieology  which 
thus  constitutes,  not  only  the  foundation  of  practical  theo- 
logy, but    also    the    test    of    philosophical    theology.    §    27- 


MODERN  PERIOD SCHLEIERMACIIER.  87 

"  Consequently  historical  theology  may  be  said  to  form  the 
sum  total  of  theological  study  ;  and,  by  means  of  philosophical 
theology,  it  is  related  to  science  strictly  so  called,  and,  by  means 
of  practical  theology,  it  is  related  to  the  active  Christian  life." 
If  perfected,  philosophical  theology  might  form  the  beginning 
of  the  theological  course  of  study.  In  reality,  however,  its 
positions  are  only  gained  by  degrees  during  the  progress  of 
historical  studies,  and  are  based  upon  the  principles  of  ethics, 
the  study  of  which  is  presupposed.  Further,  too,  the  tech- 
nology which  concerns  itself  directly  with  matters  of  Church 
guidance  cannot  formally  appear  but  as  the  result  of  historical 
theology  perfected  by  means  of  philosophical  theology.  "  In 
this  trilogy — philosophical,  historical,  and  practical  theology 
— the  whole  course  of  theological  study  is  embraced  ;  and 
unquestionably,  the  most  natural  order  for  the  treatment  of 
it  is  to  begin  with  philosophical  theology  and  end  with  prac- 
tical theology."  §  31.  The  position  of  the  separate  branches 
of  these  three  principal  divisions  in  the  systeui  is  also  deter- 
mined by  means  of  their  relation  to  Church  guidance.  Since 
ethics,  as  a  science  of  the  principles  of  history,  has  to  represent 
the  essence  of  Christianity,  and  to  ascertain  what  in  the 
development  thereof  is  an  expression  of  its  idea,  and  what,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  a  deviation  from  that  idea,  philosophical 
theology  has  upon  this  basis  to  draw  up  a  statement  in  regard 
to  what  is  essentially  Christian,  and  thus  Christianity  is  put 
uuder  the  category  of  the  positive.  Besides  this,  philosophical 
theology  has  to  bring  into  form  the  material  borrowed  from 
ethics.  In  this  way  the  twofold  purpose  of  Church  guidance 
is  accomplished  :  on  the  one  hand,  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
truths  of  the  faith  communicated  to  the  Church  is  secured, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  the  morbid  deviations  from  it  are 
brought  into  prominence  as  such.  Hence  apologetics  and 
polemics,  general  and  special,  Christian  and  Protestant,  are 
the  two  branches  of  philosophical  theology.  "  These  two 
branches,   apologetics    and    polemics,   as   regarded    from    one 


88  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

point  of  view,  mutually  exclude  one  another  ;  but  as  regarded 
from  another  point  of  view,  the  one  is  conditioned  by  and 
dependent  upon  the  other."  By  the  contrasted  character  of 
their  contents  (the  one  dealing  with  the  Christian  idea,  the 
other  with  deviations  from  it,  see  §  39  and  §  40),  and  by  the 
diversity  of  their  tendency  (the  one  being  directed  outwards, 
the  other  inwards,  see  §  41),  they  exclude  one  another.  They 
are  mutually  dependent,  inasmuch  as  morbid  deviations  are 
discoverable  only  by  reference  to  that  which  is  true  and 
essential  to  Christianity,  and  again,  the  consideration  of  morbid 
deviations  from  the  idea  illustrates  that  which  is  essential  to 
it.  "  These  two  branches,  therefore,  reach  their  perfect 
development  only  by  means  of,  and  in  connection  with,  each 
other"  (§§  32—68).  In  reference  to  historical  theology, 
Church  guidance  demands,  first  of  all,  an  acquaintance  with 
the  present,  from  which  an  acquaintance  with  the  future  is  to 
be  developed.  But  the  present  can  be  understood  only  from 
the  historical  course  of  the  past,  and  from  the  earliest  con- 
ditions of  the  Christian  life,  from  primitive  Christianity. 
["  Historical  theology  is  wholly  embraced  in  these  three 
divisions :  the  knowledge  of  primitive  Christianity,  the 
knowledge  of  the  entire  course  of  Christianity,  and  the  know- 
ledge of  the  actual  condition  of  Christianity  at  the  present 
time."  The  order  in  which  these  branches  were  deduced  was 
from  the  present  through  the  past,  back  to  the  period  of 
origination  :  the  order  of  study  begins  with  the  primitive 
period  and  ends  with  the  present.]  And  so,  in  an  order  the 
inverse  of  their  actual  derivation,  we  have  to  enumerate  as 
subdivisions  of  historical  theology  —  exegetical  theology. 
Church  history,  and  dogmatics  and  statistics  ;  these  two  last 
constituting  together  the  historical  knowledge  of  the  present 
condition  of  Christianity.  The  task,  too,  of  these  special 
parts  of  historical  theology,  as  well  as  their  derivations,  is 
determined  by  the  relation  which  they  bear  to  Church  guid- 
ance.    Practical  theology  receives  its  task  from  the  emotions 


MODERN  PERIOD SCHLEIEEMACHEE.  89 

which  arise  out  of  the  feelings  of  desire  and  aversion  called 
forth     by    philosophical   theology   in   respect   of    the   actual 
circumstances  of  the   Churcli  at  any  particular  time.      It  is 
required  of  it  that,  with  clear  consciousness,  it  should  regulate 
and   lead   on   to  its   end   that   wise   activity,   in   which   the 
emotions  corresponding  to  those  feelings  take  practical  shape ; 
and  its  study  is  incumbent  only  upon  those  "  in  whom  an 
interest  in  the  aiiairs  of  the  Church  and  a  scientific  spirit  are 
united."      §  258.  Practical  theology  does  not  attempt  to  teach 
us  what  the  tasks  of  Church  guidance  are,  but  only  the  proper 
method  of  proceeding  in  accomplishing  them.     The  tasks  of 
Church  guidance,  however,  have  to  do  with  the  Church  service, 
in  so  far  as   these  refer  to  the  local  congregation,  and  they 
have  to  do  with  Cliurch  government,  in  so  far  as  they  refer  to 
the  Church,  or  to  the  Christian  community  as  a  whole.     It  is 
in  connection  with  this  that  prescriptions  regarding  proper 
procedure  are  to  be  set  down.      These  are  to  be  regarded  as 
technical  rules,  but  yet  they  serve   only  for  the  guidance  of 
him    who   means   to   be   a   practical  theologian,  and  who  is 
capable    of   becoming  such   by   reason    of  his   own   personal 
qualifications   and   his   special   preliminary  training.      Hence 
various  sets  of  procedure  rules   must  be  recognised  according 
to  the  variety  of  the  several   Church  communities  ;  so  that 
Schleiermacher  can  only  lay  down  a  theory  of  Church  guid- 
ance for  the  German  Evangelical  Church.     Practical  theology, 
therefore,    as    thus     limited,    falls    into    two    divisions :    the 
principles  of  the  Church  service,  and  the  principles  of  Churcli 
polity  or  government  (§§  257-276). 

Although,  meanwhile,  we  put  a  restraint  upon  ourselves, 
intending  in  a  later  portion  of  our  work  to  come  back  to  the 
subject,  in  order  to  give  a  more  detailed  consideration  to  the 
significance  of  the  principles  of  Schleiermacher's  theology, 
and  mean  here  only  to  give  a  sketch  of  his  theological 
system  as  such,  yet  we  must  not  pass  on  without  express- 
ing our   decided    opposition    to    Schleiermacher's   whole    con- 


90  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

ception  of  theology,  as  well  as  to  his  systematic  distribution 
of  it,  Schleiermacher  makes  theology  not  so  much  a  science 
as  a  technology  or  art-theory.-^  For  not  only  the  technical 
rules  which  practical  theology  produces,  but  also  the  scientific 
acquirements  which  philosophical  and  historical  theology  yield, 
are,  according  to  this  definition  of  theology,  placed  at  the 
service  of  the  Church,  so  that  the  whole  of  theology  is  made 
to  wear  the  appearance  of  a  technical  affair  for  supplying  the 
Church  with  an  equipment  of  acquirements  and  rules.  The 
foundations  of  the  whole  system  are  given  in  the  first  section 
of  the  treatise.  Were  we  to  set  aside  the  leading  positions 
of  that  first  paragraph,  we  could  scarcely  go  through  any  of 
the  other  paragraphs  without  objection.  In  this  first  section 
of  his  treatise,  Schleiermacher  identifies  2'^ositive  science  with 
pure  ^radical  science.  According  to  him,  every  positive 
science  is  "  a  summary  of  scientific  elements  which  have 
their  coherence  with  one  another,  not  as  though  by  virtue 
of  the  very  idea  of  science  they  formed  a  necessary  con- 
stituent part  of  scientific  organization,  but  only  because  they 
are  requisite  for  the  solution  of  a  practical  problem."  §  1. 
note. — In  so  far  now  as  theology  is  a  positive  science,  it  has 
only  a  practical  problem  to  solve,  so  that  the  relation  of  its 
parts  to  Christianity,  by  means  of  which  relation  it  is,  accord- 
ing to  section  first,  a  scientific  whole,  transforms  itself 
immediately,  according  to  the  statement  of  section  fifth, 
into  the  relation  of  these  parts  to  Church  guidance,  and  the 
definition  of  theology  results  from  this  purely  practical  task, 
— yea,  the  theological  acquirements,  without  this  relation  to 
Church  guidance,  would  cease  to  be  theological.    §  6.     Never- 

^  The  German  word  here  employed — Kimsttheorie — means  the  exhibition  of 
the  general  principles  which  underlie  a  certain  activity.  An  art  for  which  a 
theory  has  been  provided  is  brought  into  a  certain  relation  to  science.  In  so 
far  as  tlie  theory,  in  a  thorough  manner,  takes  cognisance  of,  and  tabulates  the 
various  principles  involved,  the  art  passes  into  a  practical  science.  The  fault 
ibund  with  Schleiermacher  is  that  he  regards  theology  as  a  summarj'  or  collec- 
tion of  practical  rules,  ratlier  than  as  a  scientiiic  display  of  principles. — Ed. 


MODERN  TERIOD SCIILEIEKMACHER.  91 

theless,  every  positive  science  (therefore  tlieoloi^y,  as  being 
a  positive  science,  must  be  included)  has,  according  to  its 
idea,  to  adjust  itself  to  the  object,  that  is,  to  the  positive 
something  which  has  been  given  it.  At  first,  too,  it  may 
remain  undecided  what  significance  this  object  has  in 
reference  to  the  idea  of  science,  and  also  what  the  relation 
of  the  positive  science  in  question  is  to  the  general  circle 
of  tbe  sciences,  but  it  must  always  pre-eminently  be  the  aim 
of  a  positive  science  to  solve  tlie  definite  and  circumscribed 
problem  that  has  reference  to  its  own  given  object,  that  is,  to 
reach  a  scientific  knowledge  of  its  object.  Schleiermacher 
has,  indeed,  earned  great  merit  in  this,  that  he  brings  theology 
with  all  its  parts  into  the  closest  connection  with  the  Church ; 
but,  because  he  sets  for  theology  a  purely  practical  problem, 
he  subordinates  it  to  a  purpose  lying  outside  of  its  object, 
while  as  a  science,  even  as  positive,  its  purpose  must  be 
immanent.  The  practical  problem  with  reference  to  the 
Church  ought  not,  indeed,  by  any  means  to  be  excluded, 
only  it  must,  in  opposition  to  Schleiermacher's  mode  of 
treatment,  be  subordinated  to  the  scientific  purpose.  The 
tiash  of  genius  is  not  to  be  denied  which  M^as  shown  by 
Schleiermacher  when  he  acknowledged  the  necessity,  on 
account  of  that  living  intercourse  and  connection  into 
which  theology  had  already  entered  with  philosophy,  of 
giving  his  practically  conditioned  theology  a  scientific  founda- 
tion, and  bringing  it  thereby  into  direct  relationship  with 
the  whole  circle  of  the  sciences.  Schleiermacher  brought 
this  about  by  means  of  his  philosophical  theology,  the  first 
division  of  his  theology.  But  since  he  made  his  philoso- 
phical theology  borrow  its  materials  from  the  philosophy  of 
religion  and  from  ethics,  he  renders  theology  completely 
dependent  upon  philosophy.  What  theology  has  pre- 
eminently to  produce,  the  determining  of  the  idea  of 
Christianity  and  of  tlie  Church,  that  also,  in  its  own 
place,    ought    philosophy    to    produce.       As    Schleiermacher 


92  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDLA.. 

by  means  of  his  definition  alters  the  scientific  character  of 
theology,  so  by  his  philosophical  theology  he  robs  it  of  its 
scientific  independence.  But  just  precisely  this  is  a  moment 
of  very  important  range.  For  when  now  Schleiermacher 
demands  that  every  theologian  must  produce,  altogether  for 
himself,  his  own  philosophical  theology  (§  67),  and  that,  further, 
according  to  §  89,  on  the  basis  of  his  philosophical  theology, 
he  must  frame  his  exposition  of  Scripture,  and  must  also, 
by  the  dogmatic  treatment  of  the  system  of  doctrine,  make 
good  his  own  conviction,  which  still  can  only  rest  upon  the 
philosophical  theology  (§  19G),  there  is,  in  consequence  of 
this,  an  appearance  of  subjectivity  impressed  upon  the  whole 
of  his  theological  system.^  The  systematic  distribution  of 
theology  results  with  Schleiermacher  only  as  a  consequence 
from  its  practical  purpose,  and  indeed  all  the  more  readily 
because  Schleiermacher  wished  to  produce  only  a  formal 
encyclopoedia,  that  is,  only  what  was  requisite  for  the  exact 
representation  of  the  connection  of  the  different  parts  of 
theology  as  related  the  one  to  the  other.  §  20.  It  cannot 
be  denied  that  Schleiermacher,  in  so  far  as  the  practical 
aspect  of  theology  is  concerned,  has  succeeded  in  a  remark- 

'  For  the  convenience  of  the  student  who  may  not  have  easy  access  to  the 
treatise  here  criticised,  we  give  here  in  full  the  three  paragraphs  referred  to  in 
the  above  sentence.  "  Seeing  that  the  philosophical  theology  of  each  individual 
theologian  embraces  in  itself  the  essential  principles  of  his  whole  cast  of  thought 
in  reference  to  theology,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  every  theologian  must  pro- 
duce this  part  of  his  system  wholly  for  himself. "  (§67.)  Schleiermacher  then 
in  a  note  very  properly  limits  and  explains  this  statement,  by  showing  that  every 
individual  theologian  is  not  required  to  develop  independently  a  system  of 
philosophical  theology,  any  more  than  he  is  called  to  develop  independently 
a  historical  or  a  practical  theology.  In  §§  14-17  he  had  shown  that  the  in- 
dividual theologian  must  confine  his  special  activity  to  one  department,  but 
must  also  have  a  general  acquaintance  with  the  essential  features  of  all  the 
departments  of  theology.  What  he  means  in  §  67  is  that  each  theologian  must 
for  himself,  by  fii-m  conviction,  lay  hold  upon  the  principles  on  which  the  philoso- 
phical theology  which  he  professes  is  reared.  Then  §  89  is  as  follows  :  "  Seeing 
that  each  individual  theologian  must  of  necessity  form  for  himself  his  own  ex- 
position of  Scripture,  because  of  the  close  connection  between  Scripture  exposi- 
tion and  philosophical  theology,  from  which  all  the  principles  of  theology  must 
be  taken,  we  cannot  allow  him  to  borrow  much  from  the  productions  of  exegetical 


MODERN  PERIOD — SCHLEIERMACHER.  93 

able  way.  But  just  for  this  very  reason,  tliat  the  distribution 
is  not  derived  from  the  object,  but  is  determined  by  something 
outside  of  that  object,  his  theology  is  not  objectively  estab- 
lished, and  is  not  in  any  case  suited,  as  Schleiermacher  was 
inclined  to  think  (§  20),  to  stand  in  the  place  of  a  methodology, 
that  is,  to  determine  the  practical  order  to  be  followed  in  the 
theological  course  of  study.  Regarded  from  the  standpoint  of 
Church  guidance,  it  may  fairly  be  admitted,  as  a  point  that 
has  been  established,  that  apologetics  and  polemics  are  to 
occupy  the  first  place.  Nevertheless,  when  Schleiermacher 
himself  says  (§  65)  that  philosophical  theology  presupposes 
the  material  of  historical  theology,  as  something  already 
attained  and  fully  admitted,  and  that,  at  least,  it  cannot 
do  without  a  chronological  knowledge  of  the  course  of 
history  (§  252),  in  doing  so,  he  expressly  admits  that  he 
has  made  a  wrong  beginning.  Besides  this,  he  lays  him- 
self open  to  the  objection  that  the  problem  of  philosophical 
theology  cannot  be  solved  by  a  mere  art  of  chronicling, 
but  only  by  means  of  the  most  exact  knowledge  of  history. 
Under  the  three  divisions  of  historical  theology,  there  already 
appears  the  necessity,  under  which  Schleiermacher  feels 
himself  laid,  to  invert  the  order  of  derivation  when  pro- 
experts."  This  borrowing,  he  expLains,  must  mainly  be  limited  to  historical  and 
geographical  matter,  which  may  be  auxiliary  to  exposition.  Not  only  the 
exegetical,  but  also  the  dogmatic  part  of  the  system  is  grounded  upon  philo- 
sophical  theology;  and  the  same  demand  of  personal  conviction  is  made  of 
the  dogmatist  as  is  made  of  the  expositor.  "A  dogmatic  treatment  of  the 
system  of  doctrine  is  impossible,  except  as  proceeding  from  personal  con- 
viction, yet,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  necessary  that  there  should  be 
perfect  agreement  between  all  the  statements  of  doctrine  issued  from  the  same 
Lhurch  community  during  any  one  period."  (§  196.)  Without  personal  con- 
viction one  may  give  a  report  concerning  the  doctrine  current  at  any  particular 
time,  but  his  rei)resentation  will  not  help  to  establish  the  inward  connection  of 
its  truths.  From  another  standpoint  than  that  of  Schleiermacher,  yet  in  this 
one  particular  making  the  same  demand,  Martensen  says  :  "  Dogmatics  is  not  a 
mere  historical  exhibition  of  what  has  been,  or  now  is,  true  for  others,  without 
being  true  for  the  author,  nor  is  it  a  mere  philosophical  knowledge  of  Christian 
truth,  obtained  from  a  standpoint  outside  of  faith  and  the  Church."  Different 
views,  says  Schleiermacher,  are  current  in  the  Church, — their  currency  depend- 
ing on  their  being  officially  asserted  and  not  officially  contradicted.— Ed. 


94  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.'EDIA. 

ceecling    to    the    actual    study    of  the    several    parts.       But 
apart  altogether  from  this,  the  real  insufftciency  of  Schleier- 
macher's  schematism  appears  in  the  failure  on  the    part    of 
doo-matics    to    affirm    its    historical    character,  inasmuch    as, 
strictly    taken,    the    dogmatist  is  just  as  little    required    to 
assert    and  vindicate    his    personal  convictions  in  regard  to 
doctrine,  as  the  theological  statistician    is  in    regard   to  the 
facts  with  which  he  operates.      According  to  the  place  thus 
assigned  it  by  Schleiermacher,  dogmatics  must  be  a  history 
of  doctrine  current  at  the  present  time.      Practical  theology 
has    been     emancipated    by   Schleiermacher    from    the  posi- 
tion  of    being    a    mere    pendant    to  practical  clerical  train- 
ing,  and    has    been    expounded    by   him   with    reference    to 
Church    guidance, — under  the  heads  of  Church  government 
and  Church  service.      But  because  he  traces  its  origin  from 
arbitrary  emotions,  which  through  inclination  or  disinclination 
are   called  forth   under  existing  ecclesiastical   circumstances, 
and  still  makes  it  essentially  only  a  theory  of  technical  rules, 
which  are  suitable  for  practical  theologians,  who  alone  will 
and   can   make   use  of  them,   even   he   has   failed   to   bring 
practical    theology    into    a    strict    and    necessary   connection 
with    the  system.      When,  finally,   Schleiermacher  describes 
the    succession,    so    much    favoured    by  him,  of    the    three 
principal   divisions — philosophical,    historical,    and    practical 
theology — as    the    natural    order,    we    cannot    consider    his 
statement    as    at    all    grounded  in  the  nature  of  the  thing, 
but,  on    the  contrary,  it  would  rather  appear  natural    from 
Schleiermacher's    own    peculiar    standpoint,    to    begin    with 
practical    theology,    or    at    least  to    set   it    before    historical 
theology,  as  it  is  admitted  in  §    25  to  be  in  its   derivation 
prior    to    historical    theology.^      Schleiermacher,   indeed,  has 

^  In  accordance  with  Schleiermacher's  definition  of  theology,  which  recognises 
only  a  practical  problem,  the  arrangement  of  the  encyclopaedia  should  certainly 
be  even  as  Raebiger  suggests.  That  which  is  essential  to  theology,  as  thus 
defined,  would  find  expression  in  practical  theology,  and  the  other  divisions 
would  be  subordinate  and  subsidiary  to  this.     The  inversion  which  is  actually 


MODERN  PERIOD DANZ.  95 

liimself  taken  notice  of  tliis  uncertainity  in  his  treatment 
of  the  systematic  order,  when  he  says  (§  31):  "With 
whatever  division  we  might  prefer  to  begin,  we  should 
always  be  obliged,  on  account  of  the  mutual  relations 
which  the  several  divisions  bear  to  one  another,  to  assume 
in  the  one  many  things  tluit  belong  to  the  other  two." 

The  encyclopedia  of  Danz  ^  has  been  composed  evidently 
under  the  influence  of  Schleiermacher,  although  the  differ- 
ences between  it  and  Schleiermacher's  treatise  are  very  marked. 
According  to  Danz,  theology  has  Christianity  for  its  subject. 
As  the  subject  of  scientific  treatment,  Christianity  presents, 
to  one  so  dealing  with  it,  two  great  elements, — its  faith  or  its 
religious  doctrine,  and  its  associational  organism,  the  Christian 
Church.  Then,  from  these,  there  follow  the  two  principal 
divisions  of  Christian  theology, — the  Christian  science  of 
religion,  and  the  Christian  science  of  the  Church.  The 
first  principal  division  has  a  theoretical  and  a  practical 
part.  The  theoretical  embraces  exegetical,  systematic,  and 
liistorical  theology.  Tlie  practical  part  embraces  catechetics, 
homiletics,  pastoral  wisdom,  the  science  of  Christian  missions, 
and  apologetics.  The  second  principal  division,  the  Christian 
science  of  the  Church,  embraces  theoretical  sciences — in- 
resorted  to,  and  which  is  fairly  taken  to  be  a  eoufessiou  of  the  inadequacy  of 
the  definition,  would  be  strictly  allowable,  not  in  the  encyclopedia,  but  in  a 
separate  methodology.  On  Raebiger's  principles,  again,  which  refuse  to  recognise 
a  methodology  distinct  from  the  encyclopEedia,  this  necessity  of  an  inversion  in 
the  order  of  study  for  those  theological  departments  is  sufficient  to  condemn 
Schleiermacher's  scheme. — Ed. 

1  Encyclopa?die  und  Methodologie  der  theologischen  Wissenschaften.  Von  J. 
T.  L.  Danz.  Weimar  1832.  [Hageiibach  notices  Danz's  work  very  unfavourably. 
It  is  simply  a  redistribution  of  Staudlin's  material  with  a  new  nomenclature, 
and  indicates  no  clear  consciousness  on  the  part  of  the  writer  as  to  the  ground 
and  end  of  science.  Doedes'  condemnation  of  the  book  is  equally  emphatic. 
Speaking  specially  of  Danz's  arrangement,  he  says  :  "  This  division  has  not 
probably  commended  itself  to  any  one  for  naturalness,  and  we  have  only  to  con- 
template the  work  of  Danz  for  a  little  near  at  hand  in  order  to  be  able  to  under- 
stand how  Pelt  came  to  speak  of  it  as  'that  literary  labyrinth  of  his  confused 
encyclopa'dia  and  methodology,'  and  to  declare  that  it  is  admirably  calculated 
to  bring  him  who  seeks  a  guide  into  confusion."  See  Doedes,  Encyclopedic,  §  8 
Anm.  2.] 


96  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOr.EDIA. 

eluding  (1)  general  ecclesiastics,  (2)  symbolics,  comparative 
dogmatics,  and  history  of  heresies,  (3)  ecclesiastical  archeology, 
with  the  statistics  of  Christian  culture,  (4)  Church  history, 
in  its  narrower  sense,  that  is,  the  history  of  the  outward 
life  of  the  Church,  and  (5)  Church  law;  and  practical 
SCIENCES,  including  those  whose  aim  is  directed  to  the 
maintaining,  furthering,  upbuilding,  and  realizing  of  what 
is  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Christian  Church, — Church 
polity,  liturgies,  polemics,  irenics,  henotics.  Beyond  all  those 
preceding  him  who  were  not  influenced  by  Schleiermacher, 
Danz  distinguishes  himself  in  this  respect,  that  he  represents 
Christianity  as  the  subject  of  theology,  and,  after  the 
example  of  Schleiermacher,  makes  prominent  in  a  proper 
manner  the  relation  of  theology  to  the  Church.  He  is, 
however,  in  advance  even  of  Schleiermacher  himself  in 
emphasizing  the  theoretical  problem  of  theology.  His 
distribution  of  theology,  however,  under  two  principal 
divisions — the  Christian  science  of  religion  and  the  Chris- 
tian science  of  the  Church — does  not  prove  suitable  for 
a  systematic  arrangement.  At  least  Danz  has  not  been 
able  to  accomplish  the  distribution  of  theology  under  this 
schematism.  He  is  not  even  able  to  bring  the  two 
principal  divisions  into  a  scientifically  determined  con- 
nection; and  since  he  sets,  in  the  first  principal  division, 
a  historical  and  a  practical  theology,  and  then,  in  the 
second  principal  division,  again  sets  down  a  Church  history 
and  a  practical  theology,  he  not  only  tears  in  pieces  both  of 
these  theological  sciences,  but  also  leaves  it  undetermined 
whether  the  particular  subdivisions  of  these  should  be  in- 
serted in  the  first,  or  in  the  second,  principal  division. 
Instead  of  a  systematic  order,  a  systematic  confusion  here 
presents  itself. 

Hagenbach  and  Pelt,  in  their  encyclopedias,  stand  com- 
pletely under  the  influence  of  Schleiermacher,  without,  how- 
ever, giving  evidence  of  that  genius  for  organization  by  which 


MODERN  PERIOD — HAGENBACH.  97 

Schleiermaclier  was  distinguislied.  Hageubach  ^  begins  with 
an  introduction  (pp.  1-50),  and  even  in  it  the  want  of 
systematic  configuration  comes  into  view.  One  shoiikl  certainly 
expect  that  in  the  introduction  the  matter  under  discussion 
would  be  the  theological  encyclopcedia.  Hagenbach,  how- 
ever, on  the  contrary,  after  having  simply  stated  the  idea 
of  encyclopaedia,  occupies  this  whole  division  of  his  treatise 
with  a  somewhat  detailed  consideration  of  religion,  Chris- 
tianity, Church  and  theology,  the  order  of  teachers  in  the 
Church,  and  a  variety  of  such-like  matters,  the  treatment 
of  which  properly  belongs  to  an  exposition  of  theology  itself. 
These  topics,  therefore,  should  have  been  assigned,  partly  to 
the  general  part  of  the  encyclopcedia,  and  partly  to  systematic 
and  practical  theology.  Thus  Hagenbach's  conception  of  the 
introduction  leads  to  an  unclear  mixing  of  the  scientific  and 
practical  problems  of  theology.  While  quite  properly  it  is 
emphasized  that  theology  has  a  practical  problem,  yet  this 
is  so  very  conspicuously  put  in  the  front,  that  the  scientific 
problem  is  thereby  unduly  curtailed,  Eegard  for  the  order 
of  teachers  in  the  Church  is  largely  influential  with  Hagen- 
bach. Theology  is  conceived  by  him  as  expressly  intended 
for  members  of  this  order,  and  its  task  is  to  teach  them  what 
it  is  necessary  for  them  to  know.  The  scientific  point  of 
view,  according  to  which  the  knowledge  that  is  valuable  and 
the  knowledge  that  is  necessary  for  the  theologian  must  be 
determined  from  the  nature  of  theology  itself,  is  not  thereby 
allowed  to  occupy  its  proper  place.  But  to  speak,  as  Hageu- 
bach does  in  §  1 7,  of  a  partition  of  theological  work  between 
theologians,  in  the  narrowest  sense  of  the  word,  and  the  order 
of  teachers  in  the  Church,  is  altogether  improper.  The  latter, 
indeed,  can  and  sliould  participate  in  theological  work  as  such, 
but  it  must  still  be  one  and  the  same  with  that  of  the  profes- 

^  Encyclopffidie  und  Methodologie  der  theologischen  Wissenscliaften.  Von 
K.  K.  Hagenbach.  Leipzig  1883.  9  Aufiage,  1874.  [lOtli  edition,  1880, 
edited  by  Professor  Kautscli.] 

VOL.  L  G 


98  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

sional  theologian,  and  will  then  contribute  to  the  qualifying  of 
the  teaching  orders  or  the  clergy,  for  their  practical  activity, 
which    as    such    is    not   theological.      At    page    50   a    false 
title  is  given  to  the  general  part  of  the  treatise  when  it  is 
styled.  The  General  Part  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia,  whereas 
that  of  which  Hagenbach  treats  in  it  is  not   encyclopaedia, 
but  theology  itself.^     In  his  definition  of  theology  he  closely 
connects  himself  with  Schleiermacher.    "  Theology  is  a  positive 
science   (Schleiermacher,   §  1),  and  consequently  has  not  its 
defining   ground  in  itself,  like  pure   science,  but  outside  in 
a  department  of  life  determined  by  empirical  circumstances, 
that  is,  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  its  temporal  manifesta- 
tion."  §   22.     Theology  is,  therefore,  "  a  practical  branch  of 
science  or  a  technology, — the  theory  of  an  art."   §  23.     Like 
Schleiermacher,  Hagenbach   identifies   theology  as  a  positive 
science  with  a  purely  practical  science,  and  seeks  to  justify 
this  employment  of  the  term  "positive"  by  comparing  theology 
to  jurisprudence  and  medicine,  as  though  these,  because  they 
find  their  application  in  connection  with  practical  conditions, 
become  on  this  account  mere  practical  branches  of  science  or 
technologies  !     But  when  Schleiermacher  proceeds  to  give  a 
scientific  foundation  to  his  theology,  thus  conceived  of  from  the 
practical  side,  and,  with  great  precision  in  accordance  with  his 
definition,  gives  organic  form  to  theology,  Hagenbach  either  fails 
to  understand  these  refinements  of  Schleiermacher,  or  on  pur- 
pose declines  to  reproduce  them.   Hagenbach  abandons  Schleier- 
macher's  distribution,  and  declares  himself,  on  the  gi'ound  of 
utility,  in  favour  of  a  fourfold  arrangement, — exegetical,  his- 
torical, systematic,  and  practical  theology.    In  carrying  out  this 

1  The  objection  that  is  here  brought  against  Hagenbach  is  not  that  he  treats 
of  theology  in  the  general  part  of  his  encyclopedia,  for  this  is  recognised  by 
liaebiger  as  the  proper  subject  of  that  division.  It  should,  however,  have  been 
entitled  with  distinct  reference  to  theology.  The  topics  wrongly  introduced 
into  the  introduction  would  be  proper  to  this  division  ;  and  the  history  of 
encyclopjedia,  which  is  tacked  on  as  an  appendix  to  the  general  part,  should 
form  part  of  the  introduction. — Ed. 


MODEEN  PEEIOD HAGEXBACII.  99 

purpose,  the  positive  theology  of  §  22  is  now  converted  into 
another  positive  theology — into  a  positive  theology,  that  is  to 
say,  which  "  rests  upon  the  facts  given  in  the  founding  of 
the  Christian  religion  (Kevelation)."  §  34.  When  the  term 
"  positive "  is  employed  in  this  sense,  it  is  quite  properly 
said  that  "  the  study  of  positive  theology,  accordhig  to  its 
nature,  is  to  be  broken  up  into  that  of  the  four  principal 
departments,"  and  the  various  scientific  pursuits  compre- 
hended under  these  are  capable  of  being  arranged  in  a  good 
formal  order ;  but  the  thought  of  harmonizing  the  state- 
ments of  §  22  and  §  34  is  not  to  be  entertained.  Tor 
while,  in  the  former  section,  it  is  said  that  theology  does 
not  find  its  scientific  ground  of  definition  in  itself,  but  out- 
side of  itself,  in  the  Christian  Church,  in  the  latter  section, 
on  the  contrary,  it  does  find  this  ground  of  definition  quite 
within  itself,  since  this  positive  characteristic,  by  means  of 
which  it  is  determined  in  its  whole  organization,  undeniably 
belongs  to  its  inner  being.  In  consequence  of  this  confusion 
in  regard  to  such  leading  ideas,  no  clear  scientific  definition 
can  be  reached.  For  if  one  should  ask  about  the  scientific 
ground  of  definition  for  theology,  then,  according  to  §  22, 
theology  would  be  a  science  by  reason  of  the  connection  of 
all  the  theological  branches  of  study  with  the  Church ;  but, 
according  to  §  34,  theology  is  a  science  by  reason  of  the  con- 
nection of  the  theological  departments  with  the  Christian 
revelation,  or  even  by  reason  of  their  connection  with  both 
revelation  and  Church.  This  connection  may,  indeed,  make 
these  particular  branches  of  study  theological,  but  it  certainly 
cannot  make  them  scientific.  It  may,  indeed,  help  theology 
to  a  logically  arranged  schematism,  but  it  cannot  establish 
its  scientific  character.  Hagenbach  disregards  the  scientific 
grounding  which  Schleiermacher  sought  to  give  his  theology. 
No  answer  is  given  by  him  to  the  question  as  to  the  relation 
which  theology  must  bear  toward  the  Churcli,  or  to  this 
positive  element,  if  it   is  to  represent  itself   as  science,  and 


100  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP-EDIA. 

take  its  place  among  the  other  sciences.  For  when  he 
employs  the  phrase,  "  an  ideal  treatment  of  theology,"  "when, 
too,  he  insists  that  philosophy  should  be  a  steady  com- 
panion of  theology  (§  28),  and,  after  a  criticism  of  the 
different  tendencies  which  have  prevailed  in  theology,  recom- 
mends the  mediation  theology,  which  "  undertakes  to  give  a 
spiritual  rendering  of  that  which  was  enjoined  from  without, 
to  distinguish  the  eternal  contents  of  religious  ideas  from 
their  temporal  forms  of  manifestation,  to  estimate  in  an 
unprejudiced  manner  the  historical  element  and  the  extant 
documents,  and  to  reconcile  Christianity  with  the  claims  of 
modern  culture"  (§  32,  p.  87), — a  clear  exposition  of  the  way 
upon  which  theology  must  go  to  reach  its  end, — he  does  not  give 
any  emphatic  deliverance,  but  vacillates  undecidedly  between 
assigning  to  theology  a  theoretical  or  a  practical  purpose. 
According  to  the  fundamental  tendency,  however,  which  finds 
expression  in  his  definition,  Hagenbach's  theology  still  appears 
only  as  a  conglomeration,  without  any  inner  coherence,  of  ac- 
quirements which  qualify  the  Christian  Church  teacher  for  his 
official  duties  in  the  Church.  Further  than  this,  Hagenbach, 
with  his  purely  formal  representation  of  the  encyclopa.'dia, 
has  not  reached, — the  marking  out  and  distinguishing  from 
one  another  the  principal  departments  of  theology.  Since, 
therefore,  he  has  satisfied  himself  with  the  view  that  the 
Bible,  and  the  auxiliary  sciences  relating  to  it,  form  together 
the  subject  of  exegetical  theology,  he  assigns  to  the  division 
of  historical  theology,  after  the  example  of  the  older  theo- 
logians, the  whole  Bible  history,  that  is,  the  history  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  to  which  the  history  of  the  people 
of  Israel,  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  the  history  of  the  apostolic 
age  belong,  and  the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Bible,  as  biblical 
dogmatics.-^      In    systematic    theology,    of    which    the     main 

1  In  Eaebiger's  distribution,  on  the  other  hand,  all  those  branches  of  study 
mentioned  above  are  placed  under  the  principal  division  of  exegetical  theology, 
for  this  reason,  that  the  materials  for  them  are  all  contained  in  Holy  Scrip- 


MODERN  TEItlOD IIAGEXBACII.  101 

divisions  are  dogmatics  and  Christian  ethics,  apologetics  is 
regarded  as  an  introduction  to  dogmatics,  while  polemics  and 
irenics  are  to  be  considered  "  not  as  separate  and  distinct 
branches  of  science,  but  only  as  special  appendages  to 
theological  science."  As  for  practical  theology,  Hagenbach 
represents  it  in  all  essential  respects  in  the  very  same 
way  as  Schleiermacher.  Telt  has  recognised  the  ency- 
Ciopa3dia  of  Hagenbach  as  "  a  careful  students'  book,"  and 
its  success  has  justified  this  recognition.  To  the  student 
beginning  his  theological  studies,  Hagenbach's  encyclopiedia 
will  always  prove  rich  in  instruction  regarding  special 
theological  guides,  and  will  further  him  in  his  study  by 
means  of  the  methodological  notes  w^hich  are  interspersed  ; 
but  it  will  not  be  able  to  advance  him  in  regard  to  insiglit 
into  the  significance  of  theological  science,  and  into  the 
systematic  connection  of  its  principal  divisions  and  branches. 

[The  encyclopasdia  of  Hagenbach,^  which  first  appeared  in 
the  year  1833,  celebrated  by  its  tenth  edition  what  may  be 
called  a  jubilee,  having  well-nigh  reached  its  fiftieth  year. 
The  repeated  editions  through  which  it  has  passed  during  these 
fifty  years  are  a  clear  evidence  that  it  has  stood  the  test  as  a 
student's  book.  This  success,  but  above  all,  the  dilhculty 
that  lay  in  the  task  itself,  has  determined  the  editor  of 
the  tenth  edition,  as  he  states  in  his  preface,  to   leave   the 

ture.  It  seems  quite  incorrect  on  the  part  of  Hagenbach  thus  to  arrange 
these  branches,  seeing  that  lie  has  assigned  a  separate  division  to  exegetical 
theology.  Their  classification  under  liistorical  theology  could  be  justified 
only  in  the  case  of  older  theologians,  ^vho  did  not  recognise  exogetical 
theology  as  a  distinct  division. — Ed. 

1  The  above  paragraph  referring  to  the  latest  edition  of  Hagenbach's  eneyclo- 
predia  is  translated  from  the  short  treatise  of  Kaebiger,  supplementary  to  his 
Theologic,  published  in  1882,  and  entitled,  Zur  theologischen  Encyclojiredie. 
In  this  little  work,  Raebiger  reviews  several  treatises  on  theological  encyclo- 
ptedia  which  had  appeared  subsequent  to  the  a]ipearance  of  his  own  Theologic 
in  1880.  His  extended  criticisms  of  the  encyclopa'dias  of  Hofmann  and  Kothe 
will  be  given  in  full,  in  the  form  of  an  appendix,  at  the  close  of  this  volume. 
—Ed. 


102  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP/EDIA. 

work  essentially  unchanged.  In  this  he  has  acted  rightly. 
For  a  satisfactory  redaction  must  have  been,  in  fact,  so 
thoroughgoing,  that  of  the  original  Hagenbach  there  would 
have  remained  very  little.  The  jubilee  edition,  therefore, 
in  comparison  with  the  ninth,  presents  itself  in  a  form 
practically  unaltered,  and  hence  I  have  no  occasion  for 
withdrawing  anything  from  the  criticism  which  I  have 
before  passed  upon  this  encyclopaedia  of  Hagenbach.  I  need 
only  intimate  my  agreement  with  the  judgment  pronounced 
by  the  editor  himself  at  page  viii,  that  "  in  the  main  it 
reflects  the  conclusions  of  a  period  of  theological  research 
which  we  have  now  left  behind."  But  with  many  it  will 
not  on  that  account  be  regarded  as  dead,  as  the  editor  fears 
it  may,  or  treated  merely  "  as  a  help  to  the  understanding  of 
a  recently  closed  period  of  theological  science,"  for  indeed 
this  very  mediation-theology,  which  has  found  in  Hagenbach's 
encyclopedia  a  very  characteristic  expression,  finds  still  many 
favourably  inclined  toward  it.  Independently,  however,  of 
the  theological  standpoint  which  it  represents,  this  encyclo- 
paedia commends  itself  to  not  a  few  on  account  of  the  abun- 
dance of  the  literary  material  which  it  furnishes  under  the 
several  sections.  In  its  revision,  therefore,  the  editor  has 
directed  his  special  attention  to  this  department,  and  has 
gained  credit  to  himself  by  not  only  correcting  several  errors 
of  earlier  editions,  but  also  by  having  supplemented  the  litera- 
ture in  the  most  perfect  manner  possible,  bringing  it  down  to 
the  present  time.  Nevertheless,  as  he  admits  on  page  ix  of 
his  preface,  he  is  himself  conscious  of  the  difficulty  by  which 
the  encyclopedist  is  beset  in  regard  to  this  matter.  He  is 
quite  correct  in  considering  it  a  very  doubtful  advantage  for 
beginners  to  have  before  them  a  mere  accumulation  of  titles 
of  books,  without  any  estimate  of  the  substance  of  the  books 
attached,  and  in  regarding  it,  besides,  as  scnrcely  practicable 
to  admit  a  complete  literature  into  the  encyclopedia.  I 
have   been  myself  influenced  by  considerations  like  these  in 


MODERN  PERIOD HAGENBACH.  103 

the  composition  of  the  present  treatise  on  theologic.  Tlie 
titles  of  books,  piled  up  page  after  page,  produces  upon  one 
beginning  the  study  of  theology  a  feeling  of  terror,  or  at 
least  a  sense  of  confusion,  while  the  theological  adept  will 
scarcely  seek  to  acquire  his  knowledge  of  the  literature  of 
an  exegetical,  historical,  or  dogmatic  subject  with  which  he 
wishes  particularly  to  occupy  himself,  from  the  theological 
encyclopaedia,  but  rather  from  a  commentary,  a  handbook 
of  Church  history,  or  a  treatise  on  dogmatics,  where  the 
literature  must  be  drawn  up  in  the  most  complete  manner 
possible.  If  the  range  of  theological  encyclopedia  is  not  to 
be  proportionally  expanded,  and  thereby  the  specific  purpose 
of  the  encycloptedia  missed,  the  encyclopaedist  must  renounce 
the  idea  of  turning  the  theological  encyclopaedia  into  a  hand- 
book of  theological  literature,  and  must  be  willing  to  satisfy 
himself  with  indicating  under  every  leading  division  the 
principal  works,  in  order  to  familiarize  the  beginner  with 
the  most  eminent  representatives  of  the  several  branches  of 
study,  and  to  set  him  in  a  position  for  applying  himself  in  his 
private  studies  to  those  works  acknowledged  to  be  the  best, 
and  for  drawing  directly  from  these  his  knowledge  of  the 
most  important  literature  for  the  history  of  those  particular 
branches  of  study.  What  the  theological  encyclopaedia  cannot 
yield,  and  also  what  it  should  not  be  expected  to  yield,  will 
be  best  relegated  to  the  old  so-called  hibliotheca  theologica  :  and 
it  is,  indeed,  a  thing  much  to  be  desired,  that  some  one 
would  bring  out  an  edition  of  Winer's  Handbook  of 
Theological  Literature,  revised  and  brought  down  to  the 
present  date.] 

[A  work  has  just  appeared  from  the  American  press,  bearing 
the  title :  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  ]\Iethodology,  on  the 
ba.sis  of  Hagenbach.^     It  forms  one  of  the  volumes  of  a  sonie- 

'  Theological  Encyclopaedia  and  Metliodologj'.  On  the  basis  of  Hagenhach. 
P.)'  George  R.  Crooks,  D.D.,  ami  John  F.  Hurst,  D.D.,  New  York  and  Cincin- 
nati, 1884.    Forming  volume  iii.  of  Librarj-  of  Biblical  and  Theological  Literature. 


104  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

what  extensive  series  of  theological  treatises,  iutended,  as  it 
would  seem,  to  reflect  the  views  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  This  library  of  biblical  and  theological  literature  is 
under  the  general  editorship  of  Dr.  George  E.  Crooks  and  Dr 
John  F.  Hurst,  and  these  gentlemen  are  the  translators  and 
editors  of  the  volume  which  treats  of  encyclopedia.  The 
scope  and  main  intention  of  the  work  will  appear  from  the 
following  statement  of  the  editors  in  their  preface  : — "  We 
have  endeavoured,  by  utilizing  the  rich  material  of  Hagenbach, 
to  make  a  handbook  for  the  theological  student ;  a  guide  to 
show  him  the  right  path  of  inquiry  ;  a  plan  or  draft  of  the 
science,  so  that  by  the  help  here  afforded  he  can  see  its 
exterior  lines,  the  boundaries  of  its  subdivisions,  and  can  take 
the  whole  into  the  compass  of  a  complete  survey."  The 
editors  take  credit  for  considerable  additions  to  the  biblio- 
graphy of  the  subject,  but  this  is  almost  wholly  confined  to 
the  enumeration  of  the  titles  of  English  and  American  works, 
the  latter  naturally  receiving  special  attention.  In  all  essen- 
tial respects  the  American  work  may  be  regarded  as  simply 
a  translation  of  the  German  work  :  the  translation  being  in 
certain  parts  somewhat  free,  but  in  other  sections  quite  close 
and  literal.  From  the  statement  on  the  title-page,  that  it  is 
simply  based  upon  Hagenbach,  we  should  have  expected  to 
find  some  attempt  to  adapt  the  work  to  the  use  of  English 
students,  and  to  bring  down  the  history  and  literature  to  the 
latest  date.  We  can  discover  no  trace  whatever  of  any 
serious  endeavour  in  either  of  these  directions.  The  principal 
objection  brought  against  Hagenbach  by  Eaebiger  is  that  long 
lists  of  books  are  given  under  each  head  and  subdivision, 
treatises  being  named  quite  indiscriminately,  without  reference 
to  their  comparative  value.  This  proves  confusing  to  the 
student,  and  is  scarcely  anything  more  than  a  publisher's 
classified  index.  The  American  editors,  instead  of  weeding  out 
the  useless  references  in  the  original  lists,  retain  these  entire, 
and  make  their  own  additions  upon  the   same  scale   and  in 


MODERN  TEKIOD PELT.  105 

accordance  with  the  same  principle.  Then,  in  regard  to  the 
history  and  literature  of  theological  encyclopaedia,  no  attempt 
is  made  to  continue  the  record  beyond  the  point  reached  by 
Hagenbach.  Eeference,  indeed,  is  made  to  the  barrenness  of 
English  and  American  theological  literature  in  the  department 
of  encyclopiedia,  there  being  only  one  comprehensive  treatise 
by  an  American  theologian,  Dr.  M' Clin  took,  whose  lectures 
on  theological  encyclopiedia  were  published  at  New  York  in 
1873.  But  it  is  surely  an  indication  of  very  culpable 
carelessness  on  the  part  of  scholars  professing  to  edit  and 
work  up  such  a  treatise  as  that  before  lis,  tliat,  while  the 
editor's  preface  bears  date  of  1st  March  1884,  no  refer- 
ence at  all  is  made  to  the  three  important  works  on 
theological  encyclopaedia  by  Eaebiger,  Hofmann,  and  Eothe, 
all  of  which  appeared  in  1880.  Besides  this,  it  seems  that 
the  last  German  edition  of  Hagenbach,  also  published  in 
1880,  was  not  used  by  the  American  translators.  No  refer- 
ence is  made  to  the  important  treatise  of  J.  P.  Lange, 
Grundriss  der  theolog.  Encycloptedie,  which  appeared  in  1877, 
of  which  notice  is  taken  in  a  footnote  on  page  109  of  Hagen- 
bach's  treatise.  Notwithstanding  these  defects,  the  book  is 
likely  to  prove  highly  useful  to  English  theological  students, 
who  have  not  ready  access  to  the  German  work.  It  is 
written  in  an  intelligible  and  readable  style,  and  is  fitted  to 
supply  a  want  that  has  been  keenly  felt  in  English  theological 
literature. — Ed.] 

Pelt  ^  proceeds  more  independently  than  Hagenbach. 
According  to  the  statement  which  he  makes  in  his  preface, 
he  too  has  Avritten  his  work  for  young  theologians,  to  enable 

^  Theologische  Encyclopfcdie  als  System  im  Zusanniieiiliango  niit  tier  Ge- 
schiclite  der  theologisclieii  Wisscnschaft,  und  ihrer  einzelnen  Zweige  entwiekelt 
von  A.  F.  L.  Pelt.  Hamburg  und  Gotlia,  1845.  [Rich  but  judiciously 
selected  material,  set  forth  with  a  stroke  of  genius,  a  keen  sense  of  the  artistic 
side  of  the  theological  calling,  a  warm  entliusiasm  for  Christianity,  a  sound  and 
fair  judgment,  are  characteristics  of  the  book  worthy  of  being  recognised  ;  but 


106  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

them  to  determine  their  position  in  the  theological  domain, 
but  also,  at  the  same  time,  with  the  purpose  of  "  making  a 
contribution  to  the  better  construction  of  theology  as  a 
system, — a  work  that  has  been  attempted  in  many  ways 
since  the  publication  of  Schleiermacher's  masterpiece."  In 
the  Introduction,  pp.  1-80,  Pelt  indicates  in  a  very  admirable 
way  the  task  of  the  theological  encyclopaedia,  and  demands 
not  merely  a  formal,  but  rather  a  material,  performance  of 
this  task.  However,  the  treating  of  theology  in  general  in 
the  introduction  to  the  encyclopaedia  is  not  favourable  to 
system.  For  in  this  case  the  general  outline  of  theology  gets 
less  attention  than  it  deserves.  In  Pelt's  conception  of 
theology  the  same  confusion  makes  its  appearance  as  is  found 
also  in  Hagenbach.  After  the  example  of  Schleiermacher, 
theology  is  regarded  by  Pelt  as  a  positive  science,  inasmuch 
as  "  it  relates  itself  to  an  outward  phaenomenon,  the  Church." 
"  The  middle  term,  to  wliich  everything  that  is  to  be  con- 
sidered as  part  of  the  contents  of  theology  must  relate  itself, 
is  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  the  organic  revelation  of  God 
in  the  world,  as  the  Church"  (p.  15).  But  then,  by  virtue 
of  its  essential  connection  with  a  positive  religion,  it  obtains 
again  its  positive  character  (p.  34),  and  by  this  means 
accomplishes  its  scientific  task.  Pelt  will  not  consent  to 
regard  theology,  as  Schleiermacher  does,  as  a  mere  sum- 
total  of  acquirements  and  rules  for  the  guidance  of  the 
Church,  and  consequently  as  a  mere  technology  or  theory 
of  an  art.  On  the  contrary,  he  defines  theology  as  the 
science  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which,  however,  at  the 
same  time,  as  an  instruction  for  the  introducing  of  that 
kingdom  of  God  into  the  world,  is  a  practical  science  or 
technology.   §  5.      Pelt  has  rightly  insisted  upon  the  connec- 

undoubtedly  it  might  have  reached  a  wider  circle  had  it  been  compressed  within 
narrower  limits. — Hagenbach.  In  his  article  on  Pelt  in  Herzog,  Dorner  calls 
the  Encyclopaidie  "  a  work  not  merely  of  great  industry  and  comprehensive 
study,  but  also  a  truly  spiritual  conception  and  an  instructive  performance." 
See  vol.  xi.  pp.  435-437.] 


MODERN  PERIOD RELT.  107 

tion  of  tlieology  with  the  Church,  and  endeavours  to  combine 
tlie  scientific  spirit  with  the  practical  As  science,  however, 
theology  has  notliing  to  do  with  art,  and,  taken  generally  as 
a  technology  or  theory  of  an  art,  it  would  be  brought,  in  too 
restricted  a  sense,  into  connection  with  the  Church.  But 
now,  inasmuch  as  Telt  emphasizes  the  scientific  character 
of  theology,  he  is  under  obligation  to  prove  by  what  means 
it  obtains  this  character.  Pelt  has  certainly  attempted  this, 
but  in  a  very  unsatisfactory  manner.  As  truth  in  general,  so 
also  divine  revealed  truth,  which  forms  the  contents  of 
theology,  should  have  its  true  form  first  given  it  in  the  system, 
and  hence  "  theology  should  assume  the  form  of  system, 
consequently  of  science,  in  the  essential  and  strictest  sense." 
The  system,  however,  should,  as  it  seems,  be  so  conceived 
that  all  theological  elements  would  find  "  their  point  of  unity 
and  rest  in  the  perfected  kingdom  of  God"  (p.  35).  In  this 
way  it  might,  indeed,  be  possible  to  establish  a  purely  formal 
systematic,  but  certainly  it  would  not  still  be  possible  to 
prove  thus  the  scientific  character  of  theology.  In  the  dis- 
tribution of  his  material.  Pelt,  like  Hagenbach,  parts  company 
with  Schleiermacher,  inasmuch  as  he  begins,  not  with  philoso- 
phical theology,  but  with  historical  theology.  In  agreement 
with  Schleiermacher  he  includes  in  historical  theology  biblical, 
that  is,  exegetical  theology,  and  then,  Church  history,  and 
ecclesiastical  statistics,  which  last  appears  as  a  distinct  third 
part  of  historical  theology,  whereas  it  actually  belongs  rather 
to  Church  history.  He  differs,  moreover,  from  Schleiermacher 
in  separating  dogmatics  from  statistics,  and  setting  down  as 
a  second  principal  division,  systematic  theology,  which  he 
alternatively  denominates  —  Fundamental  theology,  thetic 
theology,  and  the  philosophy  of  Christianity.  With  happy 
insight  into  Schleiermacher's  tendencies,  Pelt  receives  into 
this  division  the  material  treated  of  by  Schleiermacher  in 
his  philosophical  theology.  Nevertheless  he  is  not  actually 
justified  in   admitting   symbolics   into   fundamental   theology. 


108  THEOLOGICAL  E^•CYCLO^.'EDIA. 

which  is  divided  into  a  general  doctrine  of  theological  prin- 
ciples, and  a  doctrine  of  the  special  principles  of  the  separate 
Churches,  and,  regarding  this  science  of  symbolics,  as  equi- 
valent to  the  latter  subdivision.  Neitlier  can  his  proposal 
be  defended  to  set  down  the  philosophy  of  Christianity  as 
a  special  part  of  systematic  theology,  seeing  that  already 
fundamental  theology  and  thetic  theology  have  yielded 
wliat  that  would  be  expected  to  yield.  In  reference  to 
practical  theology.  Pelt  differs  from  Schleiermacher  only  in 
so  far  as  he  places  a  system  of  Church  organization  or 
ecclesiastics,  as  a  first  subdivision,  before  the  system  of 
Church  government  and  the  Church  service. 

Following  Schleiermacher  in  the  closest  connection,  Eeuter- 
dahl  ^  divides  theology  into  philosophical,  historical,  and 
practical  theology,  and  distinguishes  himself  from  Schleier- 
macher only  by  this,  that  in  the  first  division  he  prefaces  his 
apologetics  and  polemics  by  a  psychology  of  religion  and  a 
history  of  religion. 

In  the  spirit  of  Schleiermacher,  Kienlen,"  too,  has  expounded 
his  encyclopajdia  ;  but,  in  the  systematic  distribution,  he 
agrees  mostly  with  Pelt,  and  distinguishes  himself  from  both 
only  in  this,  that  lie  puts  down  apologetics  and  polemics 
as  principal  divisions  of  practical  theology,  and  after 
these,  has  a  further  division  of  a  constitutional  and  technical 
kind. 

We  find  an  unmistakeable  trace  of  Schleiermacher's  influ- 
ence in  Harless,  too,  by  whom  theology  has  been  represented 

1  Inledning  till  Theologien,  af  H.  Reuterdahl.     Lund  1S37. 

^  Encyclopedic  der  Wissenschaften  der  Protestantischen  Tlieologie  zuni  Bebuf 
akademischer  Vorlesungen  dargestellt  von  H.  W.  Kienlen.  Darmstadt  1845. 
I'irst  published  in  French  at  Strassburg,  1842,  under  the  title — Encyclopedie 
des  sciences  de  la  theologie  chr^tienne.  [Among  French  treatises  on  enc3'clo- 
pajdia  may  be  mentioned, — Edouard  Vaucher,  Essai  de  Methodologie  des  sciences 
theologiques.  Paris  1878.  Also  interesting  papers  in  the  Bulletin  theologique 
for  1863  ;  Godet,  I'Organisme  de  la  science  tht^ologique  :  Pronier,  de  I'Eacyclo- 
pedie  des  sciences  theologiques  :  and  a  reply  to  the  latter  by  Godet.  In  the 
same  review  for  1865  there  is  an  interesting  sketch  by  L.  Thomas,  entitled, — 
Esquisse  d'une  Encyclopedie  des  sciences  theologiques. — Ed.] 


MODEllN  PERIOD IIAKLESS,  109 

from  the  orthodox  Lutheran  standpoint.^  Harless,  after  he 
has,  in  a  quite  suitable  way,  defined  in  the  introduction  the 
nature  of  human  knowledge  from  the  idea  of  the  general 
encyclopedia  and  methodology,  makes  the  very  fair  demand 
that  the  encyclopaedia  and  methodology  of  theology,  which  is 
a  part  of  the  whole  range  of  scientific  knowledge,  should  be 
represented  in  the  same  manner  (p.  6).  In  the  first  part  tlie 
plan  of  such  an  encyclopaedia  is  sketched  according  to  its 
fundamental  features.  Christian  theology  is  the  scientific 
knowledge  of  the  Christian  faith.  Tiiis  faith  has  its  manifes- 
tation in  tlie  Church,  and  hence  "  the  true  theology  must 
proceed  from  the  basis  of  a  common  Christian  faith,  must 
seek  to  know  this  according  to  its  ground  and  nature,  and  to 
lead  back  to  it"  (p.  25).  Protestant  theology  is  identical 
with  Christian  theology,  and  the  common  faith,  as  it  is  laid 
down  in  the  symbolical  books  of  the  Protestant  Church,  is  the 
basis  of  Protestant  theology.  Christianity  as  a  real  pheno- 
menon has  a  double  history,  a  history  of  its  founding  and 
a  history  of  its  spreading.  Witli  the  former,  the  exegetical 
branches  are  occupied.  Exegesis  is  the  basis  of  all  theology. 
The  latter,  the  historical  manifestation  of  the  Church,  can- 
not be  comprehended  unless  there  has  been  a  previous 
systematic  statement  of  doctrine.  Dogmatics  must  therefore 
precede  Church  history,  as  a  study  bearing  a  historical,  ideal 
character ;  while  between  exegesis  and  dogmatics  comes 
symbolics,  as  the  historical  knowledge  of  the  common  faith 
of  to-day,  and  forms  the  transition  to  the  Church-historical 
branches  of  study — Church  history,  the  history  of  doctrines, 
etc.  In  succession  to  this  comes  ethics,  as  a  second  branch 
of  study  of  a  historical,  ideal  character,  and  forms  the 
transition  to  practical  theology,  tlie  contents  of  which  con- 
stitute the  demands  which  the   Church  makes  of    those    to 

'  G.  C.  A.  Harless,  Theologische  Encyclopsedie  und  Methodologie  von  Stand- 
punkte  der  protestantischen  Kirche.  Grundriss  fiir  akademischo  Yorlesuii"en. 
Niiruberg  1837. 


110  THEOLOGICAL  EyCYCLOP.EDLA.. 

whom  the  guidance  of  the  Church  commonwealth  is  en- 
trusted. After  the  example  of  Schleiermacher,  Harless  seeks 
to  brina  theology  into  the  closest  possible  connection  with 
the  Church,  only  with  this  difference,  that  he  allows  himself 
to  be  led  not  by  a  practical,  but  by  an  essentially  theo- 
retical tendency.  But  although  this  is  fully  acknowledged, 
yet,  even  from  the  very  beginning,  the  interests  of  the  true 
doctrine  are  brought  by  Harless  into  the  foreground,  so  that 
symbolics  and  dogmatics  get  their  place  immediately  after 
exegesis.  The  identifying  of  Protestant  theology  with  Chris- 
tian theology  on  this  ground  of  faith  is  a  mere  presupposi- 
tion. But"  the  entire  Church  history  obtains  the  place  after 
this  systematic  theology,  only  in  order  that  it  may  be  there 
to  be  judged  of  by  the  true  doctrine.  In  particular,  this 
leaves  it  "unexplained  wherefore  ethics  is  not  immediately 
connected  with  dogmatics,  seeing  that  this  latter,  just  as 
well  as  the  former,  must  contribute  to  a  proper  estimate  of 
the  historical  Christian  life.  In  the  second  division,  from 
page  57  to  page  258,  Harless  gives  an  outline  of  the  history 
of  theology  and  of  the  particular  branches  of  theological  science;^ 
but  this  neither  helps  to  an  insight  into  the  organism  thereof, 
nor  could  be  at  all  suitable  for  academical  lectures. 

While  Harless  represents  the  orthodox  standpoint,  Lobegott 
Lange,  who  is  not  affected  by  the  theology  of  Schleiermacher, 
gives,' in  the  spirit  of  Protestantism  and  of  a  supernatural 
Rationalism,  an  instruction  to  young  students  on  theological 
study.'       Christian  theology,  wliich  has  for  its   subject  the 

1  [After  cnviu^  a  summary  of  Harless'  work,  and  referring  especially  to  that 
historical  s'^econd  part  mentioned  above,  Doedes  thus  criticises  its  main  posi- 
tions- "This  outline  is  important  as  making  known  the  principles  by  Avhich 
the  scientific  theology  in  its  several  parts  is  to  be  dominated,  but  of  it  as  an 
encyclopaedia  ^ve  cannot  say  this.  That  elsewhere  the  placing  of  dogmatics 
before  historical  theology  has  found  no  imitation  is  not  to  be  regre  ted,  for  it 
has  <^enerally  been  agi-eed  that  the  place  between  historical  and  practical 
theofogy  is  the  most  natm-al  for  the  so-called  systematic  theology.  -Encyclo- 
pedic der  Christelijke  Theologie,  p.  41.]  ,     ,       n        i    f    „ 

•  Anleitung  zum  Studinm  der  Christlichen  Theologie,  nach  den  Grundsat.en 
des  biblisehen  Katioualismus.     Von  Lobegott  Lange.     Jena  1841. 


MODERN  PERIOD LAXGE.  Ill 

Christian,  therefore  a  positive,  historical  religion,  is  bound  up 
neither  to  confessional  writings  nor  to  a  philosophical  system, 
hut  only  to  Holy  Scripture,  and  has  witli  the  help  of  philosophy 
to  lead  to  a  scientific  scholarly  knowledge  of  the  Christian 
religion  (p.  28).  Hence  the  principal  thing  is  the  under- 
standing of  Holy  Scripture,  of  which  the  systematic  study 
is  represented  in  hermeneutics,  and  its  contents  in  biblical 
theology.  With  these  are  joined  dogmatics  and  morals. 
These  sciences  form  the  proper  domain  of  Christian  theology. 
As  auxiliary  sciences,  having  respect  to  the  history  of  the 
fortunes  of  the  Christian  Church  and  the  preservation  of  the 
Church,  Church  history  and  catechetics,  homiletics  and  liturgies 
are  to  be  added.  With  a  pure  scientific  spirit,  Lange  falls  back 
upon  the  principles  on  which  theology  must  be  built  up,  if  it  is 
to  lay  any  claim  to  be  a  science.  But  because  he  conceives  of 
the  subject  of  theology  in  too  contracted  a  manner,  and  quite 
overlooks  its  connection  with  the  Church,  he  is  partly  not  just 
to  the  history  of  Christianity,  partly  not  able  sufficiently 
to  authenticate  the  systematic  connection  of  the  tlieological 
branches  of  study  ;  and  this  last-mentioned  defect  specially 
shows  itself  in  this,  that  the  practical  bi'anches  are  admitted 
only  as  an  appendix,  and  are  not  articulated  in  the  organism 
of  theology. 

A  contribution  to  the  encyclopedic  arrangement  of  theo- 
logy, valuable  in  its  formal  aspect,  has  been  made  by  John 
Peter  Lange.^  He  partitions  theology  according  to  its  his- 
torico-didactic  character  into  two  principal  divisions,  a 
historical  and  a  didactic.  The  former  he  divides  into  three 
sections — (1)  history  of  the  divine  revelation  constituting  the 
kingdom  of  God,  as  fundamental  theology,  (2)  exegetical 
theology,  (3)  church-historical  theology.      The  second  division 

^  J.  P.  Lange,  De  Systemate  Eiicyclopttdife  theologicre  ad  religionis  Cliris- 
tiaiioe  iiiJolem  historico-didacticam  accuratius  accomodando.  Bonnse  1865.  It 
is  published  in  German  in  an  enlarged  form  :  Grundriss  dcr  theologiselien 
Encycloptedie  mit  Einscliluss  der  Metliodologie.  Von  J.  P.  Lange.  Heidel- 
berg 1877. 


112  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDIA. 

likewise  parts  into  three  sections — (1)  dogmatics,  (2)  ethics, 
(3)  practical  theology.  Against  this  arrangement  it  may  be 
remarked  that  fundamental  theology,  with  which  it  begins, 
can  only  first  gain  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  means 
of  exegetical  theology,  and  that,  by  co-ordinating  practical 
theology  with  dogmatics  and  ethics,  full  advantage  is  not 
o'iven  to  its  distinctive  characteristics. 

The  tendency  of  Schleiermacher  to  enclose  theology  in  the 
sacred   precincts   of  the    Church,   as  well   as   the   subjective 
attitude  which  was  peculiar  to  his  theology  as  a  theory  of  an 
ecclesiastical  art  dealing  with   a  positive   or   given   material, 
must    of    necessity    be    overpassed   by  speculative    theology. 
From  the  humiliation  into  which  Kant  had  brought  theology, 
and  from  its   subordination   to  the   practical   purpose   of  the 
Church,  theology  could  only  be  raised  by  this,  that   a  legiti- 
mate place  in  the  circle  of  the  sciences  should   be  vindicated 
for  it.     And  this,  indeed,  is  just  the  service  which  Schelling 
rendered  to  theology  in  his  lectures  on  The  Method  of  Academi- 
cal   Study}       The    whole    circle    of     the    sciences     is     here 
constructed    according    to    the     inner     type     of    philosophy. 
Philosophy  is  the  science  of  absolute  knowledge,  and  moves 
in   a   pure   realm  of  ideas.     But   the  ideas  become  real  in 
history ;  hence  outside  of  philosophical   knowledge,  which,  as 
such,  is  purely  ideal,  all  other  knowledge  is  the   real  repre- 
sentation   of    absolute    knowledge    (p.    152    ff.).       The    real 
sciences,  in  so  far   as   they  reach   objectivity  through   or   in 
relation   to   the    state,  are   called   positive   sciences  (p.  159). 
They  are  the  organs  or  the   objectively  real  side  of  absolute 
science,  and  each  one  of  them  has   to  regard  itself  as  end, 
because  they  can  only  by  this  means  become  integral  parts 
of  absolute  science  (pp.  41,  44  ff.).     Among  them  he  assigns 
the  first  and  highest  place  to  theology,  as  the  science  of  the 

1  Vorlesungen  ueber  die  Methode  dcs  akadeinischen  Studiuins.  Von  F.  W. 
J.  Schelling.  3  nnveriinderte  Aufgabe.  Stuttgart  und  Tubingen  1S30. 
[1st  edition  published  in  1803.] 


MODERN  PERIOD SCHELLING.  113 

absolute  and  divine  essence,  in  which  that  which  is  innermost 
in  philosophy  is  objectified  (p.  160  f.).  With  all  previous 
methods  in  theology,  Schelling  breaks  completely,  for  he 
begins  the  ninth  lecture  "  On  the  Study  of  Theology  "  with 
the  words,  "  If  I  find  it  hard  to  speak  of  the  study  of  theology, 
it  is  because  I  must  consider  the  form  of  knowledge,  and  the 
Avhole  standpoint  from  which  its  truths  will  be  comprehended, 
as  lost  and  forgotten."  For  as  he  opposes  the  empiricism  to 
which  theology  had  hitherto  shown  favour,  as  well  as  the 
clearing  up  {Aufkldrerei)  which  should  rather  be  called  the 
clearing  out  {Auskldrerci),  and  the  moralism  of  the  Kantian 
theology,  he  points  to  this,  that  theology  is  tenable  only  as 
speculatively  conceived.  "  Philosophy  is  the  true  organ  of 
theology  as  science,  wherein  the  highest  ideas  of  the  divine 
essence  become  objective  in  nature  as  the  organ,  and  in  history 
as  the  revelation,  of  God  "  (p.  1 9  6).  It  is  not  from  Holy  Scrip- 
ture that  theology  has  to  receive  the  idea  of  Christianity. 
"  The  first  books  of  the  history  and  doctrine  of  Christianity 
are  nothing  more  than  a  particular  manifestation  thereof,  and 
so  besides  an  imperfect  one.  The  idea  of  Christianity  is  not 
to  be  sought  in  these  books,  the  worth  of  which  must  first  be 
estimated  according  to  the  measure  in  which  they  express  that 
idea  and  are  in  agreement  with  it."  "  We  should  not  stop 
at  a  particular  period,  which  can  only  be  arbitrarily  fixed 
upon,  but  should  have  in  view  that  history  and  world  which 
have  called  it  into  being"  (p.  198).  "One  cannot  avoid 
thinking  what  a  hindrance  the  so-called  biblical  books  have 
been  to  Christianity,  which  for  purely  religious  contents 
cannot  bear  comparison,  even  remotely,  with  so  many  other 
sacred  writings  of  earlier  and  later  times,  especially  the 
Indian"  (p.  199).  The  idea  of  the  priesthood  to  withdraw 
these  books  from  the  people,  ought  to  have  been  put  on  the 
deep  ground  "  that  Christianity  as  a  living  religion  endures, 
not  as  a  time  past,  but  as  an  eternal  present ;  and  so  even 
miracles  in  the  Church  have  not  ceased,  which  Protestantism, 
VOL.  I.  11 


114  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

and  in  this  matter  quite  inconsequently,  allows  only  as  happen- 
ing in  primitive  times  "   (p.  199).     "  These  books,  documents, 
which   require   only  historical  investigation,  not   faith,   have 
constantly  been  setting  anew  empirical  Chris^-ianity  in  place 
of  the  idea,  which  can  exist  independently  of   them,  and  will 
be  proclaimed  more  loudly  by  means  of  the  whole  history  of 
the  new  world  as  compared  with   the  old,  than  by  means  of 
those  writings  in  which  it  still  lies  in  a  very  undeveloped 
state"   (p.    200).      [Compare   with  this   the   following   from 
Schwegler  in   his  expositions    of  Schelling's   system  :  "  Chris- 
tianity as  it  is  in  time,  exoteric  Christianity,  corresponds  not 
to  its  idea,  and  has  only  to  expect  its  completion.     A  main 
obstacle  to  this  completion  was  and  is   the  so-called   Bible, 
which  besides,  as  regards  true  religious  substance,  is  inferior 
to  some  other  religious  writings.     A   new  birth  of  esoteric 
Christianity,  or  a  new  and  higher  religion,  in  which  philosophy, 
religion,  and  poetry  shall  be  fused  into  unity,  this  must  be 
the  product  of  the  future"   {Histonj  of  Fhilosophj,  p.  303). 
"  The  first  books  of  the  history  and  doctrine  of  Christianity," 
says  Ueberweg  in  his  exposition  of    the   same  system,  "  are 
but  a  particular  and  an  imperfect  expression  of  Christianity, 
and  their  worth  must  be  measured  by  the  degree  of  perfection 
in  which  they  express  the   idea  of   Christianity.      Since  this 
idea  is  not  dependent  on  this  particular  manifestation  of  it, 
but  is  absolute  and  universal,  it  cannot  be  made  dependent 
on  the  exegesis  of  these  documents,  weighty  as  they  are  for 
the  earliest  history  of  Christianity"   {Histori/   of  PMlosopliy, 
London   1874,  vol.   ii.  p.    222).]      Trotestantism,   which   is 
characterized   as   anti-universal,  has,   in  place   of  the  living 
authority,  set  rather  that  of  dead  books  written  in  the  dead 
languages,  and  acknowledges  dependence  upon  symbols  which 
can  claim  for  themselves  a  mere  human  authority  (p.  201). 
"  What  is  essential  in  the  study  of  theology  is  the  connecting 
together   of    the   speculative   and    historical   construction   of 
Christianity  and    its    most    prominent   doctrines"  (p.    207). 


MODERN  PERIOD SCHELLING.  115 

'  In  consequence  of  the  manifest  impossibility  of  maintaininr. 

Christianity  according  to  its  exoteric  form,  the  esoteric  musi 
be  brought  forward,  and,  freed  from  its  integnment,  shine  l,y 
Its  own  light"  (p.  208).  '-Philosophy,  with  the  true  specu- 
lative standpoint,  has  gained  again  that  of  religion  which 
empiricism  and  the  naturalism  like  unto  it  not  only  partially 
but  universally  effaced,  and  prepares  iu  itself  the  regeneration 
of  esoteric  Christianity  as  the  declaration  of  the  absolute 
gospel"  (p.  210). 

From  the  philosophical  standpoint   another    encyclopa3dic 
construction  of  science   than  that   given   by    Schellin^  may 
perhaps  be  demanded,  but  from  tlie  theological  standpoint  it 
must  be  acknowledged  that  he  has  proved  the  untenableness 
of  those  authorities,  as  previously  used,  in  which   theolo^^ 
gloried,  and  has  elevated  theology  to  the  rank  of  an   inde- 
pendent science  alongside  of  the  other  positive  sciences      If 
however,  theology  is  not  able  to  follow  him  to  that  elevation 
upon   which  Schelling   would   have   it  placed,  then   it   does 
nideed  relinquish  the  only  ground  upon  which  it  can  firmly 
stand.     In  the  most  striking  way  Schelling  characterizes  the 
task  of  Scripture  exposition  (p.  206).  but  he  has   not  been 
able   to  vindicate  the  value   of  Scripture   generally  and    its 
significance  for  theology.      When  lie  makes  the  demand  that 
theology  should  evolve  the  idea  of  Christianity  from  the  whole 
history  thereof,  then,  indeed,  theology  will  certainly  accept   ^ 
this  general  history  as  a  great  document,  proving  the  enei-y 
of  the  Christian  idea;  but  as  for  the  point  of  the  Christian 
history  at  which  it  has  to  seek   the  idea  of  Cliristianity  it 
will  always  be  able  to  indicate  only  the  one  particular  point 
—the  origin  of  that  history,  the  spirit  of  its  founder.     And 
if  Schelling  can  admit  that  in   Holy  Scripture   the  idea  of 
Christianity  is   at    least    present,    though    undeveloped    the 
history  thereof  ought  to  be   able   to   teach  him  that  in'  this 
Scripture  there  must  lie  a  far  greater  religious  power  than  in 
the  Indian  Vedas. 


■116  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.^EDIA. 

In  the  spirit  of  Schelling,  Daub  has  formed  his  conception 
of  theology.      In  his  treatise,  "  Theology  and  its  Encyclopedia 
in  relation  to  the  academical  study  of  both  :   a  fragment  for 
an  introduction  to  the  latter,"  ^  he  purposes,  indeed,  only  to 
make   prominent    the    claims   which  rest  upon   those   going 
forward  to  the  study  of  theology ;  but  inasmuch  as  these  are 
derived  from  the  nature  of  theology  itself,  he  must  likewise 
render    an   express  statement   of    his  general  conception   of 
theology.     With  him  theology  is   of  all  sciences  the  noblest 
and  the  most  excellent.     Its  idea  is  that  "  of  eternal  know- 
ledge, which  exists  out  of  relation  to  space,  time,  and  motion, 
and  the  idea  of  its  contents  is  that  of  eternal  being,  or  God, 
and  the   divine   essence"  (p.   2).      Theological  knowledge  is 
systematic  and  speculative  knowledge    (p.    4),   and  the   organ 
thereof  must  be  reason  and  revelation.     Theology  is  there- 
fore  the   theory  of  religion    in  its  absolute  unity,   that   is, 
neither  in  its  subjectivity  nor  in  its  objectivity,  neither  as  an 
accident  {EigcnscJutft),  nor  as  a  property  {Eigcntlmm),  but  as 
something  existing  in  itself  and  eternally,  whose  manifestation 
only  is  partly  subjective,  partly  objective,  and  partly  both  m 
one.     The  Christian  religion   is   religion   in   the   abstract ;  it 
therefore  yields  nothing   else   than    Christian   theology.       It 
does  not  produce  a  natural,  a  practical,  rational  theology.     But 
Christian  theology,  as  a  theory  of   the    Christian  religion,  is 
either  dogmatics  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  or  dogmatics 
of  the  Lutheran  and  Eeformed  Church.      Encyclopedia  has  to 
represent  theology  as  a  purely  scientific  organism. 

A  purely  ideal  conception  inspired  by  Schelling  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  the  Lectures  on  Thcolocjy  by  Erhardt.^  Theology 
is  science  :  "  To  comprehend  its  nature  is  nothing  else  than  to 

1  Studien.  Herausgegeben  von  C.  Daub  und  Fr.  Creuzer.  Bd.  1-6.  Frank- 
furt und  Heidelberg  1805-1810.  VgL  Bd.  2.  S.  1-69.  ["Die  Theologie  und 
ihre  Encyclopffidie  in  VerLiiltniss  zum  akademiscben  Studium  beider.  Frag- 
ment einer  Einleitung  in  die  letztere."] 

2  Vorlesungeu  liber  die  Theologie  und  das  Studium  derselben.  Herausgegeben 
von  Simon  Erhardt.     Erlangen  1810.     [Lectures  on  Theology  and  its  Study.] 


MODERN  PERIOD EKHAEDT.  Il7 

recognise  clearly  what  place  is  proper  to  it  in  the  wide  circle 
of  the  sciences  "  (p.  45).  Life  is  at  once  the  principle  of  the 
science  and  the  highest  idea  (p.  30).     This  life  in  the  highest 

significance  is  unity  and  manifoldness  (oneness  and  allness 

Einhcit  und  Allhcit).      God  is  unity,  the  spiritual  principle  in 
its  highest  conception.     The  material  principle  in  its  mani- 
foldness is  nature.      Consequently  the  one  science  is  history 
or  the  representation  of  the  development  of  things  out  of  the 
principle  of  unity  and  manifoldness,  that  is,  of  life.      The  one 
aspect  of  science  is  natural  science;  its   other  part,    which 
views  life  from  its  other  side   of  unity,  is  theology  (p.  52). 
Eeligion  is  the  relation  of  mankind  to  God.     All  theolo"v  is 
history,   and   as  such,  the   methodical  representation   of  the 
development  of  mankind  from  the  principle  of  their  original 
relationship  with   God   (p.   54).     The    highest    development 
of   religion    is    the   Indian    religion,    which  at    the    end    of 
time  will    be   the   universal  religion    (p.    85    f.).      Christian 
theology  is   also  a  historical   study,  and   therefore,  as  a  part, 
falls  under  that  general  theology  as  a  whole.     The  study  of 
the  history  of  religion  is  important  for  theologians,  for  only 
from  a  knowledge   of  that  which  is  opposed  to   it   can  the 
nature  of  Christianity  be  rightly  understood.     In  the  encyclo- 
pedic  distribution   of    theology,  Erhardt  follows   the   usual 
fourfold  division :  exegetical,  systematic,  historical,  and  prac- 
tical theology.     Erhardt's  treatise,  which  was  composed  under 
a  noble  inspiration,  contains  many  striking  remarks  on  the 
difference  between  learning  and  science,  on  the  character  of 
theology  as  a  science,  on  religion  and  its  historical  manifesta- 
tion ;    but   theology    with    him   passes   completely   over  into 
religious   philosophy,   and    he    has    both   failed  to   mark   off 
Christian  theology  sufficiently  from  tliis  religious  philosophy, 
and   to    bring   the   subject   of    that   theology,   the    Christian 
religion,  into  its  proper  relation  with  the  other  religions. 

As    Schelling  in    his   lectures   represents    religion    as    the 
objectivating  of   the  absolute   divine   nature,  Hegel,  too,   in 


118  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

his   Eiicydopccclia   of  the   Philosophical    Sciences,   has    treated 
revealed  religion  as  the  manifestation  of  the  absolute  spirit, 
and  assigned  it  its  place  between  art  and  philosophy.-^     In 
the  spirit  of  the  Hegelian  system,  and  with  all  the  requisite 
special  knowledge  of  theology,  Ilosenkranz  has  given  a  full 
exposition,  encyclopffidically,  of  theology,  as  the  science  of  the 
religion  of  the  absolute  spirit.^     In  the  place  assigned  to  it  by 
Hegel,  it  has,  as  its  systematic  starting-point,  and  consequently 
as  its  task,  to  develop  in  all  directions  the  idea  of  revealed 
religion,  in  such  a  way  as   to  admit   the  historical  elements 
thereof,  in  so  far  as  "  they  cause  the   reason   to   behold  the 
speculative  contents  of  the  idea  in  the  explicit  form  of  mani- 
festation."    As  science,  it  must  lead  to  the  proof  of  the  truth 
of  its  contents,  and  by  means  of  this,  to  scientific  knowledge. 
This  can  be  gained  only  by  means  of  the  mediation  of  thought. 
The  content  in  the  form  of  thought  is  the  absolute  under- 
standing thereof.     The  doctrine  of  religion,  wherein  it  gives 
expression  to  itself  for  the  general  consciousness,  and  brings 
itself  to  the  same,  is  in  contents  identical  with  theology,  but 
in  form  is  to  be  distinguished   from   it.     The   theologian  is 
one  who  "  not  only  believes  what  he  believes,  but  also  knows 
with  clearness  and  definiteness  why  he  believes  that  which  he 
believes."     In  respect  of  its  contents,  theology  coincides  with 
philosophy,  and  inasmuch  as  both  should  comprise  absolutely 
the  same  contents,  philosophy  and  theology  cannot  put  them- 
selves  in   direct   and    exclusive    opposition   to   one    another. 
From  this  fact  it  is  to  be  explained  that,  historically,  both 
always  appear  in  connection  with  each  other,  and  the  right 
relation   between   the   one   and   the    other   comes  into  view. 
Theology  is,  in  relation  to  philosophy,  neither  superordinated 
nor  subordinated,  but  co-ordinated.     "  In  the  idea  of  science 


^  G.  W.  Hegel's  Encyclopjedie  der  Philosophischen  Wissenschaften  im  GrunJ- 
risse.     Dritter  TheU.     Die  Philosophie  des  Geistes,  S.  440  ff. 

-  Encyclopredie  der  Theologischeu  Wissenschaften.  Von  K.  Rosenkranz. 
Halle  1831.     Zweite  giinzlich  umgearbeitete  Auflage.     Ebd.  1845. 


MODERN  TERIOD — llOSENKRANZ.  119 

as  such  philosophy  and  theology  are  exactly  co-ordinated  with 
one  another,  becanse  the  one  mnst  recognise  the  other  as  its 
absolnte  end."  Now,  inasmuch  as  philosophy  is  the  snm- 
total  of  all  the  sciences,  theology  is  included  therein,  "  but  as 
a  science  fully  complete  in  itself,  the  specific  unity  of  which 
lies  in  this,  that  it  treats  of  the  life  of  man  in  God,  and  of 
God  in  man."  Theological  encyclopedia  has  to  treat  theology, 
not  as  an  aggregate  of  different  sciences,  but  rather  to  set 
forth  the  harmonious  organization  of  theological  science.  For 
this  purpose,  an  arrangement  of  the  particular  brandies  of 
study,  containing  a  merely  formal  schematism,  is  not  sufficient, 
but  rather,  along  with  this,  there  must  be  a  development  of 
the  totality  of  the  contents.  There  is  therefore  no  reason 
for  joining  a  methodology  with  the  encyclopaedia,  since, 
in  the  completed  encyclopaedia,  in  accordance  with  its  idea, 
the  right  course  is  already  indicated  which  is  to  be  taken 
in  the  study  of  theology.  (Compare  Preliminary  Eemarks 
{Vorcrinncrung),  S.  vii.— xix.)  In  the  Introduction,  pp.  1-6, 
Eosenkrauz  explains  the  idea  of  theology  and  its  distribution. 
Christian  theology  is  a  positive  science,  and  as  such,  not  an 
absolute,  but  a  mixed  science.  Its  division  rests  "  on  the 
distinction  of  the  existence  of  the  Christian  religion  as  the  true 
idea  of  religion  in  and  for  itself ;  its  existence  as  a  historical 
process,  and  finally,  as  an  actually  present  fact."  Thus  theology 
falls  into  three  parts — speculative,  historical,  and  practical. 
"Without  any  inconsequence,  according  to  Rosenkranz,  theology, 
as  a  positive  science,  may  dispense  altogether  with  speculative 
theology  ;  but  if  it  will  adhere  to  this,  then  the  succession 
according  to  the  logical  order  must  be  adhered  to,  from  the 
universal  to  history  as  the  particular,  and  to  everyday  practice 
as  the  individual.  If  one  departs  from  this  logical  basis, 
scepticism  begins,  as  to  what  distribution  is  true ;  and  on 
an  average,  then,  the  particular  Church  confession  to  which  a 
theologian  belongs  will  be  influential  in  securing  the  adoption 
of  this   or  that  distribution.      The   first   division — Christian 


120  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

speculative  theology — is  "  the  development  of  the  idea  of  the 
Christian  religion  as  rational."  It  presupposes  the  knowledge 
of  the  Christian  religion  in  general,  but  no  less  the  idea  of 
the  pure  reason.  It  must  therefore  (1)  derive  the  idea  of 
the  Christian  religion  itself;  (2)  develop  this  idea  according 
to  its  specific  definition ;  and  (3)  describe  the  forming  of  this 
practical  self-consciousness  resulting  from  this  idea.  It  thus 
comprises  three  branches  of  study — (1)  Theogonic  Phteno- 
menology,  (2)  Dogmatics,  (3)  Ethics,  p.  9.  Historical  theology 
has  for  its  subject  the  temporal  manifestation  of  the  idea  of 
the  Christian  religion,  and  is  also  to  be  arranged  under  a 
threefold  division — (1)  biblical  theology,  (2)  the  theology  of 
Church  history,  (3)  Ecclesiastical  statistics,  p.  115.  The 
concrete  unity  of  the  speculative  and  historical  theology  is  the 
practical,  which  in  general  should  be  a  universal  theory  of 
Church  practice.  Since  it  passes  from  the  individual  through 
the  particular  to  the  universal,  it  describes — (1)  the  singular, 
(2)  the  particular,  and  (3)  the  universal  organism  of  the 
Church,^  p.  335  ff. 

What  Eosenkranz  says,  in  his  Preliminary  Eemarks,  about 
the  scientific  character  and  the  scientific  problem  of  theology, 
about  its  relation  to  philosophy,  and  about  theological  ency- 
clopaedia, is  scientifically  unassailable.  Also,  that  theology  is 
a  positive  science,  no  one  will  be  inclined  to  dispute.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  his  distribution  of  theology  is  fitted  to  call 
forth  great  opposition.  It  is  in  general  agreement  with 
Schleiermacher's  distribution,  only  Eosenkranz  has,  in  conse- 
quence of  his  standpoint  diverging  substantially  from  that  of 
Schleiermacher,  placed  dogmatics  and  ethics  under  speculative 
theology.  What  was  previously  said  against  the  prefixing  of 
a  philosophical  theology  is  also  valid  here  in  reference  to 
speculative  theology  as  the  first  division  of  theology.  But 
when  Eosenkranz  bases  the  suggestion  of  his  threefold  division 

^  Or,  as  we  would  virtually  put  it— 1,  the  individual  member;  2,  the  parti- 
cular congregation  ;  3,  the  Church  as  a  whole. — Ed. 


MODERN  TERIOD ROSEXKRANZ.  121 

upon  the  logical  categories  of  the  universal,  particular,  and 
individual,  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  his  view  of  theology 
as  a  positive  science.  In  so  far  as  it  has  for  its  contents  a 
positive  religion,  and  its  historical  development  is  yet  not 
regarded  as  something  merely  accidental,  the  true  logical 
method  will  be  to  go  to  that  development  itself  for  the  dis- 
tribution of  theology.  Neither  a  scheme  brought  to  it  from 
M'ithout,  nor  the  accident  of  a  particular  confession,  ought  to 
determine  the  distribution.  But  Eosenkranz  gets  into  conflict 
with  his  own  axioms  on  tlieology,  when  he  aftirms  that  it  is 
permissible  to  leave  speculative  theology  out  of  theology 
altogether.  In  so  far  as  theology  has  for  its  subject  something 
positive,  and  in  this  positive  element  a  speculative  content  is 
embraced,  the  speculative  knowledge  thereof  must  indeed  be 
an  integral  part  of  theology,  or  it  ceases,  even  should  it  adopt 
it,  to  be  generally  a  science.  Theology,  at  all  events,  as  a 
positive  science,  is  a  mixed  science,  and  has,  as  such,  to  borrow 
much  from  the  other  sciences — philosophy,  philology,  history, 
etc. ; — not  that  this  borrowed  element,  as  such,  constitutes  its 
scientific  character,  as  Eosenkranz  (p.  2)  seems  to  say,  but  only 
that  this  is  brought  into  connection  with  it  for  its  own  pur- 
pose ;  that  everything  borrowed  by  it  from  other  sciences  is 
turned  into  a  positive  element,  contributing  to  the  knowledge 
of  its  contents.  Its  independence,  too,  of  philosophy,  on  the 
other  hand,  theology  can  maintain  only  if  it  resolutely  keeps 
itself  within  the  limits  of  a  positive  science.  Nevertheless, 
although  criticism  may  always  find  in  the  encyclopajdia  of 
Eosenkranz  particulars  to  contest,  and  may  quite  fairly  brand 
it  with  the  reproach  of  having  imported  Hegelian  ideas  into 
the  contents  of  theology,  yet  the  acknowledgment  cannot  be 
withheld  from  him  that,  in  this  work,  in  contrast  to  previous 
theological  systems,  he  has  vindicated  for  theology  the  dignity 
of  a  science,  and  maintained  its  place  in  the  organic  circle  of 
the  sciences. 

After  Eosenkranz,  the  speculative  science  of  religion  was 


122  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDIA. 

encyclopsBdically  expounded  by  Noack  from  the  pliilosopliical 
standpoint,  and  his  exposition  is  also  set  forth  as  a  theological 
encyclop£edia.^     It  were  better  if  Noack  had  left  this  alone, 
since  he  makes  it  appear  as  if  he  wished  to  give  an  encyclo- 
pedia of  theology,  as  that  term  is  usually  understood,  whereas 
what  he  offers  is  something  very  different   from   this.       On 
account,  however,  of  the  peculiar  position  which  he  assumes 
in  regard  to  this,  we  cannot  pass  over  his  treatise  unnoticed. 
After   the   example  of  the   Hegelian   philosophy  of  religion, 
Noack  sets  for  himself  the  problem  of  raising  the  moments  of 
its  idea  into  special  encyclopaedic  branches  of  study,  and  setting 
it  forth  in  its  totality  (p.  5).     Deeply  influenced  by  religious 
interests,  and  with  a  philosophical   spirit,  Noack   has   solved 
his  problem.     In  the  first  part  of  his  exposition,  he  sets  forth 
the  phainomenology  of  the  religious  idea  under  (1)  religious 
anthropology,  (2)  the  phaiuomenology  of  the  religious  spirit, 
and    (3)    the   philosophical   history  of  religion.     Tlie   second 
part  he  entitles  the  ideology  of  the  religious  spirit,  and  divides 
this  into  (1)  speculative  Church  history  and  history  of  dogmas, 
(2)  speculative  dogmatics,  and  (3)  absolute  ethics.     And  the 
third  part  he  entitles  the  pragmatology  of  the  religious  idea, 
and  divides  it  into  (1)  the  science  of  the  absolute  priesthood 
of  the  religious  idea,  (2)  the  absolute  psedagogic  of  the  religious 
idea,  and  (3)  absolute  liturgies,  or  the  science  of  the  absolute 
cultus  of  the  religious  idea.     From  the  speculative  height  of 
religious  science,  Noack   looks   down  with  disdain  upon  the 
Church   theology.      It   appears  to   him  in  mere  "  harlequin's 
guise  "  (p.  5)  ;  its  day  is  over,  and  now  the  science  of  religion 
has   to    be   introduced   in   its   place.     Noack   brings  it  as  a 
reproach    against   all    previous    representations    of    theology, 
assuming   the   rank  of  a  positive  science,  that   they  should 
have  taken  as  their  subject  a  single,  historical,  given  religion 

^  Die  Theologische  EncyclopfecUe  als  Sj'stem.  With  the  special  title :  Die 
Speculative  Keligioiiswissenschaft  im  encyclopa'dischen  Organismus  ihrer  beson- 
dern  Disciplinen.     Vou  Liulwig  Noack.     Darmstadt  1847. 


MODERN  PERIOD — NOACK.  123 

— the  Christian.  Over  against  such  positive  empiricism,  the 
speculative  science  of  religion  directs  its  attention  to  religion 
as  such,  and  has,  in  so  far,  a  positive  character,  "  as  the  nature 
of  religion  in  general  is  based  upon  a  positive  element,  that 
is,  is  necessarily  rooted  in  tlie  nature  of  the  human  spirit,  and 
is  there  established  upon  the  eternally  immanent  revelation 
of  God"  (p.  9).  Although,  philosophically  considered,  the 
positive  character  of  the  speculative  science  of  religion  here 
laid  down  might  be  contested,  seeing  that  a  positive- specula- 
tive science  of  religion,  as  well  as  a  positive  philosophy  of 
law,  is  a  contradict io-  in  adjccto,  inasmuch  as  the  former  has 
first,  indeed,  to  prove  whether  religion  be  something  positive, 
as  Noack  affirms,  it  must  be  acknowledged  from  the  theolo- 
gical standpoint  of  philosophy  to  be  thoroughly  correct  to 
make  religion  in  general,  as  the  philosophy  of  religion,  its 
subject,  and  to  develop  it,  as  Noack  has  attempted  to  do,  into 
such  an  encyclopaedia  of  the  speculative  science  of  religion,  and 
to  retain  for  it  still  the  name  of  "  theology."  But  the  demand 
made  by  him,  that  the  previous  forms  of  theology  have  to  be 
abandoned  or  to  be  merged  in  the  science  of  religion,  cannot 
be  conceded.  The  neglect  of  the  Church  theology  on  the 
part  of  Noack  finds  its  explanation  in  this,  that  Noack  had 
altogether  overlooked  the  rehation  in  which  theology  stands 
to  the  Church.  So  long  as  a  Christian  Church  exists,  theology 
will  continue  to  assert  itself  as  a  positive  theology,  which  has 
for  its  subject  the  one  historical  religion  given  it — the  Cliristian 
religion.  Noack  may  be  right  in  expressing  himself  in  a  de- 
preciatory way  about  previous  representations  of  this  theology  ; 
but  he  is  wron^  in  casting  it  aside  as  a  whole.  Christian 
theology,  in  its  scientific  development,  approaches  the  philo- 
sophical science  of  religion  in  no  hostile  attitude ;  it  will 
willingly  regard  this  as  its  brilliant  glorification,  as  Noack 
says,  and  allow  itself  to  be  represented  as  its  archetype  and 
its  mirror  (p.  5) ;  it  will  employ  upon  its  own  development 
everything   that   is  offered  it  from    the    deep    investigations 


124  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.^DIA, 

on  the  nature  of  religion  and  the  history  of  religion ;  yea,  it 
will  be  seen  that  it  is  animated  by  a  sincere  and  earnest 
wish  that  philosophy  in  its  systems  should  continually  grant 
its  own  due  place  to  religion,  and,  with  the  means  at  its 
disposal,  operate  outside  the  limits  of  the  Church  "  for  the 
cultus  of  the  religious  idea ; "  but  as  C'hurch  theology,  it  has, 
on  its  own  part,  to  maintain  its  right  to  continued  existence, 
and  to  justify  its  scientific  indej)eudence,  on  its  own  positive 
grounds,  against  the  changing  systems  of  philosophy.  When 
Noack  says  on  p.  9,  The  speculative  science  of  religion  is 
the  science  of  the  rational  knowledge  of  the  religious  idea, 
then  we  say,  Positive  theology  is  the  science  of  the  rational 
knowledge  of  Christianity ;  and  if  both,  though  along  different 
ways,  reach  the  same  end,  it  may  be  hoped  that  both,  too, 
when  it  pleases  God,  will  come  to  an  agreement. 

The  Dutch  theologian  Doedes  published  in  1876  his 
Encydopmdia  of  Cltrisiian  Theology,  and  the  second  edition 
of  this  work,  issued  in  1883,^  contains  considerable  additions, 
especially  critical  notices  of  those  works  on  theological  ency- 
clopedia which  had  most  recently  appeared.  He  defines 
the  encyclopedia  of  Christian  theology  as  a  methodological 
description  of  the  circle  of  the  sciences  belonging  to  Christian 
theology.  It  has  to  arrange  the  several  theological  sciences 
in  accordance  with  their  mutual  relations,  as  bound  together 
in  no  arbitrary  or  external  way,  but  as  strictly  related  by 
means  of  a  common  middle  point.  The  logical  order  in  which 
those  sciences  nuist  be  arranged,  and  their  principal  subdivi- 
sions, as  well  as  the  proper  method  for  their  study,  must  be 
set  forth  in  the  encyclopedia.  Doedes  insists  very  strongly, 
in  accordance  with  this  definition  of  the  science,  that  Christian 
theological  encyclopedia  is  purely  formal.      In  this  he  is  in 


■■  Encj'clopedie  der  Chiistilijke  Theologie  door  Dr.  J.  I.  Doedes,  Hoogleeraar 
in  de  Godgeleerdlieid,  Tweede,  vermeerde,  uitgaaf.  Te  Utrecht  1883.  Eersto 
uitgaaf  ill  1876.  The  above  paragraph,  which  indicates  Doedes'  standpoint  and 
summarizes  his  book,  is  contributed  by  the  editor  of  the  present  volume. 


MODEKN  PERIOD DOEDES.  125 

agreement  with  Schleiermaclier,  Clarisse,  and  Hagenbach ; 
while  he  combats  the  views  of  Eosenkranz,  von  Hofmann, 
and  Eiibiger,  who  describe  encyclopiudia  as  not  merely  formal, 
but  material  or  real.  According  to  Doedes,  encyclopiedia  has 
to  do,  not  with  the  content  of  the  various  Christian  theolo- 
gical sciences,  but  only  with  the  sciences  themselves  as 
sciences.  The  definition  further  restricts  the  subject  to  be 
treated,  and  excludes  such  speculations  as  some  encyclopiedists 
had  indulged  in  regarding  the  absolute  religion,  the  probable 
superseding  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  the  relative  in- 
feriority of  Christianity  to  other  existing  religious.  For 
Doedes,  the  subject  of  the  encyclopaedia  is  distinctly  Christian 
theological  science.  This  exact  and  proper  limitation  of  his 
subject  helps  in  determining  the  distribution  of  the  contents 
of  the  encycloptedia.  "  Four  groups  of  sciences  in  Christian 
theology  are  easily  distinguishable.  They  all  have  reference 
to  Christianity  as  the  way  of  salvation  carried  out  by  Jesus 
Christ ;  some  have  reference  more  directly  to  the  sources ; 
others,  rather  to  the  history ;  others,  again,  to  the  doctrine  ; 
and,  yet  again,  others,  to  the  present  condition  of  Christianity  " 
(p.  34).  Objections  may  be  raised  that  there  may  be  other 
sciences  related  in  other  ways  to  Christianity ;  but  Doedes 
answers  that  these  are  actually  the  aspects  of  Christianity  that 
have  attracted  and  won  scientific  inquiry.  This  arrangement 
of  four  groups  is  not  arbitrarily  assumed,  but  is  gained  as  the 
result  of  experience  in  regard  to  the  contributions  made  by 
Christian  theology ;  and  as  it  comprehends  the  field  of 
Christian  theology,  it  furnishes  a  scheme  of  distribution  for  the 
encyclopiTedia  of  Christian  theology.  There  is  thus  — first, 
literary  theology,  dealing  with  the  literary  sources  of  Christian 
theology  ;  second,  historical  theology  ;  third,  dogmatic  theology ; 
and  fourth,  practical  theology.  Under  (1)  literary  theology, 
we  have  the  science  of  the  sources  of  Christianity,  which 
embrace  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Church  Confessions.  Under 
the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Christian  Church  there  are  grouped 


12G  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP/EDLi. 

three  special  divisions — 1,  the  history  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
or  introduction,  which  has  to  treat  of  the  origin  and  of  the 
collection  (canon)  of  Holy  Scripture ;  2,  the  text  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  embracing  the  history  and  the  criticism  of  the 
text ;  and  3,  the  exegesis  of  the  Holy  Scripture  (interpreta- 
tion), embracing  exegetical  propaedeutic  (linguistic,  rhetorical, 
archaeological,  hermeneutical)  and  exegetical  praxis  (exposi- 
tion and  translation).  Under  the  confessional  writings  of  the 
Church,  or  symbolology,  are  embraced  the  three  branches — 
1,  the  origin;  2,  the  advantages;  and  3,  the  character  of  the 
symbolical  writings.  Under  (2)  historical  theology,  we  have 
the  science  of  the  history  of  Christianity  treated  in  three 
principal  sections — 1,  the  history  of  the  non-Christian  reli- 
gions (preparation  for  Christianity),  embracing  the  history  of 
the  pre-Christian  religions  (non-monotheistic  and  monotheistic 
religion,  religion  of  Israel,  biblical  history  and  biblical  theology 
of  the  Old  Testament),  and  the  history  of  the  anti-Christian 
religion,  Islam ;  2,  the  history  of  Christianity,  embracing  the 
founding  of  Christianity,  the  biblical  history  of  the  Xew 
Testament  (the  life  of  Jesus,  and  the  history  of  the  apostolic 
circle),  and  the  course  of  the  development  of  Christianity,  the 
history  of  the  Christian  Church  ;  and  3,  the  present  condition 
of  the  Christian  Church  (Christian  statistics),  embracing  the 
outward  condition  of  the  Christian  Church,  ecclesiastical  legis- 
lation in  the  different  communions  (Church  law),  and  the 
ecclesiastical  religious  life  in  general.  Under  (3)  dogmatic 
theology,  we  have  the  science  of  the  doctrine  of  Christianity, 
under  which  three  principal  branches  of  study  are  introduced 
— 1,  the  original  presentation  of  the  Christian  religious 
doctrine — biblical  theology  of  the  New  Testament,  embracing 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus  and  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles;  2, 
the  subsequent  development  of  the  Christian  religious  doc- 
trine, embracing  the  history  of  the  Christian  doctrinal  articles 
(history  of  Christian  dogmas)  and  confessional  symbolics  ;  3, 
the  systematic  elaboration  of  the   Christian  religious  doctrine, 


MODERN  PERIOD DOEDES.  127 

embracing  dogmatics  (New  Testament  ecclesiastical  and  critical 
dogmatics)  and  ethics  (doctrine  of  the  Christian  or  evan- 
gelical life).  Under  (4)  practical  theology,  we  have  the 
science  of  the  means  used  for  the  maintenance  of  Christianity, 
and  this  is  divided  into  two  main  sections — 1,  the  theory  of 
the  Christian  activity  directed  toward  those  who  are  within 
the  pale  of  Christianity — esoteric  practical  theology,  or  prac- 
tical theology  in  the  narrower  sense  (catechetics,  homiletics, 
liturgies,  and  poemenics  or  pastoral  theology)  ;  and  2,  the 
theory  of  the  Christian  activity  directed  toward  those  who 
are  outside  the  Christian  pale — exoteric  practical  theology 
(Christian  apologetics,  or  the  theory  of  the  vindication  of 
Christianity,  and  Christian  halieutics,  or  the  theory  of  the 
extension  of  Christianity). — Here  we  have  a  very  elaborate 
and  carefully-articulated  distribution  of  the  leading  and  sub- 
sidiary Cliristian  theological  sciences.  In  regard,  however,  to 
the  fourfold  arrangement,  we  would  be  inclined  to  say  that 
it  substantially  agrees  with  that  of  Clarisse  and  Hagenbach, 
which  is  also  adopted  in  the  present  treatise.  When  this  was 
pointed  out  by  Zockler,  in  his  Handbook  of  the,  Theological 
Sciences,  Doedes  contented  himself  with  pointing  out  some 
verbal  inaccuracies  in  the  statement,  Zockler  says  that 
Doedes'  first  division  of  encyclopaedia  is  the  same  as  Hagen- 
bach's,  except  in  this,  that  besides  Holy  Scripture,  Doedes 
also  treats  of  symbolics, — and  here  he  should  have  said 
symbolology.  This,  indeed,  is  all  the  difference  between 
Hagenbach's  exegetical  theology  and  Doedes'  literary  theology, 
that  in  the  latter  we  have  a  general  consideration  of  the 
origin,  use,  and  nature  of  confessional  writings.  But  while  the 
fourfold  distribution  of  Hagenbach,  Doedes,  and  the  present 
treatise  is  practically  the  same,  there  are  many  curious  and 
interesting  variations  in  the  positions  assigned  to  several  of  tlie 
theological  branches  of  study.  The  place  given  to  symbol- 
ology is  one  of  these  peculiarities.  That  the  theory  of  Church 
symbols    should    be   introduced    alongside  of    the  exegetical 


128  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCL01\EDIA. 

treatment  of  Holy  Scripture  is  evidently  improper,  for  were 
the  two  divisions  of  this  first  part  to  harmonize,  we  should 
have  simply  a  theory  of  Holy  Scripture  dealing  with  its 
origin,  use,  and  general  character.  If  the  full  exegetical 
treatment  of  Scripture  is  proper  to  this  first  part,  then 
symbolics,  which  treats  the  confessional  writings  according  to 
a  thorough  exegetical  method,  and  not  merely  the  theoretical 
generalities  of  symbolology,  would  be  in  keeping  and  propor- 
tion. But  this  would  be  to  introduce  what  evidently  can 
only  come  later.  According  to  Doedes,  symbolics  belongs  to 
doo^matic  theology.  Here,  however,  we  find  further  defect 
and  confusion.  The  inclusion  of  symbolics,  history  of  dogmas, 
and  biblical  theology  under  the  head  of  dogmatic  theology, 
shows  that  the  departments  of  history  and  dogmatic  have 
not  been  accurately  differentiated.  The  first  two  of  the 
theological  studies  named  can  be  treated  freely  only  in  the 
department  of  history  ;  and  as  to  biblical  theology,  it  depends 
upon  our  conception  of  the  science  whether  we  prefer,  as  is 
done  by  Hagenbach,  to  place  it  under  the  head  of  history,  as 
being  somewhat  on  the  same  lines  as  the  subsequent  develop- 
ment of  Church  doctrine,  or,  as  is  done  in  this  treatise,  to 
include  it  among  the  branches  of  exegetical  theology,  by 
emphasizing  its  scriptural  character.  With  Doedes,  again, 
practical  theology  is  conceived  of  in  an  unduly  restricted 
manner,  so  as  to  exclude  the  whole  departments  of  Church 
organization  and  cultus  or  worship.  These  two  are  in  an  un- 
natural way  introduced  in  the  historical  section  under  statistics. 
Then,  again,  the  insertion  of  special  sections  under  the  head 
of  historical  theology,  for  the  treatment  of  non-monotheistic 
religions  and  Mohammedanism,  can  scarcely  be  reconciled 
with  the  emphatic  restriction  of  the  encyclopsedia  to  the 
Christian  religion  with  which  the  author  opened  his  treatise. 
Notwithstanding  these  serious  defects,  this  encyclopedia  con- 
stitutes a  most  valuable  handbook,  full  of  suggestion,  and 
admirably  wrought  out   in   many  of  its  details.      It  presents 


MODERN  PERIOD DOEDES,  129 

features  of  great  excellence  under  each  of  the  four  divisions, 
and  the  careful  execution  of  details  calls  for  the  highest  praise. 
The  tlieological  standpoint  of  Doedes  is  thoroughly  evan- 
gelical, and  in  connection  with  this,  we  may  refer  to  an  im- 
portant section  in  tlie  introduction  on  the  independence  of 
Christian  theology,  pp.  21-23.  Christian  theology,  says 
Doedes,  is  not  less  independent,  but  at  the  same  time  not 
more  free,  than  the  other  sciences.  It  is  bound  by  the  laws 
which  are  generally  valid  for  all  sciences,  and  are  essential  to 
all  scientific  investigation.  Protestantism,  in  opposition  to 
IJomanism,  rejects  all  ecclesiastical  despotism,  but  at  the  same 
time  refuses  to  bring  the  Church  under  the  despotism  of  science. 
Theology  stands  in  close  and  necessary  connection  with  the 
Church.  The  Christian  Church,  or  rather  the  Christian  Church 
communion,  is  not  a  scientific  institution,  but  a  religious  associa- 
tion. It  is  true  that  the  character  of  science  is  lost  sight  of 
when  the  Christian  Church  prescribes  exactly  what  must,  and 
what  must  not,  be  the  result  of  scientific  investigation  ;  but 
it  is  also  true  that  the  character  of  the  Christian  Church  is 
lost  sight  of  when  unrestricted  doctrinal  freedom  is  claimed 
by  and  allowed  to  those  who  are  the  leaders  of  the  com- 
munity. If  theology  is  to  light  the  way  of  the  Church,  then 
the  Church  must  not  prescribe  to  theology  what  it  is  to 
teach.  But  if  the  Church  is  not  to  be  subject  to  the  arbitrary 
will  of  theology,  then  theology  must  not  force  itself  upon  the 
Church  as  its  lawgiver  and  ruler.  It  ought  also  to  be  men- 
tioned  that  the  history  of  the  literature  is  particularly  well 
done,  the  notices  generally  short,  but  the  comparison  of 
theological  standpoints  and  principles  of  distribution  adopted 
by  the  several  writers  being  very  clearly  expressed. 

An  extremely  important  addition  to  encyclopedic  literature 
was   made   by  the    publication   of  von   Ilofmann's   lectures.^ 

^  Encyclopfedie  der  Theologie  vou  J.  Ch.  K.  von  Ilofmaiin,  nncli  Vorlesuugen 
imd    Manuscripten    herausgegeben  von  H.   J.    Bestniann.      NiJrdlingen  1879. 
For  further  and  more  detailed  criticism  of  this  work,  see  Appendix  A. 
VOL.  I.  I 


130  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

These  had  been  delivered  in  the  University  of  Erlangen,  first 
in   1848,  and  finally  in   1863;    and  the   published   volume 
has  appeared  in  the  form  of  a  compact  treatise  of  389   pages, 
produced   by  a  careful  collation  of  the  different  manuscripts 
used  in  the  lecture-room,  and  the  marginal  notes  found  upon 
these.     The  editing   has   been   done   in  a  most   careful  and 
painstaking  manner,  which  is  fully  explained  in  the  editor's 
preface.      The  work  is  of  peculiar  significance  as  affording  a 
comprehensive  view  of  theology  as  conceived  by  such  a  pro- 
found  and   original   thinker   as    Hofmann.     In   a  volume   of 
miscellaneous  essays  by  Hofmann,  edited   in    1878   by  Pro- 
fessor Heinrich  Schmid  of  Erlangen,  there  appeared  a  short 
treatise,  entitled   Gedanken   ueher   die    llieologie.      This  paper 
had  originally  appeared  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Protestantismus 
und  Kirche  for  October  1863,  and  thus  it  may  be  taken  to 
represent  the  mind  of  the  writer  at  the  time  when  he  last 
delivered,   and    made   a   final   recension  of,    his    lectures   on 
theological   encyclopaedia.     We  have  in  this  essay,  to   begin 
with,  a  summary  and  defence  of  the  characteristic  ideas  of  his 
Introduction  to  the  Encyclopaedia.      He  shows  how  it  is  neces- 
sary that  we  should  begin,  not  with  the   idea  of  religion  in 
general,  but  with  that  of   Christianity.     Should   we   proceed 
otherwise,   the   result   would   not   be  a  theology,  but   only  a 
philosophy.     He   then   proceeds  to  defend  the  independence 
of  theology  as  a  science,  and  throughout  the  rest  of  the  essay 
he  is  occupied  in  setting  forth  the  scientific  principles  upon 
which  the  distribution  anJ  arrangement  of  the  several  depart- 
ments of  theology  should  proceed.     The  arrangement  of  the 
theological  sciences,  proposed  by  Hofmann,  is  a  threefold  one : 
systematic  theology,  historical  theology,  and  practical  theology. 
The  usual  fourfold  distribution  is  rejected,  because  he  embraces 
exegesis  and  Church  history  under  the  historical  division.      In 
placing    systematic    theology   first,  he   may   claim   a   certain 
affinity  with   Schleiermacher,  Eosenkranz,  and    Eothe,  all   of 
whom  begin  with  philosophical  or  speculative  theology,  which 


MODEEN  PEEIOD HOFMANN.  131 

corresponds,  as  far  as  their  respective  conceptions  of  theology 
will  allow,  with  systematic  theology.  Hofmann,  however, 
vindicates  his  procedure  on  altogether  peculiar  grounds.  In 
his  Introduction,  p.  28,  he  argues  that  theology,  as  a  science, 
cannot  make  exegesis  its  starting-point.  It  is  all  very  well 
to  say,  as  Harless  does,  that  Holy  Scripture,  as  containing  the 
history  of  Christ  and  the  apostles,  should  be  the  basis  of 
Christianity,  But  before  this  can  be  made  the  point  of 
departure,  there  are  certain  preliminary  questions  claiming 
attention.  There  must  be  some  basis  upon  which  a  conviction 
of  the  genuineness  and  inspiration  of  these  documents  can 
rest.  And  even  after  this  the  question  still  must  be  raised, 
whether  the  foundation  of  theology  is  to  be  sought  in  the 
historical  Christ,  or  not  rather  in  the  present  Christ.  Hof- 
mann therefore  begins  with  that  knowledge  and  those  doctrinal 
positions  which  the  Christian  has  as  a  personal  possession. 
TliB  first  part  of  theology  is  a  statement  of  the  doctrinal 
truth  of  Christianity,  that  is,  systematic  theology.  Hofmann 
insists  that  no  special  system  is  to  be  introduced  here, 
l)ut  only  the  broad  lines  of  essential  Christian  truth.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  however,  it  is  impossible  to  give  a  statement 
of  the  doctrinal  truths  of  Christianity  without  having  it 
determined  by  the  author's  special  views  of  Scripture  and 
history.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  first  division  of 
Hofmann's  Encyclopaedia  presupposes  all  the  peculiar  exege- 
tical  theories  and  principles  of  Scripture  interpretation  which 
are  characteristically  associated  with  his  name.  Starting  with 
the  proposition  of  the  divine  personality,  he  finds  conjoined 
Avith  this  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  Predestination  (the 
inner  and  outer  self-determination  of  God),  and  the  realization 
of  the  divine  will  in  history.  From  this  he  proceeds  through 
eight  doctrinal  sections  to  evolve  all  the  generally  recognised 
doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith.  This  exhibition  of  dogma 
is  certainly  most  instructive,  the  statement  clear,  and  the 
connection  of  the  several  doctrines  set  forth  with  great  skill 


132  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

and  acuteness :  still  it  remains  hanging  in  the  air,  waiting  the 
elaboration  of  fundamental  principles  under  the  exegetical 
and  historical  divisions.  In  Hofmann's  arrangement  the 
historical  follows  the  systematic ;  and  this  he  defines  as  the 
scientific  comprehension  of  the  historical  development  of  the 
Church,  and  of  tlie  general  meaning  of  Holy  Scripture. 
The  Church  presupposes  the  Holy  Scripture ;  and  therefore 
historical  theology  begins  with  a  consideration  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture. Under  this  first  half  of  historical  theology  we  have 
four  subdivisions — 1.  Exegesis,  which  embraces  all  that  is 
concerned  with  the  form  of  Scripture,  It  is  treated  of  under 
three  sections — (a)  history  of  the  biblical  text ;  (b)  her- 
meneutics;  (c)  history  of  the  origin  of  the  biblical  books. 
2.  The  science  of  the  contents  of  Scripture.  This  embraces 
two  divisions — (a)  biblical  history  in  three  parts  ;  a  history  of 
Israel  through  the  various  stages  of  its  national  development ; 
a  sketch  of  general  history  of  mankind  from  the  creation, 
fragmentary,  and  often  only  genealogical ;  and  finally,  a 
history  of  the  Messiah  springing  out  of  Israel,  and  founding 
a  Church  that  transcends  the  limits  of  Israel.  Hofmann 
occupies  thirty-two  pages  of  his  work  with  the  outline  of 
this  history.  (b)  Biblical  theology,  which  treats  biblical 
doctrine  in  a  historical  manner.  This  embraces  what  is 
ordinarily  styled  Old  and  New  Testament  theology ;  and  it 
is  discussed  in  a  summary  and  suggestive  way  by  Hofmann. 
o.  The  science  of  the  canon.  And  here  we  have  first :  the 
history  of  the  collection  and  closing  of  the  canon ;  secondly, 
the  inner  criticism  of  the  canon,  wherein  the  significance  of 
the  Old  Testament  canon,  and  the  importance  of  Scripture 
as  a  whole,  as  a  memorial  of  the  past  and  a  rule  for  the 
present,  are  discussed  ;  and  thirdly,  the  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, what  is  Scripture,  where  tlie  question  of  inspiration  is 
made  prominent.  4.  As  the  final  subdivision,  we  have  Scrip- 
ture proof.  This  last  evidently  conies  in  awkwardly  at  the 
close  of  a  treatment  of  Scripture  that  does   not   precede  but 


MODERN  PEKIOD — EOTHE.  133 

follows  that  systematic  theology  which  states  the  doctrines  of 
which  the  proofs  are  given  here.  This  at  least  necessitates, 
as  Hofmann  allows,  the  merely  tentative  maintaining  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  system.  The  second  half  of  historical 
theology  is  the  history  of  the  Church.  Here  we  have,  first 
of  all,  the  history  of  the  Church,  which  embraces  Church 
history  proper,  or  the  growth  of  the  Church  in  outward 
dimensions  ;  history  of  doctrines  ;  the  exhibition  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith  in  the  relations  of  common  life— family,  social,  civil 
life,  etc.  ;  history  of  Church  constitution ;  history  of  the  life 
of  the  Christian  community.  Then  we  have  next,  ecclesias- 
tical statistics ;  and  finally,  proofs  resulting  from  Church 
history,  to  correspond  with  the  section  with  which  the  treat- 
ment of  Scripture  concludee. — Practical  theology  has  two 
parts — 1.  The  theory  of  the  practical  application  of  theology 
beyond  the  range  of  official  action,  under  wliich  we  have 
apologetics  and  polemics.  2.  The  theory  of  the  practical 
application  of  theology  by  official  action,  embracing  under 
the  ministering  to  the  congregation  and  to  the  Church 
the  ordinary  contents  of  pastoral  theology  in  its  widest 
sense. 

The  Encyclopaedia  of  Richard  Rothe^  also  appeared  as  a 
posthumous  work.  It  has  been  edited  upon  the  whole  in 
accordance  with  the  same  principles  as  the  Encyclopedia  of 
Hofmann,  and  the  editor  is  deserving  of  similar  thanks  for  the 
extreme  care  which  he  has  bestowed  upon  it.  The  work  is 
also  characterized  by  most  commendable  brevity.  In  the 
Introduction,  Rothe  discusses  the  idea  of  theology  in  somewhat 
less  than  six  pages,  and  this  is  all  that  we  have  for  what  is 
usually  reserved  to  constitute  a  part  of  the  Encyclopedia 
itself  under  the  name  of  the  General  Part.  What  properly 
belongs  to  the  Introduction  is  disposed  of  in  two  chapters, 

1  Theologische  Encycloiw'die  von  Richard  Hothe.  Aus  seinem  Nachlasse 
herausgegeben  von  Hermann  Rupellius.  Wittenberg  1880.  See  further  details 
in  Appendix  A. 


134  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

entitled  respectively,  the  idea  of  theological  encycloppedia,  and 
the   history  and   literature   of  theological   encyclopedia,   the 
matter  under  each  being  compressed  into  the   space  of  two 
pages.      The    treatment    of    the    history    is    thus    peculiarly 
meagre  and  unsatisfactory.     Eothe  regards  theological  encyclo- 
pedia as  an  introduction  to  theological  study,  and  a  guide  to 
the  student  entering  upon  a  theological   course.     He  looks 
upon  it  as  a  purely  formal  science,  having  nothing  to  do  with 
the   contents  of  the   different  theological  branches.      It  also 
embraces  in  itself  a  scientific  method,  and  there  is  no  room 
for   a   separate   methodology.     The    last    four   pages   of    the 
Introduction  are  devoted  to  discussing   the  question  of  the 
distribution  of  the  theological  sciences  in  the  Encyclopsedia. 
He  concludes  by  adopting  a  threefold  arrangement :  specula- 
tive   theology,    historical    theology,    and    practical    theology. 
I.   Speculative  theology.      This  division,  according  to  Eothe, 
embraces  theology  in  the  narrower  sense  of  the  term,  and 
ethics, — these    being    treated    from    the    standpoint    of   the 
Christian  consciousness.      The  term  speculative  is  intended  to 
characterize  the  thought  exercised  as  not  empirical-reflective, 
not  a  2oostcriori  but  a  priori.     This  first  division  also  embraces 
apologetics,  which   sets   forth  the   grounds   upon  which    the 
speculative  system  is  reared.     The  conception  of  apologetics 
by  Eothe  is  entirely  different  from  that  taken  by  Schleier- 
macher,  and,  unlike  the  latter,  Eothe  finds  no   place  here  for 
polemics,  which  he  dissociates  altogether  from  apologetics,  and 
relegates  to  practical  theology.      II.  Historical  theology.     This 
term  is  used  in  its  very  widest  extent,  so  as  to  embrace  not 
only  the  science  of  Scripture  and  the  history  of  the  Church, 
as  with  Hofmann,  but  also  positive  theology,  or  the  present 
doctrinal    position    of    the    Church.       1.    Under    exegetical 
theology  Eothe  includes — (1)  history  of  biblical  literature  ; 
(2)  biblical   criticism ;    (3)   biblical  archeology  ;  (4)  biblical 
hermeneutics ;  and   (5)  biblical  theology.      2.  Under  Church 
history  he  includes — (1)  general  history  of  the  Church;   (2) 


MODERN  PERIOD ZOCKLER.  135 

history  of  the  Church  constitution ;  (3)  history  of  doctrines ; 
and  (4)  ecclesiastical  archeology.  These  call  for  no  special 
remark.  3.  Under  positive  theology  he  includes  —  (1) 
dogmatics  ;  (2)  symbolics  ;  and  (3)  statistics.  That  symbolics 
and  statistics  should  be  reckoned  among  the  historical  branches 
is  quite  reasonable,  and  is  in  accordance  with  the  arrangement 
adopted  in  the  present  treatise  ;  but  the  inclusion  here  of 
dogmatics  results  from  an  altogether  peculiar  conception  of 
that  department  of  theological  science,  or  at  least  from  a 
peculiar  use  of  the  term.  With  Eothe,  much  that  is  usually 
included  under  dogmatics,  and  in  general  what  is  intended  by 
Hofmann  in  his  division  of  systematic  theology,  is  placed 
under  speculative  theology.  Dogmatics  is,  according  to  Eothe, 
a  purely  historical  branch,  being  a  statement  of  ecclesiastical 
dogma,  or,  as  he  would  express  it,  the  presentation  of  what  is 
entitled  to  be  called  Church  doctrine.  III.  Practical  theology. 
The  reference  of  theology  generally  to  the  guidance  of  the 
Church  is  emphasized  by  Eothe  after  the  example  of 
Schleiermacher.  Practical  theology  falls  into  two  parts  :  the 
direction  or  administration  of  the  Church  as  a  whole,  and  the 
direction  of  the  particular  congregation  or  Christian  com- 
munity. The  first  subdivision — Church  government — has 
again  two  parts  —  1.  Church  law,  that  is,  the  scientific 
representation  of  the  organization  of  the  Church ;  2.  Polemic, 
that  is,  the  scientific  exposition  of  those  fundamental  prin- 
ciples according  to  which  this  organization  is  to  be  defended. 
The  second  subdivision — the  administration  of  the  congrega- 
tion— embraces  liturgies,  homiletics,  catechetics,  and  pastoral 
theology.  The  editor  indicates  various  alterations  in  the 
distribution  of  certain  departments  made  by  Eothe  from  time 
to  time ;  these,  however,  do  not  affect  the  general  outline  of 
his  Encyclopaedia  as  here  given. 

An  important  work,  begun  in  1882,  has  just  been  completed 
in  three  large  volumes  :  Zockler's  Handbook  of  the  Theological 
Sciences,    an     Encyclopiedic    Exposition     of    the    Historical 


136  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

Development  of  their  several  Branches.^  Tlie  work  is  essen- 
tially an  encyclopaedia  of  theology  of  a  very  comprehensive 
kind.  Its  standpoint  is  distinctly  evangelical,  and  not  un- 
frequently  signs  of  impatience  in  dealing  with  those  who 
occupy  other  standpoints  appear.  The  introductory  section, 
pp.  3-117,  deals  with  the  historical  development  and  scientific 
distribution  of  the  theological  branches.  The  treatment  of 
many  of  the  important  questions  here  raised  is  disappointingly 
summary,  and  the  whole  section  is  marked  by  a  want  of 
thoroughness  in  treatment  and  by  extreme  confusion  in  the 
arrangement.  This  criticism  applies  specially  to  the  chapter 
on  theological  encyclopaedia,  which  compares  unfavourably  with 
the  Introductions  of  the  better  Encyclopaedias.  This  unfavour- 
able estimate,  however,  applies  only  to  the  Introduction.  The 
work  itself  is  very  ably  executed.  The  separate  divisions  have 
for  the  most  part  been  assigned  to  specialists,  who  have  ably 
performed  their  tasks.  It  will  be  sufficient  for  our  present 
purposes  that  we  indicate  tlie  general  plan  on  which  the 
theological  branches  are  arranged  in  this  work.  As  a  hand- 
book of  theological  science,  we  naturally  find  in  it  a  material 
and  not  a  merely  formal  treatment  of  tlie  subject,  while  the 
literature  of  the  different  subdivisions  is  "iven  in  creat  detail. 
In  regard  to  those  lists  of  books,  however,  the  same  objection 
may  be  made  as  we  advanced  against  a  similar  feature  of 
Hagenbach's  treatment :  they  generally  contain  either  too 
much  or  too  little.  Much  more  serviceable  are  the  attempts 
made,  especially  under  the  sections  on  historical  theology,  to 
group  together  theologians  and  theological  works  according  to 
their  tendencies.  This  certainly  requires  to  be  very  carefully 
and   skilfully  done ;  but  if  so  done,  the  result  is  something 

^  Handbuch  der  theologischen  Wissenschaften  in  encyclopsedischer  Dar- 
stellung  mit  besonderer  Riicksicht  auf  die  Entwickelungsgeschichte  der  ein- 
zeluen  Disciplinen  in  Verbindung  mit  Prof.  D.D.,  Cremer,  Graii,  Htirnack, 
Kiibel,  Luthardt,  von  Scheele,  F.  W.  Schultz,  L.  Schultze,  Strack,  Volk, 
von  Zeschwitz,  u.  s.  w.,  herausgegeben  von  Dr.  Otto  Zockler.  Nordlingen. 
3  Bande,  1882-1884.     Tliis  paragraph  has  been  contributed  by  the  editor. 


MODERN  PERIOD ZuCKLER.  137 

very  different  from  that  of  a  mere  list  of  books  arranged 
according  to  the  year  of  their  publication.  The  untrust- 
worthiness,  however,  of  some  of  the  classifications  given  in  this 
work  will  appear  from  this,  that  in  enumerating  the  adherents 
of  the  school  of  modern  evangelical  Pietism  —  Chalmers, 
Maurice,  Mozley,  Earrar,  Hodge,  and  M'Cosh  are  bracketed 
together  (vol.  ii.  p.  375).  The  difficulty  attending  the  treat- 
ment of  the  literature  has  not  been  surmounted  in  this  work. 
In  the  general  arrangement  of  the  theological  sciences,  Zockler 
follows  the  usual  fourfold  division, — that  employed  by  Clarisse, 
Hagenbach,  and  in  the  present  treatise, — exegetical  theology, 
historical  theology,  systematic  theology,  and  practi(ial  theology. 
Under  exegetical  theology  (vol.  i.  pp.  121—681)  we  have  a 
threefold  subdivision,  which  is  at  least  extremely  convenient 
for  the  purposes  of  a  handbook — 1.  The  doctrine  of  the  Old 
Testament,  embracing  all  the  Old  Testament  branches,  namely, 
introduction  general  and  particular,  archaK)logy  and  history, 
and  the  theology  of  the  Old  Testament  ;  2.  The  doctrine  of 
tlie  New  Testament,  embracing  all  the  New  Testament  branches, 
namely,  introduction  general  and  particular,  biblical  history, 
and  biblical  theology  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  3.  The 
doctrine  of  Scripture  as  a  whole,  embracing  the  science  of  the 
canon  and  biblical  hermeneutics.  Under  historical  theology 
(vol.  ii.  pp.  3-497)  we  have  first  of  all  an  introductory  section 
Mdiich  treats  of  the  arrangement,  literature,  and  helps  in 
historical  theological  science.  This  is  followed  by  the 
main  portion  of  this  division, — general  Church  history, — the 
ancient,  mediteval  (under  three  periods),  and  modern  (under 
three  periods)  :  the  history  is  brought  down  to  1883,  and 
though  to  be  received  in  part  with  reservation,  is  rendered  in 
an  extremely  interesting  way.  This  treatise  on  Church 
histoiy  is  followed  by  what  may  be  regarded  as  historical 
sciences  complementary  to  this  general  Church  history, — 
Christian  archieology,  embracing  the  history  of  the  Church 
constitution,  of  worship,  of  the  Christian  life,  and  of  Christian 


138  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP/EDIA. 

art ;  history  of  Christian  doctrines,  embracing  a  consideration 
of  the  development  of  Church  doctrine   through   six  periods 
extending    from    a.d.    100    to   a.d.    1883  ;    and    history   of 
Christian  Church  symbols,  symbolics,  ending  with  an  instruc- 
tive  chapter   on  attempts   at    union     especially  among    the 
German    Evangelical  Churches.     Under  systematic  theology 
(vol.  ii.  pp.  501-769,  vol  iii.   3-78)  the  three  sciences  are 
treated   in   succession  —  apologetics,   dogmatics,   and     ethics. 
Apologetics  is  treated  very  ably  by  Klibel,  but  it  is  at  least 
open  to  question  whether  the  subjects  discussed  here  can  be 
properly  arranged  under  one  head.      (For  a  discussion  of  this 
question,  see  Appendix  B.)      The  apologetical  questions  which 
are  beyond  dispute  proper  to  this  place  are  those  that  refer  to 
the  basis  and  nature  of  religion.      The  inappropriateness  of 
dealing  with   the  whole  subject   of  apologetics   in   a  special 
section    is   made   evident  when   we   pass   to   the  section   on 
dogmatics.     The  first  subdivision  is  entitled.  The  doctrine  of 
principles  ;  and  here  under  presuppositions  of  Christianity  and 
the  origin  of  Christian  certainty,  we  come  upon  unavoidable 
repetitions   of    statements   already   made    under    apologetics. 
The  Christian  doctrines  are  treated  under  the  customary  heads 
— theology,  anthropology,  Christology,  soteriology,  ecclesiology, 
and  eschatology.     The  place  of  ethics  as  a  part  of  systematic 
theology  is    undisputed.       Many   insist    upon  treating   it   in 
combination  with  dogmatics.     The  separate  treatment,  as  here, 
seems  to  us  justifiable  on  scientific  grounds,  and  it  certainly 
commends   itself  to   the   convenience   of  students    using    an 
Encyclopedia.     Under  practical  theology  (vol.  iii.  pp.  81-612) 
we  have  an  introductory  part  treated  with  great  fulness  and 
care.      This   is  followed   by    a   systematic   exposition   of    the 
different    divisions     of     practical     theology  —  evangelistics, 
catechetics,    homiletics,   liturgies,    pastoral    theology   in    the 
narrower   sense,    diaconics    (which   generally   corresponds    to 
home    mission    work,   as     evangelistics     deal    with    foreign 
missions),  and  kubernetics  (the   doctrine   of  the    constitution 


MODERN  TERIOD MARTIX  AND  DRUMMOND.  139 

and  government  of  the  Chiircli).  The  arrangement  of  the 
whole  work  reflects  great  credit  upon  the  learned  editor, 
himself  a  large  contributor  to  the  historical  and  systematic 
departments.  More  perhaps  than  any  other  single  work,  it  is 
fitted  to  be  helpful  to  the  theological  student  as  a  compre- 
hensive and  informing  handbook  to  a  full  course  of  theology. 
This  summary  of  its  contents  forms  a  fitting  close  to  the  long 
history  of  attempts  made  within  the  German  Protestant  Church 
to  give  an  encyclopedic  exposition  of  the  theological  sciences. 

Outside  of  Germany  several  important  treatises  on  theolo- 
gical encyclopedia  have  recently  appeared.  The  French 
Protestant  Church  has  given  us,  Introduction  d  I'itade  de  la 
theoloffic  protcstante  (Paris  1882),  by  Ernest  Martin  of 
Lausanne.  This  writer  gives  a  threefold  distribution  of  the 
theological  sciences  :  I.  La  science  (L  Histoire  de  la  revelation  ; 
2.  Histoire  du  Christianisme  ;  3.  Ethique)  ;  IL  L'education 
(1.  L'individu  ;  2.  L'eglise,  and  under  this — («)  la  constitution 
de  I'eglise,  embracing  Church  law,  dogmatics,  and  Church 
government ;  (h)  activite  de  I'eglise  a  I'egard  de  ses  membres, 
embracing  liturgies,  catechetics,  apologetics,  polemics,  and 
irenics,  homiletics,  and  pastoral  theology ;  (c)  activite  de 
I'eglise  au  dehors,  embracing  evangelistics  and  the  theory  of 
missions)  ;  and  III.  La  philosophic.  (Compare  Zockler's 
Handhuch  dcr  theologischen  Wissenschaften.  2  Ausgabe. 
Th.  1,  S.  108.) 

Quite  recently  an  English  work  on  theological  encyclopedia 
has  been  published  under  the  title  of  an  Introduction  to  the 
Study  of  Theology}  The  author,  Dr.  James  Drummond, 
Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Manchester  New  College,  London, 
does  not  obtrude  his  own  theological  standpoint,  but  for  the 
most  part  treats  his  subject  in  a  purely  formal  manner.  As 
a  handbook  of  this  description,  the  work  is  a  valuable  one. 
Written  in  a   pleasant  style,  the  matter   is    substantial,  and 

1  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Theology,  by  James  Drummond,  LL.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Theology  in  Manchester  New  College,  London.     London  1884. 


140  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

the  arrangement  is  at  least  clear  and  intelligible.  The  author 
professes  mainly  to  follow  Hagenbach  and  Rabiger,  but  he  is 
by  no  means  a  slavish  follower  of  any  of  his  predecessors. 
The  book  is  divided  into  three  parts.  The  first  part 
(pp.  1-31),  in  three  sections,  treats  of  the  nature,  the  import- 
ance, and  the  principles  of  theological  study.  The  second 
part  (pp.  32-41)  treats  of  the  relation  of  theology  to  other 
studies.  The  two  parts  together  cover  the  field  of  the  General 
Division  of  the  theological  Encyclopaedia.  There  are  specially 
good  and  valuable  remarks,  on  pp.  8-11,  regarding  the  im- 
portance of  the  theological  faculty  to  the  university.  What 
properly  belongs  to  the  introduction  to  theological  encyclopedia 
is  not  treated  in  this  work.  The  third  part  (pp.  42-256) 
corresponds  to  the  Special  Division  of  theological  encyclopaedia, 
and  is  introduced  by  a  synoptical  view  of  the  various  branches 
of  theology.  He  proposes  a  sixfold  distribution  of  the  theo- 
logical sciences, — 1.  philosophy;  2.  comparative  religion ;  3. 
biblical  theology ;  4.  ecclesiastical  history ;  5.  systematic 
theology  ;  6.  practical  theology.  The  most  important  departure 
here  from  the  generally  approved  arrangement  is  the  inclusion 
of  philosophy  as  one  of  the  constituent  members,  and  not  a 
mere  auxiliary,  of  theological  science.  It  is  here  that  the 
theological  standpoint  of  the  author  seems  to  reflect  itself 
upon  his  conception  of  the  range  of  theology.  He  labours  to 
show  (pp.  51-56)  that  philosophy  is  so  intimately  associated 
with  theology,  and  is  so  indispensable  to  its  study,  that  it  must 
be  dealt  with,  not  as  a  mere  preparatory  or  auxiliary  science, 
but  as  a  constituent  part  of  theology.  All  that  he  urges  as  to 
the  need  of  philosophy  for  the  theologian  may  be  readily 
admitted.  But  we  say  precisely  the  same  in  regard  to  the 
comparative  philology  of  the  Semitic  languages.  The 
theologian  must  have  so  far  studied  philology  as  to  be  in  a 
position  intelligently  to  appropriate  the  true  scientific  results, 
in  order  to  apply  them  to  the  interpretation  of  Scripture. 
Yet  this  philology  is  only  an  auxiliary  science  outside  of  the 


MODERN  PERIOD — H.  B.  SMITH.  141 

range  of  theology.  So  is  it  with  philosophy.  The  theologian 
must  be  so  much  of  a  student  of  philosophy  as  to  be  able  to 
choose  and  to  maintain  those  principles  of  philosophy  upon 
which  the  scientific  construction  of  that  doctrine  conveyed  to 
him  in  Scripture  is  reared.  It  is  only  when,  as  happens  even 
with  the  most  advanced  and  spiritually-minded  among  the 
Unitarians,  like  Dr.  Martineau  and  Dr.  Drummond,  the  claims 
of  Scripture  are  underrated,  and  the  claims  of  reason  in  com- 
parison overrated,  that  such  a  proposal  as  this  could  approve 
itself.  Then,  again,  no  advantage  seems  to  be  gained  by 
treating  of  comparative  religion  in  a  separate  division,  and  not 
rather,  as  by  Eabiger,  under  biblical  theology,  as  a  subdivision 
of  exegetical  theology,  or,  as  by  Hagenbach,  as  an  auxiliary 
to  the  historical  sciences.  The  study  is  distinctly  historical, 
but  it  is  of  the  same  order  of  historical  investigation  as  that 
which  is  applied  to  the  sources  of  Christian  revelation.  We 
are  thus  left  with  the  ordinary  fourfold  arrangement  of  the 
subjects  of  Christian  theology.  For  the  first  of  these  four 
divisions.  Dr.  Drummond  prefers  the  name  biblical  theology 
to  that  of  exegetical  theology,  commonly  used.  This  is, 
perhaps,  more  a  matter  of  taste  than  of  principle,  which  we 
are  the  less  careful  to  dispute,  seeing  that  under  it  he 
discusses  all  the  special  subjects  included  under  the  corre- 
sponding division  in  the  "  theologic,"  with  the  exception  of 
the  history  of  the  different  religions,  to  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  a  separate  division  lias  been  assigned. 

The  Introduction  to  Christian  Theology,  by  Dr.  H.  B. 
Smith,^  is  in  many  respects  a  disappointing  performance.  In 
regard  to  form,  its  frequent  disjointedness  and  fragmentariness 
might  be  fairly  explained  by  the  circumstances  of  its  publica- 
tion as  a  posthumous  work  compiled  from  notes  used  by  the 
author  in  his  class  lectures.  And,  indeed,  little  serious 
objection  can  be  taken  against  the  book  in  this  respect,  for 

'  Introduction  to  Christian    Theology,  by  Hcniy   B.   Smith,   D.D.,    LL.D. 
Edited  by  ^Y.  S.  Karr,  D.D.     New  Yorlc  1883. 


142  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

the  outline  is  generally  sufficiently  full  to  render  the  meaning 
and  aim  of  the  writer  quite  distinct.  It  is  when  we  consider 
the  nature  of  its  contents  that  we  are  inclined  to  regard  the 
title  of  the  treatise  as  misleading.  It  is  not  an  introduction 
to  theology  generally,  but  simply  an  introduction  to  systematic 
theology  ;  and  not  even  to  systematic  theology  as  a  science, 
but  to  Dr.  Smith's  system  of  theology.  The  book  certainly 
has  no  claim  to  rank  as  an  encyclopaedia  of  theology,  for 
there  is  much  that  is  proper  to  an  encyclopaedia  that  is  not 
in  it ;  yet  we  have  here  many  of  the  points  belonging  to 
encyclopaedia  discussed.  It  is  divided  into  two  parts :  a 
General  and  Special  Introduction.  The  General  Introduction 
(pp.  1-48)  treats  of  the  claims  of  theology,  the  true  spirit  of 
its  students,  and  the  characteristics  of  a  theology  suited  to  our 
times.  This  in  part  corresponds  to  §  5-11  and  §  20  of 
Hagenbach's  Encyclopaedie,  and  yet  more  closely  resembles 
the  llethodologie  of  Lange's  Encyclopaedie.  The  Special 
Introduction,  or  the  Prolegomena  of  Christian  Theology,  con- 
stitutes the  body  of  the  work,  and  is  divided  into  six  chapters. 
In  chapter  first,  the  idea  of  Christian  theology  is  determined 
by  means  of  the  ideas  of  science,  religion,  and  Christianity. 
Chapters  two,  three,  four,  and  five  treat  of  the  sources  of 
Christian  theology.  We  have — 1.  Subsidiary  sources  (Chris- 
tian experience,  confessions  of  faith  and  systems  of  theology 
and  philosophy)  ;  2.  Nature,  the  fundamental  source  of  Chris- 
tian theology, — natural  theology,  treated  in  great  detail ;  and 
3.  Kevelation,  the  comprehensive  and  authoritative  source  of 
Christian  theology — {a)  Evidences  of  Christianity  (the  possi- 
bility of  a  revelation,  historical  proofs,  and  internal  evidences)  ; 
(h)  Divine  authority  of  the  record  of  revelation  (canon,  inspira- 
tion, and  rule  of  faith).  And  finally,  chapter  sixth  gives  the 
divisions  of  theology  or  the  outlines  of  the  theological  system. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  encyclopaedia,  we  challenge  the 
propriety  of  treating  apologetical  questions  of  a  historical  and 
of  a    philosophical   kind  under  the   same  general    division. 


MODERN  PERIOD ROMISH  CHURCH.  143 

Indeed,  the  principle  of  arrangement  is  found  in  the  subordina- 
tion of  all  the  departments  of  theology  to  that  of  systematic 
tlieology.  The  above  outline  of  contents  will  show  that 
exegetical  theology,  apologetics,  symbolics,  etc.,  are  all  made 
auxiliary  to  systematics,  and  are  thus  at  once  bereft  of  their 
independence  and  their  due  proportions. 


Theological  Encyclopedia  in  the  Eoman  Catholic 
Church. 

In  Germany,  at  least,  since  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  (Eoman)  Catholic  theology  refused  to  submit  itself 
to  the  yoke  of  that  formal  scholasticism  which  had  been 
established  anew  by  the  Jesuits,  and  commended  even  by 
theologians  of  other  orders,  in  the  spirit  of  Thomas  Aquinas 
or  Scotus.^  "  Scholastic  theology,  casuistics,  and  canonics 
were  the  three  principal  elements  in  the  theological  educa- 
tion, and  in  them  for  the  most  part  tlie  entire  contents  of 
ecclesiastical  divinity  were  comprised"  (Werner,  I.e.  p.  121). 
Martin  Gerbert,  however,  belonging  to  the  order  of  the 
Benedictines,  in  the  spirit  of  a  Mabillon  and  Du  Pin,  insisted, 
in  opposition  to  a  one-sided  scholasticism,  upon  a  return  to 
the  historical  sources  of  theology."^  In  his  apparatus  he 
recommends  as  a  foundation  for  theological  study  the  study 
of  Holy  Scripture.  Side  by  side  with  this  he  places  the 
study    of    the   canones    of    the    Councils,    which    are    to    be 

1  Compare  Carl  Werner,  Geschichte  der  Katliolischen  Thcologie.  Seit  dem 
Trienter  Coiicil  bis  zur  Gegenwart.  Miinchen  1866.  §  88  ff.  (History  of 
Catholic  Theology  from  the  Council  of  Trent  down  to  the  Present  Time.  This 
is  one  of  the  series  of  Histories  of  the  Sciences  prepared  for  the  Historical 
Commission  of  the  Royal  Academy  of  Sciences  at  Munich.  It  is  intended  to 
be  a  companion  work  to  Dorner's  History  of  Protestant  Theology,  which  belongs 
to  the  same  series. ) 

^  Apparatus  ad  eruditionem  theologicam,  institutioni  tiionum  congregationis 
Sancti  Blasii  destinatus,  auctore  Martino  Gerbert,  eiusdem  congregationis 
monacho.     Aug.  Vind.   1754. 


144  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCL0P/EDL4.. 

regarded  as  decreta  spiritus  sandi ;  the  study  of  the  papal 
epistolce  decrdalcs,  which  are  to  be  reverenced  as  decreta 
Fctri ;  aud  the  study  of  the  patres,  by  whose  means  the 
depositum  fidci  has  been  preserved  to  the  Church,  and 
tradition  has  been  carried  down,  as  it  were,  through  a 
channel,  to  the  Church  of  later  times,  whose  uncmimis 
consensus  has  constituted  the  standard,  both  for  the  exposi- 
tion of  Scripture,  and  for  the  construction  of  the  Church 
doctrine.  Gerbert  very  expressly  insists  upon  this,  that  by 
means  of  the  firm  establishment  of  these  studies  all  the 
unprofitable  and  thorny  investigations  of  scholastic  theology 
should  be  driven  from  the  range  of  study.  He  places  special 
value  upon  the  study  of  Church  history.  For  the  ascertain- 
ing of  tradition,  for  the  understanding  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Councils,  and  of  the  Papal  Decretals,  and  of  the  Canon  Law, 
as  well  as  for  the  study  of  the  Fathers,  it  is  indispensably 
useful.  As  theological  auxiliary  sciences,  Gerbert  recom- 
mends the  Hterce  liumaniores,  philology,  especially  the  Hebrew 
and  Greek,  chronology  and  geography,  the  natural  sciences, 
philosophy,  mathematics,  jurisprudence,  criticism,  and 
antiquities.  Gerbert  occupies  a  very  decided  (Eoman) 
Catholic  standpoint.  He  does  not  oppose  the  scholastic 
theology  as  a  whole,  but  only  its  excesses.  Divine  revela- 
tion is,  according  to  him,  deposited  in  Scripture  and  tradition, 
and  in  both  forms  is  transmitted  by  means  of  the  Church, 
which  is  the  infallible  interpreter  of  the  divine  word  of 
doctrine.  Its  doctrinal  authority  is  represented  by  the 
bishops  joined  with  the  Pope.  The  Councils  are  the  highest 
tribunal  for  the  doctrinal  decisions  of  the  Church.  Upon 
these  Catholic  principles  he  has  endeavoured  to  introduce  a 
certain  systematic  arrangement  into  the  treatment  of  those 
studies  recommended  by  him,  and,  by  means  of  numerous 
writings  on  special  points,  he  has  further  developed  and 
established  these  studies.  Compare  Werner,  I.e.  p.  179  ff. 
After  the  suppression  of  the  order  of  the  Jesuits,  which 


MODERN  PERIOD OBERTHUR.  145 

took  place  in  the  year  1773,  a  more  liberal  tendency  mani- 
fested itself  in  German  Catholic  theology.  Besides  others, 
sucli  as  Stephan  Eautenstrauch,  Brandmayer,  Gmeiner,  and 
"Wiest,^  Oberthiir,^  still  more  decidedly  than  Gerbert,  eom- 
bated  the  customary  doctrin^al  method  which  had  been- 
rigidly  retained  in  theology  by  the  Jesuits.  In  his  Encyclc<- 
p^edia,  Oberthlir  distinguishes  between  methodology  and 
encycloiDiedia.  By  the  former  he  understands  the  doctrine 
of  the  fundamental  principles  according  to  which  the  several 
theological  sciences  are  tO'  be  treate<l,  and  he  illustrates  this- 
in  his  methodology,  specially  in  the  case  of  dogmatics.  The 
remark  readily  suggests  itself,  that  a  methodology  so  conceived 
is  quite  superfluous  when  we  have  a  properly  developed 
encyclopaedia.  The  encyclopaedia  should  set  forth  the- 
entire  compass,  the  arrangement  of  the  parts,  the  preparatory 
sciences,  and  the  direction  for  the  practical  application  of 
theology,  so  that  the  religion  of  Jesus  may  be  spiritually 
more  and  more  established  and  realized.  It  falls  into  three 
principal  sections.  The  first  treats  of  the  preparatory  sciences, 
and,  with  great  fulness  of  details,  occupies  the  whole  of  the 
first  volume;  for  the  tendency  of  Oberthlir  is  chiefly  in  the- 
direction  of  giving  to  the  scholastic  theology  elaborated-  by 
the  Jesuits  a  better  form  by  the  help  of  humanist  studies^ 
As  a  preparation  for  theological  study  philosophy  is  pre- 
eminently recommended,  but  it  must  complete  itself  in 
theology.  In  the  second  section,  the  idea  of  the&logy  is 
defined,  but  this  is  done  in  such  a  way  that  it  coincides  with 
that   of    dogmatics,   and   much  is  ascribed  to   theology   that 

^  On  those  named  above,  compare  "Werner,  I.e. 

-  Encyclopiiidia  et  Methodologia  Theologica,  vol.  i.  Salisb.  1786.  This 
work  -was  afterwards  issued  in  a  greatly  enlarged  form  in  German,  under  the 
title,  Theologische  Encyclopa;die  oder  theologischen.  Wissenscliuften  Umfang 
und  Zusammenhang.  Von  Franz  Oberthlir.  Bd.  1,  2.  Augsburg  1828.  It 
was  followed  by  ]\[ethodo]ogie  der  theologischen  "Wissenschaften  ueberhaupt 
und  der  Dogmatik  insbesondere.  Von  Franz  Oberthiir.  Augsburg  1828. 
[Hagenbach  says  of  Oberthiir  that  he  occupies  a  similar  platform  to  that 
occupied  by  Ktisselt,  Planck,  and  Niemeyer  in  the  Protestant  Church.] 
VOL.  I.  K 


146  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOPJJDLS.. 

should  rather  have  been  said  of  Christianity,  The  founda- 
tions of  theology  are  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  and  Holy 
Scripture,  as  a  divine  revelation,  according  to  its  divine 
inspiration.  In  the  third  section,  the  constituent  parts  of 
theological  science,  and  their  order,  are  set  forth.  Theology 
falls  into  theory  and  practice.  The  academies  have  to  teach 
the  former ;  the  theological  seminaries  the  latter.  The  con- 
stituent parts  of  theoretical  theology  are  biblical  herme- 
neutics  and  exegesis,  Church  history,  dogmatics,  moral 
theology,  Cliurch  law,  and  history  of  dogmas,  which  has 
been  introduced  in  the  place  of  the  earlier  polemics. 
Practical  theology  embraces  (1)  Ascetics,  that  is,  directions 
for  candidates,  showing  how  they  may  apply  to  themselves 
what  they  have  received  as  the  theory  of  religion ;  and  (2) 
Pastoral  theology  in  its  narrower  sense,  which  teaches  the 
candidate  how  to  expound  to  others  the  theory  of  religion. 
To  practical  theology  belong  also  catechetics  joined  with 
poedagogics,  homiletics,  liturgies,  casuistics,  and  practice  in 
the  curial  style.  Oberthilr  is  satisfied  with  indicating  the 
formal  connection  of  the  theological  branches,  and  makes 
a  special  endeavour  to  determine  the  order  in  which 
these  studies  should  be  prosecuted  in  the  academy 
and  seminary.  Unsatisfactory  as  Oberthiir's  general  execu- 
tion of  the  Encyclopedia,  and  especially  his  conception 
of  practical  theology  undoubtedly  is,  that  nevertheless  is 
deserving  of  notice  which  he  says  about  the  different  tasks 
of  the  academies  and  the.  theological  seminaries;  and  the 
religious  and  peace-loving  spirit  of  the  author  which  makes 
its  presence  felt  throughout  the  work,  appears  to  great 
advantage  in  contrast  to  the  polemical  eagerness  of  the 
Jesuits. 

The  period  of  the  Illuniination,  too,  did  not  pass  without 
leaving  a  trace  upon  the  Catholic  theology.  In  the  period 
of  Josephinism  and  Febronianism  there  entered  into  the  treat- 
ment of    Catholic    Church    questions   a    spirit   of   liberalism 


MODERN  PERIOD DOBMAYEII.  147 

which,  from  a  rigid  Catholic  point  of  view,  must  have 
appeared  extremely  hazardous.^  Nevertheless,  since  the 
period  of  liomanticism,  Catholic  theology  has  taken  a  new 
flight  under  the  influence  of  modern  philosophy  and  Pro- 
testant theology.  The  endeavour  of  the  recent  tendency  to 
appropriate  to  itself  the  homogeneous  and  beneficial  elements 
in  the  active  spiritual  life  of  Protestantism,  and  to  enter 
into  all  departments  alongside  of  their  fellow  -  workers, 
shows  itself  very  distinctly  in  the  theological  encyclopasdias 
that  appeared  after  this  time.  Dobmayer  ^  prefaces  his  rich 
comprehensive  system  of  Catholic  theology  witli  an  encyclo- 
ptedia  and  methodology  of  theology.  Theology  is  the 
scientific  doctrine  of  the  moral  kingdom  of  God,  or  of 
religion  and  the  Church.  It  falls  into  rational  and  positive 
theology.  The  latter  is  Christian,  and  treats  of  the  doctrine 
and  Church  of  Christ.  The  perfect  and  uncorrupted  Christian 
theology  is  the  Catholic,  which  proves  its  truth  from  its 
agreement  with  reason  and  revelation,  and  thus  suffers 
even  rational  theology  to  be  taken  up  and  included 
in  itself.  Catholic  theology  is  divided  into  theoretical  and 
practical  theology.  The  theoretical,  again,  is  divided  into 
the  general,  which  treats  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  general, 
and  the  special,  which  comprises  religionistics  and  ecclesi- 
astics. Eehgionistics  includes  theognosy  and  theonomy, 
or  dogmatics  and  moral  theology ;  ecclesiastics,  which  Dob- 
mayer rightly,  in  contrast  to  Oberthiir,  admits  into  the 
theological  system,  includes  liturgies  and  hierarchies.     Prac- 

1  Compare  Werner,  I.e.  p.  203  ff.  [On  Josephinism— that  is,  the  system  of 
reform  carried  out  Ly  Joseph  II.,  Emperor  of  Austria,  from  about  the  year 
1780— see  article  under  this  name  by  Carl  Miiller  in  Herzog,  vol.  vii.  pp. 
103-109.  On  Febronianism— a  protest  against  papal  absolutism  and  a  claim 
for  the  independence  of  national  Churches— see  article  "Hontheim,"  by  Mejer 
in  Herzog,  vol.  vi.  pp.  310,  311.  A  good  popular  account  of  these  systems 
may  be  found  in  Chambers's  Encyclopaedia,  arts.  "  Folir.  nianism,  Hontheim, 
and  Josephinism."] 

2  M.  Dobmayer,  Sj-stema  Thcologiai  Catholicai.  Op  is  ] .  sthumum  cura  et 
Studio  Th.  r.  Senestrey.  Sulzbach,  1S07-1S19.  8  Theilr.  Compare  Werner, 
I.e.  p.  248  ff. 


148  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

tical  or  applied  theology  divides  itself  into  ascetics  and 
pastoral  theology.  The  biblical,  historical,  and  philosophical 
sciences  are  auxiliaries  to  theological  study.  The  theological 
method  is  either  scientific  or  pragmatic.  The  former  consists 
in  a  synthesis  of  the  historical  and  philosophical  modes  of 
treatment ;  the  latter  pursues  practical  ends.^  Quite  in  the 
spirit  of  Schelling's  doctrine  of  Identity,  Thanner,  at  once 
philosopher  and  theologian,  constructed  his  methodological 
introduction  to  the  academical-scientific  study  of  positive 
tlieology.^  The  subject  of  theology  is  with  him  the  exposi- 
tion of  the  Eternal  and  Divine  in  time,  and  of  Christianity 
in  particular,  with  reference  to  the  specific  form  under  which 
it  has  developed  itself  in  Catholicism.  Theological  metho- 
dology sets  forth  the  study  of  theology  in  the  unity  of  its 
life  and  of  its  development ;  theological  encyclopaedia,  in  the 
variety  and  difference  of  its  parts.  The  former  has  to  treat 
of  the  idea  of  positive  theology,  to  show  how  this  unfolds 
itself  as  religion  and  Church,  —  temporally  and  ideally  in 
the  divine  education  of  the  human  race,  historically  and 
really  in  a  positive  institution  and  doctrine  of  redemption 
and  reconciliation,  to  which  the  oftice  of  priest  and  teacher 
corresponds.  The  latter,  the  theological  encyclopaedia, 
embraces  the  science  of  Catholic  theology  and  the  idea  of 
office,  and  ends  in  Church  history,  in  which  science  and 
Church  office  in  general  are  led  back  to  the  idea.  These 
two,  science  and  office,  divide  themselves  into  a  trinity  of 
moments ;  science  is  distributed  into  speculative  doctrine,  his- 

^  Werner,  I.e.  p.  257,  says  of  the  work  of  Dobmayer :  "A  painstaking 
analysis  of  all  the  details  of  his  dogmatic  material,  a  thoroughly  elaborated 
dogmatic  judgment,  instructive  references  to  the  contemporary  literature  of 
philosophy  and  Protestant  theology,  are  the  characteristics  by  which  Dobmayer's 
work  continues  fitted  even  still  to  aflbrd  to  the  reader  of  to-day  manifold 
stimulation."  [This  estimate  is  clearly  unduly  favourable.  It  is  only  by  way 
of  contrast  to  the  extreme  narrowness  and  exclusiveness  of  his  predecessors  that 
Dobmayer  can  be  called  liberal  or  advanced.  ] 

^  Einleitung  in  das  akademisch  -  wissenschaftliehe  Studium  der  positiven 
Theologie,     Miinchen  1809.    Compare  Werner,  I.e.  p.  305  11'. 


MODERN  PERIOD DREY.  149 

torical  exposition,  and  real  positive  statement :  office  or  admini- 
stration is  arranged  according  to  the  threefold  point  of  view, 
the  idea  of  office,  official  sphere,  and  discharge  of  official  duty. 
In  connection  with  Sehleiermacher  and  speculative  theology, 
Drey  has  given  an  exposition  of  encyclopedia.^  Chris- 
tianity is  the  most  perfect  revelation  of  God,  its  highest 
idea  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  visible  representation  of 
this  idea  is  the  Church.  Theology  is  intellectual  occupa- 
tion with  the  ideas  of  Christianity ;  or  more  definitely,  a 
construction  of  the  religious  faith  by  means  of  knowledge. 
Mere  historical  construction  is  to  be  distinguished  from 
philosophical,  properly  scientific,  construction.  "Super- 
naturalism  is  not  a  knowledge  of  something  heretofore  only 
believed,  but  merely  a  knowledge  of  and  about  faith  ;  rational- 
ism, on  the  -other  hand,  endeavours  to  reach  a  knowledge 
of  the  very  thing  believed,  and  hopes  to  transform  faith  into 
knowledge"  (p.  28).  The  Church,  in  which  not  only  the 
means,  but  also  the  organization,  for  the  realizing  of  the 
Christian  ideas  are  given,  is  the  true  basis  of  all  theological 
knowledge  (p.  33).  With  reference  to  the  different  theo- 
logies in  the  different  Churches,  Drey  gives  an  exposition  of 
Catholic  theology,  and  "  this  is  accordingly  the  construction 
of  the  Christian  religious  faith  by  means  of  knowledge  on  the 
basis  of  the  Catholic  Church,  in  its  spirit,  and  with  the 
intention  of  realizing  in  that  Church,  in  a  suitable  manner, 
the  grand  end  of  Christianity  by  means  of  this  knowledge  " 
(p.  33).  Christianity  as  a  whole,  according  to  history  and 
doctrine,  is  something  positive,  which  first  of  all  can  be 
known  only  empirically  and  historically.  "The  historical 
knowdedge  of  Christianity  must  absolutely  precede  the 
scientific  knowledge,  to  which  the  former  raises  itself  when 
the  contents  of  Christianity  are  reduced  to  an  idea,  and  from 

1  Kurze  Eiiileitung  in  das  Studium  der  Theologie  mit  Riicksiclit  auf  deu 
wissenschaftlichen  Stamlpunkt  und  das  Katliolische  System.  You  J.  S.  Drey. 
Tubingen  1819.     Compare  Werner,  I.e.  p.  473  fl'. 


150  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP^DLV. 

tliis  idea  again  are  developed  by  necessary  deduction  from 
the  one  principle"  (p.  41).  The  entire  historical  material 
— biblical  Christianity  and  Church  history — is  reckoned  to 
theological  propaedeutics.  "  Scientific  theology  lays  hold  upon 
the  result  of  this  propaedeutics,  and  by  the  help  of  its  own 
construction,  through  the  transmutation  of  the  historical 
material  into  ideas,  it  developes  this  result  into  a  special 
system  of  Christian  religious  doctrine."  The  kingdom  of  God 
has  an  ideal  side,  which  represents  itself  as  the  pure  sum-total 
of  the  ideas,  or  as  the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Christian 
religion,  and  a  real  side,  which  objectifies  itself  as  the 
Church.  Hence  scientific  tlieology  embraces  the  system  of 
Christian  doctrine, — dogmatics  and  moral  theology,  and  the 
idea  of  the  Christian  Church, — the  worship  and  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church.  A  doctrine  of  principles,  however,  is 
to  be  prefixed  to  both  ;  which  in  regard  to  its  essence,  as 
philosophy  of  religion,  has  to  develope  the  idea  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  in  regard  to  its  purpose,  assumes  the  form  of 
apologetics  and  polemics.  In  the  historical  propaedeutics  and 
the  science  itself  all  the  theologian's  knowdedge  is  included. 
But  we  must  join  therewith  a  special  instruction  as  to  the 
manner  and  form  in  which  the  theologian  has  to  make  use 
of  his  knowledge  in  tlie  Church.  This  instruction  does 
not  itself  belong  to  theology,  but  is  only  a  technical  guide 
necessary  to  the  divine  for  putting  his  science  into  practice, 
and  so  may  be  called  applied  or  practical  theology.  It  has 
to  give  instruction  regarding  Church  government  and  the 
Church  service  to  the  clergyman,  for  his  help  in  the  discharge 
of  his  official  duties.  In  Drey's  arrangement  of  the  encyclo- 
paedia the  separation  of  the  historical  propaedeutics  from 
theological  science  proper,  and  the  consequent  co-ordinating 
of  the  biblical  writings  with  the  authoritative  writings  of 
Church  history,  are  quite  unsystematic.  For  if,  indeed,  the 
method,  which  is  to  be  applied  to  the  historical  department, 
is  different    from  the    speculative    method    that    has    to    be 


MODERN  PEPJOD DREY.  151 

applied  to  the  doctrinal  department,  still  the  former  must 
also  be  a  scientific  method,  if  it  is  indeed  to  give  a  science 
of  history.  Consequently  Bible  study  and  the  study  of 
Church  history  will  have  to  be  conceived,  not  merely  as  pvo- 
ptedeutics,  but  as  an  integral  part  of  theological  science, 
and  then,  too,  the  biblical  writings  can  be  brought  into  their 
proper  relationship  with  the  authoritative  writings  of  Church 
history.  When,  further.  Drey  includes  the  theory  of  the 
Church  in  scientific  theology,  and  yet  places  outside  a  special 
practical  theology,  he  himself  pronounces  judgment  as  to 
the  untenableness  of  the  latter  from  the  point  of  view  of 
encyclopaedia,  in  so  far  as  he  is  not  able  to  regard  practical 
theology  as  a  constituent  part  of  theological  science.  ["  The 
Catholic  theologian  Drey,"  says  Lange,  "  has  placed  the  idea 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  at  the  foundation  of  his  Encyclo- 
ptedia.  He  maintains  that  it  is  only  when  theology  rests 
upon  such  a  foundation  that  it  becomes  positive  ;  and,  indeed, 
he  describes  theology  as  positive  in  the  sense  of  its  being 
an  absolute  laying  down  of  law  :  for  to  the  Eoman  Catholic 
theologian  the  kingdom  of  God  can  only  mean  the  Eomish 
Church.  AVith  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  however, 
a  beginning  cannot  be  made,  although  this,  too,  has  been 
attempted  recently  by  a  Protestant  theologian.^     A  beginning 

1  The  reference  here  made  by  Lange  is  to  Pdtschl  of  Bonn,  who,  in  his  little 
work,  An  Instruction  in  the  Christian  Religion  (Unterricht  in  der  Christlichen 
Religion.  Bonn  1875),  treats  in  his  first  section  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  It 
should,  however,  be  remembered  that  he  distinctly  disclaims  the  intention^ 
of  writing  a  dogmatic  treatise,  and  rather  commends  his  work  for  the  use  of 
higher  schools,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  not  a  treatise  on  dogmatics  but  on 
religion.  Lange  is  therefore  not  entitled  to  say,  as  he  does  on  p.  82,  that 
Ritschl  begins  the  science  of  theology  with  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
In  the  opening  paragraph  of  his  treatise,  Pdtschl  declares  incisively  that  a 
special  revelation  as  the  source,  and  a  special  community  of  believers  and  wor- 
shippers as  the  sphere  of  the  Christian  religion,  are  necessary  presuppositions  to 
any  treatment  of  the  Christian  religion.  Besides,  it  should  be  remembered  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  is,  with  Ritschl,  something  very  different  from  that  which 
is  understood  by  Drey,  and  Catliolics  generally,  when  they  use  the  phrase. 
"  The  kingdom  of  God  is  the  general  aim  and  purpose  of  the  Church  founded 
by  the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ."— Ed. 


152  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA, 

must  rather  be  made  with  the  Christian  ideal-social  pre- 
supposition of  the  history  of  the  revelation,  which  has 
furnished  the  foundation  of  the  kingdom.  This  revelation, 
therefore,  constitutes  the  sphere  of  life  in  which  the  theo- 
logian as  theologian  breathes,  by  means  of  the  idea  of  which 
he  succeeds  in  setting  himself  determinately  against  any 
conception  of  a  kingdom,  in  which  we  have  not  the  living 
God  communicating  Himself  to  the  quickened  spirit,  but  an 
absolute  lawgiver  ruling  over  abject  (unfreie)  subjects." — • 
Encyclopcedia,  Introd.  §  8,  note  9.] 

Closely  related  to  Drey  is  Klee.^  His  theological  Encyclo- 
pa}dia  bears  evidence  of  a  scientific,  and  at  the  same  time 
of  a  decidedly  Eoman  Catholic  spirit ;  and  its  arrangement 
is  determined  by  this  latter  tendency.  In  the  Introduction 
he  intimates  his  standpoint  as  that  of  theological  objectivism, 
and  he  derives  the  properly  theological  branches  from  the 
cliief  moments  embraced  in  religion.  In  the  first  division, 
he  places,  as  studies  preparatory  to  theological  science, 
philosophy,  bibliology,  pistics,  and  ecclesiastics.  In  the 
second  division,  he  places,  as  properly  theological  branches — 
1.  Dogmatics;  2.  Ethics,  which  falls  into  ethics  j^roper,  and 
ecclesiastics ;  3.  Historical  theology,  which  again  includes 
(«)  biblical  theology  and  (&)  historical  theology,  strictly  so 
called ;  and  4.  Symbolical  or  liturgical  theology. 

In  strict  connection  with  the  writer  just  referred  to  may 
be  mentioned  Buchner,^  who  treats  of  encyclopaedia  in  a 
purely  formal  manner.  He  defines  theology  as  "  the  science 
of  the  Christian  religion  or  the  kingdom  of  God  which  was 
established  upon  earth  by  Christ,  and  is  visibly  represented 
in  the  Catholic  Church  "  (p.  9).  He  distinguishes  theology 
proper  or  doctrinal  theology,  pastoral  theology,  and  historical 
theology.      The  two  latter  are  regarded  by  Buchner,  after  the 

^  Eiicyclopcedie  der  Theologie  von  Heinricli  Klee.     Mainz  1832. 
-  Encyclopaedie  und  Methodologie  der  Theologischen  Wisseusehaften.     Yon 
Alois  Buchner.    Sulzbach  1837. 


MODERN  PERIOD STAUDENMAIER.  153 

example  of  Drey,  as  not  belonging  to  theology  strictly  so 
called  (p.  19  f.).  Theology  proper  embraces  dogmatics  and 
moral  theology,  including  the  system  of  Church  law.  With 
dogmatics  is  also  joined  polemics,  and  with  moral  theology 
are  joined  ascetics  and  casuistics.  Between  dogmatics  and 
polemics  a  place  is  assigned  to  symbolics.  Pastoral  theology 
has  to  do  with  the  official  rank  and  functions  of  the 
Christian  teacher,  priest,  and  pastor,  and  hence  embraces — 
(a)  Exemplarics,  (h)  Homiletics,  (c)  Catechetics,  (d)  Liturgies, 
(e)  Pastoral  theology  in  the  narrower  sense.  Historical 
theology  as  the  history  of  the  Church  forms  the  conclusion. 
Under  each  of  these  three  principal  divisions  there  are  also 
subsidiary  sciences;  and,  indeed,  it  is  only  as  such  that 
Bible  study  is  introduced,  it  being  regarded  simply  as  one 
of  the  sciences  auxiliary  to  the  study  of  theology  proper,  or 
doctrinal  theology.  [What  has  been  said  against  the  attempt 
of  Harless  to  introduce  dogmatic  theology  before  historical 
theology  may  be  urged  against  Buchner,  whose  distribution  is 
still  more  faulty  from  the  want  of  a  fully  developed  ground- 
work of  exegetical  theology.]  The  methodology  which 
Buchner  joins  to  his  Encyclopiedia  "  as  a  guide  to  the 
study  of  theology  according  to  a  plan,  or  an  aid  to  tlie 
adequate  exposition  of  it"  (p.  73),  shows  the  unsystematic 
character  of  the  arrangement  of  his  Encyclopaedia,  inasmuch 
as  he  is  obliged  in  his  methodology  to  prescribe,  as  the 
actual  and  proper  order  of  study,  a  succession  of  the  theo- 
logical branches  quite  different  from  that  which  he  had  followed 
in  his  Encyclopedia. 

In  profundity  of  speculative  grasp  Staudeumaicr  excels  all 
his  predecessors.  After  very  complete,  and  in  some  respects 
very  striking,  discussions  concerning  the  general  and  special 
encyclopaedia, — the  encyclopaedia  of  the  general  sciences  and 
the  encyclopaedia  of  tlie  theological  sciences, — he  defines 
theology  in  general  as  "  the  consciousness  of  God  raised  into 
science,"  or  as  "  the  science  of  religion"   (p.   26).     Then  he 


154  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

defines   Christian  theology  as  "  the   science   of  our  religious 
consciousness  as  a  whole,  as  it  is  determined  historically,  and 
found   by  means   of  the   revelation   in    Christ,"    or  as  "  the 
science  of  the   Christian  faith."      Theology,  as  the   scientific 
knowledge  of  God,  is  system  ;  and  this  is  the  form  in  wliich 
science  makes  its  appearance,  and  which  stands  in  an  inward 
relationship  to  the  contents.     "  The  content  is  the  substance 
which,  by  the  exercise  of  dialectics,  imports  movement  to  its 
own  self,  and  by  means   of  this  self-movement  invests  itself 
with  that  form  wliich  is   at  once   essential  and  necessary  to 
it"   (p.  79).     Encyclopaedia  is  "the  systematic  outline  of  the 
whole  range  of  theology,  the  short  sketch  of  its  concrete  idea 
according  to  all  essential  and   necessary  directions   and   ten- 
dencies,"— a   science   that    is    self-articulated,   wdiich,   as    an 
actual  organic  whole,  carries  its  principle  of  life  in  itself.     The 
principle  that  determines  the  distribution  of  theology  must  be 
derived  from  the  very  conception  of  theology  ;  and  since  our 
consciousness  of  God  is  determined  by  means  of  the  revelation 
in  Christ,  it  has  to  be  asked  whether  the  purely  speculative 
or  the  historical  ought  to  have  the  precedence.      Staudenmaier 
decides  in  favour  of  the  former.      Consequently,  according  to 
him,  in  the   arrangement   of  the  Encyclopaedia,  the  whole   of 
theology    falls    into   three    parts  : — 1.  Speculative    theology, 
2.  Practical  theology,  and  3.  Historical  theology.      Speculative 
theology  begins  with  a  theory  of  religion  and  revelation,  and 
then  advances  to  the   Christian  revelation   and  its   sources — 
Tradition   and   the   Holy   Scriptures.      Exegetical  theology  is 
therefore  included  under  this   first  division.      It  is  followed 
by  dogmatics  and  moral  theology,  as  further  subdivisions  of 
speculative  theology.      Moral  theology  forms  a  natural  transi- 
tion to  practical  theology,  the  second  principal  division,  which 
is  divided  into  a  system  of  Church  government  and  a  system 
of    Church   service.      The   third    principal  division,  historical 
theology,  embraces  history  of  doctrines,  symbolics,  archteology, 
and  Church  history  as  history  of  the  Christian  life.      Stauden- 


MODERN  PERIOD STAUDENMAIER.  155 

iriaier  quite  properly  insists  that  encyclopti'dia  ^  and  the 
systematic  distribution  of  theology  should  exactly  coincide. 
The  demand,  however,  which  he  makes  of  encyclopaedia,  that 
its  treatment  of  the  theological  departments  should  be  brief, 
is  certainly  not  responded  to  by  himself,  for  his  first  volume 
of  946  pages  is  occupied  with  speculative  theology  alone. 
Theology  as  treated  by  him,  in  accordance  with  his  general 
definition,  passes  completely  over  into  a  philosopliy  of  religion, 
and  Christian  theology  passes  over  into  speculative  or  system- 
atic theology.  Thus,  in  regard  to  the  distribution  of  the  parts 
of  theology,  Staudenmaier  attaches  himself  to  his  predecessors, 
and  in  consequence  of  his  over-estimation  of  the  speculative 
element  he  is  led  to  subordinate  exegetical  theology  to  specu- 
lative theology  as  a  mere  auxiliary  science.  [Hagenbach  says 
of  Staudenmaier's  work,  that  "  notwithstanding  considerable 
prolixity,  a  decided  speculative  talent  is  to  be  recognised." 
"  With  Eosenkranz,"  he  further  remarks,  "  Staudenmaier  has 
this  in  common,  that  by  him  encyclopedia  is  regarded  as  a 
philosophy  of  theology,  and  the  methodological  part  is  too 
briefly  treated."  Owing  to  tlie  identification  of  speculative 
or  systematic  theology  with  theology  proper,  exegetical  and 
historical  theology  are  comparatively  neglected,  or  at  least 
have  no  place  assigned  them  in  which  they  can  receive  strictly 
scientific  treatment.  Exegesis,  when  treated  as  a  branch  of 
speculative  theology,  must  necessarily  be  under  the  influence 
of  the  principles  of  that  speculative  system  of  which  it  forms 
a  constituent  part,  and  is  thus  stripped  of  its  independence. 
Then,  instead  of  the  rich  contents  of  historical  theology 
throwing  light  upon  the  problems  of  Church  government  and 
the  Church  service,  they  are  only  gathered  together  at  last,  as 
the  mere  chronicle  or  recital  of  all  that  has  been  determined, 


^  Encyclopffidie  tier  theologischen  Wissenschaften  als  System  iler  gesummten 
Theologie.  Von  Fr.  A.  Staudenmaier.  Mainz  1834.  2  Auflage.  Bd.  1. 
Mainz  18-iO.  Compare  Werner,  Geschichte  der  katholisehen  Tlieologie, 
p.  487  ff. 


156  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

from  age  to  age,  in  tlie  departments  of  speculative  or  practical 
theology.] 

By   means   of  modern   Catholic   tlieology,   the   impress  of 
which  is  borne  by  those  Encyclopaedias   that   have   just   been 
referred  to,  the  old  scholastic  theology  has  been  transfigured 
into  a  new  scholastic  theology,  which   is  pen-etrated   by   an 
idealism  which,  supported  as  it  is  by  thorough  and  compre- 
hensive exegetical  and  historical  studies,  thought  to  have  been 
able  to  reach  the   very  highest    perfection.       In    this   new 
scholasticism  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  truth  and  fiction 
cross  and  intermingle  with  one  another  at  all  important  points. 
Subtle  and  penetrating  investigations  are  undertaken  in  refer- 
ence to   the   problems  of  religion,  Christianity,  Church,  and 
science  ;  and  then,  Christianity  is  identified  with  the  Catholic 
doctrine,  the  Catholic  doctrine  with  the  truth,  the  kingdom 
of  God  with  the  Church,  the   Church  with  the  hierarchical 
Church,  Catliolic  theology  with  absolute  theology.     Set  forth 
by   eminently  gifted    and  spiritual  men,    this    id-ealism    has 
unquestionably    contributed,    in    the    widest    circles,    to    the 
advancement  of  the  Catholic  consciousness  and  the  interests 
of  the    Catholic    Church.     Nevertheless,   viewed   by   Eomish 
eyes,  the   dangers  with   which  its   undisturbed   development 
threatened  the  hierarchical  Church  were  unmistakeable.      If 
it  is  to  be  dragged  into  the  spiritual  movement  of  Protestant- 
ism,  there   is   mueli    occasion  for   fear   as   to    the    ultimate 
position     of     the     doctrine     of    aai     unchangeable     Church. 
Jesuitism,  on  its  restoration,  has  approved  itself  as  the  true 
curial  watchman,  and   has    shown   itself  determined  to  lead 
back  that  idealism  within  its  own  limits.      The  fruit,  indeed, 
of  this  idealism  it  has  utilized  for  its  own  purposes  ;  for  the 
tenacity  and  constancy,  the  overbearing  and  blind  determina- 
tion, with  which  ultramontanism  fought  for  the  Papal  Church, 
is  in  large  measure  the  work  of  that  ideal  theology.      This, 
however,  has  itself  given  to  Jesuitism  its  death-blow,  when  it 
transferred  the  donum  infalliUlitas   from  the  Church   to  the 


MODERN  CATHOLIC  THEOLOGY.  157 

Pope,  and  caused  the  Papal  Infallibility  to  be  sanctioned  as  a 
dogma.  While  previously  a  wide  space  was  allowed  to 
Catholic  theology  within  the  limits  of  the  hierarchical  Church 
for  free  movement,  it  must  now,  under  the  authority  of  an 
infallible  vicegerent  of  God  and  Christ,  as  a  corpus  mortamn, 
fall  a  prey  to  corruption. 


158  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 


§  7.  SURVEY. 

If,  as  stated  in  our  first  section,  a  new  exposition  of  theo- 
logical encycloptedia  ought  to  find  its  foundation  in  the  history 
of  encyclopedia  which  likewise  brings  into  view  the  principal 
phases  of  the  history  of  theology,  it  must  attach  itself  to  the 
result  of  that  history,  and  seek  to  build  further  upon  them. 
It  therefore  also  sets  itself  under  the  protection  of  history. 
For  it  is  just  in  the  province  of  theology  that  it  has  come  to 
be  almost  a  habitual  practice  to  make  the  individual,  as  such, 
answerable  for  his  theological  work,  while  the  judgment  ought 
rather  to  have  been  directed  to  forming  an  estimate  of  the 
significance  which  the  scientific  work  has,  as  a  whole,  to 
which  each  individual  renders  always  only  a  small  contribution. 

When  we  review  the  numerous  and  not  unfrequently  very 
dissentient  Encyclopfedias,  and  the  various  conceptions  of  theo- 
logy that  have  come  forth  in  history,  the  difficulties  that  have  to 
be  overcome  appear  formidable  enough  ;  but,  at  the  same  time, 
from  out  of  those  very  difficulties  the  special  tasks  which 
theology  must  undertake  are  brought  to  light  by  means  of 
every  new  attempt  to  handle  the  subject.  The  material 
which  is  to  be  wrought  up  lies  before  us  in  the  greatest 
profusion.  The  theological  acquirements,  M'hich  from  the 
earliest  times  have  developed  themselves  out  of  the  creative 
activity  of  the  Christian  spirit,  gradually  assumed  the  form  of 
special  theological  branches,  and,  with  a  growing  desire  after 
wider  and  more  comprehensive  knowledge,  new  branches  were 
always  being  added  to  those  already  existing.  These  newer 
theological  branches  of  science  gradually  co-ordinated  them- 
selves with  the  earlier,  according  to  their  relationship,  so  that 
in  the  course  of  time  a  tolerably  general  agreement  was 
reached    in   regard   to  the    principal  divisions   into  which  the 


SURVEY.  159 

theological  brandies  are  to  be  arranged.  "Whatever  has 
become  historical  ought  so  far  as  possible  to  be  conserved, 
wherever  there  are  no  fundamental  reasons  standing  in  the 
way,  on  account  of  which  particular  branches  are  to  be  with- 
drawn, and  new  ones  introduced  in  their  place.  In  spite  of 
tliat  general  agreement,  however,  the  greatest  diversity  prevails, 
both  as  to  the  distribution  of  tlie  particular  branches  under  the 
principal  divisions,  and  also  in  regard  to  the  succession  in  which 
those  principal  divisions  are  themselves  to  be  arranged.  These 
formal  divergences  in  regard  to  the  systematic  arrangement 
of  the  divisions  of  theology  result  from  this,  that  the  authors 
of  the  Encyclopedias  have  allowed  themselves  to  be  led,  not 
by  a  simple  consideration  of  the  subject-matter,  but  partly  by 
considerations  of  persons  and  office,  partly  by  confessional 
considerations.  More  and  more,  however,  in  recent  times,  the 
conviction  has  forced  its  way,  that  the  true  principle  of  distri- 
bution can  be  reached  only  by  making  the  Encyclopaedia  take 
for  its  task  the  development  of  theology  itself,  and  making  it 
then,  by  means  of  its  contents,  determine  its  formal  arrange- 
ment. Therefore  the  execution  is  essentially  made  dependent 
upon  the  idea  of  theology,  which  is  laid  as  a  foundation,  and 
a  difference  is  possible  only  in  so  far  as  a  difference  finds 
place  in  the  conception  of  theology.  That  this  is  unavoidable 
so  long  as  different  Confessions,  and  theological  contradictions 
in  the  particular  Confessions  themselves,  stand  in  opposition 
to  one  another,  cannot  be  denied.  The  Encyclopaedia,  how- 
ever, need  not  take  these  contradictions  into  consideration, 
but  must,  especially  in  any  case  where  the  decision  is  difficult, 
allow  history  to  lead  it  by  the  hand.  While  in  the  earliest, 
and  then  again  in  the  Keformation  times,  theology  was 
determined  purely  by  means  of  an  inner  impulse  of  its  own, 
Catholic  theology,  as  early  as  the  iifth  century,  lost  its  freedom 
by  surrendering  to  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and  Protestant 
theology,  since  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  lost 
its  freedom  by  submitting  to  the  bondage  of  the  letter  of  Holy 


IGO  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

Scripture.  Ortliodox  Catholic  theology  since  that  time  found 
its  principle  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Church ;  orthodox 
Protestant  theology  found  its  principle  in  the  infallibility  of 
Holy  Scripture.  This  opposition  between  the  Confessions,  by 
reason  of  the  severest  tension  having  been  applied  to  the 
different  principles,  has  led  to  an  extraordinarily  rich  develop- 
ment of  theology.  But  while  in  the  realm  of  Catholicism, 
under  the  dominion  of  the  hierarchy,  this  development  must 
ever  be  one  quite  on  the  same  lines,  seeing  that  the  principle 
itself  is  not  allowed  to  be  called  in  questian  in  the  realm  of 
Protestanti&m,  which  was  able  to  keep  itself  free  from  any 
Church  constraint  upon  its  theology.  This  development  could 
be  carried  forward  even  to  the  extent  of  engaging  in  the 
freest  criticism  of  the  principles.  It  was  of  the  greatest 
significance  that  the  orthodox  Protestant  theology  pressed  on 
beyond  the  narrow  limits  of  ecclesiasticism,  and  allowed  itself 
t(^  be  carried  down  the  stream  of  the  general  spiritual  life, 
that  its  theological  problems  became  likewise  philosophical 
problems,  and  theology  and  philosophy  were  bound  together 
in  the  performance  of  the  one  common  task.  The  now  wide- 
spread conflict  about  principles,  in  the  glory  and  honour  of 
which  Catholicism  can  claim  no  share,  has  led  to  conclusions 
of  the  greatest  consequence  for  the  upbuilding  of  theology. 
After  the  negative  criticism  had  demolished  the  principles  of 
the  orthodox  theology,  and  had  demonstrated  the  untenableness 
of  its  principle  of  Scripture,  philosophy,  occupying  a  position 
above  and  apart  from  theological  parties,  won  for  itself  the  credit 
of  delivering  theology  from  that  dissolution  and  decomposition 
which  had  wrought  so  effeetually  upon  its  system,  and  of 
securing  a  foundation,  after  the  demolition  of  external  autho- 
rities, upon  those  same  authorities  on  which  science  in 
general  rests.^     The  distinctively  new  conception  of  theology 

^  The  editor  feels  called  upon  to  express  Lis  thorough  disapproval  of  the 
extreme  and  unguarded  statements  made  in  these  sentences.  To  him  they  do 
not  seem  warranted  by  the  historical  matter  presented  in  the  preceding  pages. 


SURVEY.  161 

now  prevalent,  which  found  expression  in  Schleiermacher's 
'theology  and  in  speculative  theology,  does  not  introduce  an 
opposition  that  allows  of  no  reconciliation,  but  is  rather  one 
which,  upon  the  principles  established,  leads  of  itself  to  an 
inner  reconcilement  and  harmony.  While  the  movement  of 
Catholicism,  led  by  Jesuitism,  consists  in  this,  that,  in  place 
of  the  actual  abstract  authority  of  the  Church,  there  was  set 
up  the  concrete  personal  authority  of  the  supreme  head  of  the 
Church,  and  Catholic  theology,  since  that  time,  has  been 
obliged  to  ground  its  demonstration  of  the  truth  upon  the 
continued  miracle  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in 
one  individual  man ;  in  the  domain  of  Protestantism,  under 
the  influence  of  philosophy,  regenerated  theology  has  made  its 
demonstration  of  the  truih,  animated  generally  by  the  scientific 
spirit,  and  has  built  up  its  system  according  to  the  rule  of 
scientific  objectivity. 

In  that  review  of  work  previously  done  in  the  department  of  theological  ency- 
clopiedia,  the  careful  student  will  have  observed  occasionally  a  certain  exhibition 
of  theological  bias  on  the  part  of  our  author.  What  in  these  instances,  as  well 
as  in  the  present  case,  has  apparently  led  Riibiger  to  make  those  strong  state- 
ments, which  seem  to  us  so  objectionable,  is  his  failure  to  see  that  there  can  be 
any  position  maintained  in  relation  to  Scripture  that  is  not  either  an  unreasoning 
attachment  to  the  letter  of  Scripture,  or  such  a  free  treatment  of  it  as  subjects  it 
without  restriction  to  the  judgment  of  philosophical  principles.  The  presuppo- 
sition of  this  is  the  principle  of  pure  rationalism.  If  philosophy,  as  our  author 
assumes,  free  from  all  limitation,  be  capable  of  dealing  with  the  princi[»le  of 
revelation  and  Scripture,  it  seems  scarcely  worth  while  contending  for  the 
remnant  of  truth  that  may  still  be  allowed  to  exist  in  supernaturalism.  If  the 
authorities  on  which  theology  is  made  to  rest  are  nothing  more  than  the 
authorities  on  which  the  other  sciences  rest,  we  may  have  a  philosophy  of  religion, 
but  no  theology  in  the  proper  sense.  To  see  how  Scripture  can  be  viewed  in  a 
liberal  and  scientific,  yet  not  rationalistic,  but  truly  evangelical  spirit,  tlie 
student  is  referred  generally  to  Dr.  John  Eobson's  able  work,  TJie  Bible  :  Us 
Revelation,  Insjnration,  and  Evidence  (London  1883).  These  extreme  state- 
ments, made  in  the  sentences  to  which  this  note  is  attached,  do  not  invalidate 
the  n^ain  positions  of  this  section.  The  contrast  between  Catholicism  and 
Protestantism,  in  regard  to  their  relations  respectively  to  the  development  of 
theology,  is,  upon  the  whole,  admirably  and  correctly  expressed.  The  functions, 
in  the  closing  sentences,  ascribed  to  philosophy,  as  exerting  in  Protestant 
theology  an  important  influence,  and  determining  the  constniction  of  the  theo- 
logical system  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  science,  are  such  as  we  can  most 
heartily  recognise. — Ed, 

VOL.  I.  li 


J  6  2  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.EDLV. 


§  S.  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

It  is  in  the  history  of  theological  encyclopaedia  that  the 
theological  encyclopedist  first  finds  an  answer  to  the 
question  about  its  subject.  This  question  is  for  him  sur- 
rounded with  difficulties,  which  are  not  present  to  one  pre- 
paring an  encyclopedia  of  the  other  sciences.  While  the 
encyclopedist  treating,  for  example,  of  jurisprudence,  or 
medicine,  can  assume  quite  unhesitatingly  the  subject  of  his 
exposition,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  theological  encyclopedist  first 
of  all  to  determine  what  theology  he  is  to  set  forth.  For 
tliere  appear  before  him,  not  one  theology,  but  several 
theologies.  Apart  altogether  from  the  non-Christian  systems, 
there  are,  in  the  Christian  Church  itself,  theologies  in  no  small 
number.  The  one  Cathohc  theology  of  primitive  times  broke 
up  into  several  confessional  theologies  with  the  breaking  up 
of  the  Church.  According  to  the  number  of  the  separate 
Churches  was  the  number  of  the  separate  theologies;  an 
orthodox  Greek,  a  Eoman  Catholic,  a  Lutheran,  a  Eeformed, 
etc.  All  these  theologies  advanced  the  claim  to  be  regarded 
as  science,  and  most  of  the  encyclopedias  that  have  yet 
appeared  have  made  the  theology  of  one  or  other  Confes- 
sion the  subject  of  their  exposition.  In  consequence,  therefore, 
of  the  connection  in  which  these  theologies  stand  to  their 
Churches,  the  encyclopedias  are  completely  bound  to  certain 
determined  Church  presuppositions,  and  set  for  themselves  no 
other  task  than  to  give  a  representation  of  Christianity  in 
accordance  with  these  presuppositions.  For  the  separate 
Church  to  which  they  belong  something  important  may, 
indeed,  be  thereby  produced,  but  this  confessional  theology  is 
not  in  a  position  to  accomplish  the  essential  and  highest 
tasks.      If  theology,  in  order  simply  to  make  prominent  some 


SUBJECT  OF  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOr.EDLV.  163 

of  its  principal  moments,  is  to  institute  a  comparison  of 
Christianity  with  the  otlier  religions,  then  the  conception  of  it 
must  start,  not  from  a  confessionally  limited,  but  from  a 
universal  standpoint.  If  theology  is  to  utter  a  judgment  upon 
tlie  significance  or  legitimate  standing  of  the  various  separate 
Churches,  then  the  judgment  itself  must  be  determined  not 
by  means  of  the  interests  of  the  separate  Churches,  but  by 
means  of  a  universal  Church  point  of  view.  If  theology  is 
to  be  brought  into  connection  with  the  other  sciences,  and  if 
admission  for  it  into  the  circle  of  the  sciences  is  to  be 
demanded,  then  it  nuist  appear  not  in  a  multitudinous  and 
heterogeneous  confessional  form,  but  in  a  single  and  compre- 
hensive scientific  form.  It  is  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  an 
important  step  in  advance,  when,  in  recent  times,  the  confes- 
sional theological  standpoint  has  been  transcended,  and  theo- 
logy, in  the  exact  sense  of  the  word,  has  been  conceived  as 
science,  which  as  such  has  to  solve  its  problems  in  regard  to 
Christianity  according  to  the  same  principles  as  are  valid  for 
all  the  other  sciences.  In  accordance  with  this,  theological 
encyclopcedia  has  to  take  as  the  subject  of  its  exposition,  not 
a  confessional  theology,  but  Christian  theological  science,  or 
the  science  of  the  Christian  religion. 


1G4  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP/EDIA. 


§  9.  TPIE  TASK  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

In  accordance  with  its  subject,  the  theological  encyclopcTclia 
can  have  no  other  task  than  to  represent  theology  as  science. 
It  has  therefore  to  keep  itself  far  removed  from  those  prac- 
tical considerations  by  which  the  earlier  encyclopedias  were 
for  the  most  part  determined.      In  place  of  priests,  monks, 
and  clerics,  for  whom  in  the  primitive  Christian  times  the 
theological  requirements  were  systematically  arranged,  subse- 
quent to  the  Eeformation,   students   make   their  appearance 
entering  upon  the  study  of  theology,  men  who  were  destined 
to  be  themselves  theologians,  candidates  who  were  to  become 
teachers  of  the  Christian  religion  in  the  future,  and,  in  order 
to  introduce  these  to  the   course  of  theological  study,  theo- 
logical encyclopaedias  were  drawn  up.       In  this  way  it  did 
indeed  look  as  though  theology  existed  properly  only  for  the 
sake  of  students  and  such  as  were  to  be  teachers  of  religion  ; 
whereas  the  true  connection  is  quite  the  reverse,  and  these 
are  there  only  for  the  sake  of  theology.     For  the  encyclopoL^lia, 
it  is   not  the   need  of  the   student,  but   only  the   course  of 
theological  study,  that  comes  into  consideration,  and  from  its 
exposition  there,  there  also  result  those  demands  to  which  the 
student  of  theology  has  to  submit  himself.      The  encyclopa?dia, 
too,  has  to  reject  the  confessional  interests,  in  consequence  of 
which,  in  not   a  few  encyclopaedias,   particular   divisions,    or 
even  particular  branches  of  theology  have  been  favoured,  or 
placed  in   the  foreground,  or   indeed   even  distinct   branches 
have  been  called  into  being.      By  means  of  all  such  considera- 
tions, brought  from  without  into  the  encyclopaedia,  the  view  of 
the   principal  matter  is  obscured,  and  the    essential   task  of 
encyclopasdia — the    representation  of    theology  as   science — 
seriously  interfered  with.^ 

^  Lange  is  inclined  to  include  both  the  scientific  and  the  practical  in  the  task 
of  encyclopedia  :   "As  encyclopedia,  on  the  one  liand,  has  the  task  of  further 


GROUPING  OF  THEOLOGICAL  SCIENCES.  165 

Encyclopedia  comes  upon  theology  empirically  as  a  number 
of  separate  theological  branches,  which  in  various  ways  have 
been  gathered  together  in  several  groups,  and  it  has  frequently 
remained  satisfied  with  placing  these  together  according  to 
some  customary  schematism,  as  an  aggregate  of  theological 
acquirements.  In  opposition  to  this  external  mode  of  pro- 
cedure, in  order  truly  to  accomplish  its  task,  it  has  to  show 
that  those  branches  with  which  it  has  to  do  are  connected 
Mith  one  another  by  an  inner  bond,  and  that,  in  accordance 
with  an  inner  relationship,  they  are  to  be  joined  to  one  another 
in  homogeneous  groups.  In  order  to  arrive  at  this,  encyclo- 
paedia must  go  back  to  the  object  of  theology  itself,  as  its 
centre  or  material  principle,  and  nuist  from  it  derive  the 
particular  branches,  so  that  only  those  acquirements  are  to  be 
reckoned  by  it  as  theological  which  stand  in  some  relation, 
mediate  or  immediate,  to  that  object.  If  in  this  way  an 
inwardly  grounded  systematic  or  principle  of  arrangement  is 
won,  then  also,  besides,  the  formal  principle  must  be  brought 
forward,  and  this  must  penetrate  the  whole  of  the  theological 
material,  if  that  is  to  be  appropriated  by  science,  and  must 
exercise  a  determining  influence  upon  theology  in  all  its 
particular  branches,  if  theology  is  to  raise  itself  to  the  rank  of 
a  science.  The  encyclopcedia,  therefore,  will  take  into  con- 
sideration the  empirically  developed  theology  viewed  continu- 
ously according  to  its  whole  range,  but  likewise,  by  reason  of 
the  central  and  fundamental  standpoint  which  it  occupies,  it 
will  surmount  empiricism,  and  not  only  prove  the  theological 
branches  adopted  by  it  to  be  necessary  constituent  parts  of 
the  whole,  but  will  also  cut  off  from  the  organism  as  useless 

developing  theological  science  according  to  the  unity  of  its  principles,  so  it  has, 
on  the  other  hand,  close  beside  this  the  task  of  guiding  by  suitable  directions 
tlie  studies  of  those  beginning  their  theological  course  "  {Grundriss  der  theol. 
L'ncydop.  §  4).  At  the  close  of  this  same  section,  Lange  gives  a  more 
jnctorial  description  of  the  task  of  encyclopedia:  "One  may  compare  theo- 
logical encyclopajdia  to  the  view  obtained  from  the  peak  of  a  lofty  mountain, 
liefore  which  the  theological  domain  spreads  itself  out  like  a  wide  and  magnificent 
landscape." — Ed. 


]  6  6  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

any  particular  member,  or  introduce  into  it  a  new  member,  or 
unite  together  what  had  on  an  earlier  occasion  been  separated, 
or  separate  what  had  previously  been  bound  together. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  follows  that  the  so-called  formal 
method,  which  has  often  been  recommended  and  employed  in 
the  exposition  of  encyclopaedia,  cannot  lead  to  the  end  con- 
templated. Without  entering  into  any  consideration  of  the 
contents,  the  formal  encyclopedia  proceeds  only  to  determine 
the  task  of  the  principal  divisions  of  theology  and  of  the 
particular  theological  branches,  and,  in  connection  therewith, 
the  grouping  together  of  these  principal  divisions,  and  the 
relative  rank  which  the  separate  branches  have  under  these. 
Among  expositions  of  this  class,  that  of  Schleiermacher  is 
without  doubt  entitled  to  the  highest  place.  It  secures  for 
itself  a  rank  above  that  of  others  similar  in  principle  by  this, 
that  Schleiermacher  adopts  the  guidance  of  the  Church  as  the 
rule  according  to  which  he  directs  the  construction  of  his 
entire  Encyclopredia.  And  just  because  Schleiermacher  brings 
all  theological  acquirements  under  the  point  of  view  of  the 
guidance  of  the  Church,  and  according  to  this  determines 
their  tasks  and  their  combinations,  he  has  drafted  a  clear 
outline  of  the  theological  oriranism.  The  organization,  how- 
ever,  does  not  proceed  from  that  which  is  inward  in  theology 
itself,  but  from  a  motive  that  has  been  brought  into  theology. 
Now  the  representation  of  theology  as  a  scientific  whole  is 
attainable  only  when  theology  freely  supplies  its  own  contents, 
and  when,  from  the  regular  development  of  these  contents,  the 
particular  branches  and  principal  divisions  of  theology  are 
derived.  Only  according  to  this  material  method,  because  it 
follows  the  development  of  the  contents  of  theology  itself,  will 
the  encyclopredia  be  able  to  prove  what  branches  necessarily 
belong  to  theological  science,  and  what  scientific  task  is  to  be 
assigned  to  each  particular  branch,  and  only  thus  will  it  be 
able  to  gain  an  insight  into  the  nature  and  whole  organic 
arrangement  of  theology,     Accordinglv,  the  task  of  the  theo- 


THE  CIRCLE  OF  THE  SCIENCES.  167 

logical  encyclopiTidia  determines  itself  precisely  in  accordance 
with  the  task  of  the  general  encyclopedia.  As  the  general 
encyclopaidia  has  the  task  of  determining  generally  the  nature 
of  science  according  to  its  contents  and  form,  and  thereafter 
developing  the  organic  arrangement  of  the  particular  sciences, 
so  the  theological  encyclopedia  has  the  task  of  determining 
the  nature  of  theology  according  to  its  contents  and  form,  and 
then,  on  the  ground  of  its  nature,  developing  the  organic 
arrangement  of  its  principal  divisions,  and  of  the  branches 
belonging  to  them.  When  the  encyclopedia  accomplishes 
this,  it  has  also  proved  theology  to  be  a  science,  and  there  can 
therefore,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  only  one  legitimate  repre- 
sentation of  encyclopedia.  The  distinction  which  Hagenbacli 
{Encyclnpccdic,  §  2)  recommends,  between  introductory  and 
complete  encyclopedia,  is  to  be  set  aside ;  for  it  too  springs 
from  a  merely  practical  consideration,  and  in  its  practical 
application  would,  from  one  side  at  least,  readily  favour 
superficiality.  For  both  purposes,  the  introductory  as  well  as 
the  complete,  only  that  encyclopedia  will  in  the  proper  way 
be  suitable,  which,  executed  in  accordance  with  that  task 
assigned  it,  represents  itself  as  a  true  iraiSela  iv-Kv/c\a),  that  is, 
as  the  whole  of  the  theological  acquirements,  described  as  a 
complete  scientific  circle,  just  as  the  general  encyclopedia  or 
system  of  science  has  to  be  described  as  the  circle  of  all  the 
sciences. 

By  the  expression  eyKVKXio'i  irauheia  or  d'ycoyy]  the  Greeks 
indicated  the  sum-total  of  the  acquirements  which  belonged 
to  the  training  of  every  free-born  man.  To  this  among  the 
Piomans  corresponded  the  artes  Uhcrales  or  ingcnum.  [So 
Aristotle's  Ethics,  1.  5.  6.  So  Plutarch.  Staudenmaier :  "  There 
were  accomplishments  and  arts  which  every  free  Greek  as  such 
must  possess.  A  liberal  education,  Tnnheia  iXevOepa,  it  was 
called,  because  it  had  in  view  the  improvement  of  the  nature 
of  the  free  man,  and  hereby  excluded  all  merely  mechanical 
arts  and  dexterities  which  served  only  for  the  maintenance  of 


168  THEOLOCxICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

life  {rkxvai  ^avavaai,  Aristotle's  Politics,  8.  1)."  The  Eomans 
styled  the  training  which  aimed  at  this  end  humanitas :  those 
artes  liberies  which  affected  this  humanitas  they  called 
humaniora  studia,  or  humaniores  artes.  Gellius  says,  in  liis 
Nodes  Atticai,  13.  16,  humanitas  does  not  answer  to  the 
Greek  (pCkavOpwiria,  but  to  TraiSeia.  The  encyclopedia  was 
therefore^  in  the  first  place,  general  preliminary  culture  before 
entering  on  the  higher  technical  training  in  one's  particular 
calling.  Lange,  Grundriss  der  theolog.  Encijclopmdie,  §  2, 
note  1.]  The  compound  word  e^yKVKXoTraiSeia  was  probably  first 
introduced,  in  the  second  century  after  Christ,  by  the  Greek 
physician  Galen.  During  the  Middle  Ages  it  was  understood 
as  embracing  the  seven  artes  lihcralcs  in  the  trivium  and 
quadrivium  —  grammar,  rhetoric,  dialectic  and  geometry, 
astronomy,  music,  arithmetic ;  and  then,  on  account  of  the 
constant  increase  in  the  number  of  scientific  acquirements,  it 
came  to  embrace  the  whole  domain  of  science.  From  this,  in 
modern  times,  the  name  was  transferred  to  the  particular 
sciences,  jurisprudence,  medicine,  etc.,  and  then  also  to  theo- 
logy, first  of  all  probably  by  the  Eeformed  theologian 
Mursinna.^  (Compare  §  5.)  Compare  Pelt,  Encyclopa^die,  p. 
8,  and  Hagenbach,  Encyclopwdie,  §  1. 

^  Tlie  name,  as  applied  to  the  circle  of  all  the  sciences,  is  first  to  be  found  in 
]\Iartinius  (a.d.  1606)  in  his  Idea  methodica  tt  bi'evis  encydopcedke  sive  adum- 
hratio  universitatis.  So,  too,  by  Alsted  in  his  Encyclopcedia  septem  tomh 
distincfa,  1620.  The  name  was  finall}^  applied  to  the  summary  of  the  contents 
of  the  particular  sciences  in  the  eighteenth  century  :  to  jurisprudence  by  Putter, 
to  medicine  by  Boerhaave  (1668-1738),  to  theology  by  Mursinna.  The  seven 
liberal  arts  are  thus  grouped  : — the  trivium  embraces  three  arts  of  the  word  : 
Grammatica  loquitur;  Dialectica  vera  docet ;  Rhetorlca  verba  colorat ;  the 
quadrivium  embraces  four  arts  of  number  :  Munica  canit  ;  Arithmetica  numeral; 
Geometria  ponderat ;  Astronomica  colit  astra  (Lange,  Grundriss  der  theolog. 
Enciidopa'dle,  §  2,  notes  1,  2).  —  Ed. 


COMPENDS  OF  THEOLOGY.  1G9 


§  10.  THE  IDEA  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP/EDIA. 

As  a  result  of  the  task  which  has  been  assigned  to  it, 
encyclopi^dia  has  to  view  that  theology  which  has  been 
empirically  brought  before  it,  with  all  its  parts  and  branches, 
not  as  an  outward  object  over  against  itself,  wdiich  it  would 
have  to  treat  in  a  merely  scholarly,  or  in  a  merely  formal 
way.  It  w\as  in  accordance  with  the  former — the  merely 
scholarly — style  of  treatment  that  those  encyclopaedias  were 
constructed,  which  set  themselves  forth  as  mere  external 
reports  about  theology,  and  endeavoured  to  supply  the  want 
of  an  actual  theological  content  by  means  of  a  substantial 
fulness  of  scholarship,  inasmuch  as,  in  accordance  with  a 
traditional  schematism,  they  furnish  the  several  theological 
branches  with  most  complete  historical  and  literary  apparatus ; 
as  was  done,  for  example,  during  the  earlier  part  of  the  18th 
century,  by  the  writings  of  Pfaff,  Buddeus,  Walch,  and 
]\Iursinna.  In  accordance  with  the  latter  style  of  treatment, 
again,  the  formal  encyclopedias  were  constructed,  which  set 
for  themselves  the  task  of  setting  forth  only  the  connection 
and  arrangement  of  the  several  branches  into  which  theology 
is  divided.  AVhile  those  scholarly  compendiums  and  libraries 
{Compendia  and  Bibliotheca)  never  by  any  possibility  gain  an 
insight  into  the  systematic  arrangement  of  theology,  the 
formal  encyclopedias,  again,  lead  only  to  an  understanding  of 
the  relationship  in  which  the  several  theological  branches 
stand  to  one  another,  but  not  to  an  understanding  of  theology 
itself.  The  encyclopedia,  on  the  other  hand,  which  is  con- 
structed in  accordance  with  its  proper  task,  coincides  rather 
with  its  own  subject,  theology,  and  is  tlie  scientific  and 
necessary  development  thereof.  According  to  its  idea,  it  is 
therefore  theology  itself  with  its  essential  contents  developed 
and  systematically  arranged,  so  to  speak,  a  compendium  of 
theology,  theology  in  nucc.      With  this  idea  of  the  theological 


1*^0  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

eiicycloptedia  there  is  given  at  once  the  right  method,  and 
also  the  right  measure  of  proportion  for  its  exposition.  In- 
asmuch as  it  goes  back  to  tlie  object  of  theology  itself,  and 
from  this  derives  the  separate  theological  branches,  it  admits 
nothing  into  the  theological  structure  as  a  whole  which  does 
not  stand  in  some  real  connection  with  that  object ;  and  in- 
asmuch as  it  expounds  the  relation  of  the  separate  branches 
to  one  another,  it  admits  from  their  contents  only  so  much  as 
is  indispensable  for  the  purpose  whicli  it  has  in  hand.  So 
complete  and  comprehensive  a  treatment  of  the  separate 
branches  as  that  which  Staudenmaier  has  seen  fit  to  give  in 
his  Encyclopedia,  is  utterly  opposed  to  the  character  of 
encyclopcTedia,  and  ought  rather  to  be  left  as  the  task  of 
experts  in  the  different  theological  departments.  The  encyclo- 
pedia can  take  the  contents  into  account  only  in  so  far  as 
they  are  necessary  in  order  to  demonstrate  the  actual  connec- 
tion of  one  branch  with  another,  and  to  trace  exactly  the 
inner  onward  movement  which  is  made  from  one  branch  to 
the  other.  Hence  it  must  also  avoid  the  purely  historical 
form,  and  especially  the  treating  of  the  literary  material  in 
the  style  of  a  librarian's  catalogue,  which,  after  the  example 
of  the  earlier  writings,  is  even  still  traceable  in  the  latter  and 
more  precisely  organized  Encyclopiedias  of  Berthold,  Stiiudlin, 
Clarisse,  Hagenbach,  Pelt,  and  Harless.  The  reception  of  such 
material  into  the  encycloposdia  does  not  advance,  but  rather 
hinders,  an  insight  into  the  theological  system.  This  material 
ought  also  to  be  left  to  theologians  dealing  with  the  separate 
theological  departments.  As  we  have  prefixed  to  the 
encyclopaedia  a  summary  of  its  history  and  literature,  so  also, 
in  respect  to  every  separate  exposition,  and  every  new 
rendering  of  each  separate  branch,  it  ought  to  be  insisted  upon 
that  the  theologian  treating  that  branch  monographically 
should  determine  its  historical  place,  and  prefix  to  that  branch 
treated  by  him  its  own  history  and  literature.  The  eucyclo- 
paedia  has  only  to  choose  from  each  particular  branch  what 


THEOLOGIC  AS  SYSTEM  OF  THEOLOGICAL  SCIENCE,         1  7  1 

will  be  sufficient  to  serve  for  the  characterizing  of  it,  and  if  a 
more  complete  knowledge  of  its  literature  is  desired,  the 
means  are  at  hand  whereby  this  can  be  secured.  If,  accord- 
ing to  its  idea,  the  encyclopaedia  quite  correctly  represents 
itself  as  the  system  of  theological  science,  then  instead  of  the 
name  "  EncyclopcTdia,"  which  has  been  commonly  used  since 
it  was  introduced  by  Mursinna,  the  name  "  Theologic  "  should 
recommend  itself  as  a  more  suitable  designation  for  this 
branch  of  science.^  Just  as  the  names  dogmatics,  ethics, 
polemics,  apologetics,  etc.,  have  been  adopted  into  theological 
terminology,  so  would  theologic  be  the  appropriate  expression 
to  describe  the  general  system  of  the  theological  sciences. 
The  name  "  Theological  Encyclopedia  "  has  undoubtedly  the 
advantage,  that  it  directly  points  to  the  connection  into  which 
theology  has  to  be  brought  with  the  other  sciences.  Never- 
theless, it  is  only  a  term  that  has  been  transferred  from  the 
extra-theological  domain  to  the  theological,  and  its  use  tends 
to  mislead  one  into  a  merely  formal  treatment  of  this  branch 
of  study ;  whereas  the  name  "  Theologic,"  even  apart  from  the 
advantage  of  its  brevity,  points  directly,  and  more  definitely, 
to  the  independence  and  to  the  scientific  task  of  the  branch 
of  science  under  consideration ;  and  yet  theology  is  conceived 
of  in  its  scientific  independence  only  that  it  may  be  brought 
into  connection  with  the  other  sciences. 

^  The  expression  h.oXoyiK.n  i'ziirry./Ji.ri,  scientia,  quse  eorum  est,  qui  de  rebus 
divinis  agunt,  is  to  be  found  as  early  as  in  Aristotle's  JMetaphysics,  10.  C 
Compare  Henrici  Stephani  thesaurus  grfecis  linguae.  Londini  1816.  Vol.  iii. 
siib  voce  ho;,  p.  4222.  [With  this  choice  of  a  specific  term  like  theologic  to 
designate  the  science  of  theological  encyclopredia  we  may  compare  the  attempt 
of  Doedes  to  distinguish  between  encyclopaedic  and  encyclopedia.  The  distinction 
is  the  .same  as  that  between  apologetic  and  apology,  between  homiletic  and 
homil}',  between  liturgic  and  liturgy,  etc.  Just  as  liturgic  is  the  science  of 
divine  worship,  homiletic  the  science  of  preaching,  and  apologetic  the  science 
of  the  method  of  defence,  so  is  encyclopaedic  the  science  of  the  organization  of 
the  encyclopaedia.  The  history  of  encyclopedic  is  therefore  the  history  of 
what  has  been  done  in  grouping  the  sciences  according  to  their  rank  and 
vocation.  Doedes  would  reckon  the  history  of  encyclopedic  first  in  order  of 
the  histories  of  the  theological  sciences.  (Compare  Doedes,  Encyclopedic  der 
Christclijke  Theologic.     Inleiding,  §  7,  Aanm.  1.)— Ed.] 


172  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOPiEDLA.. 


§  11.  THE  OBJECT  OF  THEOLOGIC. 

Ill  the  strictest  sense  theologic  is  its  own  proper  object, 
that  is,  it  is  an  end  in  itself.  Its  idea  contains  also  the 
statement  of  its  aim,  and  this  aim  coincides  with  the  idea. 
Hence  the  highest  and  most  important  object  of  theologic  is 
to  set  forth  theology  as  a  science.  But  from  the  purely 
theoretical  tendency,  in  accordance  with  which  it  allows  itself 
to  be  determined  in  its  whole  course,  there  result  likewise 
various  practical  aims,  to  the  realization  of  which  theologic 
will  contribute.  In  its  general  part,  these  practical  aims  are 
directed  to  showing  forth  the  significance  of  theological 
science  for  the  Church,  and  its  relations  to  the  other  sciences. 
In  this  place  it  must  suffice  simply  to  indicate  this :  it  can  be 
more  fully  expounded  only  later  on.  In  its  special  part, 
however,  theologic  will  afford  its  help,  not  only  to  the 
beginner  in  theological  study,  but  also  to  the  well  advanced 
and  cultured  theologian ;  and  not  to  these  only,  but  also  to 
those  who  are  not  theologians.  The  latter,  in  so  far  as  they 
belong  to  the  educated  classes,  are  wont  to  relate  themselves 
to  theology  in  a  great  variety  of  ways.  Some  of  them, 
guided  by  a  deep  interest  in  religious  or  even  in  churchly 
matters,  turn  with  special  preference  to  employ  themselves 
upon  theological  and  ecclesiastical  questions,  in  order  to 
obtain  comfort,  enlightenment,  or  instruction.  To  all  these 
theologic  will  afford  its  help  and  support,  and  will  introduce 
them  to  the  theological  system,  in  order  that  they  may  be 
protected  from  false  and  erring  ways,  into  which  one  who 
is  not  a  professional  theologian  might  readily  be  drawn  by 
his  theological  endeavours,  and  that  the  true  scientific  path 
be  pointed  out  to  them,  upon  which  alone  a  satisfactory  end 
can  be  reached.  Others,  indifferent  in  regard  to  religious  and 
churchly  affairs,  applying  themselves  rather  to  political  and 


VARYING  ATTITUDES  TOWARD  THEOLOGY.  lV3 

social  pursuits,  regard  theology  for  their  purposes  as  quite 
superfluous,  and  think  probably  that  the  term  of  its  existence 
will  soon  expire.  Then  there  are  others,  occupying  the  very 
highest  place  in  the  ranks  of  culture,  who  look  down  upon 
theology,  not  only  with  contempt,  but  even  with  a  hostile 
irritation,  because  they  charge  it  with  standing  in  the  way  of 
those  ideal  ends  to  the  realization  of  which  the  whole  spiritual 
work  of  culture  is  devoted.  Even  to  those  opponents  of 
theology  among  non-theologians,  theologic  recommends  itself, 
and  will  prove  helpful  in  removing  their  prejudices;  and  if 
they  ascribe  to  the  science  its  proper  value,  it  will  also  inspire 
them  with  a  respect  for  theology.  It  is  more  immediately 
required  of  theologic  that  it  should  offer  its  services  to 
theologians.  Even  among  these  appears  the  tendency  to 
depreciate  theology,  but  also,  on  the  other  hand,  there  appears 
frequently  a  tendency  to  the  over-estimating  of  it.  Views  of 
theology,  such  as  those  made  prominent  in  the  circles  of  the 
pietists,  and  among  the  theologians  of  the  illumination,  repeat 
themselves,  modified  naturally  by  a  new  set  of  motives,  and 
by  other  conditions  of  culture.  Among  theologians  themselves 
there  have  risen  up  some  who  have  assumed  a  polemical 
attitude  toward  their  own  science  of  which  they  made  a 
profession,  and  have  brought  this  charge  as  a  reproach  against 
theology,  that  it  injures,  much  more  than  it  furthers,  the 
interests  of  Christianity  and  the  Churcli.  Yet  the  more 
serious  and  heavy  the  accusations  become,  if  they  proceed 
from  the  side  of  theology  itself,  so  much  the  greater  urgency 
will  the  sunmions  assume  that  is  addressed  to  theologic,  to 
rebut  the  charges,  and  at  least  make  the  attempt  to  lead 
those  theologians  to  a  better  opinion  of  theological  science. 
Others,  however,  going  to  the  opposite  extreme,  have  so  high 
an  opinion  of  the  autliority  and  rank  of  theology  that  they 
are  led  to  entertain  a  contempt  for  all  the  other  sciences,  and  to 
wish  to  maintain  for  theology  over  against  these,  an  altogether 
exceptional  position,  and  to  enter  a  protest  against  any  com- 


174  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOr^DLA.. 

munion  being  allowed  between  it  and  those  other  sciences. 
In  contradiction  to  this  view,  in  itself  perhaps  worthy  enough 
of  respect,  but  narrow  and  destructive,  theologic  will  afford 
satisfactory  evidence  that  theology  as  a  science  stands  in  the 
closest  connection  with  the  other  sciences,  and  that  it  is  able 
to  accomplish  its  own  task  only  when  it  puts  itself  into 
constant  connection  with  them,  and  turns  to  account  their 
results  for  its  own  upbuilding.  And  further,  inasmuch  as 
theologic  points  out  the  relations  in  which  theology  stands 
to  the  practical  life,  it  endeavours  also  to  overcome  that  one- 
sidedness  which  shows  itself  among  theologians,  which 
recorfnises  a  value  only  in  scholarship,  and  leaves  out  of  view 
the  demands  which  are  made  of  theology  not  only  from  the 
sphere  of  ecclesiastical  life,  but  also  from  the  spheres  of  the 
political  and  social  life,  finally,  it  will  also  counteract  that 
formlessness,  which  not  seldom  appears  in  the  treatment  of 
the  separate  theological  branches,  so  that  some  particular  in 
its  relation  to  the  rest  may  be  over-estimated,  or  something 
extraneous,  something  belonging  to  another  science,  may  be 
-  >duced  into  its  system.  From  the  exposition  of  theology 
'•^ientific  organism  there  should  result  at  once  the  limits 
.vithin  which  the  treatment  of  the  separate  branches  is  to  be 
confined,  and  that  measure  of  proportion  which  should  be 
applied,  so  that  the  particular  may  always  be  conceived  in  its 
relation  to  the  whole,  and  the  separate  branch  in  its  signi- 
ficance for  the  entire  organism. 

It  is,  however,  pre-eminently  to  the  student  beginning  the 
study  of  theology  that  theologic  will  prove  serviceable.  To 
him  it  presents  itself  not  only  as  an  introduction  to  his 
course  of  study,  but  as  a  sketch  that  will  likewise  stand  in 
place  of  a  methodology  or  hodogetics  (guide).^     Theologic  is, 

1  The  full  discussions  given  in  earlier  encyclopeedias  of  preparatory  studies,  of 
the  intellectual,  ethical,  and  physical  qualifications  which  are  desirable  in  the 
student  of  theology,  must  be  excluded  from  theologic,  for  what  was  said  in 
these  is  partly  presupposed,  partly  a  matter  of  course,  and,  besides,  of  equal 
importance  to  other  students.      [A  good  illustration  of  the  kind  of  general 


THE  INTKODUCTION  TO  TIIEOLOGIC.  175 

first  of  all,  of  special  importance  to  the  student  entcrin<T  on 
the  study  of  theology  as  an  introduction.  It  introduces  liini 
to  the  building,  at  whose  portals  he  appears,  and  makes  him 
acquainted  with  the  architectural  arrangements  of  the  whole 
wide-spreading  structure  in  which  he  intends  to  take  up  his 
residence.  Inasmuch  as  it  presents  to  him  theology  accord- 
ing to  its  general  character  as  science,  it  raises  him 
immediately,  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  course  of  study,  to 
the  full  summit  of  the  scientific  life.  It  will  guard  him 
against  the  widely  prevalent  prejudice  that  looks  upon 
theology  as  distinguished  from  the  whole  range  of  scientific 
activity   by   special   limitations.      It  will  lead   him  rather  to 

remarks  to  which  Riibiger  refuses  a  place,  may  be  found  in  Lange's  work  on 
encyclopffiJia.  In  the  general  part  of  his  treatise,  Lange  has  two  divisions  in 
which  the  development  of  the  idea  of  objective  theology  and  of  subjective  theo- 
logy are  discussed.  The  former  corresponds  upon  the  whole  to  Rabio-er's 
General  Part  :  but  the  latter  is  practically  a  treatise  on  methodology  or  hodo- 
getics.  With  Rjibiger,  as  we  see  above,  the  encyclopaedia  itself  must  be  also  a 
methodology,  and  so  he  provides  no  separate  place  for  methodology.  Under 
this  section  Lange  introduces  five  separate  divisions.  (1)  The  end  of  the  theo- 
logical course  of  study  :  the  concrete  manifestation  of  the  theological  calling 
and  especially  of  the  pastoral  office.  (2)  The  religious  foundation  of  the 
theological  course  of  study  in  its  development, — corresponding  to  the  develoii- 
ment  of  religion  into  science, — the  religious  calling  of  the  theological  student  : 
his  personal  gifts,  his  home  surroundings,  training  at  elementary  schools,  etc. 
(3)  The  scientific  course  of  training  preliminary  to  the  theological  course  of 
study — the  course  at  the  gymnasiunr  and  the  student's  reaching  maturity.  (4) 
The  university  :  the  synthesis  of  religion  and  science  in  the  young  theolooian's 
course  of  study — importance  of  university  theological  culture,  university  life, 
the  objective  and  subjective  side  of  the  theological  course  of  study.  (5)  The 
transfer  of  the  theologian  to  official  life,  and  the  confirming  of  his  character  as 
a  true  pastor.  Now  clearly  the  objections  of  Rabiger  apply  to  the  greater  part 
of  these  sections.  There  are,  no  doubt,  many  useful  hints  given  under  each  of 
the  heads  ;  but,  for  the  most  part,  all  would  be  included  in  a  general  assertion 
that,  alongside  of  special  technical  training,  liberal  culture  is  necessary  to 
secure  the  full  equipment  of  the  scientific  theologian.  It  may  also  be  noticed 
here  that  Lange  has  a  conception  of  methodology  very  different  from  that  of 
most  encyclopiedists.  It  is  ordinarily  viewed  as  sim^dy  a  practical  fuide 
informing  the  theological  student  what  order  he  should  observe  in  the  study  of 
theology.  Lange,  on  the  other  hand,  considers  that  it  is  within  its  province  to 
act  as  guide  to  the  theological  student  while  as  yet  only  in  the  elementary 
schools,  and  indeed,  even  earlier  than  this,  to  afford  hints  to  parents  of  such  as 
may  become  theological  students  as  to  the  home  influences  with  which  they 
should  surround  them.  To  all  this  sort  of  hortatory  matter  there  would  be  no 
end  :  and  it  is  quite  rightly  excluded  from  the  domain  of  science.] 


176  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOF/EDIA, 

acknowledge  that  he  has   to  approach  the   study  of  theology 
Avith  the  same  free  and  unprepossessed  mind  which  is  required 
generally  for  every  scientific  exercise ;  that  theology,  if  it  is 
fully  to  be  appropriated,  lays  claim  not  only  to  his  memory, 
but  to  his  whole    spiritual  powers   and   endeavours ;   that  its 
study  brings  him  also  into  connection  with  the  other  sciences, 
and  that  he  has  not   to   shut   himself  out   from  these,  but  to 
participate  in  their  pursuits,  in  so  far  as  they  in  any  measure 
may  affect  the  theological  domain.      Further,  theologic  makes 
the  student  of  theology  already  acquainted  with  the  essential 
contents  and  the   ideal  tasks   of  theology,  and  will   thereby 
form  within  him  a  conception   completely  different  from  the 
low  and  common  view  of   study  as   a   means   of  gaining   a 
livelihood,  which  will   fill   him   with  respect,  and  love,  and 
enthusiasm   for   his   science,  and    will   afford   him    also    the 
opportunity    of   exercising    upon    himself    the   self  -  scrutiny 
necessary  in   order   to    determine   whether,    according   to   his 
individuality,  he  is  suited  for  the  study  of  theology,  and  then 
he  may  resolve,  with  full  spiritual  surrender,  to  devote  him- 
self to  its  study.      Hence  it  also  opens  up  to  him  a  glimpse 
into  the   connection  in  which   theology,  which   like  all   true 
science   springs    out   of  the  life   and  leads  back  to  the  life, 
stands  to  the  noblest  strivings  and  aims  of  the  present  time, 
and  makes  clear  to  him  already  at  the  very  beginning  of  his 
course  of  study  the  character  of  those  pursuits  upon  which  he 
has  entered,  if  so  be  that  he  has  resolved  to  make  the  sacred 
calling  his  calling  for  life.     And  yet  more  important  is  it  for 
his    study,  that   theologic   presents    him  with   a  view  of  the 
whole  system  of  theology,  the  arrangement  of  all  its  parts  and 
branches.      By  means    of  the   survey   afforded    of   the  whole 
domain  of  that  science  which  he  is  to  make  his  own,  he  will 
be  saved  from  that  despondency  into  wliich  the  theologian  is 
exceedingly  liable  to  fall  when  he  considers  the  wide  extent 
of  the  field.     The  very  fact  that   much   of  the   material  tliat 
has  to  be  embraced  can  be  appropriated  only  when  it  is  made 


ADVANTAGES  FEOM  THE  STUDY  OF  TIIEOLOGIC,  l77 

an  affair  of  his  own  personal  experience,  is  fitted  to  intensify 
that  despondency.  By  the  study  of  theologic,  however,  the 
student  will  he  inspired  with  confidence,  and  with  the  assur- 
ance that,  by  the  gradual  appropriation  of  details,  he  will  be 
enabled  to  attain  unto  the  ultimate  possession  of  the  whole. 
He  will  also  gain  the  patience  and  perseverance  necessary  for 
the  study  of  the  less  interesting  and  apparently  barren 
branches,  when  he  perceives  that  even  those  branches  are 
members  which,  for  the  life  of  the  whole  organism,  are 
indispensable.  But  as  soon  as  the  student  of  theology  begins 
the  study  of  the  particular  branches,  he  will  be  drawn  into 
the  conflict  of  contradictories,  in  which  the  theological  scien- 
tific activity  of  the  present  day  presents  itself.  And  even 
here,  in  regard  to  the  character  and  significance  of  these  con- 
trarieties, theologic  will  help  the  student  to  reach  the  clearest 
understanding  possible.  Since  it  represents  theology  as  a 
single  scientific  organism,  it  must  assume  to  itself  a  definite 
position  in  regard  to  those  contrary  statements,  and  for  this 
purpose  must  take  upon  itself  the  criticism  of  these  state- 
ments. Criticism  will  enable  the  student  beginning  his 
theological  course  to  find  his  way  in  his  study  of  the  separate 
branches  amid  the  confusion  of  opinions  and  views  which 
have  proceeded  from  those  contradictory  notions,  and  will  also 
enable  him  to  form  an  independent  judgment  of  his  own 
upon  those  conflicting  theories  in  general,  and  in  this  way 
will  lead  him  to  determine  his  own  attitude  toward  them. 
The  view  current  in  many  circles  of  the  laity,  that  theological 
controversies  are  a  mere  empty  quarrel  over  words,  Avhich 
originates  only  in  the  wilfulness,  prejudice,  and  passion  of 
theologians,  and  are  therefore  undeserving  of  the  slightest 
consideration,  easily  makes  an  impression  upon  tlie  young 
theological  student,  and  may  disgust  him  with  his  study,  or 
indeed  induce  him  to  turn  away  from  it  altogether.  Hence 
theologic  seeks  to  make  it  clear  to  him  that  the  theological 
conflict  takes  its  origin  from  those  contradictory  notions,  that 
VOL.  I.  M 


178  THEOLOGICxVL  ENCYCLOR^^DIA. 

these  again  have  not  arisen  by  mere  chance,  that  they  have 
not  proceeded  from  the  mere   self-will   of  any  individual  and 
from  mere  arbitrariness,  but  that  they  are  necessarily  deter- 
mined by  the  essential  characteristics  of  theological  science  ; 
that  in    these    opposing  statements  the  necessary  phases  of 
the  develojDment  of  theology  are  represented  ;  that  through 
them    the    life    of    theology  in    its    pursuit    after  truth  is 
maintained  ;    and  that  generally  in  theology,  just  as    really 
as  in  the  other  sciences,  there    can  be  no  movement  with- 
out such  opposing  views  and  such  conflicts.     Theologic  also 
shows    that    while    science    as    such    must    necessarily    be 
intolerant     only    in    regard    to    that    which     concerns    the 
ascertainment  of  the  truth,  it  is  especially  becoming  in  the 
theologian   that   he   should  conduct    his    controversies    with 
spiritual  weapons,   without    any   mixture    of    the    notorious 
rahies  thcologica.      In  this  connection  it  wdll  also   be  pointed 
out  to   the  young  theologian    that  the  various    ecclesiastical 
tendencies   for  the  most  part  have  been  called  into  existence 
by  those  conflicting  theological   theories,  or  that  they  are  at 
least    closely    connected    with    them,   that    therefore    these 
ecclesiastical  distinctions,  in  so  far  as  their  existence  is  justi- 
fiable, have  also  the  right  of  bringing  their  existence  to  an  end, 
and  consequently,  while  in  the  scientific  department  controversy 
is  unavoidable,  in  practical  life  the  fullest  toleration  ought  to 
be  given.     Finally,  theologic  has   over  and  above  all  this  a 
special  ideal  importance  for  the  student  of  theology.     Like 
every  other  science,  theology  has  to  be  conceived  according  to 
its  advancing  development.     Theologic,  therefore,  which  repre- 
sents theology  as  a  simple  unified  system,  points  out  also  the 
tasks  which  theology  in  the  immediate  future  has  to  accomplish, 
and  wuU  thus  indicate  to  the  young  student  the  direction   in 
which  his  powers  should  be  most  energetically  employed.^ 

1  Tliat  theological  encyclopedia  should  not  be  regarded  and  treated  as  a  mere 
introduction  to  "theology  for  one  entering  upon  a  professional  course  of  theo- 
logical study,  has  been  pointed  out  by  Lange.  "  Theological  encyclop?edia,  as 
the  organic  unity  of  all  the  branches  of  theological  study,  that  is,  as  the  com- 


TIIEOLOGIC  AS  A  METHODOLOGY.  l79 

These   are   in  general   the   influences   wliich  thcologic,    as 
introduction,  exerts  upon  the  student  entering  on   his  theo- 
logical course.      But  besides  this,  it  stands  to  him  also  in  tlie 
place  of  a  methodology,  if  it  be  carried  out  in  accordance  witli 
its  idea.      It    was   customary  in   earlier   times  to  lay  down 
outside    of     the     encyclopiedia     a     special     methodology    or 
hodogetics,  that  is,  a  science  of  the  way  in  which  the  beginner 
must  secure  an  acquaintance  with  theology.      If  encyclopaedia 
shows  what   is   to  be   studied,  then   this  methodology  would 
show  how  it  is  to   be   studied.      In   consequence   of  the  un- 
scientific form  in  which  the  older  encyclopoedias  appeared,  it 
must   have  seemed  desirable,  indeed   necessary,  to   supply  to 
the  beginner  directions  and  hints  regarding   the   arrangement 
of  his  theological  course   of  study,  regarding  the  proper  dis- 
tribution of  the  several  branches  over  his  three,  four,  or  five 
years'  university  career,  regarding  the  use  to  be  made  of  the 
lectures,  the  necessary  preparation  for  them  and  repetition  of 
them,  regarding  private  study,  regarding  the  general  demeanour 
of  the   student,  and   especially   of  the    student  of   theology. 
Yet,  notwithstanding  the  good  intention  that  was  present  in 
all  this,  the  greater   part   of  that  included  in  this  scheme  is 
evidently  not  exactly  scientific,  inasmuch  as  the  fortuitousness 
and  diversity  of  different  individualities  cannot  possibly  have 
any  general   fixed   rule   prescribed  for   them  ;  while    another 
part    may    l)e    left    over    to    the    presupposed    maturity  of 

l.i-ehensive  summary  of  theological  knowledge,  is  a  representation  of  the 
theological  idea,  the  study  of  which  is  indispensable  on  the  part  of  every  theo- 
logian, not  merely  on  the  part  of  those  beginning  the  theological  course.  The 
want  of  the  knowledge  of  encycloptedia  makes  itself  apparent  in  the  manifold 
errors  of  theological  works,  especially  in  the  analytical  fragments  that  pass  as 
vade  mecums  for  the  theological  student.  Seldom  is  the  theologian  as  such  an 
omnia  sua  wcuiii  j)ortans.  Many  live  in  theology,  like  hermits  in  a  great  forest, 
tlie  boundaries  of  which,  the  shapes  and  forms  of  which  it  is  composed,  the 
ways  into  it  and  the  way  out  of  it,  being  only  very  imperfectly  known.  This, 
too,  applies  very  specially  to  our  own  time,  in  which  synthetical  studies  are 
made  to  give  way  so  much  in  favour  of  detached  and  separate  analytical  pro- 
cesses. It  is  against  this  destructive  tendency,  which  threatens  to  develop  into 
anarchy,  tliat  the  scientific  impulse  and  spirit  must  contend."  Lange's  Ency- 
clopa'die.  Opening  Remarks. — Ed. 


180  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

judgment,  and  of  the  moral  character  which  has  heen  already 
gained  by  means  of  the  family  life  and  by  means  of  the  training 
at  the  higher  schools  ;  and  yet  another  part,  that  treats  of  uni- 
versity life,  is  to  be  referred  to  a  general  hodogetics.^     The 
prejudices  which,  even  among  the  ranks  of  German  students, 
are    still  widely  prevalent,    arise    for    the    most   part    from 
the  confounding  of  academical  freedom  with  student  licence, 
and   are    connected    chiefly  with   notions  of  academical  con- 
viviality, the   nature   of  students'  associations,  the  attendance 
upon   lectures,   with   ideas    about   private   study,   and   about 
getting  through  as   speedily  as  possible  their  preparation  for 
the    unavoidable     examination.       These   ideas,   however,   are 
more  and  more  abandoned  in  proportion  as  the  great  interests 
of  public  life   come  into  the   student's  view,  and  render  him 
thoroughly    conscious   that   it   is   just   the    members   of   the 
German  student  guild  that  are  called  to  brace  themselves  by 
earnest  and  unwearied  labour  for  future  efficiency  in  public 
life,  in  order  that  then,  in   their  various  spheres  in  life,  they 
may,  by  means  of  their  culture,  represent  the  true  intellec- 
tual aristocracy  of  the  German  nation,  in  the  ranks  of  which 
the  student  of  theology  especially  must  strive  to  secure  a  place. 
On   the    other    hand,  w^hatever,  in   the   contents    of  those 
methodologies,  is  really  serviceable  and  indispensable  to  the 

1  Besides  tlie  writings  of  J.  G.  Ficlite,  Ueber  die  Bestimmung  des  Gelehrten 
(1794),  and  Das  Wesen  des  Gelehrten  (1806),  the  following  are  to  he  re- 
commended :— Fr.  Ed.  Beneke,  Einleitnng  in's  akademische  Studium.  Gott. 
1826.  K.  H.  Scheidler,  Grundriss  der  Hodogetik  oder  Methodik  des  akademi- 
sclien  Studiums.  Jena  1832.  3  Auflage  1847.  Mussmann,  Vorlesungen  iieber 
das  Studium  der  Wissenschaften  und  Kiinste,  ein  Taschenbuch  fiir  angehende 
Studirende.  Halle  1832.  Tittmann,  Ueberdie  Bestimmung  des  Gelehrten  und 
seine  Bildung  durch  Schule  und  Universitiit.  Berlin  1833.  Yon  Schadan, 
Ueber  akademisches  I;eben  und  Studium.  Marburg  1845.  J.  Ed.  Erdmann, 
Vorlesungen  ueber  akademisches  Leben  und  Studium.  Leipzig  1858.  The 
work  of  Erdmann  contains  many  striking  remarks  upon  the  character  and  task 
of  the  student  ;  what  it  says,  however,  regarding  theological  study  is  extremely 
defective.  [The  works  of  Fichte  referred  to  in  this  note  have  been  translated 
into  English  by  Dr.  Wm.  Smith  of  Edinburgh  :  Popular  Writings  of  J.  G. 
Fichte.  London  1848-49.  2  vols.  The  two  treatises  named  are  included  in 
the  first  volume,  and  bear  the  titles  :  The  Vocation  of  the  Scholar ;  The  oS'^ature 
of  the  Scholar.] 


THEOLOGIC  AS  A  METHODOLOGY.  181 

student  of  theology,  for  example,  directions  aljout  the  proper 
order  to  be  observed  in  the  study  of  the  separate  theological 
branches,  is  already  present  in  the  very  body  of  every  well- 
constructed  encyclopedia,  and  also  is  placed  on  a  better 
foundation  than  can  be  given  it  in  a  methodology.  If  the 
encyclopaedia,  in  a  purely  objective  way,  in  accordance  with  a 
necessity  arising  out  of  the  nature  of  the  science  itself, 
assigns  their  places  to  the  different  parts  and  branches  of 
theology,  it  has  thereby  likewise  pointed  out  the  best  way 
for  the  student  to  take  in  the  prosecution  of  his  studies.  He 
has  simply  to  follow  the  track  which  theology  makes  in  the 
course  of  its  self-development,  to  study  the  separate  branches 
according  to  the  order  of  succession  in  which  they  occur  in 
the  encyclopiedia,  and,  by  means  of  this  regular  successive 
labour,  to  make  himself  master  of  his  science  in  its  entire 
compass.  The  encyclopciedia  itself,  therefore,  answers  to  this 
methodological  purpose,  and  renders  any  separate  methodology 
unnecessary,^ 

1  This  rejection  of  a  special  methodology  ought  to  commend  itself  as  a  strictly 
scientific  procedure.  It  should  be  observed  that  Rabiger  is  not  objecting  to 
the  addressing  of  practical  hints  to  students  of  theology  in  regard  to  the  method 
of  conducting  their  studies.  He  simply  says  that  these  can  have  no  place 
assigned  them  in  science  co-ordinate  with  the  theological  encyclopedia. 
Hofmann,  on  the  last  page  of  his  Eacyclopajdia,  has  a  section  entitled,  The 
preparation  of  the  theologian.  Of  this  he  simply  says  that  it  must  be  at  once 
theoretical  and  practical  ;  and  then  he  excuses  himself  from  saying  any  more, 
on  the  ground  that  it  lies  outside  of  the  system  of  theological  science  (see 
Hofmann,  p.  389).  Doedes  says  distinctly  that  the  methodology  of  Christian 
theology  as  a  statement  of  the  method  according  to  which  Christian  theology 
must  be  studied  has  no  need  of  separate  treatment  on  the  part  of  the  theo- 
logian. Various  circumstances — the  natural  endowments  and  tendencies  of 
the  student,  the  state  in  which  the  several  sciences  are,  the  requirements  of  the 
age — may  largely  modify  the  ordering  and  succession  of  these  studies.  What 
is  matter  of  science  in  methodology  is  not  to  be  distinguished  from  encyclo- 
paedia, which  is  the  methodological  description  of  the  circle  of  the  sciences 
belonging  to  Christian  theology.  Doedes,  however,  remarks  that  this  rejection 
of  methodology  from  a  separate  place  in  encyclopaidia  does  not  prevent  one 
from  giving  hints  to  students  as  to  their  methods  of  theological  study.  He 
himself  has  published  a  little  treatise  of  this  kind.  De  theologische  studien- 
gang  geschetst.  (A  sketch  of  the  theological  course  of  study.  Letters  on 
methodology  to  a  student  of  divinity,  olFered  also  for  the  reading  of  young 
preachers.     Utrecht  18G6.)— Ed. 


182  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 


§  12.  THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THEOLOGIC. 

The  distribution  can  be  indicated  in  this  phice  only  in  a 
quite  general  way,  in  so  far  as  this  may  be  done  in  accord- 
ance with  principles  laid  down  in  the  preceding  paragraphs. 
If,  according  to  its  idea,  theologic  is  the  systematic  arrange- 
ment of  theology,  its  distribution  must  be  a  distribution  of 
theology  itself;  and  if,  according  to  its  task,  it  has  to  develop 
the  organic  connection  of  all  the  parts  and  branches  of 
theology,  it  must  necessarily  go  back  to  the  central  principle 
and  to  the  ultimate  conditions  of  the  organism,  and  from 
these  determine  all  the  members  of  that  organism.  Hence 
theologic  itself  has  to  be  divided  into  a  general  and  a  special 
part.  The  former  has  the  task  of  discussing  generally  the 
nature  of  theology.  From  this  investigation  there  results 
immediately  the  necessary  distribution  of  theology  under 
various  divisions  and  branches ;  and  the  second  part  of 
theologic — the  special  part — has  to  deal  with  these. 

Only  this  sort  of  general  division  in  theologic  is  in  keeping 
with  its  object,  and  of  importance  for  the  scientific  exposition 
of  theology.  To  the  serious  disadvantage  of  the  science  itself, 
it  has  been  omitted  even  from  some  more  recent  encyclopedias. 
Eosenkranz  prefixes  to  his  Encyclopedia  a  preliminary 
discourse,  as  though  it  did  not  properly  belong  to  encyclo- 
pedia itself,  and  then  follows  with  a  short  Introduction.  In 
that  preliminary  part  he  gives  expression  to  his  views  upon 
theology  in  general,  and  also  upon  its  encyclopedia,  and  just 
so  a^ain  in  the  Introduction ;  whereas  the  statements  about 
encyclopedia,  when  systematically  arranged,  belong  to  the 
Introduction  to  encyclopedia;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
general  statements  regarding  theology  belong  to  the  exposition 
of  the  encyclopedia  itself,  and  indeed  constitute  the  General 


THE  GENERAL  PART  OF  THEOLOGIC.  183 

Part  of  the  Encyclopaedia.  Hagenbach  has  indeed  an  Intro- 
duction and  a  General  Part,  but  in  both  divisions  there 
appears  a  motley  mixing  of  statements  about  encyclopaedia 
and  about  theology  ;  so  that  indeed  the  history  of  encyclopaedia, 
which  evidently  belongs  to  an  Introduction  to  encyclopaedia, 
is  added  as  an  Appendix  to  the  General  Part.  Pelt,  on  the 
other  hand,  satisfies  himself  with  a  mere  Introduction,  and 
treats  therein  of  encyclopaedia  and  theology  alike ;  whereas 
the  adequate  determining  of  the  latter  evidently  demands  a 
separate  and  distinct  division  for  itself.  [Doedes,  too,  has 
only  an  Introduction,  and  in  it  he  mixes  up,  like  Pelt  and 
Hagenbach,  though  in  a  much  briefer  compass,  questions 
regarding  theology  and  encyclopaedia.  He  treats  of  the  idea, 
task,  aim,  history,  and  distribution  of  encyclopaedia,  which  all 
are  proper  to  the  Introduction ;  but  he  also  treats  of  Christian 
theology,  of  the  relation  of  theology  to  philosophy,  of  the 
independence  of  Christian  theology,  and  of  its  history,  which 
properly  belong  to  the  General  Part  of  encyclopaedia.  Lange, 
on  the  other  hand,  has  both  an  Introduction  and  a  General 
Part  to  his  Encyclopaedia.  In  his  Introduction  he  quite 
properly  treats  of  the  idea,  task,  purpose,  and  history  of 
encyclopaedia.  In  the  General  Part  he  has  two  divisions. 
The  first  of  these  corresponds  generally  to  that  required  by 
liiibiger,  —  treating  of  religion,  Christianity,  and  Christian 
science  as  theology.  The  second  division,  referred  to  in  a 
previous  note,  is  the  methodology,  which,  according  to  the 
closing  paragraph  of  the  preceding  section,  can  claim  no 
separate  place  in  a  scientific  treatise  on  encyclopaedia.  In 
Hofmann's  posthumous  work  on  encyclopaedia,  the  preliminary 
discourse  embraces  matters  proper  to  Introduction  and  to  the 
General  Division  of  the  encyclopedia.  He  discusses  first  of 
all  the  nature  of  Christianity,  then  he  represents  Christianity 
as  a  science, — both  of  these  sections  dealing  with  matter 
belonging  to  the  General  Part  of  encyclopaedia, — but  not 
introducing  a  complete  view  of  these  matters;  and  then,  in 


184  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPiEDLV. 

the  final  section,  lie  treats  of  the  tasks  of  theology,  clealin" 
mainly  with  questions  about  the  distribution  of  the  divisions 
and  subdivisions  of  theology  in  the  encyclopaedia,  which  are 
proper  to  a  regular  Introduction.  In  Eothe's  Encyclopa?dia, 
again,  we  have  a  very  meagre  introductory  part,  in  which  are 
discussed  the  idea  of  theology, — corresponding  to  the  General 
Part  of  encyclopaedia,  but  embraced  in  six  pages, — the  idea 
of  theological  encyclopaedia,  and  the  history  and  literature  of 
theological  encyclopsdia,  and  the  distribution  of  theological 
science,  all  proper  to  Introduction,  and  given  in  the  briefest 
possible  compass. — Ed.] 

This  unsystematic  course  of  procedure  can  be  obviated  only 
by  means  of  that  general  distribution  of  theologic  that  has 
been  now  proposed. 


FIEST  OR  GENERAL  DIVISION  OF  THEOLOGIC. 


THE  NATURE  OF  THEOLOGY, 


CONTENTS  OF  THE  GENERAL  DIVISION  OF  THEOLOGIC. 

Sec. 

13.  The  Subject  of  Tlieology. 

14.  The  Church  in  its  Relation  to  Theology. 

15.  Theology  as  a  Positive  Science. 

16.  Orthodox,  Supernaturalistic,  and  Rationalistic  Theology. 

17.  Sclileiermacher's  Religion  of  Feeling. 
IS.  Speculative  Theology. 

19.  The  Idea  of  Theology. 

20.  The  Distribution  of  Theology. 

21.  The  Relation  of  Theology  to  the  Church. 

22.  The  Relation  of  Theology  to  the  other  Sciences. 


MEANING  OF  THE  TEKM  "THEOLOGY."  187 


§  13.  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THEOLOGY. 

Theology,  like  any  other  science,  implies  a  definite  intellec- 
tual attitude  toward  a  definite  subject.  Hence,  if  its  own 
proper  nature  is  to  be  known,  this  can  be  accomplished  only 
by  defining  these  two  things — its  own  subject,  and  its  intel- 
lectual attitude  toward  that  subject.  Yov  this  purpose  it  is 
not  enough  to  go  back  to  the  etymological  signification  and 
the  classical  use  of  the  word  "  Theology,"  according  to  which 
it  signifies  generally  the  doctrine  of  God,  or  of  the  Gods  and 
their  relation  to  one  another.^  When  the  word  had  become  a 
regular  ecclesiastical  term,  it  was  understood  first  of  all  by 
the  Fathers  in  the  special  and  literal  sense  as  X0709  irepl  rod 
deov,  either  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  of  the  Son  of 
God  as  the  Logos,  and  so  it  passed  over  into  dogmatics  as  the 
technical  designation  of  the  locus  de  Deo.  According  to  its 
orii:[inal  meaning',  however,  the  word  was  also  suitable  as  a 
general  designation,  which  would  embrace  all  the  branches  of 
knowledge  belonging  to  Cliristian  divinity  ;  so  that  it  gradually 
obtained  its  comprehensive  historical  signification,  and  became 
the  designation  for  the  science  of  the  Christian  religion. 
Understood  in  this  sense,  in  accordance  with  its  present  use, 
theology  has  as  its  subject  Christianity  or  the  Christian 
religion.  But  with  what  degree  of  comprehensiveness 
theology  has  to  treat  this  its  subject,  the  most  general  con- 
sideration thereof  must  likewise  show,  inasmuch  as  it  belongs 
to  theology  to  determine  the  intellectual  attitude  wliich  it 
lias  to  assume  toward  its  subject. 

^  Compare  Cicero,  de  Natura  Deoruni,  iii.  21  ;  Stepliaiii  Thesaurus  Lingure 
GrseciE,  vol,  iii.  p.  4222.  [First  in  the  Mitklle  Ages  was  the  entire  circle  of 
Christian  doctrine  comprehended  under  the  term  "Theologia  Christiana;" 
although  even  then  the  word  was  employed— as,  for  example,  by  Abffilard — 
preferentially  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.     Hagenbach,  §  24.] 


188  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCL0PJ=:DIA. 

Christianity  as  the  Christian  religion  is  a  particular  form 
of  religion.  Empirically  considered,  religion  represents  itself 
generally  as  a  reciprocal  relationship  between  the  divine  and 
the  human.  As  a  characteristic  product  of  the  human  spirit, 
it  has,  like  everything  human,  its  historical  course,  and  during 
this  course  it  gives  itself  an  extraordinary  variety  and  multi- 
plicity of  expression.  Historically,  religion  appears  in  the 
form  of  a  multitude  of  separate  religious,  and  these  are  main- 
tained by  separate  nationalities,  which,  with  their  diverse 
religious  consciousness,  partly  continue  to  live  beside  one 
another,  partly  become  defunct,  and  leave  behind  only  a 
historical  tradition  of  their  religious  life  to  the  races  that  have 
followed  them.  To  a  long  series  of  religions  Christianity 
attaches  itself  as  a  particular  historical  religion.  In  so  far,  then, 
as  theology  has  Christianity  for  its  subject,  it  has  religion 
generally  for  its  subject,  inasmuch  as  the  particular  can  be 
understood  only  in  the  light  of  the  general ;  and  further, 
inasmuch  as  the  single  object  can  be  rightly  and  fully  known 
only  by  means  of  comparison  with  that  which  is  similar  to  it, 
Christianity  can  be  truly  appreciated  only  in  connection  with 
the  other  historical  religions,  and  so  Christianity  itself  also 
has  to  be  treated  as  a  historical  religion.  Hence  theology 
has  to  regard  as  its  subject  not  merely  the  doctrinal  contents 
of  Christianity,  or  the  truths  of  the  Christian  religion,  but 
Christianity  according  to  its  comprehensive  historical  reality, 
and  therefore  according  to  its  origin,  its  historical  develop- 
ment, and  its  present  condition.  Now  Christianity,  as  a 
historical  religion,  has  much  in  common  \\'ith  the  other 
historical  religions.  Of  all  these  it  is  characteristic,  not  only 
that  they  represent  themselves  as  having  a  historical  com- 
mencement, but  that  they  trace  back  their  origin  to  a  divine 
act.  They  all  alike  make  their  appearance  as  revealed 
religions.  Each  separate  race  of  the  human  family  confidently 
maintains  its  own  relationship  with  the  divine  through  an 
immediate  divine  manifestation,  and  on  this  assurance  lies  the 


CHEISTIANITY  AS  A  HISTOKICAL  IlELIGIOX.  189 

binding  and  uniting  power  of  all  religion.  The  revelation 
is  the  common  centre,  by  means  of  which  the  individual 
members  of  the  race  are  led  to  engage  in  one  way  in  the 
worship  of  the  divine.  Each  of  the  historical  religions,  there- 
fore, sets  itself  foi'th  empirically  as  the  common  worship  of 
the  divine.  This  applies  also  to  Christianity.  As  soon  as  it 
enters  into  history,  it  establishes  a  communion  of  all  those 
who  profess  that  they  are  bound  in  fellowship  witli  God 
tlu'ough  the  revelation  made  in  Christ.  This  communion  is 
the  Church ;  and  theology,  which  has  Christianity  for  its 
subject,  has  the  Church  for  its  presupposition. 


190  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.LDIA. 


§  U.  THE  CHURCH  IN  ITS  RELATION  TO  THEOLOGY. 

The  Church  is  the  organ  which  Christianity  has  created  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  a  witness  to  itself  in  history,  and  in 
order  properly  to  develop  the  entire  fulness  of  those  living 
aerms  that  are  contained  in  it.  One  of  the  most  important 
forms  in  which  this  life  obtains  expression  is  theology. 
Springing  out  of  the  innermost  interests  of  the  Christian 
community,  it  has  regarded  the  Church  as  the  mother  wliicli 
o-ave  it  life.  On  account  of  this  its  origin,  there  is  established 
between  Church  and  theology  a  constant  relationship  of  reci- 
procity ;  for  theology,  as  it  is  at  no  time  unaffected  by  the 
circumstances  and  condition  of  the  Church,  on  its  part  again 
always  reacts  upon  the  life  of  the  Church.  If  Christianity, 
historically  considered,  appears  as  a  religion  alongside  of  other 
religions,  it  presents  itself  in  altogether  a  different  manner 
when  regarded  from  the  ecclesiastical  point  of  view.  In  the 
revelation  which  proceeds  from  Christ  as  its  author,  the 
Church  beholds  the  highest  and  last  revelation.  The  revealed 
religion  which  it  has  received  constitutes  for  it  the  religion 
in  which  religious  truth  has  attained  its  most  perfect  manifes- 
tation. The  Church  regards  the  Christian  religion  as  the 
absolute  religion,  as  the  ideal  religion  ;  and,  in  the  conscious- 
ness that  it  has  thus  in  its  possession  absolute  religious  truth, 
advances  on  its  own  behalf  the  claim  that  it  should  liave  its 
place  not  simply  alongside  of,  but  superior  to,  all  otlier 
religious  communions.  This  is  tlie  presupposition  whicli 
includes  in  it  the  ground  and  ultimate  condition  of  the 
historical  existence  of  the  Church.  But  it  is  in  the  fact  of 
revelation  itself  that  the  Church  finds  the  absolute  guarantee 
for  the  truth  of  its  religious  consciousness  and  life.  It  knows 
that  it  did  not  give  itself  the  religion  which  it  professes,  but 


CHRISTIAN  FAITH  AND  THEOLOGY.  191 

that  it  has  received  it  by  means  of  a  divine  communication, 
and  that  consequently  its  confession  rests  upon  a  divine 
authority,  to  which  every  other  authority  must  be  traced  baclv. 
The  Christian  spirit,  therefore,  freely  adopts,  without  any 
further  reflection,  the  divine  truth  contained  in  that  revela- 
tion. Between  this  Christian  spirit  and  the  divine  truth  no 
difference  can  be  made.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  there  should 
be  any  special  and  direct  communication  in  regard  to  this. 
The  Christian  spirit  is  immediately  certain  of  divine  truth,  so 
that  it  rises  into  perfect  harmony  with  this  divine  truth,  and 
is  conscious  of  being  in  the  most  direct  way  determined  by  it. 
Inasmuch  as  the  Christian  religious  consciousness  is  the 
believing  consciousness,  the  Christian  religion  is  the  Christian 
faith,  and  the  Church  generally  the  communion  of  believers. 
Faith  is  the  solid  and  broad  substructure  upon  which  the 
Church  rests,  the  element  of  life  which  should  penetrate  all 
its  members,  and  bind  them  into  one  spiritual  whole. 

It  is,  however,  altogether  impossible  that  this  faith  should 
continue  to  be  expressed  in  the  Church  under  this  form  of 
simple,  immediate,  believing  consciousness.  There  are  various 
reasons — some  of  a  more  external,  others  of  a  more  spiritual 
kind — which  make  it  necessary  that  faith  should  pass  beyond 
this  sphere  of  immediateness  in  which  it  begins, — not  that 
faith  may  be  abandoned,  not  even  that  it  may  be  weakened, 
but  that  it  may  be  confirmed  and  established. 

Even  in  the  very  earliest  periods  of  the  Church,  reasons  of 
an  external  kind  had  commended  themselves,  and  they  have 
maintained  their  influence  throughout  the  whole  course  of  the 
Church's  history.  Seeing  that  the  Church,  immediately  upon 
its  appearance  in  history,  made  the  declaration  that  it  was  in 
possession  of  absolute  religious  truth,  and  seeing  that  it  was 
impelled  by  the  energy  of  its  faith  to  make  application  to  all 
mankind  of  that  definite  divine  truth  which  had  been  revealed 
to  it,  and  in  doing  so,  to  attempt  to  influence  ever  widening 
circles,  it  could  not  fail  to  come  into  conflict  with  the  religions 


192  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

existincr  around  it,  with  Judaism  and  heathenism,  and  with 
all  that  intellectual  and  spiritual  culture  which  upon  this  soil 
liad  already  sprung  up  so  luxuriantly.      But  if  the  Christian 
religion  is  to  obtain  recognition,  or  even  toleration,  from  those 
powers  of  the  religious  and  intellectual  life  with  which  it 
comes  in  contact,  and  if  it  is  to  win  tliese  over  to  itself,  as  it 
must  endeavour  to  do,  then  it  is  required  of  it  that  it  should 
not  only  vindicate  itself,  but  that,  along  with  this  vindication, 
it  should  likewise  give  evidence  of  that  higher  power  dwelling 
within  it,  w^hich  may  be  called  upon  to   secure  for   it   the 
victory  over  the  old  religions,  and  to  set  it  in  their  place. 
Now,  for  this  purpose  the  simple  declaration  of  faith  is  not 
sufficient ;    but    the    Christian   believing   consciousness   must 
make  its  own  contents  the  subject  of  its  consideration,  and  by 
means  of  reflection  upon  itself,  and  upon  that  which  is  in 
opposition  to  it,  give  an  exposition  of  its  own  contents,  so  as 
to  mark  out  a  distinction  between  itself  and  that  to  which  it 
is  opposed.      Out  of  this  tendency  grew  the  great  AjJoIogies 
for  Christianity,  as  they  appear  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  in  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  in 
the  apologetical  writings  of  the  second  and  third  centuries. 
This  apologetical  activity  does   not  absolutely  cease  at  any 
period  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  but  rather  will  have 
from  time   to  time  new  occasions  for  its  exercise,  although 
indeed  always  in  a  form  modified  by  attendant  circumstances. 
Set  down  in  the  very  midst  of  the  spiritual  life  of  the  human 
race,  the  Church  comes  ever  more  and  more  into  conflict  with 
extra-Christian  religious  communions,  or  antichristian  endea- 
vours, and,  in  opposition  to  them,  has  to  vindicate  and  make 
rrood  that  truth  of  which  it  makes  profession. 

But  yet  more  pressing  than  those  influences  which  impel 
the  Church  from  without,  are  the  influences  which  from 
within  the  Church  itself  lead  faith  away  beyond  that  sphere 
which  originally  is  proper  to  it.  The  declaration  which  pro- 
ceeds from  the  Church  is,  indeed,  constantly  wrought  up  into 


INTELLECTUAL  GROUNDS  OF  CHRISTIAN  FAITH.  193 

the  faith  ;  but,  outside  of  the  believing  consciousness,  believers 
have  likewise  an  intellectual  and  spiritual  life  determined  in 
another  direction,  which,  however,  they  cannot  separate  from 
that  believing  consciousness,  but  must  rather  join  it  therewith 
by  a  deep  spiritual  bond.  It  belongs  to  the  very  nature  of 
the  human  spirit  to  make  thoroughly  its  own  all  the  contents 
which  it  receives  into  itself  by  means  of  an  independent 
activity  in  keeping  with  its  own  laws,  and  to  bring  those 
contents  into  harmony  with  its  own  spiritual  life.  In  con- 
sequence of  this  instinct  and  tendency  of  the  human  mind, 
the  believer  will  also  be  obliged  to  make  the  contents  of  his 
faith  the  subject  of  his  reflection,  and  to  compare  it  with  the 
rest  of  the  contents  of  his  consciousness.  It  will  thus  be 
necessary  for  him  to  convert  that  immediate  certainty  of 
religious  truth,  which  he  possessed  from  the  first,  into  a 
certainty  mediated  by  this  comparison  of  the  various  contents 
of  his  consciousness ;  and  just  thereby  will  he  gain  that  unity 
in  his  spiritual  life  without  which  the  human  spirit  cannot 
exist.  This  spiritual  process,  moreover,  because  it  rests  upon 
a  love  of  knowledge  and  truth  that  w^ill  not  remain  ungratified, 
makes  its  appearance  also  in  the  very  beginnings  of  the 
Church's  history.  The  Christian  faith  must  pass  through 
such  inward  struggles,  in  order  to  strengthen,  itself  in  them, 
and  in  order  that  it  may  strike  its  roots  always  deeper  into 
the  life  of  the  community.  Qui  facile  credit,  facile  rcccclit. 
The  Apostle  Paul  in  the  realm  of  Judaism,  and  Augustine  in 
the  realm  of  heathenism,  are  conspicuous  examples  of  this 
struggle.  Thus  even  in  the  earliest  times  the  <yvo)cjL<i,  the 
knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the.  faith  mediated  by  its  own 
intellectual  activity,  joined  itself  with  the  TrlaTL^;,  the  direct, 
simple,  immediate  faith  ;  and  this  intellectual  elaboration  of 
faith  is  a  process  that  can  never  wholly  cease  within  the 
Church.  The  more  manifold  and  many-sided  the  intellectual 
and  spiritual  life  of  the  community  as  a  whole  becomes,  the 
more  varied  also  will  become  the  degrees  of  culture  into 
VOL.  I.  N 


194  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPzEDIA. 

which  individual  believers  will  attain.  While  many  believers, 
doubtless,  find  full  satisfaction  in  plain  and  simple  faith, 
there  are,  on  the  other  hand,  a  great  many  (and  those,  agaiu, 
individuals  brought  up  in  all  the  varying  degrees  of  culture) 
who  demand  for  their  faith  a  confirmation  and  demonstration 
corresponding  to  their  culture.  In  the  very  midst  of  the 
Church  itself,  indeed,  a  thoroughly  independent  intellectual 
life  of  culture  has  been  developed,  which  insists  that  Christian 
truth  be  made  the  subject  of  a  most  searching  examination  if 
that  truth  is  not  merely  to  continue  associated  with  it,  but 
also  is  to  be  accepted  as  its  foundation,  and  as  indicating  its 
ideal  direction.  This  same  spiritual  result,  which  the  blending 
of  faith  with  general  culture  has  in  view,  is  also  further 
called  forth  by  means  of  the  doctrinal  activity  which  has  its 
origin  within  the  Church.  If  the  faith  is  to  be  more  widely 
spread,  and  to  be  made  intelligible  to  individuals  of  the  most 
diverse  intellectual  capacities,  the  contents  thereof  must  be 
more  and  more  developed,  and  its  principal  elements  have 
expression  given  them.  The  faith  expands  into  Christian 
doctrine,  in  which  the  truths  of  faith  have  been  brought  near 
and  rendered  accessible  to  the  understanding  of  the  Christian 
community.  An  official  order  that  would  concern  itself  with 
this  Christian  doctrine  becomes  a  necessity  for  the  Church ; 
and  the  official  teachers  of  doctrine  must  be  furnished  with 
the  necessary  acquirements  in  order  that  they  may  adequately 
fulfil  this  task.  In  the  course  of  this  doctrinal  development, 
however,  differences  in  doctrine  also  make  their  appearance, 
and  these  necessitate  the  much  more  difficult  undertaking  of 
setting  up,  for  the  settling  of  these  differences,  a  doctrinal 
standard  for  the  community  as  a  whole  ;  and  the  difficulty  of 
this  was  greatly  enhanced  when  these  doctrinal  differences 
rent  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  led  to  the  establishment  of 
separate  ecclesiastical  communions.  Ever  since  this  separation 
took  place,  the  interests  of  the  faith  became  associated  pre- 
eminently with  the  established  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and 


THEOLOGY  THE  NECESSARY  PRODUCT  OF  CIIUECn  LIFE.     195 

were  directed  against  all  those  who  refused  to  give  to  this 
doctrine  their  approval,  and  who  rather  adopted  a  type  of 
doctrine  in  conflict  with  it.  A  polemical  activity  now  begins, 
and  just  in  proportion  as  the  assertion  of  those  doctrinal 
differences  which  stand  opposed  to  one  another  in  the  principal 
divisions  of  the  Church  becomes  exact  and  definite,  this 
polemical  element  assumes  greater  dimensions.  No  doubt  the 
endeavour  made  by  those  contradictory  doctrinal  views  to 
obtain  the  support  of  the  different  ecclesiastical  bodies  gave 
illustration  to  the  contents  of  the  faith  from  the  most  diverse 
points  of  view,  and  secured  for  them  an  ever  extending 
development.  Yet  even  from  the  earliest  times  a  systematiz- 
ing activity  was  seeking  to  root  deeply  the  conviction  regarding 
the  truths  of  faith  by  grouping  them  firmly  together  into  a 
comprehensive  doctrinal  system,  and  to  advance  toward  the 
construction  of  such  a  system  by  means  of  a  deeper  acquaint- 
ance with  Christian  truth.  And  this  is  an  activity  which 
developed  itself  all  the  more  successfully,  in  proportion  as 
the  confessions  of  the  separate  Churches  the  more  clearly 
enunciated  their  characteristic  principles  in  opposition  to  one 
another. 

All  those  activites  which  proceeded  from  the  bosom  of  the 
Christian  community,  and  which  advanced  the  Christian  life 
thereof  in  the  most  diverse  directions,  are  theological  activities, 
and  find  their  common  centre  in  the  science  of  theology. 
Consequently  theology  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  phenomenon 
existing  by  mere  chance  or  called  into  being  by  mere  caprice, 
and  therefore  transient,  but  it  rather  shows  itself  to  be  a 
necessary  product  of  the  believing  consciousness  in  the  Church, 
a  necessary  function  of  life  springing  out  of  the  Church 
organism,  and  continually  active  in  it — the  continued  existence 
of  which  is  coincident  with  the  continuance  of  the  Church 
itself.  So  long  as  there  is  a  Christian  Church,  so  long  must 
there  be  a  Christian  theology.  In  so  far  then  as  Christianity 
receives  its  subject,  Christianity,  from  the  Church,  it  receives 


196  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

this  not  merely  as  a  historical  religion,  but  as  the  religion 
that  realizes  the  idea,  the  ideal  religion.  Hence  theology  has 
to  make  the  organism  of  the  Church  itself  the  subject  of  its 
consideration,  by  means  of  which  and  in  which  this  idea  finds 
its  most  adequate  realization.  And  thus  it  happens  as  a 
consequence  of  its  very  origin,  that  theology  has  not  for  its 
subject  a  merely  outward  object  standing  over  against  itself, 
which  it  has  to  treat  in  a  purely  historical  manner.  As 
theology  has  grown  up  out  of  the  faith,  which  bears  in  itself 
the  idea  of  religion,  it  must  have  as  the  very  groundworks  of 
its  structure  the  heartiest  spiritual  sympathy  with  its  subject.-^ 
Theology  in  no  way  excludes  faith  from  it,  but  is  rather  itself 
only  a  spiritually  potentiated  faith-consciousness.  What  is 
quite  properly  demanded  of  the  philosopher,  that  he  must 
bring  the  ideas  of  his  system  into  agreement  with  the  facts  of 
his  life,  may  be  demanded  in  like  manner  of  the  theologian. 
Definitions  of  theology  such  as  often  appear  in  history, 
according  to  which  theology  should  be  a  scholarly  cognition 
of  the  Christian  religion,  or  of  the  truths  of  the  Christian 
religion,  or  a  summary  of  the  scientific  acquirements  and 
technical  rules  which  belong  to  Christianity,  make  theology 
an  abstract  theory  of  Christianity,  a  mere  exercise  of  erudition, 
which  under  certain  circumstances  might  be  developed  and 
produced  by  one  who  v/as  not  himself  a  Christian.  On  the 
contrary,  the  heartiest  personal  conviction  of  the  truth  of  the 

1  "  Theology  stands  within  the  pale  of  Christianity  ;  and  only  that  dogmatic 
theologian  can  be  esteemed  the  organ  of  his  science,  who  is  also  the  organ  of 
his  Church — which  is  not  the  case  with  the  mere  philosopher,  whose  only  aim 
is  to  promote  the  cause  of  pure  science.  This  desire  to  attain  an  intelligent 
faith  of  which  dogmatics  is  the  product,  this  intellectual  love  of  Christian 
truth,  which  should  be  found  especially  in  the  teachers  of  the  Church,  is 
inseparable  from  a  personal  experience  of  Christian  truth.  And,  as  this 
intellectual  apprehension  of  what  faith  is  grows  out  of  personal  faith,  modified 
by  a  recognition  of  the  experience  of  other  believers,  so  its  ultimate  aim  is  to 
benefit  the  community  of  believers,  and  bring  fruit  to  the  Church.  AVe  may 
say,  therefore,  that  dogmatic  theology  nears  its  goal  just  in  proportion  as  it 
satisfies  equally  the  demands  of  science  and  of  the  Church."  Martensen, 
Christian  Dogmatics,  §  2.— Ed. 


THE  THEOLOGIAN  A  CHRISTIAN  MAN.  197 

idea  which  it  has  for  contents  must  form  the  living  nerve  of 
theology,  must  constitute  the  ethical  basis  on  which  it  rests. 
This  embraces  the  habitus  practicus  and  the  oratio,  which  by 
the  older  theologians  were  rightly  claimed  for  theology.^ 

If  this  ethical  attitude  of  theology  results  necessarily 
from  the  very  nature  of  its  source  and  from  the  very 
character  of  its  subject,  then  is  it  all  the  more  a  nice 
and  difficult  point  to  determine  properly  the  meditatio,  the 
intellectual  attitude,  wliich  it  has  to  assume  toward  its 
subject. 

1  Turretine  has  very  clearly  expressed  himself  in  regard  to  this  twofold  aim 
of  theology: — Inter  orthodoxos  nonnulli  etiani  mere  practicam,  plures  mixti 
generis  ;  aed  alii  magis  speculativam,  alii  magis  practicam  statuunt.  Ad  qnos 
accedimus,  censemusque  theologiam  nee  esse  simpliciter  theoreticam,  nee 
simpliciter  practicam  ;  sed  partim  theoreticam,  partim  practicam,  utpote  qua 
simul  conjungit  theoriam  veii  et  praxim  boni ;  magis  tamen  esse  practicam 
quam  theoreticam.  Disciplini  theoretica  dicitur,  qn«;  in  sola  contemplatione 
occupatur,  et  finem  alium  non  habit  a  cognitione  ;  practica,  qute  non  subsistit 
in  sola  rei  notitia,  sed  natura  sua  et  per  se  tendit  ad  praxim,  et  pro  fine  habit 
operationem.  .  .  .  Theologia  non  posteriori  tantum  sensu,  sed  priori  dicitur 
practica. —Institutio,  Locus  Primus,  Qurestio  vii.  2,  3.  The  phrases  quoted 
above  are  commonplaces  in  the  older  theology.  Luthardt  in  his  Compendium, 
§  2,  4,  quotes  from  Hollaz  the  Media  studii  theologici :— oratio,  meditatio, 
tentatio.  Oratio,  studium  theologiae  inchoat,  meditatio,  continuat,  tentatio 
consolidat. — Ed. 


198  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.-EDIA, 


§  15.  THEOLOGY  AS  A  POSITIVE  SCIE^'CE. 

In  so  far  as  theology  has  for  its  subject  Christianity,  as  a 
historical  religion,  and  especially  as  a  historical  revealed 
religion,  it  is  a  positive  science.  As  such,  it  takes  a  place 
alongside  of  the  other  positive  sciences,  but  it  has  a  character 
essentially  different  from  them.  Jurisprudence,  medicine, 
natural  science,  the  science  of  languages,  the  science  of  his- 
tory are  also  positive  sciences,  because  they  do  not  furnisli 
themselves  with  their  own  subject-matter,  but  come  upon  this 
as  something  historically  or  naturally  given,^  This  positivity 
of  their  subject-matter  in  no  way  hinders  the  sciences  above 
named  from  solving  their  scientific  problem  in  i-egard  to  it. 

^  We  use  the  term  "positive"  in  the  sense  assigned  to  it  above.  Others, 
such  as  Schelling,  Vorlesungen,  p.  159  ;  Schleiermacher,  Darstellung,  §  1,  and 
after  him,  Hagenbach,  §22,  and  Pelt,  p.  15  f.,  wish  to  apply  it  to  certain 
practical  conditions  and  relationships,  such  as  State  and  Church,  and  call  those 
sciences  positive  which  serve  for  the  solution  of  a  practical  problem.  [So,  too, 
Rothe,  Encyclopa?die,  p.  2,  defines  a  positive  science  ein  Gauzes  von  Erkennt- 
nissen,  which  addresses  itself  to  a  practical  problem,  and  then  adds  that 
theology  is  a  practical  science.]  The  term  positive  science  is  therefore 
syuouymous  with  that  of  practical  or  applied  science  ;  and  among  the  positive 
sciences  are  reckoned  only  theology,  jurisprudence,  and  medicine.  We  regard 
this  use  of  the  word  as  incorrect.  For  also  natural  science,  the  science  of 
language,  and  the  science  of  history,  and  above  all,  philosophy,  if  indeed  they 
do  not  so  directly  afford  service  to  the  State  and  the  Church,  as  theology, 
jurisprudence,  and  medicine,  will  yet  be  found  to  contribute  to  the  civil  well- 
being,  and  to  the  culture  existing  in  Church  and  State,  and  hence  may  also 
la}'^  claim  to  be  regarded  as  positive  sciences.  When,  therefore,  the  expression 
is  taken  in  this  sense,  as  identical  with  practical  or  applied,  it  is  too  general  to 
be  used  for  indicating  a  distinction  among  tlie  sciences,  and,  seeing  that  in 
that  case  it  would  apply  equally  to  all  the  sciences,  it  would  be  upon  the  whole 
superfluous.  The  term  "positive"  should  rather  serve  to  distinguish  certain 
sciences  from  pliilosophy,  as  a  science  not  positive  ;  and  it  serves  for  this  onlj' 
if  it  is  taken  in  the  sense  assigned  to  it  above.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  other 
meaning  be  given  to  it,  the  result  is  that  unclearness  is  introduced  in  regard 
to  the  relation  of  the  diflerent  sciences  to  one  another,  as  indeed  is  specially 
observable  in  Hagenbach,  Eneyclopiedie,  §  22.  [Compare  also  Nitzsch,  System 
of  Christian  Doctrine,  English  translation,  Edinburgh  1849,  T.  and  T.  Clark, 
§  17,  Remark  3.  J 


PHILOSOPHY  AND  THE  POSITIVE  SCIENCES.  199 

Since  their  subject-matter  presents  itself  to  them  with  no  other 
authority  than  that  of  a  historical  fact  or  given  reality,  it  is 
allowable  for  them  to  relate  themselves  to  it  with  the  most 
perfect  freedom,  and,  by  means  of  the  laws  that  are  proper 
to  spiritual  phenomena,  to  make  it  intelligible  and  compre- 
hensible to  a  spiritual  intelligence.  Hence  those  sciences  do 
not  come  into  any  real,  irreconcilable  conflict  with  philosophy. 
Philosophy  distinguishes  itself  from  the  positive  or  experi- 
mental sciences  by  this,  that  it  comes  upon  its  subject,  not  as 
something  given,  but  as  something  produced  by  the  energy  of 
its  own  thinking  from  the  life  of  the  spirit,  and  as  receiving 
into  itself  anything  presented  from  without  only  when  that 
proves  itself  to  be  in  agreement  with  the  laws  of  thought,  so 
that  it  embraces,  as  an  organic  whole,  the  entire  field  of 
human  knowledge,  bound  into  one  system  by  means  of  the 
logic  of  the  spirit.  Now  the  positive  sciences,  instead  of 
being  hostile  to  philosophy,  are  rather  dependent  upon  it, 
inasmuch  as  only  from  this  organized  system  of  knowledge 
can  they  unhesitatingly  derive  the  ideas  which  belong  to  the 
departments  with  which  those  sciences  have  to  do.  In  their 
investigations  of  detail  they  must  carry  with  them  those 
philosophical  ideas  as  guiding  stars,  and  it  is  just  by  the 
application  of  these  principles  that  the  positive  sciences  will 
be  able  to  solve  the  scientific  problem  in  reference  to  the 
subject  assigned  them.  All  this  is  true  in  regard  to  juris- 
prudence, the  science  of  language,  the  science  of  history,  yet 
it  is  not  on  this  account  to  be  asserted  that  these  sciences  are 
not  to  be  represented  also  as  purely  exact  sciences,  but  only, 
that  before  the  tribunal  of  philosophy,  they  must  vindicate 
their  claim  to  be  regarded  as  such  by  means  of  their  results. 

With  theology,  on  the  other  hand,  the  case  is  altogether 
different,  and  just  at  this  point  the  most  serious  diOiculty,  in 
reference  to  the  scientific  construction  of  theology,  arises. 
Tlieology  comes  upon  its  subject,  Christianity,  not  merely  as 
a  something  historically  given,  but  as  something  historically 


200  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

revealed.  It  has  for  its  subject  a  divine  revelation,  and, 
indeed,  a  revelation  to  which  the  religion  of  humanity, 
according  to  the  understanding  of  the  Church,  has  been  com- 
municated in  the  most  perfect  manner — the  very  idea  of 
religion.  As  a  positive  science,  theology  is  the  science  of 
revelation.  Practically,  then,  revelation  lies  before  theology 
according  to  its  essential  content  as  a  religious  system 
objectively  set  forth,  which  was  communicated  by  Christ  to 
its  first  professors,  and  in  part  transmitted  by  means  of 
tradition  from  the  apostolic  age,  in  part  deposited  in  Holy 
Scripture  by  the  inspired  authors  under  the  influence  of  the 
Divine  Spirit.  From  both,  that  is,  from  tradition  and  from 
Holy  Scripture,  there  were  then  still  further  doctrinal  pro- 
positions derived,  which,  sanctioned  by  the  divine  authority 
of  the  Church  and  of  Holy  Scripture,  advanced  likewise  a 
claim  to  divine  authorization.  This  compound  of  Scripture 
and  Church  doctrine  is  the  divine  truth  which  forms  the 
essential  subject  of  theology,  and  the  demonstration  of  its 
truth  consists  in  the  fact  of  divine  revelation.  On  the  ground 
of  this  its  inherent  divine  positivity,  the  Christian  religion 
must  energetically  repudiate  any  endeavour  to  apply  to  it  any 
human  measure.  That  theology,  indeed,  like  the  other 
positive  sciences,  should  be  allowed  to  borrow  the  idea  of  its 
subject,  the  idea  of  religion,  from  a  philosophical  system,  and 
with  this  philosophical  idea  of  religion  to  approach  the 
Christian  religion,  in  order  to  subject  it  to  criticism  according 
to  the  standard  of  that  idea,  would  be  a  course  of  procedure 
in  thorough  contradiction  to  the  character  of  tlie  Christian 
religion.  As  a  divine  revelation,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the 
absolute  revelation,  it  must  rather  claim  the  unconditioned 
subordination  of  the  human  reason  and  human  tliinking,  and 
therefore  of  philosophy  in  general,  but  pre-eminently  of  that 
science  which  specially  is  concerned  with  it,  that  is,  theology, 
and  consequently  also  of  the  other  sciences  of  experience. 
Philosophy  would  acquiesce  in  this  demand,  if  it  were  con- 


RELATIONS  OF  PHILOSOPHY,  THEOLOGY,  AND  CHUKCII.      201 

vinced,  by  its  investigations  of  Christian  doctrine,  that   this 
doctrine  was  in  agreement  with  the  laws  of  its  own  thinking 
and  with  its    ideas  of  reason.      But   if  the    content  of  the 
Scripture  and  Cliurcli  doctrine  appears  to  it  to  be  in  any  part 
utterly  inconceivable,  and  in  direct  conflict  with  reason,  then 
philosophy  must  make   a  thoroughgoing  protest  against  that 
subordination,  and  must  assert  over  against  Christian  doctrine 
the  right  of  reason  to  apply  a  spiritual  test  to  everything  that 
has  been  supplied  from  without,  and  adopt  as  true  only  that 
which  does  not  contradict  the  logic  of  the  Spirit,  and  whicli 
is   in  harmony  with  the  claims   of  reason.      This   protest  of 
X)hilosophy  must  therefore  direct  itself  also  against  theology, 
if  theology  enters  into  that  relation  of  subordination,  so  as  to 
allow  itself  to  be  unconditionally  determined  by  revelation, 
and    to   set  for   itself  only   the  problem   of  vindicating  the 
Scripture   and  Church  doctrine  as  the  absolute  divine   truth. 
During  the  Middle  Ages  this  was   in  general  the  character 
of  the  Church  theology.      As' the  Church  was  the  depository  of 
divine  truth,  with  which  it  dominated  all  human  relationships, 
the  family,  society,  the  State,  theology  was  placed  wholly  at 
the  service  of  the  Church.     As  the  scientific  representative  of 
the  doctrine  of  revelation  which  she  maintained,  the  Church 
dominated     all     departments     of     human     knowledge,     and 
philosophy  among  the  rest.      It  would  even  admit  only  one 
truth,  the  doctrine  sanctioned  by  the  Church  and  promulgated 
by  theology.       Philosophy,  in   so   far  as   it  was   allowed  an 
entrance  into  the  theological  domain,  was  the  handmaid  of 
theology,  and  had  no  other  task  than  that  of  assisting  theology 
to  a  knowledge  of  the  firmly  held  truths  of  faith.      In  con- 
sequence  of  the    complete   dependence  of   philosopliy    upon 
theology,    it    was    impossible    that    during    this    period    any 
conflict  should  arise  between  the  two.      Since  the   times   of 
the  Eeformation  the  case  has  been  quite  different.      In  regard 
to    science,   the   Eeformation  deserves  the    credit  of   having 
emancipated  it  from  the  Church,  of  making  scientific  investiga- 


202  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

tion  free  from  those  outward  ecclesiastical  restraints  under 
which  it  had  been  previously  held.  This,  however,  only 
applies  to  secular  science.  Even  Protestant  theology  entered 
very  soon  again  into  that  relation  of  dependence,  inasmuch  as 
it  placed  itself  altogether  under  the  authority  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture and  under  the  authority  of  the  Church  doctrine,  and,  in 
the  consciousness  of  possessing  a  divinely  revealed  truth, 
exalted  itself  above  all  the  other  sciences.-'  Nevertheless  the 
universal  supremacy  of  theology  was  now  broken.  Since 
philosophy  was  freed  by  means  of  the  Eeformation  from  the 
fetters  of  ecclesiasticism,  and  did  now,  in  accordance  with  its 
own  peculiar  principles,  extend  its  investigations  ever  farther 
and  farther  without  reference  to  Church  and  theology,  it  soon 
raised  itself  to  the  position  of  an  independent  power,  and  set 
over  against  the  ecclesiastically  and  theologically  sanctioned 
truth,  that  truth  \yhich  had  been  found  out  by  itself  as 
equally  well  authenticated.  The  more  the  general  intellectual 
and  spiritual  life  in  the  domain  of  Protestantism  developed 
itself  in  a  catholic  manner,  the  more  clearly  did  the  far- 
reaching  divergence,  not  only  in  all  the  departments  of  science, 
Imt  also  in  all  the  circles  of  life,  come  into  consciousness, — 
the  divergence  between  revelation  and  reason,  between  Church 
and  science,  between  di\dne  and  human,  between  theological 
and  philosophical  truth.  "With  this  consciousness,  however, 
there  was  also  inseparably  joined  the  conviction  that  the 
present  opposition  could  not  be  one  admitting  of  no  arrange- 
ment, that  it  is  impossible  that  there  should  be  a  double 
truth,  a  revealed  and  a  rational,  a  theological  and  a  philo- 
sophical,—  a  conviction,  in  short,  that  truth  can  be  only  one. 

1  What  Baur  in  his  Dogmengescliichte,  \-ol.  ii.  p.  212,  says  of  the  MitUne 
Age  scholastic  theology:  "An  exalting  of  itself  over  the  credere,  the  content 
of  faith  given  by  the  Church,  deriving  the  intelUrjere  of  the  s.nme  from  another 
principle  than  the  source  of  the  immediately  divine  revelation,  lay  altogether 
outside  of  the  range  of  vision  of  scholasticism,"  may  also  in  all  essential 
respects  be  applied  to  the  Protestant  scholastic  theology.  Compare  the  same 
work  of  Baur,  vol.  iii.  p.  35  ff. 


RELATION  OF  MODERN  THEOLOGY  TO  PHILOSOniY.         203 

As  this  conflict  is  a  product  of  modern  times,  so  to  these  times 
belongs  the  task  of  reconciliation.  Philosophy,  in  so  far  as 
it  does  not  relate  itself  in  a  purely  negative  manner  to 
Christianity  and  the  Church,  has  recognised  this  to  be  one  of 
its  most  important  tasks ;  but  also  theology  could  not  fail  to 
reach  this  same  conviction,  and  has,  indeed,  carried  on  its 
spiritual  development  under  the  influence  of  it.  Since  in 
earlier  times  theology  had  itself  farmed  one  side  of  the  contra- 
diction, the  contradiction  is  now  thrust  within  its  own  borders, 
and  above  all,  it  is  now  required  o-f  theology  that  it  should 
furnish  an  answer  to  the  question  as  to  the  proper  relation  of 
I'eason  to  revelation,  and  that  it  should  in  this  way  determine 
the  attitude  which  it  ought  to^  assume  towards  its  subject. 
If  the  theology  of  the  present  is  in  perfect  consistency  to  take 
it°  place  at  the  standpoint  of  a  belief  in  revelation,  and  in 
this  form  to  assert  itself  as  a  positive  science,  it  should  relate 
itself  to  its  subject  in  a  purely  passive  and  receptive  manner, 
and  should  only  busy  itself,  as  Kant  insists  that  it  should, 
with  giving  expression  to  certain  statutory  propositions 
according  to  a  certain  formalism  and  schematism.  As 
theology,  in  such  a  form,  could  advance  no  claim  to  be 
regarded  as  scientific,  the  loss  of  reputation  would  soon  be 
followed  by  the  withdrawal  of  all  attention  to  its  study,  and 
so  the  subject  itself,  of  which  it  has  to  treat,  would  suffer  the 
extremest  damage.  If  theology  is  to.  accomplish  independently, 
whether  it  be  in  accordance  with  philosophy  or  in  opposition 
to  it,  the  most  important  task  of  tlie  present,  if  it  is  to  show 
Christianity  in  its  universal  authorization,  and  the  Church  as 
the  organization  necessary  for  its  realization,  it  must  allow 
itself  to  be  led  in  regard  to  its  subject,  not  only  by  a  historical, 
nor  even  by  a  merely  ecclesiastical  or  religious  interest,  but 
by  the  interests  of  the  truth  ;  and  therefore  its  intellectual 
attitude  towards  its  subject  must  be  so  determined  that, 
although  it  is  a  positive  science,  and  a  science  of  revelation,  it 
will  yet  obtain  acknowledgment  and  acceptance  by  means  of 


204  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.'EDIA. 

its  similarity  in  character  to  the  other  sciences.  For  this 
purpose  it  would  seem  desirable  to  enter  upon  a  dialectical 
investigation  of  the  relations  between  revelation  and  reason. 
TJiis,  however,  belongs  to  another  part  of  the  theological 
system  ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  in  this  place,  where  the 
present  has  to  be  linked  on  to  the  past,  the  historical  way  to 
be  taken  has  to  be  pointed  out.  In  the  history  of  theology 
various  tendencies  make  their  appearance,  which  represent 
themselves  as  separate  phases  of  the  development  of  theology. 
But  their  separateness,  and  the  conflict  which  they  wage  with 
one  another,  are  essentially  conditioned  by  the  different 
position  which  they  assign  to  reason  in  reference  to  revelation. 
Hence  is  it  possible,  and  at  the  same  time  most  to  the 
purpose,  to  determine  by  means  of  criticism  the  relation  in 
which  theology  must  stand  to  revelation,  if  it  is  to  be  at  all 
reckoned  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word  a  science,  and  if  it  is 
to  advance  the  claim  to  be  regarded  as  such. 


WHAT  IS  THE  OKTHODOX  THEOLOGY  ?  205 


§  IG.  THE  ORTHODOX,  SUPERNATURALISTIC,  AND 
RATIONALISTIC  THEOLOGY. 

The  theology  of  the  Church  in  its  precise  and  positive  form 
of  expression,  as  it  has  been  described  in  the  previous  para- 
graph, is  the  orthodox  theology.  Its  foundation  was  laid  as 
far  back  as  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  and  since  that 
period  it  has  succeeded  in  maintaining  its  supremacy,  pretty 
generally,  through  all  the  centuries  down  to  recent  times. 
The  principle  upon  which  it  rests  is  a  purely  supernatural 
one :  the  presupposition  of  an  immediate  divine  revelation. 
Objective  Christianity,  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  of  the 
Church,  claims  to  be  the  revealed  divine  truth  which,  in  its 
whole  extent  and  in  its  historical  definiteness,  is  to  be 
received  and  firmly  held  by  Christian  faith.  Hence  it  bears 
the  honourable  name  of  the  orthodox  theology  {rechtglaulige, 
orthodoxe  theologie),  and  has  pre-eminently  assigned  it  the  task 
of  adducing  the  proof,  that  it  is  not  a  mere  individual  intellec- 
tual activity  which  theology  as  well  as  faith  has  to  exercise 
upon  the  object  of  faith,  in  order  that  the  subjective  convic- 
tion of  the  truth  of  that  object  of  faith  may  first  be  won  and 
its  intellectual  appropriation  effected,  but  that  rather  the 
contents  of  faith  are  absolutely  authenticated  by  means  of  the 
i'acts  of  revelation,  and  that,  as  thus  authenticated,  they 
demand  an  unconditional  acknowledgment.  So  Tertullian, 
who,  in  that  peculiar  intellectual  and  spiritual  movement 
v.-hich  was  called  forth  by  Christianity  among  the  men  of 
])hilosophical  culture  of  that  age,  first  of  all  after  Irenreus, 
maintained  with  the  utmost  decision  the  objectivity  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  over  against  all  subjective-gnostic  inter- 
pretations, characterizes  in  the  most  exact  manner  this  stand- 
point of  his  theology  by  his  well-known   saying :  credo,  quia 


206  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOr^DIA. 

absurdum  est}  Not  only  is  there  denied  to  the  credere  every 
kind  of  intellectual  activity,  such  as  would  present  the  object 
of  faith  in  a  form  subjectively  acceptable,  but  it  is  just  the 
bare  contradiction  to  human  reason  that  is  laid  down  as  the 
very  foundation  of  the  faith,  inasmuch  as  thereby,  all  the 
more  convincingly,  a  guarantee  to  the  divinity  of  the  object  of 
i'aith  is  aftbrded. 

According  to  the  relation  in  which  the  orthodox  theology 
stands  to  a  particular  theory  of  the  Church,  it  obtains  a 
peculiar  character  of  its  own.  By  the  Eoman  Catholic 
Church,  Scripture  and  tradition  are  claimed  as  the  sources  of 
divine  revelation,  but  the  miracle  of  revelation  is  carried  on 
within  the  Church  itself.  In  consequence  of  this  the  Church 
receives  the  doniim  infallihilitatis,  the  gift  of  infallibility, 
graciously  bestowed,  whether  this  be  regarded  as  a  quality 
resting  in  the  fellowship  of  the  bishops  of  the  whole  Church 
gathered  together  in  councils,  or  in  the  one  person  of  the 
Roman  Pontiff.  By  means  of  the  infallible  Church  the  divine 
revelation  contained  in  Scripture  and  tradition  is,  on  the  one 
hand,  further  developed,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  is  more 
surely  grounded  as  to  its  objectivity,  because,  while  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  is  sanctioned  by  Scripture  and  tradi- 
tion, the  Scripture  itself  is  withheld  from  the  laity,  its 
exposition  is  determined  by  the  unanimis  ecclcsice  consensus, 
and  is  also  confined  to  a  translation  sanctioned  by  the  Church, 
and  to  the  judgment   of   the   Church.^     Hence  the  orthodox 

1  De  Came  Christi,  cap.  5.  [In  the  15th  chapter  of  the  same  treatise 
TertuUian  says  :  Natus  est  Dei  Filius  ;  non  pudet,  quia  ]iudendum  est.  Et 
niortuus  est  Dei  Filius  ;  prorsus  credibile  est,  quia  ineptum  est.  Et  sepultus 
resurrexit  ;  certum  est,  quia  impossibile  est.  Irenseus,  in  his  polemic  against 
the  undue  speculative  curiosity  of  Gnosticism,  maintained  a  doctrine  of  the 
limits  of  religious  thought,  and  insists  on  the  inadequacy  of  our  knowledge  of 
divine  things,  in  order  at  once  to  depreciate  philosophy  and  to  guard  against  its 
employment  in  the  study  of  matters  of  revelation.  See  Ueberwcg,  History  of 
Philosophy,  vol.  i.  303,  304  :  and  Pressense,  Martyrs  and  Apologists,  Bk.  ii. 
chap.  3,  §  2.] 

^  Compare  Carl  Hase,  Handbucli  der  protestantisclien  Polemik  gegen  die 
romische-katholische  Kirche.     1st  edition,  p.  IS  If. 


ORTHODOXY  IN  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CIIURCII.  207 

theology  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  is  subjected  to  an 
ecclesiastical  authority  as  much  as  to  a  divine,  and  therefore 
places  its  members  under  a  religious  obligation  to  accept 
unconditionally  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  With  it  the 
incontestable  presupposition  is  the  credere,  that  is,  the  holding 
iast  to  the  doctrine  sanctioned  by  the  Church.  All  that 
remains  for  it  to  do  over  and  above  amounts  simply  to  this, 
— to  rise  to  an  insight  into  the  doctrine,  without  venturing 
to  work  any  change  whatever  upon  it.  The  motto  of  this 
theology,  as  it  was  indeed  expressly  laid  down  by  Anselm  of 
Canterbury  (d.  1109),  is  the  credo  ut  intellujaon.  In  regard 
to  the  faith  prevailing  in  the  Church,  no  attempt  is  to  be 
made  to  shake  it,  no  expression  of  doubt  can  be  allowed  ;  the 
problem  can  only  be  how  to  make  it  the  subject  of  intel- 
lectual apprehension  {Inielligcrc).  With  rare  energy  the 
scholastic  theology  of  the  Middle  Ages  prosecuted  this  end, 
and  employed  upon  this  all  the  resources  of  philosophy  at  its 
command.  But,  deeply  as  it  had  entangled  itself  witli 
philosophy,  it  could  never,  in  consequence  of  the  fundamental 
standpoint  at  which  it  had  placed  itself,  make  more  than  a 
so-called  formal  use  of  philosophy.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Church  stood  firm  before  it  as  the  divine  truth,  and  even 
philosophy  could  only  assist  as  a  serving-maid  to  secure  an 
insight  into  it.  The  formal  method  of  the  Aristotelian 
dialectic  was  simply  the  means  whereby  it  constructed  its 
system. 

The  scholastic  theology  is  regarded  by  the  Eomish  Church 
as  the  model  of  an  orthodox  theology.  Both  the  scholastic 
theology  and  its  continuation,  the  Jesuitical  theology,  are 
the  theologies  which  correspond  most  perfectly  to  the 
principle  of  lioman  Catholicism  ;  and  these  alone  are  still 
possible  in  the  liomish  Church  of  the  future  alter  the  dogmatic 
affirmation  of  Papal  Infallibility.  The  anti-scholastic  theo- 
logy of  pre-Iieforrnation  times,  as  well  as  the  anti-Jesuitical 
and  idealistically  coloured    theology  of    modern    times,  not- 


208  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

withstanding  that  they  held  their  place  within  the  range 
of  the  Romish  ecclesiastical  domain,  are  such  as  must  be 
disavowed  in  consequence  of  the  ecclesiastical  standpoint, 
as  the  condemnatory  judgments,  which  in  the  most  recent 
times  have  been  pronounced  by  the  Eomish  Curia  against 
Hermes,  Glinther,  and  Baltzer,  most  clearly  prove.^ 

The  presuppositions  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  the  orthodox 
theology  of  the  Romish  Church  were  overturned  by  means  of 
the  Reformation.  In  place  of  the  authority  of  the  hierarchy 
that  pretended  to  be  divine  but  was  really  human,  it  put 
forward  the  divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  Pro- 
testant theology,  inspired  by  the  deep  religious  spirit  out  of 
which  the  Reformation  sprang,  had,  in  its  beginnings,  no 
other  end  in  view  than  that  of  endeavouring  to  obtain  the 
word  of  God  from  Holy  Scripture,  and  to  present  this  as 
divine  truth  in  a  statement  definitely  formulated  for  the  faith 
of  the  Christian  community.  The  divinity  of  Holy  Scripture 
is  evidenced  by  the  testimonium  spiritus  sancti.  For  its 
exposition  no  ecclesiastical  authority  is  necessary,  but  rather 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  Himself  the  true  expositor  of  Scripture.  A 
distinction  was  made  between  verlum  Dei  and  Holy  Scripture, 
and,  within  the  New  Testament  itself,  up  to  the  beginning  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  a  similar  distinction  was  recognised 
by  the  orthodox  Lutheran  theologians,  in  accordance  witli 
the  example  of  Luther,  between  lihri  canonici  and  lihri 
artocrypld?'  [Thus,  for  example,  Chemnitz,  the  great  Lutheran 
and  Protestant  champion  during  the  latter  half  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  sets  for  himself  the  question,  whether  all  the 

1  Compare  §  3,  4,  and  6  of  tlxe  present  work.  Also  see  K.  Werner, 
Geschichte  dar  katholischen  Theologie,  p.  405  tf.  aud  p.  624. 

2  Fr.  Bleek,  Einleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  3  Auflage,  p.  772  ff. 
[English  translation,  Edin.  1869,  1870,  vol.  ii.  pp.  233-237.  Orthodox  theo- 
lof'y'in  the  British  Churches,  represented  by  the  Thirty -nine  Articles  and  the 
■\Vestrainster  Confession  of  Faith,  recognises  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  as  canonical  and  of  full  divine  authority.  The  Formulary  of  the 
Church  of  England,  in  its  sixth  article,  enumerates  all  the  books  of  the  Bible, 
and  says  that  of  these  the  authority  was  never  doubted  in  the  Church.     Tlie 


OLD  CHURCH  DOCTRINE  OF  INSPIRATION.  209 

Biblical  books  have  one  and  the  same  authority,  and  does  not 
hesitate  to  answer  that  they  have  not.  Alii  enim  sunt 
canonici,  alii  apocryphi :  quorum  illi  certam  atque  classicam 
liabent  autoritatem  :  hos  vero  quamvis  ecclesia  legit  ad 
asdificationem  plebis,  tamen  ad  confirmandam  dogmatum 
ecclesiasticorum  autoritatem  non  adhibentur,  uti  loquitur 
Hieronymus.]  As  soon,  however,  as  the  end  had  been 
attained,  the  doctrine  established  and  recognised  by  the 
majority  in  the  Church,  Protestant  theology,  after  the  period 
of  its  creative  activity,  passed  over  into  the  Protestant 
orthodox  tlieology.  It  now  sought  to  make  good  its  claims 
to  orthodoxy  by  identifying  the  doctrine  derived  from  the 
Holy  Scripture  w'ith  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  laying  it  down 
as  the  divine  trutli,  upon  the  confession  of  which  Christian 
salvation  is  made  dependent.  But  at  that  time,  apart  from 
the  requirement  to  develop  itself  into  an  independent  science, 
and  to  demonstrate  scientifically  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  it 
saw  itself  obliged  to  fall  back  upon  the  Holy  Scripture  alone, 
and  from  this  basis  to  advance  the  proof  of  its  truth,  as  much 
on  behalf  of  the  Cluirch  itself  as  against  its  Pomau  Catholic 
opponents.  It  is  therefore  of  supreme  importance  that  the 
authority  of  Holy  Scripture  in  its  divine  objectivity  should 
Ije  firmly  establislied.  The  confirmation  of  its  truth  on 
religious  grounds  by  means  of  the  testimonium  s'piritus  sanctl, 
which  affords  too  much  room  for  the  play  of  subjectivity, 
proves  itself  to  be  insufficient.  The  deficiency  must  be  made 
up  by  means  of  a  theological  theory,  and  thus  it  must  be 
dogmatically  fixed.      The   old  Church   doctrine   of  inspiration 

^V^■strlUllste^  Confession  of  Faith  also  enumerates  tlie  books,  but  avoids  makiut; 
any  rash  historical  generalization,  like  that  of  the  English  Articles,  and  simply 
says  that  all  these  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and 
life,  chap.  1,  2.  This  does  not  imply  that  all  these  books  viewed  separately  are 
of  equal  importance,  but  simply  that  all  are  equally  canonical  as  being  all 
inspired.  Of  the  New  Testament  books  the  greater  number  are  Honio- 
logoumena  ;  the  few  whose  claims  had  been  contested  in  early  times  are  Anti- 
legomena.  Tliis  distinction,  however,  has  merely  a  historical,  not  a  dogmatic, 
bigniticance.] 

VOL.  I.  0 


208  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

withstanding  that  they  held  their  place  within  the  range 
of  the  Eomish  ecclesiastical  domain,  are  such  as  must  be 
disavowed  in  consequence  of  the  ecclesiastical  standpoint, 
as  the  condemnatory  judgments,  wliich  in  the  most  recent 
times  have  been  pronounced  by  the  Eomish  Curia  against 
Hermes,  Giinther,  and  Baltzer,  most  clearly  prove.^ 

The  presuppositions  which  lie  at  the  basis  of  the  orthodox 
theology  of  the  Eomish  Church  were  overturned  by  means  of 
the  Eeformation.  In  place  of  the  authority  of  the  hierarchy 
that  pretended  to  be  divine  but  was  really  human,  it  put 
forward  the  divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  Pro- 
testant theology,  inspired  by  the  deep  religious  spirit  out  of 
which  the  Eeformation  sprang,  had,  in  its  beginnings,  no 
other  end  in  view  than  that  of  endeavouring  to  obtain  the 
word  of  God  from  Holy  Scripture,  and  to  present  this  as 
divine  truth  in  a  statement  definitely  formulated  for  the  faith 
of  the  Christian  community.  The  divinity  of  Holy  Scripture 
is  evidenced  by  the  testimonium  spiritus  sancti.  For  its 
exposition  no  ecclesiastical  authority  is  necessary,  but  rather 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  Himself  the  true  expositor  of  Scripture.  A 
distinction  was  made  between  verhum  Dei  and  Holy  Scripture, 
and,  within  the  New  Testament  itself,  up  to  the  beginning  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  a  similar  distinction  was  recognised 
by  the  orthodox  Lutheran  theologians,  in  accordance  with 
the  example  of  Luther,  between  lihri  canonici  and  libri 
ajjocryphi?  [Thus,  for  example,  Chemnitz,  the  great  Lutheran 
and  Protestant  champion  during  the  latter  half  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  sets  for  himself  the  question,  whether  all  the 

1  Compare  §  3,  4,  and  6  of  the  present  work.  Also  see  K.  Werner, 
Geschichte  dar  katholischen  Theologie,  p.  405  ff.  and  p.  624. 

2  Fr.  Bleek,  Eiuleitung  in  das  Neue  Testament,  3  Auflage,  p.  772  ff. 
[English  translation,  Edin.  1869,  1870,  vol.  ii.  pp.  233-237.  Orthodox  theo- 
logy" in  the  British  Churches,  represented  by  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  and  the 
Av'estrainster  Confession  of  Faith,  recognises  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  as  canonical  and  of  full  divine  authority.  The  Formulary  of  the 
Church  of  England,  in  its  sixth  article,  enumerates  all  the  books  of  the  Bible, 
and  says  that  of  these  the  authority  was  never  doubted  in  the  Church.     Tlie 


OLD  CHURCH  DOCTUINE  OF  INSI'IRATION.  209 

Biblical  books  have  one  and  the  same  authority,  and  does  not 
liesitate  to  answer  that  they  have  not.  Alii  enim  sunt 
canonici,  alii  apocryphi :  quorum  illi  certam  atque  classicam 
habent  autoritatem  :  hos  vero  quamvis  ecclesia  legit  ad 
icdificationem  plebis,  tamen  ad  confirmandam  dogmatum 
ecclesiasticorum  autoritatem  uon  adhibentur,  uti  loquitur 
Hieronymus.]  As  soon,  however,  as  the  end  had  been 
attained,  the  doctrine  established  and  recognised  by  the 
majority  in  the  Church,  Protestant  theology,  after  the  period 
of  its  creative  activity,  passed  over  into  the  Protestant 
orthodox  theology.  It  now  sought  to  make  good  its  claims 
to  orthodoxy  by  identifying  the  doctrine  derived  from  the 
Holy  Scripture  with  the  Holy  Scripture,  and  laying  it  down 
as  the  divine  truth,  upon  the  confession  of  which  Christian 
salvation  is  made  dependent.  P>ut  at  that  time,  apart  from 
the  requirement  to  develop  itself  into  an  independent  science, 
and  to  demonstrate  scientifically  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  it 
saw  itself  obliged  to  fall  back  upon  the  Holy  Scripture  alone, 
and  from  this  basis  to  advance  the  proof  of  its  truth,  as  much 
on  behalf  of  the  Church  itself  as  against  its  Eoman  Catholic 
opponents.  It  is  therefore  of  supreme  importance  that  the 
authority  of  Holy  Scripture  in  its  divine  objectivity  should 
he  firmly  established.  The  confirmation  of  its  truth  on 
religious  grounds  by  means  of  the  testimonium  spmtus  sanctl, 
which  affords  too  much  room  for  the  play  of  subjectivity, 
proves  itself  to  be  insufficient.  The  deficiency  must  be  made 
up  by  means  of  a  theological  theory,  and  thus  it  must  be 
dogmatically  fixed.      The   old  Church   doctrine   of  inspiration 

Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  also  enumerates  the  books,  but  avoids  making 
any  rash  historical  generalization,  like  that  of  the  English  Articles,  and  simply 
!-nys  that  all  these  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and 
life,  chap.  1,  2.  This  does  not  imply  that  all  these  books  viewed  separately  are 
of  e(inal  imj)ortance,  but  simply  that  all  are  equally  canonical  as  being  all 
inspired.  Of  tlie  New  Testament  books  the  greater  number  are  Homo- 
logoumena  ;  the  few  whose  claims  had  been  contested  in  early  times  are  Anti- 
legomena.  This  distinction,  however,  lias  merely  a  historical,  not  a  dogmatic, 
significance.] 

VOL.  I.  0 


210  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

was  reasserted  and  put  forward  as  a  suitable  means  for 
supplying  this  want,  if  only  its  application  were  made  with 
more  thorough  strictness,  and  the  strictness  cf  this  application 
rendered  compulsory. 

The  distinction  between  the  word  of  God  and  the  Holy 
Scripture  was  laid  aside,^  and  the  tendency  now  rather  was  to 
identify  the  two,  the  word  of  God  and  Holy  Scripture,  and,  in 
order  to  remove  from  the  latter  every  trace  of  human  sub- 
jectivity, and  to  establish  firmly  its  purely  divine  objectivity, 
not  an  inspiration  of  holy  writers  of  the  Scriptures,  but  an 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  regard  to  their  thoughts 
and  words,  was  maintained.  Hence  divine  revelation  and 
inspiration  came  to  be  regarded  as  exactly  co-extensive,  and 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  in  regard  both  to  contents  and 
to  form,  came  to  be  considered  as  the  objective  word  of  God. 
The  attributes  which,  in  accordance  with  this  view,  belong  to 
Holy  Scripture  —  auctoritas,  divina  veintas,  ijcvfcdio,  pcr- 
spicudtas,  efficacia  divina,  necessitas,  integritas,  et  perennitas, 
puritas.  et  sinceritas  fontinm,  authentica  dignitas  —  are  the 
grounds  as  well  as  the  consequences  of  its  fides  divina!^ 

With     its     principle    of    Scripture    thus    formulated,    the 
orthodox  theology  had  won  for  itself  a  principle  of  knowledge, 

^  As  to  the  distinction  between  the  word  of  God  and  Holy  Scripture,  referred 
to  above,  it  seems  capricious  and  unreal  Martensen,  speaking  of  the  two 
elements,  divine  and  human,  in  Scripture,  says:  "The  old  proposition,  the 
Scripture  is  the  -word  qf  God,  expresses  the  union  ;  the  more  modern  dictum, 
the  Scriptures  contain  the  ivord  of  God,  expresses  the  distinction.  The  first 
proposition  is  clearly  preferable  to  the  second,  which  is  vague  and  indistinct, 
and  may  be  applied  to  many  writings.  The  first,  however,  is  untrue  if  it  be 
taken  so  to  affirm  the  union,  as  to  exclude  all  distinction  of  the  divine  and 
human  elements  in  the  Bible."  Christian  Dogmatics,  §  239  ;  compare  the 
whole  section. — Ed. 

2  Baur,  Doginengeschichte,  iii.  p.  48  tl.  Ilothe,  Zur  Dogmatik,  p.  130  ff. 
[Compare  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  i.  5.  Westminster  Larger 
Catechism,  qu.  4.  Mastricht  enumerates  these  attributes  thus  :  auctoritas, 
Veritas,  integritas,  sanctitas  ac  puritas,  perspicuitas,  perfectio,  necessitas, 
efficacia.  Theoretico-Practica  Theologia,  lib.  I.  cap.  ii.  §  14-21.  On  the 
whole  subject  of  the  above  paragraph,  the  views  of  Scripture  prevalent  among 
orthodox  Lutherans  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  see  Dorner, 
History  of  Protestant  Theology,  vol.  ii.  pp.  118-141.] 


ORTHODOX  THEORY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  211 

wliich  corresponded  tO'  its  purpose  in  farm  and  contents.  If, 
indeed,  it  be  successfully  proved  that  the  ecclesiastical  doc- 
trine is  derived  from  Holy  Scripture,  then  also  its  contents 
are  thereby  proved  to  be  divine,  and  all  human  uncertainty  is 
excluded  from  it.  While  the  Eoman  Catholic  doctrine  rests 
on  the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  the  Protestant  doctrine  rests 
on  the  infallibility  of  Holy  Scripture  ;  and  while  the  former 
ground  is  proved  historically  to  be  a  merely  human  one,  that 
only  is  to  be  adopted  from,  tlie  Eomish  Church  which  agrees 
with  Holy  Scripture,  and  which  in  this  way  first  receives  the 
guarantee  of  divine  truth. 

The  characteristic  features  of  this  orthodox  theology  may 
be  produced  from  its  theory  of  Scripture.  Divine  revelation, 
attested  by  inspiration  and  rendered  credible  especially  by 
means  of  miracles  and  propliecies,  is  to. be  found  only  in  Holy 
Scriptiu'e.  Tliis  theology,  therefore,  cannot  be  prevailed  upon 
to  rise  to  a  historical  treatment  of  religion.  The  religions 
which  stand  outside  of  the  limits  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, the  so-called  heatben  religions,  do  not  only  receive  no 
sort  of  recognition. when,  brought  up. to  be  judged  of  from  the 
standpoint  of  revelation,  but  they  are  regarded,  by  orthodox 
theology  as  mere  delusions,  in  which  the  human  spirit  left  to 
itself  since  the  fall  of  Adam  has  vainly  wandered.  The 
Church  alone  possesses  divine  revelation  and  truth  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  Hence  Scripture  is  set  down, by  this  school 
of  theology  as  for  the  Church  at  once  the  only  source  of 
doctrine  and  the  absolute  rule  o£  its  faith  :  whatever  is  found 
in  it,  and  just  as  it  is  found  in  it,  must  without  controversy 
be  believed,  even  should  it  be  in  contradiction  to  all  presently 
established  laws  of.  nature  and  reason.  With  peculiar  eager- 
ness the  orthodox  theology  engages  upon  the  exercise  of  the 
so-called  lower  criticism,  the  verbal  criticism  of  the  Biblical 
text,  since  it  is  in  the  interests  of  this  school  to  joossess  the 
precise  original  form  of  writing  of  the  sacred  inspired  penman, 
and  to  lose  no  iota  of  the  inspired  divine  truth.     On  the  other 


212  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPiEDIA. 

hand,  a  strong  prejudice  is  entertained  against  the  so-called 
higher  criticism,  which  enters  upon  investigations  regarding  the 
genuineness  or  ungenuineness  of  the  separate  Biblical  books. 
The  investigation  itself  is  indeed  submitted  to,  only  no 
result  is  allowed  to  follow  which  would  lead  to  the  re- 
moving of  a  writing  from  the  divinely  accredited  canon  as 
being  ungenuine,  since  thereby,  at  the  same  time,  a  portion 
of  divine  revelation  and  a  support  of  Christian  truth  would 
be  lost.  The  exposition  of  Scripture,  too,  is  used  by  the 
orthodox  theology  purely  in  the  interests  of  dogma.  In 
this  school  of  theology,  exegesis  and  dogmatics  stand  in  the 
closest  connection  with  one  another.  Inasmuch  as  here  the 
chief  theological  task  is  to  produce  on  behalf  of  the  several 
dogmas  of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrinal  system  their  divine 
foundation,  that  is,  their  scriptural  authority,  the  chief 
business  of  the  exegetes  of  this  school  consists  in  gathering 
together  from  Holy  Scripture,  and  elucidating  the  dogmatic 
purpose  of,  the  so-called  sedes  docfrincv  or  dicta  probantia,  that 
is,  the  Biblical  passages  which  may  serve  as  a  ground  or  basis 
for  a  doctrine.  The  system  of  doctrine  thus  exegetically  and 
dogmatically  established  constitutes  the  Christian  truth,  and 
is,  as  such,  the  foundation  of  the  Church.  Inasmuch,  how- 
ever, as  all  separate  doctrines  are  not  of  equal  importance, 
there  are  certain  principal  doctrines,  certain  articuli  fimda- 
mcntcdcs,  which  are  indispensable  to  the  obtaining  of  salvation, 
and  which  must  be  believed  in  by  all  members  of  the  Church, 
if  they  would  not  forfeit  their  salvation.  Moreover,  in 
ecclesiastical  practice  the  clergy  are  unconditionally  under 
obligation  to  preach  to  their  congregations  the  pure  doctrine, 
and  to  avoid  every  departure  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Church. 
And  just  as  the  exposition  of  Scripture,  so  also  the  history 
of  the  Church  and  the  history  of  doctrines  are  placed 
by  orthodox  theology  under  its  own  dogmatic  standpoint. 
Further,  this  theology  takes  an  interest  only  in  those  parties 
in  the  history  which  are  in  agreement  with  its  own  dogmatic 


KISE  OF  THE  SUPERXATURALISTIC  THEOLOGY.  213 

tendencies,  whereas  those  doctrines  which  diverge  from  its 
standard  are,  simply  for  this  reason,  regarded  as  damnable 
heresies. 

In    the    Protestant   Church,    from    the    beginning    of    the 
eighteenth  century,  the  orthodox  theology  passed  over  gradu- 
ally into  the  supernaturalistic  theology.     In  consequence  of 
the  opposition  which  in  the  Church  itself  was  raised  from  the 
side   of  pietism  against  the   prevailing  orthodoxy,  and  from 
the  side  of  philosophy,  not  only  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,   but   even   against   Christianity   itself,   the    orthodox 
theology  found  itself  compelled,  instead  of  insisting  upon  the 
old  strictness  of  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  doctrine,  to  fall 
l)ack  rather  upon  Holy  Scripture.      It  sought  also  to  give,  in 
opposition  to  the  hostile  positions  of  philosophy,  a  more  decided 
testimony  to  the  divinity  of  Holy  Scripture ;  and  even  while 
making  the  acknowledgment  that  Scripture  was  not  altogether 
iVee  from  views  that  belong  only  to  a  particular  period  in 
history,  it  sought  to  vindicate  the  essential  contents  of  Scrip- 
ture as  divine  revelation.      Thus  the  change  of  the  orthodox 
theology  into  the  supernaturalistic  theology  was  consummated. 
Between  the  two  theological  systems  there  exists  the  closest 
affinity.     Just  as  in  the  Eomish  Church  we  have  the  anti- 
scholastic  and  anti-Jesuitical  theology,  so  the  supernaturalistic 
theology  is  simply  a  modification  of  the  ecclesiastical  orthodox 
theology.      Since,  then,  it  does  not  hesitate  to  surrender  parti- 
cular doctrines  of  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  doctrine,  or  at 
least  to  attach  less  significance  to  them,  especially  when  their 
foundation  in  Holy  Scripture  cannot  with  certainty  be  proved; 
since  further,  too,  it  has  brought  itself  to  grant  the  concession 
of  the  presence  in  Holy  Scripture  of  views  merely  suited  to 
the    time    at    which    they    were    written,    and    consequently 
surrenders   the   extreme  dogmatic  conception  of  inspiration : 
it   is   no   longer   in   the   strict   sense   of  the   word   orthodox. 
Nevertheless   it   is   still    thoroughly   in   sympathy   with    the 
orthodox  theology  in  maintaining  this  same  principle,  belief 


214  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

ill  the  reality  of  an  immediate  divine  revelation  and  in  the 
divinity  of  Holy  Scripture ;  and  it  is  likewise  in  thorough 
agreement  with  it  in  accepting  the  following  fundamental 
proposition,  that  the  human  reason  must  unconditionally 
subordinate  itself  to  divinely-revealed  truth.  Just  then  for 
this  reason,  because  against  its  opponents  it  pre-eminently 
engaged  on  the  defence  of  this  proposition,  that  religious 
truth  not  only  is  not  derived  from  reason,  but  as  revealed 
truth  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  natural  knowledge,  it  has 
become  historically  known  as  a  theological  system  by  the 
name  of  Supernaturalism.^ 

The  orthodox  theology,  when  occupying  its  strict  super- 
naturalistic  standpoint,  is  in  an  eminent  degree  entitled  to  the 
name  positive  theology.  In  this  positivity  may  be  found  at 
once  its  truth  and  its  untruth.  It  is  quite  right  in  maintain- 
ing the  full  reality  and  objectivity  of  revelation ;  for  the 
Christian  faith,  like  all  religion,  rests  upon  an  objective  divine 
ground.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  mistakes  the  nature  of 
faith  when  it  insists  upon  unconditional,  intellectual  sub- 
ordination to  the  objective  divine  revelation.  Xo  doubt  faith 
as  such  is  an  immediate  consent  to  revelation,  but  it  yields 
this  consent  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  an  acquiescence  proceeding 
from  a  spontaneous  movement  and  impulse  of  the  spirit. 
Faith  is  not  a  thing  of  constraint,  not  even  of  divine  con- 
straint, but  of  freedom.  The  orthodox  theology  of  the  Eomish 
as  well  as  of  the  Protestant  Church  treats  revelation  as  though 
it  were  an  affair  quite  external  to  man,  as  though  it  were  a 
fact  which  came  to  mankind  from  without ;  and  so  it  relates 
itself  to  the  contents  of  revelation  in  a  purely  empirical, 
receptive  manner.  Because  it  finds  in  Holy  Scripture  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  the  objective  expression  of  reve- 
lation, it  does  not  take  into  consideration  the  traces  of 
human  elements  wdiich  can  least  of  all  be  excluded  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church,  seeing  that  that  is  itself  the  result  of 

1  Compare  §§  4  and  5. 


DEFECTS  IN  THE  SUPERXATUKALISTIC  TIIEOIIY.  215 

theological  labour,  nor  even  from  the  revelation  that  has  been 
transmitted  in  Holy  Scripture,  but  accepts  as  the  object  of 
faith  that  whole  complex  of  doctrines  which,  as  revealed, 
bears  in  itself  the  guarantee  of  divine  truth.  Its  theological 
activity,  therefore,  can  only  consist  in  this,  that  it  approaches 
this  object  of  faith  with  the  reflective  understanding,  in  order, 
by  means  of  a  reference  to  ecclesiastical  authority  and  Holy 
Scripture,  to  collect,  arrange,  establish,  and  elucidate  the 
separate  doctrines,  and  to  bring  them  into  systematic  connec- 
tion with  one  another,  without  touching  upon  the  nature  of 
the  object  of  faith  itself,  and  calling  in  question  the  value 
which  it  has  for  religious  faith  and  the  thinking  mind.  This 
theology  rather  transposes  the  religious  faith  into  a  dogmatic 
faith,  and  what  of  this  doctrinal  object,  upon  which  it  lays 
the  whole  stress,  cnnnot  rain  an  entrance  into  the  thinkin<^ 
mind,  but  shows  itself  utterly  inaccessible  to  rational  know- 
ledge, is  to  be  reckoned  among  the  mysteries  which  are  not 
indeed  comprehensible,  but  are  nevertheless  to  be  firmly  held 
by  faith,  if  salvation  is  not  to  be  seriously  imperilled. 

Grand  and  imposing  as  the  system  is  which  the  orthodox 
theology  has  built  up,  and  great  as  the  historical  significance 
is  which  it  has  acquired  by  means  of  the  singleness  of 
purpose  and  rigid  objectivity  with  which  it  has  demanded 
recognition  of  the  object  of  faith  purely  for  the  sake  of  its 
divine  positivity,  the  Christian  spirit  is  nevertheless  obliged, 
in  its  pious  feeling  as  well  as  in  its  thinking,  to  suffer  loss 
and  injury,  and  so  is  constrained  to  enter  into  other  paths,  in 
order  to  seek  the  satisfaction  which  the  orthodox  theology 
does  not  afford. 

While  the  Eoman  Catholic  theology,  in  consequence  of  its 
being  strictly  bound  down  to  the  doctrinal  principles  of  the 
Church,  was  not  able  to  overstep  the  standpoint  of  the  orthodox 
theology,  the  principle  of  faith  set  up  by  means  of  the  Eefor- 
mation  was  both  able  and  under  obligation  to  pass  beyond 
tlie  orthodox  theology.     Upon  the  field  of  Protestantism  there 


216  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

arose  as  the  task  of  the  Christian  spirit  the  raising  of  the 
immediate  certainty  of  faith  into  a  certainty  scientifically 
established.  A  reaction  set  in  against  the  rigid  dogmatism  of 
the  orthodox  theology,  issuing  from  the  believing  conscious- 
ness itself  in  the  two  tendencies  which  are  known  historically 
as  mysticism  and  pietism.  Mysticism,  an  outflow  from  the 
mystical  element,  which  is  an  indwelling  principle  in  all 
religion,  distinguishes  itself  in  the  sharpest  way  from  the 
orthodox  theology;  because  it  sets  the  subjectivity  of  th3 
believer  in  opposition  to  those  objective  authorities  on  which 
orthodoxy  rests,  and  without  entering  into  conflict  with  the 
Scripture  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  adopts  from  both 
only  that  which  answers  to  the  spiritual  needs  of  the  believ- 
ing subject.  During  the  Middle  Ages,  under  the  domination 
of  scliolasticism,  mysticism  afforded  a  witness  to  the  fact  that 
in  the  Romish  Church  of  that  period  the  inner  life  of  faith 
had  not  been  utterly  destroyed.  In  spite  of  that  subjectivism 
which  was  characteristic  of  it,  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  in 
consideration  of  the  strict  hierarchical  organization  which  it 
in  general  maintained,  was  able  to  tolerate  it,  yea,  even  in 
certain  circumstances  to  favour  it,  whereas  Protestant  ortho- 
doxy was  obliged  to  oppose  it  as  one  of  the  most  dangerous 
enemies  of  its  ecclesiastical  system.  Notwithstanding  the 
remarkable  variety  of  the  forms  under  which  mysticism  has 
historically  manifested  itself,  it  has  always  directed  itself,  in 
keeping  with  its  name,  especially  to  the  mysteries  of  the 
positive  faith,  to  the  Trinity,  to  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  to  tlie 
divine  sonship  of  believers,  to  the  last  things,  etc.  It  seeks 
by  means  of  an  individual  endowment,  which  falls  to  the  lot 
only  of  favoured  persons,  to  appropriate  subjectively  the 
objective  content  of  faith,  whether  this  be  done  by  means  of 
contemplation,  or  by  means  of  an  inward  word,  or  of  an 
inward  illumination,  or  by  means  of  the  fantasy  which  leads 
the  mystic  into  the  very  depths  of  the  Godhead ;  so  that  to 
him  are  disclosed  all  the  secrets  of  heaven,  of  mankind,  and 


FUNDAMENTAL  PKINCIPLES  OF  PIETISM.  217 

of  nature,  and  the  mystic  is  transformed  into  the  theosophist. 
By  reason  of  this  overweening  individual  tendency,  mysticism 
is  constantly  in  danger  of  degenerating  into  extravagance, 
fanaticism,  enthusiasm,  and  spiritualism ;  and  instead  of  find- 
ing the  rest  and  satisfaction  that  were  sought  after,  it  is  apt 
to  fall  into  the  most  stupid  superstition.^ 

Closely  connected  with  mysticism,  and  indeed  historically 
influenced  by  it,  is  the  tendency  whicli,  about  the  end  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  was  brought  into  existence  by  Spener, 
called  pietism.  In  it,  too,  there  is  a  purely  subjective 
interest  which  turned  against  the  prevailing  orthodoxy.  By 
means  of  the  religious  feeling,  by  means  of  immediate  spiritual 
experience,  it  opposes  the  orthodox  theory  which  made  the 
salvation  of  the  Christian  dependent  upon  the  positive  Church 
doctrine,  and  placed  Holy  Scripture  in  the  position  of  supply- 
ing dogmatic  proofs.  Not  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
but  only  upon  Holy  Scripture  is  the  believer  required  to 
maintain  his  hold ;  not  in  the  confession  of  the  Church 
doctrine,  but  only  in  the  living  appropriation  of  Christ,  as  the 
Scripture  sets  Him  forth,  has  he  to  seek  salvation ;  from  Holy 
Scripture  he  has  to  derive,  not  dogmatic  proofs,  but  the  word 
of  life,  which  approves  itself  to  faith  as  the  alone  saving  word 
of  salvation.^     Deserving  as  pietism  in  its  beginnings  is  of  all 

^  Compare  Herzog's  Real-Encyolopfedie  under  the  word  Mystik  [in  last 
edition,  under  Theologie,  Mystische],  and  the  literature  there  referred  to ; 
especially  H.  Heppe,  Geschichte  der  Quietistischen  Mystik  in  der  Katholischen 
Kirche.  Berlin  1875.  [R.  A.  Vaughan,  Hours  with  the  Mystics:  a  Contri- 
bution to  the  History  of  Religious  Opinion.  2  vols.  London  1856.  Principal 
TuUoch,  Rational  Theology  and  Christian  Philosophy  in  England  in  the  Seven- 
teenth Century.  2  vols.  Edinburgh  1872.  Comjiare  particularly  vol.  ii. 
chap,  v.,  entitled  Henry  More:  Christian  Theosophy  and  IMysticisin.] 

^  Compare  §  4.  [Also  compare  Ritschl,  Geschichte  des  Pietismus.  1  Band. 
Geschichte  des  Pietismus  in  der  Reformirten  Kirche.  Bonn  18S0.  An  admir- 
able account  of  Spener,  the  characteristics  of  his  theology  and  tendencies  of 
liis  school,  will  be  found  in  Dorner's  History  of  Protestant  Theology,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  203-227.  The  relations  of  pietism  to  the  Church  are  indicated  with  groat 
clearness  by  Ritschl  in  a  few  sentences  in  his  History  of  the  Christian  Doctrine 
of  Justification  and  Reconciliation,  English  translation.  Edinburgh  1872, 
pp.  330,  331.] 


218  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDIA, 

praise,  the  tendency  in  it  to  give  an  undue  prominence  to 
feeling,  in  consequence  of  wliicli  practical  edification  is  placed 
in  the  foreground,  and  the  ethical  claims  of  faitli  are  thrown 
back  out  of  view,  allowed  it  soon  to  degenerate  into  an  ascetic 
formalism,  which  excluded  and  repudiated  all  intercourse  with 
the  actual  life  of  the  world,  and  laid  all  stress  upon  diligent 
attendance  at  church,  the  diligent  use  of  the  sacraments,  and 
diligent  singing  and  praying.  Ultimately  it  even  degenerated 
into  the  most  objectionable  form  of  the  religious  life,  which 
has  been  most  appropriately  styled  Sham-holiness  or  Sancti- 
moniousness, inasmuch  as  designedly  a  nature  that  is  really 
impious  is  covered  up  by  means  of  forms  and  gestures,  which 
a.re  counted  upon  to  produce  the  appearance  of  the  highest 
degree  of  inward  piety. 

Both  of  these  tendencies,  mysticism  and  pietism,  come 
into  collision  with  the  positive  faith  by  pressing  the  claims  of 
subjectivity  ;  but  the  attitude  altogether  peculiar  to  it  which, 
in  the  form  of  immediate  intuition,  of  the  inner  word,  of 
spiritual  illumination,  of  the  fantasy,  -of  feeling,  of  immediate 
experience,  it  assumes  in  reference  to  the  positive  faith,  not 
only  exposes  it  to  the  falling  into  such  errors  as  have  his- 
torically sprung  from  it,  but  also  prevents  it  from  arriving  at 
any  scientific  configuration.  Neither  to  the  mystic  nor  to 
the  pietist  has  an  objective  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  divine 
revelation  and  its  relation  to  the  human  reason,  and  of  the 
truth  or  untruth  of  the  ecclesiastical  dogmas,  any  interest  ; 
rather  both  leave  revelation  and  dogma  standing  uncontested, 
and  quite  arbitrarily  choose  out  of  the  positive  object  of  faitli 
that  wherein  they  find  the  most  spiritual  satisfaction  for  their 
own  individual  religious  need.  And  just  for  this  reason,  with 
reference  to  this  subjective  interest,  which  they  make  pro- 
minent over  against  the  object  of  faith,  mysticism  and  pietism 
have  been  regarded  in  the  domain  of  Protestantism  as  the 
precursors  of  rationalism,  which  nevertheless  in  the  exercise 
of  the  same  subjective  tendency  distinguishes  itself  from  both 


RISE  OF  RATIONALISTIC  THEOLOGY.  219 

in  this,  that  it  proceeds  not  from  the  believing,  but  from  the 
tliinking,  consciousness. 

liationalism  is,  to  speak  generally,  the  endeavour  to  come 
to  a  rational  conception  of  its  object.  In  this  general  sense 
it  has  entered,  just  as  much  as  supernaturalism,  into  connec- 
tion with  the  object  of  faith  since  the  earliest  times  down 
through  the  centuries  in  the  Church.  We  meet  with  it  in 
Gnosticism,  among  the  Alexandrian  Church  Fathers,  in  the 
heresies  of  tlie  ancient  and  medieval  Church,  among  some 
of  the  schoolmen,^  and,  after  the  Eeformation,  among  the 
Socinians  and  Arminians.  In  this  place,  however,  we  can 
speak  only  of  specific  rationalism,  as  it  has  shown  itself  in  a 
more  or  less  systematic  form  since  the  middle  of  the  eighteentli 
century,  as  rationalistic  theology.  It  received  what  is  now 
regarded  as  its  peculiar  character  by  means  of  philosophy, 
which  after  the  Eeformation  had  become  independent,  and  by 
means  of  the  supernaturalism  which  had  been  dominant  in 
the  Church.  Through  Descartes  and  Spinoza  philosophy  had 
become  conscious  of  its  own  peculiar  principle.  The  autono- 
mous reason  is  the  power  which  rules  over  all  objective  being, 
and  it  acknowledges  only  that  which  is  in  accordance  with  its 
laws.  Philosophical  truth,  which  is  derived  from  the  reason, 
and  which  finds  a  ground  of  authority  only  in  rational 
thinking,  by  reason  of  its  self-confidence  and  independence  of 
all  outward  authorities,  sets  itself  in  direct  opposition  to 
ecclesiastical  authority,  which  makes  truth  rest  upon  revela- 
tion. Above  faith  stands  knowledge  ;  even  the  doctrines  of 
revealed  religion  are  subjected  to  the  criticism  of  rational 
thinking,  and  are  abandoned  when  their  rationality  cannot 
be  demonstrated.     The  opposition  of  reason   and   revelation, 

^  Compare  H.  Renter,  Geschichte  der  religiosen  Aufkliirung  im  Mittelalter. 
Bd.  1,  2.  Berlin  1875,  1877.  [Hampden,  The  Scliolastic  Philosophy  in  its 
relation  to  Christian  Theology.  Oxford  1832.  Cunningham,  Historical 
Theology.  2  vols.  Edinburgh  1870.  Vol.  1,  pp.  413-425,  for  the  earlier 
l)eriod.  For  special  subject  of  above  paragraph,  Cairns'  Unbelief  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century.] 


220  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

which  had  thus  already  made  itself  prominent,  was  brought 
into  still  clearer  consciousness  by  means  of  the  English 
deism.  This  school  contested  not  only  particular  doctrines 
of  positive  Christianity,  and  particular  dogmas  of  the  Church's 
creed,  but  in  the  place  of  revealed  religion  set  natural 
religion,  which  continued  to  maintain  simply  the  existence 
of  a  Divine  Being,  and  understood  the  worship  of  this  Being 
to  consist  essentially  in  the  fulfilling  of  His  commands.  This 
natural  religion,  as  the  emanation  of  the  natural  revelation 
of  reason,  is  the  standard  by  which  every  positive  religion  is 
tried.  Even  Christianity  has  a  value  only  in  so  far  as  it 
appears  as  a  restoration  of  natural  religion,  and  is  in  agree- 
ment with  the  moral  nature  of  that  religion.  All  other 
Christian  doctrines  of  faith  are,  from  the  standpoint  of 
natural  religion,  considered  to  be  without  real  content,  and 
for  the  confessors  of  that  religion  are  without  significance. 
Transplanted  into  France,  deism  showed  itself  in  the  most 
bitterly  hostile  struggle  against  Christianity,  and  soon  passed 
over  into  violent  hostility  against  religion  itself.  When  the 
essence  of  religion  was  made  to  consist  only  in  the  moral,  it 
then  became  an  easy  step  for  the  rationalizing  thinker  to  rid 
himself  of  religion  altogether,  and  in  the  negation  of  religion 
to  seek  his  absolute  freedom.  In  the  hands  of  the  French 
encyclopcedists,  deism  sank  down  into  utter  atheism  and 
materialism. 

In  Germany,  philosophy  itself  wrought  against  the  spread 
of  deistical  modes  of  thought.  While  deism  set  the  reason 
over  revelation  and  denied  all  supernatural  religion,  Leibnitz 
endeavoured  to  reconcile  the  opposition,  and  to  save  the  right 
of  revelation  over  against  the  reason  by  means  of  the  distinc- 
tion of  contra  rationem  and  supra  rationcm,  according  to 
which  revelation  cannot,  indeed,  contain  truths  which  are 
directly  in  contradiction  to  the  reason,  but  yet  may  con- 
tain truths  which  transcend  human  comprehension.  Wolf 
endeavoured  to  reach  the    same  end    by  setting  a  revealed 


ItEVELOPMENT  OF  EATIOXALISM  ly  GERMANY.  221 

tlieology  side  by  side  with  natural  theology.  Of  these, 
natural  theology  derives  its  doctrines  purely  from  the  idea 
of  God ;  revealed  theology  derives  its  doctrines  from  tlie 
revelation  contained  in  Holy  Scripture,  which  as  sucli  is 
certainly  supernatural  and  super-rational,  but  is  nevertheless 
not  contrary  to  reason.  The  general  culture  of  the  under- 
standing, however,  which  had  the  way  prepared  for  it  by 
means  of  the  popular  philosophy  which  followed  on  the 
lines  of  Wolf,  was  little  able  to  elucidate  this  distinction. 
The  reason  which  had  gained  confidence  in  itself  must 
seek  to  free  itself  from  the  authority  of  Church  dogmas 
which  are  in  contradiction  to  it,  and  from  the  dominion  of 
an  orthodox  ecclesiasticism  in  which  it  found  no  satisfac- 
tion. But  the  fundamental  positions  of  deism  had  also 
been  forced  upon  Germany,  and  especially  by  means  of 
the  Wolfenhilttel  Fragments,  edited  by  Lessin",  had  become 
known  among  wide  circles.  Hence  it  happened  that  by 
means  of  the  criticism  employed  upon  Holy  Scripture  by 
Semler,  the  orthodox  theology  was  deprived  of  the  principle 
upon  which  it  rested,  and  that  Semler  himself  recommended, 
along  with  the  setting  aside  of  the  dogmas  of  the  Church,  a 
])urely  individual  attitude  in  relation  to  the  Christianity  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  in  this  Christianity  recognised  as  divine 
and  valuable  for  the  individual  only  that  which  would  serve 
for  his  personal  moral  improvement.^  It  was  under  these 
circumstances  that  a  rationalistic  theology  developed  itself 
in  Germany  in  opposition  to  the  orthodox-supernaturalistic 
tlieology.  This  rationalistic  theology  maintained  firm  hold 
upon  Christianity,  in  opposition  to  the  philosophical  negation 
of  Christianity;  but  upon  principle  it  advanced  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  natural,  deriving  religion  from  the  reason. 
iMom  Holy  Scripture  it  received  only  moral  truths  which  were 
in  agreement  with  natural  religion,  while  everything  in  it 
which   contained   conceptions   and   representations   that   were 

'  Comjiare  §  5. 


222  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDIA. 

only  temporary  and  local  was  excluded.  As  the  general 
direction  of  the  mind  at  that  time  was  toward  the  serviceable 
and  the  useful,  even  Christianity  was  placed  under  this  point 
of  view,  and  the  duties  of  Christianity,  as  the  fulfilling  of  the 
commands  of  morality,  were  recommended  on  the  ground  that 
by  the  keeping  of  them  human  happiness  would  be  advanced. 
As  the  theology  of  the  Illumination,  this  theology  combated 
without  reserve  all  the  opinions  which  were  still  bound  up 
with  the  prevailing  orthodoxy  and  the  hitherto  dominant 
Church  system  as  antiquated,  and  as  ignorant  prejudices, 
wdiich  must  yield  before  the  light  of  the  religion  of  the 
enlightened.  Eationalistic  theology  secured  for  itseK  an 
increase  in  moral  depth  and  a  rational  foundation,  partly  by 
means  of  the  religion  of  reason  of  the  Kantian  philosophy, 
partly  by  means  of  the  critical  investigation  of  Holy  Scripture 
engaged  upon  since  the  time  of  Semler.^ 

Eationalism  in  this  form,  as  a  theological  system,,  con- 
stitutes the  diametrical  opposition  to  theological  supernatural- 
ism.  Witli  the  utmost  decisiveness  it  denies  the  principle 
of  supernaturalism,  the  reality  of  an  immediate,  supernatural 
divine  revelation.  And  even  although  the  abstract  possibility 
of  such,  a  revelation  may  be  granted,  yet  the  actual  realization 
of  such  a  thing  can  never  be  proved  historically.  Least  of 
all  can  this  be  done  by  means  of  miracles  and  prophecies,  on 
which  supernaturalism  rests  its  proofs,  since  regarding  these 
it  must  first  be  proved  that  they  actually  happened  in  history. 
And  further,  even  although  the  relative  necessity  of  a  super- 
natural revelation  should  be  granted,  it  is,  in  itself  considered, 
superfluous ;  for  the  truths  regarding  which  supernaturalism 
makes  affirmation,  that  they  must  have  been  communicated 
to  mankind  in  a  supernatural  manner,  could  have  been  found 
by  human  reason  itself.  Holy  Scripture  is  indeed  to  be  held 
by  as  an  original  source  of  revelation,  but  the  revelation 
which  it  contains  is  tO'  be  regarded  now  only  as  a  mediate,  so 

^  Compare  §  5. 


EATIONALISTIC  THEORY  OF  SCKIPTUEE.  223 

to  speak,  natural  revelation,  and  to  be  attributed  to  the  pre- 
eminent endowment  and  spiritual  power  of  writers  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament.  The  religious  truth  which  it 
communicates  cannot  therefore  stand  opposed  to  the  religion 
of  reason  or  of  nature,  but  the  content  af  Holy  Scripture  must 
rather  necessarily  be  rational.  lu  this  way  rationalism 
practically  places  reason  over  revelation,  and  measures  revela- 
tion by  the  standard  of  reason.  Whatever  does  not  agree 
with  reason,  whatever  is  not  derived  from  it  and  cannot  be 
known  by  it,  cannot  be  admitted  in  the  contents  of  revela- 
tion. Although  rationalism,  in  consequence  of  the  position 
which  it  assigns  to  natural  religion  as  a  revelation,  has  also 
been  designated  naturalism,  care  should  be  taken  not  to  con- 
found this  theological  naturalism  with  philosopliical  naturalism, 
which  practically  goes  upon  the  same  lines  as  materialism 
and  atheism. 

By  virtue  of  its  principle  of  reason,  rationalism  treats  Holy 
Scripture  not  absolutely,  but  only  in  its  reasonableness,  as  a 
rule  of  faith,  and  consequently  does  not  recognise  it  as  the 
alone  source  of  religion.  It  readily  acknowledges  as  rational 
even  that  which  it  meets  with  outside  the  limits  of  Holy 
Scripture  in  the  religious  and  moral  sphere^  and  delights 
especially  in  placing  the  utterances  of  Greek  and  Roman 
wisdom  alongside  of  the  doctrinal  propositions  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, and  in  rendering  prominent  the  ethical  worth  of  those 
virtues  of  heathen  antiquity  which  on  the  side  of  a  strict 
supernaturalism  had  been  branded  as  brilliant  vices.  From 
this  view  of  pagan  wisdom  and  of  pagan  virtue,  rationalism 
finds  grounds  for  maintaining  that,  even  outside  the  field  of 
Scripture  revelation,  the  religious  moral  liie  has  been  advanced 
by  means  of  the  mere  reason.  Nevertheless,  rationalism  did 
not  give  its  strength  to  a  historical  and  comprehensive  con- 
sideration of  the  extra-B.iblical  religions.  This,  however,  was 
not  the  result  of  any  supernaturalistic  scruples,  because  these 
religions   did    not   spring   from   divine  revelation,  but  because 


224  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

they  contained   too  much   that  was  irrational   to   have    any 
interest  for  the  rationalist. 

As  rationalism  does  not  regard  Holy  Scripture  as  a  source 
of  a  supernatural    revelation,  it  also  denies  the  inspiration 
of  Scripture.      Like  other  writings,  the  Biblical  writings  had 
their  origin  in    a    purely  human  way.       Their  writers,  too, 
were  decidedly  influenced  by  the  representations  and  opinions 
of    their    times    and    their    nation,    and    have  written,  not 
under  a  uniform  objective  impulse  of   the  Holy  Spirit,  but 
rather  in  accordance  with  their    individual  endowment  and 
culture,  and  according  to  their  individual  tendencies,  so  that 
they  express  mere  opinions  of  the  race  and  of  the  age,  as 
well  as  erroneous  views,  and    come  even  into  contradiction 
with  one  another.      In  the  attention  which  it  paid  to  Scrip- 
ture,   rationalism      showed    the    same    diligence    as    super- 
naturalism    did,  only  in    another  direction,  not  in  order  to 
win  from  it  revealed  truth,  but  in  order  to  secure  a  conviction 
of  the  reasonableness  of  its  contents.     And  thus  it  pressed  on, 
with  a  zeal  equally  great  to  that  of  supernaturalism,  the  study 
of  Biblical  verbal   criticism,  yet  from   an   altogether  different 
motive,  to  restore  the  exact  form   of  the   original  waiting,  in 
order  wherever  possible  to  make   the  meaning  of  a  passage 
agree  with  reason.      With  special  preference  it  devoted  itself 
to  the   higher   criticism,  but  even   here  it  was  led  on   by  a 
desire  to  cast  out  from  the  canon  as  ungenuine  such  writings 
as  were  in  their  contents  most  opposed   to  its  reason.     Even 
in  its  exposition  of  Scripture,  rationalism  makes  it  the  chief 
aim  to  bring  forth  from  the  words  of  Scripture  a  reasonable 
meaning.      If  the  exegetical  means  do  not  succeed  in  accom- 
plishing this,  it  takes  refuge  in  the  so-called  Accommodation 
theory, that  is, in  regard  to  such  passages  as  those  in  which  Christ 
or  the  apostles  teach  what  is  apparently  unreasonable.    Eational- 
ism  helps  itself  by  means  of  the  assumption  that  while  they 
were   themselves    acquainted   with     the   higher    truth,   they 
accommodated  themselves  in  their  exoteric  discourses  to  the 


RATIONALISTIC  VIEW  OF  THE  CONTENT  OF  SClirPTURE,      225 

narrow  and  nationally-limited  powers  of  comprehension  which 
belonged  to  their  hearers  and  readers.  The  most  serious 
stumbling-block  to  rationalism  was  found  in  the  miracles 
recorded  in  Holy  Scripture.  But  even  here  help  was  to  be 
obtained  in  an  exegetical  way.  The  exegete  only  requires 
rightly  to  explain  the  Biblical  narratives  of  the  miracles,  and 
then  it  becomes  apparent  that  the  miracles  were  natural 
occurrences  which  only  through  the  peculiar  representation  of 
the  Biblical  writer  came  to  have  the  appearance  of  miracles. 
In  reference,  however,  to  the  contents  of  Scripture  as  a  whole, 
rationalism  accepts  only  the  three  principal  doctrines,  the 
doctrine  of  God,  of  freedom,  and  of  immortality.  These,  too, 
are  the  doctrines  of  the  religion  of  reason,  and  so  far  as 
they  are  contained  in  Scripture,  Christianity  and  the  religion 
of  reason  are  identical.  Every  other  dogmatic  tenet  held 
by  the  Church,  the  ecclesiastical  system  of  belief,  is,  in 
respect  of  essential  content,  set  aside  as  contrary  to  reason, 
and  especially  it  is  shown  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Church, 
whicli  are  in  themselves  irrational,  are  not  grounded  in 
the  rightly  ascertained,  that  is,  rationally  comprehended, 
doctrine  of  Scripture.  Those  three  principal  doctrines  are 
nevertheless  not  so  much  objects  of  metaphysical  know- 
ledge, but  are  held  fast  in  faith,  and  have  their  value  in 
this,  that  they  act  ethically  upon  the  human  will,  and  elevate 
man  into  a  rational  moral  being.  And  just  such  a  moral 
power  has  Christianity  proved  itself  historically  to  be,  and  it 
ought  therefore  to  be  cherished  through  'all  time  in  the 
Christian  community.  Hence,  too.  Church  history  is  placed 
by  rationalism  principally  under  this  point  of  view  of  ethical 
activity,  and  consequently  many  episodes  in  that  history  are 
to  it  altogether  without  significance,  and  are  regarded  as  at 
best  but  the  subject  of  a  learned  curiosity.  Especially  from 
the  construction  of  Church  dogmas,  from  the  history  of 
doctrines,  and  from  the  distinctions  of  confessional  systems  of 
doctrine,  rationalism  can  gain  no  advantage  ;  for  these  his- 
voL.  I.  r 


226  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

torical  doctrines  appear  to  it  to  be  no  better  than  an 
emanation  of  human  unreason,  an  evidence  of  human  weak- 
ness and  imbecility,  an  expression  of  human  opinions  without 
either  contents  or  significance. 

Eationalism  has  its  justification  in  the  nature  and  essence 
of  faith  itself.     What  is  offered  to  faith  as  something  purely 
external  and  foreign,  as  something  that  is  to  it  inaccessible 
and  incomprehensible,  as  a  pure  mystery,  can  for  it  have  no 
value  and  no  significance.      As  the  believing  consciousness  in 
mysticism  and  in  pietism  strives  after  an  intellectual  appro- 
priation of  the  object   of  faith,  so   must  also  the   reflective   ■ 
consciousness    seek    to    render   the    object    of  faith   for    the 
believer  a  matter   of  spiritual   conviction.     The  reformation 
spirit  comes  into  conflict  with  itself,  chiefly  when  it  endea- 
vours to  place  again  the  inwardness   of  faith,  to  which  the 
religious  and  ecclesiastical  life  had  been  led  back  by  means  of 
the  Reformation,  in  the  sense  of  orthodoxy  under  the  sway 
of  the  letter.     When  supernaturalism  attributes  to  rationalism 
the  usual   impure   motives,   and  is   accustomed   to  derive   it 
from  a  mere  lust  of  novelty,  from  human  vanity  and  self- 
seeking,  it  mistakes  not  only  that  claim  which  is  advanced  in 
the  faith  of  the  Eeformation  itself,  but  also  closes  itself  against 
the  view  that   theology  and   the  ('hurch,  since    Christianity 
according  to  its  profoundest  conception  is  still  avowedly  an 
affair  of  the  life,  cannot  shut  themselves  against  the  collective 
life  and  the  intellectual  culture  thereof, — that  rather  theology, 
if  it  is  to  be  a  means  of  furthering  Christianity  and  affording 
a  service  to  the  Church,  must  constantly  continue  its  own 
development  in  connection  Avith  the  general  course  of  intellec- 
tual culture,  as  it  has  been  sketched  out  by  the  other  sciences. 
But  besides,  if  justice  is  to  be  done  to  rationalism,  this  above 
all  is  to  be  kept  in  mind,  that  it  persevered  in  its  mission 
from  the  time   when  it  originated  and  developed  itself,  not 
accordinfT  to  mere  wilfulness,  but  according  to  the  temporal 
circumstances  under  which  it  Avas  placed.     After  there  had 


GOOD  ACCOMPLISHED  BY  RATIONALISM.  227 

occurred  a  rupture  between  revelation  and  reason  from  tiie 
side  of  i3hilosophy,  and  even  the  principles  upon  which  tlie 
old  theology  of  the   Church   had  supported  itself  had  been 
overthrown,   theology   was   compelled   to    enter  upon  a  new 
phase,  and  to  build  up  upon  new  foundations.      It  was  com- 
pelled to  take  up  into  itself  that  contradiction  of  which  tlie 
age  had  become  conscious,  in  order  to  find  a  reconciliation  for 
it  in  its  OM-n  inner  being,  and  to  deliver  the  mind  from  the 
imputation  of  taking  up  into  itself  a  double  trutli,  a  revealed 
and  a  rational,  an  ecclesiastical  and  a  philosophical.     Toward 
the  solving  of  this  problem  rationalism  has  made  a  first,  and 
just  on  that  account,  in  many  respects,  an  imperfect  attempt. 
Tlie  credit   at  least  cannot   be  refused  it  of  elaborating,  by 
means     of    the     rational    representation    which    it    made,    a 
defence    of    Christianity   against    the    philosophical    hostility 
toward  Christianity  that  had  come  into  vogue,  and,  during  the 
period  of  the  Illumination,  fighting  a  successful  battle  against 
the     externalism,    the    formalism,    and    superstition     of    the 
orthodox   ecclesiastical   system.      It  is  also  to   the  credit  of 
rationalism  that  during  the  period  after  Kant,  in  opposition  to 
that  domineering  tendency  in  orthodoxy  which  brought  even 
a  Kant  to   silence,  it  preserved  to   Protestantism  a  needful 
liberty  of  investigation,  and  by  means  of  a  reference  to  the 
ethical  significance  and  ethical  ends  of  Christianity,  exercised  a. 
Miiolesome  influence  upon  its  contemporaries.      The  defective- 
ness from  which,  as  a  theological  system,  rationalism  suffers, 
was   implanted   in    it   by   that  reason-craze   which  prevailed 
during  that  period.      By  means  of  the  popular  philosophy,  the 
so-called  sound  human  understanding,  which   estimated   the 
worth  of  things  according  to  their  usefulness  and  their  service- 
ableness  for  this  life,  had  been  elevated  to  the  throne.^      This 

1  Tliis  is  admiraljly  sliowii  in  a  short  chapter  on  the  German  Illuniin:ition  in 
Scliwegler's  History  of  Phihjsopliy  (Englisli  transhitiou  by  Dr.  Hntcliison 
Stirling,  Edinl)urg]i  1S67,  pp.  207-209).  Tliis  lUuniination  aimed  at  inforn)..- 
tion  ;  was  the  counterpart  of  the  French  Illumination— the  consideration  of 
what  is  profitable  is  put  in  tlie  foreground  ;  utility  is  made  the  special  criterion 


228  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDLV. 

same  empirical,  reflective  understanding  makes  its  influence  felt 
in  rationalistic  theology  in  opposition  to  religion.     Without 
investigating  the  objective  nature  of  religion,  and  without  for 
this   purpose   entering   upon  an   inquiry  into  the   history  of 
religion,  rationalism  takes  from  it  the  three  ideas  of  reason 
which  it  comes  upon,  the  idea  of  God,  of  freedom,  and   of 
immortality,  which  are  found  by  experience  to  be  most  profit- 
able   for    the    moral    life,   represents    these   as   the   essential 
contents  of  religion,  and  reduces  religion  to  a  mere  means  for 
the  attainment  of  a  moral  end.      This   natural   religion,  or 
religion  of  reason,  is  applied  by  rationalism  as  a  standard  of 
measure  to  revelation,  and  every  positive  doctrine  derived  from 
this  revelation,  in  so  far  as  it  contradicts  the  sound  reason 
and  does  not  directly  serve  a  moral  end,  is  cast  out  from  the 
domain  of  religion.      In  this  extremely  subjective  attitude  lies 
the  weakness  of  rationalism.      In  dealing  with  the  contradic- 
tion with  which  it  is  concerned,  it  explains  itself  in  such  a 
way,  that  it  simply  removes  the  one  side  of  that  contradic- 
tion and  sets  up  the  reason   in   place    of  revelation.      This 
subjectivity  of  rationalism  makes  its  appearance  most  unques- 
tionably in  its  relations  to  history  generally,  and  specially  in 
its  relations  to  Holy  Scripture.      In  its  treatment  of  Scripture, 
however,  rationalism  involves  itself  in   a  contradiction,  inas- 
much as  in  principle  it  places  itself  above  Scripture ;  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  seeks  in  Scripture  confirmation  for  its  propo- 
sitions of  reason,  and  therefore  always  interprets  Scripture  in 
the  interests  of  rational  dogmatism.      It  could  not  be  difficult 
for  supernaturalism  to  show  up  the  subjective  arbitrariness  of 

of  truth.  So  lleimarus  wrote  of  the  advantages  of  religion,  showing  that  our 
earthly  enjoyments  are  not  abridged,  but  added  to,  by  Christianity.  In  short, 
Christianity  is  represented  as  a  system  of  eudajmonism.  Ultimately  the 
religion  thus  conceived  of  was  identified  with  natural  religion,  and  the  positive 
dof-nia  was  set  aside.  Such  doctrines  as  those  of  the  Trinity,  of  the  two  natures 
in  Christ,  saving  faith  apart  from  works,  original  sin,  were  pronounced  unpro- 
fitable, and  as  such  were  first  ignored  without  being  denied,  and  by  and  by 
repudiated  altogether,  or  at  least  explained  away.  Compare  Dorner,  Hist.  Trot. 
Theology,  vol.  ii.  277-379.— Ed. 


RATIONALISM,  SUPEENATUKALI8M,  AND  MEDIATION  TIIEOKIES.    229 

this  system,  in  respect  of  that  negative  attitude  whicji 
rationalism  assumed,  especially  in  the  departments  of  the 
history  of  doctrines  and  of  exegesis.  In  consequence  of 
offering  this  resistance,  supernaturalism  was  not  only  not 
infected  or  perverted  by  rationalism,  but  was  strengthened  in 
its  own  proper  procedure,  and  in  this  way  compelled,  in 
opposition  to  rationalistic  negation,  all  the  more  decidedly  to 
maintain  a  firm  hold  upon  the  objectivity  of  the  positive 
element.  The  contradiction  is  thus  distributed  over  both 
systems.  Supernaturalism  places  revelation  above  the  reason ; 
rationalism  places  the  reason  above  revelation.  These  two 
stand,  the  one  side  by  side  with  the  other,  as  partial  state- 
ments of  the  truth ;  for  the  former  underestimates  the  right 
of  subjectivity  over  against  the  positive  element,  and  the 
latter  underestimates  the  right  of  the  positive  element  over 
against  subjectivity.  Hence  rationalism,  just  as  little  as 
supernaturalism,  was  able  to  arrive  at  a  scientific  establish- 
ment of  its  standpoint,  and  to  raise  itself  above  the  sphere  of 
subjective  into  that  of  objective  knowledge.  But  inasmuch 
as  both  part  between  them  what  essentially  constitutes  one 
and  the  same  thing,  and  consequently  serve  mutually  to 
supplement  one  another,  they  cannot  even  be  viewed  apart 
from  each  other.  Nevertheless,  in  consequence  of  the  funda- 
mental contradiction  which  was  present  in  them,  their  contact 
with  one  another  must  for  the  most  part  be  a  hostile  one,  and 
such  as  would  quickly  pass  over  into  a  violent  struggle  and 
strife,  which  on  the  one  hand  mutual  recrimination  fostered, 
but  on  the  other  hand  every  scientific  explanation  reached 
tended  to  bring  to  a  close.  During  the  contest,  attempts  at 
reconciliation  were  made  chiefly  by  means  of  supernatural 
rationalism  and  rational  supernaturalism,  wdiich  endeavoured 
to  balance  revelation  and  reason  over  against  one  another, 
in  order  to  discover  what  was  justifiable  in  each.  Such 
attempts  were  made  by  the  former  conceiving  of  revelation 
as  an  attestation  of  the  religion  of  reason  specially  prepared 


230  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

l)y  God  Himself,  and  by  the  latter  adjudging  to  the  reason  the 
])0\ver  of  estimating  the  proofs  for  revelation  and  for  the 
contents  of  revelation,  this,  however,  being  done  with  a 
distinct  insistence  upon  the  concession  that  revelation,  while 
it  can  contain  nothing  that  is  contrary  to  reason,  may  yet 
contain  doctrines  and  statements  of  fact  which  are  above 
reason.  These  mediation-systems  are  just  as  much  super- 
naturalistic  as  rationalistic.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  they 
maintained  their  position  at  the  same  merely  reflective  stand- 
point which  the  supernaturalistic  and  rationalistic  theology 
adopted,  it  was  impossible  that  they  should  succeed  in 
arranging  the  difference  in  dispute  between  the  two  parties, 
and  in  bringing  about  a  peaceable  accommodation  of  the 
contradiction  with  which  they  had  to  deal. 


THE  NEW  DEPARTURE  OF  SCHLEIERMACIIER.  231 


§  17.  SCHLEIERMACHERS  THEOLOGY  OF  FEELING. 

The  problem  which  rationalism  had  attempted  to  solve 
could  not  he  given  up  ;  but  rather  the  putting  of  it  led  to  a 
deeper  comprehension  of  the  task  of  theology,  and  to  a  change 
of  the  position  from  which  the  advance  was  to  be  made.  In 
the  very  midst  of  tlie  conflict  which  the  supernaturalists  and 
rationalists  waged  with  one  another,  Schleiermacher  made  his 
appearance,  and  became  the  creator  of  a  theological  system,  by 
means  of  which  theology  M'as  led  into  an  entirely  new  course. 
The  period  during  which  his  scientific  labour  began  was 
agitated  to  its  inmost  depths  by  the  most  disturbing  events, 
by  the  most  daring  patriotic  endeavours,  and  the  most  ideal- 
istic flights  of  imagination.  The  theological  systems  that  hail 
previously  been  in  vogue  could  afford  no  satisfaction  in  sucli 
a  time.  The  rigid  objectivity  with  which  the  orthodox  and 
supernaturalistic  theology  represented  Christianity  as  a  formu- 
lated system  of  accepted  beliefs,  the  superficiality  with  wliich 
rationalism  resolved  the  religious  contents  of  Christianity  int<i 
a  mere  moralism,  and,  especially,  the  learned  discussions  with 
which  theology  occupied  itself  without  reference  to  the  claims 
and  needs  of  the  Church  life, — these,  more  than  anything  else, 
had  the  effect  of  making  the  most  cultured  among  the  laity 
wander  away  from  the  theologians  to  the  philosophers  and 
poets,  and,  generally,  did  much  to  bring  in  an  indifierence  in 
regard  to  religion,  a  coldness  and  estrangement  in  regard  to 
Christianity,  and  a  contempt  for  Churcli  and  theology.  It 
was  then  that  Schleiermacher,  personally  affected  in  the  very 
depths  of  his  nature  by  anything  that  concerned  his  age, 
created  a  theology  which,  by  virtue  of  its  principle,  satisfied 
tlie  life  as  well  as  the  demands  of  science  in  a  higher  degree 
than  the  preceding  systems  of  supernaturalism  and  rationalism. 


232  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOPyEDIA. 

With  true  prophetic  insight,  Schleiermacher  perceived  that  his 
age,  in  spite  of  all  its  culture,  in  spite  of  all  its  poetic  enthu- 
siasm, in  spite  of  all  its  romantic  idealism,  was  still  wandering 
from  tlie  centre,  from  wiiich  every  actualization  of  the  spiritual 
life  first  receives  its  value  and  has  its  higher  consecration 
bestowed  upon  it.  From  a  simple  necessity  of  his  nature,  in 
consequence  of  a  divine  call,  as  he  himself  says,  he  drew  up 
his  discourses  on  religion  for  the  cultured  among  its  despisers 
(Eeden  uebcr  die  Religion.  Reden  an  die  Gebildeten  Winter 
ihren  Vcrcklitern.  Berlin  1799);  and  thus  he  accomplished 
the  task  laid  upon  him  by  his  age  and  its  circumstances, 
expounding  to  his  contemporaries  the  essential  nature  of 
religion,  and  leading  them  back  into  the  sanctuary  that  had 
been  contemned. 

Turning  away  from  all  the  constructions  in  which  religion 
had  made  itself  known  externally,  Schleiermacher  gives  his 
attention  to  the  nature  of  the  human  spirit  itself,  and,  with 
great  psychological  penetration,  shows  that  religion  has  its 
origin  in  the  innermost  depths  of  human  nature,  that  it  is 
not  something  that  has  come  to  mankind  in  a  fortuitous 
manner  from  without,  but  something  eternally  belonging 
to  man's  inmost  nature.  But  the  sphere  that  is  proper  to 
it  in  the  human  spirit  as  its  life-domain  is  that  of  feeling, 
lieligion  is  neither  knowledge  nor  will,  but  feeling ;  and 
as  such  it  has  for  its  contents  the  apprehension  of  the 
universal  or  the  infinite.  It  is  the  feeling  or  the  immediate 
consciousness  of  certainty  by  means  of  the  infinite.  In  its 
independence  it  is  distinguished,  indeed,  but  not  severed, 
i'rom  the  other  spiritual  powers.  It  maintains  rather  the 
closest  connection  with  these,  and  animates  them  and  raises 
them  into  a  harmonious  co-operation,  since,  like  a  holy 
music,  it  accompanies  all  spiritual  achievements  in  the  depart- 
ments of  science,  art,  and  morals.  But  from  the  very  nature 
of  religion  there  necessarily  springs  up  the  impulse  to 
association.       Wherever  the  feelincf    of    the  Infinite  is  con- 


CHRISTIANITY  THE  IDEAL  RELIGION.  233 

cerned,  whether  it  be  in   a  stronger  or  in   a  weaker  degree, 
tliere  is  also  present  the  h)nging  for  the  communication  of  it 
to  others,  and  for  the  receiving  of  it  from  others,  so  that  a 
community  must  be  formed  which  has  no  other  end  in  view 
than  the  mutual  exchange  of  pious  feeling.      The  true  Church 
is  the   association   of  all  the   really  pious,  which,  although  in 
different  forms,  represents  religion  in  its  infinity,  and  elevates 
the  actual  Church  in  its   outward   manifestation  into   a   sanc- 
tuary for  the  religious  life,  as  this  itself  has  in  human  feeling 
a  free,  independent  existence.     Historically,  religion  appears  in 
the  greatest  multiplicity  of  separate  constructions,  according 
as  the  infinite  determines  the  feeling  in  a  particular  form,  and 
unites  together   in   one   association   those  who   have   become 
possessed  by  the  same  feeling.     The    historical  positive  reli- 
gions are  individual  manifestations  of  religion,  which  collectively 
form  the  sum-total  of  religion.      Each  one  bears  in  its  original 
form  its  own  divine  impression,  and  just  as  little  allows  itself 
to  set  a  limit  to  the  fulness  of  its  own  religious  feelings  as  to 
individual   doctrinal   opinion  ;    while    the    so-called    natural 
religion,  or  religion  of  reason,  as  a  mere  product  of  reflection, 
cannot   be   allowed   to   assume   a   place   among   the   positive 
religions.     Nowhere  else  does  religion  so  perfectly  reach  the 
ideal  as  in  Christianity.      The  presupposition,  from  which  it 
sets   out,   is   the   universal    reaction  of  the   finite  upon   the 
infinite,  and  the   idea   upon  which   it   rests   is   the   idea   of 
redemption.      The   admirable   clearness  with  which   this  idea 
perfected   itself  in    the    soul   of   Christ,  is   the  truly  divine 
element  in  Him.     As  Kedeemer,  who  needs  not  redemption 
again  for  Himself,  Christ  must  be  partaker   at  once   of  the 
finite  nature  and  of  the  divine  essence. 

These  fundamental  thoughts,  which  Schleiermacher  has 
developed  in  his  discourses  on  religion,  form  also  the  ground- 
work of  his  theology.  The  actual  filling  up  corresponds 
thoroughly  to  that  formal  schema  which  Schleiermacher,  in 
his  Brief  Outline  {Kurze  Darstellung),  drew  up  for  the   theo- 


234  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

logical  system.^  Of  all  the  branches  of  theological  science, 
dogmatics  must  have  for  him  the  greatest  interest,  since  in  it 
he  can  realize  in  the  fullest  measure  his  practico-ecclesiastical 
purpose,  by  setting  forth  the  Christian  consciousness  of  the 
present.  From  ethics  he  borrows  for  dogmatics  the  idea  of 
the  Church,  and  from  the  philosophy  of  religion  he  borrows 
the  idea  of  religion.  In  the  Christian  Church,  the  conscious- 
ness of  God  is  definitely  Christian — that  is,  the  mere  feeling  of 
dependence  becomes  the  feeling  or  consciousness  of  redemption 
through  Christ.  The  essential  nature  of  Christianity  consists 
in  this,  that  in  it  everything  is  referred  to  the  redemption 
accomplished  through  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  This  is  the  formula 
by  means  of  which  Christianity  is  distinguished  from  all  other 
forms  of  faith,  and  the  idea  of  religion  is  brought  into  its 
positive  form  of  expression  suited  for  theology.  Faith,  there- 
fore, in  the  redemption  accomplished  by  Christ  is  the  condition 
for  membership  in  the  Christian  association.  Dogmatic  theo- 
logy is  "  the  science  of  the  connected  presentation  of  the 
doctrine  prevailing  in  a  Christian  Church  association  at  a 
given  period."  The  Christian  Church  is  now  actually  divided 
between  the  great  communions  of  Catholicism  and  Protestant- 
ism, in  each  of  which  Christian  piety  is  characteristically 
determined,  so  that  the  dogmatics  of  a  particular  Church, 
the  Eoman  Catholic  or  the  Protestant,  is  rendered  distinct, 
and  Schleiermacher  sets  for  himself  the  task  of  treatincc  of  the 
evangelical  Christian  faith.  The  title  which  he  gives  to  his 
dogmatics,  characterizes  in  the  most  definite  manner  his 
standpoint :  "  The  Christian  faitli  set  forth  in  a  connected 
form  according  to  the  principles  of  the  evangelical  Church  " 
{Ber  Christliche  Glauhc).  As  thus  limited,  dogmatics  has 
the  task  of  describing  the  Christian  believing  consciousness, 
which  has  for  its  contents  the  redemption  accomplished  by 
Christ,  and  arising  out  of  this,  the  task  of  adopting  only  those 
propositions  of  it  into  the  sum-total  of  the  evangelical  doctrine 

^  See  above,  §  C. 


schleiermacher's  idea  of  dogmatics.  235 

which  approve  themselves  upon  au  appeal  to  the  evangelical 
confessional  writings,  or  to  the  New  Testament  writings,  as 
evangelical.  But  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  which  are 
themselves  only  expressions  of  evangelical  piety,  have,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  worth  and  significance  only  in  so  far  as  they  are 
in  agreement  with  the  immediate  Christian  believing  conscious- 
ness. Indeed,  even  the  New  Testament,  in  which  the  idea  of 
the  redemption  accomplished  through  Christ  has  found  its 
original  expression  through  the  writings  of  the  apostles,  has  a 
normative  significance  only  in  so  far  as  the  Christian  in  need 
of  redemption  finds  in  it  the  most  perfect  satisfaction  for  his 
believing  consciousness.  Then,  again,  the  Old  Testament, 
generally  speaking,  does  not  come  into  consideration  as  an 
authority  for  the  Christian  faith.  In  Christ,  however,  there 
must  be  recognised,  not  a  mere  supernatural  and  superrational, 
but  a  supernatural  and  superrational  which  evidences  itself  to 
the  religious  feeling  as  truly  human.  As  in  human  nature  the 
capacity  for  receiving  a  divine  revelation  in  Christ  must  be 
present,  so  also  must  the  possibility  be  admitted  of  transmuting 
the  excitations  of  Christian  feeling  into  thought,  and  represent- 
ing these  in  terms  of  the  reason.  The  system  of  faith,  therefore, 
has  no  other  task  than  to  describe  the  Christian  pious  self- 
consciousness,  and,  by  means  of  reflection  upon  the  Church 
doctrine  and  the  Scripture  of  the  New  Testament,  to  prove 
what  must  be  regarded  as  Christian.  "We  absolutely 
renounce  every  proof  of  the  truth  or  necessity  of  Christianity, 
and  assume,  on  the  contrary,  that  every  Christian,  before  ho 
at  all  enters  upon  such  discussions  as  these,  has  already  the 
certainty  in  himself  that  his  piety  can  receive  no  other  form 
than  this."  "The  dialectic  character  of  language  and  the 
systematic  arrangement  give  to  dogmatics  the  scientific  form 
essential  to  it."  Speculation  is  to  be  kept  quite  apart  from 
dogmatics.  Hence  it  is  quite  possible  that  a  contradiction 
may  arise  between  the  speculative  and  the  pious  self-con- 
sciousness,  between    the   highest    objective   and   the    highest 


236  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

subjective  form  of  the  human  spirit,  so  that  the  task  of  the 
scientific  student  consists  in  his  becoming  conscious  to  him- 
self of  the  agreement  of  these  two  ;  but  to  render  him  assist- 
ance in  this  is  not,  according  to  Schleiermacher,  the  business 
of  dogmatics.  The  contradiction  can  only  rest  on  a  mis- 
understanding, and  this  may  lead  on  to  the  abandonment 
of  piety  generally,  or  at  least  of  Christian  piety.  Not  the 
system  of  faith,  however,  but  apologetics,  has  to  guard 
against  this.^ 

The  sesthetical  conception  of  religion,  as  set  forth  by 
Schleiermacher,  may,  indeed,  always  be  chargeable  with 
various  defects ; "  nevertheless  Schleiermacher  has  rendered  an 
enduring  service  in  this,  that  he  has  proved  religion  to  be  an 
original  form  of  life  in  the  human  spirit,  a  thoroughly  in- 
dependent power  among  the  different  spiritual  functions,  and 
that  he  first  of  all  secured  a  free  course  for  a  universal  history 
of  religion.  His  definition  of  the  nature  of  Christianity, 
indeed,  may  not  be  quite  exhaustive,  and  may  not  be  sufficient 
for  specifically  distinguishing  Cliristianity  from  the  other 
historical  religions,  yet  it  is  a  permanent  service,  that  he 
grasped  everything  Christian  in  its  relation  to  the  original 
facts  of  religious  feeling,  and  to  the  archetypal  person  of 
Christ  as  the  Eedeemer,  that  he  consequently  sought  to 
commend  Christianity,  not  as  a  dogmatic  statement,  but  as  a 
life  surrendered  and  attached  to  the  Eedeemer,  and  that  he 
restored  the  Church  again  to  its  own  proper  rank,  as  the 
association  in  which  this  life  is  set  forth  and  is  to  be  nurtured. 
That  Schleiermacher  reared  his  theology  on  these  foundations 

'  Compare  Der  Christliclie  Glaube.     Einleitung,  pp.  1-180.     2  Ausgabe. 

"  Compare  W.  Bender,  Schleicrmacher's  Lelire  vom  sehlechthiiiigen  Abhrin- 
gigkeits-gefiilil  in  Ziisammenhang  seiner  Wissenschaft  iintersucht  und  beur- 
theilt.  Jalirbiicher  fiir  deiitsche  Theologie.  Bd.  xvi.  Hft.  1,  pp.  79-146.  By 
the  same  writer  :  Schleiermacber's  Theologie  mit  ihren  philosophischen  Gntnd- 
lage  dargestellt.  Bd.  1,  2.  Nordlingen  1876,  1878.  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Schleicr- 
macher's Reden  ueber  die  Religion.  Jahrbiicher  fiir  protestantische  Theologie, 
1875.  Hft.  1,  pp.  134  fir.  Hft.  2,  pp.  269  ff.  A.  Ritschl,  Schleiermaclier's 
Reden  ueber  die  Religion.     Bonn  1874. 


schleieemacher's  services  to  theology.  237 

affords  an  explanation  at  once  of  tlie  influence  ^vhich  it 
secured  over  the  whole  life  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  victory 
which  it  gained  over  previously  accepted  theological  systems. 
Not  only  was  Schleierniacher  successful  in  that  which  he 
originally  purposed, — restoring  to  his  contemporaries  the  lost 
respect  for  religion  and  Christianity,  for  Church  and  theology, 
— his  theology  also  became,  for  both  sections  of  tlie  Protestant 
Church,  the  way  upon  which  they  raised  themselves  above 
their  dogmatic  differences  to  a  higher  evangelical  unity,  and 
approved  itself,  by  means  of  the  growing  recognition  which 
it  met  with,  to  be  the  most  important  scientific  protection 
of  the  union  when  that  had  been  accomplished.  Schleier- 
niacher, moreover,  since  he  proceeded  from  the  immediate 
believing  consciousness,  led  theology  back  to  that  spiritual 
ground  upon  which  it  had  originally,  and  especially  in 
Protestant  theology,  arisen.  By  meaus  of  the  very  assertion 
of  that  principle  Schleiermacher  already  raised  himself  for 
the  most  part  above  the  intellectualism,  botli  of  the  super- 
naturalistic  and  rationalistic  theology,  and  by  means  of  the 
])articular  method  according  to  which  he  carried  out  that 
ju-inciple,  he  likewise  overcame  the  one-sidedness  of  these 
theological  systems,  while  at  the  same  time  he  appropriated 
what  was  of  advantage  in  them.  To  the  confirmed  believing 
consciousness  the  Biblical  canon  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
are  not  therefore  regarded  as  an  authority,  because  the  one 
contains  revelation,  and  the  other  a  doctrinal  system  grounded 
upon  that  revelation,  but  both  become  an  authority  to  the 
believer  in  so  far  as  the  idea  of  redemption  is  set  forth  in  the 
Xew  Testament  as  divine  truth,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  approves  itself  as  a  fitting  expression  of  the  evan- 
gelical Christian  consciousness.  The  outward  relation  was  thus 
changed  into  an  inner  and  spiritual  relation  :  bondage  was 
exchanged  for  freedom.  From  this  results  the  attitude  which 
the  theology  of  Schleiermacher  maintains  in  reference  to  super- 
naturalism  and  rationalism.      Neither  a  one-sided  subordination 


238  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP^DLA.. 

to  the  positive  in  the  sense  of  the  former,  nor  a  one-sided 
superordination  in  the  sense  of  the  latter,  finds  any  place  here. 
Schleiermacher,  on  tlie  one  hand,  agrees  with  the  objectivity 
of  the  snpernaturalistic  theologians  in  this,  that  he  connects 
faith  with  the  principle  of  the  divine  life  revealed  in  Christ, 
and  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  ;  and,  at  the  same  time, 
he  is  in  accord  with  the  subjectivity  of  the  rationalistic  theo- 
logians in  so  far  as  he  makes  the  recognition  of  the  positive 
dependent  on  its  agreement  with  the  demands  of  religious  feeling. 
The  irenical  character  which  is  thus  impressed  upon 
Schleiermacher's  theology,  the  philosophical  basis  on  which 
it  rests,  the  religious  profoundness,  the  Christian  certainty 
of  faith,  conceived  of  thoroughly  in  the  spirit  of  the  Ifefor- 
mation,  the  intellectual  and  spiritual  freedom,  which  with  all 
his  esteem  for  the  positive  still  makes  its  way  over  every 
outward  constraint,  —  all  these  advantages,  by  which  this 
theology  is  distinguished,  could  not  fail  to  win  for  it 
always  a  numerous  band  of  disciples.  All  the  more  im- 
]iortant  theologians  of  modern  times,  and  indeed  theologians 
of  the  most  diverse  tendencies,  not  even  excluding  those 
Avho  make  it  their  special  business  to  assail  his  theology 
from  the  orthodox  standpoint,  are  influenced  in  their  theo- 
logical views  by  Schleiermacher.  It  is  this  one  fact, 
which  from  the  peculiarity  of  the  theology  of  Schleiermacher 
becomes  perfectly  intelligible,  which,  therefore,  on  the  one 
hand,  vouches  for  the  high  significance  of  that  theology, 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  also  indicates  its  insufficiency  and 
defectiveness.  As  Schleiermacher  sought  to  restore  the 
harmony  between  the  religious  and  the  philosophical  view 
of  the  world,  he  has  also  sought  in  his  theology  to  do 
away  with  the  opposition,  which  is  represented  by  the 
supernaturalistic  and  rationalistic  theology,  the  opposition 
of  revelation  and  reason.^       Nevertheless,   although    in    this 

^  The  theologj'  of  Sclileiermiirlicr  was  an  attempt  to  recognise  the  importance 
of  both  sides  of  the  great  Reformation  principle — faith  and  Holy  Scripture.    The 


KECOXCILIATION  OF  REASON  AND  REVELATION.  239 

he  succeeded  indeed  in  a  higher  measure  then  rationalism, 
yet,  even  by  him,  the  problem  in  its  full  range  was  not 
solved.  The  philosophical  basis  which  Schleiermacher  gives 
to  theology  in  general,  constitutes  also  the  basis  of  his 
dogmatics,  infisrauch  as  it  proceeds  from  the  philosophical 
idea  of  religion  and  from  the  Christian  believing  con- 
sciousness that  regulates  it.  But,  in  accordance  with  the 
practico-ecclesiastical  purpose  to  which  Schleiermacher  makes 
theology  subservient,  dogmatics  has  no  other  task  than  to 
set  forth  for  the  guidance  of  the  Church  the  content  of  the 
Christian  believing  consciousness,  and  therefore  generally  to 
indicate  what  is  meant  by  Christian.  Tlie  activity  of  the 
dogmatist,  therefore,  consists  only  in  this,  that  with  the  facts 
of  the  pious  consciousness  he  should  reflect  upon  the  positive 
element  furnished  him  from  without,  and  by  means  of  this 
reflection  adopt  from  the  docti'ine  of  the  Church  and  from 
the  Xew  Testament  all  those  elements  which  are  in  harmony 
with  the  Christian  pious  feeling  as  it  is  essentially  conceived ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  rejecting  all  those  which  either  are 
of  no  importance,  or  may  perhaps  even  have  a  destructive  and 
injurious  influence  upon  that  pious  feeling.  In  accordance  with 
this  method  Schleiermacher  has  also  proved  the  agreement  of 

one-sidedness  of  rationalism  and  snpernaturalisni,  referred  to  in  the  text,  may- 
be described  as  a  tendency  to  give  consideration  exclusively,  in  the  one  case, 
to  the  subjective  principle  of  faith,  in  the  other  case  to  the  objective  principle 
of  Holy  Scripture.  These  two  Schleiermacher  sought  to  re-combine.  Dorncr, 
after  noticing,  in  terms  very  similar  to  those  employed  by  Labiger,  the  wide 
influence  of  Schleiermachei-,  points  to  those  as  really  his  followers,  who  in  his 
spirit  carry  on  independently  the  regeneration  of  theology  in  its  various  depart- 
ments. He  then  gives  a  list  of  most  of  the  distinguished  German  theologians 
of  modern  times,  in  exegetical,  historical,  and  dogmatic  theolog}',  as  belonging 
to  this  class.  "All  these  construct  their  doctrine  of  belief,  which  they  dis- 
tinguish from  Biblical  theology,  no  longer  upon  the  formal  principle  of  Holy 
Scripture,  as  Biblical  supernaturalists,  nor  upon  natural  reason,  as  their 
opponents  insisted  on  doing,  but  upon  the  material  principle  of  the  Kefor- 
mation,  viz.  faith  combined  with  Holy  Scripture."  Hist,  of  Prot.  Theology, 
vol.  ii.  p.  394.  The  weakness  of  Schleiermacher  is  the  same  as  appears  in 
almost  all  avowed  endeavours  at  compromise.  Having  surrendered  so  much, 
it  seems  to  many  that  he  is  unable  to  render  any  convincing  reason  why  he 
should  not  surrender  more.  — Ed. 


240  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

the  believing  consciousness  with  the  revealed  object  of  faith, 
and  in  so  far  he  has  abolished  the  opposition  between  reason 
and  revelation ;  but,  even  still,  this  is  only  done  in  a  limited 
way,  and  means  only  the  abolishing  of  the  opposition  between 
pious  feeling  and  revelation.  Schleiermacher's  critical  reflection 
does  not  transcend  this  sphere  of  feeling,  and  does  not  reach 
an  objectively  historical  and  scientific  conception,  as  is  made 
most  evident  from  his  attitude  toward  the  Old  Testament, 
from  the  use  which  he  makes  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
from  his  treatment  of  the  Church  doctrine  of  God  and 
Christology.  The  scientific  character  of  dogmatics,  therefore, 
reduces  itself  to  this  purely  formal  moment,  that  the  utter- 
ances of  the  pious  consciousness  are  set  forth  in  proper  form 
and  in  their  logical  connection,  that  is  to  say,  it  is  reduced 
to  "  the  didactic  character  of  the  language  and  systematic 
arrangement."  The  exposition  of  the  nature  of  Christianity, 
and  the  dogmatics  grounded  thereon,  are  only  intended  for 
Christians.  One  who  does  not  belong  to  that  fellowship  of 
the  faith,  a  non-Christian  or  a  Catholic,  may  indeed  experience 
a  conviction  that  the  exposition  of  evangelical  Christianity 
given  by  Schleiermacher  is  correct,  while  still  he  himself 
is  not  convinced  of  its  truth,  and  does  not  feel  himself 
constrained  to  adopt  the  same.^  The  question  which 
spontaneously  arises,  whether  that  which  is  Christian  is 
also  true,  whether  that  wherein  the  Christian  pious  feeling 
finds  its  satisfaction  has  also  an  objective  ground,  —  this 
question,  and  with  it  philosophical  speculation,  are  by 
Schleiermacher  excluded  from  dogmatics.  When  Schleier- 
macher gives  expression  to  the  opinion  that  in  this  way 
all  scholasticism  and  the  intermixture  of  philosophizing  with 
dogmatics  will  be  got  rid  of,"  he  thereby  involves  liimself 
in  a  self-contradiction.  For  whereas  at  the  end  of  the 
introduction  he  declares  that  he  will  completely  remove 
philosophy  from  dogmatics,  he  has  already,  in  the  beginning 

1  Dogmatik,  i.  p.  84.  -  Ihid.  p.  171. 


schleieemacher's  philosophy  affects  his  theology.    241 

of  that  same  introduction,  introduced  it  under  tlie  form  of 
propositions  borrowed  from  ethics  and  from  the  philosophy  of 
religion.  These  borrowed  propositions,  indeed,  have  for  dog- 
matics such  a  fundamental  significance  that  their  introduction 
restores  not  only,  as  Schleiermacher  would  have  it,  a  formal, 
Ijut  a  thoroughgoing  material,  connection  between  philosophy 
and  dogmatics,  and  even  in  dogmatics  itself  at  the  bottom 
of  the  critical  reflection,  philosophical  thought  is  always  a 
co-operating  factor.  And  certainly  it  is  just  from  this  that 
Schleiermacher's  dogmatics  receives  its  peculiar  value.  For 
only  when  that  philosophical  conception,  which  lies  at 
the  basis  of  his  dogmatics,  and  appears  at  various  points 
throughout  the  whole  system,  has  been  abandoned,  would 
it  be  possible  for  dogmatics,  by  means  of  an  appeal  of 
the  mere  believing  consciousness  to  Schleiermacher,  to  be 
led  back  again  into  the  free  channel  of  orthodoxy. 
But  what  Schleiermacher  intended,  viz.  to  dissolve  the 
material  connection  between  philosophy  and  dogmatics, 
and  to  make  the  latter  independent  of  any  intermixture 
of  philosophizing,  is  not  only  not  reached,  but,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  philosophical  ground  given  to  the  dogmatic 
system,  is  excluded. 

Nevertheless  at  the  subjective  standpoint  of  reflection, 
which  Schleiermacher  intentionally  adopted  in  dogmatics, 
he  could  not  conceal  from  himself,  that  for  the  thoughtful 
members  of  the  Christian  community,  that  is,  for  those  in 
whom  the  speculative  consciousness  had  been  aroused,  a 
contradiction  between  their  speculative  and  their  pious  con- 
sciousness might  possibly  continue  in  spite  of  his  dogmatics, 
and  would  not  be  overcome  by  means  of  it.  For  himself, 
who  was  at  once  a  philosopher  and  a  theologian,  this  con- 
tradiction had  so  little  an  existence,  that  he  was  inclined  to 
speak  of  it  as  only  a  misunderstanding.  "When  he  now 
excluded  from  dogmatics  the  task  of  removing  this  con- 
tradiction, he    did    not    by  any  means    wish    to    exclude    it 

VOL.  1.  Q 


242  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

from  theology,  but  would  ratlier  relegate  it  to  apologetics.^ 
But  since  apologetics,  as  tlie  first  sub-division  of  philosophical 
theology,  has,  according  to  the  demands  of  Schleiermacher,  to 
Ijorrow  from  philosophy  the  fundamentals  with  which  it  is  to 
operate,  and  since,  if  it  is  to  render  a  demonstration  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  those  very  ideas  must  lie  at  its  very 
foundation  as  the  norm  of  its  procedure,  dogmatics,  at  least 
according  to  the  intention  of  Schleiermacher,  would  certainly 
be  delivered  from  all  intermixture  of  philosophizing,  but  this 
would  not  also  apply  to  theology.  If,  however,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  philosophical  conception  of  religion  maintains  a 
normative  significance,  not  only  in  apologetics,  but  also  in 
dogmatics,  then  Schleiermacher,  in  spite  of  his  struggle 
against  it,  reaches  simply  the  standpoint  of  the  religion 
of  reason.^  So  far  as  any  principle  is  concerned  there  is 
no  difference,  in  reference  to  their  normative  application 
to  theology,  between    Kant's    conception    of    religion,  which 


^  Dogmatik,  i.  p.  172. 

2  The  representation  given  by  Dr.  Hodge  of  Schleiermacher's  pliilosophical 
and  theological  tendencies,  and  of  the  inconsistencies  in  which  he  involved  him- 
self, is  remarkabl}'  similar  to  Eabiger's,  and  as  coming  from  one  occupying  so 
pronounced  a  theological  position  is  possessed  of  peculiar  interest:  "Schleier- 
macher's philosophy  is  pantheistic.  His  theology  is  simply  the  interpretation 
of  human  consciousness  in  accordance  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  his 
philosophy.  It  is  called  Christian  theology  because  it  is  the  interpretation  of 
the  religious  consciousness  of  Christians — that  is,  of  those  who  know  and 
believe  the  facts  recorded  concerning  Christ."  "He  was  not  and  could  not 
be  self-consistent,  as  he  attempted  the  reconciliation  of  contradictory  doctrines. 
There  are  three  things  in  his  antecedents  and  circumstances  necessary  to  be 
considered  in  order  to  any  just  appreciation  of  the  man  or  of  his  system.  First, 
he  passed  the  early  part  of  his  life  among  the  Moravians,  and  imbibed  some- 
thing of  their  spirit,  and  especially  of  their  reverence  for  Christ,  who  to  the 
Moravians  is  almost  the  exclusive  object  of  worship.  ,  .  .  Secondly,  his 
academic  culture  led  him  to  adopt  a  philosophical  system  whose  princijiles 
and  tendencies  were  decidedly  pantheistic.  And  thirdly,  he  succumbed  to 
the  attacks  which  rationalistic  criticism  had  made  against  faith  in  the  Bible. 
He  could  not  receive  it  as  a  supernatural  revelation  from  God.  .  .  .  Philosojihy 
being  a  matter  of  knowledge,  and  religion  a  matter  of  feeling,  the  two  belonged 
to  distinct  spheres,  and  therefore  there  need  be  no  collision  between  them." 
Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii.  pp.  138,  440,  441.  London  and  Edinburgh  1874. 
—Ed. 


SCIILEIEEMACHER'S  relation  to  KANT.  243 

consists  ill  the  recognition  of  moral  duties  as  divine  com- 
mands, or  Schleiermacher's  feeling  of  absolute  dependence. 
In  the  one  case  just  as  in  the  other,  a  philosophical 
conception  of  religion  has  a  controlling  influence  upon 
theology. 


244  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.i:DIA. 


§  18.  SPECULATIVE  THEOLOGY. 

What  Sclileiermacher  recognised  as  a  need,  though  he  did 
not  succeed  himself  in  accomplishing  it,  the  reconciliation  of 
the  man  of  science  with  faith,  is  undertaken  by  speculative 
philosophy  and  theology  as  their  task.  Founded  by  Schelling, 
and  built  up  by  Hegel  after  an  exact  method  into  a  separate 
system,  speculative  philosophy  entered  into  the  place  of  the 
subjective  idealism  of  Kant  and  Fichte  as  the  philosophy  of 
objective  and  absolute  idealism,  and  demonstrated  its  import- 
ance and  intellectual  power  by  the  far-reaching  and  com- 
prehensive influence  which  it  exerted  over  all  the  positive 
sciences,  especially  over  theology.  And  this  influence  it 
continues  to  assert  up  to  the  present  hour,  although  it  is 
now  often  shown  only  in  quiet  after-effects.-^  The  name 
Ijliilosophy  of  identity  (identitdtsphilosophie),  which  it  gave 
itself,  indicates  very  precisely  its  nature,  and  leads  most 
easily  to  an  understanding  of  its  character.  The  opposition, 
which  from  the  first  occupied  philosophical  thought,  the 
opposition  of    being  and    thought,  of    nature    and    spirit,  of 

^  C.  L.  Michelet,  Geschichte  der  letzten  Systeme  der  Philosophie  in  Deutscli- 
land  von  Kant  bis  Hegel.  Th.  2.  Berlin  1838.  E.  Zeller,  Geschichte  der 
deutschen  Philosophie  seit  Leibniz.  Miinchen  1873.  [Chalybaius,  Historical 
Development  of  Speculative  Philosophy,  from  Kant  to  Hegel.  Edinburgh  :  T. 
&  T.  Clark,  1854.  Admirable  sketches  of  this  philosophical  system  of  Schelling 
and  its  relations  to  theology  will  be  found  in  Schwegler,  Handbook  of  the 
History  of  Philosophy,  Edinburgh  1867,  pp.  299-315,  and  in  Ueberweg, 
History  of  Philosophy  from  Thales  to  the  Present  Time.  London  1874,  vol. 
ii.  pp.  213-225.  "Schelling  transformed  Fichte's  doctrine  of  the  Ego,  which 
formed  his  own  starting-point,  by  combination  with  Spinozism,  into  the  System 
of  Identity.  Object  and  subject,  real  and  ideal,  nature  and  spirit,  are  identical 
in  the  Absolute.  We  perceive  this  identity  by  intellectual  intuition.  .  .  .  The 
system  of  identity  needs  to  be  completed  by  the  addition  of  a  positive  jihilosophj^ 
— a  speculation  in  regard  to  the  potencies  and  persons  of  the  Godhead." 
Ueberweg,  p.  213.  Compare  Dorner,  History  of  Protestant  Theology,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  357-361.] 


IDENTITY  OF  THOUGHT  xVXD  BEING.  245 

object  and  subject,  of  realism  and  idealism,  Lad  been  in 
tlie  post-Eeformation  philosophy  gaining  a  recognition  ever 
advancing  in  clearness.  The  primary  question  about  which 
philosophy  in  recent  times  concerned  itself  was  the  question 
as  to  the  nature  of  that  opposition.  Speculative  philosophy 
gives  the  answer,  for  its  whole  system  is  devoted  to  working 
out  the  proof  that  the  opposition  does  not  in  truth  exist ;  that 
ratlier  being  is  contained  in  thought  and  thought  in  being, 
tliat  object  is  contained  in  subject  and  subject  in  object,  that 
the  two  sides  of  the  opposition  are  contained  in  one  another, 
and  that  this  identity  is  to  be  realized  in  the  Absolute.  But 
only  philosophical  thought  can  attain  unto  an  insight  into 
this  identity.  Therefore  Hegel  in  his  Phenomenology  of 
Spirit,  which  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  introduction  to  his 
system,  points  out  the  v/ay  upon  which  the  spirit,  in  the 
several  stages  of  its  development,  consciousness,  self-con- 
sciousness, and  reason,  is  led  by  an  inner  necessity  from  the 
simplest  form  of  sensible  certainty  through  all  oppositions  of 
its  empirical  being  to  the  height  of  conceptual  knowledge,  in 
which  all  oppositions  and  contradictions  are  removed,  by 
means  of  which  the  Spirit  knows  itself  as  the  Absolute,  and 
thus  absolute  knowledge  is  reached.  Philosophy  is  the 
sytematic  representation  of  absolute  knowledge.  Logic,  which 
is  equivalent  to  metaphysics,  represents  the  Absolute  in  the 
form  of  pure  thought.  The  categories  of  thought  are  at 
the  same  time  the  categories  of  absolute  being.  The 
definitions  of  being  and  thought  are  developed  in  their 
totality  from  pure  being  up  to  the  notion,  which  becomes 
the  subject-object  of  the  absolute  idea,  which  is  the  absolute 
knowledge  of  itself.  This  universe  of  pure  thought,  just  like 
the  material  out  of  which  God  created  the  world,  has  its 
reality  in  nature,  wdiich  represents  itself  as  the  objectuation, 
or  being  in  a  state  of  otherness  (self-externalization)  of  the 
idea  (natural  philosophy),  and  also  manifests  itself  in  the 
life  of  mankind  and  their  history,  because  the  idea  from  its 


246  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

externalization  turns  back  on  itself  as  spirit,  and  thus  in  art 
and  religion  raises  itself  to  the  consciousness  of  the  absolute 
spirit  which  completes  itself  in  philosophy  as  the  knowledge  or 
self-consciousness  of  the  Absolute  Spirit  (philosophy  of  spirit). 
The  result  of  philosophy  constitutes  the  contents  of  religion, 
and  in  this  is  contained  the  proof  of  "  the  truthfulness  and 
necessity  of  religion."  ^  "  Philosophy  is  firstly  the  logical  idea, 
the  idea  as  it  is  thought,  as  the  determinations  of  thought  are 
themselves  its  contents,  then  next  the  absolute  shows  itself 
in  its  activity,  in  its  productions,  and  this  is  the  way  of  the 
absolute  in  advancing  itself  to  spirit :  and  God  is  the  result 
of  philosophy,  by  which  it  is  acknowledged  that  it  is  not 
merely  the  result,  but  that  it  eternally  produces  itself,  that 
it  is  the  antecedent.  The  one-sidedness  of  the  result  is  in 
the  result  itself  removed."  Philosophy  is  not,  as  one  has 
called  it,  a  wisdom  of  the  world  in  opposition  to  faith ;  rather 
"  philosophy  has  God  as  its  subject,  and  properly  speaking  as 
its  only  subject.  ...  It  is  no  wisdom  of  the  world,  but  a 
knowledge  of  the  unworldly,  no  knowledge  of  outward 
matter,  of  empirical  being  and  life,  but  it  is  knowledge  of 
that  which  is  eternal,  of  that  which  is  God  and  which  flows 
from  His  nature,  and  this  nature  must  manifest  and  develop 
itself."^  What  philosophy  in  its  highest  and  last  instance 
knows,  its  essential  contents,  the  absolute,  the  divine, — that 
is  also  the  contents  of  religion,  and  is  at  the  same  time 
reduced  to  practice  in  religion.  "  Knowledge  of  God  and  the 
inseparableness  of  consciousness  from  this  content  is  that 
which  we,  generally  speaking,  call  religion,"  ^ 

Since,  then,  it  is  so  that  philosophy  and  religion  have 
essentially  the  same  contents,  religion  must  have  the  greatest 
significance  for  speculative  philosophy ;  and  this  is  the  reason 
why  Hegel  is  obliged  to  make  religion,  which  already  in  the 
Phccnommology   and   in  the   Fhilosoph)/  of  Spirit   has  had  a 

■■  Eeligionsphilosophie.     Hegel's  AVerke,  Bd.  ii.  pp.  18,  61. 
2  Ibid.  p.  15  f.  3  jii^i  p_  12. 


Hegel's  philosophy  of  religion.  247 

jjlace  assigned  it,  the  subject  of  a  special  treatment  in  the 
Philoso2)ky  of  Religion.  The  philosophy  of  religion  has  the 
Absolute  for  its  subject,  but  not  merely  in  the  form  of  thought, 
but  also  in  the  form  of  its  manifestation.  "  The  general  idea, 
therefore,  is  to  be  taken  in  its  mere  concrete  sisnificance, 
wherein  its  specific  character  lies,  as  manifesting  and  reveal- 
ing itself.  This  side  of  the  being  is  nevertlieless — since  we 
are  dealing  with  philosophy — to  be  itself  laid  hold  of  in 
thought."  ^  Hegel  has  here  first  of  all  represented  religion  as 
a  great  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  determined  by  means  of  an 
inner  necessity.^  The  development  proceeds  from  the  idea  of 
religion,  so  that  the  idea  of  religion  is  the  substantial,  which 
unfolds  itself  by  means  of  the  several  particular  religions 
until  the  end  of  the  development  has  been  reached.  The  idea 
of  religion  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  whole  range  of  historical 
religions,  and  is  at  the  same  time  the  germ  from  which  every 
determination  has  its  origin,  the  moving  power  by  which  the 
religious  consciousness  is  led  on  to  every  higher  stage,  until  in 
Christianity  it  loses  itself  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Absolute 
Spirit,  and  in  this  way  the  idea  of  religion  has  found  its 
perfect  realization.  "  The  knowledge  of  spirit  for  itself,  as  it 
is  in  itself,  is  the  intrinsic  and  independent  being  (an  unci  fur 
sich  sein)  of  the  knowing  spirit,  the  perfectly  absolute  religion, 
in  which  it  is  evident  that  the  Spirit,  God,  is :  this  is  the 
Christian  religion."^  "  Eevealed  religion  is  called  revealed, 
because  in  it  God  is  become  altogether  revealed.  Here  every- 
thing is  in  accordance  with  the  idea ;  there  is  no  longer  any- 
thing in  God  hidden."  *     Nevertheless,  viewed  as  a  religion, 

^  Keligionsphilosophie.  Hegel's  Werke,  Bd.  ii.  p.  17  f.  [Compare  also  Caird, 
Iiitrodviction  to  the  Philosophy  of  Religion.     Glasgow  1880,  pp.  254-258.] 

-  Ibid.  p.  41. 

3  Ihld.  p.  43.  [The  error  that  runs  through  the  whole  Hegelian  system  shows 
itself  here:  the  confounding  together  tlie  abstract  thought  of  the  human  thinker 
with  the  pure  absolute  thought.] 

*  Ibid.  p.  44.  [See  also  Dods'  Mohammed,  Buddha,  and  Christ.  London 
1877.  Lect.  iv.,  The  Perfect  Religion.  Pairbairn,  Studies  in  the  Philosophy 
of  Religion  and  History.     London  1876.     "It  is  not  pretended  by  any  writers 


248  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOr.'EDIA. 

Christianity  also  has  its  share  in  the  general  nature  of  religion; 
although  its  contents  are  in  themselves  true,  and  in  accordance 
"svith  the  idea,  it  still  has  the  same  only  in  a  religious  way,  not 
in  the  form  of  the  idea.  While  philosophy  and  religion  have  the 
same  contents,  and  there  is  thus  a  point  of  union  between  the 
two,  they  are  distinguished  in  respect  of  form,  inasmuch  as  they 
possess  the  same  contents  under  a  different  form.  Eeligion  is 
a  knowledge  of  God  which  represents  itself  not  only  in  a  sub- 
jective reference,  that  is,  in  a  reference  simply  to  subjective 
certainty,  as  feeling,  as  faith,  as  immediate  knowledge ;  but  also 
in  objective  reference,  that  is,  in  reference  to  its  contents,  as 
a  representation  of  God,  so  that  God  stands  out  before  con- 
sciousness as  outside  of  it,  objective,  distinct.^  Philosophy, 
on  the  other  hand,  has  to  deal  with  the  same  contents,  which 
in  religion  only  gave  a  representation  of  the  Absolute,  in  the 
form  of  the  idea,  and  by  this  means  to  rise  to  speculative  know- 
ledge. "  The  way  and  manner  in  which  spirit  refers  itself 
to  itself,  that  is,  becomes  objective  to  itself,  is  generally  a 
mental  impression  {Vorstdlung),  so  the  consciousness  of  this 
is  religion.  It  is  philosophy,  in  so  far  as  the  spirit  is 
conscious  of  it,  not  in  the  way  of  impression,  but  of  thought." 
"  The  form  in  which  God  is  presented  to  us  is  first  of  all  in 
the  way  of  impression,  and  lastly,  under  the  form  of  thought 
as  such."  ^  Even  in  Christianity  the  consciousness  of  the 
Absolute  Spirit  appears  in  the  form  of  mere  impression ;  so 
that  even  for  it  j)hilosophy  has  to  accomplish  the  task  of 
thinking,  and  has  to  raise  the  impression  into  the  form  of  the 

whose  thoughts  on  this  subject  have  been  accepted  as  a  distinct  development  of 
religious  thought  in  the  country,  that  there  is  any  higher  or  worthier  idea  of 
God  to  be  found  in  any  religion  than  in  Christianity.  Nay,  it  is  not  pretended 
tiiat  there  is  any  higher  or  worthier  idea  of  God  present  to  the  mind  of  the  most 
disciplined  or  spiritual  thinker  than  that  which  was  conveyed  by  Christ.  No 
such  idea  has  been  published.  The  religion  of  Christ  has  actually  conveyed  to 
the  world  its  best  idea  of  God.  .  .  .  Men  felt  that  it  was  not  an  idea  about  God 
they  were  receiving  by  revelation,  but  that  God  was  revealing  Himself." — 
Dods,  l.c.'\ 

'  Keligionsphilosophie.     Werke,  Bd.  xi.  p   62  f.  *  Ibid.  pp.  37,  63. 


THAT  GOD  IS  KNOWABLE.  240 

notiou.  This  conceivaLleness  (notionalness,  Bcfjrdfiiclilceit) 
is  not  excluded,  because  Christianity  makes  its  appearance  as 
an  immediate  divine  revelation.  Faith  in  such  a  revelation 
is  itself  nothing  more  than  an  impression  belonging  to  the 
religious  sphere,  which  has  been  reduced  to  its  notion,  and 
means  the  manifestation  of  the  religious  consciousness  by 
means  of  the  historical  religions.  Hence  the  same  principle 
of  identity  applies  here  which  has  been  applied  by  philosophy 
to  all  other  spheres,  namely  this,  that  everything  which  is 
actual  is  from  the  spirit  and  for  the  spirit ;  that  everything 
objective,  as  something  produced  by  the  spirit  and  also  rooted 
in  the  spirit,  is  nothing  wholly  external,  inscrutable,  but 
conceivable  and  knowable.  "  God  is  to  be  revealed,  or  is  for 
the  spirit,  and  this  self-revealing  is,  at  the  same  time,  the 
witness  of  the  spirit.  Hence  it  follows  that  the  God  of  w^hicli 
we  are  conscious  can  be  known ;  for  it  is  in  accordance  with 
the  nature  of  God  to  reveal  Himself,  to  be  revealed."  ^  But 
the  principle  of  identity,  even  in  its  application  to  positive 
Christianity,  is  not  only  a  formal  principle,  but  has  for  its 
contents  the  philosophical  idea,  the  idea  of  the  Absolute  Spirit, 
as  this  is  the  result  of  philosophy.  "  This  is  the  position  of 
the  philosophy  of  religion  in  reference  to  the  other  parts  of 
philosophy.  God  is  the  result  of  the  other  divisions  of 
philosophy ;  here  this  end  is  made  the  beginning,  is  made, 
that  is  to  say,  our  special  subject,  as  a  simple  concrete  idea 
with  its  infinite  manifestation."  ^  Although  Hegel  expresses 
himself  very  decidedly  against  a  theology  of  reason  which 
affirms  that  God  is  unknowable,  or  will  have  to  do  only 
historically  with  a  knowledge  of  God,  still  Hegel  feels  himself 
to  be  on  common  ground  with  tlie  theology  of  reason,  and 
also  assumes  to  himself  the  right  of  demanding  that  in  the 
philosophy  of  religion  "  he  should  develop  religion  truly  and 
openly  out  of  reason,  without  taking  his  standpoint  from  a 
definite  word,  and  that  thus  he  should  treat  the  nature  of 

^  Keligionspliilosopliie.     'Werke,  BJ.  xi.  p.  58  f.  ^  find.  p.  13. 


230  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

God  and  religion."  ^  He  is  therefore  to,  look  away  from  all 
external  authorities,  and  to  seek  a  discovery  of  truth  only  by 
means  of  the  thinking  reason.  It  follows  from  this  that  no 
contradiction  can  find  place  between  the  philosophy  of  religion 
and  positive  Christianity,  between  reason  and  revelation. 
There  is  one  spirit,  one  reason,  one  truth.  "In  regard  to 
what  concerns  the  relationship  of  the  philosophy  of  religion 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  in  so  far  as  it  is  not  unreal,  it 
is  sufficient  here  to  observe  that  there  cannot  be  a  twofold 
reason  and  a  twofold  spirit, — not  a  divine  reason  and  a 
human,  not  a  divine  spirit  and  a  human,  which  can  be  plainly 
distinguished.  The  human  reason,  the  consciousness  of  his 
nature,  is  reason  generally ;  the  divine  in  man,  and  the  spirit, 
in  so  far  as  it  is  the  spirit  of  God,  is  not  a  spirit  beyond  the 
skies,  beyond  the  world,  but  God  is  present,  omnipresent,  and, 
as  spirit,  is  in  all  spirits."  ^  "  It  is  an  unfounded  assertion 
to  say  that  faith  in  the  contents  of  positive  religion  can 
survive,  if  reason  has  convinced  itself  that  there  is  such  a 
contradiction.  .  .  .  The  human  spirit  in  its  innermost  mean- 
ing is  not  such  a  partitioned  thing,  in  which  two  elements 
could  co-exist  which  were  contradictory  to  one  another."  ^  The 
philosophy  of  religion  is  very  far  from  rejecting  or  explaining 
away  the  Christian  dogmas  after  the  manner  of  rationalism, 
rather  its  special  activity  is  directed  to  the  comprehending  of 

^  Religionsphilosophie.  Werke,  Bd.  xi.  ji.  20.  [Compare  on  the  two  sides 
of  the  question  from  standpoints  both  intended  to  be  Christian— Mansel,  The 
Limits  of  Religious  Thonght,  London  1858  (and  closely  connected  with  this 
his  philosophical  work,  The  Philosophy  of  the  Conditioned.  1866) ;  and 
Maurice,  What  is  Revelation?  a  letter  to  Dr.  H.  L.  Mansel.  London  1859. 
Sequel  to  What  is  Revelation?  By  same  author.  London  1860.  Also, 
Iveraeh,  Is  God  Knowable?     London  1884.] 

-  Ibid.  p.  24.  [We  have  here  an  avowed  statement  of  the  pantheistic  founda- 
tion of  Hegelian  philosophy.] 

3  Ihid.  p.  26.  [The  charge  brought  by  Jacobi  against  Schelling,  that  he  used 
theistic  words  and  phrases  in  a  pantheistic  sense,  may  fairly  be  applied  to 
Hegel.  His  absolute  religion,  notwithstanding  its  Christian  phraseologj',  is  not 
Christianity.  The  Hegelian  position  is  clearly  stated  by  Schwegler  :  "Positive 
reconciliation  of  God  and  the  world  is  only  attained  at  last  in  the  revealed  or 
Christian  religion,  which  in  the  Person  of  Christ  contemplates  the  God-man,  the 


KEGEL'S  TRINITARIAN  SCHEME  OF  DOCTRINE.  251 

these  dogmas,  that  is,  to  the  representing  their  harmony  with 
the  thinking  reason,  and  consequently  their  nniversality  and 
necessity,  so  that  it  leads  to  the  affirmation  that  in  these 
dogmas  absolute  truth  is  contained.  In  the  third  division 
of  his  philosophy  of  religion,  which  treats  of  the  absolute 
religion,  Hegel  has  carried  out  this,  for  he  places  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  at  the  foundation,  and  develops  the  whole 
contents  of  Christian  doctrine  according  to  the  three  kingdoms 
of  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  which  are  reduced,  quite  in  the 
spirit  of  the  system,  to  the  logical  categories  of  the  universal, 
the  particular,  and  the  individual.  The  formal  distinction 
which  exists  between  Christianity  as  religion  and  philosophy 
occasions  therefore  no  contradiction,  but  between  the  two 
there  exists  the  most  perfect  harmony,  because  the  common 
content,  as  well  in  the  form  of  impression  as  in  the  form  of 
the  notion,  represents  itself  as  the  one  divine  truth.  But, 
indeed,  no  distinction  finds  place  between  philosophy  and 
theology,  for  the  latter  has  quite  the  same  task  as  the  former, 
and  has  to  conceive  of  the  absolute  under  the  same  form  of 
thought,  to  emancipate  it  from  the  form  of  the  mere  impression 
under  which  in  religion  it  is  firmly  held,  and  to  raise  it  into 
speculative  knowledge.  Theology  is  "  acquaintance  with  and 
knowledge  of  God."  ^  All  external  evidences  are  useless  for 
the  verification  of  the  spiritual.     Only  through  itself  and  in 

realized  unity  of  tlie  divine  and  the  human,  and  apprehends  God  as  the  self- 
externalizing  (self-incarnating)  idea,  that  from  this  externalization  eternall}'- 
returns  into  itself,  that  is  to  say,  as  the  Triune  God.  The  spiritual  import, 
therefore,  of  the  revealed  or  Christian  religion  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  specula- 
tive philosophy,  only  that  it  is  expressed  there  in  the  mode  of  conception,  in 
the  form  of  a  history,  here  in  the  mode  of  the  notion."  Hist,  of  Philosophy, 
p.  343.  "  The  specific  contents  of  the  Christian  religion,  which  from  this  point  of 
view  are  at  the  same  time  recognised  to  be  the  highest  philosophical  knowledge, 
liave  been  developed  by  Hegel  under  the  formula  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
so  that  the  kingdom  of  the  Father  represents  the  eternal  idea  of  God  as  abstract, 
the  kingdom  of  the  Son  the  idea  of  God  as  differentiated  from  itself  in  the 
universe  and  the  finite  consciousness  of  man,  the  kingdom  of  the  Spirit,  the  idea 
of  God  in  its  concrete  fulfilment."  Ritschl,  Hist,  of  Christ.  Doctrine  of 
Justification  and  Reconciliation,  p.  595.] 

^  Religionsphilosophie.     "Werke,  Bd.  xi.  p.  18. 


252  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDIA. 

itself  can  the  spiritual  be  autbenticated  ;  only  tbrougb  itself  and 
in  itself  can  it  be  verified.  This  may  be  called  the  witness 
of  the  spirit ;  and  even  the  Christian  may,  in  quite  an 
immediate  way,  give  witness  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Scripture, 
because  he  has  been  affected  by  their  truth  in  his  inmost 
soul.  Thus  it  is  justified,  but  yet  thus  it  cannot  be  allowed 
to  remain.  The  most  perfect  form  in  the  development  of 
religion  is  theology,  scientific  religion,  in  which  the  witness 
of  the  Spirit  becomes  known,  along  with  its  contents,  in  a 
scientific  manner.^ 

In  accordance  with  the  position  that  had  been  taken  up  by 
the  speculative  philosophy,  the  problem,  which  had  penetrated 
the  whole  history  of  theology,  had  been  solved.  The  theo- 
logical antithesis  of  revelation  and  reason  passes  over  into  the 
general  antithesis  of  realism  and  idealism.  If  the  latter  be 
overcome,  then  so  also  is  the  former.  And  thus  there  was  at 
last  brought  about  a  treaty  of  peace  between  mental  tendencies 
wliich  it  had  been  thought  could  only  exist  in  antagonism  to 
one  another.  In  consequence  of  the  peculiar  position  which 
was  occupied  by  theology  at  the  time  when  the  speculative 
philosophy  came  to  take  a  prominent  place,  in  consequence  of 
the  utter  breakdown  of  supernaturalism,  in  consequence  of  the 
shallowness  of  rationalism,  and  in  consequence  of  the  sub- 
jective attitude  of  the  theology  of  Schleiermacher,  it  was 
impossible  that  any  other  result  should  follow  than  this,  that 
the  more  profound  theological  thinkers,  who  failed  to  find 
completeness  and  satisfaction  either  for  themselves  or  for  life 
as  a  whole  in  any  of  those  theological  systems,  were  attracted 
by  the  idealism  of  the  speculative  philosophy,  by  the 
systematic  certainty  with  which  it  advanced,  by  the  high 
importance  which  it  attached  to  religion  for  the  real  and 
historical  life  of  mankind,  and  the  position  wliich  it  assigned 
to  religion  in  relation  to  philosophy,  and  to  philosophy  in 
relation  to  religion  and  theology.  A  speculative  theology  was 
'  Religiouspliilosopliie.     AVeiko,  Bd.  xii.  p.  160  fl. 


THE  RISE  OF  THE  SrECULATIVE  THEOLOGY.  253 

soon  constructed  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the 
specuh^tive  philosophy,  which  found  not  a  few  adherents, 
and  numhers  among  its  most  distinguished  supporters.  Daub, 
]\Iarheineke,  Eosenkranz,  Baur,  Rothe,  Weisse,  Biedermann. 
And  although,  just  as  it  also  happened  in  the  case  of  some  of 
the  adherents  of  Schleiermacher's  theology,  there  were  some 
who  came  forward  and  used  the  speculative  method  only  as  a 
cloak  for  the  most  vulgar  dogmatism,  yet  in  general  the 
speculative  theology  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  result  and  proper 
conclusion  of  that  development,  unto  which  theology  in  the 
domain  of  Protestantism  must  reach.  The  Eeformation  faith, 
which  accepted  the  witness  of  the  divine  truth  immediately  by 
means  of  the  M'ord  of  God,  could  certainly  in  this  witness  find 
its  full  subjective  satisfaction  and  rest ;  but  so  soon  as  it 
entered  into  the  great  ecclesiastical  strife  of  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries,  and  thus  came  more  and  more  into 
contact  with  general  intellectual  culture,  all  the  authorities  on 
which  it  had  sought  to  support  itself.  Scripture,  prophecies 
and  miracles,  the  Church,  the  traditional  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  showed  themselves  to  be  insufficient,  and  there 
remained  over  only  the  authority,  wliich  also  is  alone  worthy 
of  it,  the  authority  of  the  Spirit,  which,  out  of  the  innermost 
life  and  law  of  its  being,  ratified  that  immediate  witness, 
and  adjudged  to  faith  its  objective  divine  right.  While 
Catholicism,  in  consequence  of  its  fundamental  princijDles,  was 
led  to  stake  the  justification  of  all  religious  and  moral  truth 
upon  the  miracle  of  the  infallibility  of  a  human  individual. 
Protestantism,  by  reason  of  its  own  peculiar  principle  of 
inwardness  and  spirituality,  is  obliged  to  stake  that  justifica- 
tion on  the  authority  of  the  thinking  spirit  of  science.  As  the 
speculative  philosophy  recognised  and  appreciated  the  ideal 
and  real  worth  of  religion,  it  was  it  that  first  of  all,  in 
accordance  with  the  representations  of  Schelling  and  Daub, 
and  then  of  Eosenkranz,^  received  theology  into  the  ideal  circle 
^  Compare  §  6  of  the  present  work. 


254  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOPiEDIA. 

of  the  sciences,  and  thus  recognised  it  as  entitled  to  the  rank 
of  a  science,  which  not  only  has  to  serve  some  sort  of  practical 
purpose,  but  also  an  immanent  purpose,  and  has  to  reach 
this  end  by  the  way  of  rational  thinking.  While  Schleier- 
macher,  in  consequence  of  his  pursuing  in  his  theology  an  end 
that  had  only  the  Church  in  view,  set  forth  the  believing 
consciousness  as  the  harmony  between  revelation  and  reason, 
it  was  the  scientific  task  of  speculative  theology  to  advance  a 
proof  for  this  agreement  on  behalf  of  the  thinking  conscious- 
ness. Inasmuch  as  it  recognised  the  authorization  of  im- 
mediate faith  as  complete,  it  has  inquired  into  positive 
Christianity,  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  as  the  expression  of  this  faith,  in  accordance  with  its 
own  proper  method.  It  does  not  in  a  one-sided  manner,  as 
rationalism  had  done,  set  the  representations  of  faith  aside 
or  admit  in  tliem  a  merely  historical  value,  but  it  seeks  to 
recognise  the  true  contents  which  are  contained  in  them,  and 
to  put  these  in  a  legitimate  form  as  eternally  valid  ideas 
before  the  tribunal  of  the  Spirit  itself. 

The  acknowledgment  cannot  be  withheld  from  speculative 
theology,  that,  with  its  ideal  spiritualization  of  the  contents  of 
faith,  it  has  at  many  points  hit  upon  the  truth,  and  especially 
has  broken  ground  in  regard  to  an  actually  objective  treat- 
ment of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  ; 
nevertheless  in  general  its  procedure  was  of  such  a  kind  that 
it  was  carried  out,  not  in  accordance  with  a  purely  objective, 
but  rather  in  accordance  with  an  a  priori  point  of  view.  The 
speculative  philosophy  has  certainly  earned  credit  to  itself  by 
its  attitude  toward  the  theological  parties,  for  having  raised 
theology  to  the  rank  of  a  science,  but  to  the  theology,  which 
proceeded  from  it,  it  communicated  not  only  the  formal  prin- 
ciple of  the  rational  thinking,  but  at  the  same  time  the 
philosophical  idea  upon  which  the  whole  speculative  system 
rests.  Hence  it  happened,  that  in  speculative  theology  the 
interests  of  the  speculative  system  were  preponderating  in  the 


HEGEL  IDENTIFIES  CHPJSTIANITY  WITH  ITS  DOGMAS.       255 

treatment  of  the  object  of  faith.  The  tendency,  therefore,  was 
not  to  discern  the  conceptions  of  faith,  which  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture  and  of  the  Church  afforded,  from  the  spirit  which 
produced  them,  but  rather  to  explain  them  in  accordance 
with  the  spirit  of  the  speculative  philosophy.  With  many 
speculative  theologians  the  interest  in  exegetical  and  historical 
theology  fell  into  the  background,  or  at  least,  even  if  it  was 
still  maintained,  was  placed  under  the  dominion  of  ideas 
borrowed  from  the  system.  The  course,  therefore,  which 
speculative  theology  took,  M'as  predominantly  a  metaphysical 
one.  Hegel  himself,  thoroughly  as  he  appreciated  the  sub- 
jective side  of  faith,  allowed  himself  in  the  philosophical 
development  of  it  to  be  led  essentially  in  accordance  with  the 
objective  side,  according  to  which  it  was  to  him  a  representa- 
tion of  the  Absolute.  In  consequence  of  this,  Hegel  was  led  to 
turn  his  attention  chiefly  to  the  metaphysical  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  of  Christ,  the  God- 
man,  the  twofold  nature  of  Christ,  the  incarnation  of  God  in 
Christ,  and  in  those  doctrines  to  point  out  the  speculative 
determinations  of  the  Absolute  Spirit,  because  he  thought  that 
in  this  way  he  was  able  to  show  the  thorough  agreement  of 
philosophy  with  positive  Christianity.  Now  the  importance 
wliich  belongs  to  these  doctrines  for  philosophy  and  theology 
is  not  to  be  called  in  question ;  but  Hegel  overestimates  their 
importance  when  he  identifies  the  Church  dogma  with  Chris- 
tianity. Those  doctrines,  which  are  themselves  indeed  only 
manifestations  of  the  Christian  faith,  do  not  so  essentially 
belong  to  the  contents  of  that  faith,  that  by  them  proof  is  to 
be  led  of  the  harmony  between  philosophy  and  Christianity, 
and  by  means  of  this  proof  is  also  to  be  gained  for  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  just  as  also  inversely,  even  had  disharmony 
between  those  doctrines  and  philosophy  been  demonstrated, 
this  would  not  involve  in  it  a  proof  for  the  untruth  of  Chris- 
tianity. But  the  speculative  theology  for  the  most  part 
attached  itself  to  the  procedure  of  its  great  master,  and  felt 


256  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.TIDIA. 

itself  compelled  to  reverence  in  Hegel  the  genius  by  whom 
the  problem  was  finally  solved  as  to  the  restoration  of  the 
true  relations  between  philosophy  and  Christianity,  between 
theology  and  philosophy.  Thus  it  turned  with  a  special 
preference  to  the  metaphysical  content  of  the  positive  faith, 
and  not  unfrequently  lost  itself  in  a  scholasticism  which  was 
widely  estranged  from  actual  everyday  life,  and  upon  its 
speculative  heights  lost  sight  of  the  real  demands  and  require- 
ments of  the  Christian  faith, — an  estrangement  which  has  in 
large  measure  contributed  to  prevent  the  speculative  theology 
from  finding  a  general  acceptance  in  so  wide  a  circle  as  that 
which  received  the  theology  of  Schleiermacher  with  favour. 

The  conviction,  which  is  shared  by  the  disciples  of  Hegel 
and  the  speculative  theologians,  that  by  Hegel  the  antithesis 
of  revelation  and  reason  has  been  resolved  into  a  higher 
speculative  unity,  maintained  its  place  unshaken  so  long  as 
the  authority  of  the  Master  dominated  the  school,  and  both, 
the  speculative  philosophy  and  the  speculative  theology,  were 
presented  in  the  strict  form  of  the  system  and  in  its  not  easily 
understood  phraseology.  There  were  speculative  mysteries, 
the  celebration  of  which  filled  the  initiated  with  enthusiasm, 
the  understanding  of  which,  however,  continued  locked  up 
from  the  general  public,  not  only  from  believers,  but  even 
from  the  cultured  classes,  and,  as  Hegel  himself  expressed  it,^ 
must  continue  locked  up,  A  harmony  did  indeed  seem  to 
have  been  introduced  amongst  the  highest  orders  of  the 
intellectual  life  by  Schleiermacher,  and  still  more  by  Hegel, 
which  accorded  admirably  with  the  political  restoration  which 
followed  upon  the  storms  of  the  revolution  and  of  the  wars  of 
freedom.  A  rapid  change,  however,  took  place  immediately 
after  the  death  of  Hegel.  The  younger  spirits,  who  had 
received  their  training  from  the  Hegelian  philosophy,  looked 
upon  the  speculative  philosophy  as  the  absolute  philosophy, 
outside  of  which  there  was  nothing  higher.  "What  they  had 
'  At  the  close  of  his  Religionsphilosophie.     Werke,  Bd.  xii.  p.  2S8. 


COURSE  OF  THE  YOUXG-IIEGELIANS.  257 

discovered  in  the  system  as  truth,  they  thought  that  they 
would  be  under  obligation  to  put  into  actual  practice  and  to 
set  forth  for  the  public  benefit.  The  philosophical  results 
were  now  expounded  without  reserve  in  clear  and  generally 
comprehensible  language,  the  Hegelian  principles  were  de- 
veloped without  regard  to  consequences,  and  an  unrelenting 
criticism  was  entered  upon  against  all  existing  conditions  of 
life  in  civil  society,  in  State,  and  Church.  In  the  Hegelian 
school  itself  this  brought  on  a  division  into  the  riglit  and  the 
left  wings,  which  are  distinguished  very  much  by  the  position 
they  assume  on  this  question.  Instead  of  the  reconciliation 
between  faith  and  knowledge  that  had  been  before  proclaimed, 
an  altogether  irreconcilable  breach  made  itself  apparent 
between  Christianity  and  this  philosophy.  The  Hegelians 
of  the  left  wing,  the  so-called  Young-Hegelians,  or  the 
Hcgelingen,  as  they  have  been  mockingly  termed,  gave  free 
expression  to  the  opinion  that  the  unity  of  religion  and 
philosophy  insisted  upon  by  Hegel  was  a  mere  veiling  of  the 
actual  matter  of  fact ;  but  if  one  wishes  to  produce  a  practical 
effect,  he  must  not  create  illusions  either  for  himself  or  for 
others,  but  must  take  things  as  they  are,  and  call  them  by  their 
proper  names.  Now,  although  Hegel  thinks  that  if  religion 
and  philosophy  had  the  same  content,  and  were  consequently 
one,  their  difference  would  amount  to  only  a  formal  difference, 
because  religion  has  the  Absolute  in  the  form  of  the  impres- 
sion ( Vorstellung),  and  philosophy  has  it  in  the  form  of  the 
notion  {Begriff),  there  is  actually  no  truth  in  that  unity  of 
religion  and  philosophy.  Tor  the  content  and  form  do  not 
place  themselves  in  a  relation  of  equality  with  one  another, 
but  rather  where  the  form  is  different  the  content  itself  also  is 
different.  Therefore,  if  philosophy  has  the  Absolute  in  a  form 
different  from  that  in  which  religion  has  it,  the  Absolute  of 
philosophy  is  also  something  different  from  the  Absolute  of 
religion,  and  between  the  two,  not  unity,  but  a  significant 
difference  finds  place.  From  what  has  been  adduced  above, 
VOL.  I.  R 


258  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

from  the  quotations  that  have  been  made  from  the  writings  of 
Hegel,  it  is  clear  that  the  Young-Hegelians  by  means  of  this 
application  of  theirs  have  hit  upon  tlie  actual  meaning  of  the 
system.  In  his  treatment  of  Christianity  Hegel  always  starts 
from  the  position  that  Christianity,  as  indeed  religion  itself, 
moves  in  the  sphere  of  the  impression  {Vorstellung),  and  con- 
sequently conceives  of  the  Absolute  as  something  objective 
and  particular,  as  an  existing  nature  {ein  seiendes  Wesen) 
outside  of  the  Spirit,  and  as  an  existing  divine  personality 
outside  of  and  over  the  world.  This  attitude  of  religion 
Hegel  unequivocally  designated  as  the  standpoint  of  tran- 
scendence, as  the  standpoint  of  abstract  theism,  which 
distinguishes  God  from  the  world,  and  thinks  of  the  world  as 
created  and  governed  by  God  from  without.  At  this  stand- 
point of  dualism  the  ordinary  theology  also  takes  its  stand, 
the  rationalistic  theology  just  as  well  as  the  supernaturalistic, 
although  indeed  the  former  at  the  same  time  admits,  that  of 
God  outside  of  the  world  no  objective  knowledge  can  be 
gained,  that  rather  he  must  be  believed  in,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  Kant,  as  a  postulate  of  the  practical  reason.  The 
philosophy  of  identity,  on  the  other  hand,  raised  itself  to  a 
knowledge  of  God  by  freeing  the  Absolute  from  the  externality 
and  separateness  (Jenseitigkeit)  under  which  it  had  been 
represented  at  the  religious  and  theological  standpoint.  The 
Absolute  is  the  Absolute  Spirit,  which  is  not  outside  of  the 
world,  but  living  in  the  world,  which  manifests  itself  in 
nature  and  in  history,  especially  in  the  historical  religions, 
until  in  philosophy  it  reaches  an  actual  knowledge  of  this 
Spirit  immanent  in  nature  and  humanity.  Philosophy  is  the 
self-consciousness  of  the  Absolute  Spirit.  In  the  idea  of  the 
spiritual  universum  the  religious  and  theological  dualism  is  for 
it  overcome.  Hegel  certainly  is  entitled  to  repudiate  the 
imputation  of  pantheism  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,^ 
as  the  doctnne  that  all  is  God  and  that  God  is  all,  but  yet  the 

'  Compare  Werkc,  Bd.  vii.  p.  453  ff. 


THE  ANTICHRISTIAN  ATTITUDE  OF  STRAUSS.  259 

expression  serves  quite  correctly  to  cliaracterize  his  system,  if 
it  be  taken  to  mean,  that  God  is  only  in  the  all.  lint  if  the 
matter  stands  so  even  with  Hegel's  own  proper  utterances,  the 
Young-Hegelians  did  not  hesitate  to  declare  Hegel's  affirma- 
tion of  the  unity  of  Christianity  and  philosophy  a  mere  fiction, 
and  with  full  definiteness  to  set  the  philosophical  view  of  the 
world  over  against  the  Christian.  The  two  are  essentially 
distinguished  from  one  another,  the  former  maintaining  the 
immanence,  the  latter  the  transcendence,  of  the  divine.  If 
at  an  earlier  stage  the  antithesis  of  supernaturalism  and 
rationalism  was  present  in  the  theological  field,  a  much  more 
profound  and  far-reaching  antithesis  now  presented  itself,  the 
antithesis  of  Christian  theism  and  philosophical  pantheism,  of 
theological  dualism  and  philosophical  monism,  an  antithesis 
which  excludes  every  sort  of  reconciliation,  and  can  only  be 
removed  when  one  side  of  it  has  been  surrendered.  And  as 
to  which  side  must  be  surrendered,  there  could  be  among  the 
Young-Hegelians,  who  saw  absolute  truth  in  the  system  of 
their  master,  no  manner  of  doubt :  the  Christian  view  of  the 
world  must  give  way  before  the  philosophical. 

Among  the  supporters  of  this  tendency  David  Frederick 
Strauss  is  without  doubt  the  most  distinguished.^  The 
tendency  which  has  shown  itself  through  all  his  theological 
writings,  is  the  determined  struggle  against  Christianity.  As 
Hegel  employed  dogmatic  Christianity  in  order  to  prove  the 
unity  of  Christianity  and  philosophy,  Strauss  also  has  always 
this  dogmatic  Christianity  in  view,  in  order  to  combat  Chris- 
tianity and  to  set  in  its  place  philosophical  truth.  Already 
in  his  Life,  of  Jesus  ^  he  unmistakeably  takes  up  this  position. 

1  Compare  Ed.  Zeller,  David  Friedrich  Strauss  in  seinem  Leben  und  seinen 
Schriften  geseliildert.  Poini  1874.  W.  Lang,  David  Strauss.  Ein  Cliaracter- 
istik.  Leipzig  1874.  Carl  Schwarz,  David  Friedrich  Strauss  und  sein  letztes 
Werk  :  Der  alte  und  der  neue  Glaube.  Gotlia  1876.  A.  Hausrath,  David 
Friedrich  Strauss  und  die  Theologie  seiner  Zeit.  2  Theile.  Heidelberg  1876, 
1878.     [Zeller's  Life  of  Strauss  has  been  translated  into  English.     London  1874.] 

'  Das  Leben  Jesu,  kritisch  bcarbeitet  von  David  Friedrich  Strauss.  Tiibincren 
1S35.     2nd,    3rd,  and  4th  editions  1837,   1838,    1840.     [This  work  was  trains- 


260  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.-EDIA. 

When  the  Hegelians  of  tlie  right  set  forth  the  doctrine  that 
the  idea  was  not  a  mere  Kantian  supposed  ground  of  obliga- 
tion {Solleii),  but  indeed  an  essence,  that  therefore  the 
rational  is  also  actual,  that  therefore  the  idea  of  the  incarna- 
tion as  an  approved  idea  of  the  reason  must  also  have  a 
historical  existence,  and  be  realized  in  accordance  with  the 
evangelical  views  in  the  Person  of  Christ,  Strauss  contested 
this  deduction,  apparently  upon  the  ground  of  historical 
criticism ;  but  in  truth  he  set  that  philosophical  proposition 
over  against  the  other,  and,  in  the  sense  of  the  system,  quite 
correct  proposition,  that  the  idea,  that  is  to  say,  the  Absolute 
itself,  does  not  realize  itself  in  such  a  form  that  it  gives  forth 
its  whole  fulness  in  one  Exemplar,  but  rather  spreads  out  the 
wealth  of  its  contents  in  a  variety  of  exemplars.^  In  the 
interests  of  this  proposition  Strauss  takes  up  the  mythical 
principle  of  interpretation,  and  labours  with  its  help  to  show 
up  the  Christology  of  the  Church  in  its  untenableness,  and 
reduces  the  whole  evangelical  history  down  to  its  smallest 
details  to  a  product  of  an  unintentional  poetic  legend. 
"  This  is  the  key  to  the  whole  Christology,  that  as  the  subject 
of  the  predicates  which  the  Church  attributes  to  Christ, 
instead  of  an  individual,  an  idea  is  set  forth,  but  a  real  idea 
and  not  an  unreal  one  like  that  of  Kant."  Not  an  individual, 
a  God-man,  but  mankind,  humanity  itself,  is  the  incarnate 
God.- 

It  cannot  be  matter  of  wonder  that  upon  these  lines  Strauss 
himself  was  soon  surpassed.  In  accordance  with  his  treatment 
of  the  evangelical  history,  it  was  an  easy  step  to  the  supposi- 
tion that  it  was  not  Christ  who  had  created  the  Church,  but 
that  it  was  rather  the    Church    that  hud   created   Christ.     It 

luted  into  English  by  Miss  Marian  Evans,  afterwards  well  known  as  George 
Eliot,  and  published  under  the  title  :  The  Life  of  Jesus  critically  examined. 
3  vols.     London  1846.] 

1  Compare  Leben  Jesu.  Bd.  2.  Auflage  2,  p.  737  ff.  And  the  treatise,  The 
Enduring  and  Changing  Elements  in  Christianity  :  Two  friendly  papers  by  David 
Friedrich  Strauss.     Altona  1839,  p.  9S. 


SPECULATIVE  TRUTH  SEVERED  FROM  CHRISTIANITY.       261 

was  to  this  absurdity  that  Eruno  Bauer  k:;nt  himself,  when  he 
sought  to  reduce  the  Christ  of  the  Bible  to  a  mere  picture 
drawn  by  the  idealizing  fancy  of  the  primitive  Church.^  In 
liis  dogmatics/  then,  Strauss  joined  himself  with  those  who 
had,  in  regard  to  the  relationship  of  religion  to  philosophy, 
combated  the  idea  that  the  contents  and  the  form  are  equiva- 
lent (vol.  i.  p.  12),  and  sought  to  show,  by  a  reference  to  the 
doctrines  as  a  whole,  that  their  untenableness  could  be 
demonstrated  by  means  of  their  own  history.  The  Christian 
system  of  doctrine  appeared  to  him  to  be  simply  a  witness  to 
the  spirit's  losing  itself  in  externality,  to  the  estrangement  of 
the  sjiirit  from  itself ;  and  when,  indeed,  there  remains  over 
to  him  so  little  of  the  historical  Christ,  as  appears  from 
p.  34,  he  can  only  surrender  Christianity  as  a  standpoint 
that  has  been  surmounted.  The  agreement  of  speculation 
with  Christianity  was  a  mere  appearance.  The  cleft  is  now 
deeper  than  ever.  Philosophy,  as  the  immanence  of  the 
Absolute  in  the  M'orld,  stands  over  against  Christianity  as  the 
religion  of  transcendence  (p.  66  K).  Strauss  cannot  hesitate 
to  answer  in  the  negative  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
new  speculative  truth  is  the  same  as  the  old  conception  of 
truth  by  the  Church :  for  Christianity  is  understood  by  him 
only  as  a  subordinate  and  incomplete  form  of  the  trutli 
(p.  71  f.).  Hence  the  men  of  science  have  to  exchange  the 
Church  articles  of  faith  for  the  scientific  views  attained  unto : 
a  reconciliation  between  faith  and  knowledge  is  not  possible, 
and  such  an  attempt  can  only  widen  the  separation  between 
the  two  sides  of  the  antithesis  (p.  332  f.).  The  old  theism  is 
.overthrown ;  God  is  not  a  particular-personality,  but  the 
universal-personality  (pp.  520,  524). 

^  Kritik  der  evangelischen  Geschichte  der  Synoptikcr  von  Bruno  Bauer.  Bd. 
1,  2.  Leipzig  1841.  Compare  my  work,  Lehrfrciheit  und  Widerlegung  der 
kritischen  Principien  Bruno  Bauer's.     Breslau  1843. 

*  Die  Christliche  Glaubenslehre  in  ihrer  geschichtlichen  Entwickelung  und 
im  Kampfe  mit  der  modernen  Wissenschaft  dargestellt  von  D.  Fr.  Strauss.  Bd. 
1,  2.     Tiibingen  und  Stuttgart  1840,  1S41. 


262  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCL0P.4!:DIA. 

With  that  clear  insight  which  was  characteristic  of  Strauss, 
he  would  not  shut  himself  up,  in  consequence  of  those  his- 
torical investigations  which  by  his  negative  criticism  had 
l)een  entered  upon,  to  the  view  that  the  dogmatic  Christianity 
which,  in  his  Life,  of  Jesus  and  in  his  Dogmatics,  he  had 
made  the  one  object  of  his  criticism,  is  to  be  identified  with 
the  Christian  religion  as  such,  and  that  behind  the  dogmatic 
Christ  a  historical  Christ  is  not  still  to  be  found,  whose 
significance  he  had  not  hitherto  acknowledged.  In  reference 
to  this  advanced  position,  Strauss  has  not  hesitated  to  express 
his  opinion  in  very  plain  terms,  first  of  all  in  his  treatise. 
The  Chaiiging  and  the  Enduring  in  Christianity,  and  then 
in  his  new  version  of  his  Life  of  Jesus,  entitled  The  Life  of 
Jesus  for  the  German  People}  In  the  former  work  he 
represents  Christ  as  the  Genius  "  in  whom  the  Father  of  all 
spirits  has  revealed  Himself  to  mankind  ;  "  and  he  represents 
him  as  indeed  a  Genius  of  the  highest  order,  that  of  the 
founders  of  religion,  and  assigns  to  Him  again  among  these 
the  first  place  as  the  founder  of  the  most  perfect  religion, 
"  to  whom  among  all  geniuses  the  first-fruits  are  due  of  that 
honour  which  we  offer  to  genius"  (p.  108  f.).  Within 
the  range  of  the  religious  sphere  the  highest  point  is  reached 
by  Christ,  beyond  which  no  one  in  time  to  come  will  be  able 
to  advance  (p.  127).  He  is  a  first,  who  at  the  same  time 
forms  a  point  of  transition,  by  means  of  which  an  idea 
enters  into  the  world  of  phenomena.  If  the  unhistorical 
character  of  it  be  left  out  of  view,  the  idea  which  Christ 
first  of  all  introduced  among  men  is  in  accordance  with  the 
description  given  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  :  "  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  essential  union  of  the  truly  human  with  the 
divine"  (p.  130).  And  just  in  the  same  way,  in  The  Life 
of  Jesus  for  the   German  Fcoiilc,  it  is  said  of  the  Christ  of 

^  Das  Leben  Jcsu  fiir  das  deutsche  Volk  bearbeitet  von  D.  Fr.  Strauss. 
Leipzig  1864.  [English  translation  entitled,  New  Life  of  Jesus.  Loudon 
1865.] 


STRAUSS'  VIEW  OF  THE  HISTORICAL  CHRIST.  263 

history  that  everything  finds  itself  fully  developed  in  Him 
which  has  to  do  with  the  love  of  God  and  of  our  neighbour, 
with  the  purity  of  heart  and  life  (p.  626).  By  reason  of  this 
hearty  acknowledgment  of  the  religious  sublimity  of  Jesus,  it 
miglit  appear  as  though  Strauss  had  wished  to  stretch  out  the 
hand  for  reconciliation,  and  wished  to  avoid  making  a 
thoroughgoing  breach  with  Christianity.  But  even  in  the 
soliloquies  on  the  changing  and  enduring  elements  in 
Christianity,  even  if  they  should  have  been  written  in  an 
unsound  frame  of  mind,^  still  no  utterance  is  to  be  found 
which  might  stand  over  against  the  fundamental  philosophical 
position  of  the  author,  and  in  the  Life  of  Jesus  for  the  People 
the  Christ  of  history  is  immediately  confronted  with  the 
ideal  Christ,  that  figure  of  moral  mystery  "  of  which  the 
historical  Jesus  has,  indeed,  for  the  first  time  brought  into 
light  many  features,  but  which  as  an  outlined  sketch  belongs 
to  the  general  dowry  of  our  species,  just  as  much  as  its  further 
cultivation  and  completion  can  be  the  task  and  work  only  of 
mankind  as  a  whole  "  (p.  627) ;  and  further,  in  the  dedication 
to  his  brother  prefixed  to  his  book,  "  the  emancipation  of  the 
spirit  from  religious  delusions  "  is  spoken  of,  and  an  expression 
is  given  to  a  view  of  the  world  "  which  with  the  refusal  of 
all  supernatural  sources  of  help  leads  men  to  trust  to  their 
own  resources  and  to  the  natural  order  of  things." 

The  simple  devotion  to  truth,  which  forms  the  most 
conspicuous  feature  in  his  truly  noble  character,  compelled 
Strauss  indeed  to  make  acknowledgment  of  a  historical  fact, 
but  just  as  firmly  did  it  hold  him  down  to  that  philosophical 
conviction  which  he  had  gained  from  the  study  of  the  specu- 
lative philosophy.  That  this  conviction,  from  the  time 
when  he  first  gave  public  expression  to  it,  constituted  the 
innermost  core  of  his  life,  we  must  believe,  in  dealing  with 
such  a  character  as  Strauss,  simply  upon  his  own  word ;  for  in 

^  Compare  Zeller,  D.   Fr.   Strauss  in  seinom  Leben  unl  seiiien  Schrifteu, 
p.  51.     [English  translation,  p.  62  tf.     Compare  especially  p.  66.] 


2^4  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

his  last  wort-  winch,  not  long  before  his  death  in  1874  was 
left  to   l,o,,e  entertaining  his  opinions  as  a  last  testimon;  he 
expressly  says    that  during  forty  years  his  literary  ao^-i*; 
had  been  steaddy  directed  toward  the  same  end  fp  9)      vZ 
have  to  consider  th.s  work  in  short  as  a  confession  in  which 
.»   hfe-long   conviction  is   stated  with  clear  consciousness,   a 
eonvicfon  wh.ch  tl>e  most  painful  experience  of  life  had  not 
destroyed  nor  even  in  the  slightest  measure  shaken.     There 
IS. a.d  before  us  here  briefly  and  conclusively,  in  the  most 
lucid  foini,  a  modern  view  of  the  world  which  is  to  take  the 
place  of  that  of  Christianity  and  the  Church  :  and  the  Cliuich 
as  guardian  of  the  Christian  faith  alongside  of  the  State  and 
chools.  alongside  of  science  and  art,  is  declared  superfluous 

whi  1  I,  ™?-  ■'  ''  "'  '°''"  '■"S"^""  Christianity  against 
wh  ch  the  critic  aims  his  shafts,  so  that  after  an  easily  obtained 
victory    Christianity  geneiuUy,  with  its  representations  of  a 

uZt  r''  "':  '''"  "^^"'''^  '^P--"'^''  -  ^»"e 
un  tnable,  and  as  utterly  incompatible  with  the  modern  view 

o     he  world,  which  is  assumed  to  be  ab.solutely  incontestable 
truth       The  critic  with  the  ■'«,»  i„  „|,„,e  „,,,,  ,,^ 
can  therefore  do  nothing  else  than  make  the  confession  that 
they  are  no  longer  Christians.     There  is,  however,  the  further 
question  whether  they  are  on  this  account  without  religion  ^ 
The  modern  conception  of  God  amounts  only  to  this,  that  the 
very  highest  idea  is  that  of  the  universe,  unity  in  variety 
variety  in  unity,  a  universe  which  embraces  everythin.-  which 
we  recognise  iu  the  natural  as  well  as  in  the  moral  w;rld  as 
loree  and  hfe,  as  order  and   law;  and  it  is  only  when  we 
occupy  ourselves  with  a  mere  creation    of  the  imagination 
that  we  represent  to  ourselves  over  and  above  this  an  ori^i- 
nator  of  the  universe  as  the  Absolute  personality  (p.  119  If) 
The  rel.gion,   therefore,   which    alone   remains  over  to   the 

Lo2l  u-t]    ^     '''"'  '"'"''•"<'"  '■■"""'■■    ""  "'J  F»i.h  and  the  N™.' 


THE  HEGELIANS  OF  THE  EXTREME  LEFT.  265 

"  'wc "  after  their  abandonment  of  Christianity,  can  consist 
only  in  a  relationship  to  this  universe  as  their  highest  idea  ; 
and  so  Strauss  attains  to  Schleiermacher's  philosophical  con- 
ception of  religion,  to  the  determination  of  feeling  by  means 
of  the  universe.  The  new  faith  is  the  feeling  of  uncondi- 
tional dependence  upon  the  universe  as  the  legitimate  All, 
full  of  life  and  reason  (pp.  138,  143),  and  the  ground 
thought,  the  actual  foundation,  upon  w^hich  the  new  faith 
rests,  is  the  principle  :  "  The  universe  is  cause  and  effect, 
at  once  the  internal  and  the  external"  (p.  140),  a  dictum 
regarding  the  "  logical  right  of  existence "  of  which  even 
natural  science,  but  especially  philosophy  and  theology,  will 
have  to  decide.^ 

While  from  the  beginning  Strauss  fought  a  purely  scientific 
battle,  and  by  all  the  means  of  theological  learning  sought  to 
prove  that,  in  accordance  with  the  right  understanding  of  the 
Hegelian  system,  Christianity  cannot  be  reconciled  with 
speculative  truth,  others  started  immediately  from  this  point 
to  make  an  endeavour  to  secure  for  this  persuasion  a  recog- 
nition and  vindication  in  the  actual  life.  The  chief  organ 
among  those  men  whose  philosophy  had  an  immediately 
practical  direction,  was  the  Review  edited  by  Arnold  Euge 
and  Echtermeyer,  and  published  from  the  year  1838  under 
the  title  of  the  Halle  Review  of  German  Science  and  Art, 
(Halle'sche  JahrbUcher  ftir  deutsche  Wissenschaft  und  Kunst. 
8  Bde.  Leipzig  1838-1840),  and  afterwards  under  the  name 
of  the  German  Revicio  of  Science  and  Art  (Deutsche  Jahr- 
biicher  flir  Wissenschaft  und  Kunst.  2  Bde.  Leipzig  1841, 
1842),  and  finally,  in  the  year  1843,  suppressed  by  an  edict 
of  the  Saxon  Government.  If  the  standpoint  of  religion 
generally,  and  of  Christianity,  is  to  be  conceived  of  as 
one  that  has  been  surmounted,  then,  too,  there  is  no  longer 
any  need  for  the  Church.       In  place  of  the  Church  the  State 

'  Compare  Ein  Nachwort  als  Yorwort  zu  den  neuen  Anflanjen  meiner  Sclirift : 
Der  alte  und  der  neue  Glaube,  von  D.  Fr.  Strauss.     Bonn  1873,  p.  45. 


266  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

alone  has  to  step  in  and  has  to  make  this  its  special  care, 
that  the  citizens  of  the  State,  instead  of  being  educated  in 
religion,  are  rather  educated  in  philosophy.  After  the  removal 
of  the  Church,  therefore,  the  State  must  restore  a  public  school 
system,  by  means  of  which  the  philosophical  consciousness  of 
the  rising  generation  may  be  cultivated. 

This  was  the  political  wisdom  which  under  the  greatest 
variety  of  forms  w^as  advocated  by  means  of  this  lleview.  It 
was  Ludwig  Feuerbach/  however,  who  carried  out  the  prin- 
ciples of  this  standpoint  to  their  utmost  extreme,  and  sought 
to  supply  to  the  practical  directions  of  the  Eeview  their 
theoretical  basis.  While  Strauss  wished  to  have  Christianity 
set  aside  as  an  antiquated  view  of  the  world,  yet  he  always 
looked  upon  religion,  in  accordance  with  the  example  of 
Hegel,  as  an  activity  of  reason,  "which,  by  means  of  the 
ascending  series  of  the  religions,  was  leading  on  to  an  ever- 
increasing  approximation  to  the  truth."  -  On  the  other  hand, 
Feuerbach  declared  that  religion  was  merely  a  product  of  the 
human  heart,  in  which  man  makes  his  own  nature  his  object. 
There  is  nothing  objective,  nothing  infinite,  no  Absolute,  no 
real  God,  to  whom  man  may  perchance  in  religion  stand  in 
any  relationship,  but  God  and  the  divine  attributes  are  only 
determinations  of  human  nature  itself,  and  therefore  also  the 
subject  of  religion  is  only  human  nature.  In  reference  to 
God  man  always  relates  himself  only  to  himself,  to  his  own 
nature.  The  truth  in  religion  just  amounts  to  this ;  and  that 
the  same  is  true  also  in  regard  to  Christianity,  Feuerbach 
shows  in  the  first  division  of  his  work  in  dealing  with  separate 
Christian  doctrines,  and  then,  in  the  second  division,  he  seeks 
to  make  plain  the  untrue,  that  is  to  say,  the  theological,  nature 
of   religion.       Man,    therefore,    with     his    religious    notions. 


^  Ludwig  Feuerbach,  Des  Wesen  des  Christcntliums.  Leipzig  1814.  [An 
English  translation  appeared  under  the  title  :  The  Essence  of  Christianity,  by 
Miss  Marian  Evans,  translator  of  Strauss'  Life  of  Jesus.] 

*  Strauss,  Glaubenslehre,  Bd.  1,  p.  22. 


feuerbach's  denial  of  all  religion.  2G7 

accoriling  to  which  he  sets  over  against  himself  the  divine 
as  something  objective,  is  found  to  be  under  the  influence  of 
an  unconscious  self-delusion.  All  religion  is  nothing  more 
than  anthropology.  After  this  insight  has  been  gained,  the 
practical  task  consists  in  emancipating  man  from  his  religious 
illusions,  and  bringing  into  consciousness  his  once  free  nature, 
in  order  that  he  may  learn  in  a  truly  human  way  to  determine 
his  own  position  in  this  world,  and  to  convert  earth  into  his 
heaven.  Thus,  too,  Feuerbach  raises  himself  above  religion, 
as  a  mere  representation  of  the  divine  in  our  own  conception  ; 
but  he  distinguishes  himself  from  the  Hegelians  in  this,  that 
instead  of  pantheism  he  sets  forth  a  pananthropism.  Man 
is  the  All,  and  the  religion  of  the  future  can  only  be  a  cultus 
of  humanity. 

These  theories  were  set  forth  with  great  confidence  and 
self-assertiveness  in  popular  treatises,  and  in  a  style  compre- 
hensible by  the  people  generally.  While  in  themselves  these 
writings  had  much  that  was  captivating,  inasmuch  as  they 
set  man  upon  the  throne,  they  could  not  fail  to  exert  a  special 
influence  upon  an  epoch  wliich  was  deeply  agitated  in  refer- 
ence to  social  questions,  and  which  occupied  itself  with 
various  measures  of  reform  in  the  social  life.  To  this  there 
may  further  be  added  an  ecclesiastical  pressure,  which  iu 
many  places  was  put  forth  by  those  in  authority,  so  that 
vigorous  spirits  might  be  easily  driven  into  opposition  and  led 
to  adopt  this  extreme  of  negation.  It  was  not  therefore  long 
before  an  endeavour  was  made  to  put  this  emancipation  and 
this  cultus  of  mankind  into  practice.  The  so-called  Free 
CJmrcJies  (freie  Gcmeinde),  which,  by  means  of  Wislicenus 
from  the  year  1841,  were  called  into  existence  in  Halle,  and 
which  soon  spread  out  to  other  places,  decided  for  themselves, 
each  society  according  to  its  own  peculiar  bent,  what  should 
be  regarded  as  forming  the  special  terms  of  communion  in  its 
concrregational  life.  For  Humanism  and  Socialism,  that  is  to 
say,  generally  for  tlie  reformation  of  human  society  in  accord- 


268  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

ance  with  the  principle  of  free,  self-dependent  humanity,  it  is 
evident  that  its  heaven  must  be  sought  upon  earth.  Even 
from  among  those  German-Catholic  congregations  (the  so- 
called  Deutsch-Katholicis'iiius)  which  in  general,  in  accordance 
with  their  establishment  under  Johannes  Eonge  in  the  year 
1845,  have  sworn  allegiance  to  the  old  rationalism,  some 
attached  themselves  to  those  Free  Churches.^ 

In  consequence  of  all  these  occurrences  the  Hegelian  school 
was  completely  split  up  and  broken.  Another  philosophical 
system,  which  might  attain  to  a  general  acceptance  and 
authority,  did  not  exist.  On  the  other  hand,  the  natural 
sciences  were  ever  advancing  more  and  more  toward  the  front, 
and  it  was  just  these  sciences  which,  in  part  at  least,  gave  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  free  man  its  scientific  limitation.  If  man 
is  set  forth  and  regarded  purely  in  himself,  then  it  was  an 
easy  step  to  give  a  representation  of  man  free  from  every  trace 
of  idealism,  and  to  consider  him  as  a  mere  product  of  nature, 
which  as  a  product  of  matter  acts,  too,  only  by  means  of 
material  powers,  and  is  determined  by  material  motives. 
Thus  a  system  of  materialism  was  scientifically  established, 
which  soon  became,  even  for  the  uneducated,  the  path  to 
atheism,  and  lost  itself  in  the  pure  egoism  of  communism,  a 
state  of  matters  similar  to  that  which  had  arisen  in  France  in 
the  end  of  the  previous  century,  and  which  led  to  outbursts 
of  the  most  brutal  bestiality.  From  lofty  and  pure  sources 
troubled  streams   flowed   down   to   the  lowest  strata    of  the 

1  "Wislicenus,  Ob  Scrift,  ob  Geist  ?  Leipzig  1845.  Kirchliche  Reform. 
Monatschrift,  herausgegeben  von  Wislicenus.  Halle  1846-1852.  Kampe, 
Geschichte  der  religiosen  Bewegungen  der  Neuern  Zeit.  Leipzig  1852-1860. 
4  Biinde.  [See  an  interesting  account  of  this  extraordinary  episode  in  the 
history  of  the  German  Evangelical  Church,  Herzog,  Real-Eucyclop»die,  zweite 
Auflage,  Bd.  viii.  pp.  656-663,  under  the  section  Lichtfreunde.  Speciallj'^  remark- 
able and  significant  is  the  following  confession  of  Uhlich,  one  of  the  leaders  of 
tlie  party:  "At  the  beginning  I  could  say  :  We  hold  fast  to  the  opinion  that  Jesus 
is  too  high  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  man.  Ten  years  later  I  could  say  :  God, 
Virtue,  and  Immortality,  these  are  the  three  eternal  foundations  of  all  religion. 
And  yet  other  ten  years  later,  I  could  put  forth  a  formal  manifesto,  in  which 
Christianity  and  God  are  no  longer  referred  to."] 


DRIFT  TOWARD  GROSS  MATERIALISM.  269 

people.  The  sublime  idealism  of  philosophy  had  been 
degraded  into  absolute  naturalism.  The  unity  of  religion,  of 
Christianity,  theology,  ancl  philosophy,  proclaimed  by  Hegel, 
was  changed  for  a  direct  antagonism,  was  changed  theoreti- 
cally into  a  reckless  destruction  and  demolition  of  religion 
and  Christianity,  practically  into  the  most  decided  opposition 
to  the  Christian  life,  the  Christian  Church,  and  theology.^ 

^  Compare  generally  the  historical  sketch  and  summary  in  §§  16-18.  Also  : 
W.  Gass,  Geschichte  der  Protestantischen  Dogmatik  in  ihrem  Zusammenhaiige 
mit  der  Tlieologie  iiberhaupt.  Bd.  1-4.  Berlin  1854-1867.  G.  Frank,  Geschichte 
der  Protestantischen  Theologie  (von  Luther  bis  1817).  Th.  1-3.  Leij)zig  1862- 
1875.  J.  A.  Dorner,  Geschichte  der  Protestantischen  Theologie.  Miinchen  1867. 
[English  translation,  published  by  Messrs  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Histoiy  of  Protestant 
Theology,  particularly  in  Germany,  edited  by  Rev.  George  Robson.  Edinburgh 
1871,  2  vols,]  F.  Chr.  Baur,  Yorlesungen  liber  die  Christliche  Uogmenges- 
chichte.  Bd.  3.  Das  Dogma  der  neuern  Zeit.  Leipzig  1867.  Carl  Schwarz,  Zur 
Geschichte  der  neuesten  Theologie.  Leipzig  1856.  4  Auflage  1869.  J.  F.  Rohr, 
Briefe  iiber  den  Pationalismus,  Aachen  1813.  J.  A.  H.  Tittmann,  Ueber  Sui)er- 
naturalismus,  llationalismus  und  Atheismus.  Leipzig  1816.  A.  Hahn,  De 
rationalismi,  qui  dicitur,  vera  indole  et  qua  cum  naturalismo  contineatur  ratione. 
Lipsise  1827.  A.  Schweizer,  Kritik  des  Eigensatzes  zwischen  Rationalismus  und 
Supranaturalismus.  Zurich  1833.  J.  E.  Erdmann,  Vorlesungen  iieber  Glauben 
und  ^Vissen.  Berlin  1837.  A.  F.  L.  Pelt,  Protestantismus,  Supranaturalismus, 
Rationalismus  und  Speculative  Theologie.  Kiel  1839.  K.  F.  E.  Trahndorfl', 
"Wie  kann  der  Supranaturalismus  sein  Recht  gegen  Hegel's  Religionsphilosophie 
behaupten  ?  Berlin  1840.  Tholuck,  Vorgeschichte  des  Rationalismus.  Abth. 
1,  2.  Halle  1853,  1854.  By  the  same  author,  Geschichte  des  Rationalismus. 
Abth.  1.  1865.  Rlickert,  Der  Rationalismus.  Leipzig  1859.  [Hagenbach, 
German  Rationalism.  Eng.  transl.  Edinburgh  1865.  A.  S.  Farrar,  Critical 
History  of  Free  Thought  in  reference  to  the  Christian  Religion.  London  1863. 
H.  J.  Rose,  State  of  Protestant  Religion  in  Germany.  1825.  E.  B.  Pusey, 
Histoi'ical  Inquiry  into  the  Probable  Causes  of  the  Rationalistic  Character  of 
Theology  in  Germany.  1828,1830.  J.  F.  Hurst,  History  of  Rationalism.  New 
York  1865.  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Rise  and  Influence  of  Rationalism  in  Europe. 
2  vols.  London  1873.  John  Cairns,  Unbelief  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  Cun- 
ningham Lecture  for  1880.  Edinburgh  1881  ;  especially  chap.  v.  :  Unbelief  in 
Germany.  Emile  Saisset,  Manual  of  Modern  Pantheism,  an  Essay  on  Religious 
Philosophy,  from  the  French.  Edinburgh  1862.  2  vols.  C.  E.  Plumptre, 
General  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Pantheism.    2  vols.     London  1881.] 


270 


THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 


§  19.  TPIE  IDEA  OF  THEOLOGY. 

A    radicalism    wliich    put   in    question    the    most    sacred 
interests  of  humanity  and  the  most  essential  foundations  of 
the  entire  life,  that  owed  its  form  and  development  to  Christi- 
anity, and  that  had  the  sanction  of  a  long  history,  which  was 
wiUing  along  with  religion  to  set  aside  Christianity,  and  along 
with  Christianity  to  set  aside  the  Churcli  and  theology,  was 
such  as  would  of  necessity  provoke  a  reaction.     Even  natural 
science,  as    well   as  philosophy    and   history,   and    especially 
theology,  and  that,  too,  in  its  present  conservative  direction, 
entered  into  the   struggle  against  tlie  destructive   tendencies 
which    had    come   into    vogue.      After    the    reawakening   of 
interest   in   religion,   which   was    the    result   of  the   warl   of 
freedom,  the  old  doctrinaire  supernaturalism  passed  gradually 
over  into  pietism,^  which  in  accordance   with   the   stimulus 
which   it   received   from   JMoravianism,  and  in    opposition  to 
philosophical  and  theological  idealism,  gave  its  allegiance  to  a 
P.iblical    realism,   and    by  using   the   appliances    supplied    by 
modern  culture,  sought  to  make  the  word  of  Scripture  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  a  matter  of  the  inner  life.    This  pietism 
which  was  most  keenly  affected  by  Strauss'  Life  of  Jesus,  and 
may  even  be  said  to  have  transformed  itself  with   amazing 
rapidity  into  a  polemic  against  it,  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
whole  current  of  the  modern  view  of  the  world  favoured  by 
the  Young-Hegelians,  made  its  appearance  as  the  theology  of 
modern   positivism    and   confessionalism,   or    as    the   modern 
orthodox    theology,   a   transformation    to   which,   it   must   be 

^Compare  Albrecht  Ritschl,    Die  Christliche  Lelire  von  der  Eochtferticnin. 

und  Versohnung.     Bd.  1-3.     Bonn  1870-1874.     Bd   1    p   542      fOfthi  f 

(he  first  volun.e  ha.  been  translated  into  English  by  Re;.  John  S.  Black^under 

le  title,   A  Cntical  History  of  the   Christian    Doctrine  of  Justificati;n  and 

Leconcihation.     Edinburgh  1872.     For  above  reference,  see  pp   513-577  ] 


riEACTION  AGAINST  NEGATIVE  TENDENCIES.  271 

acknowledged,    tlie    Evangelische    Kirchcnzcitung ,    edited     by 
Ilengstenberg  from  the  year  1827,  most  largely  contributed.^ 
After  the   separation   of-  the  Old  Lutherans,   caused   by  the 
union  of  the  year  1817,  it  was  chiefly  within  the  circles  of 
the  New  Lutherans  in  the  united  Church  that  the  modern 
Lutheran  orthodoxy  was  brought  to  maturity.     According  to 
this    theology,   preservation    against    the   anti-religious,   anti- 
Christian,  and  anti- ecclesiastical  tendencies  of  the  time  is  to 
be  found  only  in  the  most  thoroughgoing  restoration  of  the 
positive  system  of  belief  of  all  the   Church.       The  decided 
objectivity  of  this  belief  must  be  set  up  in  direct  opposition 
to  unbridled  subjectivity.     Hence,  above  all,  the  Confession 
of  the  Church  must  be  recognised  as  the  legitimate  rule  and 
authority,  and  the  Holy  Scripture,  from  which  tliat  Confession 
was  drawn,  must  be  regarded  as  inspired  in  the  very  letter, 
and  as  the  infallible  word  of  God.      The  Church  government 
must   be   a  defence   of   this   Confession,    whether   it   be    the 
Lutheran    or    the   Reformed    Confession ;   for   the   stress   lies 
not  so  much  upon  the  contents  of  the  Confession  as  upon  its 
formal  validity  as  law ;  and  besides,  the  conviction  prevailed 
that  the  Eeformed  element  would  in  a  short  time  surrender 
itself  to    the   influence   of  the    Lutheran.       The    theological 
faculties  must  be  formed  by  teachers  who  are  faithful  to  the 
Confession,  and  they  have  only  the  task  of  training  pastors 
who  will  be  faithful  to  the  Confession.     The  pastors  are  to 
subscribe  the  Confession,  and  must  not  by  a  single  finder's 
breadth   depart   from   its    doctrine   in   their  preaching.      The 
order  of  worship  for  the  Church  is  to  be  revised  and  reformed 
in  accordance  with  the  Confession.     Books  of  private  devotion, 
liturgical  services,   and   the   old    Church   hymns,   are    to    be 
restored,  in  order  that  the  old  Church  faith  may  win  its  place 
again   in   tlie  heart  and  affections   of  the    Cliurch.      Church 
discipline,  too,  catechetical  examination  of  those  desiring  to 

J  Compare  Carl  Schwarz,  Zur  Geschichte  der  neuesten  Theologic.     i  Aufla^'e 
p.  22711'.  °  ' 


272  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOPyEDIA. 

enter  into  matrimony,  and  strict  ecclesiastical  marriage  laws, 
are  to  be  enforced.  And  especially,  education  must  be  again 
put  under  the  charge  of  the  Church,  and  not  only  in  the 
primary  schools,  but  also  in  gymnasia  or  high  schools,  the 
catechism  must  be  impressed  upon  the  memories  of  the  youths, 
together  with  the  best  selected  hymns. 

This  theology  recognises  in  the  union  and  in  science  the 
chief  opponents  which  the  restoration  has  to  encounter. 
Both  of  these  were  regarded  by  it  not  only  as  hindrances 
interfering  with  its  aspirations,  but  also  as  the  source  from 
which  those  conditions  of  the  present  which  are  causing  alarm 
had  proceeded :  both  must  be  removed  out  of  the  way,  or  else 
led  into  an  altogether  different  course.  The  union,  which 
had  sprung  only  from  indifference  in  regard  to  the  Confession, 
and  which  was  again  itself  the  means  of  fostering  this  indiffer- 
ence, was  opposed  with  the  most  persistent  energy.  And 
this  opposition  was  not  only  employed  to  induce  the  ruling 
powers  in  the  Church  to  frustrate  the  union,  but  even  the 
separate  congregations  were  enlisted  against  it  by  means  of 
an  anti-union  agitation.  Then  again  to  science,  which  alone 
had  allowed  the  influence  of  subjectivity  to  continue,  the  call 
was  addressed  to  return  from  its  former  ways,  and  to  sub- 
ordinate itself  likewise  to  the  divine  truth  contained  in  the 
Scriptures  and  in  the  Church  Confession  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  Above  all,  this  demand  is  made  of  the  modern 
theology,  which,  by  means  of  the  rationalistic  elements,  that 
have  overflowed  it  like  a  heritage  of  the  curse,  is  thoroughly 
corrupted,  until  it  has  become  a  theology  of  rhetoric,  of 
dialectic,  and  of  phrases,  until  it  has  become  a  drunken 
science,  bereft  of  every  trace  of  reason.  In  its  place  the 
theology  of  facts  is  to  make  its  appearance.  The  Church 
with  its  revealed  doctrine,  the  offices  of  the  guidance  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  services  of  the  Church,  especially  the 
clerical  office  as  "  tlie  ministry  of  the  means  of  grace " 
{Gnadenmittelamt),   with    its     power    of    the    keys,    and    the 


THE  MODERN  ORTHODOX  THEOLOGY. 


0*7  '> 


sacraments  administered  by  it,  with  their  inherent  gracious 
efficacy, — these  are  the  objective  facts  unto  which  theology 
has  to  subordinate  itself,  in  order  to  be  raised  again  to  the 
rank  of  queen  among  the  sciences,  and  to  rule  over  all  the 
other  sciences  with  her  sceptre.^  The  Church  served  by  such 
a  theology,  even  although  endowed  with  the  highest  legal  or 
constitutional  powers,  must  enter  into  the  closest  connection 
with  the  State,  As  the  Church  has  to  seek  its  support  in 
the  temporal  power  of  the  State,  so  the  State  has  to  seek  its 
support  in  the  spiritual  power  of  the  Church.  These  two 
powers  ordained  of  God  meet  together  in  the  system  of  the 
State-Church,  in  which  the  idea  of  the  Church  finds  its  true 
expression. 

During  three  decades,  extending  from  the  year  1840  to 
the  year  1870,  the  field  was  being  occupied  ever  more  and 
more  fully  by  this  modern  orthodox  theology.  The  philoso- 
phical radicalism,  the  revolutionary  events  of  the  year  1848, 
the  political  reaction  which  followed  upon  this, — all  these 
things  worked  together  to  secure  the  elevation  of  this 
theology  to  a  thoroughly  dominant  position,  under  the  protec- 
tion and  directly  under  the  fostering  care  of  the  State.  To 
the  intense  satisfaction  of  that  Jesuitism,  which  might  fairly 
hope  that  on  a  field  which  it  had  itself  fertilized  it  should 
soonest  reap  the  fruits  at  which  it  had  aimed,  this  orthodox 
theology  made  reckless  use  of  the  power  granted  to  it,  with  all 
that  narrow  exclusiveness  that  corresponded  to  its  principles. 
It  was  quite  in  keeping  with  its  legalistic  character  that  it 
should  have  had  among  its  principal  adherents  the  two  jurists, 
Stahl  and  Gerlach.  Among  the  theologians  belonging  to  this 
school  may  be  named  Hengstenberg,  Kliefoth,  Lohe,  Vilmar, 
von  Hofmann,  Thomasius,  Delitzsch,  Philippi."' 

1  Vilmar,  Die  Theologie  der  Thatsachen  wider  der  Theologie  der  Rhetorik. 
Marburg  1856.  C.  Scheele,  Die  Trunkeue  Wissenscliaft  und  ihr  Erbe  au  die 
Evangelische  Kirche.     Berlin  1867. 

-  A  much  more  favourable  view  of  Hengstenberg  and  his  Church  tendencies  is 
given  by  Zockler  in  his  Handbook,  vol.  ii.  pp.  374,  375.  Care  must  be  taken 
VOL.  I.  S 


274  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOr^DIA. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  it  had  some  justification,  or  at 
least  apology,  in  the  conflict  against  the  destructive  radicalism, 
inasmuch  as  it  had  been  driven  by  means  of  one  extreme 
into  the  other.  The  conflict,  however,  as  conducted  by  this 
theology,  must  be  not  only  without  result,  but  must  even 
turn  to  the  advantage  of  the  enemy  against  whom  it  was 
directed.  As  generally  happens,  so  also  here  it  was  found 
that  extremes  meet.  They  occupy  common  ground  in  that 
subjective  arbitrariness  with  which  history  is  treated  by  both 
sides.  "When  orthodoxy  advanced  against  radicalism  the 
reproach  of  revolution,  it  is  itself  no  less  open  to  the  same 
reproach.  For  just  as  radicalism  endeavoured  to  introduce 
its  new  view  of  the  M'orld  with  the  most  decided  negation  of 
the  vital  forces  in  history,  so  theology,  with  an  equally  radical 
negation  of  the  whole  intellectual  and  spiritual  development 
of  Protestantism,  sought  to  restore  again  an  old  view  of  the 
world.  But  just  because  it  urged  this  view  without  any 
intellectual  attempt  at  mediation,  laying  it  down  simply  as 
an  old  law,  with  the  outward  help  of  the  civil  power,  it  was 
not  only  not  able,  with  its  rigid  and  legalistic  orthodoxy,  to 
overcome  radicalism,  which  was  still  at  least  a  product  of  that 
development,  and  had  to  be  fought  witli  spiritual  weapons, 
and  to  gain  a  victory  again  for  the  Church ;  but  it  furthered 
the  very  tendencies  of  radicalism,  inasmuch  as,  just  by  means 
of  the  violent  pressure  of  an  antiquated  ecclesiasticism, 
estrangement  from,  and  active  opposition  to  the  Church, 
were  called  forth  in  many  circles.      In  its  conflict  against  the 

to  distinguish  the  dilferent  tendencies  which  show  themselves  in  different 
members  of  this  schooh  For  among  its  adherents  there  were  extreme  and 
moderate  confessionalists.  To  the  former  chiss  belong  Ilengstenberg  and 
Philippi ;  to  the  latter,  Thomasius,  Delitzsch,  and  Hofmann.  Then,  besides 
these  classes,  there  was  another  which  deserves  the  name  Sacramentarian, 
including  Kliefoth  and  Lohe.  It  is  necessary  that  such  a  distinction  as  this 
should  be  made  in  regard  to  a  list  of  names  like  that  given  above.  It  would 
clearly  be  unjust  to  classify  Hofmann  and  Delitzsch,  in  regard  to  their  confes- 
sionalism,  along  with  Hengstenberg  and  rhilipiii  ;  and  equally  unjust  to  all 
these,  to  charge  them  with  Romanizing  tendencies.  For  a  fairer  estimate  of 
Hofmann's  tendencies,  see  Dorner,  Hist.  Trot.  Theology,  ii.  405. — Ed. 


THE  MEDIATION-THEOLOGY.  275 

destructive  tendencies  of  the  times,  this  theology  made  the 
mistake  of  entering  upon  a  conflict  with  Protestantism  itself. 
In  accordance  with  the  principles  which  it  adopted,  it  turned 
hack,  not  simply  to  the  old  orthodox  Protestant  theology,  but 
to  the  orthodox  theology  of  Catholicism.  To  rob  theology  of 
every  rational  element,  and  to  place  it  purely  under  the 
authority  of  the  Church,  of  ecclesiastical  officers,  and  of  tradi- 
tion, is  utterly  to  efface  theology  as  a  science,  and  to  wound 
at  the  very  seat  of  its  life  Protestantism,  which  as  the  outflow 
of  the  Christian  conscience  is  to  be  established,  not  upon 
external  authorities,  but  upon  the  authority  of  the  spirit. 
The  Catholicizing  tendency  made  its  appearance  in  the  ranks 
of  modern  Lutheran  orthodoxy  so  unmistakeably,  that  even 
the  evangelical  Supreme  Church  Council  {Ohcr  Kirchenrath) 
at  Berlin  in  the  year  186  7  found  itself  obliged  to  send  forth 
a  warning  in  regard  to  it  in  the  form  of  a  special  circular. 
Dorner,  too,  has  very  happily  described  the  situation :  "  This 
was  the  stage,"  he  says,  "  which  in  Germany  corresponded  to 
that  of  Puseyism  in  England,  which  had  preceded  it  by  some 
decades."  ^ 

The  restoration  theology  of  the  period  from  the  year  1840 
to  the  year  1870  is,  in  accordance  with  its  whole  character, 
an  eloquent  and  earnest  exhortation  addressed  to  the  theology 
of  the  present  to  withdraw  itself  from  principles  which  it 
maintained  had  been  proved  untenable,  partly  by  means  of 
the  Pieformation  itself,  and  partly  by  means  of  the  history  of 
Protestant  theology.  Instead,  however,  of  breaking  with  that 
history,  it  rather  attached  itself  to  its  results,  and  on  this 
ground  endeavoured  to  secure  for  itself  a  scientific  form.  In 
order  to  attain  this  end,  it  has  to  hold  its  own  against  the 
two  most  important  theological  systems,  with  which  the 
more     recent     development    had    been    brought    to    a    close, 

1  Compare  Dorner,  Gescliichte  der  Protestantischen  Thcologe,  p.  823. 
[P^nglish  translation,  vol.  ii.  p.  404.  Ou  German  Puseyism  in  general,  see 
vol.  ii.  pp.  403-406.] 


276  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

Sclileierinaclier's  theology  aud  the  speculative  theology.  In 
favour,  generally  speaking,  of  such  a  demand  is  the  fact  that 
the  elements  of  the  two  systems  referred  to,  separated  more  or 
less  from  one  another,  and  often  in  their  most  characteristic 
blending,  form  for  a  large  circle  the  fundamental  constituents 
of  the  theology  of  the  last  decade.  For,  notwithstanding  that 
the  orthodox  theology  proscribed  theological  science,  and,  so 
far  as  it  was  able,  endeavoured  to  remove  the  very  remains  of 
it,  there  were  not  wanting  theologians  who,  with  a  genuinely 
Protestant  and  scientific  spirit,  pursued  the  study  of  theology 
in  accordance  with  impulses  received  from  Schleiermacher 
or  Hegel,  and  sought  to  defend  the  conservative  interests  of 
the  Church  in  opposition  to  the  strong  current  in  favour  of 
nefration.  These  theologians  have  themselves  named  their 
theology  the  Mediation  -  theology,  and  it  has  now  become 
customary  to  refer  to  it  under  this  name.^  Among  its  most 
distinguished  representatives  may  be  named  Neander,  Liicke, 
C.  I.  Nitzsch,  Julius  Miiller,  Dorner,  Ullmann,  Liebner, 
J.  P.  Lange,  Martensen,  Hagenbach,  Hundeshagen,  Palmer ; 
and  it  is  sufficient  to  mention  these  names  in  order  to  call  to 
remembrance  the  distinguished  service  which  the  Mediation- 
theology  has  rendered  to  the  advancement  of  theological 
science  in  all  its  departments,  in  exegesis,  in  Church  history, 
in  dogmatics,  and  in  practical  theology.  Nevertheless,  looked 
at  in  reference  to  its  systematic  foundations,  it  shows  so 
many  defects  and  weaknesses,  that  the  significance  of  a 
theological  system  wdiich  has  been  able  to  solve  the  problems 
set  for  theology  by  its  history  cannot  be  conceded  to  it.  For 
while,  by  reason  of  the  eclecticism  with  which  it  draws, 
partly  from  the  theology  of  Schleiermacher,  partly  from  specu- 
lative philosophy,  it  proceeds  without  a  distinctive  standard, 
it  seeks,  particularly  in  regard  to  all  essential  questions,  to  be, 
on  the  one  hand,  as  just  as  possible  to  the  claims  of  science, 

1  Compare   Schwarz,    Zur  Geschiclite   der   nouesten   Theologie.      4   Auflage, 
p.  341  S. 


Frank's  method  of  ciiristiax  proof.  277 

but  also  with  comprehensive  intentions,  on  the  other  hand, 
to  conserve  the  fundamental  positions  of  the  old  orthodox 
theology ;  so  that,  in  consequence  of  this  uncertain  fluctua- 
tion hither  and  thither,  it  has  not  been  able  to  win  any  lirni 
standpoint  for  an  unfettered  historical  treatment  and  for  an 
objective  historical  criticism.  The  Theological  Encycloptedia 
of  Hagenbach^  is  a  proof  of  what  has  been  said,  as  also  his 
Apology  for  the  Mediation-theology,  which,  notwithstanding  all 
the  excellencies  which  are  to  be  admitted  in  its  favour,  still 
does  not  succeed  in  removing  out  of  view  its  weak  points.'^ 

As  a  piece  of  evidence,  the  System  of  Christian  Certainty 
of  Frank  does  not  prove  satisfactory.^  Frank  proceeds  upon 
the  lines  of  Schleiermacher  from  the  certainty  of  faith,  and, 
while  he  makes  the  certainty  of  regeneration  and  conversion 
the  essential  ground  of  that  certainty  of  faith,  and,  in  refer- 
ence to  this  central  certainty,  distinguishes  the  objects  of 
Christian  truth  into  immanent,  transcendent,  and  transient, 
the  Christian  is  to  have  a  self-certainty  as  to  the  truth  of  all 
those  objects  of  faith,  in  so  far  as  they  are  embraced  in  that 
central  certainty.  He  is  to  be  led  on,  in  the  same  way 
in  which  he  was  led  to  the  certainty  of  regeneration,  to  the 
reality  of  an  absolute  personal  God ;  and,  by  means  of  an 
analysis  of  the  separate  elements  that  enter  into  the  process  of 
regeneration,  he  is  brought  to  distinguish  in  God  a  tri-personal 
mode  of  existence.  By  such  a  statement  Frank  certainly 
means  it  to  be  understood,  that  from  the  sources  of  knowledge 
at  his  command  he  reaches  only  the  idea  of  an  economic 
Trinity,  and  that  the  idea  of  an  immanent  or  essential  Trinity 
must  be  relegated  to  dogmatics. 

By  means  of  this  method,  which  proceeds  from  Christian 
experience  and  the  certainty  of  faith,  we   can  never  attain  a 

^  Compare  what  is  said  in  criticism  of  Hagenbach's  Encyclopaedia  under  §  6. 

-  Ueber  die  sogenannte  Vermittelungs  Theologie.  Zur  Abwehr  und  Ver- 
stiindigung,  von  K.  R.  Hagenbach.     Zurich  1858. 

3  Das  System  der  Christlichen  Gewissheit  von  Fr.  H.  R.  Frank.  Iliilfto 
1,  2.     Erlangen  1870,  1873. 


278  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDIA. 

higher  position  than  that  of  a  subjective  certainty  of  truth. 
For,  however  general  that  experience  and  certainty  may  be, 
the  demonstration  of  the  truth,  that  is,  the  necessity  and 
universal  validity  of  the  objects  of  faith,  cannot  be  deduced 
from  such  a  line  of  argument.  Indeed,  it  must  lead  to  the 
most  doubtful  consequences,  if  we  were  to  conclude  from  the 
certainty  of  faith  to  the  reality  of  the  objects  of  faith.  Sub- 
jective certainty  does  not  determine  objective  truth,  but 
contrariwise,  often  the  former  is  determined  by  the  latter. 
But  further,  even  dogmatics,  which  Frank  introduces  in 
systematic  theology  after  his  System  of  Christian  Certainty, 
cannot  advance  to  a  demonstration  of  this  objective  truth. 
For  this  would  be  to  dominate  doirmatics,  and  to  degrade  it  to 
a  position  of  complete  dependence,  if  it  is  not  to  be  in  its 
power  either  to  abandon  or  to  alter  anything  that  has  been 
laid  doM^n  in  the  preceding  System  of  Certainty  as  Christian 
truth.  Thus  dogmatics  still  wears  the  aspect  of  a  merely 
theological  article  of  luxury,  or  must  yet  sink  back  into  a 
mere  formal  intellectualism.^  By  means  of  a  most  impressive 
reflection  upon  the  vital  elements  of  faith,  Frank  endeavours 
to  make  the  object  of  faith  the  personal  possession  of  the 
Christian  subject,  but  he  has  not  thereby  succeeded  in  accom- 
plishing the  scientific  task  which  has  been  set  for  theology. 
The  extraordinary  significance  which  Carlblom^  has  assigned 
to  the  work  of  Frank,  as  opening  up  new  lines  of  inquiry,  we 


'  Frank  has  meanwhile  begun  to  publish  his  dogmatics  under  the  title, 
System  der  Christlichen  Wahiheit.  1  Hiilfte.  Erlangen  1878.  Specialists  will 
have  to  determine  upon  the  relation  of  this  to  the  System  of  Certaintj-. 
[Zockler,  Handbook,  vol.  ii.  p.  635,  refers  to  the  system  of  Frank  as  a  genial 
work,  which  is  destined  to  exert  a  powerful  influence  on  the  further  development 
of  the  evangelical  Lutheran  system  of  doctrine.  The  system  is  embraced  in  three 
divisions.  The  iirst  is  given  in  the  work  on  Christian  Certainty  ;  the  second  is 
given  in  that  on  Christian  Truth,  of  which  the  concluding  portion  was  published 
in  1881  ;  the  third  division  is  entitled,  System  der  Christlichen  Sittlichkeit,  and 
of  this  the  first  portion  has  appeared,  Erlangen  1884.] 

-  Zur  Lehre  von  der  Christlichen  Gewissheit.  Drei  Abhandlungen  von  A. 
Carlblom.  Leipzig  1874.  [Three  Treatises  on  the  Doctrine  of  Christian 
Certainty.] 


DIFFEKENCES  OF  SCHLEIERMACIIER  AND  HEGEL.  279 

are  not  able  to  recognise.  His  work  may  be  satisfying  to  the 
■believing  Christian,  who  stands  fast  in  his  faith,  although 
even  he,  unless  he  be  altogether  unreflecting,  will  be  beset  by 
many  doubts  upon  the  way  along  which  Frank  leads  him. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  as  for  the  Christian  who  has  been 
shaken  in  his  faith,  and  as  for  the  anti-religious  and  anti- 
christian  tendencies  of  the  age,  from  which  indeed  the  most 
agitating  doubts  pass  over  into  Christian  souls,  this  work,  with 
its  whole  reflective  deduction,  will  scarcely  assist  in  reaching 
Christian  certainty. 

If,  then,  the  eclecticism  which  characterizes  the  Mediation- 
theology  does  not  allow  it  to  attain  unto  a  fundamental  and 
systematic  new  construction  of  theology,^  it  follows  from  what 
has  been  said  in  §§   17  and   18   regarding   Schleiermacher's 
theology  and  the  speculative  theology,  that  not  even  the  carrying 
out  of  either  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  systems  to  its 
ultimate  consequences  could  lead  to  this  end.    Much  rather  it  is 
urfred,  should  the  untenableness  of  the  Mediation-theology  be 
overcome,  we  ought  to  hold  fast  to  the  truth  which  is  present 
in  each,  after  the  defects  belonging  to  both  systems  have  been 
eliminated,  in  order  by  means  of  this  combination  to  win  a 
distinctive  standard  according  to  which  the  system  of  theology 
is  to  be  constructed.    Schleiermacher  and  Hegel,  as  the  actual 
creators  of  speculative  theology,  are,  in  the  domain  of  theology, 
regarded  as  contrary  to  one  another.     In  principle,  the  opposi- 
tion is  conditioned  by  means  of  their  different  conceptions  of 
religion.     According  to  Schleiermacher,  religion  is  the  feeling 
of  absolute  dependence  upon  God  ;  according  to  Hegel,  it  is 
the  apprehension  of  the  Absolute.     Out  of  this  difference  there 
must    result    a    difference     in    the    conception    of   theology. 
Because  Schleiermacher  introduced  into  theology  his  aisthetical 
idea  of  religion  derived  from  philosophy,  and  in  accordance 

1  Compare,  against  the  Mediation-theology  in  favour  of  a  liberal  theology  as 
a  Mediation-theology,  0.  Bagge,  fermenta  theologica.  Zur  freien  Theologie. 
Leipzig  1869. 


280  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP^DLA.. 

therewith  deterniined  the  essence  of  Christianity  to  be  faith 
in  the  redemption  through  Christ,  he  makes  this  psycho- 
logical ground  of  faith  the  immediate  believing  consciousness, 
and  that,  too,  in  its  evangelical  definiteness,  the  standard 
according  to  which  positive  Christianity  is  to  be  estimated, 
and  sets  before  himself  no  other  end  than  to  indicate  how 
far  the  doctrine  of  the  Scripture  and  of  the  Church  is  in 
accordance  with  that  faith.  This  whole  theological  activity, 
liowever,  is  not  elaborated  for  believers,  since  these,  by  reason 
of  their  certainty  of  faith,  are  not  in  need  of  any  such 
theological  apparatus  ;  but  it  is  to  serve  rather  for  the  Church, 
which,  as  the  communion  of  believers,  has  at  the  same  time 
to  realize  the  ethical  end  of  Christianity.  It  is  intended, 
therefore,  for  those  who  are  entrusted  with  the  difficult  and 
highly  responsible  office  of  guiding  the  Church,  in  order  to 
give  them  certainty  regarding  that  which  is  Christian  and 
evangelical,  and  they  are  to  be  furnished  with  all  the  accom- 
plishments which  are  indispensable  for  the  management  of 
the  Church.  The  theology  of  Schleiermacher  confines  itself 
within  the  limits  of  this  subjective  and  ecclesiastico-practical 
.sphere.  It  purposely  excludes  from  it  the  proof  for  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  and  satisfies  itself  with  explaining  what  is 
Christian  according  to  the  evangelical  faith.  Nevertheless, 
theology  cannot  therefore  either  regard  its  task  as  accom- 
plished, or  confine  it  within  the  limits  drawn  for  it  by 
Schleiermacher.  After  Christianity,  in  the  department  of 
Protestantism,  was  drawn  into  the  general  historical  and 
philosophical  discussion,  after  a  new  view  of  the  world  was  in 
consequence  of  this  constructed,  which  entered  into  antagonism 
with  the  scientific  attitude  of  the  old  Christian  view,  after  all 
the  external  authorities,  upon  which  the  old  theology  sup- 
ported the  truth  of  Christianity,  have  proved  themselves  ready 
to  fall  and  untenable,  and  after  it  has  been  seen  that  the  old 
view  is  not  to  be  won  back  even  by  the  forcible  measures  of 
modern  orthodoxy,  theology   must   step   out   from   its  intra- 


THEOLOGICAL  TENDENCIES  OF  SCHLEIEEMACHER  AND  HEGEL.     281 

ecclesiastical  position,  and,  in  a  manner  universally  valid  and 
purely  objective,  lead  the  proof  of  its  truth  from  the  essence 
of  Christianity.  This  is  the  result  to  which  theology,  by 
means  of  its  development  on  the  field  of  Protestantism,  must 
be  conducted  ;  and  this  must  be  made  plain  from  the  side  of  the 
speculative  philosophy,  just  as  well  by  means  of  the  positive 
attitude  which  it  assumed  toward  Christianity  and  theology, 
as  by  means  of  the  negative  tendencies  which  it  called  forth. 
According  to  Hegel's  theoretical  conception  of  religion,  religion 
is  not  only  a  determination  of  feeling  by  means  of  the  Infinite, 
but,  as  an  apprehension  of  the  Absolute,  is  at  the  same  time  an 
immediate  cognition  and  thought.  And  if,  now,  Christianity 
is  the  apprehension  of  the  Absolute  Spirit,  the  believing  con- 
sciousness may  constantly  be  certain  of  the  idea  of  the 
Absolute  by  virtue  of  the  immediate  witness  of  the  spirit,  and 
may,  out  of  its  own  inner  life,  create  an  objective  system  of 
faith.  But  the  thought  always  latent  and  living  in  the  faith 
must  at  the  same  time  seek  to  conceive  of  the  object  of 
faith  in  accordance  with  its  own  laws,  and  to  reach  to  an 
objective  knowledge  of  it.  From  the  very  nature  of  faith, 
there  follows  the  necessity  of  its  establishing  the  immediate 
witness  of  the  spirit  by  means  of  the  intellectually  mediated 
witness  of  thought,  and  proving  the  content  of  faith  in  its 
reasonable  and  universally  valid  truth.  Now  this  task,  inas- 
much as  it  is  concerned  with  the  knowledge  of  the  Absolute 
Spirit,  falls  principally  under  the  head  of  philosophy,  and 
along  with  it,  also  of  theology.  This,  too,  is  in  accordance 
with  its  notion,  the  knowledge  of  God  mediated  by  rational 
thought. 

These  two,  Schleiermacher  and  Hegel,  in  a  similar  manner 
made  light  of  all  external  authorities  in  their  procedure. 
But,  while  the  former  always  treats  the  matter  in  a  purely 
subjective  way,  and  seeks  by  the  believing  consciousness  to 
restore  the  harmony  between  revelation  and  the  believing 
subject ;    Hegel,  in  accordance  with  the  principle  laid  down 


^82 


THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP^DLV. 


by  liim,  in  a  purely  objective  way  aims  at  proving  the  agree- 
ment of  revelation  with  the  thinking  consciousness.  According 
to  the  different  changes  through  which  theology  passed  since 
its  separation  from  tlie  old  orthodoxy,  during  which  it  main- 
tained a  relation  to  the  object  of  faith  more  or  less  subjective, 
and  blended  foreign  elements  with  its  subject  -  matter,  it 
first,  by  means  of  the  speculative  philosophy,  received  its 
scientific  character  and  the  capacity  for  apprehending  its 
subject  as  it  really  is,  that  is,  proving  it  in  tlie  truth 
of  its  contents,  and  accordingly  acknowledging  or  rejecting  it. 
If  theology  is  to  affirm  its  right  to  rank  as  a  science,  and  if 
it  is  to  receive  an  independent  position  over  against  philosophy 
and  the  other  sciences,  then  it  must  also  make  the  formal 
principle  of  all  philosophy,  and  of  the  other  exact  sciences, 
the  principle  of  rational  thought,  its  own,  and,  like  every  exact 
science,  it  must  seek  to  recognise  the  positive  element  given 
it  by  means  of  rational  thought.  And  since  its  activity  is 
consequently  directed  immediately  to  its  subject,  it  follows 
necessarily  that  it  has  to  pursue,  not,  like  the  theology  of 
Schleiermacher,  a  practical  end  lying  outside  of  its  own  subject, 
but,  pre-eminently  and  first  of  all,  a  theoretical  end,  in  order 
to  apprehend  the  subject  of  which  it  treats  in  its  objective 
truth.  And,  likewise,  there  is  this  further  result,  that  it 
cannot,  like  the  theology  of  Schleiermacher,  confine  itself 
within  the  limits  of  a  confession.  For  it  is  not  Christianity, 
according  to  its  conception  in  this  or  in  that  particular  sect, 
that  it  has  to  expound,  but  it  has  rather  to  subject  these 
particular  expressions  of  Christianity  to  its  criticism,  and  by 
this  means  to  ascertain  Christian  truth  as  such,  free  from  all 
sectarian  interests. 

While  this  theology  distinguishes  itself  from  that  of  Schleier- 
macher by  this  purely  theoretical  attitude,  it  is  nevertheless 
necessary  that  from  this  side  the  further  development  thereof 
should  be  constantly  carried  on.  It  is  in  accordance  with 
the  theoretical  conception  of  religion,  which  the  speculative 


COKRECTIVES  SUPPLIED  BY  SCHLEIEKMACIIF.n.  283 

pliilosophy   and  the   speculative   theology  followed,   that   by 
preference  it  should  turn  to  the  metaphysical  contents  of  the 
Christian  faith,  and  that  while  engaged  in  metaphysical  specula- 
tions, it  should  lose  sight  of  the  psychological  significance  which 
the    objects   of   faith  have   for   the    believing    consciousness. 
Against  a  one-sided  objectivism,  which  thought  to  be  able  by 
means  of  its  own   notion  to  create  the   entire  fulness  of  the 
actual  life,  theology  must  seek  something  as  a  counteractive 
in   the    subjectivism   of   Schleiermacher,   and   must   maintain 
firm  hold  of  the  truth  of  that  deep  psychological  conception 
which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  its  idea  of  religion.      Guided 
by  this,  theology  will  deal  with  and  estimate  the  objects  of 
faith,  not  only  as  theoretical  problems,  but  at  the  same  time 
in  their  relation  to  the  immediate  life  of  faith,  and  will  be  in 
a  position  to  point  out  the   groundlessness  of  those   abstract 
consequences  to  which  the  speculative  notion  of  religion  had 
given   rise.       As   theology,   too,   may   in   the   future   always 
assume  the  proof  advanced  by  Schleiermacher,  that  religion 
is  an  independent  and  indestructible  life  rooted  in  the  very 
nature  of  the  human  spirit,  this  may  be  received  as  in  itself 
a  precious  inheritance.     Without  overlooking  a  single  aspect 
of  its  purely  scientific   task,  it  will  also  henceforth    always 
keep  in  view,  after  the  example  of  Schleiermacher,  the  idea 
of  the  Church,   and  place   its    whole   activity  in   connection 
with  the  life  and  the  task  of  the  Church.      It  will  also  give 
its  due  importance  to  the   ethical   character  of  Christianity, 
which  was  also  brought  into  prominence  by  Schleiermacher, 
and  will    attend  to   the   practical   ends    resulting   therefrom 
which  the  Church  has  to  serve. 

While  theology,  in  accordance  with  these  hints,  has  to 
appropriate  the  elements  of  truth  present  in  Schleiermacher's 
theology  and  in  speculative  theology,  and  has  to  build  up  its 
system  in  accordance  with  the  declared  formal  principle,  it  must 
be  mindful  of  its  origin,  that  it  proceeds  from  the  life  of  faitli 
of  the  Church,  and  has  for  its  subject  Christianity  according 


-84  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

to  the  understanding  of  the  Church,  as  the  most  perfect  divine 
revelation,  therefore  as  the  idea  of  religion.  It  must  as  posi- 
tive science,  in  opposition  to  both  of  those  theological  systems, 
avoid  dependence  upon  philosophy,  into  which  it  fell  since 
the  time  when  it  was  obliged  to  quit  the  path  of  orthodoxy, 
and  it  must  maintain  its  independence  over  against  philosophy. 
Inasmuch  as  Schleiermacher  borrows  from  philosophy  for 
theology  the  idea  of  religion,  of  Christianity,  and  of  the  Church, 
and  makes  the  demand  of  every  theologian,  that  before  enter- 
ing on  his  theological  studies  he  should  develop  independently 
a  philosophy  for  himself,  he  brings  theology  into  a  relation 
to  philosophy  such  as  completely  overturns  it  as  a  positive 
science.  As  such  it  has  to  seek  the  idea  of  its  subject  in 
that  place  where  it  must  look  for  its  original  expression,  in 
the  Holy  Scripture.  In  consequence  of  the  critical  investiga- 
tions in  regard  to  Scripture,  the  theology  of  the  present  is  no 
longer  in  a  position  to  recognise  b.  'priori  the  Holy  Scripture 
as  a  normative  authority.  As  it  cannot  bind  itself  within  the 
limits  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession,  so  too  it  cannot  bind 
itself  under  the  absolute  authority  of  Scripture.  It  will  rather 
have  to  come  first  of  all  to  a  scientific  decision  in  regard  to 
this,  and  will  have  to  determine  in  how  far  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture is  valid  as  an  authority,  as  well  for  the  Church  as  for 
theology.  But  the  Holy  Scripture,  just  like  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  is  for  theology  the  source  of  knowledge  ;  and  indeed 
of  the  two  sources  Scripture  is  the  highest  and  the  most  indis- 
pensable. From  it,  therefore,  and  not  from  a  philosophical 
system,  the  idea  of  Christianity  has  to  be  derived,  and  as  a 
theology  of  the  Church  this  idea  has  to  be  proved  in  its 
absolute  religious  truth.  The  speculative  theology  lost  itself 
in  the  depths  because  of  its  dependence  upon  philosophy. 
While,  then,  we  borrow  from  the  speculative  philosophy  the 
formal  principle  of  rational  thought,  we  do  this,  not  as  though 
that  were  a  specific  principle  of  this  philosophy,  but  because  it 
first  of  all,  free  from  all   theological  considerations,  has  laid 


PANTHEISTIC  AND  TIIEISTIC  VIEWS  OF  THE  WORLD.         285 

the  foundation  for  the  application  of  this  principle  also  to 
theology.     Tlie   principle  itself  is   the   common  property   of 
science,  the  principle  of  every  philosophy  and  of  every  science, 
and  must  be  admitted  into  theology  as  well,  if  it  is  at  all  to 
be  reckoned    as  a  science.     Speculative    theology,    however, 
borrowed  not  only  the  principle,  but  also  the  specific  ideas  of  the 
speculative  philosophy.     While,  then,  this  philosophy  resolves 
the  whole  content  of  the  Christian  faith  into  the  notion,  and 
conceives  of  the  world  as  the  spiritual  universe,  outside  of 
which  there  is  nothing,  it  may  indeed  in  this  pantheism  find 
the   absolute   truth,   and   think    that   it   has    settled   all   the 
mysteries  of  faith ;  but  theology,  on  the  other  hand,  will  take 
its  place  at  the  standpoint  of  the  idea  of  religion   that  had 
been    given    it,    without    going    farther    to    appropriate  that 
pantheistic  view  of  the  world.      Led  on,  not  only  in  the  inte- 
rests of  faith,  but  in  the  interest  of  thought  itself,  it  will  be 
obliged  to  inquire  whether,  in  spite  of  that  view  of  the  world, 
mysteries    would  not    still  remain,    not   only  for    faith    and 
theology,  but  even  for  philosophy  itself.     And  this  inquiry 
it  will  not  be  able  in  any  way  to  get  rid  of.      In  consequence 
of  the  essential  nature   of  its   object,  the  application  of  its 
principle  must  assume  a  multiplicity  of  forms.      Christianity 
as  a  historical  religion,  on  the  one  hand,  rests  upon  historical 
facts,  under  which  religion  is  embraced,  and  has,  on  the  other 
hand,   as   religion,  not   only  an   anthropological,   but   also  a 
superhuman  and  superhistorical  metaphysical  content.     And 
now  over  against  everything  which  belongs  to  the  history  of 
Christianity,  theological  thought  will  be  obliged  to  take  its 
place   simply   as   empirical    thought,  which   makes    its    laws 
applicable  in  a  similar  way  in  all  historical  departments  for 
the  ascertainment  of  historical  truth ;    whereas  over  against 
the  metaphysics  of  Christianity  it  will  exercise  its  activity  as 
speculative  thought,  and  will  have  to  pursue  the  same  end 
with  philosophy  in  reference  to  those    contents  which  they 
have   in   common,  in   order  that  it  may  attain  unto  a  know- 


286  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.flDIA. 

ledge  of  the  metaphysical  content  embraced  in  the  idea  of  the 
Christian  religion.  By  following  this  course,  which  theology 
takes  quite  as  independently  as  philosophy,  it  will  be  seen 
whether  the  rational  thought  can  deal  with  problems  which 
form  the  limits  of  all  human  knowledge,  and  whether  the 
theistic  view  of  the  M'orld  of  Christianity  has  to  surrender  to 
the  pantheistic  view  of  the  world  of  speculative  philosophy. 

Theology  therefore,  as  a  positive  science,  has  to  avoid  the 
vacillations  of  philosophical  systems.  After  the  popular 
philosophy  had  represented  Christianity  as  the  religion  of 
absolute  happiness,  Kant  as  the  religion  of  absolute  morality, 
Schleiermacher  as  the  religion  of  the  absolute  determination 
of  feeling  by  means  of  redemption,  Hegel  as  the  apprehen- 
sion of  the  Absolute  Spirit,  theology  must  maintain  its  inde- 
pendence of  such  philosophies,  so  that  in  a  purely  historical 
way  it  may  recognise  the  idea  of  Christianity,  and,  in  accordance 
with  an  objective  scientific  method,  conceive  of  it  in  its  truth, 
and  prove  it  in  its  truth  over  against  the  other  sciences. 
Seeing,  then,  that  theology  relates  itself  to  its  subject  in  this 
historical  and  objective  way,  it  succeeds  in  freeing  itself  from 
those  one-sided  notions  from  which  the  earlier  theological  system 
suffered,  the  orthodox  and  supernaturalistic  theology,  the  old 
rationalistic  theology,  the  reflective  theology  of  faith  of  Schleier- 
macher, the  theology  of  the  abstract  idea  of  the  Hegelian 
philosophy.  As  positive  science,  springing  out  of  faith,  rest- 
ing upon  faith,  and  leading  back  all  its  religious  cognitions  to 
faith,  it  is  according  to  its  idea  the  objective  knowledge  of  the 
Christian  religion,  mediated  by  means  of  rational  thought, 
rather  than  that  of  absolute  religious  truth.  In  comjiarison 
with  the  older  systems,  it  is  neither  supernaturalistic  nor 
rationalistic,  but  rather,  according  to  its  deepest  grounds, 
supernatural,  and  according  to  its  method,  rational. 

This  conception  of  theology,  which  results  from  the  blend- 
ing together  of  all  the  component  elements  of  Schleiermacher's 
theology  and  speculative  theology,  and  which  must  find  its 


sciileiermacher's  influence  on  modern  theology.    287 

ultimate  ground  in  the  reconstructed  idea  of  religion,  is  also 
the  result  which  the  skilful  historian  of  the  most  recent 
theoloo-y  endeavours  to  attain  unto  in  the  conclusion  of  the 
investigation  pursued  in  his  work.^  This  conclusion,  however, 
receives  its  confirmation  especially  by  means  of  the  most 
important  systematic  works  with  which  in  recent  times 
theology  has  been  enriched,  by  means  of  the  works  of  Ritschl, 
Schenkel,  Lipsius,  and  Biedermann.  The  influence  of  Schleier- 
macher  shows  itself  in  them  conspicuously,  inasmuch  as  the 
first  three,  with  great  independence  indeed,  yet  none  the  less 
really,  carry  on  the  development  of  theology  in  his  spirit, 
while  Biedermann  alone  adheres  to  the  speculative  theology. 
In  this  place  we  have  to  concern  ourselves,  not  with  the 
special  contents  of  these  dogmatical  works,  but  only  with  the 
formal  principles  which  they  adopt  in  theology.  Ptitschl,  in 
his  work  on  Justification  and  Reconciliation,  assigns  to  theology 
the  task  of  proving  the  truth  of  Christianity,  after  the  manner 
of  Kant,  from  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  accordingly, 
in  the  further  development  of  the  positions  of  Schleiermacher, 
he  conceives  of  Christianity  purely  in  accordance  with  its 
ethical  content.  He  has  in  this  undoubtedly  rendered  a 
service  by  bringing  into  consciousness,  over  against  the 
believing  quietism  of  the  Reformation  and  of  the  orthodox 
Lutheran  theology,  the  ideal  moral  significance  of  Christianity 
in  its  universally  human  worth,  and  by  explaining  and  justi- 
fying scientifically  from  his  ethical  standpoint  the  conceptions 
of  Christian  faith,  as  well  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Church. 
Schenkel,  too,  in  his  Dogmatics,^  and  in  his  most  recent  theo- 
logical work,^  endeavours  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
consciousness,  and  especially  of  the  Protestant  believing  con- 
sciousness, from  the  facts  of  the  inner  Christian  experience, 

1  C.  Schwarz,  Zur  Gescliichte  der  neuesten  Tlicologie,  p.  582  fT. 

5  Die  Christlichc  Dogmatik  vom  Standpunkte  des  Gewissens  aus  dargestellt. 
Wiesbaden  18r.8-59.     2  Bde. 

'  Die  Grundleliren  des  Christenthnms  aus  dem  Bewusstsein  des  Glaubens  in 
Zusammenhange  dargestellt.     Leipzig  1877. 


288  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.'EDIA. 

from  the  facts  of  the  immediate  Christian  believing  conscious- 
ness, that  is,  of  the  Christian  conscience.  In  this  way  the 
Scripture  proof,  and  the  proof  from  the  Christian  traditional 
doctrine,  find  their  legitimation  in  the  proofs  of  conscience. 
From  this  psychological  standpoint  Schenkel  has  sought  to 
disencumber  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity  from 
their  non-essential  dogmatic  surroundings,  and  to  represent 
them  in  their  significance  for  the  evangelical  faith.  Lipsius  ^ 
assumes  substantially  the  same  standpoint,  but  at  the  same 
time  he  passes  far  beyond  it.  As  theology,  according  to 
Lipsius,  wins  its  scientific  unity  by  means  of  the  relation  of 
the  whole  series  of  its  separate  branches  to  the  service  of  the 
Church,  and  is  consequently  an  applied  science,  so  too  evan- 
gelical dogmatics,  as  the  scientific  exposition  of  the  Christian 
faith,  has  to  serve  the  purpose  of  supplying  to  the  adherents 
of  the  evangelical  faith  an  exposition  of  the  contents  of  their 
faith;  and  a  thoughtful  expression  of  these  contents  the  most 
suitable  possible.  It  therefore  takes  its  standpoint  in,  not 
outside  of,  or  over,  the  Christian  faith,  and  recognises  as  a 
presupposition  the  correctness  of  the  Christian  and  religious 
fundamental  conception.  To  prove  this  correctness  lies  out- 
side of  its  task,  for  apart  from  the  question  as  to  the  possibility 
of  giving  a  scientific  proof  of  the  fundamental  conception  of 
Christianity,  there  is  no  need  of  such  a  proof  for  believers, 
but  rather  for  these  the  reality  of  the  religious  fundamental 
principles  of  Christianity,  and  consequently  the  reality  of  the 
religious  principles  generally,  are  immediately  certain  to  their 
pious  consciousness  as  facts  of  subjective  experience.  The 
scientific  task  of  dogmatics  may  be  said  upon   the  whole  to 

*  Lehrbuch  der  evaugelisch-protestantischea  Dogmatik,  von  R.  A.  Lipsius. 
Braunschweig  1876.  2  Ausgabe,  1878.  [See  an  able  review  of  this  work  by  Pro- 
fessor James  S.  Candlish  in  the  British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review  for 
1878,  pp.  177-185.  "  Lipsius  belongs  to  the  critical  school  of  theology,  and  is 
nearly  equally  opposed  to  confessional  orthodoxy,  rationalism,  the  so-called 
Mediation-theology,  and  the  Hegelian  theosophy.  His  general  position  is,  that 
wliile  the  dogmatic  forms  of  the  old  Protestant  theology  cannot  stand  before 
modern  criticism,  they  contain  a  religious  kernel  that  ought  to  be  preserved. "] 


DOGMATICS  AND  THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  RELIGIOX.  289 

amount  to  this :  to  develop  the  propositions  of  faith  which 
form  the  contents  of  the  common  faith  of  the  Church  in  strict 
methodical  connection  with  the  Christian  principle  and  in 
relation  to  one  another,  in  harmony  with  the  facts  of  Christian 
experience,  and  of  experience  from  all  other  sides  that  have  been 
scientifically  established.  In  this  way  the  requirements  of 
believers  are  satisfied.  Of  all  the  indirect  proofs,  this  is  the  one 
which  will  have  still  the  highest  interest  for  them,  that  of  all 
■possible  theories  of  life  the  Christian  theory  of  life  is  the  most 
satisfactory ;  and  again,  that  among  all  possible  religious  theories 
of  life  the  most  satisfactory  is  that  of  Christianity.  This 
proof,  however,  belongs  not  to  dogmatics,  but  to  the  philosophy 
of  religion,  with  a  reference  to  apologetics.  Dogmatics  and 
tlie  philosophy  of  religion  are  therefore  not  to  be  identified. 
Tlie  former  limits  itself  to  the  department  of  the  Christian 
faith,  and  takes  as  its  presupposition  the  objective  reality  of 
the  religious  and  the  religious-Christian  point  of  view.  The 
latter  has  under  its  consideration  religion  generally  as  a  phe- 
nomenon peculiar  to  the  spiritual  life  of  man,  and  consequently 
has  for  its  task  the  psychological  explanation  of  the  laws  of 
the  religious  life  and  its  historical  development.  The  philo- 
sophy of  religion  has  to  confine  itself  to  the  performance  of 
this  psychological  task.  It  must  be  satisfied  with  reducing 
the  religious  conceptions  to  that  in  them  which  is  ultimately 
legitimate  and  necessary,  and  with  thereby  proving  the  correct- 
ness of  the  religious  theory  of  life  as  one  necessarily  grounded 
in  the  spiritual  nature  of  man.  Thus  dogmatics,  in  order  to 
secure  its  scientific  establishment,  has  not  only  to  make 
material  use  of  the  results  of  the  investigations  of  the  philo- 
sophy of  religion,  but  must  also  avoid  coming  into  conflict 
with  the  conclusions  of  the  philosophy  of  religion,  and  this, 
too,  without  surrendering  its  standpoint  to  the  presupposition 
which  the  dogmatist  personally  maintains.  Since,  therefore, 
dogmatics  renounces  any  attempt  at  a  scientific  proof  of  its 
religious  fundamental  position,  while  philosophy  itself  con- 
YOL.  I.  T 


290  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

tinues  limited  to  that  psychological  task,  it  will  on  its  part 
uphold  its  scientific  character,  not  merely  by  describing  the 
facts  of  the  religious  consciousness,  and  by  showing  that  it 
cannot  be  itself  satisfied  with  developing  them  as  a  united 
Avhole  from  the  principle  which  lies  at  their  foundations,  but 
by  placing  them  at  the  same  time  in  the  coherence  of  a 
general  conception  of  the  world  scientifically  confirmed  in  all 
its  separate  parts,  in  order  that  thereby  indirectly  the  not 
merely  subjective,  but  the  objective  (universally  valid)  truth 
of  the  presupposed  fundamental  religious  view  may  be  proved. 
Apart  from  the  connections  referred  to,  dogmatics  enters  into 
relationship  with  philosophy  inasmuch  as  philosophy  pro- 
ceeds not  merely  empirically,  but  at  the  same  time  specu- 
latively, that  is,  oversteps  the  bounds  of  exact  science,  and, 
just  as  religion  does,  endeavours  to  reach,  by  means  of  the 
imagination,  a  harmonious  and  comprehensive  view  of  the 
world.-^  In  accordance  with  these  fundamental  principles, 
Lipsius  has  expounded  dogmatics ;  and  the  fundamental 
investigation  of  the  nature  of  religion,  of  Christianity,  and  of 
Protestantism,  as  well  as  the  subtle  and  clear  exposition  of  the 
religious  contents  of  the  separate  doctrines  by  which  it  is 
characterized,  give  to  it  a  permanent  value. 

The  three  theologians  previously  named  take  their  starting- 
point,  in  common  with  Schleiermacher,  from  the  Christian 
faith,  but  are  separated  from  Schleiermacher,  inasmuch  as 
they  not  only  show  what  is  Christian,  but  seek  also  to  prove 
the  truth  of  Christianity,  whether  it  be  from  an  ethical,  or  a 
psychological,  or  a  critical  reflective  standpoint.  In  con- 
sequence, moreover,  of  their  attachment  to  the  Kantian 
theory  of  knowledge,  they  all  occupy  common  ground  in 
demanding  that  metaphysics  should  be  wholly  excluded  from 
theology.  "Whether  it  be  justifiable  for  the  theology  which 
has  its  point  of  departure  from  Schleiermacher,  and  whether 

*  Lipsius,  Lehrbuch  der  evangelischen-protestantischen  Dogmatik.     Die  Ein- 
leitung,  pp.  1-18. 


DEFECTS  OF  ETHICAL  VIEW  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  291 

it  is  undeniably  the  task  of  theology  as  science,  to  conduct 
tlie  proof  for  the  truth  of  the  Christian  faith  from  those 
standpoints,  theology  at  least  will  not  accomplish  this  task, 
and  will  not  he  able  to  raise  itself  to  that  height  at  whicli 
it  ought  to  i^lace  itself  in  accordance  with  its  presupposed 
historical  development.  Tlie  purely  ethical  conception  of 
Clnistianity  issues,  just  as  much  as  the  purely  believing 
conception,  in  mere  one-sidedness.  Because,  in  giving  undue 
prominence  to  its  ethical  significance,  it  leaves  out  of  account 
its  religious  notions,  it  comes  into  danger  of  falling  into  an 
ethical  formalism  and  scholasticism,  just  as  dogmatism  fell 
into  an  intellectual  formalism.  The  consequence  of  this  is, 
that  instead  of  giving  to  Christianity  and  the  Church  a  firm 
objective  authorization,  the  religious  presuppositions,  valued 
only  for  their  ethical  worth,  are  thrown  overboard,  and,  want- 
ing these,  the  moral  ideal  is  laid  upon  a  purely  anthropological 
basis,  the  Church  is  set  aside,  and  over  it,  and  without  it,  an 
ideal  kingdom  of  morality  is  called  into  being,  precisely  in 
imitation  of  Kant's,  who  could  make  use  of  Christianity  and 
the  Church  only  as  something  provisional  for  his  ethical 
idealism.  The  psychological  proofs,  which  Schenkel  draws 
mainly  from  the  facts  of  the  Christian  conscience,  and  which 
Lipsius  draws  mainly  from  the  facts  of  religious  experience, 
are  assuredly  of  the  utmost  importance  for  theology,  but  still 
they  do  not  lead  us  beyond  mere  subjective  confirmation, 
and  will,  if  urged  on  behalf  of  the  evangelical  faith,  have 
scarcely  any  decisive  power  of  conviction,  even  for  believers 
in  evangelical  truth,  still  less  for  Catholics,  for  those  who  are 
not  Christians,  for  those  whose  way  of  thinking  is  anti- 
religious  and  antichristian.  If  Lipsius  is  right  as  a 
theologian  in  proceeding  from  the  presupposition  of  the 
objective  reality  of  the  religious  and  religious  -  Christian 
position,  then  it  follows  —  even  in  the  case  of  one  who 
with  Lipsius  holds  fast  to  the  untenable  position  that 
theology  is  an  applied  science,  which  has  not  only  to  serve 


292  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

for  Church  guidance  (as  Schleiermacher  affirms},  but  has  to 
serve  the  Church  generally — that  the  obligation  rests  upon 
theology,  just  when  it  finds  itself  thus  bound  up  within 
the  limits  of  the  Church,  to  endeavour  to  overpass  these 
restrictions,  and  to  prove  even  to  believers  the  reality 
of  the  religious,  and  consequently  the  religious  -  Christian 
position,  in  its  objectivity,  although  it  is  already  to  faith 
firmly  established  subjectively.  For  really  upon  this  depends 
the  value  of  all  the  proofs  which  are  advanced  on  behalf  of 
the  propositions  of  the  Christian  faith  from  their  connection 
with  the  Christian  principle,  or  with  the  Christian-religious 
fundamental  position.  Certainly  Lipsius  has  put  those  proofs 
to  the  test  of  philosophy,  and  demands  of  theology  that  it 
should  make  material  use  of  the  results  of  the  philosophy  of 
religion,  and  also  that  it  should  be  in  agreement  with  the  con- 
clusions of  the  philosophy  of  religion ;  but,  apart  even  from 
the  dependence  upon  philosophy  to  wdiich  theology  is  by  these 
means  reduced,  even  philosophy,  according  to  Lipsius,  in  relation 
to  religion  is  to  keep  itself  clear  of  all  metaphysics,  and  must 
in  this  connection  limit  itself  to  setting  forth  religion,  which 
it  meets  with  at  first  as  a  phcenomenon  of  experience,  in  its 
psychological  legitimateness.  Even  then  it  is  only  a  sub- 
jective confirmation  that  is  reached ;  and  if,  to  the  agreement 
of  the  fundamental  position  of  Christianity  with  the  facts  of 
religious  experience,  Lipsius  will  still  add  its  agreement  with 
all  other  forms  of  scientifically  established  experience  as  proof 
of  its  truth,  then  even  by  this  means  not  an  objective,  but 
still  only  a  subjective,  validity  will  be  secured.  For  surely 
that  which  is  essentially  subjective  cannot  be  expected  to  gain 
the  character  of  objectivity  simply  on  account  of  its  not  stand- 
ing in  opposition  to  certain  scientific  experiences.  Thus  for 
many  who  even  are  prepared  to  occupy  his  own  standpoint, 
Lipsius  would  be  able  to  establish,  not  a  universal  objective 
validity,  but  only,  at  the  highest,  a  subjective  validity,  by 
means  of  his  proof     Through  the  whole  course  of  the  demon- 


CRITICISM  OF  THE  ANTI-METAPIIYSICAL  THEOLOGY.         293 

stration  the  view  of  the  modern  theory  of  the  workl,  whicli 
will  see  in  religion  nothing  else  tlian  an  anthropological 
illusion,  is  not  excluded.  Lipsius  himself  says  in  the 
Preface  to  his  Dogmatics,  p.  6,  that  in  our  day  the  founda- 
tions of  theology  are  called  in  question.  We  ask  :  By  whom  ? 
And  we  are  pointed  immediately  to  this  modern  theory,  witli 
its  fundamental  negation  of  the  religious  view  of  life.  In 
opposition  to  it,  neither  philosophy  nor  the  Christian  per- 
sonality and  theology  will  be  able  to  find  satisfaction  at  the 
psychological  standpoint,  and  to  renounce  with  Lipsius  what, 
on  p.  8,  he  calls  das  Fundament  (the  foundation)  and  das 
schiitzende  Bach  (the  sheltering  roof)  ;  but  rather,  in  order  to 
win  these  two,  all  spiritual  energy  must  be  expended.  By 
reason  of  the  cardinal  question  with  which  it  deals,  theology 
is  obliged  to  admit  metaphysics  into  it.  Only  by  means  of 
metaphysical  grounding  can  the  foundations  of  theology,  so 
far  as  they  have  been  shaken,  be  again  made  firm.  The 
vagaries  of  metaphysics  do  not  warrant  on  our  part  such  a 
dread  of  it  as  would  lead  to  its  abandonment  altogether,  and 
would  fear  that  from  it  we  might  only  expect  an  evaporation 
of  religion  into  philosophical  speculation.  Encouraged  by  the 
example  of  the  most  distinguished  theologians,  it  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at  that  Herrmann  should  have  made  the 
attempt,  in  a   special  monograph,^  to  justify  this  separation 

>  W.  Herrmann,  Die  Jtetaphysik  in  der  Theologie,  Halle  1876.  [Though 
Herrmann  is  at  one  with  Lipsius  in  demanding  the  avoidance  of  metaphysics 
in  the  treatment  of  theology,  he  does  not  accept  Lipsius'  theological  system  ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  he  has  subjected  it  to  a  vigorous  and  decidedly  hostile 
criticism.  He  is  a  disciple  of  Ritschl,  who  is  in  agreement  with  Lipsius 
in  discouraging  the  use  of  metaphysics  in  theology.  Eitschl  has  himself 
published  a  short  but  important  treatise  on  the  subject.  (Theologie  und 
Jletaphysik.  Zur  Verstandigung  und  Abwehr.  Bonn  1881.)  It  may  be 
described  generally  as  a  defence  of  his  own  theological  position  against 
criticisms  of  Luthardt,  Frank,  and  others.  He  distinguishes  between  meta- 
physical conceptions  of  God  and  the  religious,  or  properly  theological,  doctrin'j 
of  God  ;  and  against  Luthardt,  and  from  the  Kantian  standpoint,  he  rejects  tlio 
common  philosophical  proofs  for  the  being  of  God.  Then,  especially  against 
Frank  of  Erlangen  and  Professor  Hermann  Weiss  of  Tiibingen,  he  illustrates  in 
great  detail  the  tendency  that  has  shown  itself  in  history,  and  the  relation    of 


204  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

of  metaphysics  from  theology.  His  attempt,  however,  might 
I'ather  be  used  for  a  contrary  purpose.  Christianity  and 
theology  are  not  to  be  interchanged.  The  ethical  problems 
of  Christianity  rest  upon  certain  fundamental  religious  views, 
find  these  require  a  metaphysical  grounding.  The  demand 
for  a  complete  separation  between  Cbristianity  on  the  one 
hand,  and  metaphysics  and  philosophy  on  the  other  hand, 
lias  its  origin  in  an  altogether  abstract  conception  of  life. 

Over  against  those  who  would  thus  reject  metaphysics, 
Plitt^  has  produced  a  contribution  to  the  construction  of 
theological  science  worthy  of  careful  consideration.  Because, 
in  order  to  defend  its  positive  character,  he  derives  theology 
from  the  idea  of  the  free  Christian  personality,  he  assigns  to 
it  the  task  of  proving  the  rationality  and  reality  of  the  objects 
of  faith.  The  Christianity  which  is  given  to  theology  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Scripture  and  of  the  Church  has  not  only 
an  ethical,  but  also  a  metaphysical  content,  and  theological 
knowledge,  too,  must  endeavour  to  comprehend  this  meta- 
physical content  according  to  its  truth,  and  to  represent  itself 

metaphysical  speculation  and  refinement  to  theological  mysticism.  The  dreams 
of  the  mystics  sought  their  support  in  supposed  metaphysical  principles.  Ritschl 
shows  that  this  was  especially  the  case  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  unio 
mystica.  But  at  this  point  Ritschl  makes  the  admission  that  there  are 
metaphysics  and  metaphysics.  Properly  conceived,  metaphysics  is  the  theory 
(if  knowledge.  "  Every  theologian,  as  a  man  of  science,  must  proceed  according 
to  a  definite  theory  of  knowledge."  P.  38.  Metajihysics  with  him  and  with  his 
opponents  has  a  very  different  meaning.  It  is  after  all  their  metaphysics  only 
that  he  would  exclude  from  theology.  In  the  end  Ritschl  seems  simply  to  pro- 
test against  the  false  use  of  metaphysics,  and  the  use  of  a  false  metaphysics, 
in  theology.  This  is  precisely  the  position  taken  above  in  the  text ;  only 
Ritschl,  prepossessed  against  metapliysics  generally,  seems  disposed  to  refuse 
it  a  place,  where  others  might  regard  it  as  legitimate.  In  the  attitude  of 
Ritschl  toward  metaphysical  conceptions  in  reference  to  theolog}',  we  may 
understand  the  difference  of  the  Kantian  and  Hegelian  standpoints.  Hegelians, 
with  their  speculative  tendencies,  pay  special  attention  to  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity, though  in  their  hands  they  may  become  scarcely  recognisable  as  the 
truths  whose  names  they  bear,  M'hile  tliose  occujiying  the  Kantian  standpoint 
regard  these  doctrines  of  the  Christian  mystery  as  of  compartively  slight  im- 
portance, and  as  largely  the  result  of  metaphysical  misconception.] 

1  H.  Plitt,  Die  Frage  :  1st  biblisch-kirkliche  Glaubenstheologie  auch  Wissen- 
sihaft  ?  im  Lichte  der  Idee  der  Persoulichkeit  beauwortet.     Gotha  1873. 


BIEDERMANN  AND  LIPSIUS.  295 

as  speculative  theology.  In  relation  to  tlie  doctrine  of 
Scripture  and  of  the  Church,  Plitt  grants  to  theology  a  very 
free  and  elastic  connection.  But,  just  in  his  admission  of  the 
metaphysical  contents  of  Scripture,  Plitt  becomes  unfaithful 
to  his  principles,  inasmuch  as  he  proceeds  from  psycho- 
logical facts  which  are  grounded,  indeed,  in  the  nature  of 
faith,  but  historically  appear  in  theology  first  of  all  as  mere 
presuppositions. 

Biedermann  ^  has,  in  his  Dogmatics,  in  a  comprehensive 
manner,  and  by  a  very  careful  treatment  of  principles,  main- 
tained the  right  of  metaphysics,  and  endeavours  to  dispel  the 
fear  awakened  regarding  it.  The  Dogmatics  of  Lipsius,  as  well 
as  his  Preface  to  the  Preface^  gave  occasion  to  Biedermann  to 
enter  upon  a  detailed  explanation  of  the  relationship  of  the 
psychological  to  the  speculative  standpoint.'^  And  he  causes 
his  criticism  of  Lipsius  to  become  a  criticism  of  his  own 
position.  But  just  because  he  finds  the  difference  between 
himself  and  Lipsius  to  consist  in  this,  that  Lipsius  starts 
from  the  domain  of  faith  as  a  presupposition  given  and 
accepted,  while  he  himself,  without  this  ecclesiastical  pre- 
supposition, makes  the  historically  developed  dogma  the 
subject  of  his  investigation  according  to  pure  scientific 
objectivity,  he  cannot  but  make  the  acknowledgment,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  they  both  agree  together  in  their 
final  intention,  the  purely  scientific  purification  of  the  positive 
faith,  that  each  of  the  different  courses  of  procedure  has  its 
own  advantages  and  its  own  disadvantages.  In  this  acknow- 
ledgment we  find  a  support  for  the  demand  which  we  have 
made  above,  that  the  theology  of  Schleiermacher  and  the 
speculative  theology  should  be  combined  in  one  scientific 
whole.     These  two  systems,  with  the  advantages  which  are 

1  A.  E.  Biedermann,  Christliche  Dogmatik.     Ziirich  1869. 

-  Protestantische  Kirchenzeitung.     1876.     Nr.  30. 

»  Protestantische  Kirchenzeitung  1877.  Nr.  2-6.  Compare  in  reply,  R. 
A.  Lipsius,  Dogmatische  Beitriige  1.  11.  Jahrbucher  fur  protestantiscbeu 
Theologie,  1878.     H.  1-4. 


2^)6  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

peculiar  to  each,  when  united,  will  serve  as  a  correction  the 
one  to  the  other.  Faith  will  not  be  seeking  to  maintain 
itself  in  representations  which  have  no  objective  content, 
and  speculation  wall  not  be  losing  itself  in  abstractions 
which  stand  in  no  living  connection  with  faith.  As  a  Church 
science,  theology  must  take  its  standpoint  within  tlie  faith 
of  the  Church ;  but,  as  science,  it  must  deal  with  its  subject 
according  to  the  same  method  which  not  only  philosophy, 
but  every  science  follows.  If,  from  the  universal  historical 
standpoint  at  which  it  is  placed,  it  leads  with  a  psychological, 
ethical,  and  speculative  confirmation  to  the  knowledge  of  tlie 
Christian  truth,  theology  will  approve  itself  as  the  true,  free, 
and  independent  master-worker  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 


KEED  OF  A  PRINCIPLE  OF  ARRANGEMENT.  297 


§  20.  THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THEOLOGY. 

The  systematic  distribution  of  theology  is  determined  in 
accordance  with  its  subject  and  its  task  (§§  13,  19).  The 
liistory  of  theological  encyclopfedia  shows  that  the  theological 
branches,  as  they  gradually  sprang  up,  were  very  soon  arranged 
under  several  leading  divisions,  but  that  in  the  determining  of 
the  leading  divisions  and  the  order  of  their  succession,  as  well 
as  in  the  subdividing  of  those  several  branches  themselves,  a 
great  diversity  of  opinion  prevailed.  No  other  result  could 
have  been  expected  when  no  objective  rule  was  followed,  but 
only  the  most  varied  subjective  interests.  The  uncertainty 
and  arbitrariness  to  which  systematics  (the  science  of 
arrangement  or  method)  had  been  exposed,  can  only  be  over- 
come when  the  distribution  of  the  parts  of  theology  is  carried 
out  in  accordance  with  the  actual  development  of  its  subject. 
If  theology  has  the  task  of  attaining  to  a  knowledge  of 
Christianity,  viewed  in  its  connection  with  the  historical 
religions,  according  to  its  historical  reality,  as  the  idea  of 
religion,  it  must  also  ground  its  principle  of  arrangement  upon 
the  historical  course  of  Christianity.  The  objection,  that  the 
distribution,  if  it  simply  follows  the  history,  would  conse- 
quently fall  back  immediately  again  into  mere  fortuitousness, 
loses  all  force  when  it  is  considered  that  the  very  history  of 
Christianity  was  determined  by  the  essential  nature  of 
Christianity,  and  was  not  in  any  way  dependent  upon  chance, 
as  though  it  might  have  been  something  else  than  what  it  was. 
And  just  because  it  is  thus  closely  linked  on  to  the  history, 
the  distribution  of  theology  rests  upon  an  objective  necessity. 
Considered  as  a  historical  religion,  Christianity  is  to  be 
represented  as  the  historical  source  of  the  idea  of  religion. 
Consequently    the     e.xistence     of     Christianity    in    history 


298  THEOLOCJICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

generally,  as  well  as  its  historical  realization,  is  delivered  from 
mere  fortuitousness,  and  is  determined  by  the  general  law  of 
intellectual  and  spiritual  development.  As  a  religious  idea 
it  could  not  appear  in  history  otherwise  than  in  a  personal 
life,  which  bore  in  itself  the  entire  fulness  of  the  idea,  and 
rose  up  to  a  perfect  representation  of  the  truth  in  that  idea. 
The  life  of  Christ  is  the  centre,  from  which  alone  the  new 
universally  human  principle  of  life  could  realize  itself  in  a 
community  which  recognised  Christ  as  its  founder,  and  which 
made  the  truth  exhibited  in  His  life  and  proclaimed  by  Him 
a  matter  of  its  own  life.  The  Church  was  the  organ,  by 
means  of  which  the  spiritual  fulness  contained  in  the  central 
life  of  Christ  gave  forth  to  an  infinite  circle  its  own  historical 
mode  of  being,  and  showed  itself  to  be  a  new  power  of 
life  in  a  manifold  discovery  of  its  indwelling  divine  might, 
and  in  the  most  varied  and  most  magnificent  shapes  and 
forms.  During  this  course  of  history,  however,  the  Christian 
spirit,  by  reason  of  a  necessity  peculiar  to  it  that  will  admit 
of  no  denial,  is  constrained,  at  all  times  and  under  the 
most  various  modifications,  to  raise  itself  above  the  multi- 
form Church  life,  and  to  make  the  truth,  as  it  proceeded 
from  Christ,  and  as  it  lives  in  the  Church,  the  subject  of 
its  consideration.  And  this  it  does,  not  in  order  that  it 
may  hold  fast  to  the  point  of  that  consideration  and  the 
particular  forms  of  knowledge  won  thereby,  but  rather  in 
order  that  it  may  carry  over  again  into  the  life  of  the 
Church  the  more  profound  appreciation  of  the  truth,  and, 
by  means  of  its  mediation,  contribute  to  the  common  weal 
of  Christendom.  There  are  consequently  four  stages  which 
are  to  be  distinguished  in  the  historical  course  of  Chris- 
tianity,— its  origin,  its  historical  development,  the  elevation 
of  the  Christian  spirit  in  becoming  the  subject  of  ideal 
treatment,  and  the  repeated  turning  in  upon  the  life  in 
practical  application  :  a  course  M'hicli  partly  belongs  to  the 
past  and  to  the  present,  but  partly  also,  at  the  same  time, 


FOURFOLD  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THEOLOGY.  299 

refers  to  tlie  future.  Xow  the  theology  which  is  to  acknow- 
ledge Christianity  according  to  the  whole  historical  circle  of 
its  contents,  has  to  make  its  distribution  in  accordance  with 
these  four  stages,  so  that  it  embraces  four  divisions,  which 
usually  liave  been  denominated  exegetical,  historical,  system- 
atic, and  practical  theology.  The  task,  which  is  assigned  to 
each  of  the  separate  parts,  follows  from  what  has  been  said. 
In  exegetical  theolog}^  theology  has  to  consider  Christianity 
according  to  its  origin  ;  in  historical  theology,  according  to 
its  historical  development ;  in  systematic  theology,  according 
to  its  ideal  truth ;  and  finally,  in  practical  theology,  according 
to  its  ideal-ecclesiastical  realization. 

[Hagenbach  has  some  good  remarks  on  the  inter-connections 
subsisting  between  the  four  divisions  of  theology  :  "  Exegetical 
theology  has  its  historical  departments  (introduction,  archaeo- 
logy), and  also  its  dogmatic  departments  (doctrinal  criticism 
and  hermeneutics),  and  it  has,  finally,  practical  references 
(practical  exposition).  Historical  theology  embraces  also 
exegetical  functions  (the  study  of  sources,  exposition  of 
ecclesiastical  writers),  and  has  also  a  connection  with  the 
dogmatic  department  in  its  Biblical  and  ecclesiastical  dogma- 
tics, and  has,  finally,  its  excursions  into  the  practical  field, — 
ecclesiastical  archajology,  for  example,  bringing  us  into  con- 
nection with  liturgies,  and  the  history  of  the  Constitution 
bringing  us  into  connection  with  Church  government. 
Systematic  theology,  in  the  matter  of  proof  passages,  goes 
back  again  upon  exegesis,  and  relies  also  upon  the  history  of 
doctrines  and  upon  symbolics ;  while  it  has,  besides,  to  treat 
the  system  of  doctrine  from  its  practical  side,  and,  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church,  to  give  its  foundations  to  practical 
theology.  Finally,  practical  theology — how  should  it  be  able 
to  come  into  existence  at  all  without  exegesis,  without 
history,  without  doctrine  ?  Just  as  in  nature,  the  later 
forms  are  found  to  be  already  prefigured  in  the  earlier 
stages  of    development,  and  the  earlier  forms  of  manifesta- 


300  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA, 

tion  are  found  to  be  repeated  in  the  later  stages,  so  also 
is  it  here.  It  would  not  be  difficult  to  find  again  the 
same  fourfold  division  in  each  of  the  four  main  divisions 
recognised  by  us.  The  one  always  reaches  forth  the  hand 
to  the  other.  The  one  affords  a  glimpse  into  the  other  ;  and 
wherever  one  branch  comes  into  living  development,  the 
others  appear  there  also  as  mutually  involved  and  claiming 
the  same  recognition."     En  cyclopaedia,  p.  118,  note.] 

This  fourfold  division  of  theology  is  alone  justifiable, 
because  it  rests  upon  the  actual  development  of  the  subject 
of  theology,  and  hence,  too,  it  puts  theology  in  the  position  of 
accomplishing  the  task  which  has  been  assigned  it  as  positive 
science.^  But  not  only  the  arrangement  under  four  divisions, 
but  also  the  order  of  succession  which  those  four  parts  are  to 
follow,  is  determined  from  the  same  principle.  Theological 
knowledge  must  stretch  forward  along  the  same  way  which 
was  previously  marked  out  for  it  by  means  of  the  historical 
course  of  the  very  subject  of  theology.  Only  thus  can  it 
form   itself    into    an    organic   scientific   whole,  while    every 

^  Hagenbacli  justifies  the  fourfold  distribution  in  this  way:  "From  the 
standpoint  of  pure  knowledge  we  can  say  that  all  knowledge  rests  either  on 
personal  observation  (physical  or  spiritual)  or  on  information  and  tradition. 
It  is  therefore  either  of  a  theoretical  nature  (philosophical)  or  of  a  historical 
nature.  But  historical  knowledge  is  acquired  by  means  of  investigation,  and 
this  again  is  conditioned  by  a  knowledge  of  languages  and  philological  criti- 
cism, and,  on  the  other  hand,  theoretical  knowledge  fiasses  over  into  practice. 
Likewise  Christianity  in  its  positive  domain  is  history  as  well  as  doctrine  ;  but 
its  history  rests  on  the  Bible,  which  must  be  exegetically  investigated,  and  the 
doctrine  is  not  pure  knowledge,  but  doctrine  for  the  life.  The  truth  of  the 
revelation  is  to  be  practically  applied  in  the  Church,  and  in  the  various  depart- 
ments of  Church  activity  in  which  practical  theology  is  concerned.  So  the  two 
departments  of  knowledge  are  embraced  between  the  two  departments  of  art, 
the  exegetical  at  the  beginning,  the  practical  at  the  end"  (Ency.  p.  113). 
In  his  Compendium  der  Dogmatik,  §  4.  1,  Luthardt  defends  this  fourfold 
arrangement:  "The  usual  division  into  Biblical,  historical,  systematic  and 
practical  theology  is  justified  by  the  nature  of  the  subject,  inasmuch  as  Chris- 
tianity, of  which  theology  is  the  science,  rests  upon  revelation,  as  it  was  handed 
down  originally  in  Holy  Scripture  ;  has  a  history  in  the  Church,  which  is  the 
abode  of  Christianity  ;  gains  expression  in  a  body  of  doctrine,  which  forms  a 
system  ;  and  by  means  of  the  practical  life  activities  of  the  Church  is  carried 
down  to  the  future." — Ed. 


EXCYCLOP.EDISTS  ADOniXG  THE  FOURFOLD  DIVISION,       301 

departure  from  tliis  way  must  bring  disturbance  and  confusion 
into  its  scientific  activity.  If  this  general  distribution  be 
strictly  observed,  the  arrangement  of  the  parts  of  the  several 
principal  divisions  will  easily  follow  from  it.  This  arrange- 
ment of  particulars  must  be  carried  out  in  accordance  with 
the  task  assigned  to  each  division,  so  that  no  doubt  may  exist 
as  to  what  particular  branches  are  to  be  subsumed  under  each 
principal  part.  Only  when  this  is  kept  steadily  in  view  can 
theology  be  represented  as,  even  in  regard  to  the  particular 
branch,  rightly  articulated  in  it,  and  in  regard  to  all  its 
branches  a  comprehensive  scientific  organism. 

The  distribution  under  four  divisions  has  been  adopted  in 
theological  systematics  by  many  of  the  older  and  more  recent 
encyclopoedists :  as,  for  example,  by  J.  Gerhard,  A.  Calov,  A. 
H.  Francke,  Alsted,  Ellies  du  Pin,  Pfaff,  Buddeus,  Mosheini, 
Planck,  Nosselt,  Thym,  [Karg],  Kleuker,  Stiiudlin,  [J.  E.  C. 
Schmidt],  Clarisse,  Hagenbach,  Harless,  Lobegott  Lange,  S. 
Erhardt,  [Doedes],  Oberthiir.  But,  inasmuch  as  they  fail  to 
give  this  distribution  of  theirs  a  historical  foundation,  or  else 
ground  it  only  in  history,  they  are  led  in  the  ordering  of  their 
materials,  not  by  historical,  but,  for  the  most  part,  by  sub- 
jective considerations.  And  thus  they  assign  the  first  place 
to  exegetical  theology  from  dogmatic,  pietistic,  or  confessional 
motives,  or  even  turn  aside  altogether  from  the  order  of 
succession  demanded  by  history,  and  make  the  systematic 
theology  directly  follow  the  exegetical,  and  place  Church 
history  either  under  the  limited  point  of  view  of  doctrine,  or 
generally  in  the  background  along  with  practical  theology 
(Gerhard,  Calov,  Francke,  Alsted,  Pfaff,  Kleuker,  Stuudlin, 
Harless,  L.  Lange,  Erhardt),  or  even  seek  to  start  with 
systematic  theology  (Buddeus,  Mosheim).  But  even  those 
theologians  who  altogether  set  aside  the  fourfold  division,  and 
prefer  to  follow  a  threefold  arrangement  (Schleiermacher, 
Pieuterdahl,  Pelt,  Kienlen,  Eosenkranz,  [Rothe,  von  Hofmann], 
Klee,  Staudeumaier),   or  those   who   adopt   simply   a  twofold 


302  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDLA.. 

distribution  (Hyperius,  Walch,  Tittmann,  Bertlioldt,  Danz, 
J.  P.  Laiige,  Dobmayer,  Drey,  Buchner),  cannot  help  falling 
back  in  tlieir  treatment  upon  the  four  divisions,  although  they 
introduce  them  to  a  very  differeut  position,  and  assign  to  them 
a  very  different  value.^  "While,  then,  even  by  the  history  of 
theological  encyclopedia  the  fourfold  distribution  is  recom- 
mended, by  means  of  the  historical  founding  of  the  encyclo- 
psedia  the  threefold  and  twofold  divisions  are  disallowed. 
But  besides,  these  forms  of  distribution  are  so  burdened  with 
evident  defects  that  tliey  are  not  suitable  for  a  systematic 
arrangement  of  theology.  The  giving  the  first  rank  to  a 
philosophical  theology  (Schleiermacher,  Eeuterdahl),  or  to  a 
speculative  theology  (Rosenkranz,  [Eothe],  Staudenmaier), 
originated  unmistakeably  in  a  philosophical  interest,  and  is 
thoroughly  dissociated  from  the  primarily  historical  task  of 
theology.  The  threefold  distribution,  however,  is  possible  for 
those  theologians  who  have  been  named,  only  when  they  have 
either,  as  Staudenmaier  has  done,  included  exegetical  theology 
under  speculative  theology,  or,  as  Schleiermacher  with  his 
followers,  and  Eosenkranz,  have  done  [as  also  Hofmann  and 

^  Lange  thus  defends  the  twofold  arrangement :  "  The  usual  distribution  of 
theology  into  exegetical,  historical,  systematic,  and  practical  theology,  for  whicli 
with  slight  deviations  Hyperius  already  laid  the  first  foundation,  had  in  the 
course  of  time,  after  many  vacillations,  been  pretty  firmly  established  by  Planck. 
Its  advantages  lie  in  the  popular  form  and  methodological  arrangement  whieli 
make  it  a  safe  guide  for  ■weaker  understandings.  Its  chief  defect  consists  in  its 
beginning  with  exegesis,  in  consequence  of  the  admitted  one-sidedness  in  the 
realm  of  Protestantism,  which  has  made  it  customary  to  identify  the  Biblical 
sources  of  revelation  with  the  facts  of  revelation.  By  degrees  this  fault  almost 
doubled  itself  by  the  labyrinthine  discussions  of  critical  theology.  Biblical 
exegesis  hovers  in  the  air,  if  it  is  not  treated  as  exegesis  of  the  sources  of  an 
actual  saving  revelation,  existing  before  and  lying  at  the  basis  of  these.  It 
certainly  follows  therefrom  that  one  does  not  launch  forth  into  abstract  historical 
conceptions  of  theology,  and  that  one  cannot  understand  the  facts  as  the  sources 
of  revelation  without  the  intellectual  appreciation  of  their  ideal  side.  The  too 
complete  deposing  of  technical  exegesis  in  favour  of  historical  theology  is  also 
erroneous.  Not  less  traceable  to  an  erring  tradition  is  the  limitation  of  sys- 
tematic theology  to  dogmatics  and  morals,  since  in  the  present  day,  practical 
theology  also  is  constructed  scientifically  and  systematically.  Planck,  however, 
could  never  recognise  tlie  scientific  rank  of  practical  theology. "  Encyclopaidie, 
p.  17.— Ed. 


EXEGETICAL  THEOLOGY  DISTINCT  FROM  HISTORICAL.       303 

Piothe],  joined  it  together  witli  historical  theology.  The 
objection  readily  suggests  itself,  that  in  this  way  exegetical 
theology  in  comparison  with  speculative  theology  is  thrown 
into  the  shade,  and  does  not  get  an  opportunity  for  tlie 
accomplishment  of  its  proper  task.  Certainly  the  combination 
of  exegetical  theology  with  historical  theology  has  something 
to  say  for  itself,  because  attention  is  thereby  called  to  its 
historical  character.  For  it  must  indeed  be  granted  that  the 
source  of  Christianity  is  a  historical  fact.  Nevertheless  even 
as  such  it  does  not  fall  under  historical  theology  in  the 
ecclesiastical  sense,  but  belongs  rather  to  the  history  of 
religion.  As  the  conclusion  of  that  history,  and  as  the 
beginning  of  a  new  religious  life,  primitive  Christianity  is  the 
presupposition  of  the  historical  theology  of  the  Church,  and 
exegetical  theology,  which  is  directed  to  the  understanding  of 
this  primitive  Christianity,  must  maintain  its  independent 
position  over  against  historical  theology. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  a  broad  sense  exegetical 
theology  may  be  properly  included  under  historical,  inasmuch 
as  it  is  the  work  of  exegesis  to  determine  conditions  essentially 
historical,  and  even  to  elucidate  the  primitive  history  of 
Christianity  itself.  But  historical  knowledge,  considered  in 
itself,  is  not  the  only  element  that  engages  the  attention  of 
exegetical  theology.  Exegesis  in  the  proper  sense  is  rather 
a  certain  readiness  in  the  application  of  knowledge,  as  Schleier- 
macher  himself  confesses,  which  is  based  on  scientific 
principles  (liermeneutics)  belonging,  not  to  the  historical,  but 
to  the  philological,  or  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  term,  philo- 
sophical, department.  The  historic  value  of  the  Scriptures 
themselves  is  not,  moreover,  merely  the  same  as  that  which 
attaches  to  other  monuments  of  Christian  and  ecclesiastical 
antiquity.  In  their  character,  as  documents  of  institution  or 
revelation,  they  engross  our  study  in  a  very  different  manner 
from,  and  to  a  far  greater  extent  than,  other  historical 
sources.       "  Nodurna  versate  mcmu,  vcrsatc  diui'tia,"  applies  to 


304  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP/EDIA. 

them  with  entire  propriety.  They  rise  like  the  primeval 
mountains  above  all  the  later  formations  of  theological  culture, 
and  like  the  eternal  granite  rocks,  they  tower  far  above  valley 
and  hill. 

It  may  therefore  be  allowed  that  it  is  proper  for  Protestant 
theology,  upon  which  devolves  a  special  ministry  of  the  word, 
to  establish  a  separate  department  of  exegetical  theology,  and 
to  assign  to  the  study  of  the  Bible  an  independent,  unrestricted 
place  within  the  domain  of  theological  learning.  The  objec- 
tion that  the  distinction  made  between  the  original  and 
derived  is  only  relative  (Pelt),  bears  against  every  classifica- 
tion, for  everything,  as  we  shall  see,  is  relative.  Or  if  it  be 
said  (Kienlen)  that  all  science  is  either  philosophical  or 
historical,  and  that  every  particular  science  must  belong  to 
one  of  these  categories,  we  acknowledge  that  the  statement 
is  correct  in  the  broad  meaning  by  which  exegesis  itself 
becomes  a  historical  science ;  but  if  practical  theology  is 
entitled  to  a  place  beside  historical  and  systematic  (thetical), 
although  its  very  name  indicates  that  it  is  neither  purely- 
historical  nor  purely  philosophical,  we  may,  with  equal 
propriety,  assert  the  right  of  exegetical  theology  to  a  similar 
privilege.  The  truth  is,  that  both  exegetical  and  practical 
theology  are  mixed  sciences,  which  stand  related,  not  only  to 
learning,  but  also  to  practical  skill  {re-^vT}),  not  only  to  know- 
lege,  but  also  to  ability  ;  and  the  fact  that  these  very  sciences 
form  the  boundary  lines  of  the  study,  its  beginning  and  end, 
points  to  the  practical  nature  of  theology  as  a  whole,  by  which 
it  is  distinguished  from  pure  science.  If  it  should  become 
necessary  for  purposes  of  observation  to  disclose  the  organism 
of  theological  science,  as  science  simply,  and  without  reference 
to  practical  needs,  it  would  be  proper  to  represent  exegesis  as 
merely  an  historical  auxiliary  science,  as  Biblical  exegesis  is 
in  fact  for  Biblical  theology,  or  patristic  exegesis  for  the 
history  of  the  Church  and  its  doctrines.  But  the  Protestant 
Church  justly  insists  that,  as  a  primary  qualification,  e^■ery 


DISTEIBUTIOX  OF  THEOLOGY THE  TWOFOLD  DIVISION.    305 

theologian  shall  be  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  Bible,  and 
be  competent  to  deal  with  it,  since  more  than  all  else  he  is 
to  be  a  well-grounded  servant  of  the  word  (ycrbi  divini 
minister).  The  combination  of  exegesis  and  history  is  im- 
practicable, confusing  in  a  methodological  point  of  view,  and 
an  innovation  upon  the  ordinary  usage  of  the  terms  in  any 
language.  See  Hagenbach's  Enc7jdopccdia  and  Metliodolog ij , 
translated  by  Drs.  Crooks  and  Hurst,  pp.  141,  142  ;  corre- 
sponding to  pp.  115,  116  of  the  original. 

Still  more  defective  and  unsatisfactory  is  the  twofold 
division  favoured  by  many  theologians.  With  the  exception 
of  J.  r.  Lange  (who  distinguishes  a  historical  and  a  didactic 
division,  but  after  having  set  forth  a  fundamental  theology, 
which  is  to  represent  the  history  of  revelation  that  constitutes 
the  kingdom  of  God,  adopts  the  fourfold  distribution  in  the 
proper  order  of  succession),  their  position  amounts  to  this, 
that  they  lay  down  a  theoretical  and  a  practical  division,  and 
all  of  them,  Hyperius  alone  excepted,  assign  to  the  theoretical 
part  only  systematic  theology,  and  on  the  other  hand  exclude 
exegetical  and  historical  theology  from  what  is  proper] v 
scientitic  theology,  and  relegate  them,  either  to  the  merelv 
auxiliary  sciences  or  to  theological  propaedeutics.  By  this 
course  of  procedure  a  supreme  importance  that  is  altogether 
one-sided  is  given  to  dogmatics  and  morals,  and  the  funda- 
mental signiticance  which  exegetical  and  historical  theology 
must  directly  have  in  reference  to  systematic  theology  is 
entirely  overlooked. 

These  proposed  schemes  of  distribution,  which  for  the 
most  part  have  originated  in  subjective  tendencies,  are  there- 
fore wanting  in  even  a  single  standard  rule  in  accordance  with 
which  any  serviceable  arrangement  and  co-ordination  of  the 
several  branches  may  be  made,  and  give  no  opportunity  of 
reaching  any  organization  of  theology  tliat  can  prove  scientifi- 
cally satisfactory.  In  opposition  to  the  confusion  into  which 
these  other  arrangements  lead,  the  systematic  distribution  of 

VOL.  I.  U 


306  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

theology,  as  an  independent  science,  can  only  be  won  upon 
the  sure  basis  of  the  fourfold  division. 

[The  relations  which  the  principal  encyclopaedists  bear  to  one 
another  in  the  matter  of  their  arrangement  of  the  theological 
l)ranches  may  be  readily  seen  from  the  following  classified  table. 
We  present  here  the  names  of  the  more  important  workers  in 
this  department,  distinguishing  them,  first  of  all,  according  to 
the  number  of  principal  divisions  that  they  recognise,  and 
then  noting  the  variations  in  the  order  of  succession  given 
to  the  separate  branches.  Only  one,  Konig,  proposes  a  five- 
fold division,  and  this  he  makes  by  prefixing  an  apologetical 
division  to  the  ordinary  four  divisions,  which  thereafter  are 
given  in  their  usual  order. 

The  first  evident  attempt  at  a  systematic  and  orderly 
arrangement  of  the  leading  divisions  of  theological  science 
was  made  by  Hyperius  (Andrew  Gerhard  of  Ypres)  in  his 
Thcologus,  published  in  1556.  The  several  books  of  this 
treatise  discuss  in  succession  —  exegetical,  systematic,  and 
practical  theology,  historical  theology  being  included  under 
the  last.  There  was  no  attempt  made  by  Hyperius  to 
arrange  the  subordinate  branches  under  these  principal 
divisions. 

Von  der  Goltz  proposes  a  peculiar  arrangement  of  the 
theological  sciences.  It  may  be  said  to  agree  with  the  three- 
fold division  of  Pelt  and  Kienlen,  with  the  addition  of  an 
apologetical  department  under  the  name  of  philosophical 
theology.  He  will  not,  as  Konig,  prefix  this  division  to  the 
other  generally  recognised  parts.  As  the  ground  of  all  the 
other  theological  sciences,  it  presupposes  their  development, 
and  can  only  follow  them.  {Die  Christlichen  Grundwalir- 
heiten,  Gotha  1873,  pp.  3-5.)  If  apologetics  is  to  get  a 
place  in  the  encyclopaedia  alougside  of  the  other  principal 
divisions,  it  would  seem  to  us  that  the  end  rather  than  the 
beginning  would  be  its  proper  place.  We  shall  give  reasons 
in  Appendix  C.  for  refusing  such  a  position  to  apologetics.] 


SCHEMES  FOR  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THEOLOGY.  307 


>-, 

u 

>> 

o 

tn 

<i) 

H 

.^ 

'eS 

a> 

H 

-fl 

13 

r) 

-a 

H 

O 

o 

o 

KpH 

2 

Pu. 

l>. 

>J>. 

60 

bCbD 

o 

o 

o 

o 

n 

a 

<v 

H 

O)         oj         c;    oj 


<j3    cS    ai  __  _  „         ._    -- 

Si     t,     >,  C  _^^  !-,  !-,     i4 


PnPkoQ  Pi        (1h        Ch  Ph        Ph  Q 


^^fo      w     I     b     bM 


be  O 

o  r:; 


H    . ^  ^^H 


111)      I     ^     I     ^1 

as    CO    <" 


^•5        O     ^3s 


o 

o   ^0 

t« 

o 

o 

~   (D 

1-^ 

o  •-- 

o 
o 

4->     CS 

§1 

c  2 

rJ^ 

C^ 

Ph 

M 

d?W 

Pi 

o 

CO 

■          *. 

t-i  (n 


rn"     •« 


^    ^    ^     •      -3 
I         -1         111 

S  S  S-2.2 


13 

O    c3 

f- 

■^K3i 

.ss 

■<"  s 

^ 

Ph    =" 

u 

£ 

J  g  S  ^  tc-^  -3  I  ^  J  ^  ^  ^  -^  S  a  o  S  --  ^  ^  -     ^ 


i08  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 


§  21.  THE  RELATION  OF  THEOLOGY  TO  THE  CHURCH. 

In  accordance  with  its  essential  character,  theology  is,  upon 
the  ground  of  its  source  and  its  idea  (§§  14,  19),  a  thoroughly 
free  product  of  the  Christian  spirit,  and  as  such  is  not  a 
confessional,  but  a  Christian,  theology.  The  state  of  mind 
and  feeling  out  of  which  it  springs  is,  and  nnist  ever  be,  the 
endeavour  to  attain  unto  perfect  clearness  and  certainty  in 
regard  to  the  truth  of  the  Christian  faith,  which  is  the 
subject  of  the  Church's  Confession,  and  which  is  a  living 
power  within  the  Church.  As  science,  therefore,  theology  is 
throughout  an  end  to  itself.  It  has  no  other  end  to  pursue 
than  the  knovvlege  of  Christianity  according  to  its  religious 
truth.  Whoever  is  interested  in  theology,  whether  it  be  as 
one  who  is  beginning  its  study,  or  as  one  who  has  already 
taken  it  for  his  calling  in  life,  has,  as  a  theologian,  to  look 
away  from  all  other  ends,  which  he  might  perhaps  be  able  to 
reach  by  means  of  his  attainments  in  theological  science,  or 
which  such  attainments  might  in  any  way  serve.  His 
principal,  indeed  his  only,  task  is  to  get  wholly  absorbed  in 
the  subject  of  theology,  and,  by  means  of  free  spiritual  work, 
to  become  certain  of  the  truth  thereof,  so  as  to  give  form  to 
the  certainty  that  has  been  won  by  communicating  it  to 
others.  Any  conception  of  theology,  therefore,  that  would 
on  cjb  priori  grounds  place  it  under  the  practical  end  of  the 
Church,  must  be  set  aside.  Nevertheless,  it  is  a  decided 
service  which  Schleiermacher  rendered  theology,  when  he 
made,  clear  the  connection  between  theology  and  the  Church. 
This  connection  is  undeniable,  and  is  firmly  established  as  a 
principle  on  account  of  the  source  and  the  whole  history  of 
theology.  In  consequence  of  this,  theology  has  certainly  to 
perform  the  most  comprehensive  service  to  the  Church ;  this 
rendering  of  service,  however,  cannot  be  the  norm  for  theology, 
but  must  be  the  result  of  its  scientific  activity.      Theology  is 


SCIENTIFIC  THEOLOGY  AND  THE  PROTESTANT  CHURCH.     309 

not  a  purely  theoretical  science,  but  is,  at  the  same  time, 
a  practical  science ;  truly  practical,  however,  it  can  be  only 
when  it  gives  pre-eminence  to  the  pursuit  of  its  immanent 
scientific  end.  But  the  service  which  it  renders  to  the 
Church  is  not  limited  to  a  Church  of  any  particular  Confes- 
sion, but,  insomuch  as  it  is  Christian  theology,  its  results 
are  laid  out  for  the  benefit  of  all  included  in  the  wide  range 
of  the  Christian  Church.  This  universal  standpoint  which 
theology  takes  up,  does  not  prevent  it  from  entering  into  a 
special  relationship  with  one  particular  confessional  Church. 
Theology  meets  with  no  confessional  Church  in  which  the  full 
realization  of  the  Christian  idea  is  set  forth,  but  it  will  turn 
by  preference  to  that  one  which  does  not  identify  itself  with 
the  idea  of  the  Church,  and  thereby  not  only  authorizes 
theology  to  raise  itself  above  the  limits  of  the  Church  Con- 
fession, but  even  demands  for  its  own  furtherance  and 
maintenance  the  nurture  of  a  free  theological  science.  As 
the  evangelical  Church  and  theological  science  have  both 
originated  in  the  realm  of  Protestantism,  the  closest  relation- 
ship between  the  two  has  naturally  been  the  result.  While 
the  Eomish  Church  places  its  theology  under  the  authority  of 
a  hierarchical  ecclesiasticism,  and  in  accordance  with  the 
standard  supplied  thereby  determines  the  service  which  theo- 
logy, as  servant  of  the  Church,  has  to  render ;  the  evangelical 
Church,  which  rests  upon  the  authority  of  that  truth  which 
is  a  witness  to  itself,  recognises  theology  as  an  independent 
science,  which  has  for  its  highest  end  the  attaining  unto  the 
knowledge  of  this  truth. 

The  practical  services  which  theology  renders  to  the  Church 
result  from  external  and  internal  motives  and  influences 
which  originally  theology  called  into  existence,  and  which  at 
all  times,  though  under  various  modifications,  work  together 
for  its  regular  realization.  First  of  all,  it  follows  from  this 
that  theology  not  only  serves  a  certain  particular  end,  as,  for 
example,  contributing  those  qualifications  which  are  necessary 


310  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

for  Church  guidance,  or  educating  theological  students  for  the 
office  of  the  ministry,  but  that  its  practice  in  the  widest  sense 
must  be  directed  to  the  collective  life  of  the  Church.  As 
positive  science,  theology  starts  from  the  presupposition, 
which  forms  the  basis  of  Church  fellowship,  that  the  Christian 
faith  is  the  perfect  religious  truth.  To  afford  a  demonstration 
of  the  truth  of  this  presupposition  is  the  highest  task  of 
theology,  and  in  the  accomplishment  of  this  task  lies  at  once 
the  highest  and  the  most  general  service  which  it  can  afford 
to  the  Church.  The  whole  life  of  the  Church  shares  in  the 
acquisition  made  by  theology,  in  securing  for  the  truth  of 
Christianity  a  scientific  and  well-established  foundation.  The 
theoretical  purpose,  served  by  all  the  principal  divisions  of 
tlieology,  coincides  with  the  universal  practical  value  which 
they  have  for  the  Church.  Exegetical  theology  represents 
Christianity  as  the  completed  result  of  the  development  of  the 
historical  religion,  and,  at  the  same  time,  sets  forth  its  origin 
as  a  victory  of  Christianity  gained  over  the  powers  of  the  age 
with  which  it  came  in  contact.  Historical  theology  points  to 
a  life  of  culture  existing  here  and  now,  which  was  brought  to 
maturity  by  means  of  Christianity,  as  could  not  have  be^n 
done  by  any  other  religion ;  and  this  Christianity  did  by 
virtue  of  those  religious  and  moral  powers  indwelling  in  it,  in 
spite  of  all  shortcomings  on  the  part  of  the  Church  and 
hindrances  in  history.  Systematic  theology  makes  known 
the  ideal  content  of  Christianity  in  its  purely  scientific  form. 
Practical  theology  presents  to  view  the  ecclesiastical  organs  as 
the  instruments,  by  means  of  which  the  Christian  ideas  may  be 
brought  into  operation,  and  shown  to  be  the  most  solid 
groundworks  of  social  and  political  life.  And  just  because 
of  all  this,  theology,  with  its  comprehensive  scientific  work, 
maintains  the  position  of  the  Church  fellowship  always  at  the 
highest  point  of  consciousness,  so  that  its  faith  is  that  indeed 
which  is  of  force  with  it,  and  yields  it  confidence  and  assurance 
that  the  right  of  its  existence  is  not  only  a  historical  one,  but 


SERVICES  OF  THEOLOGY  TO  THE  CHURCH.  3 1  1 

rests  upon  a  divine  ground,  which,  as  it  has  proved  itself  good 
in  the  past  down  into  the  present,  will  also  prove  itself  good 
in  the  future.  Only  so  much  is  theology  capable  of  doing. 
While  the  Eoraish  Church  has  underestimated  the  practical- 
ecclesiastical  value  of  theology,  it  has  been  sometimes  over- 
estimated on  the  Protestant  side.  As  philosophy  is  not  in  a 
position  to  create  a  religion,  no  more  is  theology  able  to  create 
faith,  nor  should  it  seek  to  set  itself  in  the  place  of  faith. 
But  that  positive  service,  which  is  actually  rendered  by 
theology  to  the  inner  life  of  the  Church,  gains  a  still  higher 
importance  from  the  consideration  that  at  the  same  time 
outwardly  it  results  in  an  apology  for  Christianity  which 
reacts  on  the  whole  Church,  and  on  the  separate  Church 
communities  as  well,  sustaining  and  furthering  each  according 
to  its  historical  worth.  By  means  of  its  whole  scientific 
activity,  theology  proves  itself  to  be  a  vindication  against  all 
the  attacks  which  are  directed  against  Christianity  and  the 
Church  from  without,  even  should  they  come  forth  with  the 
ritmost  eagerness  of  negation,  and  should  they  aim  at 
completely  overturning  the  universal  foundation  and  ground 
upon  which  the  Church  rests,  and  even  religion  itself. 
Although  all  these  attacks  against  the  proper  living  power 
of  the  Church  must  be  ultimately  put  to  silence,  they  are  still 
fitted  to  carry  temporary  confusion  and  disturbance  into  the 
life  of  the  Church,  and  to  remove  these  far  from  the  Church 
is  the  service  which  theology  by  means  of  its  apologetical 
activity  effects  on  behalf  of  the  Church.  For  the  most  part, 
the  Church  itself  bears  the  blame  of  those  attacks.  Churcli 
history  is  not  barren  in  facts,  which  afford  to  opponents 
weapons  in  abundance  for  carrying  on  the  assault  upon 
Christianity.  Among  these  the  occurrences  in  the  Eomish 
Church  are  prominent  in  the  present.  The  papal  syllabus, 
the  dogma  of  infallibility,  the  exaltation  of  the  pretensions 
of  the  Eomish  Curia  over  the  civil  Government,  the  pretended 
appearances  of  Mary,  by  means  of  which  the  Christian  popular 


312  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

faith  is  perverted  into  the  grossest  idolatry  and  superstition, — 
all  these  facts,  which  might  easily  give  occasion  to  a  pessimist 
feeling  in  Protestantism  in  reference  to  the  Eomish  Church, 
should  rather  enjoin  silence  upon  all  confessional  sympathies 
and  antipathies.  It  should  rather  call  forth  sorrowful  regret 
from  universal  Christendom,  that  such  occurrences  should 
cast  their  dark  shadows  over  Christianity  generally,  and  afford 
ever  anew  a  handle  to  objectors  for  bringing  against  it  the 
reproach  of  tendencies  hostile  to  culture,  and  for  recommend- 
ing its  removal  as  the  fundamental  condition  of  the  free 
development  of  the  modern  life.  But  even  over  against  the 
attacks  which  borrow  an  appearance  of  justice  from  these  or 
from  similar  facts,  theology  will  with  good  conscience  dis- 
charge its  apologetical  function,  and  will  show  by  the  record 
of  history  that  the  blame  of  those  facts  belongs  not  to 
Christianity,  but  to  its  human  disfigurations  and  distortions. 
The  extravagances,  too,  of  modern  Catholicism  are  reduced  to 
the  consequences  of  a  hierarchical  system,  which  is  itself 
untrue,  and  to  political  intrigues  of  an  ecclesiastical  party  which 
thinks  by  a  practical  denial  of  Jesus  to  honour  his  name. 

With  reference  now  to  the  events  of  the  Church  life  itself 
which  damage  and  endanger  Christianity  and  its  realization  in 
the  Church,  the  contribution,  by  means  of  M'hich  theology 
positively  and  apologetically  serves  the  Church,  will  at  tlie 
same  time  always  take  a  negative  form.  Because  theology 
alone  develops  its  whole  system  in  accordance  with  the 
standard  of  the  Christian  idea,  it  approaches  with  this 
standard  the  whole  range  of  Churchdom  in  its  state  of 
division  into  different  Churches,  as  well  as  the  separate 
ecclesiastical  communities,  and  brings  into  view  all  the  relations 
in  which  they  stand  to  one  another.  It  takes  into  considera- 
tion the  doctrines  and  the  forms  of  life,  by  means  of  which 
they  are  distinguished  from  one  another,  in  order  to  test 
them  by  its  own  proper  ideal  standard,  and  to  characterize 
and  oppose  everythiug  contradictory  to  it  as  a  deviation  from 


SERVICES  OF  THEOLOGY  TO  MEMBERS  OF  THE  CHURCH.    313 

Christian  truth,  as  a  temporary,  irregular  phenomenon,  as  a  ten- 
dency that  threatens  the  life.  As  apology,  then,  theology  proves 
itself  also  to  be  a  polemic  against  the  existing  ecclesiastical 
condition ;  but  this  negative  bearing  even  turns  out  again  to 
be  of  service  to  the  Church,  since  it  does  not  proceed  from  the 
interests  of  mere  negation,  but  from  the  tendency  to  exert  a 
purifying  and  healthful  influence  upon  the  Church  life. 

Tiie  apologetical  and  polemical  service  of  theology  in  its 
relation  to  the  Church  reaches  forth,  however,  even  to  the 
individual  members  of  the  Church.  Theology  is  not  a  doc- 
trine limited  to  a  few  learned  men,  but  a  common  property  of 
the  Church ;  so  that  its  scientific  conclusions  are  accessible  to 
all  the  well-educated  members  of  the  community.  In  modern 
times  especially  a  conflict  between  faith  and  culture  is  sure  to 
occur;  but  to  all  members  of  the  Christian  community  who 
seek  instruction  from  theology  it  affords  the  means  of  rising 
above  this  conflict.  For  the  individuals  who  are  drawn  by 
means  of  their  culture  into  opposition  to  their  faith,  and  who 
wish  to  overcome  this  opposition,  theology  proves  itself  to  be 
an  apology  of  faith  against  doubt,  but,  at  the  same  time,  it 
proves  itself  to  be  a  polemic  against  a  cross-grained,  wilful 
unbelief,  against  unthinking  superstition,  and  against  the  anti- 
christian  and  unchristian  endeavours  which  proceed  from 
both,  and  which  can  be  prevented  only  by  theology  either 
stopping  up  or  else  purifying  the  sources  from  which  they  flow. 

All  these  manifold  apologetical  and  polemical  performances 
are  the  immediate  result  of  a  living  theology  in  the  Church. 
But  the  service  which  it  renders  to  the  Church  is  more 
enduring  and  of  greater  consequence  by  far  when  it  is  per- 
formed through  the  channels  of  the  offices  ordained  by  the 
Church,  the  office  of  legislation  and  administration,  and  that 
of  teaching.  A  living  faith  and  a  living  interest  in  the  tasks 
of  the  Church  are  to  be  presupposed  on  behalf  of  the  bearers 
of  these  oflices,  as  a  fundamental  condition  of  their  official 
activity,  but  with  it  must  also  be  joined  the  other  condition 


3  1  4  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.EDL\. 

of  theological  insight.  The  practical  value  which  theology 
possesses  for  the  Church  is  also  proved  in  no  small  measure 
by  this,  that  it  furnishes  the  bearers  of  ecclesiastical  offices 
with  the  theological  culture  and  the  theological  acquirements, 
without  which  they  would  not  be  in  a  position  to  discharge 
their  official  duties  with  success.  In  its  fullest  extent  this 
applies  to  those  who  occupy  the  office  of  teachers,  the  clerical 
office.  The  clergyman  must  be  a  theologian,  in  order  to 
render  those  general  positive  and  negative  services  which 
theology  renders  to  the  Church  generally,  amid  the  altogether 
special  local  and  temporary  relations  of  particular  Church 
communities,  and  in  serving  them  he  renders  a  service  to  the 
Church  as  a  whole.  For  this  end  he  must  survey  the  whole 
historical  course  of  Christianity,  and  must  by  means  of 
earnest  scientific  labour  have  raised  himself  to  the  position 
of  perfect  certainty  of  his  faith,  so  that  out  of  his  own 
innermost  conviction  he  may  bring  forth  Christian  truth  for 
application  to  the  life  of  his  congregation.  He  will  work 
among  his  people  not  as  a  sim^^le  believer,  who  preaches  the 
opinions  of  his  own  individual  faith  and  the  views  of  his 
Church,  but  as  a  Christian,  whose  faith  rests  upon  a  scien- 
tifically established  conviction,  and  by  means  of  his  very 
theological  study  he  will  be  led  to  perceive  that  it  is  not  the 
part  of  his  office  to  promote  the  theological  or  philosophical 
learning  of  his  congregation,  but  to  foster,  by  means  of  his 
teaching  of  the  true  knowledge  of  religion,  the  life  of  faith 
of  the  congregation,  and  by  means  of  the  infiuence  of  his 
whole  personality,  by  means  of  his  own  religious  and  moral 
example,  to  elevate  and  improve  his  people.  The  orders  and 
directories  which  are  given  him  to  guide  him  in  the  discharge 
of  his  official  duties  will  serve  him  as  a  rule  of  action ;  but  by 
following  these  he  will  not  have  exhaustively  fulfilled  the 
duties  of  his  office.  He  has  to  administer  his  office  as  at 
once  a  free  and  a  sacred  office,  which  has  to  be  accounted  for 
according  to  the  bicthest  standard  before  God  and  conscience. 


DENIAL  OF  SCIENTIFIC  CIIARACTEK  OF  THEOLOGY.         315 


§  22.  THE  RELATION  OF  THEOLOGY  TO  THE  OTHER  SCIENCES. 

The  question  couceming  the  rehation  of  theology  to  the 
other  sciences  proceeds  from  the  assumption  that  theology  is 
itself  a  science.  To  establish  this  was  the  purpose  of  the 
preceding  discussion,  and  trusting  to  the  foundation  thus  laid, 
we  might  without  more  ado  have  proceeded  to  the  answering 
of  the  question,  had  not  the  scientific  character  of  theology, 
which  we  believe  to  have  been  proved,  been  disputed  in  quite 
recent  times.  In  this  onslaught  theologians  themselves  have 
taken  part.  Lagarde,  doctor  of  theology,  and  Overbeck, 
doctor  and  professor  of  theology,  have  in  special  monographs  ^ 
subjected  their  own  science  to  a  severe  criticism,  so  that  we 
have  felt  it  quite  necessary  that  we  should  deal  with  their 
views  in  a  place  by  themselves.  Nevertheless,  we  can  still 
attach  to  them  only  an  ephemeral  significance,  and  shall  satisfy 
ourselves  with  taking  notice  of  them  in  a  summary  manner ; 
and  we  do  this  lest  non-theologians  should  be  induced  without 
due  reflection  to  allow  themselves  to  be  influenced  by  the 
theological  judgment. 

According  to  Lagarde,  the  German  nation  is  in  need  of  a 
national  religion.  Christianity,  Catholicism  and  Protestantism, 
are  without  religious  content.  The  theology  which  is  in  the 
service  of  the  Catholic  and  Protestant  Church  is  no  science, 
but  a  theology  of  untruth.  The  State  ought  therefore  to 
break  with  Christianity,  with  the  Catholic  and  Protestant 
Churches,  and  their  theologies,  and  make  an  end  of  supporting 
these  theologies  in  the  theological  faculties.      Should  the  two 

1  Paul  de  Lagarde,  Ueber  des  Vcrhiiltniss  des  deutsclien  Staates  zu  Theologie, 
Kirche  und  Eeligion.  Ein  Versuch  Nicht-Theologeii  zu  orieiitiren.  Giittingen 
1873.  And  P.  de  Lagarde,  Ueber  die  gegenwartige  Lage  des  deutschen  Keichs. 
Gbttingen  1876.  Franz  Overbeck,  Ueber  die  Christliclikeit  unserer  heutigen 
Theologie.     Leipzig  1873. 


316  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

Churches  he  repudiated  by  the  State,  and  be  left  only  to  their 
own  resources,  to  maintain  their  existence  as  sects,  they 
might  train  their  clergy  in  separate  seminaries,  which  would 
stand  outside  of  all  connection  with  the  universities.  Lagarde 
hopes  that  by  this  method  of  treatment  the  two  Churches 
would  soon  w^ear  away  and  give  place  to  a  new  religion.  For 
without  a  religion  the  State  certainly  cannot  exist.  The  State 
cannot,  however,  create  a  religion,  but  has  simply  to  prepare  a 
spiritual  atmosphere  for  a  new  religion.  For  this  purpose  it 
should  establish  at  the  universities  a  few  chairs  for  a  new 
theology,  which  is  essentially  only  a  subdivision  of  historical 
science,^  and  which,  after  twenty  years'  diligent  investigation 
of  the  sources,  if  first  a  critical  edition  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  has  been  produced,  will  show  itself  in  full  splen- 
dour. But  then,  indeed,  even  this  new  theology  is  not  in  a 
position  to  make  a  religion  ;  nevertheless,  as  science,  it  is  to 
be  the  pathfinder  of  the  new  religion  of  the  Gospel. 

While  Lagarde  aims  his  blow  against  the  whole  Church 
theology,  Overbeck  directs  his  attack  against  the  hitherto 
prevailing  Protestant  theology.  He  divides  it  into  apologetical 
and  liberal  theology,  and  denies  to  both  the  right  to  be 
regarded  as  Christian.  Because  they  feign  to  be  Christian, 
they  are  fallen  away  from  Christianity,  and  are  affected  with 
the  taint  of  untruthfulness.  In  their  place,  therefore,  the 
critical  theology  has  to  make  its  appearance,  which  breaks 
loose  from  the  half  and  half  position  of  previous  theology,  and 
is  according  to  its  nature  irreligious. 

These  two,  Lagarde  and  Overbeck,  have  this  in  common 
with  Strauss,  that  they  conjure  up  for  their  own  use  a  Chris- 
tianity, a  Church  system,  and  an  ecclesiastical  or  Christian 
theology,  in  order  that  they  may  direct  their  attack  upon  the 
old  system  and  its  reconstruction  against  this  image  of  their 
own  fancy.  Lagarde  lays  claim  to  high  political  motives,  but 
with  this  theology  he  will  not  give  any  national  religion  to 
^  P.  de  Laganle,  Die  gegenwiirtige  Lage,  p.  78  ff. 


crjTiciSM  OF  lagaede's  views.  317 

the  German  people.  Lagarde  knows  well  that  religion  is  not 
to  be  made  ;  hut  if  the  new  theology  is  to  be  a  pathfinder,  if 
it  is  to  lind  out  from  among  the  historical  religions  the  reli- 
gion of  the  gospel/  that  which  composes  it  will  still  only  be 
its  own  handiwork,  its  fabric,  a  religious  system,  but  not  a 
religion.  And  is  the  State  upon  the  authority  of  the  new 
theological  professors  to  raise  this  their  handiwork  to  the  rank 
of  a  national  religion  ?  But  Lagarde  ought  also  to  know  that 
a  Church  can  be  made,  just  as  little  as  a  religion,  and  especi- 
ally a  Church  that  is  to  be  supported  by  the  State.  The 
State  and  the  new  theology  together  would  not  be  in  a  position 
to  construct  a  German  National  Church.  The  German  people 
will  set  greater  value  upon  history,  and  instead  of  a  new 
gospel  will  foster  rather  the  gospel  of  Christ.  And  Protestant 
theology  will  be  able  to  show  Lagarde's  pathfinder  that,  even 
in  the  Christianity  that  is  according  to  him  most  deteriorated, 
even  in  Catholicism,  this  gospel  still  retained  its  life,  and  that 
the  Eeformation  is  not,  as  Lagarde  is  pleased  to  say,  a  mere 
continuation  of  the  Eomau  Catholic  disfiguration  of  Chris- 
tianity, but  a  reforming  principle  which  had  its  origin  in  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  which,  in  spite  of  its  temporary 
obscuration  at  the  hand  of  orthodox  theology,  has  rendered 
possible  that  whole  life  of  culture  by  which  the  present  age  is 
characterized.  It  may  also  be  shown  that  Protestant  theology 
is  not  an  ossified  theology,  such  as  only  serves  to  perpetuate 
untruth,  but  that,  by  means  of  its  history,  it  affords  a  proof 
that  Protestantism  as  a  principle  has  continued  active  in  it, 

'Compare  Die  gegenwartige  Lage,  p.  84  f.  :  "Still  one  may  come  to  me 
with  the  assertion  that  a  religion,  althougli  it  no  longer  passes  current,  may- 
yet  deserve  some  study.  To  this  we  answer,  that  unless,  in  spite  of  our  non- 
Jewish  blood,  we  are  still  in  1875  to  be  Jews  in  the  sense  in  which  Jeremiah 
and  the  men  of  the  great  synagogue  were  Jews,  and  indeed  not  merely  to  be 
Jews,  but  also  Zoroastrians,  Buddhists,  Evangelicals,  and  whatever  else  seems 
good, — and  this  surely  is  nothing  short  of  polytheism, — it  is  of  no  use  for  us  to 
turn  even  for  a  few  minutes  to  the  study  of  Hebrew,  Israelitish,  Jewish  religion." 
[The  outcome  of  this  seems  to  be,  that  we  may  study  the  history  of  Biblical 
religion,  but  are  no  more  called  to  identify  ourselves  with  it  than  with  any 
other  historical  religious  which  may  iuterest  us.] 


31^ 


THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 


that  in  connection  with  the  general  spiritual  life  of  Germany 
it  has  developed  itself  into  a  science  of  Christian  theology, 
which  has  no  intention  of  serving  a  tottering  ecclesiasticism, 
but  bears  in  itself  the  call  to  defend  the  eternal  truths  of 
Christianity  in  the  Church,  and  finds  in  the  evangelical  Church 
the  communion  in  which  it  can  presuppose  the  longing  for 
this  truth  and  a  susceptibihty  for  it.  Upon  this  historical 
ground  it  will  continue  working  in  the  closest  connection  with 
the  State  for  the  support  of  the  Christian  national  life,  and 
must  assume  an  attitude  of  opposition  to  Lagarde's  new 
theology  as  decidedly  as  it  protests  against  Overbeck's  irre- 
ligious theology.  An  irreligious  theology  is  a  contradidio  in 
adjecto.  A  theology  which  does  not  spring  from  religious 
motives,  and  does  not  pursue  religious  ends,  is  no  theology. 
And  if  Overbeck  is  inclined  to  bring  this  theology  into  a  certain 
connection  with  the  practical  system  of  the  Church,  the  result 
can  be  no  other  than  this,  that  the  irreligious  theology  would 
lead  to  practical  irreligiousness.  Lagarde  and  Overbeck  advance 
the  pretension  that  they  have  history  as  an  advocate  on  behalf 
of  their  theories,  but  just  the  radical  measures,  which,  with  the 
mixture  of  a  few  good  tinctures,  they  recommend,  are  all  the 
while  unhistorical  and  impracticable  phantoms. 

[Zockler  has  in  a  very  admirable  manner  shown  the  lead- 
ing tendencies  of  modern  scientific  thought  in  reference  to 
theology.  Beginning  with  the  extreme  of  thoroughgoing 
antagonism  which  has  been  described  and  discussed  above,  he 
proceeds  to  explain  the  attitude  of  others  not  wholly  negative. 
He  gives  a  fourfold  classification  of  these  tendencies — anti- 
religious,  antichristian,  Christian  but  opposed  to  the  prevail- 
ing conceptions  of  Christianity,  and  finally  what  he  calls  a 
book-keeping — by  double  entry — view  of  Christianity,  an 
attempt  to  justify  an  exoteric  and  esoteric  presentation  of 
Christian  truth. 

"  1.  The  role  of  Christianity  has  been  played  out.  Eeli- 
gion  generally  may  be  dispensed  with  by  mankind  of  to-day, 


CLA.SSIFICATION  OF  ANTICHRISTIAN  TENDENCIES.  319 

or  is  only  necessary  conditionally,  as  the  cultus  of  ideal 
humanity  or  of  the  universe.  Tlieology  therefore  is  an 
anachronism.  Theological  science  and  its  doctrines  are  to  be 
regarded  as  '  lying  at  the  point  of  death.'  Thus,  Feuerbach's 
Anthropologism,  Comte's  Positivism,  Strauss'  Naturalistic 
Pantheism  (1872),  Hackel's  Monism,  E.  von  Hartmann's 
Pessimism ;  together  with  the  smaller  satellites  of  those 
Coryphaei  of  unbelief. 

"  2.  Pieligion  is  still  needful,  but  no  longer  in  the  form  of 
Christianity.  Christian  theology  is  exchanged  for  a  universal 
science  of  religion,  or  appears  as  a  special  section,  as  '  the 
science  of  Semitic  monotheism  modified  by  Aryan  influences,' 
one  of  the  departments  of  research  regarding  religion  and 
culture.  Thus,  various  Orientalists,  comparative  philologists, 
and  historians  of  religion  :  Paul  de  Lagarde,  Maurice  Vernes, 
Penan,  Peville,  and  other  French  scholars  of  the  radical 
school. 

"  3.  Pteligion  must  remain,  and  that,  too,  in  the  form  of 
Christianity ;  but  Christian  theology  must  become  something 
totally  different  from  that  which  it  has  been.  It  has  to  rid 
itself  of  all  inexact  statements,  as  well  in  the  exegetical  and 
historical  department,  where  the  most  unconditional  criticism, 
admitting  of  no  presuppositions,  must  rule,  as  in  the  depart- 
ment of  dogmatics,  where  all  the  customary  supports  from 
metaphysics  and  theosophy  must  be  rejected.  Thus,  on  the 
one  side,  the  most  recent  representatives  of  the  Tubingen 
critical  school,  as  Overbeck,  Pfleiderer,  Biedermann,  Holtz- 
mann,  etc.  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  new  Kantians,  as 
Lipsius,  etc.,  and  the  extreme  Eitschlians,  Herrmann  and 
Hiiring  ;  and  outside  of  Germany,  the  liberal  theologians  of 
England  influenced  by  the  Agnosticism  of  the  Spencerian 
philosophy,  as  Dean  Stanley,  the  author  of  Supernatural 
Religion ;  and  similar  to  these  are  the  Dutch  '  Moderni '  of 
the  Leyden  school. 

"  4.  Christianity  and  even  the  prevalent  Christian  theology 


320  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

are  to  be  retained.  A  thoroughgoing  modernizing  of  Chris- 
tian theology,  a  complete  revision  of  its  dogmas  according  to 
anti-metaphysical  principles,  is  not  to  be  endeavoured.  It  is 
enough  to  introduce  a  sort  of  book-keeping  by  double  entry. 
Theology  in  its  exoteric  doctrinal  activity  has  to  conform 
itself  more  or  less  to  the  critically  exact  methods  of  investiga- 
tion adopted  in  the  natural  sciences,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
it  must  acquire  a  phraseology  in  keeping  with  the  age. 
Esoterically,  however,  especially  in  regard  to  practical  theology, 
it  may  adhere  as  before  to  the  traditional  forms  of  expression 
and  doctrine.  Thus,  Hermann  Schultz  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ;  and,  in  another  way,  the  theosophist 
Anton  Ziegler ;  so,  too,  those  who  vindicate  the  action  of  the 
new  organization  of  the  theological  faculties  in  Holland,  where 
the  State  since  1876  support  only  the  professorships  of 
exegetical  and  historical  theology,  leaving  to  the  Churches  to 
provide  their  own  professors  of  dogmatics  and  practical 
theology."     ffandbuch,  vol.  i.  pp.  18-20.] 

Meanwhile,  if  even  from  the  theological  side  itself  such 
voices  should  sound  aloud  against  all  the  theology  of  to-day, 
it  can  be  no  cause-  of  wonder  that  non-theologians  chime  in 
with  this  hostile  tone  and  deny  to  theology  the  character  of 
an  independent  science,  maintaining  that  it  has  no  right  to  be 
defended  in  the  universities  in  separate  faculties,  seeing  that  its 
constituent  parts,  in  so  far  as  they  are  of  general  value,  must 
have  been  dealt  with  in  the  philosophical  faculty.^  We  believe 
this  estimation  of  theology  must  be  traced  back  to  a  confound- 
in'-f  of  it  with  the  philosophy  of  religion.  "What  is  thereby  over- 
looked is  this,  that  Christian  theology  as  distinguished  from 
the  philosophy  of  religion  stands  in  an  actual  connection  with 
the  department  of  life,  the  Church.  If  religion  is  undeniably 
a  historical  reality,  if,  as  such,  it  must  also  necessarily  attain 

1  Compare  the  literature  of  the  discussion  in  the  Neue  Evangelische  Kirchen- 
zeitung,  xviii.,  1876,  Nr.  19,  p.  293  f.  ;  and  also  the  Protestantische  Kirchen- 
zeitung,  1875,  Nr.  41, 


THE  GERMAN  PEOPLE  AND  THEIR  THEOLOGY.  321 

to  its  ideal  realization,  and  has  actually  found  tliis  in 
Christianity ;  and  if,  further,  the  Church  is  the  fellowship 
which,  by  means  of  the  idea  of  religion,  has  been  called 
into  being  and  has  the  substance  of  its  life  in  this  idea, 
then  there  must  also  necessarily  exist  a  Christian  theology, 
which  has  for  its  highest  end  the  knowledge  of  the  idea 
of  religion  and  the  practical  development  of  the  ideal  Chris- 
tian life  in  the  Church.  In  comparison  with  other  peoples, 
the  German  people  has  the  pre-eminence  of  being  in  the 
possession  of  a  theological  science  which  nourishes  and 
defends  its  Christian  life,  which  will  protect  it  against  un- 
belief and  superstition,  and  against  any  falling  back  upon 
a  stage  of  the  life  of  the  Church  that  has  been  overpassed, 
which,  in  constant  connection  with  the  other  sciences,  seeks 
to  maintain  entire  the  harmony  between  culture  and  the 
Christian  life,  between  the  State  and  the  Church.  We  do 
not  yearn  after  the  ecclesiastical  institutions  of  England, 
which,  unprotected  by  a  free  theology,  part  asunder  into 
sectarian  divisions  ;  nor  would  we  fall  victims  to  the  Jesu- 
itical arts  and  intrigues.  We  do  not  grudge  France  its 
civilisation,  which,  in  spite  of  all  its  boasting,  is  still  not  in  a 
position  to  improve  at  its  inmost  core  the  life  of  the  people, 
but,  notwithstanding  all  its  irreligious  egoism,  surrenders  the 
masses  of  tlie  people  into  the  hands  of  a  dominant  clerical 
order.  It  will  be  true  political  wisdom  to  preserve  to  the 
German  people  its  theology,  which  has  come  down  as  an 
inheritance  after  long  outward  and  inward  conflicts.  This 
theology  proves  its  right  to  a  separate  existence  as  theological 
science  from  its  connection  with  the  Church,  from  its  theo- 
retical tasks  and  its  practical  aims,  and  places  on  the  founda- 
tion of  this  right  the  claim  upon  the  State  to  support,  in  its 
own  interests  at  its  universities  under  special  faculties,  the 
theology  of  the  different  Churches,  which  it  embraces  in  its 
historical  development,  and  to  leave  it  to  the  particular 
Churches  to  show  whether  they  can  produce  from  their  midst 
VOL.  I.  X 


322  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP^DL\, 

a  theology  which  will  hold  its  own  among  the  other  sciences, 
and  which  will  be  able  to  demand  from  these  an  acknowledg- 
ment that  it  is  a  science.  Theology,  as  it  has  been  represented 
in  the  preceding  pages,  approaches  the  other  sciences  with 
this  claim. 

The  circle  of  human  knowledge  comprehends  the  vast  fields 
of  nature  and  spirit.  The  several  sciences,  among  which  the 
investigation  is  distributed,  are  bound  together  by  means  of  a 
common  purpose,  and  among  them  theology  has  its  authorized 
place  as  one  of  the  spiritual  sciences.  It  shows  its  scientific 
character  by  this,  that  it  conducts  the  inquiry  regarding  its 
own  proper  department  of  religion  in  accordance  with  the 
same  principles  of  knowledge,  and  in  accordance  with  the 
same  methods,  as  are  employed  in  the  other  sciences,  that  is  to 
say,  in  accordance  with  the  method  of  logical  and  speculative 
thought.  The  scientific  character  of  theology  is  also  proved 
by  this,  that  on  the  ground  of  this  method  it  defends  and 
maintains  its  own  department  over  against  the  other  sciences ; 
whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  while  it  lays  claim  for  itself  to 
this  acknowledgment,  it  also  without  reserve  recognises  the 
results  of  the  other  sciences  won  by  the  application  of  similar 
methods,  and  turns  them  to  account  for  the  theoretical 
upbuilding  of  its  own  system.  Because  it  is  contented  to 
work  within  its  own  limits,  and  not  to  pass  over  into  foreign 
fields,  it  must  also  demand  of  the  other  sciences  that  they 
confine  themselves  within  their  own  limits,  and  that  they  do 
not  pass  over  these  into  the  theological  domain.  When 
these  determinations  of  boundaries  have  been  completed  and 
acknowledged,  there  will  be  a  free  scientific  interchange 
between  theology  and  the  other  sciences,  and  advances  in 
knowledge  upon  one  side  or  the  other  will  be  able  to  reckon 
on  mutual  consent  and  support.  In  modern  times  the  axiom 
has  had  general  currency  in  wide  circles,  that  natural  science 
and  theology  must  maintain  a  hostile  attitude  toward  one 
another.     And  yet  they  come  into  contact  with  one  another, 


THEOLOGY  AND  NATURAL  SCIENCE.  323 

inasmuch  as  both,  although  indeed  upon  different  fields,  are 
purely    sciences    of    experience,    natural   science    being    the 
science   of  the   experience   of  external  things,   theology   the 
science  of  internal,  spiritual  experience  ;  so  that  it  just  comes 
to  this,  that  each   science  must  confine  itself  within  its  own 
limits  in  order  not  only  to  avoid  any  conflict,  but  also  to  lead 
on  to  a  relationship  of  mutual  recognition.     AVlien  natural 
science  in  so  frank  a  manner,  as  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
naturalists  in  recent  times  has  done,-^  points  out  the  limita- 
tions which  are  placed  upon  its  investigations  in  consequence 
of  the  very  field  of  investigation,  it  is  certainly  justified  in 
claiming    for  itself  the  most  absolute  freedom   within  those 
limits,  and  in  refusing  to  admit  any  limitation  which   may 
be    applied    from  without    to    its    purely   observational   and 
experimental  procedure,  especially  on  the  part  of  religious  or 
theological  theories,      Not  only  has  theology  nothing  to  fear 
from  this  free  natural  science,  but  theology  should  see  in  it 
the  champion  of  its  own  interests   most  worthy   of  respect. 
Theology  will  estimate    the    spiritual   results    which    spring 
from  natural  science  more  highly  than  its  great  material  con- 
sequences.    The  more  widely  this  impresses  itself  upon  the 
world  of  phenomena,  the  more  it  yields  to  the  department  of 
the  natural  life,  the  more  firmly  it  recognises  the  laws  and 
powers  of  nature,  the  more  certainly  will  the  religious  and 
theological  conceptions,  which  owe  their   origin  to  a  defective 
and  false  theory  of  nature,  be  overturned,  but  the  deeper  will 
be  the   grounding  secured  for  the  ideas  which  constitute  for 
religion   and    theology   the  very   elements   of  life.     Natural 
science,  on  the  other  hand,  by  means  of  those  limits   whicli 
it    applies   to  itself,  points  to  something  beyond   itself,    and 
recognises  a  department  unto  which,  in   accordance  with  the 
method  of  its  procedure,  it  does  not  reach.      In  so    doing  it 
admits    a   department  of  the  spirit,  and   an   inquiry,   which 

^  E.    du  Bois-Eeymond,  Ueber   die  Grenzen  des  Naturerkennens.      Leipzig 
1872. 


324  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

other  sciences  have  to  follow  out ;  and  inasmuch  as  theology 
reckons  itself  among  these,  it  cannot  first  of  all  demand  from 
natural  science  anything  more  than  this  admission.  If,  then, 
theology  in  its  own  sphere,  the  sphere  of  religion,  sets  about 
its  investigations  just  as  freely  as  natural  science  does,  and 
causes  to  vanish  before  it  the  limits  of  matter,  force,  and  con- 
sciousness, under  which  natural  science  remains  fixed,  it  will 
require  also  to  yield  to  natural  science  the  right  of  free 
decision,  in  so  far  as  it  will  recognise  the  results  of  theological 
thought,  and  will  find  in  them  the  explanation  of  problems 
which  by  its  own  scientific  methods  are  unexplainable.  The 
relations  of  natural  science  and  theology  must,  however,  take 
an  altogether  different  form,  if  natural  science  will  not  agree 
to  make  that  admission,  if,  carried  away  by  pride  in  its  own 
successes,  it  assumes  that  the  world  of  phenomena,  over  which 
it  has  command,  is  the  absolute,  and  treats  the  spiritual  life  as 
a  mere  expression  of  matter,  which  is  altogether  subject  to  the 
same  laws  as  all  other  natural  things.  In  presence  of  such  a 
natural  science,  theology  can  assume  only  a  polemical  and 
apologetical  attitude.  Over  against  a  materialism  which 
hopes  to  succeed  in  reducing  everything  under  its  own 
sensible  experience,  and  in  subjecting  everything  to  its  own 
process  of  exact  investigation,  theology  has  a  right  to  appeal 
to  the  inner  experience  in  which  religion  manifests  itself, 
and  to  the  vast  field  of  history,  which  as  a  real  record  of  that 
experience  stands  over  against  the  life  of  nature. 

[Zockler  has  endeavoured  to  represent  the  relationship  of 
theology  and  philosophy  to  the  other  sciences  by  recognising 
the  two  former  as  universal  sciences  and  the  others  as  parti- 
cular sciences.  Theology,  by  virtue  of  its  theocentric  stand- 
point, embraces  the  whole  range  of  natural  and  spiritual  life 
from  above  :  Philosophy,  by  virtue  of  its  anthropocentric 
standpoint,  embraces  all  from  below.  The  former  rears  its 
system  of  a  comprehensive  theory  of  God  and  the  world  from 
above,  starting  from  God  as  the  one  ground  of  all  faith  and 


THEOLOGY  AND  THE  SCIENCES  OF  LANGUAGE  AND  HISTOIIY.      325 


knowledge :  the  latter  builds  from  below  upwards  by  au 
analysis  of  human  consciousness,  concluding,  after  passing 
tlirough  all  the  spheres  of  real  and  ideal  knowledge,  with  the 
idea  of  God  as  the  liighest  of  all  ideas.  In  illustration  of  this 
he  gives  the  following  table : — 

(God) 
Theolog}'. 


(The  Natural  World) 
The  Natural  Sciences. 
Theoretical.         B.  Practical. 


(The  Spiritual  Life) 
Spiritual  or  Historical  Sciences. 
A.  Theoretical.       B.  Practical. 


Mathematics, 

Astrophysics, 

Geophysics, 

Chemistry, 

Biology. 


Medicine, 

Agriculture, 

Technology. 


History, 
Philology, 
Ethnology. 
Linguistics. 


Jurisprudence. 
Political  Economy. 


(Man) 
Philosophy, 
Zockler's  Handlmch  der  theolog, 
p.  17.] 


n,  2  ed,      Nordlingen  1884, 


AVhile  natural  science  and  theology  are  within  these 
limits  intimately  related  to  one  another,  theology  stands  in 
closer  connection  with  the  sciences  of  language  and  history. 
Inasmuch  as  upon  its  historical  side  it  comes  into  contact 
with  these  two  sciences,  all  the  three  are  thus  engaged  upon 
the  same  field  of  research,  and  there  can  be  no  question 
here  of  a  passing  over  from  one  department  into  another. 
Theology  will  therefore  relate  itself  to  these  sciences  simply 
as  borrowing  from  them.  It  will,  however,  not  only  turn  to 
account  for  itself  the  essential  results  which  advance  it  for  the 
time  being,  but  chiefly  must  appropriate  to  itself  the  laws, 
which  both  of  these  sciences  place  at  the  foundation  of  their 
investigations.  The  fundamental  principles  which  linguistic 
and  historical  rasearches  generally  adopt  for  the  ascertaining 
of  the  meaning  of  Scripture  from  the  literary  documents  given 
them,  as  well  as  for  the  estimating  of  their  sources  and  for 
the  ascertaining  of  their  actual  contents,  must  in  like  manner 


326  THEOLOGICAL  ENGYCLOPJJDIA. 

be  made  practical  use  of  by  theology  in  its  own  special 
historical  department.  Indeed,  just  according  to  the  measure 
in  which  it  does  this  will  it  obtain  greater  or  less  results 
by  means  of  its  historical  labours,  and  be  able  to  secure 
recognition  on  the  part  of  the  sciences  of  language  and 
history.  On  the  other  hand,  both  sciences  will  be  justified  in 
refusing  any  consideration  and  denying  any  scientific  value 
to  a  tlieology  which  would  lay  claim,  in  its  linguistic  and 
historical  researches,  to  any  other  fundamental  principles  than 
those  which  are  generally  valid.  It  has  just  been  upon  this 
historical  side  that  its  task  has  been  greatly  neglected  by 
theology,  and  this  is  now  being  eo.gerly  retrieved.  The  con- 
sequence of  this  attention  now  given  to  the  historical  side  of 
theological  science  is  that  theology  has  raised  itself  to  a 
thoroughly  free  historical  standpoint.  When  this  not  only  is 
recognised,  but  is  also  applied  by  theology  in  the  widest 
possible  range  of  circumstances,  then  first  will  a  decision  and 
an  agreement  be  reached  in  regard  to  the  most  important 
theoretical  and  practical  questions. 

As  a  practical  science,  theology  is  most  closely  related  to 
jurisprudence.  The  theoretical  department  w^hich  is  common 
to  both,  Church  government,  brings  both  into  contact  with 
each  other  upon  the  practical  field  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
politics.  As  State  and  Church  are  in  relation  to  one  another, 
jurisprudence  stands  in  close  connection  with  the  outward 
rules  of  the  Church,  and  the  departments  of  law  have  to 
determine  the  limits  between  State  and  Church.  But  theology, 
on  its  part,  must  see  to  it  that  by  means  of  the  organism  of 
the  Church,  without  interruption  on  the  part  of  the  State,  the 
moral  powers  are  preserved,  without  which  no  commonwealth 
can  exist  and  prosper.  At  the  same  time,  it  will  be  obliged 
decidedly  to  oppose  any  attempt  to  encroach  upon  the  inner 
life  of  the  Church  by  means  of  juristic  theories,  and  to  set  up 
an  ecclesiastical  constitution  after  the  manner  of  the  State 
according  to  its  legalistic  standard ;  while,  on  the  other  hand 


THEOLOGY  AND  rillLOSOPIIY.  32  7 

jurisprudence  lias  to  watch,  lest  theology  should  usurp  an 
influence  over  the  civil  life  that  passes  beyond  the  limits  of 
the  religious  and  moral  sphere.  But  this  peaceful  co-operation 
will  be  broken  up,  if  from  the  standpoint  of  the  science  of 
law  on  overestimate  be  placed  upon  law,  and  it  be  set  forward 
as  the  only  foundation  upon  which  the  whole  civil  life  must 
be  built  up.  This,  indeed,  will  happen  if  the  civil  State  be 
elevated  into  an  ideal  State,  in  which  the  whole  life  of  the 
people  is  embraced  and  is  exactly  contained  in  the  legalistic 
organism  of  which  there  is  no  authorized  place  for  religion 
and  Cliurch,  but  at  the  farthest  a  toleration  is  extended  to 
them  until  they  die  away.  In  consequence  of  a  prevalent 
theory  which  makes  the  State  absolute,  theology  is  driven 
into  the  same  polemical  and  apologetical  attitude  as  it  was 
forced  to  take  up  toward  a  natural  science  which  insisted 
upon  regarding  nature  as  absolute. 

Theology  again,  as  speculative  science,  stands  in  the  most 
intimate  connection  with  philosophy.  The  presupposition 
underlying  this  is,  that  philosophy  acknowledges  religion  in 
its  reality  as  the  living  element  in  theology.  Between 
theology  and  a  philosophy  which  sees  in  religion  a  mere 
human  illusion,  or  represents  Christianity  as  an  antiquated 
theory  of  the  world,  there  can  be  no  relation  at  all,  or  at 
most  only  a  decidedly  negative  one.  But  philosophy,  so  far 
as  it  has  been  constructed  in  any  degree  independently  of 
Ilegel,  has  raised  itself  above  the  superficial  conception  of 
religion  which  sought  its  protection  under  the  Hegelian 
system,  and  inasmuch  as  it  recognises  religion  as  a  living 
power  (an  inquiry  which  philosophy  cannot  refuse),  a 
philosophy  of  religion  is  created  which  does  not  set  for  itself 
the  task  of  comprising  religion  in  tlie  idea  and  then  losing  it 
in  the  idea,  but  rather  of  putting  it  to  proof  by  means  of  a 
historical  and  speculative  inquiry  into  its  reality  and  ideality, 
A  philosophy  of  religion  so  formed  will  enter  into  a  most 
intimate  and  vital  connection  with  theology,  and  to  its  dis- 


!^8 


THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 


cussions  theology  will  be  obliged  to  devote  its  constant 
attention.  But  if  now  from  many  sides  a  strong  desire  is 
expressed  that  theology  as  a  separate  science  should  be 
abolished,  and  that  it  should  be  absorbed  in  the  philosophy  of 
religion  that  is  regarded  as  quite  identical  with  it,  and  that  it 
should  seek  its  place  in  the  philosophical  faculty,  then,  against 
all  these  demands,  theology  must  lodge  its  protest.  As 
positive  science  it  stands,  in  accordance  with  its  origin  and 
its  practical  aims,  in  a  connection  with  the  Church  which 
philosophy  has  not,  and  which  it  cannot  have.  As  philosophy, 
it  has  to  start  either  from  the  speculative  idea  or  from  the 
psychological  and  historical  facts  of  religion,  and  has  to  com- 
plete its  speculative  work  upon  religion  without  restricting 
itself  by  Christianity  and  the  Church,  and  unconcerned  in 
regard  to  any  organ  whatsoever,  by  means  of  which  it  may 
have  to  transfer  its  theory  of  religion  into  the  practical  life. 
Should  it,  in  carrying  out  its  researches  in  the  freest  manner, 
reach  the  result  that  religion  in  general  must  be  denied,  or 
that,  at  least,  a  new  religion  must  be  set  in  the  place  of 
Christianity,  it  will  then  be  the  business  of  theology  from  its 
positive  standpoint  to  engage  upon  an  apology  for  religion  and 
Christianity,  and  to  remind  philosophy  of  this,  that  it  can 
create  a  theory  of  religion  but  not  a  religion,  that  it  may 
establish  a  philosophical  school  but  not  a  religious  com- 
munion. If,  on  the  other  hand,  philosophy  agrees  with 
theology  in  the  recognition  of  religion  and  Christianity,  then 
theology  will  accept  the  philosophical  testimony  as  the  highest 
confirmation  of  its  positive  platform,  and  will  seek  to  derive 
from  philosophy  the  greatest  possible  advantage.  Never- 
theless it  will  not  be  in  a  condition  to  surrender  the  connec- 
tion with  the  real  Christian  and  Church  life,  which  for 
philosophy  does  not  exist,  but  in  which  the  practical  ends  of 
theology  concentrate  themselves,  and  so  to  abandon  generally 
its  positive  platform,  especially  at  a  time  when,  from  the  side 
of  philosophy  itself,  the  divided  state  of  philosophy  has   been 


GENERAL  FUNCTIONS  OF  THEOLOGY.  329 

admitted,^  and  when  theology  could  scarcely  find  a  philo- 
sophical system,  unto  which  it  might  be  ready  to  deliver 
itself.  But,  upon  its  own  side,  it  must  be  demanded  by 
philosophy  that  theology  should  recognise  it,  not  only  in 
regard  to  its  practical  calling,  but  also  in  regard  to  its 
theoretical  investigation.  For  if  theology  is  not  merely,  as 
Kant  regarded  it,  the  bearer  of  an  ecclesiastical  statutory  law, 
but  has  examined  Christianity  thoroughly,  and  the  whole 
department  of  religion  which  proceeds  from  it,  by  means  of 
the  same  principle  which  philosophy  employs,  then  even 
philosophy  will  be  obliged  to  seek  instruction  regarding  Chris- 
tianity and  the  Church  by  means  of  a  special  theological  inquiry. 
Since,  then,  theology  stands  in  so  vital  and  free  a  con- 
nection with  all  the  other  sciences,  we  must  give  prominence 
in  it  to  the  task  of  maintaining  a  strict  connection  between 
the  Christian  Church  system  and  the  whole  range  of  the 
national  culture.  It  has  also  the  task  of  keeping  out  of 
public  life  the  discords  which  must  enter,  if  a  particular 
Church  system  were  to  affirm  the  infallibility  of  its  doctrinal 
positions,  and,  under  the  pretence  that  these  infallible  positions 
are  Christianity,  and  that  a  limited  Church  sect  is  the  Church, 
were  to  oppose  all  historical  development  in  the  name  of 
Christianity  and  the  Church.  By  means  of  this  highest 
practical  task,*  which  theological  science  has  constantly  to 
perform,  apart  from  the  purely  ecclesiastical  end  which  it 
pursues,  its  place  among  the  other  practical  sciences  is  already 
secured  to  theology,  and  its  claim  to  be  reckoned  along  with 
these  at  its  universities  by  the  State  as  a  distinct  science  is 
justified.  As  from  the  side  of  natural  science  a  searching 
review  has  been  made  of  the  whole  department  of  knowledge, 


1  Compare  E.  Zellcr,  Geschichte  des  deutschcn  riiilosophie,  p.  917. 

*  Compare  H.  Helmlioltz,  Ueber  das  Verlialtniss  der  Naturwissenschaften 
zur  Gesammtheit  der  Wissenschaft.  (On  the  Relations  of  Natural  Science  to  the 
whole  circle  of  the  Sciences.)  In  seinen  popularen  wissenschaftlichen  VortraKen. 
(Popnlar  Scientific  Lectures.)  Heft  1,  2.  Braunschweig  1865,  1871.  Heft  1, 
p.  3-29. 


THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPiEDIA. 


SO  also  from  the  side  of  theological  science  the  demand  must 
be  made  that,  for  the  preservation  of  all  the  social,  civil,  and 
ethical  interests  of  the  natural  life,  the  four  faculties  at  the 
German  universities  should  co-operate  in  the  most  intimate 
fellowship. 


APPENDICES. 


APPENDICES. 

A.  Theological  Encyclopsedias  of  Hofmann  and  Rothe. 

B.  Criticism  of  Remarks  by  Dr.  W.  Grimm. 

C.  Place  of  Apologetics  in  Theological  Encyclopaedia. 


APPENDIX    A. 


The  Theological  Encyclopaedias  of  Hofmann  and  Eothe. 

The  literature  relating  to  theological  encyclopcedia  has  been 
in  an  unusual  measure  enriched  during  recent  times.  Just 
about  the  time  when  this  treatise  originally  appeared  in  its 
German  form,  the  Encyclopsedia  of  J.  Ch.  K.  von  Hofmann 
was  issued,  edited  from  lectures  and  manuscripts  by  G.  J. 
Bestmann,  licentiate  and  tutor  in  theology  at  Erlangen  ;  and 
soon  after,  the  Encyclopaedia  of  Eichard  Eothe,  edited  from 
his  remains  by  Pastor  G.  Euppelius.  Undoubtedly  those 
who  are  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  works  of  these  two 
theologians,  who  have  gained  for  themselves,  each  after  his 
own  manner,  a  very  high  position  in  their  different  theological 
circles,  will  already  have,  from  their  general  familiarity  with 
Hofmann  and  Eothe's  methods,  a  very  good  idea  as  to  how 
both  must  set  forth  the  theological  system,  and  so  will  not 
find  anything  essentially  new  in  the  Encyclopsedias  now 
posthumously  published.  To  others,  however,  not  so  familiar 
with  those  previous  writings,  they  will  aftbrd  a  clear  view 
and  a  comprehensive  scientific  conception  of  the  standpoint 
of  the  most  important  theological  works  of  modern  times. 
But  beyond  all  question  they  are  in  themselves  pre-eminently 
deserving  of  attention  on  account  of  the  help  which  they 
afford  in  carrying  forward  the  construction  of  the  theological 
system.  The  two  editors,  Bestmann  and  Euppelius,  are  there- 
fore entitled  to  our  hearty  thanks  for  the  pains  which  they  have 
taken,  out  of  the  lectures  of  the  different  academical  sessions, 


334  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA, 

and  out  of  numerous  fragments  and  marginal  notes,  to  make 
the  two  Encyclopaedias  accessible  to  a  wider  theological  public. 
But,  just  because  of  the  circumstances  of  their  publication,  it 
becomes  the  duty  of  critics  of  these  treatises  to  keep  in  view, 
not  the  literary  form,  upon  which  the  authors,  had  they  them- 
selves published  them,  would  have  undoubtedly  expended  much 
greater  pains,  but  only  their  essential  contents. 

In  seneral,  Hofmann  and  Eothe,  individualistic  and  inde- 
pendent  as  they  have  proved  themselves  to  be  in  the  general 
construction  of  their  theology,  are,  in  the  exposition  of  the 
theological  encyclopaedia,  more  or  less  influenced  by  the 
Encyclopaedias  of  Schleiermacher  and  Rosenkranz.  Hofmann,^ 
just  like  Eosenkranz,  prefaces  his  work  with  some  Preliminary 
Eemarks,  pp.  1-36,  in  which  he  treats  of  the  foundations  of 
his  system,  and  of  its  position  in  relation  to  different  theo- 
logical tendencies.  The  Encyclopaedia  is  with  him  the  system 
of  theological  knowledge,  and  is  represented  as  undertaken 
not  simply  with  the  practical  aim  of  affording  an  introduction 
to  theological  study  (Hagenbach),  but  as  itself  a  part  of 
theological  science.  A  merely  formal  exposition,  such  as 
Schleiermacher  proposes,  is  for  this  purpose  not  sufficient, 
but  an  exposition  of  the  subject-matter  itself  is  required. 
The  Encyclopaedia  should  bring  into  view  the  full  body  of 
theology,  with  all  its  members  laid  out  in  order  (Eosenkranz). 
The  very  essence  of  theology  consists  in  this,  that  it  is  the 
science  of  Christianity,  and  therefore  "  the  knowledge  and 
affirmation  of  Christianity  according  to  principle,  simple, 
comprehensive,  symmetrical."  It  is  not  theology  that  brings 
forth  Christianity  ;  but  it  is  itself  a  growth  from  Christianity. 
Hence  the  question  arises,  What  is  the  essence  of  Christianity? 
Hofmann  reduces  the  various  solutions  of  this  question  to 
the  antithesis  of  doctrine  and  fact.      Christianity  as  doctrine 

^  Encyclopaedie  der  Theologie,  von  Johann  Clir.  K.  von  Hofmann,  nach 
Vorlesungen  und  Manuscripten  herausgegeben  von  G.  J.  Bestmann.  Nordlingeu 
1879. 


HOFMANN's  conception  of  CHRISTIANITY.  335 

has  grouped  together  a  multiplicity  of  historical  contents. 
The  rationalist,  who  views  the  historical  element  over  against 
the  essential  doctrinal  contents  as  a  merely  accidental  tliino-, 
and  the  philosopher,  who  treats  the  historical  element  merely 
as  the  form  from  which  the  essential  contents  of  doctrine  are 
to  be  distinguished,  both  deal  with  their  natural  reason  as 
though  already,  in  this  very  exercise  of  reason,  they  had 
gained  possession  of  a  doctrinal  conception,  and  in  this  way 
they  come  "  into  collision  witli  a  matter  of  fact  in  reo-ard  to 
which  there  should  be  no  controversy,  because  it  is  a  tliino- 
of  experience,  namely,  that  the  Christian,  as  such,  is  conscious 
of  a  newness  in  his  whole  relation  to  God  which  is  at  the 
same  time  a  newness  of  his  whole  knowledge,"  p.  4  f.  The 
mystic  and  theosophist,  however,  who,  by  virtue  of  an  inner 
enlightenment  kindled  in  him  by  means  of  Christianity,  thinks 
to  know  the  essence  of  Christianity  apart  from  its  historical 
externals,  sliows  by  his  very  procedure  that  Christianity  is 
not  essentially  doctrine,  seeing  that,  as  such,  it  is  not  capable 
of  producing  such  an  effect  as  the  transformation  of  the 
cognitive  faculty.  "  It  therefore  cannot  be  that  Christianity 
is  first  of  all  a  doctrine,  if  this  statement  be  so  understood 
as  to  imply  that  the  historical  element  in  the  contents  of 
Christian  doctrine  is  something  incidental  and  secondary," 
p.  5  f.  Nevertheless,  Christianity  may  be  conceived  as  first 
of  all  a  doctrine,  if  only  all  the  while  the  historical  element 
of  its  doctrinal  contents  is  regarded  as  essential.  But  the 
historical  element  will  then  require  a  divine  guarantee,  which 
it  cannot  itself  contribute  ;  and  a  Christianity  thus  outwardly 
guaranteed  will  then  consist  "in  mere  acquiescence  in  the 
assertion  that  this  and  that  are  historical  realities."  "  And 
supernaturalism  has  actually  reduced  Christianity  to  this 
degree  of  indigence ;  for  it  makes  of  Christianity  a  historical 
revelation,  the  contents  of  which  one  must  believe,  just 
because  it  has  been  divinely  revealed,"  p.  6.  It  is,  how- 
ever, quite  another   matter  when   the   historical  clement,   in 


336  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

SO  far  as  it  is  essential,  is  treated  as  having  its  guarantee  in 
itself,  and  as  proving  itself  to  be,  not  merely  something  past, 
but  something  present,  which  bears  witness  of  itself  to  every 
one  who  will  hear.  Christianity,  then,  is  no  longer  regarded 
as  pre-eminently  a  doctrine,  but  this  matter  of  fact  is  the 
essential  thing.  When  Hofmann  says  that  Christianity  is 
pre-eminently  a  matter  of  fact,  he  means  that  in  Christianity 
man's  relation  to  God  is  witnessed  to  spiritually  by  the 
historical  facts  concerning  a  Christ  who  has  appeared,  died, 
risen,  and  ascended  unto  God,  p.  7.  From  this  conception  of 
Christianity  Hofmann  next  reaches  to  the  idea  of  a  com- 
munion such  as  the  Christian  Church.  ISTeither  rationalists 
nor  theosophists  reach  to  such  a  notion ;  while  super- 
naturalism  admits  only  of  an  outwardly  constructed  com- 
munion. The  Church,  regarded  as  a  commonwealth  having 
as  its  constitutive  principle  this  great  fact  of  the  relation 
of  man  to  God,  receives  individuals  into  its  membership, 
and  makes  them  sharers  in  this  divine  relationship.  A  dis- 
tinction, however,  must  be  made  between  the  Church  as 
an  outward  commonwealth  and  its  spiritual  reality.  The 
relationship  with  God  into  which  the  Church  introduces  her 
members  does  not  correspond  in  all  respects  with  the  out- 
ward commonwealth  of  the  Church  ;  but  those  who  participate 
in  its  outward  ordinances  become  much  rather,  independently 
of  them,  a  living  witness  to  that  relationship  of  God  and  man 
which  is  to  be  experienced  by  means  of  those  ordinances.  A 
supernatural  fact  must  make  proof  of  its  reality  and  presence 
by  means  of  this  spiritual  commonwealth,  and  give  testimony 
to  those  who  belong  to  it,  p.  9  f.  "  The  one  great  fact  of 
Christianity  must  be  this,  that  the  relationship  of  God  and 
man,  whose  communion  is  the  Christian  Church,  indepen- 
dently of  what  is  to  be  found  visible  in  the  world,  is  realized 
in  the  person  of  the  supernatural  Christ ;  and  He,  just  because 
He  carries  His  evidence  in  Himself,  gives  testimony  to,  and 
proof  of,  the   spiritual,  by  means   of  the   actual  and   visible 


iiofmann's  idea  of  religion.  337 

commonwealtli,  to  those  who  belong  to  it,"  p.  10.  The 
ecclesiastical  commonwealth  of  the  day  is  "  the  Church  of 
Christ  always  only  in  the  measure  in  which  it  is  fit  to  be 
the  means  of  witnessing  to  the  actual  Christ  through  the 
ordinances  of  the  Church."  In  conclusion,  Hofmann  says : 
"  Christianity,  therefore,  is  the  fact  of  a  present  relationship 
between  God  and  man,  and  this  present  relationship  between 
God  and  man  is — (1)  realized  in  the  Person  of  Christ  Jesus, 
so  that  to  stand  in  fellowship  with  Him,  and  to  stand  in  a 
fellowship  of  love  with  God,  are  one  and  the  same  thing ; 
but  (2)  Christianity  is  also  the  fact  of  an  outwardly  organized 
and  visible  commonwealth  which  exists  by  means  of  that 
relationship  between  God  and  man,  and  in  order  to  the  realizing 
of  that  relationship  ;  so  that,  again,  membership  in  this  com- 
monwealth of  the  Church,  and  participation  in  that  relation- 
ship between  God  and  man  realized  in  Christ,  are  one  and 
tlie  same  thing,"  p.  10  f. 

Thus  Hofmann  answers  the  question  about  the  nature  of 
Christianity  without  having  previously  answered  the  question 
about  the  nature  of  religion.  According  to  him,  the  answer 
to  the  latter  question  lies  in  the  answer  to  the  former.  For 
while  the  Christian  is  conscious  of  bearing  to  God  a  relation 
of  loving  fellowship,  which  reached  its  perfection  in  Christ, 
he  at  the  same  time  knows  that,  even  apart  from  this,  he 
would  stand  in  an  analogous  relation  to  God  as  the  first  cause 
of  his  being.  Natural  religion  is  a  relationship  to  God  im- 
planted in  man's  very  life,  so  that  he  cannot  stand  otherwise 
than  in  a  relation  to  God.  But  by  reason  of  sin  natural 
religion  falls  into  error  concerning  God,  degenerates  into  a 
wilful  doctrine  of  God,  a  false  religion,  and  forms  communions 
on  the  basis  of  such  errors  for  each  separate  nationality.  This 
is  the  nature  of  heathenism,  the  religions  of  which  have  been 
broken  up  by  the  reaction  of  thought  on  the  part  of  indi- 
viduals, and  are  not  to  be  reckoned  as  positive  religions.  In 
Christianity,  on  the  other  hand,  "  it  is  God  who  has  established 

VOL.  I.  Y 


338  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.'EDIA. 

a  new  relationship  between  Himself  and  mankind,  which  is 
not  determined  by  means  of  the  sin  of  man."  This  is  a 
positive  religion,  and  the  communion  established  thereby  is 
a  Church  in  the  wider  sense,  independent  of  the  natural  and 
merely  national  life,  so  that  the  history  preliminary  to  that  of 
Christ  and  of  His  Church  is  included  in  it.  Now,  inasmuch 
as  in  this  religion  a  will  of  God  not  previously  made  known 
manifests  itself,  this  relio-ion  is  a  revealed,  as  contrasted  with 
a  natural,  religion.  As  a  divinely-revealed  religion,  Chris- 
tianity is  the  truth  of  religion ;  and  theology,  as  the  science 
thereof,  does  not  need  to  prove  its  own  right  to  exist  over 
against  the  philosophy  of  religion.  "  The  philosophy  of  reli- 
gion ends  where  the  positive  religion  begins ;  and  just  there 
theology  comes  in.  The  philosophy  of  religion  transgresses  its 
limits  wlien  it  aspires  to  become  a  philosophy  of  revelation ; 
and  theology  does  not  need  to  take  over  from  the  pliilosophy 
of  religion  a  definition  of  what  constitutes  religion,  in  order 
then  to  tell  what  kind  of  a  religion  Christianity  is,"  p.  16. 
The  independence  of  Christianity  has  this  as  a  consequence, 
that  there  can  also  be  an  independent  science  thereof.  Theo- 
logy is  the  carrying  out  of  a  single  and  independent  thought. 
In  opposition  to  Eosenkranz,  and  particularly  to  ScMeier- 
macher,  who  deny  the  simplicity  and  independence  of  theology 
as  a  positive  science,  Hofmann  maintains  that  one  must  dis- 
tinguish between  the  essential  ground  of  a  science,  from  which 
it  proceeds  by  an  inward  necessity  in  virtue  of  the  human 
impulse  in  the  direction  of  knowledge,  and  the  need  that  has 
arisen  outwardly,  by  means  of  which,  even  apart  from  the 
impulse  in  the  direction  of  scientific  knowledge,  it  was  called 
forth.  Now  the  position  of  theology  is  precisely  this,  that  it 
owes  its  historical  origin  to  the  need  that  had  arisen  in  the 
Church,  In  so  far  as  theology  is  regarded  as  a  matter  of 
professional  activity  in  the  ecclesiastical  commonwealth,  it  is, 
first  of  all,  historical  theology  which  embraces  in  it  the  science 
of  Scripture  as  well  as  the  history  of  the  Church.     But,  on 


FUNDAMENTAL  CONCEPTION  OF  THEOLOGY.  339 

the  other  hand,  there  is  "  the  self-scrutiny  of  the  Christian  by 
virtue  of  which  he  is  conscious  of  that  which  constitutes  his 
Christianity,  as  the  natural  hasis  of  a  scientific  activity,  just 
like  that  scrutiny  that  is  directed  to  nature,"  p.  20.  As  a 
product  of  the  scientific  impulse,  theology  is  the  scientific 
self-knowledge  of  the  Christian,  or  the  scientific  knowledge  of 
Christianity,  therefore  systematic  science.  As  such  theology 
is  an  independent  knowledge  of  a  subject  proper  only  to  it, 
independent  as  well  of  philosophy  as  of  any  external  motive, 
be  it  ecclesiastical  need  or  ecclesiastical  authority.  In  this, 
however,  there  is  nothing  said  in  favour  of  a  false  subjectivity  ; 
for  it  is  assumed  of  the  theologian,  that,  as  a  member  of  the 
Church,  the  truth  of  the  reality  maintained  in  the  Church  is 
with  him  a  living  power.  "  It  follows  from  this  that  there  is, 
rooted  in  the  very  nature  of  Christianity,  a  binding  obligation 
resting  upon  the  theologian,  but  this  obligation  is  an  inward, 
not  an  outward  one.  Every  other  binding  of  theology  than 
that  which  results  freely  from  the  presupposition  of  this  obli- 
gation is  useless  and  at  the  same  time  injurious,"  p.  22. 
In  order  to  restore  systematic  theology,  that  is,  a  system  of 
the  knowledge  of  Christianity  growing  up  in  the  way  of 
Christian  self-knowledge,  there  is  only  needed,  "  first,  a  living 
fellowship  with  Christ,  without  which,  indeed,  the  self-know- 
ledge would  not  meet  with  an  object  of  knowledge ;  and 
secondly,  a  thorough  training  of  the  power  of  thinking  and  of 
expressing  oneself,  which  constitutes  the  basis  of  a  funda- 
mental, deep,  simple,  complete,  symmetrical  knowledge,  and 
of  a  suitable  statement  of  Christianity  as  it  is  immediately 
known  to  us,"  p.  23.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  theologian 
belongs  to  an  ecclesiastical  commonwealth,  which  not  only 
has  its  history,  but  also  its  actually  existing  present,  which 
again  forms  the  transition  to  a  future  that  is  proceeding  out 
therefrom.  This  ecclesiastical  commonwealth  also  connects 
itself  with  a  Holy  Scripture,  in  which  it  is  being  always 
reminded  of  its  true  nature,  and  always  anew  gains  assurance 


340  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

of  its  wealth  of  knowledge.  Hence  the  activity  of  the  theo- 
logian directs  itself  necessarily  to  those  historical  subjects ; 
and  so  to  the  scientific  activity  of  the  Oe<opetv  is  joined  a 
second  activity  of  the  laropecv.  But  for  the  theologian  the 
history  of  the  Church  is  quite  another  thing  from  that  which 
it  is  to  the  historian.  The  theologian  has  to  consider  it  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  life  of  regeneration,  p.  24.  So,  too, 
is  it  with  the  science  of  Scripture.  The  philologist  treats 
Holy  Scripture  as  a  constituent  part  of  the  literature  of  the 
old  world ;  while  the  tlieologian  treats  it  as  the  authoritative 
document  to  which  the  Church  of  Christ  appeals.  But  now, 
if  the  Church  and  Holy  Scripture  are  actually  that  which  in 
systematic  theology  they  are  already  acknowledged  to  be,  a 
common  product  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  word  of  God, 
"  then  the  results  of  the  properly  conducted  historical  labours  of 
the  theologian  must  exactly  correspond  with  the  results  of  his 
systematic  activity.  It  must  be  self-evident  that  Christianity, 
known  to  the  theologian  as  a  fact  of  his  own  innermost  expe- 
rience, stands  in  agreement  with  that  which  constitutes  the 
essential  contents  of  the  historical  development  of  the  Church, 
as  well  as  with  that  which  lies  before  us  in  Holy  Scripture 
witnessed  unto  for  all  time,"  p.  26. 

But  in  all  the  three  departments  of  his  labours  ^  the  theo- 
logian is  liable  to  error.  Hofmann  denounces  a  woe  against 
the  Church  if  it  should  demand  of  theology  immunity  from 
error;  but  he  also  denounces  a  woe  against  the  theologian 
who,  while  claiming  for  his  scientific  labour  its  independence, 
does  not,  on  behalf  of  his  own  faith,  as  well  as  on  behalf  of 
the  faith  of  non-theologians,  maintain  the  right  of  criticizing 
and  contradicting  his  theology ;  "  for  while  faith  is  the  pre- 
sentation of  the  Christian  life  in  its  unity  and  manifoldness, 


'  The  three  theological  departments  are  those  included  in  the  first  two  divisions 
of  the  Encyclopaedia,  namely,  systematic  theology  and  the  two  parts  of  historical 
theology,  the  science  of  Scripture  and  Church  history.  Practical  theology  is  not 
taken  into  account  till  later  on. — Ed. 


HOFMAXN  BEGINS  WITH  SYSTE>LUIC  THEOLOGY.  341 

the  theology  of  the  day  is  always  only  the  result  of  a  one- 
sided, because  a  merely  intellectual,  elaboration,"  p.  27. 

In  so  far  as  concerns  the  distribution  of  theology,  in  accord- 
ance with  that  which  has  been  previously  laid  down,  theology 
is  first  of  all  a  scientific  personal  knowledge  and  personal 
declaration  of  the  Christian,  and  in  this  way  the  scientific 
knowledge  of  Christianity.  We  must  start  with  that  fact 
surely  established  in  faith,  which  constitutes  the  essence  of 
Christianity,  and  so  begin  with  Systematic  Theology.  This  is 
not  to  be  prefaced  by  a  philosophical  theology,  as  with  Schleier- 
macher,  nor  by  a  speculative  theology,  as  with  liosenkranz, 
nor  by  an  exegetical  theology,  as  with  Harless.  Hofmann 
separates  himself  from  supernaturalism,  which  starts  from  the 
]jible,  or,  when  it  takes  an  ecclesiastical  form,  from  the  con- 
fessional writings  of  its  Church.  According  to  Hofmann,  not 
the  Bible,  that  is,  the  history  of  Christ  and  His  apostles,  is  the 
basis  of  Christianity,  but  the  present  living  Christ,  who  has 
tlie  historical  Christ  for  His  presupposition.  "  It  is  not  some- 
thing in  the  first  instance  past  and  gone,  of  which  the  Chris- 
tian's faith  is  certain,  but  something  present,"  p.  28.  Next 
in  order  after  the  systematic  work  of  the  theologian  is  to  be 
placed  the  historical,  as  occupying  the  second  place.  The  one 
is  quite  independent  of  the  other.  "  One  must  not  start  from 
the  results  of  systematic  theology,  and  presuppose  these  when 
he  comes  to  historical  theology,  and  vice  versa  just  as  little," 
p.  30.  If  they  do  not  agree  in  their  results,  then  what  has 
to  be  done  is  simply  to  find  out  the  error.  In  the  prosecution 
of  both  departments  of  study  the  theologian  must  reduce  his 
Christianity  to  the  simplest  and  most  general  form,  and  must 
be  himself  personally  assured  of  this  as  he  has  it  in  common 
with  all  who  are  Christians, — a  reduction  which  is  to  be 
regarded  as  itself  a  scientific  accomplishment,  since,  in  order 
to  reduce  the  manifold  to  its  unity,  there  is  needed  a  thoroughly 
formed  capacity  of  thought,  p.  30  f. 

If  historical  theology,  which  embraces  the  history  of  the 


342  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

Church  and  the  science  of  Scripture,  were  to  follow  the  natural 
course,  Hofmann  thinks  it  must  give  precedence  to  the  history 
of  the  development  of  the  Church.  Nevertheless,  inasmuch  as 
we  cannot  be  led  by  Church  history  to  any  certain  result  as 
to  what  Holy  Scripture  is,  this  is  to  be  reached  rather  through 
an  investigation  of  Holy  Scripture  itself ;  and  since  generally 
Scripture  must  be  acknowledged  to  be  more  certain  as  a  com- 
plete whole  than  the  history  of  the  Church  which  is  to  be 
found  still  in  flux,  therefore  the  science  of  Scripture  must 
have  precedence  of  Church  history.  Although,  on  the  one 
hand,  the  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  Holy  Scripture  won  in 
systematic  theology  cannot  be  itself  assumed  as  a  presupposi- 
tion of  the  treatment  of  Scripture,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
witness  won  from  Scripture  concerning  the  nature  of  Cliris- 
tianity  must  be  influential  for  the  historical  development  of 
the  Church.  If  systematic  theology  lias  its  warrant  in  this, 
that  Christianity  is  a  personal  matter,  then  historical  theology 
has  its  warrant  in  this,  that  it  is  just  as  undoubtedly  a  matter 
for  the  community.  Dealing  with  Holy  Scripture  teaches  us 
to  estimate  aright  the  social  aspect  {Gemeindliclikeit)  of 
Christianity,  and  in  consequence  thereof,  to  acknowledge  the 
truth  that  lies  in  the  proper  conception  of  Church  history. 
"  The  self-certainty  of  Christianity  by  means  of  these  three 
theological  pursuits  shows  itself  to  be  on  the  lines  of  scientific 
knowledge,  and  this  self-certainty  becomes  a  certainty  of 
scientific  knowledge  in  proportion  to  the  agreement  in  the 
results  of  the  investigations  of  systematic  theology  and  of 
historical  theology  under  its  two  divisions,"  p.  33. 

The  three  parts  of  theology  referred  to  are  commonly  dis- 
tinguished from  practical  theology  under  the  title  theoretical. 
This  distinction  is,  indeed,  inconvenient  for  Hofmann,  since 
he  can  properly  only  regard  systematic  theology  as  theoretical ; 
but,  in  the  sense  that  practical  theology  reduces  to  practice  for 
the  Church  the  result  of  the  so-called  theoretical  theology,  he 
admits  the  distinction,  and  in  accordance  therewith  defines 


ACCEPTED  rOSITIOXS  OF  HOFMANX.  343 

practical  theology  as  "  the  science  of  the  application  of  theo- 
logical knowledge  in  the  everyday  life  of  the  Church,"  p.  35. 
"  To  frain  new  decisions  or  scientific  conclusions  of  a  theological 
kind  is  not  the  task  of  practical  theology,"  p.  35. 

These  statements  of  Hofmann  I  have  presented  together  in 
a  complete  and  systematic  form,  because  they  are  of  supreme 
importance  in  coming  to  a  judgment  on  his  theological  system. 
They  have  no  title  to  be  prefixed  to  an  exposition  of  encyclo- 
jDccdia.  Tliey  answer  not  to  the  claims  which  one  has  to 
make  of  encyclopaedia.  The  thoughts  treated  of  here  by  Hof- 
mann are  related  to  the  foundations  of  the  theological  system, 
and,  with  the  exception  of  what  is  said  about  the  theological 
encycloptedia,  should  be  incorporated  in  the  encyclopaedic 
system  itself.  We  overlook  this  question  of  form,  however, 
and  keep  rather  to  the  matter.  Much  of  what  Hofmann  has 
liere  laid  down  agrees  with  what  is  said  in  this  treatise,  and 
in  my  opinion  is  incontestable.  Among  those  things  on  which 
we  are  agreed  I  reckon  bis  definition  of  the  theological  ency- 
clop;i3dia,  according  to  which  it  is  no  mere  formal  schematism 
of  the  theological  branches  of  study,  but  the  theological 
system  according  to  its  essential  contents.^  Further,  I  also 
accept  his  statement  regarding  the  nature  of  Christianity,  that 
it  is  not  in  the  first  instance  doctrine,  but  a  fact,  and  that  the 
Church  is  the  realizing  of  this  fact,  that  a  distinction  is  to  be 
made  between  the  outward  and  the  inward  in  the  Church, 
that  theology  is  to  grow  out  of  the  fact  realized  in  the  Church, 
that  Christianity  is  the  truth  of  religion,  and  that  theology,  as 
the  science  thereof,  is  independent  of  philosophy,  and  is  the 
simple  drawing  out  of  its  own  thought,  independent  of  any 
outward  authority,  that  the  theologian  as  a  member  of  the 

'  Doedes  expresses  a  contrary  opinion  with  equal  decidedness  :  '*  Riibiger, "  lie 
says  on  p.  3  of  his  Encyclopjedie,  "declares  in  his  treatise,  Zur  theologisehcn 
Encyclopredie,  that  the  method  of  handling  encyclopasdia  ado[)ted  by  him, 
together  with  von  Hofmann  and  others,  is  alone  to  be  regarded  as  correct ;  we 
tliink  that  the  method  followed  by  ourselves  and  others  is  deserving  of  at  least 
as  much  recommendation." — Ed. 


344  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

Church  must  stand  in  living  fellowship  with  Christ,  that  in 
theology  there  can  be  no  other  binding  obligation  resting  upon 
the  theologian  than  an  inner  one  rooted  in  the  very  essence  of 
Christianity,  and  that  in  theological  investigation,  according 
to  the  different  subjects  to  which  it  is  directed,  different 
theological  activities,  a  Oewpelv  and  a  icrropelv,  are  to  be 
distinguished. 

One   thing,  however,  is  less  satisfactory,  and  still  another 
calls  for  most  earnest  consideration.      While  Hofmann  rightly 
distinguishes  between  Christianity  as  doctrine  and  as  fact,  the 
style    and    manner   in   which  he   states    this    distinction,   in 
opposition  to  the  rationalistic  and  philosophical  methods  of 
treating  Christianity,  are   not  satisfactory.       Against  both  of 
those  methods   he  brings   the  charge,  that   while  by   means 
of  Christianity,  along  with  the   renewal  of  the  whole   man 
accomplished  by  it,  there  is  also  wrought  in  the  Christian  a 
new  power  of  knowing,  they  still  bring  forward  the  natural 
reason  and  employ  it  in  their  scientific  treatment  of  Christi- 
anity.      Here,    however,    Hofmann    is    involved    in    a    self- 
contradiction,   since   he   demands   for  his    own    theology  the 
same  scientific  activity  as  is  directed  to  the  study  of  nature, 
in    short,   a   thoroughly   trained   faculty  of    thinking,  which 
qualifies  for  an  understanding  of  Christianity  according  to  its 
principles,  while  consistently  with  his  own  demands  he  ought 
rather  to  have  required  for  theology  that  specifically  Christian 
faculty   of  perception.     Again,  we  are   heartily  at  one   with 
Hofmann  in  this,  that  the  nature  of  Christianity  can  be  known 
without  having  first  answered  the  question  as  to  the  nature  of 
religion.    But  it  is  not  consistent  with  the  standpoint  assumed 
by  Hofmann  in  regard  to  the  history  of  religion,  to  allow  the 
non-Christian  religions  to  be  taken  cognizance  of  in  contrast 
to    Christianity   as   the  truth  of  religion.      If,  as  Hofmann 
maintains,  natural   religion  be  a  relation  between    God  and 
mankind  ordained  by   God  Himself,  then   too,  even    in   this 
must  there  be  included  a  reference  to  human  sin ;  and  not  only 


CONTESTED  POSITIONS  OF  IIOFMANN.  345 

sin,  but  many  other  factors  as  well  must  have  been  operative 
before  natural  religion  assumed  among  separate  nationalities 
the  form  of  ]3articular  heathen  religions.  Yet  even  these  are 
not  to  be  regarded  as  merely  arbitrary  conceptions,  originating 
in  delusion  and  false  religious  fancies,  in  opposition  to  which 
Christianity  is  to  be  represented  as  "  a  new  divinely-ordained 
relation  between  God  and  mankind,  which  is  not  determined 
by  the  sin  of  man."  They  are  rather  to  be  regarded  as  having 
a  claim  to  the  designation  of  positive  and  revealed  religions, 
and,  in  consequence,  are  entitled  to  the  name  of  true  religion. 
And  further,  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  how  Hofmann,  with  the 
conception  of  Christianity  which  he  held,  should  have  included 
the  Jewish  religion  within  the  range  of  positive  and  revealed 
religion,  and  have  given  it  a  place  in  his  Church  in  the  wider 
sense  ;  nor  yet  does  it  appear  how  he  should  have  regarded 
it  as  characteristic  of  the  particular  tribal  religions,  that 
individuals  came  into  opposition  with  the  religion  of  their 
race  and  laboured  for  its  overthrow,  since  in  the  Christian 
communion  also  a  similar  phenomenon  has  been  %vitnessed. 
T>y  means  of  the  categories,  positive  and  revealed,  by  which 
Hofmann  distinguishes  Christianity  from  the  heathen 
religions,  Christianity  cannot  be  represented  as  the  true 
religion ;  but  this  must  be  accomplished  by  means  of  the 
liistorical  comparison  of  religions,  and  by  means  of  a 
theoretical  investigation  of  the  nature  of  Christianity. 
Tlieology  will  not  be  able  in  the  long  run  to  withhold  itself 
from  this  twofold  task  if  it  is  to  maintain  its  scientific  rank. 
1)1  my  Thcologic  I  have  made  it  my  special  endeavour  to  call 
attention  to  this.  But  even  if  one  conceive  of  Christianity 
in  Hofmann's  way  as  a  revealed  religion,  the  whole  depart- 
ment of  revelation  would  not  by  any  means  be  reserved  for 
theology  alone,  so  as  to  exclude  from  it  the  philosophy  of 
religion,  as  Hofmann  wishes.  For  even  although  it  be 
admitted  that  theology  did  not  need  to  derive  from  it  its  first 
idea  of  religion,  in  order  that  it  should  be  able  to  tell  what  sort 


346  THEOLOGICAL  KNCYCLOP.EDLV. 

of  religion  Christianity  is,  yet  still  the  philosophy  of  religion, 
when  treating  the  question,  What  is  revelation  ?  as  Hofmann 
would  put  it,  is,  on  its  part,  neitlier  overstepping  its  limits 
nor  altogether  reserving  this  investigation  to  itself. 

But  above  all,  the  starting-point  which  Hofmann  gives  to 
theology  is  a  cause  of  offence.  With  him  theology  is  first  of 
all  a  purely  personal  affair,  and  generally  speaking  nothing 
can  be  said  against  this.  The  theologian,  however,  is  to  start 
from  Christianity  as  a  matter  of  his  own  inmost  experience, 
from  that  fact  which  constitutes  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity, firmly  established  in  his  faith,  so  that  his  scientific 
self-knowledge  becomes  the  scientific  knowledge  of  Christianity. 
Hofmann  is  quite  right  when  he  says  that  it  is  not  something 
past,  but  something  present,  of  which  Christian  faith  is 
assured,  not  the  historical,  but  the  present  living  Christ.  But 
how  does  this  agree  with  the  representation  of  Christianity  as 
a  fact  ?  At  all  events  the  fact  as  such  is  not  the  essence  of 
Christianity,  for  in  it  there  lies  only  a  formal  designation 
of  Christianity  in  opposition  to  doctrine.  Hence  the  essence 
of  Christianity  lies  not  in  the  fact,  but  in  that  which  forms 
the  basis  of  the  fact.  That,  however,  is  something  historical, 
which  evidences  itself  to  faith  as  present,  and  distinguishes 
the  faith  as  Christian  from  every  other  religion.  How  then 
does  this  agree  with  the  historical  ?  Hofmann  says :  the 
present  living  Christ  points  back  to  the  historical;  but  he 
says  also,  that  the  risen  and  exalted  Christ  gives  witness  to 
Himself  in  the  commonwealth  of  the  Church.  For  the 
theologian,  then,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Church,  is  it  only 
the  risen  and  exalted  Christ  of  whom  he  can  have  certainty 
in  liis  personal  faith  ?  Or,  if  we  take  as  historical  the  whole 
Christ  witnessed  to  in  Holy  Scripture, — the  Christ  actually 
manifested,  who  died,  and  rose,  and  was  exalted  to  God's 
right  hand, — shall  not  the  Christ  within,  as  the  actually 
lustorical  as  well  as  the  exalted  Christ,  witness  to  Himself  ? 
And  again,  are  there  not  various  lines  of  inquiry  along  which 


HOFMAXN  STAETS  FROM  INDIVIDUAL  EXPERIEXCE.  347 

the  theologian  may  gain  assurance  for  his  own  faith  in  regard 
to  tliat  which  has  been  historically  manifested  in  Christ  ? 
But  even  if  the  theologian  has  by  any  means  himself  reached 
to  an  actual  assurance  of  his  faith  in  reference  to  the 
historical,  he  yet  can  never  be  certain  of  this,  that  among  the 
other  members  of  the  Church  this  assurance  has  been  attained 
in  the  same  way  and  exists  in  the  same  relation  to  the 
historical,  Now  Hofmann  demands,  at  least  of  the  theologian, 
that  he  receive  his  Christianity  in  the  simplest  and  most 
general  form,  and  that  he  should  come  to  a  certainty  of  it  in 
such  a  way  as  is  common  to  all  Christians.  But  if  in  this 
the  theologian  is  only  referred  to  his  own  individual  experi- 
ence, then  is  the  solution  of  the  question  very  difficult ;  and  if 
lie  attempts  it,  he  will  never  reach  but  to  a  very  uncertain 
result,  or  to  a  merely  tautological  expression.  It  just  comes 
to  this,  that  the  theologian  with  his  experience  of  a  present 
living  Christ  is  restricted  to  the  particular  ecclesiastical  sect 
to  which  he  belongs,  so  that  even  in  the  case  of  his  succeeding 
in  giving  expression  to  his  personal  Christianity  in  a  form 
satisfactory  to  all  the  members  of  his  own  denomination,  this 
expression  can  have,  for  the  members  of  another  denomination, 
only  the  significance  of  a  subjective  experience  of  Christianity, 
be  it  Catholic,  or  Lutheran,  or  Reformed,  or  that  of  any  other 
Church  sect.  We  too,  with  Hofmann,  demand  of  the  theo- 
logian the  heartiest  personal  interest  in  Christianity ;  but 
when  Hofmann  makes  this  demand  in  the  sense  that  the 
theologian  should  make  his  personal  experience  of  Christianity 
the  ground  of  his  theology,  then,  by  reason  of  this  starting- 
point,  his  theology  receives  a  thoroughly  individual,  personal, 
and  subjective  character,  which  can  indeed  lead  to  a  scientific 
self-knowledge,  to  a  knowledge  of  the  Christianity  personally 
peculiar  to  the  theologian,  but  not  to  an  objective  scientific 
knowledge  of  Christianity.  From  this  point  of  view  we  are 
also  obliged  to  object  to  the  eu cyclopaedic  distribution  which 
Hofmann  proposes  for  theology.     He  distinguishes,  in  respect 


348  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

of  their  origin,  between  the  common  human  impulse  after 
knowledge  directed  to  the  nature  of  Christianity,  out  of  which 
theology  as  scientific  knowledge  springs,  and  the  ecclesiastical 
need  by  means  of  which  it  is  called  forth  as  an  ecclesiastical 
professional  activity.  The  distinction  is  not  brought  out  here 
by  Hofmann  with  sufficient  clearness  of  expression.  Hofmann 
says  regarding  it,  tliat  the  former,  the  theology  which 
proceeds  from  the  impulse  after  knowledge  directed  to 
the  essential  nature  of  Christianity,  is  systematic  theology  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  that  which  springs  from  ecclesi- 
astical need  is  historical  theology,  embracing  the  sciences  of 
Scripture  and  Church  history.  In  the  Church,  indeed,  this 
historical  theology  made  its  appearance  earlier  than  that 
which  is  called  forth  by  the  natural  impulse  after  knowledge. 
Systematic  theology  is  thus  a  purely  personal  affair ;  historical 
theology,  on  the  contrary,  is  an  affair  of  the  community.  All 
this  seems  to  us  quite  untenable.  Various  impulses,  no 
doubt,  outward  and  inward,  which  might  lead  to  the  construc- 
tion of  theology,  are  to  be  distinguished,  some  turning  upon 
the  essential  nature  of  Christianity,  others  turning  upon  the 
needs  of  the  Church.  In  history,  however,  they  have  operated 
just  in  an  inverse  relation  to  one  another  from  that  which 
Hofmann  lays  down.  Those  yearnings  which  were  directed 
toward  further  attainments  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ  came 
forward  earlier  than  those  which  were  directed  simply  to  the 
Church's  needs.  Yet  they  are  not  to  be  sundered  from  one 
another  as  though  they  were  operating  in  a  way  mutually 
exclusive  and  absolutely  independent  of  each  other ;  as  though 
the  knowledge  of  the  essential  foundations  of  Christianity 
were  reached  without  regard  to  the  needs  of  the  Church,  and. 
the  Church's  needs  were  expressed  without  regard  to  the 
essential  nature  of  Christianity.  Hence  it  cannot  be  said 
in  general  terms  that  systematic  theology  is  a  personal 
affair,  and  that  historical  theology  is  an  affair  of  the 
community.     For  it  is  just  the  Church,  as  such,  that  has  the 


SUBJECTIVE  CHARACTER  OF  HOFMANN's  THEOLOGY.         349 

liigliest  and  most   persistent    interest   in    the    knowledge    of 
Christianity, 

Hofmann  says  very  strikingly  that  theology  is  the  carrying 
out  of  a  single  and  independent  thought,  and  that  it  is  just  in 
this  that  its  right  to  he  ranked  as  a  science  consists.  But, 
owing  to  the  jieculiar  relation  in  which  he  places  systematic 
theology  with  regard  to  historical  theology,  theological  science 
with  him  shrivels  up  into  systematic  theology.  For,  according 
to  his  representation,  the  sciences  of  Scripture  and  of  Church 
history  have  a  subordinate  significance,  so  that  they  only 
serve,  partly  for  the  confirming  of  the  doctrinal  system,  and 
partly  for  the  practice  of  the  Church.  In  this  way  of  viewin<7 
historical  theology  we  see  a  concession  on  the  part  of  Hofmann 
to  Schleiermacher's  conception  of  theology ;  but  it  is  one  that 
completely  miscarries.  Hofmann,  as  it  were,  parts  theology 
into  two.  Between  systematic  and  historical  theology  there 
lies,  according  to  Hofmann,  the  gulf  which  separates  theory 
from  practice.  The  two  stand  over  against  one  another, 
without  being  organically  bound  with  one  another  by  one 
scientific  purpose.  The  precedence  which  Hofmann  grants  to 
systematic  theology  is  determined  by  his  theological  starting- 
point.  What  the  nature  of  this  is,  I  have  already  shown.  A 
Christianity  of  personal  experience  only  will  always  be  a  very 
insecure  basis  for  theology.  Instead  of  this  subjective 
starting-point,  theology  will  have  to  seek  an  objective  one. 
Hofmann  himself  says  of  Holy  Scripture,  that  by  it  the 
Church  has  to  be  continually  reminding  itself  of  its  own 
essential  nature ;  but  then  we  should  remember  that  to  this 
its  essential  nature  belongs  before  all  its  Christian  faith 
according  to  its  contents.  Again,  Hofmann  says,  that  on 
principle  the  science  of  Scripture  ought  to  be  placed  before 
the  science  of  Church  history,  because  the  essential  nature  of 
Scripture  can  be  rightly  known  only  by  dealing  directly  with 
itself.  Now  from  these  statements  the  true  conclusion  is  that 
the  theologian  should  direct  his  attention  first  of  all  to  Holy 


350  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

Scripture,  in  order  to  learn  from  it,  in  a  purely  objective  way, 
the  essential  contents  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  that  there- 
fore the  science  of  Scripture,  upon  the  same  principle  on 
which  it  is  ranked  before  Church  history,  is  also  to  be  ranked 
before  systematic  theology.  It  is  indeed  one  of  the  most 
important  questions  in  theology  that  is  here  discussed.  If 
the  state  of  matters  be  really  such  as  it  is  on  many  sides 
affirmed  to  be,  that  nothing  historically  certain  is  to  be  known 
from  our  Gospels,  that  rather  only  from  the  effects  of  the 
work  of  Christ  any  insight  into  the  essential  nature  of 
Christianity  can  be  gained,  then  it  must  go  ill,  not  only  with 
Protestant  theology,  but  with  theology  generally.  And  yet, 
were  we  now  obliged  unreservedly  to  admit  that  from  the 
New  Testament  Gospels  no  historically  exact  biography  of 
Jesus  can  be  drawn  up,  it  were  even  then  a  precipitate  act  to 
deny  to  them  on  that  account  all  historical  value.  With 
good  right  are  they  regarded  as  the  historical  document  from 
which  the  religious  consciousness  of  Jesus,  the  one  thing  with 
which  they  are  chiefly  concerned,  and  that  which  forms  the 
very  essence  of  Christianity,  can  be  known.  However  highly 
the  eff'ects  of  Christianity  may  be  valued  in  forming  an 
estimate  of  it,  yet,  for  a  right  understanding  of  these  very 
effects,  one  must  first  of  all  go  back  to  their  origin  in  the 
spirit  of  Jesus  Himself.  Hofmann  rejects  with  disdain,  as  of 
a  piece  with  the  supernaturalismus  vulgaris,  as  we  indeed,  in 
the  sense  in  which  Hofmann  understands  it,  would  also  do, 
the  setting  of  exegetical  theology  in  front  of  the  tlieological 
system ;  for  not  the  Bible,  but  the  living  present  Christ,  which 
points  back  to  the  historical,  is  the  basis  of  Christianity. 
Very  important  is  this  on  the  side  of  the  Church  life,  but  not 
on  that  of  theology.  Instead  of  turning  to  the  present  living 
Christ,  it  will,  if  it  is  to  gain  on  its  part  a  firm  objective 
basis,  have  to  turn  back  to  the  historical  Christ,  and  therefore 
must  begin  with  exegetical  theology.  Indeed,  just  because  I 
have   adopted  this  method,  beginning  my  Encyclopiedia  with 


BEGINNING  PEOPEELY  MADE  WITH  EXEGETICAL  THEOLOGY.      351 

exegetical  theology,  one  critic  has  hroiight  against  me  the 
charge  of  going  over  to  the  side  of  siipernaturalism.  How 
unfounded  such  a  charge  is,  ought  to  be  readily  perceived. 
As  the  foundation  of  its  treatment  of  Scripture,  super- 
naturalism  assumes  certain  dogmatic  presuppositions.  Pro- 
ceeding from  its  dogma  of  revelation  and  inspiration,  it 
regards  Scripture  as  the  basis  alike  of  the  Church  institution 
and  of  the  theological  system,  I,  on  my  part,  start  from  a 
purely  historical  standpoint,  and  demand  that,  by  means  of  a 
historical  treatment  of  Scripture,  its  significance  for  the 
Church  may  be  established,  and  also  the  essential  nature  of 
Christianity  may  be  ascertained.  I  do  not  believe  tliat  any- 
thing should  be  rejected  simply  because  it  is  supernaturalistic. 
The  element  of  truth  in  supernaturalism  is  this,  that  it 
maintains  hold  of  Scripture  as  an  objective  basis.  What  is 
untrue  in  it  is  that  dogmatic  presupposition.  On  the 
removal  of  this  false  element,  the  other,  as  undoubted  truth, 
is  to  be  firmly  maintained.  When  exegetical  theology  has  set 
forth  the  essential  nature  of  Christianity,  and  wlien  thereafter 
Church  history  has  shown  the  historical  development  of 
Christianity,  then  from  these  objective  groundworks  systematic 
theology  may  proceed  to  an  exact  and  scientific  demonstration 
of  the  truth  of  Christianity.  All  the  three  principal  divisions, 
then,  stand  in  organic  connection  with  one  another,  so  that 
they  mutually  sustain,  supplement,  and  advance  each  other. 
But  the  demand  is  scientifically  untenable,  which  Hofmann 
makes  of  the  theologian,  that  in  treating  Scripture  and  Church 
history  a  procedure  should  be  adopted  specifically  different 
from  that  of  the  philologist  and  historian.  We  ought  rather 
to  require  of  all  the  three,  if  they  are  to  perform  their  tasks, 
that  they  should  equally  make  use  of  the  philological  and 
historical  methods.  The  theologian  will  distinguish  himself 
from  the  philologist  and  historian  only  in  this  respect,  that  he 
has  to  treat  Scripture  and  Church  history  in  connection  with 
the  theological  system. 


352  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP^DLA.. 

And  besides  all  this,  Ilofmann,  because  he  places  systematic 
theology  before  historical  theology,  that  is,  exegetical  theology 
and  Church  history,  brings  the  two  into  a  very  doubtful  rela- 
tion with  one  another.  They  are  both  to  be  prosecuted  quite 
independently  of  each  other.  "  One  must  not,"  says  Hof- 
mann,  "  proceed  from  the  conclusions  of  systematic  theology, 
and  presuppose  these  when  he  comes  to  the  historical  division, 
and  just  as  little  vice  versa"  p.  30.  Much  self-deception, 
therefore,  is  demanded,  especially  of  the  systematic  theologian. 
Notwithstanding  the  dominant  position  which  Hofmann 
assigns  to  systematic  theology,  he  assumes  from  the  first  that, 
if  it  has  done  its  work  in  the  right  way,  "  the  conclusion  of 
the  properly-conducted  historical  work  of  the  theologian 
must  be  at  one  with  the  conclusion  reached  by  his  sys- 
tematic labours,"  p.  26.  Evidently  Hofmann  regards  it  as 
possible  that  the  conclusions  in  the  one  and  the  other  may 
not  agree, — then,  he  thinks,  it  only  remains  to  find  out 
the  error  which  has  crept  in,  p.  30.  And  who  is  now 
to  concede  the  error  and  acknowledge  it  ?  The  systematic 
theologian,  who,  for  his  conclusion,  appeals  to  the  scientific 
character  of  his  proof,  or  the  historical  theologian,  who,  for 
his  conclusion,  appeals  to  the  facts  communicated  by  him  ? 
Truly  for  Hofmann  the  thing  would  be  never-ending.  He 
confesses,  and  no  one  will  contradict  it,  that  theology  in 
all  its  three  departments,  the  systematic,  the  exegetical,  and 
the  historical,  may  be  in  error ;  and  if  now  in  a  scientific 
way  the  errors  are  not  to  be  removed,  then  there  is,  for 
Hofmann,  faith,  to  which  the  last  decision  belongs.  To 
the  theologian's  own  faith,  as  well  as  to  that  of  the  non- 
theologian,  will  lie  preserve  the  right  of  giving  the  lie  to  his 
theology.  This  ranking  of  faith  above  theology  we  cannot 
agree  to  out  and  out,  and  least  of  all  on  the  grounds 
which  Hofmann  adduces  for  it,  that  "  faith  is  the  presenta- 
tion of  Christianity  in  its  unity  and  manifoldness,  while  the 
theology  of  the  day  is  always  only  the  result  of  a  one-sided. 


iiofmann's  conception  of  peactical  theology.      353 

because  a  merely  intellectual  elaboration,"  p.  27.  On  tliis 
point  Hofmann  is  found  in  contradiction  with  himself. 
According  to  him,  the  theological  is  likewise  a  scientific 
exercise ;  and  also,  according  to  him,  the  scientific  exercise 
consists  in  this,  that  it  "  brings  the  manifold  to  its  unity," 
p.  31.  In  the  all-sidedness  of  faith  lies  its  manifoldness, 
and,  in  opposition  to  it,  the  theological  activity,  according  to 
our  conception,  as  scientific,  will  have  to  represent  the  higher 
unity.  Theology  should,  and  can,  do  no  violence  to  the  faith  ; 
but  instead  of  allowing  faith  to  sit  in  judgment  on  theology, 
theology  has  rather  to  assume  the  task  of  freeing  faith  from 
the  manifold  delusions,  superstitions,  and  errors  with  which  in 
history  it  has  been  alloyed,  and  to  point  back  to  its  alone 
divine  living  ground.  That  Hofmann  should  vindicate  for 
faith  that  ultimately  valid  judgment  upon  theological  error,  is 
in  keeping  with  the  subjective  character  of  his  theology. 
This  subjective  tendency  is  shown  in  this,  that  he  treats  the 
theological  activity  always  only  as  the  individual  act  of  a 
believer,  and  does  not  rise  to  the  I'ecognition  in  theology  of 
an  objective  spiritual  work,  uninterruptedly  continued  in  the 
Church,  which  accomplishes  the  correction  of  its  errors  by 
means  of  its  own  continued  scientific  activity.  Of  what  use 
then  generally  is  theology,  if  it  is  so  with  it  and  with  faith  as 
Hofmann  puts  it  ?  Is  it  the  certainty  of  faith  from  which 
theology  starts,  and  will  faith  be  exposed  to  danger,  bereft  of 
its  certainty  by  theological  errors  and  rendered  unquiet  ?  Is 
it  not  then  better  to  repress  in  the  Christian  the  living 
impulse  after  knowledge,  and  to  nip  it  in  the  bud,  in  order  at 
least  to  hinder  the  rise  of  a  systematic  theology,  and  to  allow 
faith  to  have  peaceful  intercourse  with  its  Holy  Scripture  and 
the  history  of  its  Church  ? 

Hofmann  has  failed  completely  to  bring  practical  theology 
into  organic  connection  with  historical  and  systematic  theology, 
as  he  had  failed  to  bring  these  last  into  connection  with  one 
another.      In  his  conception  of  practical  theology  Hofmann  is 

vol.  1.  Z 


354  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

in  essential  agreement  with  Sclileiennaclier.  As  "  the  science 
of  the  practical  application  of  theological  knowledge  in  the 
life  of  the  Church  community,"  so  Hofmann  defines  practical 
theology  (p.  35),  it  has  to  do  only  with  theological  arts  in  the 
Church,  and  is  the  theory  of  the  practice  thereof  {Kunstthcoric). 
For  one  who  does  not  enter  upon  the  ministry  of  the  Churcli 
it  has  no  value  ;  for  "  to  gain  new  perceptions  of  a  theological 
kind  is  not  the  task  of  practical  theology,"  p.  35.  It  is 
consequently  shut  out  from  the  theological  system,  and  can 
be  attached  to  it  only  as  an  appendix,  dealing  with  matters  of 
importance  to  the  practical  theologian.  Instead  of  having 
tliis  subordinate  position  assigned  it,  as  is  done  by  Hofmann, 
I  am  of  opinion  that  practical  theology  ought  to  form  a 
constituent  part  of  the  theological  system.  If  Christianity  in 
the  abstract  and  in  history  represents  itself  as  a  religious 
communion,  and  therefore  a  Church,  then  also  the  knowledge 
and  exposition  of  the  really  existing  Church  in  accordance 
with  its  ideal  conception  will  be  seen  to  be  an  essential  and 
indispensable  exercise  in  theological  science.  The  idea  of 
the  Church  already  won  from  preceding  departments  of 
theological  science  is  indeed  assumed  in  practical  theology ; 
but  inasmuch  as  here  it  is  shown  how  that  idea  has  taken 
shape  in  practical  Christianity,  practical  theology  also  gives 
expression  to  a  distinct  theological  thought,  and  therefore 
promotes,  just  as  much  as  the  other  parts  of  theology, 
scientific  knowledge  such  as  every  one  who  occupies  himself 
with  theology  may  claim  from  theology.  Consequently  it  is  not 
to  be  restricted  to  theological  transactions  and  to  the  direction 
for  their  performance  in  the  life  of  the  Christian  community, 
as  though  everything  involved  in  the  institution  of  the  Church 
were  exhausted  in  the  theological  activity,  and  as  though 
practical  theology  were  wholly  occupied  with  the  defining  of 
its  technical  form.  On  the  contrary,  the  theoretical  task  of 
practical  theology  is  to  be  accomplished,  just  like  that  of  the 
other  divisions,  for  the  sake  of  the  completeness  of  the  theo- 


IDEA  OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY.  355 

logical  system  ;  so  that,  for  example,  it  lias  not  only  to  show 
preachers  how  to  preacli,  but  rather  generally  to  call  attention 
to  this,  that  there  is  to  be  preaching,  that  is,  that  preaching  is 
a  necessary,  constituent  part  of  Christian  worship.  All  the 
parts  of  theology  have  first  of  all  a  purely  scientific  task,  but 
in  like  manner  all  serve  the  practical  interests  of  the  Church. 
Theology,  with  all  its  four  parts,  is  a  positive  science,  and  at 
the  same  time  it  is,  as  such,  a  practical  science,  as  I  have 
sought  fully  to  demonstrate  in  the  present  treatise  on  theologic. 
With  these  explanations  of  principles  we  have  now  to  pass 
on  to  treat  of  the  several  principal  divisions  of  theology, 
Hofmann  begins,  as  we  have  seen,  with  systematic  theology. 
This  is,  according  to  him,  "  a  scientific  knowledge  and  state- 
ment of  Christianity,  as  the  theologian  practically  experiences 
it  in  himself."  It  has  to  take  its  start  "  from  the  state- 
ment of  the  relation  between  God  and  man  in  the  most 
general  form  in  which  it  is  still  entitled  to  the  name  of 
Christianity,"  and  has  to  make  its  whole  contents  grow  out 
of  this  general  statement.  It  is  the  method  of  evolution 
which  Hofmann  follows,  p.  48.  It  is  noticeable  here  that 
Hofmann  seeks  to  set  faith  at  rest  should  it  raise  the 
ol)jection  to  this  statement,  that  it  does  not  find  its  own  con- 
tents faithfully  reproduced  in  it,  by  saying  that  faith  may 
be  in  error  from  the  want  of  the  necessary  knowledge,  and 
that  it  has  to  suspend  its  judgment  until  there  has  been  a 
complete  development  of  the  general  statement  in  the  system. 
But  if  faith  may  err  at  the  beginning  of  the  system,  it 
may  also  err  in  its  judgment  upon  the  completed  system  ;  and 
where  then  is  the  right,  which  Hofmann  still  persists  in 
claiming  for  faith,  to  contradict  and  overturn  the  theological 
system?  This,  however,  is  only  incidental,  Christianity, 
when  thus  reduced  to  its  simplest  expression,  is,  according  to 
Hofmann,  "  the  personal  fellowship  of  life  between  God  and 
sinful  mankind,  mediated  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  indeed  mediated 
by  Him  as  a  living  present  power,"  p.  51.      This  universal 


356  THEOLOGICA.L  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

proposition,  which  the  theologian  bears  in  himself  as  his  own 
living  experience,  is  to  form  the  starting-point  of  his  system- 
atic activity.  It  is  indeed  only  required  of  tlie  theologian 
that  he,  in  accordance  with  the  method  of  evolution,  should 
give  an  exact  scientific  expression  to  the  entire  circle  of 
particular  positions  contained  in  that  general  statement,  so 
that  in  this  way  the  general  statement  may  be  developed  into 
a  detailed  statement  of  Christianity,  in  which  the  separate 
particular  positions,  which,  like  the  circle,  are  described  from 
the  centre,  are  exactly  equivalent  to  that  first  statement. 
When  this  is  done,  there  can  be  no  longer  any  place  for  the 
distinction  between  fundamentals  and  non-fundamentals. 

An  examination  of  this  general  statement  of  Christianity, 
which  Hofmann  wishes  to  have  accepted  as  a  foundation, 
furnishes  confirmation  of  the  objection  which  we  previously 
advanced  against  taking  personal  experience  as  the  starting- 
point  of  theology.  If  this  general  proposition  is  intended 
to  afford  a  definition  of  the  essential  nature  of  Christianity, 
we  find  it  in  no  respect  satisfactory.  Sin  directly  excludes 
the  personal  fellowship  of  life  with  God,  and  consequently 
mention  can  be  made  only  of  a  relation  between  God  and 
mankind,  and  the  expression  of  this  relation  has  to  be  made 
in  terms  so  general  that  it  might  be  taken  for  a  statement  of 
religion  generally,  rather  than  as  defining  specifically  the 
Christian  religion.  There  w^ould  thus  be  in  this  general 
statement  nothing  more  than  the  tautological  assertion,  that 
Christianity  is  the  relation  between  God  and  man  mediated 
by  Christ,  without  any  help  being  afforded  us  in  regard  to  the 
essential  nature  of  Christianity. 

Yet  more  deserving  of  consideration  is  the  method  of 
evolution  employed  by  Hofmann.  It  presents  to  the  system- 
atic theologian  an  extremely  difficult  task.  From  that  one 
general  proposition  he  is  expected  to  make  the  whole  system 
of  the  Christian  faith  evolve  itself.  Hofmann,  however, 
facilitates  matters  for  himself  by  securing  the  aid  of  certain 


SIMPLE  BASIS   OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY.  357 

unquestioned  facts.  From  the  present,  for  example,  he  gets 
the  existence  of  a  Christian  Church,  its  vocation  in  regard  to 
Scripture,  its  Confession,  its  official  action  in  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  the  relation  of  the  Christian  to  orders  of  society 
outside  of  the  Church, — such  as  the  family,  the  race,  the 
State,  and  humanity.  From  the  past,  again,  he  gets  the  origin 
of  the  Christian  Church  out  of  the  Israelitish  race,  the 
connection  of  Jesus  by  birth  with  this  race,  and  the  pre- 
eminence of  Israel,  which,  as  a  race,  makes  claim,  along  with 
the  Christian  Church,  to  be  the  congregation  of  the  Lord.  All 
these  facts,  undenied  and  undeniable  as  they  are,  the  system- 
atic theologian  may  without  hesitation  receive  into  his  system, 
since  the  receiving  of  tliem  only  amounts  to  the  estimating 
and  confirming  of  the  worth  and  significance  of  these  facts  by 
means  of  the  system.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  demanded  by 
"  a  scientific  necessity "  that  systematic  theology  keep  itself 
thoroughly  independent  of  everything  that  has  otherwise  been 
arrived  at  as  contents  of  the  Christian  faith,  whether  it  be 
witnessed  to  by  Holy  Scripture  or  form  part  of  the  Confession 
of  the  Church.  Much  rather  only  that  which  results  of 
necessity  from  that  general  proposition  has  any  claim  to  be 
regarded  as  a  constituent  part  of  the  Christian  faith,  and 
should  receive,  on  account  of  that  derivation,  the  attestation 
of  its  truth.  "  The  uniqueness  (Einheitlichheit)  and  symmetry 
of  the  system  are  the  scientific  guarantee  which  affords  justi- 
fication to  its  several  constituent  parts,"  pp.  51-55.  We 
acknowledge  that  it  is  a  particularly  good  feature  in  Hof- 
mann's  systematic  theology  that  it  takes  for  its  subject,  not 
the  ecclesiastical  dogmas,  but  a  general  statement  of  Chris- 
tianity. It  also  sounds  very  fine,  and  secures  our  hearty 
sympathy,  when  Hofmann  expresses  the  wish  that  system- 
atic theology  should  be  made  independent  of  tradition, 
whether  it  be  that  of  Scripture  or  that  of  the  Church 
Confession.  Yet  he  does  not  arrive  at  this  general  proposi- 
tion, which  is    to  embrace  what  is  essentially  Christian  by 


6b3  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOPiEDIA. 

means  of  an  objective  procedure,  and  it  does  not  afford 
him  a  standard  measure  to  be  used  in  the  criticism  of 
tradition ;  but  it  is  for  him  at  once  the  result  of  the  casual 
experience  of  the  theologian,  and  the  fundamental  state- 
ment of  the  truth  out  of  which  systematic  theology  is  to  rear 
the  entire  contents  of  the  Christian  faith.  If  we  wished  to 
deal  strictly  with  the  claim  advanced  on  behalf  of  systematic 
theology  in  regard  to  its  independence  of  historical  theology, 
and  to  demand  of  the  systematic  theologian  that,  in  that 
special  department  assigned  him,  he  should  look  quite  away 
from  the  statements  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Church  Confession, 
then  we  would  be  forced  to  admit  that  the  procedure 
expected  of  him,  notwithstanding  the  unchallenged  truths 
given  him  by  Hofmann  as  a  help,  must  always  be  a  very 
difficult  one,  and  not  only  so,  but  also  a  very  dangerous  one. 
For  by  this  means  tlie  widest  scope  is  given  to  mere  wilful- 
ness, dreaming,  and  speculation.  This,  indeed,  has  not  been 
the  case  with  Hofmann.  He  arrives  at  that  proposition  by 
pursuing  a  particular  course  of  thought,  for  he  gains  his  general 
statement  by  abstracting  from  the  constituent  parts  of  his 
faith  all  that  has  been  empirically  acquired.  But  those 
constituent  parts,  which  form  the  empirical  contents  of  his 
individual  faith,  are  determined  by  Scripture  and  the  Con- 
fession of  the  Church.  Even  should  he  now  abstract  himself 
from  them,  in  order  to  gain  this  general  proposition,  he  still 
allows  himself,  in  the  evolution  of  this  proposition,  to  be 
led  by  Scripture  and  the  Confession,  so  that  his  evolutions 
agree  with  these  two,  and  for  this  reason  confer  upon  the 
whole  contents  of  his  Christian  faith  the  guarantee  of 
truth.  Thus  Hofmann's  systematic  theology,  in  accordance 
with  the  proposition  which  forms  its  starting-point,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  evolution  of  that  proposition,  bears 
throughout  the  impress  of  subjectivity.  In  order  to  remove 
myself  far  from  such  subjectivity,  I  have  endeavoured  in 
this  treatise  on  theologic  to  prove  that   the  essential  nature  of 


FUNDAMENTAL  DOCTRINAL  TKUTllS.  359 

Christianity  is  to  be  determined  from  Holy  Scripture,  and 
that,  upon  this  objective  ground,  an  estimation  is  to  be  made 
of  all  the  rest  of  the  contents  of  Scripture  as  well  as  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  by  the  exercise  of  scientific 
thinking. 

Hofmann  proceeds,  according  to  that  method  insisted  upon 
by  him,  to  set  forth  the  contents  of  the  general  statement  of 
Christianity  as  a  present  fact,  (1)  according  to  its  eternal, 
(2)  according  to  its  historical,  conditions,  (3)  with  reference 
to  the  past,  (4)  with  reference  to  the  present,  and  (5)  with 
reference  to  the  future.  He  then  gives  an  outline  of  system- 
atic theology  derived,  in  accordance  with  this  partition  of 
the  material,  from  the  general  statement  itself.  Although  we 
cannot  approve  even  this  distribution  of  the  material  made 
only  according  to  time,  and  not  according  to  contents,  yet  it 
is  to  be  acknowledged  that  even  here  Hofmann  emancipates 
himself  from  the  traditional  schematism,  and  derives  the 
principle  of  his  distribution  from  the  general  proposition  laid 
down  as  a  foundation.  Thereafter  he  presents  systematic 
theology  in  eight  doctrinal  articles,  in  which  we  find  through- 
out a  confirmation  of  that  characterization  of  his  theology 
which  we  have  already  made. 

From  the  eternal  presuppositions  of  Christianity  he  obtains 
the  personality  of  God,  and  the  divine  Trinity,  and  the 
predestination  of  mankind.  The  triune  God  not  merely 
established  a  historical  sphere  of  existence  {cine  Geschichtlich- 
kcit),  but  Himself  went  forth  into  it.  The  self-transportation 
of  the  trinitarian  relation  from  eternity  into  the  historical 
sphere  of  existence  is  the  first  condition  of  all  the  becoming 
{Wcrdcn)  of  that  which,  outside  of  Himself,  God  makes  an 
object  to  Himself.  The  personal  Spirit  of  God  Himself  is  to 
man  designed  in  the  divine  plan  and  to  man  created  (dcm 
vxrdendcn  und  gavordencn  Mcnsclien)  the  indwelling  ground  of 
his  life.  The  beginning  of  the  human  race  must  be  a  single 
individual;   as  the  self-propagating   race    is   sinful   mankind. 


360  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP^DLi. 

Hence  between  the  creation  of  the  first  man  and  the  self- 
determination  by  which  mankind  became  sinful  the  distinction 
of  sex  had  entered ;  and  in  order  that  the  singleness  of  the 
beginning  of  the  human  race  might  not  be  obliterated,  the 
woman  must  be  made  out  of  the  first  created.  But  the  world 
of  men  is  not  conceivable  in  this  connection  without  the  world 
of  spirits,  the  angels.  As  for  the  sin  of  man,  it  could  only 
come  by  means  of  a  delusive  operation  wrought  upon  him. 
This  could  come  only  from  the  world  of  spirits.  Hence  there 
must  be  assumed  in  it  a  will  hostile  to  God,  which  seeks  to 
frustrate  the  work  in  which  the  eternal  will  of  God  had 
consummated  itself.  By  means  of  the  creation  of  the  woman 
was  such  delusion  rendered  possible.  That  will  hostile  to 
God  having  gained  dominion,  the  dissolution  of  the  world 
followed,  and  man  finds  himself  in  a  condition  of  misery.  In 
this,  however,  there  is  only  carried  out  a  fulfilment  of  the 
divine  will,  without  which  indeed  the  enmity  against  God 
would  be  powerless.  But  by  God's  ordinance,  as  His  act  of 
grace,  there  still  remained  the  possibility  of  man,  after  having 
had  from  the  beginning  his  powers  exercised  in  opposition  to 
God,  being  again  inclined  toward  God.  It  finds  its  realization 
by  means  of  a  historical  presentation  of  the  innermost  divine 
characteristics  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  by  means  of  the  man 
Jesus,  the  Son  of  God.  The  history  lying  between  the 
beginning  of  sin  and  the  redemption  by  Christ  is  the  history 
of  salvation,  and  through  its  course  in  the  everyday  life  of 
man  that  was  set  forth  figuratively  which  finally  found  its 
full  and  essential  realization  in  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  God. 
To  this  degree  does  human  nature  correspond  to  the  divine  as 
suffering  from  sin  and  as  longing  after  righteousness ;  while, 
on  the  contrary,  man's  refusal  to  believe  the  testimony  of  God 
is  the  immediate  operation  of  Satan.  The  realization  of 
salvation,  in  so  far  as  it  is  in  opposition  to  the  constitution  of 
liuman  nature,  is  miraculous.  In  keeping  witli  and  answering 
to  this  miracle  is  faith,  which  appropriates  to  itself  the  right- 


SCIIIPTUKAL  CONTENTS  OF  THE  SYSTEM.  3  G  1 

eousness  sought  by  God.  The  first  miracle  of  grace  is  the 
fellowship  of  married  life  in  the  family,  with  the  moral 
condition  of  piety  or  impiety;  the  second  is  the  application 
of  the  family  relationship  to  a  nationality,  with  legality  or 
illegality,  humanity  or  inhumanity.  Now  Jesus  is  to  spring 
from  a  particular  people;  therefore  that  people  is  separated 
by  God,  that  it  may  become  the  stage  of  tlie  sacred  history. 
Tlie  history  of  this  race  is,  in  contrast  to  that  of  all  others, 
a  miraculous  history,  that  is,  it  is  a  sacred  history.  Every- 
thing here  must  be  a  wonderful  work  of  God, — the  constitu- 
tion of  the  family  out  of  which  the  nation  sprang,  and  the 
constitution  of  the  national  institution  into  which  this  people 
was  developed,  and  as  necessary  developments  in  the  sacred 
history,  the  priestly,  the  kingly,  and  the  prophetic  offices.  The 
glory  of  the  king  had  been  laid  in  the  dust ;  but  when  Jesus  arose 
from  out  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth.  He  pointed  to  its  true 
essential  restoration.  The  typical  history  was  now  at  an  end ; 
but  in  order  that  the  people  might  always  retain  a  conscious- 
ness of  this  typical  character  which  belonged  to  their  history, 
a  comprehensive  memorial  thereof  was  needed,  which  could 
consist  only  in  a  Scripture  as  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 
In  Jesus  who  sprang  out  of  Israel,  God  has,  in  terms  of  the 
economic  trinity,  become  man.  Por  this  incarnation  of  God 
tliere  was  needed  upon  this  human  side  no  other  participation 
than  the  conception  of  the  woman.  Hence  the  sinlessness  of 
Jesus  before  God.  But  inasmuch  as  He  belonged  to  the  sinful 
race  of  man,  He,  too,  was  placed  under  the  wrath  of  God  and 
the  power  of  the  evil  one.  The  utmost  that  the  power  of  the 
evil  one  could  accomplish  against  Him  was  His  death,  which, 
as  an  act  by  which  He  proved  His  own  holiness,  served  to 
effect  expiation  for  the  sinful  race,  and  brought  to  an  end  the 
relation  of  mankind  to  God  as  it  had  been  determined  by  sin. 
His  holiness,  thus  attested,  is  the  righteousness  of  the  human 
race,  existing  for  all  time  in  His  person.  By  this  means  the 
attitude  of  God,  which  first  comes  into  view  in   the   person  of 


362 


TIIEULOGICAL  ENCYCLOPiEDIA. 


Jesus,  is  deteriiiineJ.  After  death,  in  His  glorified  human 
nature,  He  enters  into  unlimited  friendship  with  God  the 
Father.  In  the  person  of  Jesus  there  is  now  called  into 
existence  a  supernatural  fellowship  of  God  and  mankind. 
The  Spirit  of  God,  who  is  the  ground  of  the  glorified  human 
life  of  Jesus,  is  the  bond  of  fellowship  between  Him  and 
those  who  are  His.  The  Church  of  Jesus  is  therefore  first 
of  all  a  communion  of  an  invisible  kind,  a  communion  of 
saints ;  but  because  it  is  that  which  is  living  in  human 
nature,  it  is  also  a  visible  kingdom  of  the  heavenly  Jesus, 
who  makes  His  Spirit  to  operate  in  it.  The  Spirit  of  God 
converts  the  faith  of  this  Church  into  a  faith  in  that  realiza- 
tion of  salvation  which  had  already  been  reached  in  the 
glorified  Jesus,  and,  as  the  Spirit  of  miracle.  He  shows  Himself 
in  believers  and  by  means  of  them.  The  Church  of  Jesus 
exists  outside  of  the  limits  of  Israel;  yet,  alongside  of  the 
other  races,  Israel  continues  to  be  the  race  whose  history  was 
the  history  of  salvation.  Israel  remains  reserved  in  order  to 
form  the  grand  completion  of  tlie  Church  of  Jesus.  The 
extra-Israelitish  Church  of  Christ  is  the  form  characteristic  of 
His  Church  between  the  time  of  its  beginning,  when  it  went 
forth  from  Israel,  and  the  time  of  its  consummation.  For 
that  intervening  period  the  Church  needs,  as  did  Israel  before, 
a  written  memorial,  which  has  this  distinct  advantage  in  its 
favour,  that  it  is  brought  forth  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and 
this,  in  addition  to  the  memorial  of  the  typical  sacred  history, 
the  Church  has  to  admit  to  be  indeed  the  word  of  God.  The 
Church  of  the  present,  therefore,  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  is  indeed  the  Spirit  of  God,  but  is  here  regarded 
as  the  Spirit  of  the  glorified  man  Jesus.  The  Church  comes 
into  view  as  the  sphere  in  which  the  relationship  between 
God  and  man,  effected  in  the  person  of  Christ  Jesus,  is  set 
forth.  God  deals  with  mankind  as  with  those  reconciled  in 
Christ ;  and  He  emphasizes  this  reconciliation  through  the 
visible  actions    and    institutions   of    the    Church,   which   are 


TliUE  IDEA  OF  THE  CIIUKCII  OF  CHRIST.  363 

represented  first  of  all  by  the  word  wliich  worketli  faith,  and 
then  by  baptism  with  water  as  symbolizing  reception  into  the 
communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  by  the  handing  round  of 
bread  and  wine,  in  which  the  Church  celebrates  its  possession 
of  the  bodily  presence  of  the  glorified  Jesus,  which  is  still  in 
the  other  world,  yet  is  actually  appropriated  here.  The  order 
of  the  Christian  community  which  the  Church  demands,  and 
which  is  to  be  ultimately  resolved  into  an  act  of  Christ,  its 
head,  consists  in  the  official  action,  the  compass  of  which  is 
to  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  powers  and  consti- 
tution of  the  Church  itself.  On  the  other  hand,  the  relation 
toward  God  mediated  in  Christ  embraces  the  whole  range  of 
Christian  conduct.  The  essentially  ethical  content  of  Christi- 
anity is  here  set  forth  by  Hofmann,  and  this  is  evidently  the 
best  part  of  the  whole  sketch.  From  the  present  we  are  led  on 
by  Christian  hope  to  an  end  which  is,  indeed,  properly  an  end 
for  the  Church,  for  it  is  only  in  the  Church's  hope  that  the 
individual  is  embraced,  inasmuch  as  his  glorification  can  come 
to  pass  only  with  the  termination  of  the  present  cycle  of  the 
world,  when  for  the  Church  the  time  has  come  that  it,  as  a 
whole,  should  be  glorified.  While  the  Church  is  destined  to 
extend  over  the  whole  human  race,  it  is  yet  limited  to  those 
who  are  true  members  of  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  are  willing  to  be  such.  From  this  it  follows  that  there 
must  be  an  intensifying  of  the  world's  enmity  against  the 
Church ;  and  when  the  whole  inhabited  world  comes  to  be  in 
a  state  of  enmity  against  the  Church  of  Christ,  that  Church 
will  be  able  to  find  a  place  for  its  continued  existence  only  in 
that  people  with  the  sacred  history,  which  now  again  enters 
into  its  vocation  after  it  has,  as  a  race,  become  the  com- 
munion of  Christ.  Then  is  the  Church  ripe  for  glorification, 
which  comes  to  pass  in  this  way :  Christ  comes  forth  from 
His  exaltation  in  the  spiritual  world,  and  presents  Himself 
and  His  Church  in  glory  over  against  the  world  that  is 
opposed  to  it.     The  glorified  communion,  to  which  also  all 


364  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

the  members  of  it  who  have  died  must  be  reckoned,  begins 
now  an  existence  of  a  new  kind,  and  Christ,  too,  through  it 
enters  into  a  new  form  of  existence  in  order  to  convince  the 
world  of  this,  tliat  here  salvation  is  realized,  and  to  constrain 
the  world  to  submit  to  that  salvation.  A  last  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  evil  one  to  found  an  associated  dominion  becomes 
now  inevitable,  and  this  immediately  leads  to  the  last  grand 
decision.  The  Church  as  the  Church  of  God  is  now  complete, 
and  every  human  being  outside  of  it  is  excluded  from  the 
humanity  of  God.  But  this  cannot  happen,  unless  all  those 
to  whom  before  salvation  had  been  the  object  of  earnest 
longing  have  been  incorporated  with  the  Church.  The  world 
is  now  in  the  place  of  the  so  perfected  Church,  while  those 
who  have  allowed  themselves  to  be  determined  by  the  will  of 
the  evil  one  against  God  and  His  salvation,  lose,  together  with 
that  evil  one,  all  possibility  of  personal  action,  because  they  no 
longer  possess  anything  that  is  of  God.  Thus  God's  eternal 
will  of  love  reaches  its  final  realization. 

Such  are  the  characteristic  features  of  Hofmann's  system- 
atic theology.  I  have  reported  them,  as  far  as  possible,  in 
the  very  words  of  the  author,  at  such  length  and  with  such 
particularity,  not  in  order  to  criticize  the  system  in  detail, 
which  is  indeed  far  from  my  purpose  here,  but  only  in  order 
to  render  a  formal  demonstration  of  the  statement  previously 
made,  that  Hofmann,  when  he  starts  from  a  general  proposi- 
tion of  experience,  and  demands  of  the  systematic  theologian 
that  he  should  evolve  its  contents,  in  his  evolution  allows 
himself  to  be  throughout  determined  by  the  interest  which  he 
has  in  his  already  completed  subjective  faith,  and  that,  while 
with  the  utmost  decision  he  maintains,  on  the  part  of  system- 
atic theology,  its  independence  of  the  doctrine  of  Scripture 
and  of  the  Church,  he  yet  receives  into  his  systematic 
theology  the  whole  contents  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Church 
creed,  as  he  has  practically  done.  The  proclaimed  indepen- 
dence of  systematic  theology  proves  itself,  therefore,  to  be  a 


VIEW  OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY  CRITICIZED.  365 

mere  appearance.      For,  seeing  that  from  the  very  first  the 
entire   specific    contents   of   Scripture   and   the   faith  of  the 
Church  are  pointed  out  from  the  'propylcca  of  the  system,  the 
theologian  is  simply  led  round  by  various  circuitous  routes  to 
tlie  inner  cliambers  of  that  same  system.      Hence  the  metliod 
of  evolution,  accordnig  to  which  Hofmann  wishes  to  proceed, 
deserves  rather  the  name  of  the  metliod  of  involution.      Hof- 
mann's  system   is   a   striking   testimony   to   this,  that   when 
theology,  instead  of  having  a  foundation  laid  beforehand  in 
Scripture,  and  having  this  supported  by  means  of  a  strictly 
historical  and  objective  demonstration,  takes  as  its  starting- 
point  a  proposition  of  believing  experience,  it  falls  under  the 
sway  of  subjective  fancies  and  tendencies.      Hofmann,  indeed, 
longs  for  the  application  to  systematic  theology  of  a  Oewpelv, 
a  scientific  treatment,  which   the   theologian   should  employ 
upon  his  subject,  just  as  the  investigator  of  nature  does  upon 
his.       With     Hofmann,    however,    this    scientific     treatment 
consists  in  an  endeavour  to  comprehend  the  already  complete 
subjective  faith,  and  appears  to  be  merely  a  method  of  combin- 
ing and  reflecting  exercised  upon  firmly-grounded  propositions, 
not  unfrequently  accompanied  with  a  scholastic  and  sophistical 
exercise  of  the  understanding,  which,  instead  of  penetratino- 
into  the  essential  contents  of  the  object,  goes  rather  always 
round   about  it.       Indeed   his   customary   phraseology  seems 
itself   to  imply  this,  for  we  hear    too  often  questions  such 
as  these  repeated, — What  is  there  about  Christianity  ?     Wliat 
is  there  about  religion  ?     What  is   there  about  the  Church, 
etc.  ?     Also  in  this  we  cannot  agree  with  Hofmann,  that  he 
will  not   admit   of    any   distribution  of  systematic   theology 
under  separate  branches  of  study,  but  insists  that  it  should 
consist  simply  of  an  unfolding  in  detail  of  the  proposition  of 
faith,  which  had  been  laid  down  as  its  foundation,  and  regards 
this  exclusively  as  its  business.      Hofmann  will  hear  nothinfr 
in  favour  of  a  separation  between   dogmatics  and  ethics  in 
systematic  theology,  p.  112  f.      It  is  indeed  quite  undeuiable, 


'3G6  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCL0P-5DIA. 

as  Hofmann  maintains,  that  ethics  stand  in  the  closest 
connection  with  dogmatics,  and  that  if  it  is  to  be  represented 
as  Christian  ethics,  it  must  start  from  foundations  firmly  laid 
in  dogmatics.  It  may  also  be  admitted  that  in  dogmatics 
itself  at  the  proper  places  the  ethical  contents  of  the  Christian 
faith  should  be  developed  in  accordance  with  their  funda- 
mental features,  as  Hofmann  in  his  seventh  doctrinal  section 
has  done.  But  from  all  this  it  ought  not  to  be  concluded  that, 
upon  the  principles  won  in  dogmatics,  a  system  of  ethics,  as 
a  separate  theological  branch,  may  not  be  developed.  This 
separating  of  the  two  very  evidently  commends  itself  on  the 
purely  external  ground  that  thereby  we  are  saved  from 
unduly  increasing  the  boundaries  of  dogmatics ;  but  it  chiefly 
commends  itself  on  internal  grounds,  liecause  thereby  a  due 
and  complete  development  is  secured  to  the  extraordinarily 
rich  ethical  material,  which  is  relegated  to  a  distinct  branch 
of  science,  while  dogmatics  enters  upon  this  material  only  to 
bring  into  prominence  its  leading  principles.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  am  thoroughly  at  one  with  Hofmann  when  he 
excludes,  and  that  indeed  on  the  same  grounds  on  which  I 
do  so  in  my  own  treatise,  apologetics  and  polemics  from 
systematic  theology,  and  assigns  to  them  their  place  in 
practical  theology. 

Systematic  theology,  as  we  have  said  above,  is  regarded  by 
Hofmann  as  pre-eminently  the  science  of  theology.  Beside 
it,  historical  theology,  as  the  science  of  Scripture  and  Church 
history,  has  scientifically  only  a  subordinate  significance. 
It  stands,  indeed,  in  quite  a  subservient  relation  to  systematic 
theology.  Its  task  is,  according  to  Hofmann,  "  to  ascertain 
and  vindicate  the  essentials  of  Christianity  present  in  the 
Scripture  and  in  the  Church,"  p.  113.  But  this  Christianity 
as  thus  ascertained  has  not  for  Hofmann  any  fundamental 
and  normative  significance.  It  is  rather  to  systematic 
theology  that  such  a  significance  is  to  be  attributed,  and 
the  propositions  of  systematic  theology  sliould   make    refer- 


RELATION  OF  HISTORICAL  TO  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY.  367 

ence  to  the  results  of  this  distinct  historical  hranch  of  science 
only  for  corroboration  and  confirmation.  This  end  cannot 
possibly  be  reached  in  any  really  scientific  ^vay,  except  by 
representing  historical  theology  as  a  thoroughly  independent 
department  of  science,  to  which  the  actual  treatment  of 
the  laTopelv,  which  even  by  Hofmann  is  assigned  to  it, 
exclusively  belongs,  without  being  influenced  by  systematic 
theology.  Nevertheless  under  Hofmann's  treatment  it  fares 
with  historical  theology  just  as  with  systematic  theology. 
As  he,  in  systematic  theology,  while  most  emphatically  pro- 
claiming its  independence  of  historical  theology,  not  only 
determines  d,  priori  what  is  to  be  understood  by  Scripture 
and  the  Church,  but  also  allows  himself  to  be  led  by  the 
contents  of  Scripture  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  even  so 
in  regard  to  historical  theology,  while  he  sets  for  it,  as  we 
have  seen,  a  purely  historical  problem,  and  reckons  it  as  the 
grossest  infringement  upon  its  independence  to  admit  the 
influence  of  the  results  of  systematic  theology  in  historical 
theology,  his  procedure  throughout  is  rather  calculated  to 
confirm  the  prepossession  which  one  cannot  help  having  from 
tlie  first  against  the  mutual  relations  rerpiired  of  the  system- 
atic and  historical  departments.  Just  as  systematic  theology 
stands  to  historical  theology  in  a  relation  of  dependence,  so 
also,  by  Hofmann,  is  historical  theology  made  dependent 
upon  systematic  theology.  This  comes  out  in  the  clearest 
manner  in  his  treatment  of  the  science  of  Scripture.  What, 
indeed,  would  become  of  the  system,  if  it  could  be  contradicted 
and  overturned  by  the  science  of  Scripture,  as  might  easily 
happen  if  the  application  of  the  laropetv  to  the  treatment  of 
Scripture  were  seriously  made  ?  If  such  a  contradiction  were 
made,  it  would  necessitate  the  assumption  that  an  ei'ror  had 
entered,  either  from  the  system  or  from  the  science  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  then,  according  to  Hofmann,  faith  must  be  called  to 
render  help  by  passing  its  judgment  upon  the  errors,  and 
removing   them.      In    order,  therefore,  to   avoid  the    constant 


368  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

recurrence  of  such  a  serious  and  painful  judicial  scene,  the 
introduction  in  practice  of  an  actually  objective  and  historical 
procedure  for  the  treatment  of  Scripture  commends  itself, 
and  the  i^lacing  of  this  too  rather  under  the  control  of  the 
propositions  of  faith  evolved  in  the  system. 

The  science  of  Scripture  is  divided  by  Hofmann  into  three 
parts  : — (1)  exegesis,  (2)  the  science  of  the  contents  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  (3)  the  science  of  the  canon.  Under  exegesis  we  have 
only  three  sub-divisions :  («)  the  history  of  the  Biblical  text, 
(l)  hermeneutics,  and  (c)  the  history  of  the  origin  of  the  Biblical 
books.  The  other  branches,  which  are  usually  reckoned 
among  the  parts  of  exegetical  theology,  are  held  by  Hofmann 
to  be  superfluous.  As  concerns  criticism,  the  theologian 
needs  only  the  knowledge  of  the  helps  for  restoring  and 
giving  a  guarantee  to  the  original  text.  Criticism,  in  so 
far  as  it  is  criticism  of  the  text,  is  to  be  admitted ;  whereas 
the  so-called  higher  criticism  is  to  be  rigorously  excluded. 
In  reference  to  hermeneutics,  the  theologian  requires  the 
knowledge  of  the  conditions  under  which  the  hermeneutical 
rules  generally  valid  in  the  treatment  of  Holy  Scripture  in 
consequence  of  its  distinctive  character  find  application.  lu 
the  place  of  introduction,  Hofmann  puts  the  history  of  the 
origin  of  the  Biblical  books,  p.  118  f. 

In  Hofmann's  treatment  of  the  whole  department  of  the 
science  of  Scripture  we  do  not  discover  any  principle  by 
means  of  which  its  several  constituent  parts  can  maintain 
their  systematic  connection.  Passing,  however,  from  this,  we 
observe  that  the  very  attitude  Mdiich  he  assumes  toward 
the  several  separate  branches  of  exegetical  theology,  as 
shown  in  particular  by  his  exclusion  of  the  higher  criticism, 
indicates  clearly  that  in  his  treatment  of  Scripture  he  is  not 
under  the  control  of  any  historical  point  of  view,  but  of  his 
own  previously  elaborated  system.  This  is  made  specially 
manifest  in  his  treatment  of  hermeneutics,  where  he  declares 
that    the    grammatical    historical    exposition    is    insufficient. 


HOFMANX  OX  THE  SCIENCE  OF  SCRIPTUliE.  369 

and  that  it  is  admissible  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  guided  by  the 
expositor's  own  knowledge  of  tlie  doctrine  of  salvation.  By 
this  Hofmann  does  not  understand  such  an  expHcit  con- 
ception of  saving  truth  as  he  has  set  forth  in  his  system, 
but  only  the  personal  assurance  of  those  facts  of  Christian 
experience  which  warrant  the  assumption  of  the  name  of 
Christian.  Nevertheless,  when  this  subjective  experience  of 
salvation,  even  taken  in  accordance  with  its  most  general 
conception,  is  placed  by  Hofmann  in  his  system  as  the 
principle  of  theology,  it  is  evident  tliat  the  exposition  of 
Scripture  controlled  by  the  experience  of  salvation  comes  also 
therewith  under  the  influence  of  the  system.  Hofmann  is 
certainly  right  when  he  says  that  the  theologian  cannot  free 
himself  from  his  Christianity  ;  and  we  must  add,  he  cannot 
free  himself  therefrom  in  order  to  become  an  exegete  ;  but  if 
he  would  treat  Scripture  as  a  theologian,  and  would  reach  to  a 
scientific  understanding  of  Scripture,  his  Christianity  must  not 

prejudice  the  historical  treatment  of  Scripture,  p.  142  f. The 

third  sub-division— the  history  of  the  origin' of  the  Biblical 
books -is  likewise  a  proof  of  that  dependence  of  exegesis  on 
the  system.  K  Holy  Scripture  is  fundamentally  aVoduct 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  is  in  this  sense  the  word  of  God, 
then  the  exclusion  of  the  higher  criticism  from  the  history 
of  the  origin  of  the  Biblical  books  can  only  be  regarded  as  a 
consequence  of  the  system.  From  p.  145  to  p.  199,  Hof- 
mann gives  a  sketch  of  the  entire  Old  and  New  Testament 
literature  according  to  its  several  writings  :  not,  however,  a 
regular  history  of  these  writings,  but  at  most  an  outline' of 
their  contents  on  the  lines  of  tradition. 

In  the  second  part  —  the  science  of  the  contents  of 
Scripture  —  there  are  undeniable  traces  of  the  influence  of 
the  system.  It  is  divided  into  two  sections:  (a)  Biblical 
history,  and  {h)  Biblical  theology.  In  his  treatment  of 
Biblical  history,  Hofmann  is  not  indeed  disposed  to  exclude 
historical  criticism,  and  he  even  speaks,  on  p.  103  of  a  trans 
VOL.  I.  2  A 


370  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

lation  of  the  Semitic  into  the  Japhetic ;  ^  but  his  sketch  of 
Biblical  history  from  p.  194  to  p.  233  is  placed  altogether 
under  the  influence  of  the  point  of  view  established  in  the 
system.  There  the  Biblical  history  is  required  to  be 
essentially  a  sacred  history  or  history  of  salvation,  and  its 
principal  moments  are  also  laid  down  in  essentially  the  same 
way,  so  that  now  the  exegete  as  historian  has  to  regard  the 
sacred  history  as  also  miraculous  history,  and  from  this  point 
of  view  to  choose  out  of  the  contents  of  the  Biblical  narratives 
what  is  according  to  fact.  The  relationship  between  God  and 
mankind  which  Biblical  history  sets  forth  has  become  doctrine. 
Biblical  theology,  therefore,  has  to  set  forth  this  doctrine,  and 
is  in  so  far  a  historical  branch,  which  has  the  task  of  pointing 
out  how  the  fact  of  the  relationship  between  God  and  mankind, 
mediated  in  Christ,  appears  in  Scripture  as  doctrine,  p.  224  f. 
While  for  Biblical  theology  its  historical  character  is  thus  so 
correctly  vindicated,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  Hofmann's  detailed 
treatment  of  this  Biblical  theology,  as  given  from  p.  226  to 
p.  242,  shows  even  here  again,  that,  for  the  historical  develop- 
ment of  the  doctrine,  points  of  view  have  been  adopted,  not 
objectively  grounded,  but  borrowed  from  the  system. 

In  the  third  part  of  the  science  of  Scripture — the  science 
of  the  canon  —  Hofmann  treats  (1)  the  history  of  the 
collecting  and  closing  of  the  canon,  (2)  the  inner  criticism 
of  the  canon,  and  (3)  the  question,  what  is  Holy  Scripture. 
Encyclopaedically  this  is  here  unsuitable.  The  history  of 
the  canon  belongs  to  exegetical  theology,  and  more  par- 
ticularly to  the  introduction  to  that  department ;  while,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  question  about  the  canonical  significance 
of  Holy  Scripture  for  the  Church  is  to  be  answered  in  dog- 
matics, after  the  character  of  Scripture  has  been  ascertained 

1  On  the  page  referred  to  the  expression  used  above  is  not  employed,  but  the 
idea  of  the  need  of  rendering  Oriental  forms  of  expression  into  tlie  corresponding 
phrases  of  Western  literature  is  clearly  recognised.  For  example,  Hofmann 
says  on  p.  193,  "The  historical  tradition  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  requires  a 
translation  out  of  its  style  of  narrative  into  ours. " — Ed. 


hofmann's  science  of  the  church.  371 

by  means  of  its  historical  treatment.  At  the  conchision  of 
this  third  part,  p.  254  f.,  Hofmann  makes  the  demand,  that 
the  system  is  to  be  compared  with  Scripture,  and  that  in  this 
way  the  scripturalness  of  the  system  is  to  be  proved.  If, 
now,  the  treatment  of  Scripture,  which  as  such  has  a  purely 
historical  task,  and  even  by  Hofmann  is  ranked  under  his- 
torical theology,  is  robbed  of  its  historical  independence,  and 
is  placed  under  the  control  of  the  previously  elaborated  system, 
as  is  actually  done  by  Hofmann  ;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
tlie  systematic  theologian  allows  himself  to  be  governed  by 
the  contents  of  Scripture  adopted  into  his  faith,  as  is  likewise 
done  by  Hofmann, — then  surely  it  need  not  be  feared  that  in 
any  way  the  conclusions  of  system  and  Scripture  respectively 
can  come  into  conflict ;  much  rather,  both  will  always  agree 
together  in  sweetest  harmony  ;  and  the  systematic  theologian 
will  find  no  difficulty  in  placing  in  clear  light  the  scriptural- 
ness of  his  system.  From  the  fundamental  attitude  exhibited, 
moreover,  is  to  be  explained  the  characteristic  of  Hofmann's 
exposition  of  Scripture,  which  affords  the  most  striking  proof 
of  what  has  been  said.  Dogmatic  prejudice,  and,  proceeding 
therefrom,  a  reckless  arbitrariness  in  his  commentaries,  damage, 
in  the  most  lamentable  way,  a  very  conspicuous  and  prominent 
exegetical  endowment,  and  an  acuteness  that  might  be  coveted 
by  any  exegete. 

The  second  division  of  historical  theology  is  the  science  of 
the  Church.  Hofmann  recognises  only  two  branches  or  sub- 
divisions of  this :  the  one,  the  science  of  the  Church  as  it 
comes  into  being ;  the  other,  the  science  of  the  Church  that 
has  already  come  into  being.  Thus  we  have  the  science  of 
the  past  of  the  Church  and  the  description  of  the  present  of 
the  Church  (statistics).  Hofmann  will  not  hear  of  a  separate 
treatment  of  the  history  of  dogmas,  patristics,  ecclesiastical 
archaeology,  and  symbolics.  Admirable  as  indeed  everything 
is  which  Hofmann  says  in  regard  to  these  generally  admitted 
sub-divisions  of  Church  history,  especially  what  is  said   on 


372  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

p.  259  and  on  the  following  pages  about  patristics  and 
archseology  in  their  earlier  form,  yet  it  must  still  always  be 
acknowledged,  that  all  these  branches,  in  so  far  as  in  them 
the  essentially  constituent  parts  of  Church  history  'are 
separately  treated,  have  just  in  this  separate  treatment  their 
special  value,  and  can  render  the  best  service  in  furthering 
the  development  of  Church  history  toward  a  more  perfect 
form.  Only  this  above  all  else  must  be  required,  as  Hofmann 
specially  insists  in  regard  to  the  history  of  dogmas,  that  these 
subordinate  branches  of  study  be  always  conducted  under  the 
consciousness  that  they  have  to  do  only  with  portions  marked 
off  from  a  greater  whole.  Hofmann  arranges  the  materials  of 
Church  history  strictly  in  accordance  with  its  contents, 
p.  263,  under  five  sections:  (a)  the  growth  of  the  Church 
from  without  ;  (h)  the  history  of  dogmas ;  (c)  the  proving  of 
the  faith  in  the  relationships  of  the  natural  life ;  (d)  the 
history  of  the  constitution  of  the  Church  ;  and  (e)  the  history 
of  the  Christian  life  of  the  community  (cultus), — only  if 
regard  were  had  to  the  actual  development  of  the  life  of  the 
Church,  a  different  order  of  these  five  sections  would  be 
necessary.  In  the  outline  of  Church  history,  begun  on 
p.  262,  not  a  few  admirable  remarks  in  reference  to  parti- 
cular points  are  to  be  found,  but  upon  the  whole  it  fares  with 
Hofmann's  Church  history  as  with  his  science  of  Scrij)ture : 
the  one,  as  well  as  the  other,  is  dominated  by  the  system. 
We,  too,  insist  that  the  Church  historian  should  be  controlled 
by  the  idea  of  the  Church,  in  order  that  in  the  conclusion  of 
the  history  he  may  attain  unto  a  definite  result ;  but,  accord- 
ing to  Hofmann,  Church  history  is  a  teacher  only  for  him 
who  is  already  in  sympathy  with  essential  truth,  this  essential 
truth  being  that  set  forth  in  the  system.  This  is  indeed 
explicitly  stated  by  Hofmann  in  the  transition  to  Church 
history,  where  he  says :  ''  We  see  now,  too,  how  this  relation- 
ship of  God  and  man  mediated  in  Christ,  which  we  have 
given    expression   to    in    the    system,  is    found    also  in  the 


TRANSITION  TO  PRACTICAL  THEOLOGY.  373 

Church,"  p.  256.  All  the  constituent  parts  of  the  faith, 
therefore,  which  are  asserted  in  the  system,  are  without  more 
ado  acknowledged  when  they  are  met  with  in  Church  history, 
and  this  ends  with  a  demand  for  a  confessional  and  official 
Church,  in  accordance  with  the  Confession,  as  it  has  gained 
expression  in  tlie  system.  Then  again,  from  the  consideration 
of  the  present  condition  of  the  Church,  that  is,  of  statistics, 
there  arises  the  dark  picture  of  the  future  which  we  are 
familiar  with  from  the  system.  What  the  future  of  Christi- 
anity offers  comes  to  this,  "  only  to  be  again  a  persecuted  sect 
in  a  world  at  enmity  with  it,"  p.  304.  Nevertheless  there  is 
nothing  in  this  to  cause  despondency,  for  we  know  further 
from  the  system,  that  the  Christian  Church  will  then  find  a 
place  of  refuge  in  Israel,  and  will  be  borne  to  glory  on  the 
arms  of  this  holy  nation.  Hence  the  system  has  to  dread  the 
proof  advanced  by  Church  history,  as  Hofmann  has  set  it 
forth,  just  as  little  as  it  has  to  dread  the  Scripture  proof ; 
both,  indeed,  harmoniously  correspond,  p.  307  ff. 

"  Systematic  theology  guarantees  the  fundamental  and 
comprehensive  consciousness  of  Christianity  (in  the  preceding 
system  this  comprehensiveness  would  much  rather  have  been 
claimed  for  faith),  and  historical  theology  guarantees  the 
scientific  certainty  of  the  scripturalness  and  churchliness  of 
the  Christianity  set  forth  in  the  system.  But  now,  at  this 
point,  theology  as  the  science  of  Christianity  appears  to  be 
exhausted,"  p.  311.  In  these  words  Hofmann  makes  his 
transition  to  practical  theology.  Quite  correctly  he  claims 
for  theoretical  theology,  as  those  two  branches,  systematics 
and  historical  theology,  in  contrast  to  practical  theology,  are 
usually  called,  that  it  has  also  its  practical  significance ;  but 
he  does  not  rise  to  a  conception  of  practical  theology  by 
which,  on  the  other  hand,  its  theoretical  significance  would  be 
secured  to  it,  and  its  scientific  position  alongside  of  those  tvvo 
principal  divisions  of  theology.  Systematic  and  historical 
theology    are    practical   as   well  as  theoretical,  but  practical 


''>74  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

theology  is  not  theoretical  as  well.  With  the  two  former 
the  science  of  Christianity  is  concluded,  and  practical  theology 
contributes  nothing  new  to  theolooical  knowledge.  As  dis- 
tinguished  from  ethics,  which  has  to  do  with  the  practical 
realization  of  the  Christian  faith,  practical  theology,  according 
to  Hofmann,  has  to  do  with  theological  actions,  or  with  the 
practical  exhibition  of  theological  knowledge.  In  practical 
theology,  not  a  duty,  but  an  art,  is  taught.  It  is  the 
technology  of  the  practical  treatment  of  theology,  and  it  has 
therefore  for  its  subject  the  activity  of  the  theologian  in  the 
Church,  p.  313  ff.  Hence  its  distribution  results  from  the 
position  of  the  theologian  in  reference  to  the  Church.  The 
theologian  may  be  viewed  (1)  as  a  Church  member,  or 
(2)  as  a  Church  officer.  Accordingly  practical  theology  is : 
I.  The  theory  of  the  practical  treatment  of  theology  apart 
from  any  limitation  of  office ;  including  («)  the  theory  of  the 
exact  and  scientific  defence  of  the  Church  (apologetics  and 
polemics),  and  (b)  the  theory  of  the  exact  and  scientific 
counselling  of  the  Church  (buleutics).  II.  The  theory  of  the 
practical  treatment  of  theology  on  the  part  of  those  in  office  ; 
including  (1)  the  theory  of  the  administration  of  the  single 
congregation — (a)  of  the  regularly  constituted  congregation, 
(b)  the  congregation  in  process  of  formation  [baptized  children, 
and  adherents  not  communicants],  and  (c)  the  congregation 
as  a  whole ;  (2)  the  theory  of  the  administration  of  the 
Church — (ci)  toward  those  within,  (b)  toward  those  without; 
and  (3)  the  preparation  of  the  theologian. 

From  the  definition  and  distribution  of  this  part  of  theology 
given  here  by  Hofmann,  it  appears  that  he  does  not  in  any 
essential  respect  get  beyond  the  old  conception  of  practical 
theology.  For  while,  by  the  older  theologians,  it  was  regarded 
as  practical  counsel  addressed  to  the  clergyman  for  direction 
in  his  official  duties,  so  by  Hofmann  it  is  regarded  as  the 
theologian's  guide  to  his  practical  work  in  the  Church.  It  is 
to    be   acknowledged  that    Hofmann,  after    the   example    of 


hofmann's  view  of  practical  theology.  375 

Sclileierniacher,  amplifies  the  notion  of  this  theological  branch, 
for  in  place  of  the  clergyman  he  puts  tlie  theologian,  and  in 
place  of  the  congregation  he  puts  the  Clmrch,  as  the  sphere 
in  M'hicli  the  theologian's  activity  is  exercised.  But  thereby 
another  boundary  line  is  drawn,  which  is  just  as  inadmissible 
— the  boundary  line  between  the  Christian  activity  in  the 
congregation  and  the  theological  activity  in  the  Church. 
With  Hofmann  it  is  made  to  look  as  if  the  con  "relational 
activity  were  altogether  excluded,  and  that  all  activity  in  the 
Church  were  contained  in  theological  doings.  How  far  this 
is  from  being  the  case,  even  Hofmann  cannot  conceal  from 
himself.  He  is  obliged  to  confess  that  activities  in  the 
Church  are  conceivable  which  have  not  theology  as  their 
condition,  p.  317.  Hence  according  to  his  definition  he 
can  receive  such  activities  into  practical  theology  only  in  so 
far  "  as  the  theologically  trained  office-bearer  regulates,  takes 
superintendence  of,  and  arranges  them."  An  independent 
activity  in  the  Church  on  the  part  of  one  who  is  a  non- 
theological  member  of  the  congregation  is  therefore  not  admis- 
sible. It  is  recognised  by  Hofmann  only  in  so  far  as  it  places 
itself  under  the  government  of  the  theological  office.  There 
are  other  activities  which  Hofmann,  on  the  basis  of  his 
definition,  must  exclude.  The  diaconate,  for  example,  is  shut 
out,  because  it  does  not  require  a  theological  training, 
p.  319.  In  like  manner  Church  law,  because  it  embraces 
purely  legal  determinations  upon  which  the  theologian  can 
pass  no  judgment,  and  which  generally  do  not  originate  in 
the  theological  province,  belongs,  therefore,  not  to  theology, 
but  to  jurisprudence.  But  this  is  an  argument  so  inconclusive 
that  it  scarcely  needs  a  refutation.  We  satisfy  ourselves  with 
pointing  out  that  radical  defect  in  Hofmann's  practical 
theology  which  lies  in  its  limitation  to  the  purely  theological 
activity.  For  from  a  scientific  point  of  view  we  must 
declare  ourselves  generally  against  the  conception  of  practical 
theology  as  the  teaching  of  an  art.      So  conceived,  it  affords 


376  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

no  justification  for  its  being  reckoned  in  theology,  and,  as  the 
teaching  of  an  art,  whether  it  be  that  of  the  pastoral  office  or 
that  of  theological  teaching,  it  can  at  least  find  no  place  in 
the  theological  system.  If  it  be  essential  to  Christianity  that 
there  be  a  Church,  as  indeed  Hofmann  himself  says,  p.  318, 
then  must  practical  theology  too,  as  the  concluding  portion  of  its 
system,  set  forth  the  Church  of  the  future  in  its  ideal  reality 
in  regard  to  its  instruments  and  functions,  on  the  ground  of 
the  idea  of  the  Church  won  from  Scripture  and  systematic 
theology,  and  with  respect  to  its  historical  department.  Here 
also,  it  has  still  to  exercise  a  purely  scientific  activity,  and  to 
advance  theological  knowledge,  and  so  to  furnish,  not  a 
practical  theology  in  the  ordinary  sense,  but  a  system  of 
ecclesiastics,  a  doctrine  of  the  Church.  This  last  part 
of  theology,  then,  has  both  a  theoretical  and  a  practical 
significance,  just  like  the  preceding  parts,  and  receives  along- 
side of  them  an  equally  authorized  position  in  the  theological 
system. 

In  his  Encyclopedia,  Hofmann,  as  we  have  seen,  does  not 
give  a  mere  formal  outline  of  theology,  but  presents  a 
summary  of  the  contents  of  his  whole  theological  system. 
We  regard  this  as  the  only  true  conception  of  encyclopredia, 
and  we  agree  with  Hofmann  also  in  this,  that  theology  as 
pre-eminently  the  systematic  statement  of  the  faith,  must 
have  in  view  not  merely  an  instruction  for  practical  worship, 
but  a  scientific  knowledge  of  Christianity;  and  further,  that 
at  the  same  time  it  must  in  this  theoretical  attitude  vindicate 
itself  as  a  practical  science.  Nevertheless,  the  statement 
given  to  the  faith  by  Hofmann  is  a  purely  personal  one,  and  is 
a  statement  of  a  faith  attaching  itself  to  a  Church  Confession  ; 
therefore  a  dogmatic  faith.  Hofmann,  indeed,  does  not  wish, 
in  accordance  with  the  materialistic  and  external  method  of 
the  old  orthodox  theology,  the  supcrnaturalismiis  vulgaris,  to 
hold  fast  to  the  dogmas  constituting  the  faith,  simply  because 
they  appear  as  constituent   parts   of  revelation,  but  just  as 


iiofmann's  theological  position.  377 

little  is  he  willing  to  prove  these  dogmas  only  in  their 
religious  contents,  and  to  make  their  validity  dependent 
thereon  ;  his  tendency  is  rather  in  the  direction  of  showing 
the  dogmas  of  the  Confession  to  be  absolutely  necessary  as 
facts  of  the  Christian  life  of  faith,  and  thereby  establishing 
lielievers  in  their  faith.  Hofmanu's  theology  presents  itself 
as  an  internalized  and  spiritualized  supernaturalism,  which 
with  great  acuteness  is  developed  into  a  finely  laid  out  system. 
There  has  been  much  said  in  the  most  recent  times  of  the 
certitude  of  faith,  which  is  to  be  confirmed  by  means  of 
theology.  We  doubt  not  that  the  author  himself  found  his 
own  full  personal  satisfaction  in  the  system,  and  that  in  it 
also  those  believers  w^ho  share  with  him  the  same  dogmatic 
faith  will  find  the  same  satisfaction.  But  the  claims  which 
are  made  upon  theology  by  the  Church  of  the  present  and 
those  without  the  Church,  are  not  satisfied  by  this  system, 
nor  yet  can  they  be  satisfied,  in  a  truly  scientific  manner, 
upon  the  lines  that  have  been  laid  down  by  Hofmann,  and 
by  the  method  which  he  has  chosen.  A  theology  in  the  garb 
which  Hofmann  gives  it  will  scarcely  be  admitted  into  the 
circle  of  the  other  sciences  and  acknowledged  by  them  as  a 
sister  on  terms  of  equality.  We  esteem  the  reverent  regard 
of  the  scholar  for  his  teacher,  but  we  believe  that  Bestmann 
is  deceiving  himself  when  he  characterizes  the  theology  of 
his  master  as  a  Krfjfia  e?  dei.  We  can  perceive  in  it  only  a 
forced  attempt,  occasioned  by  the  peculiar  circumstances  of 
the  age,  to  animate  anew  a  theological  system,  old  and  already 
become  feeble — an  attempt  which,  as  a  pure  product  of  the 
age,  will  also  probably  very  soon  pass  away. 

In  the  Introduction  which  Bothe  prefixes  to  his  Encyclo- 
pa.^dia,^  pp.  1-14,  he  stnrts  with  tlie  notion  of  theology,  in 
order  that  he  may  afterwards  state  the  notion  of  theological 
encyclopicdia.      To   the  encyclopiedia  of  theology  he   assigns 

^  Theolo^nsche   Encyclopsedie  von   Ricliard    Rotlie.      Aus   seinem   Nachlasse 
lierausgegeben  von  Hermann  Ruppelius,  riarrer.     ^Vittcllberg  1880. 


378  THEOLOGICAL  EN'CYCLOP.EDL\. 

the  task  of  setting  forth  the  whole  organism  of  theology  in  its 
inner  distribution  into  a  multitude  of  separate  theological 
sciences.  According  to  its  essential  notion,  therefore,  it  is 
the  scientific  presentation  of  the  organism  of  the  theological 
branches  which  has  to  take  its  own  fundamental  principles, 
that  is,  the  general  division  of  theology,  from  the  essential 
notion  of  theology.  There  is  nothing  to  be  said  against  this, 
only  the  procedure  by  means  of  which  he  wishes  to  reach 
the  notion  is  to  be  contested.  The  definition  of  theolo- 
gical encyclopaedia  can,  indeed,  only  be  a  formal  one,  and  for 
this  purpose  it  is  sufficient,  proceeding  on  the  hypothesis  that 
theology  is  a  science,  and  from  the  general  notion  of  encyclo- 
pijedia,  in  order  to  determine  the  notion  of  theological  encyclo- 
paedia. But  the  notion  of  theology  itself,  which  even  in  our 
own  time  is  something  very  uncertain  and  vacillating,  serves 
as  a  basis  for  the  most  diverse  conceptions.  Hence  the  clear 
enunciation  of  this  very  notion  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  essential 
problem  of  theological  encyclopaedia,  especially  if  it  has  to  take 
its  principle  of  division  from  the  notion  of  theology ;  and  so, 
going  back  to  the  primal  source  of  theology,  we  must  deter- 
mine its  object  and  assign  it  its  place  in  reference  to  the 
Church,  and  vindicate  in  particular  the  claim  of  theology  to 
be  a  science.  From  this  notion,  then,  the  distribution  of 
theology  into  separate  parts  and  branches  will  result  of  itself 
in  the  treatment  of  encyclopedia.  Eothe,  however,  brings 
down  into  encyclopaedia  an  already  completely  formed  notion 
of  theology  which  he  owes  to  the  theology  of  Schleiermacher. 
But  whether  indeed  this  notion  be  the  right  one,  such  a  one  as 
must  be  influential  for  encyclopaedia,  is  just  the  question  which 
theological  encyclopai-.dia  would  first  itself  require  to  decide. 
We,  for  our  part,  cannot  regard  it  as  such.  That  Christian 
piety  could  find  entrance  into  tlie  world  only  as  a  religious 
community,  and  therefore  as  a  Church,  and  that  this  Church 
as  a  community  is  in  need  of  a  government,  which  is  condi- 
tioned by  means  of  the  right  understanding  of  the  nature  and 


liOTIIE'S  NOTION  OF  THEOLOGY.  370 

end  of  the  Church,  and  that  this  understanding  can  be  sure 
and  exact  only  when  it  is  scientific, — in  all  this  we  are  in  the 
most  perfect  agreement  with  Eothe.  We  must,  however, 
raise  an  objection,  when  he  proceeds  to  say  that  the  relation 
of  theology  is  not  immediately  to  religion,  but  is  exclusively 
to  the  Church,  and,  indeed,  more  exactly  to  the  guidance  of 
the  Church ;  that,  consequently,  theology  is  nothing  else  than 
that  scientific  understanding  of  the  nature  and  end  of  the 
Church,  that  is  to  say,  the  outline  arranged  organically  in 
accordance  with  that  idea  of  theology,  or  the  system  of  those 
scientific  pursuits  by  means  of  which  the  guidance  of  the 
Church  is  conditioned ;  and  that,  therefore,  this  reference  to 
the  guidance  of  the  Church  is  the  principle  wdiich  organizes 
and  holds  together  the  different  elements  in  theology ;  and 
that  thus  theology  is  a  positive  science,  because  it  embraces  a 
full  circle  of  intellectual  operations  essentially  engaged  upon 
with  reference  to  a  practical  problem,  p.  2.  It  will  scarcely 
now  be  contested  from  any  side,  that  theology  has  to  yield  its 
practical  service  to  the  Church.  It  should  always  be  acknow- 
ledged as  a  great  merit  on  the  part  of  Schleiermacher,  that  he 
brought  into  prominence  again  that  connection  between  theo- 
logy and  Church.  But  it  is  something  quite  different  to  place 
theology  wholly  under  the  point  of  view  of  a  practical  end, 
and  to  conceive  of  it  only  as  a  means  to  this  end.  By  this 
means  the  scientific  rank  of  theology  would  itself  be  rendered 
open  to  question.  The  end,  for  the  sake  of  which  it  is  elabo- 
rated, and  which  is  to  constitute  the  organizing  principle  of 
theology,  is  one  that  has  been  borrowed  from  without.  That 
science,  however,  which  will  in  truth  vindicate  its  right  to  the 
name,  must  have  its  end  in  itself,  must  therefore  have  for  its 
foundation  a  material  principle,  and  must  brace  itself  for  the 
simple  developing  of  this  principle,  so  that  the  grouping  together 
of  all  the  separate  elements  under  the  science  to  which  they 
belong  must  result  from  the  organic  relation  in  which  these 
elements    stand    to    that    principle.      Scientificness    (JFissen- 


380  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.EDLA.. 

scliaftlichkcit)  consists  not  in  formal  systematics,  but  in  the 
simple  development  of  the  fundamental  principle  from  which 
a  science  proceeds.  Hence  also  theology,  if  it  is  to  be  ranked 
as  a  science,  must  have  for  its  object  such  a  principle,  and 
this  can  be  nothing  else  than  religion,  especially  the  Christian 
religion.  In  so  far,  again,  as  this  is  given  it  historically,  it  is 
a  historical  science,  and  as  such,  a  positive  science,  which, 
first  of  all,  can  have  no  other  end  than  that  which  is  immanent 
in  it,  namely,  to  reach,  by  means  of  a  comprehensive  treat- 
ment and  development  of  its  subject,  the  objective  knowledge 
thereof  But  all  elements  which  it  borrows  for  the  sake  of 
its  own  development  from  other  sciences  become  theological, 
so  that  they  are  brought  into  relation  to  that  subject  and  to 
the  end  immanent  in  theology.  Instead  of  saying,  with  Eotlie, 
"  a  scientific  theological  activity,  of  which  the  inspiring  prin- 
ciple is  not  the  interests  of  the  practical  problem  of  Church 
government,  would  not  really  be  theological  at  all,"  p.  4,  we 
must  much  rather  refuse  the  name  theological  to  that  which 
has  not  for  its  inspiring  principle  the  interests  of  the  subject 
of  theology,  that  is  to  say,  the  Christian  religion  and  its 
scientific  elaboration  ;  and  we  must  agree  with  Hof  mann,  in  so 
far  at  least  as  he  assumes  as  the  motive  for  systematic  theo- 
logy the  intellectual  impulse  that  lives  in  the  Christian  spirit. 
Eothe,  for  support  to  his  view,  appeals  to  history,  and  is  of 
opinion  that  theology  has  been  historically  called  forth  in 
order  to  meet  a  practical  need  in  connection  with  the  guiding 
of  the  Church.  This  opinion  we  can  only  regard  as  one  that 
has  been  imported  into  the  history,  and  not  as  a  reflection  con- 
firmed by  it.  For  have  John  and  Paul,  have  the  Gnostics 
and  the  greatest  theologians  of  the  primitive  Church  allowed 
themselves  to  be  determined,  in  reference  to  their  spiritual 
work  upon  Christianity,  by  means  of  a  regard  to  the  guiding 
of  the  Church  ?  And  is  not  its  intellectualism  made  on  every 
hand  the  reproach  of  scholastic  and  Protestant  orthodox  theo- 
logy ?     And  yet,  even  if  it  be  objectionable  on  account  of  its 


EOTIIE  AND  CONFESSIONAL  THEOLOGY.  381 

one-sidedness,  it  is  surely  always  a  proof  of  the  way  in  -wliicli 
the  hiunaii  spirit  presses  on  to  know  that  Christian  truth 
wliicli  is  presented  it  to  strive  after.  And  does  not  the 
Keformation  theology,  too,  make  a  special  endeavour  to  obtain 
a  clear  knowledge  of  the  true  Cliristian  way  of  salvation  ? 
And  even  of  modern  theology,  since  the  middle  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  can  it  be  said  that  it  has  gone  forth  from 
the  interests  of  Church  guidance  ?  The  motive  that  has  led 
to  the  historical  development  of  theology,  and  which  always 
will  and  must  be  actively  present  in  the  Church,  has  been 
pre-eminently  the  endeavour  of  the  Christian  spirit  to  ascer- 
tain the  truths  of  Christianity.  It  is  therefore  in  the  light 
of  this  motive  that  the  essential  task  of  theological  science  is 
to  be  determined.  It  may  not  unreasonably  be  affirmed  tliat 
the  conception  of  theology  as  having  only  to  do  with  a  prac- 
tical problem,  which,  since  Schleiermacher,  has  been  widely 
asserted,  but  not  always  accompanied  by  his  spirit,  has  con- 
tributed to  the  depreciation  of  theology  as  compared  with  the 
other  sciences,  and  to  the  dragging  of  it  down  from  the  first 
rank  which  it  had  formerly  occupied. 

From  that  predominant  reference  of  theology  to  Church 
guidance  which  Eothe  maintains,  it  follow's  of  necessity  that  he 
must  accede  to  the  demands  of  those  who  will  have  theology 
always  treated  only  as  a  confessional  theology.  He  says  on 
p.  o,  that  since  the  Christian  Church  consists  of  a  number 
of  particular  Churches,  Christian  theology,  too,  is  not  one,  but 
manifold,  like  the  Church  itself.  There  is  therefore  no  other 
Christian  theology  than  that  determined  by  a  particular 
Confession ;  and  so  he  takes,  as  the  alone  subject  of  his 
theological  encyclopaedia,  the  evangelical-Protestant-Christian 
theology.  The  fact  alleged  as  to  the  multiplicity  of  Churches 
and  their  theologies  is  indisputable  ;  but  if  from  it  the  opinion 
is  to  be  derived  that  theology  nmst  acquiesce  in  this  fact,  and  can 
appear  only  as  a  confessional  theology,  we  must  give  it  a  direct 
contradiction.     By  the  limitation  of  theology  to  one  particular 


382  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

Church,  its  scientific  character  at  least  is  endangered.  From 
the  actual  multiplicity  of  Churches  it  does  not  follow  that 
theology  too  must  fall  into  a  similar  multiplicity ;  but  rather, 
on  the  contrary,  from  the  very  multiplicity  of  Churches  theo- 
logy ought  to  take  occasion  to  form  a  conception  of  the  Church 
simply  as  Christian,  and  to  exercise  its  scientific  criticism  on 
the  various  separate  Churches  from  its  own  general  Christian 
standpoint,  so  that  it  can  come  into  practical  connection  only 
with  those  separate  Churches  in  which  it  meets  with  the  most 
suitable  historical  realization  of  Christianity.  If,  then,  the 
encyclopaedist  prefers  to  assume  a  standpoint  belonging  to  a 
particular  Church  sect,  he  will  be  thereby  at  once  subjected  to 
embarrassment,  and  will  have  the  free  scientific  view  greatly 
obscured.  And,  indeed,  it  does  not  appear  how  the  encyclo- 
paedia, if  simply  confessional,  should  ever  succeed  in  repre- 
senting itself  (as  Eothe  on  p.  11  quite  properly  insists  that 
it  should)  as  a  particular  member  in  the  great  circle  of  the 
sciences,  and  in  securing  for  itself  a  recognition  therein  as 
such.  Will  the  encyclopa'dist  who  undertakes  to  expound 
the  general  encyclopaedia,  that  is  to  say,  the  whole  circle  of 
the  sciences,  be  able  to  give  a  place  in  this  circle  to  theology 
regarded  as  the  theology  of  this  or  of  that  sect  ?  And  just 
as  little  can  we  agree  with  Eothe's  statement,  that  theology  is 
only  for  the  clerical  order,  that  is,  for  those  members  of  a 
particular  Church  who  have  a  definite  share  in  the  guidance 
of  it,  but  not  for  laymen  who  have  no  such  share.  This  can 
only  be  regarded  as  a  consequence  of  Eothe's  general  concep- 
tion of  theology.  But  there  are  laymen  who  officially  take 
part  in  the  guidance  of  the  Church,  without  being  in  need  of 
theology  for  this ;  and  there  are  also  other  laymen  who  have 
no  share  in  the  guidance  of  the  Church,  nor  wish  to  have,  and 
yet  make  use  of  and  occupy  themselves  with  theology,  in  order 
to  obtain  clearness  and  certainty  about  their  whole  life  of 
faith.  Theology,  as  an  utterance  of  the  Church's  life,  is  for 
the  Church  and  all  its  members.     It  is  self-evident  that  it  is 


PURPOSE  OF  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA.       383 

indispensable  to  ministers  and  Churcli  oflicers,  whose  special 
calling  has  reference  to  t]ie  guidance  of  tlie  Church.  The 
distinction,  however,  which  Eothe  makes  between  theologians 
in  the  wider  and  theologians  in  the  narrower  sense,  we  cannot 
admit,  p.  6.  Theologians  are  those  only  who  contribute 
toward  the  production  of  the  whole  circle  of  those  scientific 
elaborations  which  are  embraced  under  the  name  of  theolo<TfV, 
and  so  indirectly  serve  the  Church  by  means  of  their  labour. 
This,  of  course,  does  not  exclude  them  from  being  at  the  same 
time  directly  serviceable  in  guiding  the  Church.  Ministers 
and  other  Church  office-bearers  to  whom  the  guidance  of  the 
Church  is  specially  committed,  must  indeed  be  theologically 
educated ;  yet  they  are  not  theologians  in  consequence  of  their 
official  activity.  This,  again,  does  not  exclude  them  from 
working  unofficially  as  theologians;  but  rather  it  makes  it 
appear  highly  desirable  that  this  should  be.  The  persons  in 
whom  both  the  activities,  the  theoretical  as  well  as  the  prac- 
tical, are  present  in  their  proper  proportions,  deserve  to  be 
regarded  as  Church  princes  {Kirchcnfurstcn),  to  use  the  phrase 
of  Schleiermacher. 

The  theological  encyclopaedia,  as  an  exposition  of  the 
circle  of  the  theological  sciences,  has,  according  to  Eothe,  no 
other  end  in  view  than  to  afford  to  students  of  theology  an 
introduction  to  theological  study,  and  ought  therefore  to  be 
treated  as  a  purely  formal  science.  Both  of  these  positions 
follow  from  the  notion  of  theology  adopted  by  Eothe.  If 
theology  is  to  be  prosecuted  only  with  a  view  to  the  guiding 
of  the  Church,  then  indeed  its  encyclopaedia  can  be  set  forth 
only  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  intend  to  enter  into  the 
service  of  the  Church;  and  also,  it  can  only  consist  in  a 
formal  arrangement  of  the  theological  branches,  inasmuch  as 
its  exposition  of  the  circle  of  theology  does  not  proceed  from 
any  principle  inherent  in  itself,  but  purely  from  the  interests 
of  Churcli  guidance.  According  to  our  conception  of  theology, 
on  the    other    hand,    the    task  of  its  encyclop;Tcdia    consists 


384  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

pre-eminently  in  the  solving  of  its  theoretical  problem,  in 
representing,  that  is  to  say,  theology  as  a  science ;  and  from 
this  it  follows  that  its  practical  purpose  consists,  not  only  in 
introducing  professional  students  of  theology  to  the  study  of 
their  science,  but  also  in  marking  out  the  way  in  which  those 
who  wish  to  educate  themselves  theologically  may  do  so. 
But  if  the  encyclopaedia  is  to  reach  unto  its  highest  end  as 
thus  conceived,  it  must  be  set  forth,  not  as  a  mere  formal 
science,  but  as  a  material  science.  The  one  argument  which 
Eothe  brings  against  a  material  treatment  of  encyclopedia, 
that  if  one  intends  in  the  encyclopaedia  to  draw  up  a  summary 
sketch  of  the  principal  contents  of  the  theological  branches, 
the  result  must  necessarily  be  a  production  that  is  altogether 
superficial  and  empty,  is  of  no  importance.  Xo  doubt,  only 
the  principal  contents  of  the  particular  branches  can,  in  any 
case,  be  set  forth  in  a  material  treatment  of  encyclopaedia,  but 
it  is  not  necessary  that  these  general  outlines,  which  alone  it 
can  give,  should,  on  account  of  their  being  thus  general, 
be  also  superficial  or  empty.  The  encyclopaedia,  as  thus 
materially  developed,  will  rather  give  expression  to  the 
essential  contents  of  the  branches,  leaving  it  to  each  branch 
to  develop  its  own  contents  in  detail.  If  this  is  not  done, 
then  it  is  not  the  material  method  of  exposition,  but  only  the 
encyclopsedist,  that  should  bear  the  blame.  But,  for  the  sake 
of  the  task  that  has  been  assigned  to  encyclopaedia,  we 
must  insist  upon  the  material  method  being  followed.  The 
encyclopcedia  can  successfully  set  forth  and  arrange  the  whole 
compass  of  theological  science  only  when  it  proceeds  from  the 
actual  contents  of  theology,  and  from  these  derives  all  its  parts 
and  branches,  so  that  the  entire  distribution  of  encyclopaedia 
is  at  the  same  time  a  development  of  the  very  contents  of 
theology,  and  all  the  departments  of  knowledge  so  originating 
appear  ultimately  in  the  form  of  a  systematic  whole,  closely 
knit  together  by  means  of  an  inward  bond.  That  a  purely 
formal  encyclopaedia  is  possible,  Schleiermacher  has  shown. 


DISADVANTAGES  OF  A  FORMAL  EXCYCLOP.EDIA.  385 

and  liis  exposition  of  the  theological  course  of  study  will 
always  be  regarded  as  a  masterpiece  executed  after  this 
method.  And  as  we  find  it  with  Schleiermacher,  but  not 
always  with  Rothe,  it  only  allows  itself  to  proceed  by  means 
of  an  abstraction  firmly  restrained  within  its  own  proper 
limits.  But  an  encyclopaedia  so  abstract  and  strictly  limited 
to  the  interests  of  Church  guidance,  satisfies  neither  the 
scientific  claims  which  are  made  upon  encyclopedia,  nor  even 
tlie  practical  needs  of  theological  students.  By  means  of 
Schleiermacher's  Encyclopaedia,  even  if  we  should  overlook 
the  difiBculty  which  its  abstract  form  presents  to  the  under- 
standing of  a  beginner,  one  will  scarcely  be  won  over  to,  and 
rendered  enthusiastic  about,  the  study  of  theology ;  and  yet 
this  is,  as  we  suppose,  just  the  effect  which  the  encyclopredia 
ought  to  have  upon  the  student.  This,  however,  is  to  be 
reached  only  if  tlie  contents  of  the  science,  to  which  he  wishes 
to  devote  himself,  is  opened  up  to  his  view  in  their  general 
outlines.  An  encyclopaedia  so  conducted,  then,  will  point 
out  to  the  student  the  right  way  in  which  to  proceed  in 
his  study  of  theology.  Eothe  also  indicates,  p.  8  f.,  that  a 
doctrine  of  method  for  theological  study,  side  by  side  with  the 
encyclopaedia,  may  be  quite  easily  dispensed  with,  and  is 
merely  ballast.  We  quite  agree  with  him  in  this.  But  then, 
the  methodology  can  be  dispensed  with  only  when  the 
encyclopaedia  has  already  itself  pointed  out  the  way  in 
which  the  study  may  be  properly  prosecuted.  But  only  an 
encyclopaedia  treated  after  the  material  method  will  be  in  a 
position  to  furnish  this.  We  must,  however,  at  least  acknow- 
ledge this  to  be  a  merit  on  the  part  of  Eothe's  Encyclopedia, 
and  must  likewise  allow  it  to  be  recognised  as  suitable  to  be 
a  guide,  in  regard  to  tlie  way  upon  which  the  theological 
beginner  has  to  go  in  his  study.  Ilofmann  and  Eothe  treat 
the  history  of  the  theological  encyclopaedia  in  a  thoroughly 
characteristic  way.  While  Hofmann  pays  no  attention  to  it 
at  all,  Eothe  comes  to  terms  with  it  on  one  side,  yet  merely 
VOL.  I.  2  b 


386  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP/EDLl. 

for  the  sake  of  tracing  descent,  without  bringing  it  into  any 
systematic  connection  with  the  whole.  And  yet  just  to  the 
originality  of  these  two  men,  the  history  might  perhaps  have 
rendered  good  service. 

That  the  distribution  of  theological  encyclopaedia  must  be 
a  distribution  of  theology  itself,  and  that  this  must  be  derived 
from  the  idea  of  theology,  as  Rothe  insists,  will  be  generally 
admitted.  And  now  since,  according  to  Rothe,  his  theology  is 
the  scientific  knowledge  of  the  evangelical  Christian  piety  and 
of  the  evangelical  Christian  Church,  for  the  purpose  of  the 
practical  guidance  of  the  latter,  theology  has  first  of  all  a 
historical  task.  For  these  two,  the  evangelical  Christian 
piety  and  the  evangelical  Christian  Church,  and,  indeed, 
Christianity  generally,  can  be  rightly  understood  only  from 
their  past  history  ;  and  only  by  means  of  this  understanding 
can  the  Church  guidance  treat  the  present  condition  of  the 
Church  as  properly  the  earnest  of  a  future  more  in  accordance 
with  its  idea.  A  historical  theology,  therefore,  in  the  widest 
sense  of  the  word,  constitutes  a  principal  division  of  theo- 
logical science.  On  purely  historical  lines,  however,  neither 
Christianity  in  general,  nor  evangelical  Christianity  in  parti- 
cular, allows  itself  to  be  perfectly  and  truly  understood.  For 
this  there  is  rather  needed  speculation,  which  has  to  form  a 
conception  of  Christianity  and  of  the  Christian  Church  out  of 
the  more  comprehensive  circle  of  the  history  of  the  world,  and 
has,  by  a  special  insight,  to  discern  the  proper  position  of  the 
Church  in  relation  to  the  other  departments  of  human  life, — 
an  insight  which  is  evidently  of  supreme  importance  for  the 
guiding  of  the  Church.  Consequently  on  its  own  account, 
and  then,  also,  for  the  sake  of  historical  theology  itself,  the 
Church  is  in  need  of  a  speculative  theology  side  by  side  with 
historical  theology.  "  In  such  a  speculative  system  proper  to 
it,  theology  is  at  once  in  possession  of  all  those  speculative 
positions  which  are  indispensable  as  doctrinal  propositions  even 
in  its  other  branches."     But  if  theology  seeks  the  scientific 


eothe's  threefold  division  of  theology.  387 

iiiulerstanding  of  the  essential  nature  of  the  evangelical  Chris- 
tian piety  and  tlie  evangelical  Christian  Church,  for  the 
purpose  of  the  guidance  of  the  Church,  it  is  yet  further 
required  of  it,  that,  by  means  of  that  institution  which  had 
been  regulated  and  organized  by  this  speculative  and  historical 
theology,  it  should  expressly  group  together  principles  for  the 
immediate  guidance  of  the  Church.  The  collective  presenta- 
tion of  those  principles  for  clerical  practice  constitutes  a  new 
and  final  principal  division  of  theological  science — practical 
theology.  It  has,  for  its  presupposition,  the  other  two 
principal  divisions,  and  so  in  succession  to  them  it  takes  the 
third  place.  Of  the  first  two,  again,  speculative  theology  has 
to  take  the  lead,  partly  because  historical  theology  itself  is  in 
need  of  a  speculative  system  in  order  to  be  able  to  complete 
itself  satisfactorily,  partly  because  it  is  just  by  means  of 
speculative  theology  that  theology  is  able  to  represent  itself 
as  an  organism  separate  and  scientifically  distinct  from  the 
great  general  organism  that  embraces  the  full  circle  of  the 
sciences.  Eothe  rejects  the  distribution  of  theology  into  four 
parts,  because  exegetical  and  so-called  systematic  theology 
are  rather  historical  branches.  With  Schleiermacher,  Rothe 
reckons  do<^matics  amoncf  the  historical  branches,  because  it 
concerns  itself  with  dogmas  as  historical  productions,  while 
he  does  not  recognise  ethics  as  a  separate  branch  distinct 
from  dogmatics.  Pp.  10-14.  It  becomes  at  once  evident 
that  this  distribution  corresponds  exactly  to  Rothe's  notion  of 
theology.  It  does  not  proceed  from  the  interests  of  the  thing 
to  be  known,  but  from  the  interests  of  the  guidance  of  the 
Church.  Scientific  knowledge  is  conceived  of  only  as  a  means 
of  Church  guidance.  This  is  true  especially  of  practical 
theology,  which,  without  being  Itound  together  with  the 
preceding  principal  divisions  by  any  inner  bond,  lays  down 
the  principles  of  clerical  practice  only  with  a  view  to  Church 
guidance,  and  must  be  reckoned  as  practical  theology  only 
in  the  narrower  sense,  since  indeed  even  the  other  two  prin- 


388  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOP.EDL\. 

cipal  parts,  speculative  and  historical  theology,  are  developed 
for  the  purpose  of  Church  guidance,  and  in  so  far  belong  also 
to  practical  theology  in  the  wider  sense.  We  are  in  complete 
agreement  in  general  with  what  Eothe  says  about  speculative 
theology.  In  this,  however,  he  oversteps  the  limits  of  his 
own  notion  of  theology.  For  while  theology,  as  understood 
by  him,  has  for  its  subject  evangelical  piety  and  the 
evangelical  Church,  a  far  more  general  subject  is  given  to 
speculative  theology,  and  in  place  of  evangelical  piety  and  the 
evangelical  Church  are  put  Christianity  and  the  Church 
generally.  But  then,  on  the  other  hand,  if  speculative  theo- 
logy is  still  to  issue  from  the  ground  of  evangelical  piety  and 
is  given  over  to  the  service  of  the  evangelical  Church,  theology 
remains,  in  spite  of  its  speculative  system,  a  confessional 
theology,  and  it  is  not  to  be  imagined,  even  should  it  be 
justified  as  such,  that  it  should  receive,  in  the  complete 
organism  of  the  science,  the  place  of  a  scientifically  separate 
and  distinct  organism.  Especially  objectionable  is  it,  w^hen 
Rothe  insists  upon  placing  speculative  theology  at  the  head  of 
the  theological  sciences.  When  he  says  that  history,  con- 
sidered apart  by  itself,  and  therefore  also  Christianity,  and 
especially  evangelical  Christianity,  can  only  be  understood 
perfectly  and  truly  by  the  help  of  speculation,  no  objection 
can  be  taken  to  this,  if  only  the  statement  be  applied  to  the 
essentially  ideal  content  of  the  historical  element  in  Chris- 
tianity ;  but  we  must  repudiate  it  entirely,  w^hen  it  is  applied 
to  the  historical  reality,  as  with  liothe  is  the  case,  since  he 
places  speculative  theology  in  front  of  historical  theology,  and 
makes  the  understanding  of  the  historical  object  of  the  latter 
dependent  upon  the  speculative  theology  which  had  been 
treated  before  it.  On  the  contrary,  it  has  to  be  maintained 
that  everything  historical,  therefore  also  the  historical  element 
in  theology,  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  history  of  the  Church, 
must  be  understood  in  its  objective  actuality  according  to 
principles  which  are  applicable   to  every   kind   of  historical 


CRITICISM  OF  ROTHES  DISTRIBUTION.  380 

composition,  that  is,  according  to  the  principles  of  historical 
criticism.  Only  when  this  has  been  done  will  speculative 
theology  be  allowed  to  make  its  appearance,  in  order  that  it 
may  subject  to  its  criticism  the  historically  admitted  material, 
and  examine  into  its  ideal  contents.  Should  the  inverse 
order  of  procedure  be  taken,  and  the  speculative  system  be 
made  the  presupposition  of  historical  investigation,  then  will 
the  suspicion  be  aroused  a  ijriori,  that  the  apprehension  of  the 
liistorical  facts  has  been  influenced  by  the  ideas  of  the 
speculative  system,  and  indeed,  as  with  Eothe,  by  the  ideas  of 
a  specifically  evangelical  speculative  system.  Hence  also 
against  Eothe,  we  must  maintain  that,  generally,  historical 
theology  is  to  be  placed  at  the  head,  without  here  entering 
further  upon  the  grounds  on  which  the  separation  of  exegetical 
theology  from  Church  history  may  be  justified,  and  that 
speculative  theology  must  have  a  place  assigned  to  it  after 
that  of  historical  theology.  In  addition  to  this,  even  Eothe 
himself  cannot  deny  that  his  encyclopaedic  distribution  of  the 
principal  parts  of  theology  is  unsuitable  from  the  methodo- 
logical point  of  view.  While  encyclopiedically  speculative 
theology  is  placed  at  the  head,  yet  the  beginning  of  the 
tlieological  course  of  study  is  not  to  be  made  with  it,  but 
rather  speculative  and  historical  theology  are  to  be  begun  and 
pursued  together.  Even  this,  however,  according  to  the 
signification  which  Eothe  attaches  to  speculative  theology, 
lias  its  disadvantages ;  for  if,  without  the  help  of  speculation, 
the  historical  cannot  rightly  be  understood,  then,  to  the 
student  who  should  pursue  the  study  of  speculative  and 
historical  theology  together,  there  would,  for  the  first  while  at 
least,  be  wanting  an  indispensable  auxiliary  to  the  study  of 
the  latter.  But  it  is  most  surprising  of  all  to  find  that  the 
study  of  speculative  theology  is  left  entirely  to  the  inclination 
of  the  student,  for  at  p.  13  it  is  expressly  demanded  of 
him  that,  if  no  speculative  need  arises  to  him,  he  should  in 
general  not  trouble  himself  with  speculative   theology.      Now 


390  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.^DIA. 

surely,  if  with  Eothe  speculative  theology  is  to  be  reckoned  a 
principal  division  of  theological  science,  if  its  propositions  are 
indispensable  for  the  other  theological  branches,  and  are  of  the 
highest  importance,  especially  for  the  guidance  of  the  Church, 
a  student,  who  would  not  concern  himself  about  it  at  all, 
would  not  be  able  to  pursue  in  a  proper  manner  the  study  of 
the  other  theological  departments,  and  so,  in  spite  of  his  course 
of  study,  would  be  at  once  a  poor  theologian  and  unqualified 
for  the  guiding  of  the  Church.  Therefore,  according  to 
Eothe's  own  conception,  only  the  alternative  is  placed  before 
him,  either  to  study  speculative  theology,  even  apart  from  the 
other  theological  branches,  or,  if  he  feels  in  himself  no  inclina- 
tion for  this,  to  abandon  theological  study  altogether. 

Speculative  theology,  with  which  Eothe,  as  has  been  shown, 
begins  his  theological  system,  is  distinguished  by  him  from 
the  speculative  theology  of  the  philosophical  system.  In  the 
philosophical  system,  that  is  called  speculative  theology  which 
has  God  for  its  object ;  but  in  the  theological  system,  the 
name  speculative  theology  is  given  without  reference  to  its 
object,  only  in  respect  of  its  scientific  form,  inasmuch,  that  is  to 
say,  as  it  is  essentially  speculative  thinking.  But  speculative 
thinking,  in  distinction  from  empirically  reflective  thinking, 
generates  its  thoughts  out  of  itself  without  reference  to  any 
given  actuality,  and  developes  it  by  means  of  a  dialectical  pro- 
cedure into  a  system  of  thought  complete  in  itself.  "  No  other 
material  than  that  which  is  self-produced,  not  even  an  ideal 
received  from  without,  from  its  own  thoughts  (for  that  would 
be  largely  empirical),  is  to  be  given  to  speculation  to  work 
upon,"  p.  17.  It  has  for  its  presupposition  only  the  primary 
fact  of  the  human  thinking  itself,  therefore  the  thinking 
consciousness  as  it  is  simply  the  consciousness  of  itself,  of 
the  thinking  itself,  the  thinking  consciousness  as  pure  self- 
consciousness,  as  the  pure  Ego.  First,  when  speculative 
thinking  has  completed  its  system  from  thoughts  produced 
a  priori,  does  it  turn  itself  to  the  empirically  given  reality  in 


SPECULATION  AND  THE  EMPIRICAL  PEALITY.  391 

order,  by  means  of  comparison  with  this  reality,  to  prove  the 
correctness  of  its  system  of  thought.  It  is  then  required  that 
it  should  in  a  moment  relentlessly  dash  in  pieces  that  edifice 
of  ideas  which  it  had  laboriously  constructed,  as  soon  as  it 
has  become  convinced  of  an  actual  contradiction  between  it 
and  the  realities  of  experience,  and  that  it  should  then  anew, 
abstracting  itself  from  everything  empirical,  begin  its  a  'priori 
method,  until  finally  the  speculative  system  is  brought  into 
harmony  with  the  realities  of  experience,  pp.  15-18.  The 
relation  into  which  speculation  is  here  finally  brought  with 
empirical  reality  is  surprising.  We  have  no  objection  to 
make  against  the  characterization  by  Eothe  of  speculative 
thinking;  but  when  this  empirical  reality,  all  given  from 
without,  from  which,  during  the  upbuilding  of  its  system, 
speculation  keeps  itself  quite  aloof,  is  made  the  touchstone, 
by  means  of  which  the  correctness  of  the  system  has  to  be 
proved,  and  the  speculative  thinker  is  compelled  to  continue 
at  his  systematic  building  until  it  is  brought  into  agreement 
with  reality,  then  will  the  empiricism,  from  which  during  his 
speculative  labour  he  is  to  hold  himself  aloof,  be  raised  into  a 
power  that  determines  and  controls  his  speculative  system. 
In  opposition  to  this  we  must  place  ourselves  at  the  stand- 
point of  Koheleth,  and  ask.  For  what  end  is  all  this  speculat- 
ing ?  In  so  far  as  no  error  is  pointed  out  to  the  speculative 
thinker  in  respect  of  objective  reality,  he  will  be  able  to  allow 
the  criticism  and  correction  of  his  system  rather  only  to 
continued  speculative  thinking.  Theological  speculation  is 
therefore  so  called  only  on  account  of  the  speculative  thinking 
that  characterises  it.  Now  says  Eothe  further  at  p.  18  f., 
"  For  the  religious  man  there  is  present  along  with  pure 
self-consciousness  likewise  a  consciousness  of  God,  at  least 
in  its  immediate  form  as  a  feeling  of  God  :  for  him,  there- 
fore, the  primary  fact,  upon  which  speculation  is  exercised, 
has  essentially  two  sides  ;  it  is  on  the  one  hand  pure  self- 
consciousness,  on  the   other   hand   consciousness  of    God,  so 


3^92  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

that  there  is  for  him  a  double  speculation,  the  one  begin- 
ning from  the  speculative  consciousness,  as  self-consciousness, 
the  other  beginning  from  the  speculative  consciousness,  as 
consciousness  of  God  :  the  former  is  the  philosophical,  the 
latter  the  theological,  speculation.  Roth  of  these,  each  from 
its  own  special  point  of  view  in  reference  to  the  primary 
fact,  construe  the  entire  reality  in  a  manner  purely  a  irriori ; 
but,  while  philosophical  speculation  thinks  and  conceives 
of  this  fact  by  means  of  the  idea  of  the  Ego,  the  theological 
speculation  does  this  by  means  of  the  idea  of  God."  That  for 
the  pious  man  his  consciousness  of  God  is  immediately  and 
absolutely  a  certainty  of  God,  is  an  indisputable  fact  ;  but  it 
cannot  be  said  that  this  consciousness  of  God  is  only  the  other 
side  of  the  speculative  self-consciousness.  Eather  the  former 
is  a  different  consciousness  altogether  from  the  latter.  Both 
may  be  primary  facts  of  consciousness,  but,  for  speculative 
thinking,  the  consciousness  of  God  is  something  lighted  upon 
by  it,  something  given  it,  if  not  from  without  yet  from  within, 
something  empirical,  so  that  the  pious  man  if  he  proceeds 
from  the  certainty  of  his  consciousness  of  God  as  a  speculative 
thinker,  is  not  practising  speculative  thinking  in  the  exact 
sense  of  the  word,  as  it  has  been  defined  by  Eothe,  but  is  only 
applying  speculative  thinking  to  that  consciousness  of  God 
which  has  been  empirically  lighted  upon  by  him,  and  thus  it 
can  be  understood  in  this  sense  only  of  theological  speculation. 
It  is  not  even  allowable  to  say,  that  while  theological  specu- 
lation proceeds  from  this  consciousness  of  God,  philosophical 
speculation  must  proceed  from  the  consciousness  of  the  Ego. 
Philosophical  speculation  also  can  proceed  from  the  conscious- 
ness of  God  ;  as  indeed  is  shown  in  the  case  of  the  Catholic 
philosopher  Glinther,  who  proceeds  from  the  three  factors  of 
consciousness — the  consciousness  of  self,  of  the  world,  and  of 
God.  And  hence  philosophical  and  theological  speculation 
are  essentially  distinguislied  the  one  from  the  other,  not 
necessarily  by  means    of    the    difference    of   their    starting- 


THEOLOGICAL  AND  PHILOSOPHICAL  SPECULATION.  393 

point,  but  rather  Ly  means  of  the  difference  of  their 
relation  to  this  starting  -  point.  For  the  philosopher  the 
consciousness  of  God,  if  he  starts  from  it,  can  only  be 
something  empirically  given,  and  only  if  he  be  able  to 
ground  it  speculatively,  that  is,  A  priori,  will  he  feel  him- 
self obliged  to  take  notice  of  it,  while  also  he  must 
beforehand  claim  the  liberty  of  setting  in  the  place  of  all 
historically  given  forms  of  the  consciousness  of  God  some 
other  form  of  it,  or  even  of  repudiating  the  consciousness  of 
God  itself.  The  theologian,  on  the  contrary,  proceeds  from 
the  immediate  certainty  of  the  consciousness  of  God  which 
forms  part  of  his  own  personal  experience.  The  most  inward 
spiritual  participation  in  this  consciousness  of  God  is  the 
presupposition  of  his  whole  theological  system.  Since,  however, 
that  immediate  consciousness  of  God  of  the  pious  man  will 
be  always  to  some  extent  historically  determined.  Christian 
theology,  in  so  far  as  it  has  for  its  presupposition  the  Chris- 
tianly  determined  consciousness  of  God,  although  formally  it 
even  represents  itself  as  speculative,  is  nevertheless  according 
to  its  essence  an  experimental  science,  that  is,  a  positive 
science.  As  speculative  theology  it  will  likewise,  as  well  as 
philosophical  speculation,  have  to  be  grounded  upon  the 
consciousness  of  God,  and  especially  upon  the  Christian 
speculative  consciousness  ;  but  if  it  would  proceed  further, 
and  set  in  the  place  of  this  another  form  of  the  consciousness 
of  God,  or  deny  the  consciousness  of  God  altogether,  it  would 
overtvirn  itself  as  theology  completely,  and  pass  over  into 
the  philosophical  domain.  Accordingly  we  are  heartily 
agreed  with  that  which  Eothe,  at  p.  19,  says  of  the  relation  of 
theological  speculation  to  piety,  that  the  former  is  not  a 
condition  of  personal  certainty  of  the  latter,  but  that  piety  is 
in  need  of  speculation  "  in  order  truly  to  understand  itself, 
and  in  order  that  piety  should  be  complete  too  on  the 
side  of  the  understanding,  of  the  apprehensive  thinking." 
And  here,  too,  we  call  attention  to    this,  that,  while  Rothe 


394  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP^-DL\. 

in  the  introduction  derives  theology  from  the  need  of 
Church  guidance,  here  he  cannot  help  acknowledging  the 
true  motive  of  theology,  since  he  derives  speculative  theo- 
logy, which  we  at  least  cannot  separate  from  the  theological 
system,  from  the  immediate  interest  of  piety  itself  : — "  to 
know  distinctly  everything  that  it  possesses,  the  endlessly 
rich  treasure  of  which  lies  shut  up  in  the  still  undiscovered 
fulness  of  the  pious  feeling,  which  for  immediate  needs  is 
superfluous."  Further,  speculative  theology  is  according  to 
Eothe  simply  a  theology  for  the  individual,  inasmuch  as  its 
starting-point  is  the  individual  pious  consciousness  of  the  one 
engaged  in  tlie  speculation.  Hence  also  there  must  be, 
according  to  him,  within  the  limits  of  Christianity,  an  essen- 
tially different  speculative  theology  for  every  separate  Church 
communion,  since  it  is  presupposed  "  that  confessional  differ- 
ences rest  upon  essentially  individualistic  modifications  of  the 
"universal  Christian  pious  consciousness."  Eothe,  as  a  member 
of  the  communion  of  the  evangelical  Church,  starts,  therefore, 
in  his  theological  speculation  from  the  evangelical  pious  con- 
sciousness. To  develop,  with  a  precision  corresponding  to  that 
of  the  theologian,  this  consciousness,  which  already  is  in  some 
measure  scientifically  developed  and  formed,  by  means  of 
dialectical  labour,  into  an  actual  idea  of  God,  is  the  task 
of  evangelical  theological  speculation,  p.  23  f.  In  point  of 
authority,  however,  evangelical  pious  feeling  occupies  a 
position  superior  to  this  speculation,  even  although  that 
feeling  be  not  accompanied  by  those  religious  notions  b}' 
wdiich,  in  the  communion  to  which  it  belongs,  it  is  surrounded  ; 
tliat  pious  feeling  must  still  be  kept  uninjured  by  speculation. 
Speculation  during  its  speculative  activity  must  not  be 
influenced  by  any  reference  to  pious  feeling  ;  but  when  the 
immediate  religious  consciousness,  from  which  it  proceeds, 
does  not  find  itself  again  in  the  speculative  system,  then 
simply  the  system  does  not  stand  the  test  of  pious  feeling, 
and  so  speculative  theology  should  regard  this  as  a  proof  that 


SPECULATIVE  THEOLOGY  NECESSARILY  HETEItODOX.         395 

it  has  failed  in  its  speculative  labours,  and  should  just  as 
little  hesitate,  as  philosophical  speculation  would,  in  sucli 
circumstances  of  contradiction  to  realit}-,  to  demolish  at  once 
its  theological  system.  Then  again,  over  against  evangelical 
theological  speculation,  with  unconditional  authority,  stands 
Holy  Scripture,  with  this  one  limitation,  however,  that  it  is 
not  a  mere  notional  or  attained  theological  conception  of  the 
Christian  pious  consciousness  in  regard  to  Holy  Scripture,  but 
simply  the  religious  contents  of  that  Scripture  itself  that  come 
into  view.  An  actual  contradiction  between  speculative 
theology  and  Scripture  in  this  sense  must  be  a  certain  proof 
to  the  speculative  theologian  that  he  has  been  following  a 
course  of  false  speculation,  and  should  determine  him  un- 
hesitatingly to  condemn  his  speculative  system.  During  its 
speculative  procedure,  however,  this  theology  has  to  keep 
itself  altogether  independent  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  to 
acknowledge  no  other  authority  than  that  of  logic  and 
dialectic.  Only  after  it  has,  in  such  thoroughgoing  indepen- 
dence, finished  its  work,  may  it  place  itself  before  the 
judgment-seat  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  submit  itself  to  its 
judgment.  On  the  other  hand,  evangelical  speculative  theo- 
logy is  not  bound  to  the  dogmas  of  its  Church,  for  it  knows 
itself  to  be  of  equal  birth  with  these,  and  sets  itself  the  task 
of  more  thoroughly  elaborating  them.  Speculative  theology 
must  necessarily  be  heterodox,  but  in  the  good  sense  of  the 
term,  for  by  means  of  its  conclusions  it  carries  the  dogmas 
of  the  Church  on  to  completion.  And  thus,  in  the  specula- 
tive conclusions,  the  particular  pious  consciousness  receives 
the  word  in  which  it  finds  its  own  notional  representation 
pure  and  entire,  and  now  first  truly  understands  itself ;  from 
all  which,  too,  it  follows  as  a  consequence,  that  "  the  charac- 
teristic and  fundamental  pious  feeling  of  a  particular  Church 
sect,  when  it  perceives  itself  in  the  glass  of  the  pure  idea, 
bursts  forth  into  a  characteristic  new  form,  and  constructs  for 
itself,  in   accordance   with  its  reality,  a   new  world  in  place 


396  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDIA. 

of  the  former,   which   has    now   become    unsuitable   for  it," 
p.  19  ff. 

It  is  quite  easy  to  understand  how  liothe  arrived  at  the 
course  of  thought  now  indicated.  It  rests  entirely  upon  the 
foundations  which  he  gave  to  his  theological  system :  but  just 
for  this  very  reason  we  cannot  help  putting  ourselves  for  the 
most  part  in  opposition  to  it.  No  doubt  the  individual  con- 
sciousness of  God  of  the  theologian,  in  so  far  as  he  belongs  to 
a  particular  Church  communion,  will  always  bear  upon  it  the 
definite  characteristics  of  a  particular  division  of  the  Church, 
but  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  speculative  theology  will 
always  be  attached  to  a  particular  section  of  the  Church,  and 
that  there  must  be  as  many  speculative  theologies  as  there  are 
Christian  Churches.  If  this  consequence  be  admitted,  then  this 
is  to  degrade  theology  to  a  mere  theology  of  the  Churches. 
His  own  definite  pious  consciousness  in  agreement  with  his  own 
particular  Church  may  and  should  be  the  subjective  motive 
to  the  theologian,  which  prompts  him  in  his  theological  work, 
but  he  ought  not  to  make  this  the  basis  and  object  of  his 
theological  system.  Should  he  take  for  granted  that  his 
individual  pious  consciousness  is  the  perfect  reflex  of  the 
pious  consciousness  of  that  communion  of  the  Church  to 
which  he  belongs,  he  would,  by  this  proceeding  of  his,  just 
biing  this  about,  that  while,  perhaps,  he  himself  and  his 
fellow-members  would  find  perfect  satisfaction  for  themselves 
in  his  theological  system,  an  objectively  valid,  truly  scientific 
result  could  not  in  this  way  be  reached.  The  theologies  of 
different  Churches  would  stand  over  against  one  another  equally 
valid,  and  each  one  would  be  entitled  to  employ  against  the 
other  its  own  subjective  Church  character.  Hence  we  must 
rather  demand  of  the  theologian,  so  soon  as  he  begins  his 
speculative  activity,  that  he  divest  himself  of  his  individuality 
as  a  member  of  a  particular  Church,  and  instead  of  the 
subjective  churchly,  make  the  objectively  Christian,  con- 
sciousness of  God  the  basis  and  object  of  his  speculation,  in 


THE  SPECULATIVE  SYSTEM  BEOADLY  CHKISTIAX.  397 

order  that  he  may  create  a  system  which  may  be  able  to 
bring  under  the  range  of  its  criticism  the  pious  consciousness 
of  the  theologian  himself,  and  of  his  own  Church  as  well  as 
of  other  Churches.  The  subjective  evangelical  tendency  in 
Iiothe  shows  itself  in  the  authorities — churchly  piety  and 
Holy  Scripture — which  he  places  over  against  his  speculative 
theology,  as  well  as  in  the  relationship  into  which  he  brings 
his  speculation  with  the  dogmas  of  the  evangelical  Church. 
The  speculative  theology  of  another  Church  would  not  be 
bound  to  acknowledge  these  authorities  ;  and  even  the  state- 
ment that  speculative  theology  must  be  heterodox,  can  only 
be  true  of  the  evangelical  Church,  while  the  speculative 
theology  of  another  Church,  which  relates  itself  otherwise  to 
its  Church  dogmas,  may  be  a  thoroughly  orthodox  one.  If, 
with  Rothe,  we  take  the  evangelical  standpoint,  then,  if  a 
judicial  sentence  upon  speculative  theology  is  to  be  delivered 
by  evangelical  i)iety,  we  can  only  repeat  what  we  had 
already  to  say  of  philosophical  speculation  in  its  relation  to 
empirical  reality.  But  besides  this,  it  would  be  difficult  to 
determine  the  standard  according  to  which  piety  would 
have  to  measure  speculation.  Iiothe,  indeed,  brings  forward 
restrictions,  but  still  it  must  be  defined  in  some  way  as 
evangelical  piety,  and  it  is  a  question  wdiether  it  would 
acknowledge  the  restrictions  which  are  proposed  by  Iiothe : 
and  if  not,  how  then  should  the  conflict  between  the  two 
be  settled  ?  But  in  the  event  of  evangelical  piety  not  find- 
ing itself  again  in  speculative  theology,  there  would  be  always 
the  possibility  of  speculation  bringing  itself  into  harmony 
with  Christian  piety,  and  in  view  of  this,  too,  the  evangelical 
piety  would  have  to  renounce  its  exclusiveness,  so  that  the 
relationship  between  piety  and  speculation  would  be  the 
reverse  of  that  required  by  Eothe.  And  yet  again,  we  cannot 
understand  that  laid  down  by  Eothe  as  a  possibility,  that 
evangelical  piety,  if  its  idea  were  set  forth  before  it  by  specula- 
tion as  in  a  glass,  would  be  thereby,  as  it  were,  driven  out  of 


39  8  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPiEDlA. 

itself,  since  in  this  case  piety,  in  consequence  of  the  authority 
that  has  been  assigned  it,  would  much  rather  be  in  a  position 
to  drive  speculation  out  of  the  evangelical  Church.  Eothe 
also  minimizes  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture  by  manifold 
restrictions.  But  how  does  speculative  theology  get  the  right 
to  apply  these  restrictions  ?  Should  so  important  a  question 
as  that  about  the  significance  of  Holy  Scripture  for  specula- 
tive theology  be  decided  d  priori  ?  We  believe  rather  that 
speculative  theology  can  reach  a  well-grounded  judgment  on 
this  question  only  by  means  of  a  purely  historical  considera- 
tion of  Holy  Scripture  previously  given.  Only  when  a 
historical  insight  into  the  contents  and  form,  into  the  whole 
essential  character  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  has  been  gained,  will 
speculative  theology  be  able  to  decide  whether  generally,  and 
how  far,  and  how  far  not,  it  has  to  regard  Holy  Scripture  as 
an  authority.  The  same,  too,  is  made  apparent  from  the 
attitude  of  conflict  or  contradiction  assumed  by  evangelical 
speculative  theology  in  reference  to  the  dogmas  of  its  own 
Church,  inasmuch  as  they  are  not  regarded  by  it  as  an 
authority.  Then  next,  it  will  not  be  sufficient  to  define  its 
relations  to  the  dogmas  of  its  own  Church;  its  relations  also 
to  the  dogmas  of  other  Churches  will  require  to  be  determined. 
This  important  question,  too,  as  to  the  place  which  speculative 
theology  may  assume  toward  the  Church  dogmas,  whether 
generally,  or  if  not,  then  to  what  extent,  they  have  a  value 
for  speculative  theology,  is  not  to  be  answered  a  2'>nori,  but 
only  on  the  ground  of  a  historical  consideration  of  the  entire 
development  of  the  history  of  dogmas.  What  Eothe  says  of 
the  attitude  of  evangelical  speculative  theology  toward  Holy 
Scripture  and  dogmas  rests  upon  mere  evangelical  Church 
presuppositions,  and  ought  first  to  be  historically  grounded. 
Finally,  I  regard  as  impracticable  Eothe's  demand  that  the 
speculative  theologian  should  allow,  neither  to  evangelical 
piety  nor  to  Holy  Scripture,  any  influence  over  his  speculative 
operation.       Eothe's  speculative   theology   does   not  proceed, 


EOTHE'S  PAETITIOX  of  SrECULATIVE  THEOLOGY.  399 

according  to  what  lias  been  said,  from  the  consciousness  of  God 
in  general,  but  from  the  evangelical  consciousness  of  God.  In 
the  formal  disposition  of  his  Encyclopjcdia,  IJotlie  does  not  tell 
us,  nor  does  he  require  to  tell,  wherein  the  evangelical  con- 
sciousness of  God  is  distinguished  from  another  form  of  that 
consciousness  ;  but  if  it  constitutes  the  starting-point  of  specu- 
lative theology,  then  this  theology  must  be  determined  in  its 
entire  systematic  structure  by  evangelical  piety ;  but  when 
Rothe  himself  says,  that  only  the  theologian  in  some  degree 
already  cultured  can  enter  upon  the  investigations  of  specula- 
tive theology,  then  there  must  be  attributed  to  him  a  scarcely 
attainable  resignation,  if  his  pious  consciousness  and  his  con- 
sciousness formed  upon  the  Scripture  are  to  be  kept  perfectly 
silent  during  his  speculative  activity,  and  are  to  follow  only 
the  commands  of  logic  and  dialectic. 

By  means  of  all  the  above  quoted  statements  of  Eothe  we 
shall  be  strengthened  in  the  conviction,  that  theology  will 
have  to  abandon  the  standpoint  peculiar  to  a  sj)ecial  Churcli, 
and,  if  it  is  to  become  a  science  of  equal  standing  with  the 
other  sciences,  must  place  itself  at  a  universally  Christian 
standpoint ;  that  therefore  for  this  reason,  and  in  order  to 
win  for  its  whole  scientific  activity  an  objective  basis,  it 
must  start  from  Holy  Scripture  and  lean  upon  the  history 
of  the  Christian  consciousness ;  and  that,  therefore,  exege- 
tical  theology  and  Church  history  must  precede  speculative 
theology. 

Eothe  divides  his  speculative  theology  into  two  principal 
parts :  (a)  Theology  (in  the  narrow  sense),  and  (h)  Cosmology, 
which  again  falls  into  two  divisions — (1)  Physics,  (2)  Ethics. 
Dogmatics  he  separates  from  speculative  theology,  and  places 
it,  after  the  example  of  Schleiermacher,  among  the  branches 
uf  historical  theology,  p.  26.  We  regard  this  separation  as 
altogether  erroneous  and  quite  inadmissible.  When  Eothe 
himself  says,  p.  24,  that  the  need  of  a  speculative  theology 
makes   its  appearance   first   in    a   Church,  when  the  thinking 


400  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOPyEDLA.. 

members  of  the  Churcli  no  longer  find  their  satisfaction  in 
the  dogmas  and  dogmatics,  and  that  speculative  theology  has 
then  to  secure  to  them  this  satisfaction,  for  what  reason  then, 
we  must  ask,  should  dogmatics  be  at  all  regarded  as  a  branch 
of  historical  theology  ?  Has  it  to  proceed  at  all  otherwise 
than  speculative  theology  ?  Are  the  dogmas,  to  which 
speculative  theology  does  not  regard  itself  as  bound,  to  be 
still  further  conserved,  while  already  the  consciousness  of 
the  thinking  Church  member  has  passed  beyond  them  ? 
And  where  are  the  limits  between  thinking  and  non- 
thinking Church  members  to  be  fixed  ?  But,  according 
to  Kothe,  dogmatics  should  be  distinguished  from  specula- 
tive theology  as  a  historical  branch  of  study,  because  in 
the  dogmas  it  has  a  historical  object  empirically  given  it, 
p.  28.  Speculative  theology  itself,  however,  which  indeed, 
according  to  Eothe,  should  always  start  from  the  pious 
consciousness  of  a  particular  Church,  comes  upon  this  very 
consciousness  as  a  historical  object  given  to  it.  Dogmatics, 
as  further  distinguished  from  speculative  theology,  is  to  have 
a  thoroughly  ecclesiastical  character,  p.  23f. ;  but  would  not 
such  a  description  be  applicable  rather  to  speculative  theology 
because  of  its  starting-point  ?  These  grounds,  therefore,  are 
not  sufficient  in  order  to  justify  this  separation.  And  if  we 
go  beyond  the  formal  encyclopaedia,  Eothe,  in  his  Uthics,  vol.  i. 
§  17,  sets  this  forth  as  the  most  elementary  thought  of  the 
empirical  evangelical  apprehension  of  God  :  "  God  is  the 
Absolute,"  and  regards  this  thought  as  the  starting-point  of 
evangelical  speculative  theology.  It  fares  with  this  as  with 
many  pictures,  the  subject  of  which  cannot  be  understood 
without  the  inscription.  The  thought,  God  is  the  Absolute, 
does  not  once  touch  what  is  specific  and  characteristic  in  the 
general  Christian  apprehension  of  God ;  it  omits  altogether 
what  is  peculiar  to  the  evangelical  apprehension  of  God. 
However,  passing  from  this,  speculative  theology,  which, 
according  to  Eothe,  ought  to  elevate  the  pious  consciousness 


ROTHE'S  idea  of  SrECULATIVE  THEOLOGY.  401 

of  a  particular  Churcli  to  the  rank  of  a  scientific  notion,  must 
in  any  case  take  for  its  starting-point  the  full  contents  of  the 
pious    consciousness    of   that    particular    Church.       But    the 
thought  of  God  is  only  one  side  of  the  pious  consciousness, 
and  does  not  of  itself  make  that  consciousness  pious ;  but  that 
which  is  essential  to  render  this  consciousness  pious  is  the 
living  connection  between  the  man  and  his  thought  of  God, 
or  his  apprehension  of  God.      Now,  speculative  theology,  if  it 
is  to  maintain  its  scientific  significance,  has  to  represent  itself 
not  only  as  a  theology  of  a  particular  Church,  but  as  Christian 
speculative  theology ;  and  so  it  must  take  for  its  object  the 
specifically  Christian  pious  consciousness,  that  is  to  say,  the 
essence  of  Christianity,  or  the  idea  of  the  pious  consciousness, 
as  it  has  been  revealed  in  Christ.      How,  then,  does  specula- 
tive  theology   relate    itself   to    the   dogmas  of  the   Church  ? 
Piothe    quite    rightly    maintains    its    independence    of   these 
dogmas,  and  that  indeed  for  this  reason,  that  it  knows  itself 
to  be  of  equal  birth  with  these.      This,  however,  can  be  said 
only  because  it  has  not  regarded  the  dogmas  as  an  emanation 
from  a  high  superhuman  authority,  but  simply  as  products  of 
the  thinking  Christian  spirit,  just  as  speculative  theology  is 
itself  such  a  product.      So  also  Eothe  sees  in  the  construction 
of    Church   doctrine    the    elevation    of  the   particular    pious 
consciousness   of  the    Christian   communion   to   the   rank  of 
perfectly  clear  thought,  p.  78.      But  now,  if  this  is  so,  then 
we   have   to    trace    back    the    complex   of  dogmas,   be    they 
dogmas  of  the  Church  or  not,  to  the  same  motive  and  the 
same  tendency,  out  of  which,  according  to  Eothe,  speculative 
theology  proceeds,  and  to  regard  this  body  of  dogmas  as  a 
great  historical  work  of  the  Christian  spirit  preparatory  to 
speculative   theology.      Is   this   speculative   theology   now   to 
pass  by  these  dogmas,  ignoring  them,  and  beginning  the  work, 
so  to  say,  from  the  first  ?     Eothe  indeed  assigns  to  specula- 
tive theology  the  task  of  developing  the  contents  of  the  pious 
consciousness  in  its  entire  fulness  purely  from  the  thought  of 
VOL.  I.  2  c 


402  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

God.  If  the  speculative  theologian  thinks  that  he  is  able  to 
accomplish  this,  we  at  least,  besides  all  else  that  may  be  said 
against  it,  regard  it  as  a  pure  illusion.  Whoever  goes  through 
Eothe's  speculative  theology  will  easily  notice  that  even 
Rothe,  however  much  he  guards  against  it,  does  allow 
himself  to  be  determined  during  liis  speculative  operation, 
both  by  the  interests  of  the  pious  consciousness,  and  by 
references  to  Scripture  and  the  doctriue  of  the  Church.  We 
must  rather  demand  that  speculative  theology  shall  draw  the 
full  round  of  historical  dogmas  into  the  range  of  its  specula- 
tive activity,  that  it  shall  subject  these  to  its  criticism  on  the 
ground  of  the  idea  of  the  Christian  pious  consciousness,  by 
means  of  logic  and  dialectic  establish  the  truth  which  they 
contain,  or  in  this  way  contribute  to  a  scientific  proof  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity.  We  regard  it,  therefore,  as  wholly 
inadmissible  that,  besides  speculative  theology,  a  separate 
dogmatics  should  be  recognised,  for  in  our  view  the  two 
should  be  treated  as  one.  Eothe,  indeed,  although  he 
separates  the  one  from  the  other,  brings  them  into  a  certain 
relation  to  each  other;  but  just  against  this  we  must  make 
objection,  since  the  serious  disadvantages  thereof  can  scarcely 
fail  to  appear.  Only  witli  the  help  of  speculation  (see  page  28) 
will  dogmatics  be  able  to  accomplish  its  task,  in  comprehend- 
ing in  their  relation  to  one  another  the  Church  dogmas, 
which  were  given  originally  without  any  interconnection,  that 
is,  in  grouping  them  together  scientifically  in  the  unity  of  a 
dogmatic  system  complete  in  itself.  Speculative  theology, 
therefore,  is  only  to  help  dogmatics  to  a  formal  systematic,  as 
it  is  expressly  said  on  page  107,  that  "Speculation  is  the 
fully  authorized  judge  of  dogmas  on  their  formal  side."  While 
the  right  of  speculative  theology  in  its  perfect  freedom  in 
regard  to  the  dogmas  of  the  Church  to  be  heterodox  is  main- 
tained, in  dogmatics  only  a  formal  application  of  speculative 
thinking  to  the  dogmas  of  the  Church  can  be  made,  and  so  its 
contents   cannot   be    touched    by   speculation.     On    account, 


OBJECTION  TO  KOTHE'S  IDEA  OF  DOGMATICS.  403 

liowever,  of  this  relationsliip,  a  conflict  between  the  two  can 
scarcely  be  avoided ;  for  speculative  theology,  so  long  as  it 
will  be  speculative  theology,  cannot  place  itself  under  the 
authority  of  the  Church  dogma,  and  Church  dogmatics,  so 
long  as  it  will  be  Church  dogmatics,  cannot  allow  itself  to  be 
infected  by  the  heterodoxy  of  speculative  theology.  But  the 
actual  conflict,  leaving  out  of  account  the  scientific  rupture  in 
the  theological  system  itself,  must  be  peculiarly  fatal  to  the 
realization  of  that  practical  purpose  to  which  Eothe  subordi- 
nates theology.  For  the  question  simply  comes  to  be  this 
in  regard  to  the  guidance  of  the  Church,  Is  it  to  allow  itself 
to  be  guided  in  its  practical  tasks  by  heterodox  speculative 
theology  or  by  orthodox  dogmatics  ?  And  is  the  student  of 
theology,  who  is  to  be  by  and  by  the  minister  of  the  Church, 
to  be  theologically  educated  alike  heterodoxly  and  orthodoxly  ? 
But  now  if  still,  as  said  on  page  112,  even  dogmatics  will 
admit  heterodoxy,  that  limitation  of  dogmatics  to  a  mere 
formal  criticism  seems  to  be  removed,  and  even  a  material 
criticism  to  be  allowed  it,  so  that  it  no  longer  appears  why  a 
separation  should  be  insisted  upon  by  Eothe  between  specula- 
tive theology  and  dogmatics.  That  dogmatics,  as  Eothe 
defines  it,  is  the  science  of  Church  dogmas,  that  without 
dogmas  there  can  be  no  dogmatics  (see  page  28),  that  the 
dogmatic  treatment  of  Church  doctrine  is  not  possible  without 
a  personal  conviction  of  the  truth  of  that  doctrine  (see 
page  114),  are  propositions  which  we  regard  as  altogether 
unfounded,  and  which  even  by  Eothe  himself  have  in  part 
been  abandoned.  (Compare  p.  109  and  p.  24.)  We  there- 
fore put  in  place  of  Eothe's  speculative  theology  and  his 
dogmatics  the  customary  systematic  theology,  with  its  two 
principal  divisions,  dogmatics  and  ethics,  and  assign  to  both 
together  the  same  task  which  Eothe  assigns  to  the  speculative 
theology.  We,  however,  require  for  both,  as  a  foundation,  the 
doctrine  laid  down  in  Scripture,  and  the  whole  material  of 
the  history  of  dogmas ;  so  that  the  doctrine  which  in  history 


404  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

survives  the  application  of  the  formal  and  material  specula- 
tive   criticism     is    placed     under    dogmatics,    and    Christian 
thinking  must  resolve  to  abandon  doctrines  the  untenableness 
of  which  is  proved  by  criticism.      Not  the  first  place  in  tlie 
theological    system,    but   rather   the   third,   can   therefore   be 
given   to    speculative   or   systematic    theology.       We    cannot 
make    the    sciences    of    Scripture    and    of    Church     history 
dependent  upon  speculative  theology,  but   we  raise  these  to 
their   position   of  scientific   independence  with   their   purely 
historical  aims,  and  indeed  assign  them  the  task  of  thoroughly 
acquainting  speculative  and  systematic  theology  with  the  whole 
province    of    history.       Pre-eminently    the    purely   historical 
insight  into  the  contents  of  Holy  Scripture  is  indispensable 
for  the  speculative  theologian,  if  he  is  not  to  incur  the  danger 
of  losing  sure  ground  for  his  feet  in  his  speculating ;  as  even 
with  Eothe   it  happens  here   and  there,  for  example,  in  the 
parts  of  his  Ethics  which  treat  of   the  angel  world,  and  of 
eschatological  questions,  where  he  drifts  into  mere  phantasy 
and  imagination.      Consequently  the  definition  which  Rothe 
proposes  of  speculative  theology  (p.   36),  but  which  can  be 
applied  by  Rothe  properly  only  to  evangelical  speculation,  we 
adopt  in  its  full   e.xtent  for  systematic  theology :   it   is   "  a 
rational    explanation    of    Christian    piety    according    to    the 
totality  of  its  essential  aspects  and  moments."     Ethics,  which 
Rothe    separates   from   dogmatics  as   a   historical   branch   of 
study,   and   attaches  to   speculative   theology    (see   p.    28  f.), 
we  must,  in   accordance  with  our   conception  of  dogmatics, 
regard  as  co-ordinated  with  this  latter  science.     We  consider 
dogmatics  as  the  presupposition  and  foundation  of  ethics,  as 
indeed  Rothe  finds  himself  compelled  to  do,  when  he  prefaces 
his  ethics  with  the  doctrine  of  God  and  the  doctrine  of  man  as 
an  introduction  to  ethics.      (Compare  Theological  Ethics,  vol.  i. 
§  13.)     Rothe,  however,  has  strikingly  shown  that  apologetics 
cannot   come    forward   as  a   branch   of  speculative   theology 
(p.   3  3  ff.),  only  we  say  that  it  must   appear  in  systematic 


eothe's  division  of  historical  theology,  405 

theology.  The  complete  circle  of  theology  in  all  its  parts,  but 
especially  in  systematic  theology,  should  be  an  apology  for 
Christianity ;  but  apologetics,  as  a  formal  direction  for  apolo- 
getical  purposes,  we  assign,  with  Eotlie,  to  practical  theology. 

In  historical  theology,  which  receives  the  second  place  in 
liothe's  theological  system,  the  unscientific  procedure  of  repre- 
senting theology  as  a  confessional  science  appears  from  the 
very  outset,  when  the  scientific  cognition  of  the  evangelical 
Church  is  put  down  as  the  task  of  historical  theology.  That, 
in  consequence  of  this,  the  task  is  conceived  of  in  too  limited 
a  fashion,  is  made  clear  at  the  first  glance,  but  the  limitation 
arises  only  from  the  confessionality  of  this  theology.  Just  as 
the  principal  parts  of  theology  had  been  arranged,  so  now  also 
the  divisions  of  historical  theology  are  arranged  by  liothe 
"  according  to  the  constitutive  principle  of  theology,"  that 
is,  according  to  the  practical  churchly  end.  The  guidance 
of  the  Church  demands,  first  of  all,  the  historical  knowledge 
of  the  ecclesiastical  present, — hence  we  have  (1)  Positive 
Theology.  Next  comes  the  knowledge  of  the  ecclesiastical 
past, — hence  we  have  (2)  Church  History.  And  finally,  there 
is  the  knowledge  of  primitive  Christianity, — hence  we  have 
(3)  Biblical  or  Exegetical  Theology.  How  unsystematically, 
and  especially  unmethodologically,  one  proceeds  when  he 
allows  himself  to  be  determined  in  his  derivation  of  the 
theological  branches  of  study  by  an  end  lying  outside  of 
theological  science,  even  Eothe  himself  cannot  help  admitting, 
when  he  finds  himself  obliged,  in  the  course  of  study,  to  trans- 
pose the  order  given  to  the  three  branches  in  the  theological 
system,  and  to  treat  (1)  exegetical  theology,  (2)  Church  history, 
and  (3)  positive  theology.  Rothe  therefore  comes  round  to 
the  same  distribution  which  I  lay  down  in  this  treatise  on 
theologic  as  a  fourfold  division  of  theology  in  a  temporal 
order  of  succession :  origin,  historical  development,  present 
and  future,  only  the  division  is  deprived  of  its  proper  founda- 
tion by  liothe.      But   that  I  am  entitled   to  set  down  exe- 


406  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.EDIA. 

getical  theology,  as  distinct  from  Church  histor}^,  as  a  principal 
division,  is  conceded  by  Eothe  himself,  inasmuch  as  he 
recognises  primitive  Christianity  in  its  normative  significance 
for  the  whole  range  of  theology,  and  the  qualitative  distinct- 
ness of  that  primitive  Christianity  from  its  historical  develop- 
ment.    (See  pp.  41-43.) 

I.  Biblical  or  Exegetical  Theology.  I  have  felt  obliged  to 
avoid  using  the  name  "  biblical  theology "  for  this  division, 
partly  because  it  is  so  readily  misunderstood,  partly  because, 
according  to  my  conception  of  it,  exegetical  theology  is  not 
limited  to  the  Bible.  The  task  of  exegetical  theology, 
according  to  Eothe,  is  to  lead  to  a  certain  and  complete 
understanding  of  those  Scriptures  which  are  recognised  by 
the  Church  as  the  original  sources  of  divine  revelation,  upon 
which  its  very  being  is  primarily  founded.  Here,  too,  in  the 
very  definition  of  the  task,  there  immediately  appears  again, 
and  that  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  subject  defined,  the  point 
of  view  of  a  particular  Church  as  evangelical.  Accordingly 
we  find  represented  as  the  first  branch  of  study  (1)  the 
history  of  biblical  literature,  which  has  to  show  "  how  and 
with  exactly  what  right  the  collection  of  these  writings  has 
won  acceptance  and  come  to  be  regarded  as  the  sum-total  of 
the  sources  of  divine  revelation,  that  is,  the  canon.  This  is 
followed  by  (2)  biblical  criticism,  as  criticism  of  the   text ; 

(3)  archaeology,  which  has  to  bring  about  for  the  expositor 
the  knowledge  of  the  peculiar  outward  conditions  of  those 
circumstances  and  surroundings  of  life  in  which  the  author, 
as  well  as  the  original  readers  of  the  biblical  writings,  moved ; 

(4)  biblical  hermeneutics,  as  a  technical  study  for  the  perfect 
understanding  of  Holy  Scripture ;  and  (5)  biblical  theology, 
which  has  to  work  up  the  religious  material  contained  in 
the  Holy  Scripture  as  the  product  of  exposition,  and  hence 
would  more  properly  be  called  the  doctrine  of  biblical  religion. 
These  are  followed  by  remarks  upon  the  biblical  languages, 
pp.  43-47.      In  this  construction  of  the  exegetical  branches 


eothe's  subdivisions  of  exegetical  theology.      407 

of  study  we  do  not  discover  any  definite  principle.  Motives 
of  Church  and  of  history  are  here  mixed  up  together  by 
Rothe.  If,  as  he  himself  requires,  exegetical  theology  has 
to  go  back  to  the  very  origin  of  Christianity,  it  would  appear 
that  no  other  task  could  be  assigned  it  than  the  unfolding  of 
the  historical  manifestation  of  primitive  Christianity.  From 
this  it  will  follow  as  a  necessary  result,  in  how  far  and  to 
what  extent  a  canonical  significance  for  the  Church,  and 
therefore  for  theology,  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  biblical  writ- 
ings. The  historical  problem  is  seriously  disturbed,  when 
any  churchly  presupposition  is  put  down  as  the  end  of 
exegetical  theology.  Least  of  all  can  this  end  be  reached  by 
the  science  of  introduction,  but  rather  by  the  doctrine  of 
biblical  religion.  Hence,  the  placing  of  the  science  of 
introduction  at  the  head  does  not  commend  itself.  Since 
exegetical  theology  can  solve  its  historical  problem  only  by 
means  of  the  right  understanding  of  the  biblical  writings, 
hermeneutics  will  have  to  be  placed  at  the  head,  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  fundamental  propositions  and  rules  according 
to  which  Holy  Scripture  has  to  be  expounded.  Out  of  it  there 
necessarily  arise  the  subsidiary  sciences  which  are  useful  to 
the  exegete  for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  The  distinc- 
tive characteristics  of  the  biblical  languages  made  prominent 
by  Rothe  require  a  special  section  in  the  system  of  exegetical 
theology  to  be  devoted  to  them  as  biblical  linguistics. 
Biblical  criticism,  however,  is  not  to  be  defined  as  mere 
criticism  of  the  text,  but  the  so-called  higher  criticism,  which 
has  to  occupy  itself  with  the  question  of  the  authenticity  of 
the  biblical  writings,  and  which  Rothe  includes  in  the  science 
of  Introduction,  p.  49,  belongs  rather  to  the  theory  of 
biblical  criticism,  while  it  is  only  the  application  of  it  that 
the  science  of  Introduction  has  to  make.  Nor  is  it  indeed 
justifiable  to  connect,  as  Rothe  does,  p.  58,  the  Jewish  history 
with  biblical  archaeology;  but  it  must  be  set  down  as  a 
separate  branch.      To  me  it  seems  questionable  whether  it  be 


408  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

proper  in  biblical  theology,  according  to  Eotlie's  requirement, 
to  prefix  to  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  biblical  religion  a 
history  of  revelation,  since  the  latter  will  naturally  be  con- 
sidered partly  under  biblical  history,  partly  under  the  doctrine 
of  religion  itself,  and  the  arrangement  of  the  doctrine  of 
biblical  religion,  as  a  historical  branch,  will  have  to  be  made 
according  to  the  principal  periods  of  the  national  history.  In 
the  treatment  of  the  several  exegetical  branches,  pp.  48-77, 
Eothe  does  not  always  keep  within  the  limits  of  the  formal 
encyclopedia,  as,  for  example,  in  the  section  on  criticism  and 
hermeneutics ;  but  it  is  observable  that  Eothe,  contrary  to 
the  churchly  points  of  vie\v,  which  guide  him,  still  always 
asserts  a  free  scientific  standpoint  in  dealing  with  the  several 
branches  of  study. 

II.  Church  History.  Leaving  out  of  view  that  here,  too, 
its  character  as  a  theological  science  is  vindicated  for  Church 
history  by  conceiving  it  as  at  the  service  of  the  Church,  and 
that  by  means  of  this  point  of  view  its  idea  and  range  will 
be  determined,  everything  that  Eothe  says  on  general  ques- 
tions in  the  domain  of  Church  history  testifies  to  the  thorough- 
going studies  which  he  has  conducted  in  this  department. 
In  order  perfectly  to  accomplish  its  task  of  representing 
historically  and  scientifically  the  whole  earlier  course  of  the 
existence  of  the  Church  from  the  time  of  its  "origin  down  to 
the  present  moment.  Church  history  has  to  set  forth  the 
historical  development  of  the  Christian  life  according  to  its 
totality,  and  then  according  to  its  separate  principal  functions. 
According  to  its  universal  aspect,  it  is  general  Church  history  ; 
according  to  its  separate  functions,  which  are  directed  to  the 
constitution  of  the  Church,  to  the  formation  of  a  Church 
doctrine,  and  the  construction  of  a  Church  ritual,  and  of 
Christian  customs,  there  are  added  to  the  general  Church 
history  the  history  of  the  Church  constitution,  the  history  of 
dogmas,  and  ecclesiastical  archaeology,  as  the  leading  special 
branches   of  the   service,  p.   77  ff.       It   is  remarkable    that 


eothe's  subdivisions  of  iiistokical  theology.       409 

Piothe  has  not  also  secured  a  special  department  for  the 
essentially  inherent  tendency  in  Christianity  to  extend  itself, 
M'liich  has  wrought  historically  in  the  most  conspicuous 
manner,  and  demands  the  highest  consideration  on  the  part  of 
the  Church  historian,  and  which  should  appear  as  a  history 
of  the  spread  of  Christianity,  or  as  the  history  of  Christian 
missions.  Nor,  again,  is  it  in  accordance  with  the  facts,  that 
in  archaeology  the  history  of  worship  should  be  combined  with 
that  of  Christian  customs.  Christian  customs,  upon  which 
Eothe,  indeed,  in  his  Church  history  has  bestowed  his  very 
special  attention,  are  so  evidently  a  product  of  the  Christian 
life,  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  treat  them  likewise 
under  a  separate  division,  as  the  history  of  Christian  culture. 
According  to  our  conception,  this  branch  of  study  has  quite  a 
similar  value  for  Christian  ethics  to  that  of  the  history  of 
dogmas  for  dogmatics.  In  the  history  of  Christian  culture  it 
will  also  be  necessary  to  embrace  the  effects  of  Christianity, 
which,  by  means  of  the  Church,  operate  beyond  the  limits  of 
the  Church's  domain,  and  by  means  of  which,  for  the  most 
part,  reactions  upon  the  Church  life  are  called  forth,  so  that  it 
seems  scarcely  required  outside  of  Church  history  to  set  up, 
as  supplementary  to  it,  a  history  of  the  Christian  culture  of 
mankind.  Whatever  in  this  department  lies  outside  of  the 
task  of  Church  history  will  fall  under  the  general  history  of 
culture ;  but  for  this,  the  history  of  Christian  culture  will  be 
available  as  an  indispensable  subsidiary  science,  p.  79.  It 
should  also  be  made  prominent  by  a  special  acknowledgment 
that  Piothe  demands,  as  a  first  condition  for  the  understand- 
ing of  the  historical  development  of  the  Church,  the  right 
perception  of  the  idea  of  the  Church ;  only  we  are  not  of  the 
opinion  that  the  Church  historian  has  to  borrow  this  idea  from 
speculative  theology,  specially  from  speculative  ethics.  He 
will  rather  have  to  take  it  from  exegetical  theology,  since 
speculative  or  systematic  theology  itself  can  first  obtain  a 
proper  understanding  of  the  idea  of  the  Church  on  the  ground 


410  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP^EDIA. 

of  exegetical  and  historical  theology,  p.  84.  In  a  rigidly 
formal  encyclopaedia,  the  outline  of  Church  history  given  on 
pp.  84-94  is  not  in  place.  To  the  student  commencing 
his  theological  course  it  certainly  opens  up  the  points  of  view 
most  important  for  his  studies ;  hut  to  Eothe's  ideal  of  the 
future,  which  results  from  the  predominatingly  ethical  bearing 
of  his  theology,  and  to  the  notion  of  the  final  absorption  of 
the  Church  in  the  universal  human  fellowship  of  the  State, 
and  so  of  Church  history  in  the  science  of  universal  history, 
we  cannot  give  our  assent.  Ecclesiastical  archaeology,  as  the 
history  of  worship  and  of  ecclesiastical  and  Christian  customs, 
Eothe  rightly  regards  as  extending  up  to  the  time  of  the 
Eeformation,  p.  99  ;  while  he  limits  patristics  to  the  so-called 
Church  Fathers,  although  he  quite  admits  the  significance  of 
prominent  personalities  generally  in  the  results  of  Church 
history,  p.  82.  Among  the  sciences  subsidiary  to  Church 
history,  Eotlie  mentions,  among  the  rest,  the  general  history 
of  religion.  He  has  not,  however,  assigned  it  a  separate  place 
in  his  theological  system.  This  is  to  be  explained  from  the 
practical  end  to  which  he  subordinates  theology.  But  if 
theology  is  actually  to  be  developed  as  a  science,  and  not  to 
fall  behind  the  time,  nor  to  leave  the  tasks  assigned  it  in  the 
present  unperformed,  it  will  be  obliged  to  set  down  the 
general  history  of  religion  in  its  programme,  and  that  indeed 
in  immediate  connection  with  exegetical  theology,  which  is 
itself  essentially  the  history  of  religion.  Hence  it  is  self- 
evident  tlmt  exegetical  theology  has  the  general  history  of 
religion  for  its  presupposition,  and  has  to  take  from  this  just  as 
much  as  is  indispensable,  in  order,  by  a  comparison  with  the 
non-biblical  religious,  to  promote  the  historical  understanding 
of  biblical  religion.  And  then,  in  connection  with  systematic 
theology,  which  is  founded  upon  the  essential  content  of  exegeti- 
cal theology,  it  has  to  fall  back  upon  the  idea  of  Christianity ; 
and  then  again,  for  the  illustration  of  this,  it  must  fall  back 
upon  the  essential  contents  of  the  non-Christian  relio-ions. 


KOTHE's  idea  of  rOSlTIVE  THEOLOGY.  411 

III.  Positive  Theology.  That  it  belongs  to  the  complete 
exposition  of  Church  history  to  represent  the  whole  ecclesias- 
tical domain  of  the  present  according  to  its  doctrine  and 
according  to  its  condition  as  a  communion,  is  undeniable. 
Whatever,  then,  is  present  in  Church  history  itself  relative 
thereto,  is  met  with  in  it  only  sporadically,  and  demands  a 
separate  comprehensive  exposition.  For  this  purpose  Eothe 
sets  down  under  his  positive  theology  three  branches,  dog- 
matics, symbolics,  and  statistics.  These  have,  according  to  the 
particular  Church  standpoint  of  Eothe  proceeding  from  the 
evangelical  Church,  the  task  of  characterizing  the  present 
condition  of  the  separate  Churches.  Dogmatics  has  there- 
fore to  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  the  evangelical  Church  of 
the  present  ;  symbolics  or  comparative  dogmatics  have  to 
represent  the  doctrinal  systems  of  the  other  Churches  ;  while 
for  statistics,  such  a  division  is  not  required,  but  it  has  rather 
to  extend  itself  impartially  to  all  the  Churches.  I  have 
already  on  a  former  page,  when  speaking  in  reference  to 
speculative  theology,  sought  to  show  that  dogmatics  is  to  be 
regarded,  not  as  a  branch  of  Church  history,  but  as  a  branch 
of  speculative  or  systematic  theology.  Only  symbolics  and 
statistics  remain  here  for  our  consideration,  and  these  are 
welcome  to  keep  their  place,  which  is  simply  that  of  a 
supplement  to  Church  history,  and  both  are  to  be  regarded 
as  constituting  the  indispensable  presupposition,  the  one  of 
dogmatics,  the  other  of  practical  theology.  Thus,  while  both 
of  these  branches  are  to  be  excluded  from  Church  liistory 
proper,  they  are  to  be  reckoned  in  historical  theology  ;  and  it 
can  in  no  way  be  shown  that  of  them  a  separate  subdivision 
of  historical  theology  should  be  formed  under  the  name  of 
positive  theology.  We  have  only  to  remark  that  Rothe  even 
liere  again,  although  he  asserts  the  principle  of  the  evangelical 
dogmatics,  and  the  distribution  of  dogmas  determined  thereby, 
p.  109,  pays  no  attention  to  the  formal  method  so  decidedly 
demanded   by  liim  for  the  encyclopaedia.     Comparative  sym- 


412 


THEOLOGICAL  ENCVCLOr-EDIA. 


bolics  and  statistics,  in  conseqnence  of  his  system,  are  made 
by  Rothe  to  solve  tlieir  problems  from  the  evangelical  stand- 
point. Symbolics  have  to  judge  of  the  doctrinal  systems  of 
other  Church  communions  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
evangelical  system.  In  an  oral  lecture,  Eothe  expounded 
symbolics  differently  ;  and  only  this  conception,  according  to 
which  comparative  symbolics  is  the  exposition  of  the  Church 
doctrinal  systems,  viewed  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  idea 
of  Christianity,  and  apart  from  the  Church,  p.  130  f,  can  be 
accepted  by  us,  while  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  liothe's 
system. 

While  the  two  parts  of  theology  already  treated,  by  means 
of  the  scientific  knowledge  of  Christianity  and  of  the  Christian 
Church  (Eothe  ought  to  have  called  them  more  precisely  : 
evangelical  Christianity  and  the  evangelical  Church),  afford 
qualification  for  the  guidance  of  the  Church,  theology  has  yet 
finally  to  set  forth  the  practical  rules  for  the  application  of 
the  instruction  thus  gained  to  the  actual  guidance  of  the 
Church.  Inasmuch  as  practical  theology  is  to  be  regarded  as 
the  theory  of  the  practical  efficiency  of  the  clergyman  as  such, 
and  inasmuch  as  it  can  only  be,  like  theology  generally,  for  a 
particular  Church,  it  is  treated  by  Eothe  in  connection  with 
the  evangelical  Church,  p.  133  ff.  Consequently,  Eothe  is, 
in  his  conception  of  practical  theology,  in  thorough  agreement 
with  Hofmann  ;  but  he  borrows  his  arrangement  of  its  parts 
from  Schleierraacher.  It  falls  into  two  principal  divisions, 
into  the  science  of  Church  government  and  the  science  of 
the  direction  of  the  congregation.  The  former  embraces 
Church  law  and  polemics,  —  according  to  the  oral  lecture 
only  Church  politics,  as  the  theory  of  Church  constitution 
and  of  Church  government.  The  second  embraces  liturgies, 
homiletics,  catechetics,  and  pastoral  training,  as  the  science 
of  the  care  of  souls,  p.  137  ff.  I  can  here  only  repeat 
what  I  have  already  said  about  Hofmann's  practical  theology, 
and  what  has  now  been  said  as  to  their  general  agreement. 


PLACE  GIYEX  TO  PRACTICAL  THEOLOGY.  413 

that  practical  theology,  as  a  mere  theory  of  technical  rules 
for  the  churchly  efficiency  of  the  theologian  or  of  the  clergy- 
man, can  claim  no  place  in  theological  science ;  and  least  of 
all,  if  it  is  set  forth  with  reference  to  any  one  particular 
Church,  such  as  the  evangelical.  Even  apart  altogether  from 
endlessly  manifold  forms  and  manifestations  of  Church  life 
among  the  different  evangelical  national  Churches,  a  general 
theory  for  the  Church  guidance  of  the  evangelical  Ciiurch 
could  set  up  only  fundamental  principles  and  rules,  whicli 
would  have  for  this  particular  Church,  indeed,  some  practical 
value,  but  would  have  no  generally  valid  significance.  To 
sucli  a  position  of  general  validity  only  science  can  bring  it, 
and  therefore  practical  theology  can  be  a  legitimate  part  of 
theological  science,  only  when,  from  the  universal  Christian 
standpoint,  it  represents  the  practical  Churchdom  {Kirch- 
cnthum)  in  its  ideal  configuration.  From  the  positions  of 
this  science  the  separate  Churches  will  have  to  take  their 
fundamental  principles  and  rules,  both  for  the  direction  of  their 
particular  Church  affairs,  and  also  for  the  sometimes  needed 
corrections  of  this  Church  position  ;  so  that  as  so  conceived 
practical  theology  will  take  the  place  even  of  that  evangelical 
Church  guidance  which  Eothe  rightly  demands,  so  as  to 
lead  the  evangelical  Church,  whether  we  regard  it  as  a  whole 
or  in  reference  to  its  individual  members,  out  of  antiquated 
positions  into  new  and  better  forms. 

I  have  thus  subjected  the  Encyclopaedias  of  Hofmann 
and  Eothe  to  such  a  thorough  criticism,  just  because  they 
offered  the  opportunity  of  stating  clearly  the  most  important 
questions  regarding  encyclopaedia,  and  testing  in  regard  to 
them  my  own  standpoint.  To  the  advanced  student  these 
theoretical  discussions  will  not  seem  unimportant :  for 
the  question  is  about  the  restoration  and  more  complete 
development  of  an  independent  theological  science.  As  the 
evangelical  Church  alone  is  the  field  upon  which  such  a 
theology  can  exist,  so  is  it  also  the  field  upon  which  pre- 


414  TIIEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

eminently  the  results  thereof  can  live  and  thrive.  It  is 
my  conviction  that  this  end  cannot  be  reached  when 
theology  from  the  first  is  set  in  the  service  of  a  confession, 
or  from  the  first  in  the  service  of  a  practical  churchly  end. 
The  relationship  indicated  in  the  latter  proposition  is  rather 
to  be  reversed.  Theology  is  not  to  be  reduced  to  a  mere 
means  of  Church  service,  but  the  Church  service  is  rather  the 
means  by  which  the  truth  accepted  and  acknowledged  by 
theology  is  to  be  conveyed  to  the  life.  If  the  former  relation- 
ship be  maintained,  and  the  primacy  awarded  to  the  Church, 
then  it  cannot  but  follow,  and  it  actually  does  follow,  that  the 
most  hurtful  consequences  for  the  practical  life  of  the  Church 
will  result. 


APPENDIX    B. 


Eemarks  on  Ckiticisms  by  Dr.  W.  Grimm. 

I  CANNOT  pass  over  without  a  few  remarks  a  treatise  by  Dr. 
W.  Grimm  that  has  just  appeared  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zcitschrift 
filr  wisscnschaftliche  Thcologic  for  1882,  under  the  title, 
"  Zur  theologischen  Encyclopaedia."  In  the  first  section,  the 
classification  of  the  theological  sciences  is  discussed.  I  have 
to  thank  Dr.  Grimm  for  a  notice  of  my  Theologic  in  thi- 
Protcstantischc  Kirchcnzcitung  of  1880,  and  rejoice  to  find 
that  in  general  and  in  essential  matters  we  are  agreed.  In 
regard  to  most  of  the  exceptions  which  he  feels  himself  obliged 
to  take  to  my  work,  and  which  he  repeats  in  the  treatise 
referred  to,  I  must  confess  myself  still  unconvinced.  Chris- 
tian theology  is  for  him,  as  it  is  for  me,  the  science  of 
Christianity,  but  he  proceeds  to  distinguish  it  as  evangelical 
and  Catholic  theology,  "  in  so  far  as  it  is  conducted  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  fundamental  principles  of  I'rotestaiitism 
or  Catholicism,"  p.  4.  But  why,  we  may  at  once  ask,  only 
distinguish  theology  as  evangelical  and  Catholic,  and  not  also 
as  Greek-orthodox,  Lutheran,  Calvinistic,  Arminian,  Metho- 
distic,  Quakerish,  and  Moravian,  in  so  far  as  the  theology  is 
prosecuted  in  accordance  with  tlie  principles  of  any  one  of 
these  denominations  l  It  is  with  evangelical  theology  that 
Grimm  is  concerned.  As  the  science  of  Cln-istianity,  theplogy 
has  first  of  all  a  historical  division,  and  "  seeing'  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  formal  principle  of  Protestantism,  Holy  Scripture 
must  constitute  the   historical-  foundations   of  our   faith,  tlic 


416  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

original  form  of  Christianity  or  primitive  Christianity  will  be 
a  principal  subject  of  study  ;  and  consequently,  the  history  of 
primitive  Christianity  and  its  Old  Testament  premisses,  or  the 
so-called  exegetical  theology,  will  constitute  the  first  main 
division  of  historical  theology,"  while  the  history  of  the 
Christian  religion  and  Church,  that  is,  what  is  commonly 
called  Church  history,  will  form  the  second.  Grimm  there- 
fore declares  himself  decidedly  opposed  to  the  fourfold 
distribution  of  theology,  according  to  which  exegetical  theology 
is  distinguished  from  historical  theology  as  a  separate  prin- 
cipal division.  He  dismisses  tlie  arguments  by  which 
Hagenbach  would  vindicate  this  separation,  because  he  thinks 
that  "  the  fourfold  distribution  can  be  justified  only  from  the 
point  of  view  of  a  rigid  conception  of  inspiration."  Since  lie 
also  refers  to  me  along  with  Hagenbach  as  one  who  follows 
the  old  fourfold  distribution,  I  might  fairly  have  expected 
that  he  would  have  mentioned,  and  sought  to  disprove,  the 
grounds  upon  which  I  do  this.  In  the  critical  notice,  too,  he 
simply  maintains  against  me,  that  the  separation  of  exegetical 
from  historical  theology  can  be  justified  only  by  adopting  the 
strictest  notion  of  inspiration,  p.  260.  Now  even  in  the 
often  unavoidable  brevity  of  a  critical  notice  this  silence  would 
be  quite  excusable ;  but  when  it  occurs  in  a  special  treatise  on 
the  subject,  it  is  certainly  calculated  to  leave  the  impression 
that  I  had  assigned  the  first  main  division  to  exegetical 
theology  for  the  very  same  reasons  as  Hagenbach,  in  conse- 
quence of,  if  not  a  strict  and  rigid,  yet  at  ^  least  a  mild,  theory 
of  inspiration.  Now  all  this  is  far  from  being  the  case.  My 
procedure  has  been  determined  by  reasons  altogether  different. 
In  opposition  to  Grimm,  too,  who  has  not  attended  to  them, 
I  must  maintain  these  grounds,  and  disapprove  of  the  com- 
bining of  exegetical  and  Historical  theology  favoured  by  him. 
In  the  Theologic  I  have  proved  by  means  of  the  history  of 
encyclopaedia,  that  the  entire  historical  development  of  theo- 
logy  points   to   the   fourfold   distribution  of  the   theological 


EXEGETICAL  SEPARATE  FUOM  HISTORICAL  THEOLOGY.       417 

system,  but  that  from  the  want  of  a  definite  principle  it  did 
not  reach  any  agreement  in  regard  to  the  ai-rangement  of  the 
four  divisions,  and  that,  if  such  a  principle  is  to  be  gained,  all 
subjective,  and  therefore  all  dogmatic,  pietistic,  confessional, 
and  philosophical  interests  must  be  avoided,  and  that  we 
must  proceed  only  from  a  historical  point  of  view.  Compare 
Theologic,  §  20.  I,  as  well  as  Grimm,  have  defined  the  task 
of  exegetical  theology  as  the  attainment  of  a  knowledge  of 
primitive  Christianity,  and  I  have  insisted  that  theology 
should  begin  with  exegetical  theology.  But  reasons  must  be 
given  for  making  such  a  beginning.  If  one  places  himself  at 
the  standpoint  of  the  Church,  and,  as  Grimm  does,  vindicates 
his  beginning  with  exegetical  theology  by  a  reference  to 
the  formal  principle  of  Protestantism,  then  he  is  approaching 
his  subject  with  a  churchly  presupposition.  One  occupying 
another  Church  point  of  view  may  very  reasonably  demand 
another  starting-point.  The  beginning  referred  to  can  obtain 
an  objectively  scientific  foundation  only  from  a  consideration 
of  the  object  of  theology.  In  so  far  as  theology  is  the  science 
of  Christianity,  it  must  above  all  seek  to  comprehend  the 
object  originally  given  it,  that  is,  primitive  Christianity. 
Now  one  might  probably  say,  if*  only  the  right  beginning  be 
made,  it  matters  not  whether  one  place  exegetical  theology 
b}'-  itself  alone,  or  in  connection  with  historical  theology. 
This,  how^ever,  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference.  Primitive 
Christianity  as  such  is,  in  its  historical  significance,  the  basis 
of  the  whole  range  ■  of  the  affairs  of  the  Christian  Church. 
Ill  the  very  fact  of  its  strict  primitiveness  lies  the  normative 
significance  which  it  has  for  the  Church  generally,  and  there- 
fore also  for  theology,  so  that  in  this  connection  it  is 
characteristically  distinguished  from .  the  development  of  the 
Church  which  proceeds  from  it  ;  and  therefore,  also,  exegetical 
theology  and  Church  history  are  characteristically  distinguished 
from  one  another,  althougli  they  both  fall  under  the  category 
of  the   historical.       From   the    objectively   historical    stand- 

VOL.  I.  2  D 


418  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

point,  therefore,  the  demand  has  to  be  made,  that  theology 
should  give  expression  to  this  distinction  in  its  scheme  of 
distribution. 

Grimm  is  right  in  placing  systematic  theology  after  histo- 
rical theology,  and  in  declaring  himself  against  those  encyclo- 
pgedists  who  place  it  at  the  head,  or  assign  it  a  position  under 
historical  theology.     He  is  also  quite  determined  as  to  its 
task,  which  is  to  give  to  the  idea  of  Christianity  its  scientific 
expression.     As  branches  of  systematic  theology  he  mentions 
apologetics,  polemics,  and  irenics.     In  this  I  cannot  agree  with 
him.      If  systematic  theology,  in  treating  the  three  branches 
which  I  have  assigned  to  it — the  theory  of  religion,  dogmatics, 
and  ethics — proceeds  in  the  right  way,  its  procedure  will  also 
be  essentially  apologetical,  polemical,  and  irenical,  and  so  it 
will  embrace  in  itself  the  fundamental  principles  of  these  three 
branches.     The  actual  apphcation  of  these,  however,  according 
to  present  arrangements,  belongs  to  the  practice  of  the  Church, 
and  hence  its  theory  is  most  properly  relegated  to   practical 
theology.     Even  the  name  "  systematic  theology"  I  should  not 
care  to  exchange  for  that  of    "  didactic   scientific  theology " 
(Lehrwissenschaftliche  Theologie),  which  is  preferred  by  Grimm. 
To  the  former  name  no  objection  can  be  taken ;  for  although 
the  whole   range  of  theology,  and  so   all  its  three  divisions, 
must  be  systematic,  still  theology  as  exegetical  and  historical 
has  to  treat  the   idea  of  Christianity  in  its  historical  aspect, 
while  this,  on  the  other  hand,  has  to  treat  it  in  and  for  itself 
systematically,  so  that  here  too  the  a  ijotiori  fit  denominatio 
applies. 

Practical  theology,  whicli  Grimm  ranks  as  tlie  third  principal 
division,  is  defiined  by  him  as  "  the  scientific  direction  as  to 
how,  by  means  of  the  official  activity  of  the  clergy,  the  idea 
of  Christianity  is  to  be  realized  in  the  Church,"  p.  13.  In 
opposition  to  this  definition  we  must  at  once  ask,  Is  it  only 
l^y  means  of  the  official  activity  of  the  clergy  ?  In  this  respect 
Grimm  completely  falls  back  upon  the  old  conception  of  prac- 


SUBDIVISION  OF  THE  EXEGETICAL  DEPARTMENT.  419 

tical  theology,  and  does  not  even  rise  to  tlie  extension  of  tliat 
conception    reached    by  Hofmann  and  liotlie.  who  refer  to 
"  theologians  "  and  "  clergymen."     The  Churchman,  accordinc. 
to  Grnnm,  meets  with  certain  instruments  by  means  of  which 
he  is  to  perform  liis  task,  and  also  especially,  we  add,  certain 
functions  which  consequently  he  is  under  obligation  to  dis- 
charge.    How  then  does  it  stand,  we  must  next  ask,  in  re-ard 
to  these  instruments  and  functions  ?     Is  it  not  pre-eminently 
the  task  of  practical  theology  to  define  those  churchly  instru- 
ments  and  functions,  which   must   have   their  place  in  the 
Church,  in  order  that  the  idea  of  Christianity  be  realized   and 
that  then  from  these  there  may  result  of  itself  the  activity 
which  theologians,  church  officers,  clergy,   and  laity  have  to 
exercise  upon  the  task  assigned  them  by  the  Church  ?     Ac- 
cording to  that  definition,  and  according  to  the  admission 
which  is  made  even  by  those  who  agree  to  it,  tliat  practical 
tlieology   adds   nothing   new   to   the    contents   of    theological 
knowledge,  we  cannot  reckon  this  as  a  division  of  theological 
science,  still   less,  with   Grimm   and  Schleiermacher,   as°the 
crown  of  all  theological  science. 

After  making  this  distribution  of  theology  according  to  its 
principal  divisions,  Grimm  proceeds,  in  the  second  section  of 
his  treatise,  to  treat  specially  "of  the  schematism  of  the  exe- 
getical  branches."     Grimm  acknowledges  the  difficulty  whicli 
lies   in   the   way   of  a  right  arrangement  of   the   exegetical 
branches.     A  division  into  two  principal  classes  seems  to  him 
most  serviceable:    (1)    Heuristic,  which  are  directed  to  the 
finding   of  the   object;    and    (2)  Eeproductive  or  expository, 
whose  task  it  is  to  reproduce  and  expound  primitive  Chris- 
tianity and  its  Old  Testament  premises  according  to  a  scientific 
presentation.     Under  the  first  division  he  includes — (1)  know- 
ledge   of   the    biblical    languages;     (2)   biblical   archeology; 
(3)  biblical  literary  criticism ;  and  (4)  biblical  hermeneutics. 
Under  the  second  division  he  places— (1)  biblical  history,  as 
the  history  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  of  the  people  of  Israel, 


420  THEOLOGICAL  EXCYCLOP.'EDIA. 

and  as  the  history  of  the  New  Testament,  the  history  of  the 
life  of  Jesus,  and  the  history  of  the  apostolic  age  or  New 
Testament  times ;  (2)  the  history  of  biblical  literature ;  and 
(3)  the  history  of  biblical  religion.  Exegesis  excepted,  Grimm 
has  recognised  the  same  branches  which  I  have  assigned  to 
exegetical  theology,  and  has  also  with  me  admitted  that  the 
so-called  Introduction  to  the  Holy  Scripture  is  embraced  in 
the  history  of  biblical  literature,  and  the  so-called  biblical 
theology  in  the  history  of  l)iblical  religion.  But  I  fail  alto- 
gether to  find  any  definite  principle  in  his  arrangement  of  the 
exegetical  branches  by  means  of  which  they  might  be  brought 
into  a  systematic  form.  The  principle  which  I  have  followed 
is  also  here  again  the  purely  historical.  In  a  note  to  p.  14, 
Grimm  reproaches  me  fur  having  assigned  the  first  place  to 
hermeneutics.  But  this  is  what  I  regard  as  absolutely  neces- 
sary. If  exegetical  theology  has  the  historical  task  of  reaching 
unto  a  knowledge  of  primitive  Christianity,  and  can  gain  this 
only  by  means  of  an  exposition  of  the  biblical  writings,  surely 
it  is  pre-eminently  requisite  that  the  exegete  be  acquainted 
with  the  fundamental  principles  and  rules  according  to  which 
he  has  to  proceed ;  and  Grimm  himself  defines  hermeneutics 
as  the  '■'  scientific  guide  to  the  right  exposition  of  the  Bible," 
p.  17.  Since,  then,  it  treats  of  the  knowledge  of  a  historical 
object,  the  chief  and  most  fundamental  principle  which  her- 
meneutics has  to  lay  down  is  this,  that  the  exegete  must 
proceed  historically  in  his  exposition.  From  this  there  spring 
spontaneously  the  several  auxiliary  sciences  requisite  for  the 
exegete,  in  order  that  he  may  reach  his  end,  the  representation 
of  primitive  Christianity, — an  end  to  which  he  does  attain  in 
the  history  of  biblical  religion.  The  history  of  biblical  litera- 
ture and  biblical  history  fall,  therefore,  according  to  this  point 
of  view,  under  the  exegetical  auxiliary  sciences.  While,  then, 
hermeneutics  is  the  pure  theory  of  exposition,  exegesis  is  the 
theory  of  exegetical  practice.  Both  branches  might  be  bound 
together  as  a  system,  but  for  encyclopii'dic  treatment  it  appears 


ARKANGEMENT  OF  THE  EXEGETICAL  SCIENCES.  421 

more  suitable  to  assign  to  exegesis  a  separate  place,  because 
the  use  which  the  exegete  has  to  make  of  his  auxiliary  sciences 
can  evidently  be  best  indicated  in  this  way.     If  Grimm  should 
then  ask  where  in  my  representation  of  the  exegetical  branches 
is  the  history  of  the  apostolic  age  or  New  Testament  times  to 
be  found,  I  can  only  answer  that  it  is  just  to  be  found  precisely 
where  he  himself  places  it,  that  is  to  say,  under  tlio  Jewish 
history.      Just  as  little  as  Grimm  can  I  regard  the  liistory  of 
the  New  Testament  times  as  a  separate  branch,  but  only  as 
a  section  of  the  Jewish  history ;  whereas  the  life  of  Jesus, 
because  of  tlie  significance  which  it  has  for  the  ^hole  ran^e 
of  theology,  I  have  set  by  itself  as  a  separate  brancli.     As  to 
the  history  of  biblical  religion,  Grimm  thinks  that  1  demanded 
something  "  unnatural  when  I  expressed  myself  willing  to  adopt 
as  the  first  principal  division  of  the  history  of  biblical  religion 
a  history  of  the  extra-biblical   pre-Christian  religions  collec- 
tively, in  order  that  by  a  comparison  of  them  with  Christianity 
that  miglit  be  proved  to  be  the   absolute  religion."     Grimm 
himself  regards  even  the  general  history  of  religion  as  only  an 
indispensable  auxiliary  science  to  theology.      If,  however,  it  is 
even  this,  the  question  arises.  At  what  point  is  it  to  be  called 
in  to  the  help  of  theology  ?     Grimm  considers  that  the  proving 
of  the   unconditional  pre-eminence  of  Christianity  above  all 
the  other  religions  belongs  to  systematic  theology,  and  espe- 
cially to  apologetics.      But  if  this  proof  is  not  to  be  given  in 
a  superficial  manner,  it  must  buttress  itself  upon  the  history 
of  these  religions.      Upon  this  ground  I  believe  the  liistory  of 
the  extra-biblical  religions  must  be  admitted  into  the  history 
of  biblical  religion  as  a  special  division  thereof,  in  order  that 
systematic  theology  may  refer  back  to  the  history  of  biblical 
religion  both  what  corresponds  to  the  idea  of  Christianity  and 
also  what  is  comparable  therewith  in  the  contents  of  pre-Chris- 
tian religions.      I  am  quite  well  aware  that  thereby  a  serious 
task  is  laid  upon  the  history  of  biblical  religion,  but  I  cannot 
regard  my  demand  as  unnatural,  since  it  essentially  coincides 


422  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

with  the  nature  of  the  history  of  biblical  religion,  and  also 
does  not  appear  impracticable,  if  it  be  taken  in  the  sense  given 
it  in  the  corresponding  passage  in  Eothe.  That  the  history 
of  biblical  religion  can  scarcely  overlook  this  demand  is  shown 
by  the  most  important  expounders  of  the  so-called  biblical 
theology  in  recent  times,  who  have  in  ever-increasing  measure 
taken  notice  of  tlie  extra-biblical  religions,  as,  for  example, 
Baumgarten-Crusius,  pp.  50-62  ;  Havernick,  1st  edition,  pp. 
18-28;  H.  Schultz,  2nd  edition,  pp.  40-58;  Ewald,  vol.  i. 
pp.  210-286;  Oehler,  vol.  i.  §§  5-8.  In  the  present  condi- 
tion of  the  general  history  of  religion,  it  seems  to  be  agreed  to 
grant  this  study  a  prominent  place  in  the  theological  system. 
Grimm,  however,  attributes  to  me  the  intention  of  proving 
Christianity  to  be  the  absolute  religion  by  means  of  a  comparison 
of  the  extra-biblical  religions  with  Christianity.  Much  rather, 
according  to  my  clearly  expressed  purpose,  the  comparison 
has  first  of  all  to  aid  in  setting  forth  Christianity  from  the 
whole  development  of  historical  religion  as  the  most  perfect 
religion,  and  so  to  afford  a  historical  proof  of  the  truths  of 
Christianity.  On  the  other  hand,  I  am  thoroughly  at  one 
with  Grimm  in  this,  that  the  absolute  pre-eminence  of  Chris- 
tianity in  relation  to  the  other  religions  is  to  be  proved  by 
means  of  systematic  theology.  This,  however,  is  not  to  be 
done,  as  Grimm  requires,  by  means  of  apologetics,  but  by 
means  of  all  the  three  branches  of  systematic  theology  as  set 
forth  by  me.  Hence  may  even  Islam,  according  to  Grimm's 
wish,  although  it  be  no  original  religion,  be  taken  into  account. 
Among  the  pre-Christian  religions  I  could  not  consistently 
mention  it,  but  the  charge  is  altogether  unfounded  which  Grimm 
in  his  critical  notice  brings  against  me,  that  in  my  book  I 
have  not  spent  a  single  thought  upon  it.  The  truth  is  rather 
this,  that  I  have  referred  to  it  at  the  proper  place  in  the  sec- 
tion on  Church  history,  briefly  indeed,  so  that  Grimm  might 
easily  overlook  it,  yet,  as  I  believe,  characterizing  exhaustively 
its  essential  nature. 


CLASSIFICATIOX  OF  THE  SCIEXCES.  423 

In  the  third  section,  Grimm  speaks  of  "  theology  as  a  posi- 
tive science."  He  divides  the  sciences  into — 1.  Pure  sciences, 
which  bear  their  end  in  themselves,  and  therefore  may  also 
be  learnt  for  their  own  sakes  ;  to  these  belong — (1)  sciences 
of  reason,  and  (2)  sciences  of  experience;  and  2.  Positive 
sciences,  or  applied  sciences  of  experience,  of  which  the  pur- 
pose is  the  accomplishment  of  a  practical  task,  conditioned  and 
given  by  means  of  empirical  relations.  I  regard  this  division  as 
false  in  fact,  and  contrary  to  the  usage  of  language.  For  the 
sciences  of  experience  do  not  belong  to  the  pure  sciences,  just 
because  they  are  concerned  with  experience,  and  according  to 
the  usage  of  language  one  enumerates  among  positive  sciences 
those  which  find  their  subject  as  something  actually  given  or 
positive.  These  sciences  of  experience  can  never  become  pure 
sciences,  sciences  which  bear  their  end  in  themselves  ;  such 
sciences  of  experience  are  sciences  which  in  the  object  given 
them  possess  an  idea  or  a  principle,  which  they  are  in  a  posi- 
tion to  construct  into  a  united,  therefore  systematic  organism, 
which  does  not  exclude  their  serving  also  a  definitely  practical 
end.  Other  sciences  of  experience  of  which  the  object  is  not 
such  an  idea  or  such  a  principle,  will  be  able  to  attain  only 
to  a  scholarly  instruction  or  to  a  mere  doctrine  in  regard 
to  some  practical  end.  To  the  former  sciences  also  belongs 
theology,  which  is  in  this  sense  a  positive  science,  and  so 
indeed  a  science  of  experience,  but  a  science  which  bears  its 
end  in  itself,  and  because  it  realizes  its  own  purely  scientific 
end,  the  knowledge  of  its  subject,  it  also  serves  other  ends 
lying  outside  of  it.  Now  Grimm,  in  agreement  with  Schleier- 
macher,  makes  the  term  positive  identical  with  applied  or 
practical,  and  regards  those  sciences  as  positive  which  are 
associated  by  means  of  their  practical  task,  by  which  their 
parts  are  bound  together  into  one  scientific  organism.  Among 
these  Grimm  reckons  theology ;  the  Church  service,  according 
to  Schleiermacher  the  Church  guidance,  is  the  task  to  be 
accomplished  by  it,  and  to  this  end  theology  constitutes  itself 


424  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

with  the  help  of  other  sciences  of  experience  into  the  unity  of 
an  organic  whole.  In  a  note  on  p.  27,  Grimm  brings  the 
charge  against  me,  tliat  in  my  Theologic,  at  §  15,  I  have  failed 
to  recognise  this.  In  this,  however,  he  is  wrong,  for  I  have 
not  failed  to  recognise  it,  but  have  actually  pointed  it  out  as 
false.  The  bond,  by  means  of  which  theology  is  made  a 
united  organism,  is  the  idea  of  Christianity  given  it,  but  not 
the  Church  service  ;  and  all  the  acquirements  which  theology 
embraces  in  itself  are  to  be  regarded  as  theological  only 
on  account  of  their  more  or  less  intimate  connection  with 
that  idea,  but  not  on  account  of  their  connection  with  the 
Church  service.  It  bears,  therefore,  in  itself  the  principle  which 
organizes  it  into  a  science,  and  has,  as  science,  no  other  end 
than  the  cognition  of  Christianity  as  the  absolute  religious  truth. 
I  therefore  agree  completely  with  what  Hofmann  says  in  his 
Encyclopcedia,  p.  20  f.,  as  I  have  already  said.  Grimm  sees 
in  this  "  a  mere  doctrinaire  way  of  talking  ;  "  but  I,  for  my 
part,  believe  that  in  this  way  the  precise  scientific  character 
of  theology  is  maintained.  Grimm,  on  the  other  hand, 
appeals  to  experience,  "  according  to  which  theological  science 
as  a  whole  is  pursued  for  no  other  purpose  than  for  qualifying 
for  the  clerical  calling."  According  to  this,  then,  the  whole 
of  theology  would  be  nothing  else  than  a  scientific  guide  to 
clerical  qualification,  and  this  definition  of  it  would  com- 
pletely coincide  with  the  definition  which  Grimm  gives  of 
practical  theology.  Seeing,  then,  that  we  have  been  obliged 
already  to  exclude  the  practical  theology  so  conceived  from 
the  realm  of  theological  science,  the  theology  so  conceived 
must  also  be  excluded  from  the  range  of  the  sciences.  On 
the  other  hand,  I  might  refer  Grimm  to  another  experience. 
Do  the  academical  representatives  of  theology,  the  exegete, 
the  Church  historian,  the  dogmatist,  the  ethicist,  urge  on 
the  work  of  the  separate  faculties  wrought  by  them  with  a 
reference  to  Church  service  ?  Does  not  rather  every  one 
seek,  quite   independent   of  any  practical  results  whatever,  to 


THEOLOGY  AND  CIIKISTIAX  TKUTII.  425 

aclinini.stei'  his  department  in  tlie  service  of  the  truth,  that  is, 
in  a  purely  scientific  way  ?  And  this,  too,  should  he  true  of 
students  of  theology.  Just  by  riieans  of  a  scientific  acquaint- 
ance with  Christian  truth  should  they  be  qualified  for  their 
future  calling.  In  my  Theologic  I  think  I  have  proved  in  a 
satisfactory  way,  that,  in  following  this  path,  theology  pursues 
its  purely  scientific  end,  and  at  the  same  time  serves  a 
churchly  end.  But  even  Grimm  himself,  in  his  distribution 
of  theology,  seems  not  to  have  been  conscious  of  his  con- 
ception of  it  as  a  positive  science.  According  to  Schleier- 
macher  and  Eothe,  whom  he  follows,  theology  as  a  system  is 
to  be  distributed  by  means  of  the  reference  to  the  practical 
churchly  end.  Grimm,  on  the  other  hand,  gives  the  first 
place  to  exegetical  theology  on  the  ground  of  a  Protestant 
principle,  and  assigns  to  the  following  divisions,  Church 
history  and  systematic  theology,  purely  scientific  tasks,  un- 
mindful of  his  own  doctrine,  that  the  Church  service  is  the 
bond  which  has  to  render  theology  a  united  organism. 

Theology  has  to  administer  its  office  in  the  service  of 
Christian  truth  ;  it  has  to  start  from  the  idea  of  Chris- 
tianity {exegetical  theology)  ;  it  has  then  to  follow  the  course 
of  this  idea  in  its  real  historical  development  {historical 
theology)  ;  it  has  then  to  prove  this  idea  in  its  absolute  truth 
{systematic  theology) ;  and  finally,  it  has  to  show  this  idea  in 
its  ideal  realization  by  means  of  the  instrumentality  of  the 
Church  {practical  tlicology).  In  performing  this  work  it  will 
vindicate  its  right  to  a  place  on  equal  terms  among  the  other 
sciences,  and  will  rightly  secure  its  position  in  the  general 
scientific  organism.  In  my  Theologic  I  have  made  an  attempt 
to  contribute  to  this  scientific  construction  of  theology  in 
constant  connection  with  the  life  of  the  Church.  Indi- 
viduals, indeed,  can  only  offer  slight  contributions  to  the 
great  scientific  whole ;  but  even  a  minor  contribution  will 
be  helpful  in  leading  science  in  its  continuity  on  to  fuller 
perfection. 


APPENDIX  C. 


The  Place  of  Apologetics  ix  the  Encyclop.edl\. 

BY  the  editor. 

To  some  it  may  seem  a  disadvantage  to  have  no  separate 
section  in  the  encyclopedia  assigned  to  apologetics.  It 
ought,  however,  to  be  remembered  that  the  refusal  of  a 
special  division  in  the  encyclopedia  to  apologetics  does  not 
by  any  means  imply  any  failure  to  appreciate  the  significance 
of  apologetical  studies,  and  their  right  to  rank  among  the 
most  important  labours  of  the  scientific  theologian.  The 
question  simply  is,  which  of  these  possible  methods  of  treat- 
ment will  best  secure  the  scientific  elaboration  of  apologetical 
•material, — giving  apologetics  a  place  co-ordinate  with  exege- 
tical,  historical,  systematic,  and  practical  theology,  or  excluding 
it  from  three  of  these,  and  placing  it  under  the  other,  or, 
without  assigning  it  a  separate  place,  recognising  apologe- 
tical elements  in  the  exegetical,  historical,  and  systematic 
departments  ? 

The  first  of  these  methods  has  been,  it  would  seem,  formally 
proposed  only  by  one  encyclopaedist.  Konig  proposes  a  five- 
fold distribution  of  the  theological  sciences,  prefixing  apolo- 
getical theology  to  the  four  divisions  ordinarily  recognised. 
It  seems  hard  to  conceive  of  any  apologetical  matter  that  does 
not  directly  owe  its  derivation  to  one  or  other  of  the  theological 
departments  that  follow.  A  preliminary  treatment  of  apolo- 
getics can  only  be  a  summary  of  presuppositions  to  be  made 
good  by  the  exegete,  the  historian,  and  the  dogmatist.      If, 


ATTEMPTS  TO  CLASSIFY  APOLOGETICS.  427 

again,  apologetical  theology  be  introduced  after  these  other 
departments,  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  summary  of  results 
gathered  from  these  departments. 

In  various  ways,  and  by  theologians  occupying  very  dif- 
ferent standpoints,  endeavours  have  been  made  to  classify 
apologetics  according  to  the  second  of  the  methods  above 
referred  to.  Schleiermacher,  and  after  liim  Eothe,  regard 
apologetics  as  a  branch  of  philosophical  and  speculative 
theology.  Schleiermacher  makes  philosophical  theology  consist 
in  apologetics  and  polemics,  and  conceives  of  these  as  out- 
works of  theological  science,  constituting  the  propedeutics  of 
theology.  Hagenbach  fairly  charges  this  arrangement  with 
unduly  isolating  apologetics,  and  preventing  it  acquiring  the 
rich  material  derivable  from  systematic  theology.^  According 
to  Eothe,  apologetics  is  the  science  in  which  the  stamina  of  a 
speculative  theology  are  first  found  ;  but  he  ultimately  reaches 
the  conclusion  that  a  properly  developed  speculative  theology 
is  itself  the  truest  and  most  scientific  system  of  Christian 
apologetics  (Eothe,  Encyclopcedie,  p.  33  ff.).  This  is  just  a 
repetition  of  Konig's  endeavour  to  prefix  an  apologetics  to  the 
general  theological  system,  and  here,  too,  it  suffers  from  its 
being  unable  to  take  advantage  of  the  discoveries  in  exegetical, 
historical,  and  positive  theology. 

Hagenbach  and  Lange  associate  apologetics  most  intimately 
with  systematic  theology.  This  is  also  done  by  Kiibel  in 
Zockler's  Handhook  of  Theological  Science.  Hagenbach  regards 
apologetics  as  the  science  which  affords  justification  for  the 
presumption  of  the  truth  of  the  Christian  faith  from  which 
dogmatics  start.  Hence  he  regards  it  as  essentially  an  intro- 
duction to  dogmatics,  to  which,  therefore,  a  section  in  system- 
atic theology  must  be  assigned  (Hagenbach,  Encyclopxdic, 
§81,  Eng.  trans,  p.  403  ff.).  Lange,  again,  distinguishes  a 
philosophical,  a  positive  or  ecclesiastical,  and  an  applied  dog- 
matics. In  philosophical  dogmatics  he  recognises  four  stadia  : 
1.  Philosophy  of  religion  ;  2.  Natural  theology  ;  3.  Apologetics ; 


428  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

and  4.  Prolegomena  or  introduction  to  dogmatics  (Lange, 
Encydopccdie,  pp.  168-173).  The  whole  of  Lange's  philoso- 
phical dogmatics  evidently  is  in  the  wider  sense  an  introduction 
to  dogmatics,  and  thus  his  disposition  of  apologetics  is  prac- 
tically the  same  as  that  of  Hagenbach.  Klibel,  on  the  other 
hand,  although,  in  accordance  with  the  editorial  arrangement 
of  tlie  theological  departments  of  the  Handbook,  he  allows  his 
treatise  on  apologetics  to  precede  those  on  dogmatics  and 
ethics,  which  are  by  other  hands,  assigns  to  the  science  a 
place  between  dogmatics  and  ethics.  Apologetics  proves  that 
Christianity,  which  is  represented  in  dogmatics,  is  that  which 
man  needs  in  order  that  he  may  attain  unto  eternal  life,  and 
so  prepares  the  way  for  Christian  ethics  (Zockler's  Handhuch, 
Bd.  ii.  p.  506).  In  the  Handhooh,  again,  Cremer  and  Zockler 
revert  to  the  position  of  Hagenbach,  and  in  the  introduction 
to  dogmatics  treat  of  the  presuppositions  of  Christianity, 
grounds  of  Christian  certainty,  and  sources  of  Christian 
knowledge,  as  the  prinzipienlchrc  of  dogmatics.  As  placed  by 
Hagenbach,  Lange,  and  Zockler,  apologetics  is  deprived  of  all 
the  rich  apologetical  material  derivable  from  dogmatics  and 
ethics,  and  while,  according  to  Kiibel's  arrangement,  it  may 
avail  itself  of  dogmatics,  it  is  unable  to  use  the  contents  of 
ethical  science.  Notwithstanding  all  such  arguments  against 
placing  apologetics  in  advance  of  dogmatics,  Christlieb,  in  his 
article  on  this  subject  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyclopmdie,  main- 
tains that  immediately  before  dogmatics  and  ethics,  as  a 
groundwork  and  preliminary  statement  of  principles,  is  the 
proper  position  of  apologetics  (Herzog,  2  Aufgabe,  Bd.  i.  p.  547). 
This  he  does  on  the  ground  that,  while  it  is  necessary  that 
exegetical  and  historical  theology  should  have  furnished  their 
lich  materials  for  the  construction  of  an  apologetical  system, 
the  elaboration  of  dogmatics  and  ethics  need  not  be  presup- 
posed, inasmuch  as  it  is  with  principles  established  in  the  first 
two  divisions  of  theological  science  that  apologetics  has  to  do. 
Yet  another  proposal  has  been  made  in  accordance  with 


APOLOGETICS  UNDER  PP.ACTICAL  THEOLOGY.  4  29 

this  method  of  placing  apologetics  under  one  or  other  of  the 
four  theological  departments.  The  Dutch  theologian  Doedes 
and  Hofmann  assign  it  a  place  under  practical  theology.  In 
reviewing  Hofmann's  Encyclop;edia,  lliibiger  expresses  him- 
self somewhat  favourably  in  regard  to  this  proposal.  Inas- 
much as  according  to  Hofmann's  definition  practical  theology 
has  no  proper  place  within  the  range  of  tlie  theological  sciences, 
the  placing  of  apologetics  there  as  a  sort  of  appendix  to  the 
other  theological  departments  allows  it  to  gather  up  the 
apologetical  elements  from  all  the  properly  theological  depart- 
ments. This  conception  of  practical  theology,  however,  is 
altogether  improper.  When  practical  theology  is  defined  and 
treated  as  an  integral  part  of  theology,  the  ranking  of  apolo- 
getics under  it  clearly  implies  an  undue  limitation  of  its  scope. 
According  to  Doedes,  practical  theology  is  the  science  wliich 
sets  forth  the  theory  of  the  present  condition  and  attitude  of 
the  Christian  Church,  He  distinguishes  an  esoteric  and  an 
exoteric  practical  theology.  The  esoteric  embraces  the  ordi- 
narily recognised  branches  of  practical  theology  in  the  narrower 
sense,  and  has  reference  to  those  who  are  within  the  pale  of 
the  Church, — born  in  it  and  in  sympathy  with  it.  Tiie 
exoteric  embraces  the  different  forms  of  Christian  activity  in 
reference  to  those  who  are  outside  of  the  pale  of  the  Churcli, 
— born  outside  of  it,  as  heathens,  or  out  of  sympathy  with  it 
more  or  less,  as  unbelievers  in  the  truth  of  Christianity.  Tlie 
sciences  which  deal  with  these  two  subjects  are  named  respec- 
tively halieutics  and  apologetics.  Thus  apologetics  is  placed 
by  Doedes  under  exoteric  practical  theology,  and  defined  as 
the  vindication  or  justification  of  Christianity  against  opposers. 
Here  the  idea  of  apologetics  is  imduly  limited,  and  the  science 
is  practically  identified  with  polemics.  Hofmann,  again,  who 
assigns  to  apologetics  the  same  place  in  the  encyclopii^dia, 
fixes  yet  more  rigidly  the  limits  of  the  science.  Instead  of 
an  exoteric  practical  theology,  Hofmann  has  an  extra-official 
development   of    theological    activity    wliich    undertakes    the 


430  THEOLOGICAL  ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 

defending  and  the  counselling  of  the  Church,  Under  the  former 
we  have  apologetics  and  polemics ;  under  the  latter,  buleutics. 
"  Apologetics  directs  itself  to  that  which  is  outide  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  polemics,  to  that  which  is  outside  of  the  Church  of  a 
scriptural  confession ;  buleutics  addresses  itself  to  the  Church 
of  the  true  confession  itself."  This  is  similar  to  Sack's  dis- 
tinction, according  to  which  apologetics  appeals  to  heathen  or 
infidel  thinkers,  polemics  to  heretical  Christian  thinkers,  and 
dogmatics  to  Christian  thinkers  who  take  their  place  within 
the  Church  and  accept  the  Church  doctrine.  The  view  of 
Kiibel,  however,  which  we  have  quoted  above,  according  to 
which  apologetics  proves  Christianity  to  be  that  which  meets 
man's  deepest  needs,  and  so  addresses  itself  persuasively  or 
assuringly  to  men,  be  they  believers  or  unbelievers,  affords 
a  much  truer  conception  of  the  scope  of  the  science.  As  thus 
conceived,  its  range  is  very  comprehensive.  It  is  only  a  part 
of  such  a  system  of  apologetics  that  can  be  treated  in 
any  one  section  of  the  encyclopedia,  where  it  is  limited 
to  an  appeal  to  those  who  are  out  of  sympathy  with,  and  in 
direct  opposition  to,  the  revealed  truth  of  Christianity.  This, 
in  short,  is  no  more  entitled  to  the  exclusive  use  of  the  name 
apologetics  than  are  the  prolegomena  to  dogmatics,  or  the 
statement  of  principles  prefixed  to  Christian  ethics. 

Eabiger  very  properly  associates  apologetical  functions,  in 
an  altogether  special  manner,  with  systematic  theology  in  its 
several  sections ;  but,  inasmuch  as  no  system  of  apologetics 
is  fixed  down  at  any  point  in  the  distribution  of  the  theo- 
logical sciences,  he  is  able,  as  he  goes  along,  to  utilize  all  the 
resources  of  theology  in  all  its  departments  for  the  defence  of 
Christianity. 


MORRISON  AND  GIBB,   EDINBURGH, 
VRlNTEKii   TO   HER  MAJESTY'S  STATIONERY   OKKICE. 


T.  and  T.  Claries  Publications. 


DR.     LUTHARPrS    WORKS, 

In  Three  handsome  croicn  Svo  Volumes^  price  6s.  each. 
'  We  do  not  know  any  volumes  so  suitable  in  these  times  for  young  men 
entering  on  life,  or,  let  us  say,  even  for  the  library  of  a  pastor  called  to  deal 
with  such,  than  the  three  volumes  of  this  series.  We  commend  the  whole  of 
tJiem  with  the  utmost  cordial  satisfaction.  They  are  altogether  quite  a 
specialty  in  our  literature.'—  Weekly  Review. 

APOLOGETIC    LECTURES 

Oft   THK 

FUNDAMENTAL  TRUTHS  OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

Sixth  Edition. 

By  C.  E.  LUTHARDT,  D.D.,  Leipzig. 

'  From  Dr.  Luthardt's  exposition  even  the  most  learned  theologians  may  derive  in- 
valuable criticism,  and  the  most  acute  disputants  supply  themselves  with  more  trenchant 
and  polished  weapons  than  they  have  as  yet  been  possessed  of.' — Bell's  Weekly  Messenger. 

apologetTc~lectures 

ON    THE 

SAVING    TRUTHS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Fourth  Edition. 
'  Dr.  Luthardt  is  a  profound  scholar,  but  a  very  simple  teacher,  and  expresses  himself 
on  the  gravest  matters  with  the  utmost  simplicity,  clearness,  and  force.' — Literary  World. 

apologetTc~lectures 

ON    THE 

MORAL    TRUTHS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

Third  Edition. 
'The  ground  covered  by  this  work  is,  of  course,  of  considerable  extent,  and  there  is 
scarcely  any  topic  of  specifically  moral  interest  now  under  debate  in  which  the  reader 
will  not  find  some  suggestive  saying.    The  volume  contains,  like  its  predecessors,  a  truly 
wealthy  apparatus  of  notes  and  illustrations.' — English  Churchman. 

In  Three  Volumes,  %vo,  price  31s.  M. , 

COMMENTARY   ON    ST.   JOHN'S   GOSPEL. 

'  Full  to  overflowing  with  a  ripe  theology  and  a  critical  science  worthy  of  their  great 
theme,' — li'ish  Ecclesiastical  Gazette. 


In  demy  8?'o,  ]>7-ice  9s., 

ST.  JOHN  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  FOURTH  GOSPEL. 

By  Professor  C.  E.  LUTHARDT, 

Author  of  '  Fundamental  Truths  of  Christianity,'  etc. 
Translated  and  the  Literature  enlarged  by  C.  R.  Gregory,  Leipzig. 

'  A  work  of  thoroughness  and  value.  The  translator  has  added  a  lengthy  Appendix, 
containing  a  very  complete  account  of  the  literature  bearing  on  the  controversy  respect- 
ing this  Gospel.  The  indices  which  close  the  volume  are  well  ordered,  and  add  greatly 
to  its  value.' — Guardian. 

'  There  are  few  works  in  the  later  theological  literature  which  contain  such  a  wealth 
of  sober  theological  knowledge  and  such  an  invulnerable  phalanx  of  objective  apolo- 
gdtioal  criticism.' — Professor  Guericke. 

Crown  8(v;,  f).'-'., 

LUTHARDT,  KAHNIS,  AND  BRUCKNER. 

The  Church  :    Its  Origin,  its  History,  and  its  Present  Position. 
'  A  comprehensive  review  of  this  sort,  done  by  able  bauds,  is  both  iuatructive  and 
Kiiggestive.' — Record. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


In  demy  8vo,  Second  Edition,  price  10s.  6d,, 

THE     HUMILIATION     OF     CHRIST, 

IN  ITS  PHYSICAL,  ETHICAL,  AND  OFFICIAL  ASPECTS. 
Br    A.    B.    BRUCE,    D.D., 

PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY,  FREE  CHURCH  COLLEGE,  GLASGOW, 

'  Dr.  Bruce's  style  is  uniformly  clear  and  vigorous,  and  this  book  of  his,  as  a  whole, 
has  the  rare  advantaa;e  of  bt-inpj  at  once  stimulating  and  satisfying  to  the  mind  in  a  high 
degree.' — British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review, 

'  This  work  stands  forth  at  once  as  an  original,  thoughtful,  thorough  piece  of  work  in 
the  branch  of  scientific  theology,  such  as  we  do  not  often  meet  in  our  language.  ...  It 
is  really  a  work  of  exceptional  value ;  and  no  one  can  read  it  without  perceptible  gain  in 
theological  knowledge.' — English  Churchman. 

'  We  have  not  for  a  long  time  met  with  a  work  so  fresh  and  suggestive  as  this  of  Pro- 
fessor Bruce.  .  .  .  We  do  not  know  where  to  look  at  our  English  Universities  for  a 
treatise  so  calm,  logical,  and  scholarly.' — English  Independent. 


By  the  same  Author. 

In  demy  8vo,  Third  Edition,  price  lOs,  6d., 

THE    TRAINING    OF    THE    TWELVE; 

OR, 

EXPOSITION  OF  PASSAGES  IN  THE  GOSPELS 

EXHIBITING  THE  TWELVE  DISCIPLES  OF  JESUS  UNDER 

DISCIPLINE  FOR  THE  APOSTLESHIP. 

'Here  we  have  a  really  great  book  on  an  important,  large,  and  attractive  subject — a 
book  full  of  loving,  wholesome,  profound  thoughts  about  the  fundamentals  of  Christian 
faith  and  practice.' — British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review, 

'  It  is  some  five  or  six  years  since  this  work  first  made  its  appearance,  and  now  that  a 
second  edition  has  been  called  for,  the  Author  has  taken  the  opportunity  to  make  some 
alterations  which  are  likely  to  render  it  still  more  acceptable.  Substantially,  however, 
the  book  remains  the  same,  and  the  hearty  commendation  with  which  we  noted  its  first 
issue  applies  to  it  at  least  as  much  now.' — Rock. 

'The  value,  the  beauty  of  this  volume  is  that  it  is  a  unique  contribution  to,  because  a 
loving  and  cultured  study  of,  the  life  of  Christ,  in  the  relation  of  the  Master  of  the 
Twelve.' — Edinburgh  Daily  Review. 

In  demy  8vo,  price  10s.  Gd., 

DELIVERY  AND   DEVELOPMENT   OF 
CHRISTIAN   DOCTRINE. 

By    ROBERT    RAINY,    D.D., 

PRINCIPAL,  AND  PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY  AND  CHURCH  HISTORY,  NEW  COLLEGE,  EDIN. 

'We  gladly  acknowledge  the  high  excellence  and  the  extensive  learning  which  these 
lectures  display.  They  are  able  to  the  la>t  degri-e;  and  the  author  ha£,  in  an  unusual 
measure,  the  power  of  acute  aud  brilliant  gtsneralizatiou.' — Literary  Churchman. 

'  It  is  a  rich  and  nutritious  book  throughout,  and  in  temper  aud  spirit  beyond  all 
praise.' — British  and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review. 

'The  subject  is  treated  with  a  comprehensive  grasp,  keen  logical  power,  clear  analj-sis 
and  lean  iiig,  aud  in  devout  spirit.' — Evangelical  Magazine. 


PUBLICATIONS     OF 

T.    AND     T.     CLARK, 

38   GEORGE   STREET,    EDINBURGH. 

LONDON:  HAMILTON,  ADAMS,  &  CO. 


Adam  (J.,  D.D.)— An  Exposition  of  the  Epistle  of  Jajies.    8vo,  9s. 
Alexander  (Dr.  J.  A.)— Commentary  on  the  Prophecies  of  Isaiah. 

New  and  Revised  Edition.     Two  vols.  8vo,  17s. 

Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library— A  Collection  of  all  the  Works 
OF  THE  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  prior  to  the  Council  of 
Nic^A.     Twenty-four  vols.  8vo,  Subscription  price,  £6,  6s. 

Auberlen  (C.  A.)— The  Divine  Revelation.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Augustine's  Works— Edited  by  Marcus  Dods,  D.D.      Fifteen  vols. 

8vo,  Subscription  price,  £3,  19s. 

Bannerman  (Professor)— The  Church  of  Christ  :  A  Treatise  on  the 

Nature,  Towers,  etc.     Two  vols.  8vo,  2l8. 

Baumgarten  (Professor)— Apostolic  History  ;  Being  an  Account  oi 

the  Development  of  the  Early  Church.     Three  vols.  8vo,  27s. 

Beck  (Dr.)— Outlines  of  Biblical  Psychology.     Crown  8vo,  4s. 

Pastoral  Theology.    Shortly. 

Bengel— Gnomon  of  the  New  Testament.     With  Original  Notes, 

Explanatory  and  Illustrative.     Five  vols.  8vo,  Subscription  price,  31s.   6d.' 
Cheaper  Edition,  thefve  volumes  bound  in  three,  lie. 

Besser's  Christ  the  Life  of  the  World.     Price  6s. 
Bible-Class  Handbooks.     Crown  8vo. 

BiNNiE  (Prof.)— The  Church,  Is.  Gd. 

Brown  (Principal)— The  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  2s. 

Candlish  (Prof.)— The  Christian  Sacraments,  1r.  6d. 

Davidson  (Prof.)— The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  2s.  6d. 

Dods  (MAitcrs,  D.D.)— The  Post-Exilian  Prophets,  28. 

The  Book  of  (ienesis,  2s. 

Douglas  (Principal)— The  Book  of  Joshua,  Is.  Gd. 

The  Book  of  Judges,  Is.  3d. 

Henderson  (Archibald,  M.A.)— A  Geography  of  Palestine,  with  Maps. 
The  maps  are  by  Captain  Condcr,  R.E.,  of  the  Palestine  Exploration 

,        ^^«"^-  In  the  Press. 

Lindsay  (Prof.)— The  Cospel  of  St.  Mark,  28.  6d. 

The  Refonnation,  2s. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Part  I.,  Ch.  I.-XII.,  Is.  6(1. 

MacGreoor  (Prof.)— The  Epistle  to  the  Galatiaiis,  Is.  6d. 

MACniERSON  (John,  M.A.)— Presbyterianism,  Is.  6d. 

The  Westminster  Confession  of  Eaith,  2b. 

Murphy  (Prof.)— The  Books  of  Chronicles,  Is.  Gd. 

SCRYMGEOUR  (AVm.)— Lessons  on  the  Life  of  Christ,  2s.  Gd. 

Stalker  (James,  M.A.)— The  Life  of  Christ,  Is.  Gd. 

The  Life  of  St.  Paul,  Is.  Gd. 

Smith  (George,  LL.D.)— A  Short  History  of  Missions.  2s.  Gd. 

Walker  (Norman  L.,  M  A.)— Scottish  Church  History,  Is.  Gd. 

AVhyte  (Alexander,  D.D.)— Tbe  Sliorter  Catechism.  2.s.  M. 


T.  and  T.  ClarJc  s  PiLblications. 


Bible-Class  Piimers.     Paper  covers,  6d.  each;  free  by  i^ost,  7d.     lu 
cloth.  8d.  each  ;  free  by  post,  9d, 

CaosKEUY  (Prof.) — Joshua  and  the  Conquest. 

GiVEX  (Prof.) — The  Kintrs  of  Judali. 

Gloag,   (PatOxN  J..  D.D.)— Life  of  Paul. 

IVERACH  (James,  M.A.)— Life  of  Moses. 

Salmond  (Prof. ) — Life  of  Peter. 

Smith  (H.  W.,  D.D.)— Outlines  of  Early  Church  History. 

Thomson  (Peter,  M.A.)— Life  of  David. 

Walker  (W.,  M.A.)— The  Kings  of  Israel. 

WiNTERBOTHAM  (PvATNEK,  M.A.)— Life  and  Eeign  of  Solomon. 

WiTHEROW  (Prof.) — The  History  of  the  Reformation. 
Bleek's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testajnient.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Bowman  (T.,  M.A.)— Easy  and  Complete  Hebrew  Course.     8vo. 

Part  L,  7s.  6d.  ;  Part  II.,  10s.  6(1. 

Briggs    (Prof.)— Biblical    Study:     Its    Principles,    Methods,    and 

History.     Preface  by  Rev.  Prof.  Br.ucE,  D.D.,  Glasgow.     Post  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Brown  (David,  D.D.) — Christ's   Second   Coming  :   Will  it  be  Pre- 

Millennial  \     Seventh  Edition,  crown  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Bruce  (A.  B.,  D.D.) — The  Training  of  the  Twelve  ;  or.  Exposition 

of  Passages  in  the  Gospels  exhibiting  the  Twelve  Disciples  of  Jesus  under 
Discipline  for  the  Apostleship.     Third  Edition,  8vo,  10s.  6d.  • 

The  Humiliation  of  Christ,  in  its  Physical,  Ethical,  and 

Official  Aspects.     Second  Edition,  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Buchanan  (Professor) — The  Doctrine  of  Justification.  8vo,  10.s.  6d. 

On  Comfort  in  Affliction.     Crown  Bvo,  2s.  6d. 

On  Improvement  of  Affliction.     Crown  Svo,  2s.  Gd. 

Bungener  (Felix) — Eome  and  the  Council  in  the  Nineteenth 

Centuuy.     Crown  Svo,  5s. 
Calvin's  Institutes  of  the   Christian   Religion.     Translated   by 

Henry  Beveiudge.     Two  vols.  Svo,  14s. 
Calvini    Institutio    Christianas    Religionis.      Curavit    A.    Tholuck. 

Two  vols.  Svo,  Subscription  jtrice,  14s. 

Candlish  (Prof.  J.  S.,  D.D.) — The  Kingdom  of  God,  Biblically  and 

Hl.STOKICAI.LY    COXSIEEKED.       SvO,   lOs.   6d. 

Caspari  (C.  E.) — A  Chronological  and  Geographical  Introduc- 
tion TO  THE  Life  of  Chuist.     Svo,  9s. 
Caspers  (A.) — The  Footsteps  of  Christ.     Crown  Bvo,  7s.  6d. 
Cave  (Prof.) — The  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice.     8vo,  12s. 
Christlieb  (Dr.) — Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief.    Apologetic 

Lectnres  addressed  to  Earnest  Seekers  after  Truth.     Svo,  lOs.  6d. 
Cotterill  —  Peregrinus    Proteus  :     Investigation    into    De    IMorte 
Perefjrini,  the  Two  Epistles  of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians,  etc.     Svo,  12s. 

Modern  Criticism:  Clement's  Epistles  to  Virgins, etc.    Svo,  os. 

Cremer  (Professor) — Biblico-Theological  Lexicon  of  New  Testa- 
men  r  Greek.     Third  Edition,  demy  4to,  25s. 

Crippen  (Kev.  T.   G.)— A  Popular  Introduction  to  the  History 

OF  Christian  Doctrine.     Svo,  9s. 
Cunningham  (Principal) — Historical  Theology.    A  Eeview  of  the 

Principal  Doctrinal  Discussions  in  the  Christian  Church  since  the  Apostolic 
Age.     Second  Edition,  Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Discussions  on  Church  Principles.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Cui-tiss  (Dr.  S.  I.) — The  Levitical  Priests.     A  Contribution  to  the 

Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch.     Crown  Svo,  5s. 


Dabney    (E,   L.,    D.D.)— The    Sensualistig    I'iiilusuimiy    of    the 

Nineteenth  Century  Consideued.     Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Lectures  on  Systematic  and  Polemic  Theology.    8vo,  IGs. 

D.ividson  (Professor)— An  Introductory  IlEintEW  Grammar,     ivitli 

Progres.sive  Exercises  in  Keadiiig  and  Writing.     Sixth  Edition,  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Delitzsch  (Prof.)— A  System  of  Biblical  I'sychology.     8vo.  12s. 

Commentary  on  Job.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

COxMmentary  on  Psalms.     Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  Gd. 

On  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

On  the  Song  of  Solomon  and  Ecclesiastes.     8vo,  lOs.  Gd. 

Old  Testament  History  of  Kedemption.    Cr.  8vo,  4s.  Gd. 

Commentary  on  Isaiah.    Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

On  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Doedes  (Dr.  J.) — Manual  of  Hermeneutics  for  the  New  Testa- 
ment.    Crown  8vo,  3s. 

Bollinger  (Dr.)— Hippolytus  and  Callistus;  or,  The  Roman  Church 
in  the  First  Half  of  the  Third  Century.     Svo,  9s. 

Domer  (Professor) — History  of  the  Development  of  the  Doctrine 

OF  the  Person  of  Christ.     Five  vols.  8vo,  £2,  12s.  6d. 

System  of  Christian  Doctrine.     Four  vols.  8vo,  £2,  2s. 

Eadie  (Professor) — Commentaries  on  St.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the 

Galatian.';,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colossians.     Kew  and  Revised  Edi- 
tions, Edited  by  Rev.  Wiixiam  Youno,  M.A.     Four  vols.  8vo,  10s.  6d.  each. 

Ebrard  (Dr.  J.  H.  A.)— The  Gospel  History:   A  Compendium  of 

Critical  Investigations  in  support  of  the  Four  Gospels.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  the  Epistles  of  St.  John.     8vo,  10s.  Gd. 

Elliott — On  the  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.    8vo,  6.s. 
Emesti — Biblical  Interpretation  of  the  New  Testaisient.    Two 

vols.     8s. 

Ewald  (Heini'ich) — Syntax  of  the  Hebrew  Language  of  the  Old 

Testament.     8vo,  8s.  6d. 

Kevelation  :   Its   Nature  and  Record.       Translated   by 

Prof.  T.  GoADBY.     Bvo,  10s.  6d. 

Fau'baim  (Principal) — Typology  of  Scripture,  viewed  in  connection 

with  the  series  of  Divine  Dispensations.     Sixth  Edition,  Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

The  Revelation  of  Law  in  Scripture,  8vo,  10s.  Gd. 

EzEKiEL  and  the  Book  OF  his  Prophecy.  4thEd.,8vo,  10s.  Gd. 

Prophecy  Viewed  in  its  Distinctive  Nature,  its  Special 

Functions,  and  Proper  Interpretations.     Second  Edition,  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

New  Testament  Hermeneutical  Manual.     8vo,  10s.  Gd. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles.     The  Greek  Text  and  Translation. 

With  Introduction,  Exjiository  Notes,  and  Dissertations.     8vo,  7s.  (id. 

Pastoral  Theology  :  A  Treatise  on  the  Office  and  Duties  of 


the  Christian  Pastor.     With  a  Memoir  of  the  Author.     Crown  Svo,  6s. 

Forbes  (Prof.) — Symmetrical  Structure  of  Scripture.   >^yi\  8s.  Gd. 

Analytical  Commentary  on  the  Romans.     Svo,  10s.  Gd. 

Gsbhardt  (H.)^Tiie  Doctrine  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  its  Relation 

to  the  Doctrine  of  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  .Toiin.     Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Gerlach — Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch.     8vo,  10s.  Gd. 
Gieseler  (Dr.  J.  C.  L.) — A  Compendium  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 

Four  vols.  Svo,  £2,  2s. 

Giflford  (Canon) — Voices  of  the  Prophets.     Crown  8vo,  r)s. 


T.  and  T.  Clark'' s  Publications. 


Given  (Rev.  Prof.  J.  J.) — The  Truths  of  Scripture  in  connection 

WITH  EeVELATION,   IXSI'IIIATIOX,   AND  THE  CaNOX.       8vO,   9s. 

Glasgow  (Prof. )— Apocalypse  Translated  and  Expounded.  8  vo,  1 4s. 
Gloag  (Paton  J.,  D.D.)— A  Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentary 

ON  THE  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

The  Messianic  Prophecies.     Crown  8vo,  price  Ts.  6d. 

Introduction  to  the  Pauline  Epistles.     8vo,  123. 

Exegetical  Studies.     Crown  8vo,  5s. 

Godet  (Prof.)— Commentary  on  St.  Luke's  Gospel.  Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Commentary  on  St.  John's  Gospel.    Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans.    Two 

vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Lectures  in  Defence  of  the  Christian  Faith.     Cr.  8vo,  6s. 

Goebel  (Siegfried)— The  Parables  of  Jesus.     8vo,  10s.  Gd. 
Gotthold's  Emblems ;  or,  Invisible  Things  Understood  by  Things 

that  aee  Made.     Crowu  8vo,  5s. 
Guyot  (Arnold,  LL.D.)— Creation;  or,  The  Biblical  Cosmogony  in  the 

Light  of  Modern  Science.     With  Illustrations.     Crown  8vo,  5s.  6d. 

Hagenbach  (Dr.  K.  R.)— History  of  Doctrines.    Edited,  with  large 

additions  from  various  sources.     Three  vols.  Svo,  31s.  6d. 

History  of  the  Refor]\la.tion  in  Germany  and  Switzer- 
land CHIEFLY.      Two  vols.  8V0,  21s. 

Hall   (Rev.   Newman,    LL.B.)— The  Lord's   Prayer:    A  Practical 

Meditation.     Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Harless  (Dr.  C.  A.)— System  of  Christian  Ethics.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Harris  (Rev.  S.,  D.D.)-^The  Philosophical  Basis  of  Theism.    8vo,  1 2s. 
Haupt  (Erich) — The  First  Epistle  of  St.  John.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 
Havemick  (H.  A.  Ch.) — Introduction  to  Old  Test.ajhent.     10s.  6d, 
Heard  (Rev.  J.  B.,  M.A.)— The  Tripartite  Nature  of  Man— Spirit, 

Soul,  and  Body— applied  to  Illustrate  and  Explain  the  Doctrine  of  Original 
Sin,  the  New  Birth,  the  Disembodied  State,  and  the  Spiritual  Body.  With 
an  Appendix  on  the  Fatherhood  of  God.     Fifth  Edition,  crown  Svo,  6s. 

The  Old  and  New  Theology.  In  the  Press. 

Hefele  (Bishop) — A  History  of  the  Councils  of  the  Church. 

Vol.  I.,  to  a.d.  325  ;  Vol.  II.,  a.d.  326  to  429.  Vol.  III.,  a.d.  431  to  the 
close  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  451.     Svo,  12s.  each. 

Hengstenberg  (Professor)— Comsientary  on  Psalms.    3  vols.  8vo,  33s. 

Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastks.      Treatises  ou 

the  Song  of  Solomon,  Job,  and  on  Isaiah,  etc.     Svo,  9s. 

The  Prophecies  of  Ezekiel  Elucidated.    8vo,  lOs.  6d. 

Dissertations  on  the  Genuineness  of  Daniel,  and  the 

Integrity  of  Zechariah.     Svo,  12s. 

History  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Christology  of  the  Old  Testament.    Four  vols.  8vo,  £2, 2s. 

On  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.    Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Hermes   Trismegistus — Theological  and  Philosophical  Works. 

,.^    Translated  from  the  original  Greek  by  J.  D.  Chambers,  M.A.     Svo,  6s. 

Herzog — Encyclopedia  or  Dictionary  of  Biblical,  Historical, 

Doctrinal,  and  Pi;actical  Theology.  Based  on  the  Rtal-Enajhlopddu 
of  Herzog,  Plltt,  and  Hauck.  Edited  by  Professor  Schaff,  D.D.  lu  Three 
vols.,  jirice  24s.  each. 

Hutchison  (John,  D.D.)— Commentary  on  Thessalonians.     8vo,  9s. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Janet  (Paul) — Final  Causes.  By  Paul  Janet,  Member  of  the  In- 
stitute.    Translated  from  the  Freucli.     Second  Kdition,  demy  8vo,  128. 

The  Theory  of  Morals.     Translated  t'runi  tliu  latest  French 

Edition.     Demy  8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Jouffroy — Philosophical  Essays.     Fcap.  8vo,  5.s. 

Junii  (Francisci) — Opuscula  Tlieologica  Selecta.     4to,  vellum,  16s. 

Kant — The  Metaphysic  of  Ethics.     Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Keil  (Prof.)— Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch.     3  vols.  8vo,  31s.  G<1. 

Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Joshua,  Judges,  and  PiUTH. 

8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Samuel.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Kings.     8vo,  lOs.  6d. 

Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Chronicles.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Commentary  on  Jeremiah.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Commentary  on  Ezekiel.     Two  vols.  8vo,  2 Is. 

Commentary  on  Daniel.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

On  the  Books  of  the  Minor  Prophets.     Two  vols.  8vo,  2 Is. 

Manual  of   Historico  -  Critical    Introduction    to    the 


Canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

Keymer  (Rev.  N.,  M.A.) — Notes  on  Genesis.     Crown  8vo,  Is.  6d. 

KiUen  (Prof.)— The  Old  Catholic  Church  ;  or,  The  History,  Doc- 
trine, Worship,  and  Polity  of  the  Christians,  traced  to  A.D.  755.     8vo,  93. 

Konig   (Dr.   F.   E.) — The  Chief  Principles  of  Ancient   Israel's 

Keligiun  (against  the  Kueuen  School).  /n  tht  Prefix. 

Krummacher  (Dr.  F.  W.) — The  Suffering  Saviour  ;  or.  Meditations 

on  the  Last  Days  of  the  Sutierings  of  Christ.     Eighth  Edit.,  crown  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

David,  the  King  of  Israel  :  A  Portrait  drawn  from  Bible 

History  and  the  Book  of  Psalms.     Second  Edition,  crown  8vo,  7s.  6d. 

Autobiography.     Crown  8vo,  6s. 


Kurtz  (Prof.) — Handbook  of  Church  History.    Two  vols.  8vo,  15s. 

History  of  the  Old  Covenant.     Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

Ladd    (Prof.    G.    T.) — The  Doctrine  of  Sacred    Scripture  :    A 

Critical,  Historical,  and  Dogmatic  Inqniry  into  the  Origin  and  Nature  of  the 
Old  anil  New  Testaments.     Two  vols.  8vo,  1600  pp.,  28s. 

Laidlaw  (Prof.) — The  Bible  Doctrine  of  Man.     8vo,  10s.  6tL 
Lange  (J.  P.,  D.D.)— The  Life  of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     Edited, 

with  additional  Notes,  by  Marcus  Dods,   D.D.     Second  Edition,  in  Four 
vols.  8vo,  Subscription  price  28s. 

Commentaries  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.    Edited 

by  Philip  Schaff,  D.D.     Old  Testament,  14  vols.  ;  New  Testamknt,  10 
vols.  ;  Apocrypha,  1  vol.     Subscription  price,  nett,  15s.  each. 

On  the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mai:k.     Thive 


vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

—  On  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke.     Two  vols.  8vo,  18s. 

—  On  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21.s. 
On  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     Two  vols.  8vo,  21s. 


Lehmann  (Pastor)— Scenes  from  the  Life  of  Jesus.       la  the  Press. 
Lewis  (Tayler,  LL.D.)— The  Six  Days  of  Creation.    Cr.  Svo,  7s.  6d. 
Lisco  (F.  G.)— Parables  of  Jesus  Explained.     Fcaj).  8vo,  5s. 
Lotze  (Professor) — Microcosmos.     In  jurjianiiion. 
Luthardt,  Kalinis,  and  Bruckner— The  Church.     Crown  8vo,  .'».>-■. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Luthardt  (Prof.)— St.  John  the  Author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.    9s. 
St.  John's  Gospel  Described  and  Explained  according 

TO  ITS  Peculiar  Character.     Three  vols.  8vo,  31s.  6d. 

Apologetic     Lectures     on     the     Fundamental     (Sixth 


Edition),  Saving  (Fourth  Edition),  Moral  Truths  of  Christianity  {Third 
Edition).     Three  vols,  crown  8vo,  6s.  each. 

M'Cosh  (Dr.  Jas.)— Philosophic  Series.     Part  I.  (Didactic).     No.  I. 

Criteria  of  Diversk  Kinds  of  Truth.     {The  other  Numbers  will  follow 
shortly.     Price  2s.  each. ) 

Macdonald  (Rev.  D.)— Introduction  to  the  Pentateuch.    Two  vols. 

8vo,  21s. 

The  Creation  and  Fall.     8vo,  126. 

M'Lauchlan  (T.,  D.D.,  LL.D.)— The  Early  Scottish  Church.     To 

the  Middle  of  the  Twelfth  Century.     Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Hair  (A.,  D.D.)— Studies  in  the  Christian  Evidences.     Cr.  8vo,  6s. 
Liartensen  (Bishop)— Christian  Dogmatics  :  A  Compendium  of  the 

Doctrines  of  Christianity.     Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Christian  Ethics.     (General  Ethics.)     Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Christian  Ethics.    (Individual  Ethics.)     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Christian  Ethics.     (Social  Ethics.)     Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Matheson  (Geo.,  D.D.) — Growth  of  the  Spirit  of  Christianity,  from 

the  First  Century  to  the  Dawn  of  the  Lutheran  Era.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Aids  to  the  Study  of  German  Theology.    3rd  Edition,  4s.  6d. 

Meyer  (Dr.)  —  Critical  and    Exegetical    Commentary    on    St. 

Matthew's  Gospel.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

On  Mark  and  Luke.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

On  St.  John's  Gospel.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

On  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

On  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

On  Corinthians.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

On  Galatians.     Svo,  10s.  6d. 

On  Ephesians  and  Philemon.     One  vol.  Svo,  10s.  6d. 

On  Philippians  and  Colossians.     One  vol.  Svo,  10s.  6d. 

On  Thessalonians.     {Dr.  Liinemann.)     One  vol.  Svo,  10s.  6d. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles.     {Dr.  Huther.)    Svo,  10s.  6d. 

The  Epistle  TO  the  Hebrews.    {Dr.  Mmmann.)   Svo,  10s.  6d. 

St.  James'  and  St.  John's  Epistles.    {Huther.)    Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Peter  and  Jude.     {Dr.  Huther.)     One  vol.  Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Michie   (Charles,  M. A.)— Bible  AVords  and  Phrases,  Explained 

AND  Illustrated.     ISmo,  Is. 
Monrad  (Dr.  D.  G.)— The  World  of  Prayer;  or.  Prayer  in  relation 

to  Personal  Religion.     Crown  Svo,  4s.  6d. 

Morgan  (J.,  D.D.)— Scripture  Testimony  to  the  Holy  Spirit.    9s. 

Exposition  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John.     Svo,  9s. 

Miiller  (Dr.  Jidius) — The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin.     An  entirely 

New  Translation  from  the  Fifth  German  Edition.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Mui-phy  (Professor)— Commentary  on  the  Psal:ms.     Svo,  1 2s. 

A  Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  Exodus.    9s. 

NaviUe  (Ernest)— The  Problem  of  Evil.     Crown  Svo,  4s.  6d. 

The  Christ.   Translated  by  Rev.  T.  J.  Despres.    Cr.  Svo,  4s.  6d. 

Naville  (Ernest)— Modern    Physics:    Studies  Historical  and  Philo- 

sopliical.     Translated  by  Rev.  Henry  Downton,  M.A.     Crown  Svo,  5s. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  Publications. 


Nicoll  (W.  R.,  M.A.)— The  Incarnate  Saviour:    A  Life  of  Jesus 

Christ.     Crown  8vo,  63. 

Neander  (Dr.)— General  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  and 

Chukch.     Nine  vols.  8vo,  £3,  7s.  6d. 

Oeliler  (Prof.) — Theology  of  the  Old  Testament.     2  vols.  8vo,  21s. 
Oosterzee  (Dr.  Van)— The  Year  of  Salvation.      Words  of  Life  for 

Every  Day.     A  Book  of  Household  Devotion.     Two  vols.  8vo,  7s.  6d.  each. 

Moses  :  A  Biblical  Study.     Crown  8vo,  6s. 

Olshaiisen  (Dr.  H.)— Biblical  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  and 

Acts.     Four  vols.  Svo,  £2,  2s.     Oieaper  Edition,  four  vols,  ciown  8vo,  24s. 

Romans.     One  vol.  Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Corinthians.     One  vol.  Svo,  9s. 

Philippians,  Titus,  and  First  Timothy.  One  vol.  Svo,  1  Os.  6d. 

Owen  (Dr.  Jolin) — Works.     Best  and  only  Complete  Edition.     Edited 

by  Rev.  Dr.  Goold.     Twenty-four  vols.  Svo,  Suliscription  price,  £4,  4s. 
The  '  llehreius '  may  be  had  separately,  in  Seven  vols.,  £2,  2s.  nett. 

Philippi  (F.  A. ) — Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.    From 

the  Third  Improved  Edition,  by  Rev.  Professor  Banks.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Piper  (Dr.   Ferdiriand) — Lives  of  the  Leaders   of  the   Church 

Univeksal.     Two  vols.  Svo,  21s. 

Popular  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament.  Edited  by  Philip 
ScHAFF,  D.D.  With  Illustrations  and  Maps.  Vol.  I. — The  Synoptical 
Gospels.  Vol.  II. — St.  John's  Gospel,  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
Vol.  111.— Romans  to  Philemon.  Vol.  IV. — Hebuew.s  to  Revelation. 
In  Four  vols,  imperial  Svo,  18s.  each. 

Pressens^  (Edward  de) — The  Redeemer  :  Discourses,    Crown  Svo,  G^. 

Rabiger  (Prof.) — Encyclopaedia  of  Theology.     Vol.  I.,  Svo,  10s.  6(1. 

"Rainy    (Principal)  —  Delivery   and    Development   of   Christia  x 

Docti;ine.     (The  Fifth  Series  of  the  CunniiKjham  Lectures.)     Svo,  10s.  6d. 

Reuscli  (Professor) — Bible  and  Nature.     In  preparation. 

Reuss  (Professor) — History  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  New 

Testament.     640  pp.  Svo,  15s. 
Riehm  (Dr.  E.) — Messianic  Prophecy  :  Its  Origin,  Historical  Charac- 
ter, and  Relation  to  New  Testament  Fulfilment.     Crown  Svo,  5s. 

Ritter  (Carl) — The  Comparative  Geography  of  Palestine  and  the 

Sinaitic  Peninsula.     Four  vols.  Svo,  32s. 

Robinson  (Rev.  S.,  D.D.) — Discourses  on  Redemption.     Svo,  7s.  Gd. 
Robinson  (Edward,  D.D.) — Greek  and  English  Lexicon  of  the 

New  Testament.     Svo,  9s. 

Rothe  (Professor) — Sermons  for  the  Christian  Year.     Cr.  Svo,  Gs. 
Saisset — IManual  of  Modern  Pantheism.     Two  vols.  Svo,  10s.  6d. 
Sartorius  (Dr.  E.) — Doctrine  of  Divine  Love.     Svo,  10s.  Od. 
Schaff  (Professor) — History  of   the   Christian  Church.     (New 

Edition,  thoroughly  Revised  and  Enlarged.) 

Apostolic   Christianity,   a.d.    1-100.     In   Tw(^   Divisions. 

E.x.  Svo,  21s. 

Ante-Nicene  Christianity,  a.d.  100-325.    In  Two  Divisions. 


E.x.  Svo,  21s. 

Post-Nicene  Christianity,  a.d.  325-600.     In  Two  Divisions. 

E.\.  Svo,  21. s. 

Sclimid's  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament.     Svo,  10s.  Gd. 
Scott  (Jas.,  M.A.,  D.D.) — Principles  of  New  Testament  Quotation 

Established  and  Applied  to  Bh'.lical  Ckiticis.m.     Cr.  Svo,  2nd  Edit.,  4s. 


T.  and  T.  Clark  s  FubUcatwns. 


Shedd  (W.,  D.D.)— History  of  Christian  Doctrine.     Two  vols. 

Sermons  to  the  Natural  Man.    8vo,  7s.  6d. 

.  Sermons  to  the  Spiritual  Man.     8vo,  7s.  Gd. 

Smeaton  (Professor)— The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement  as  Taught 

BY  Christ  Himself.     Second  Edition,  8vo,  10s.  Gd.  ,...,,    c*     •        / 

1  On  the  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit.      (iVm^A  Series  of 

Cunniiuiham  Lextures.)     8vo,  9s.  r\      a  a       ctA 

Smith  (Professor  Thos.,  D.D.)-Medl^val  Missions.    Cr.  8vo,  _4s.  6d 
Steinmeyer  (Dr.  F.  L.)— The  Miracles  of  Our  Lord  :  Examined  m 

til  fir  relation  to  Modern  Criticism.     8vo,  7s.  6d. 

The  HISTORY  of  the  Passion  and  Resurrection  of  our 

Loud,  considered  in  the  Light  of  Modern  Criticism^    8vo,  lOs.  6d. 

qtpvenson  (Mrs  )— The  Symbolic  Parables  :  The  Predictions  of  the 

Apocalypse  •  .^  ^^^^^.^^  ^^^^^  GeneralTruths  of  Scripture.   Crown  8vo,  5s 

Steward  (e2v  G.) -Mediatorial  Sovereignty  :  The  Mystery  of  Christ 

and  Sevelation  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.     Two  vol..  8vo,  2Ls. 

1  The  Argument   of   the  Epistle  to   the    Hebrenvs.     A 

Posthumous  Work.     8vo,  10s.  6d.  -ri-   i,i. 

Stier  mr    Rudolph)-ON  the  Words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.     Eight 

vols   8vo    £4,  4s.     Separate  volumes  may  be  had,  price  10s.  6d 
Infrderto  hrng  this  valuable  Work  vwre  loithin  the  ««^^.  f  «^^,^^«^^^^V.5?f 
CUr7y  and  Laity,  Messrs.  Clark  continue  to  supply  the  Mght-volume  Editum 
hound  in  Four  at  the  Original  Subscription  pnce  of  £2,  2s. 

The  Words  of  the  Risen  Saviour,  and  Commentary  on 

THE  Epistle  of  St.  James.     8vo,  10s.  6d.  o         i  a      aA 

1  The  Words  of  the  Apostles  Expounded.     8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Tholuck  (Profe8Sor)-CoMMENTARY  ON  Gospel  of  St.  John.    8vo,  9s. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans.    Two  vols.  fcap.  bvo,  «s. 

Light  FROM  the  Cross.     Third  Edition  crown  8vo,  5s^ 

.  Commentary  on  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.    8vo,  10s.  6d. 

Tonhel  (Pastor  G.)— The  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     Cr.  8vo  2s.  6d. 

UUmann  (Dr    Carl)-REFORMERS  before  the  Reformation,  prmci- 

nallv  in  Germany  and  the  Netherlands.     Two  vols   8vo,  21s. 

L  ^HE  SiNLESSNESS  OF  Jesus  :    An  Evidence  for  Christiamty. 

Fourth  Edition,  crown  8vo,  6s.  »     /^  i. 

Urwick  (W     M.A.)-The  Servant  of  Jehovah  :   A  Commentary 

upoi  isaiainii.  13-liii.  12 ;  with  Dissertations  upon  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.     Svo,  6s. 

Vinet  (ProfSsor)-STUDiES  on  Blaise  Pascal.     Crown  8vo,  5s. 

:  Pastoral  Theology.     Second  Edition,  post  8vo,  3s.  6d. 

Watts  (Professor)-THE  Newer  Criticism  and  the  Analogy  of 

the  Faith.     Third  Edition,  crown  Svo   5s. 

Wei8s(Prof  -BiblicalTheology  of  New  Testament.  2  vols.  8vo,  21s. 

1  Life  of  Christ.     Three  vols.  Svo,  31s.  6d. 

White  (Rev.  M.)-Symbolical  Numbers  of  Scripture.    Cr.  8vo,  4s. 
wSiamt(W.  H.,  M.A.)-A  Select  Vocabulary  of  Latin  Etymology. 

Winer^rl^aBO-rTRElS^'oN^TH^  Grammar  of  New  Test. 

wmer  {ui-  \x.  a»./  ,    ,   „„  +>,«  p.,c;<!  of  New   Testament   ExeEjesis.     Third 

Sn^SdbTw' F.  lotlJrH.  "Srnth  English  Editio^n.  8vo,  15s. 

!:'Tcomp1rative  View  of  the  Doctrinf^  and  Confessions 

OF  THE  VAEiors  Communities  OF  Christendom.     8yo,  IDs.  6d 
Wuttke  (Profe8Sor)-CHRiSTiAN  Ethics.    Two  vols.  Svo,  12s.  Gd. 


lillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 

1    1012  01210  6128