« PreviousContinue »
view, New York, 1846, pp. 624-608. Leonard Wood, in Preface to translation o' Knapp's Theology, 1831. E. B. Pusey, An Historical Inquiry into the Probable Causes of the Rationalistic Character lately predominant in the Theology of Germany. To which is prefixed a letter from Prof. Sack on Rev. J. H. Rose's Discourses on German Protestantism, Lond., 1828; Part 2. Explanation of the Views miscon. ceived by Mr. Rose, 1830.] Neander, Das verflossene halbe Jahrhundert, in Zeitschrift f. christl. Wissenschaft, 1 Jahrg., p. 215 sq. The Anti-Rationalistic Literature from the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century, in Tholuck's Anzeiger, 1836, No. 15–18. K. F. A. Kahnis, Der innere Gang des deutschen Protestantismus seit Mitte des vorigen Jahrhunderts, Leipz., 1854 [translated by Mayer, Edinb. 1856; 2d ed. of original, 1860). Karl Schwarz, Zur Geschichte der neuesten Theologie, Leipz., 1836, 2te Aufl., 1857. (Wangemenn, Sieben Bücher Prenssischer Kirchengesh.; Kampf um die lutherische Kirche im 19. Jahrh. 2 Bde., Berl., 1858. Jas. Edm. Jörg, (Rom. Cath.) Gesch. des Protestantismus in seiner neuesten Entwicklung, 2 Bde., Freiburg, 1858. Gregoire, Historie des Sectes religieuses depuis le Commencement du Siècle dernier, B vols., Paris, 1828. Henrion, Historie générale de l'eglise pendant les 18 et 19 Siècles, Paris, 1836. E. H. Dewar, Hist. Germ. Protest., Oxf., 1844.]
The spirit of investigation having been awakened, and the belief in human authority shaken, by the Reformation of the sixteenth century, a more liberal and progressive movement was inaugurated. But as the Reformers, at the same time, declared, in the most decided terms, that no other foundation can be laid than that which is laid in Christ, and strengthened the belief in the divine authority of Scripture, they of course also directed the attention of Christians to the early history of the Christian Church. Neither of these two points should be overlooked, if we would form a correct judgment of Protestantism, and its importance in history. During the second half of the sixteenth, and the whole of the seventeenth century, most theologians had lost sight of its true significance as regards the former aspect, by again submitting to the yoke of human authority, and thus preventing all progress. The very opposite tendency characterizes the eighteenth century. Theologians and philosophers, animated by an ardent desire after enlightenment and spiritual liberty, gradually renounced their allegiance to the only foundation on which the Reformers had thought it safe to build, and for which, no less than for liberty, the martyrs of the Protestant Church had shed their blood. The authority of Holy Writ was by degrees impaired, together with that of the symbolical books, and not long after, those doctrines which the earlier Protestants, as well as Roman Catholics, had rejected, as opposed to Christianity, became prevalent in various sections of the Church. But, as in the seventeenth century there were not wanting excitable and free-thinking spirits, though the majority were stable, so, too, in the midst of the contests and storms of recent times, there were found men of a conservative tendency ; and attempts were made to restore what had been destroyed, and to bring about a reconciliation between the two extremes. It is the task of the history of doctrines during this last period, to represent this remarkable struggle in all its details, and to treat of its elements separately, as well as in their relation to each other. This delineation, in its historical aspect, is nearly identical with the course of recent church history; as to its substance, it leads directly into the sphere of dogmatic theology the nearer it approaches the present times.
[“The Reformation, from its very commencement, included a double interest, viz., that of universal reason as well as the specifically religious. In the consciousness of its freedom, the subjective spirit, moved by the pressure of the need of salvation, emancipated itself from everything which was in irreconcilable opposition to the religious consciousness. The freedom of Scriptural interpretation had again became limited by the dogmatic pressure of the confessions of faith....A conflict must ensue with a domineering system, which did not allow the freedom of the individual. But the relation was different so far as this, that the principle of self-emancipation was not now to be battled for; what had been already gained was to be grasped in its full significancy, and carried out to its practical and valid results.” Baur, Dogmengeschichte, 343-4]
INFLUENCE OF PHILOSOPHY UPON THEOLOGY.
An invincible testimony to the essential practical efficiency of Christianity is given in the fact that it owed neither its origin, nor the restoration of purer principles, to a system of philosophy.' At the same time, its more profound speculative import, and high importance in a philosophical point of view, are clearly proved by the fact, that philosophy has always put itself into either hostile or friendly relations with theology, endeavoring either to destroy it, or to interweave it with its own speculations and dialectics.' The grand attempt made by the scholastics appeared at first successful. But after its degeneracy into the vain subtilties of the schools had brought philosophy into disrepute among evangelical Christians, the Protestant Church, which sprung up in opposition to this scholasticism, kept aloof for a long time from the speculations of philosophers, entrenched in its strict systematic theology. Yet it must also be admitted, that Protestantism itself awakened modern philosophy, and furthered its development.
Comp. vol. i., § 17, and vol. ii., $ 211. " It is sufficient to refer to the phenomena of Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and the philosophy of the school of Alexandria during the first period, and to the scholasticism of the third period.
Comp. 8 238.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF WOLF.
* Wuttke, H., Christian Wolff's eigene Lebensbeschreibung, Leipz., 1841. Ludovici, Ent
wurf einer Historie der Wolfischen Philosophie, Leipz., 1737, iii. Niedner, Kirchengeschichte, 755 sq._(Pusey, ubi supra. Feuerbach, Darstellung d. Leibnitzschen Phil., 1837. Kuno Fischer, Geschichte der neueren Phil., Bd. 2, 1855.]
It was not until the philosophy of Leibnitz (in the modified form in which it was presented by Christian Wolf ),' had obtained more general authority, that it extended its influence also to theology, as the Leibnitz-Wolfian system. The attempt to establish a system of natural religion, on the principle of demonstration (independently of revelation, but not in direct opposition to it),' met with a very different reception among the various parties of the church. One class of theologians, the pietists in particular, were not only hostile to such innovations, but also persecuted their advocates.' On the contrary, the adherents of that moderate and rational form of orthodoxy which, towards the commencement of the eighteenth century, was represented by some able and learned men,' hastened to adopt the demonstrative method, thinking that they might make use of natural theology as a convenient stepping-stone for revealed religion, and thus gain a solid foundation for the truths of the latter."
Wolf was born a. D. 1679, in Breslau, appointed professor of mathematics in the University of Halle (1707), dismissed from office by the order of King Frederic William I. (1723), banished (upon pain of death), lived some time in Cassel and Marburg, was recalled (1740) by King Frederic II., appointed Chancellor, and died 1754.
Among Wolf's works are: Vernünftige Gedanken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dingen überhaupt, 1719. Anmerkungen über die vernünftingen Gedanken, etc. Theologia Naturalis, 1736, etc.
One of the principal opponents of Wolf was Joachim Lange (born 1670, died 1744, as a professor in the University of Halle.) He wrote: Causa Dei et Religionis adversus Naturalismum, Atheïsmum, Judæos, Socinianos et Pontificios, Hal., 1726, 27, üi. 8vo, and several other treatises. On the progress of the controversy, and the writings to which it gave rise, see the work of Wuttke mentioned above (in which many statements made by previous writers are corrected). Several other writers joined Lange in .combating the principles propounded by Wolf, e. g. Francke, M. Daniel Strähler, etc. Valentine Löscher (died 1749), and John Francis Buddeus of Jena (he wrote: Bedenken über Wolf's Philosophie, 1724,) as well as the University of Upsal, in Sweden, pronounced against him, not to mention the
Roman Catholics, headed by the Jesuits; though some of the latter made use of the philosophy of Wolf in their own schools.*
• Previous to the time of Wolf, Pufendorf had proposed to apply the mathematico-demonstrative method of argumentation to Christian theology, expecting to derive great advantage from such a treatment. See bis Epistola ad Fratrem, in Actorum Erudit. Lips. supplem. Tom. ii. Sect. 2, p. 98 ; Heinrich, p. 438. About the time of the rise of the Wolfian philosophy several other theologians had commenced (apart from what was done by Pufendorf) to treat systematic theology in a more liberal spirit, and less dependent upon traditional authorities. This shows that Wolf, though in a stricter method, acted in accordance with the spirit of the age. Among these theologians were: Christian Matthew Pfaff (born 1686, died 1760): Institutiones Theologiæ Dogmat. et Moral., Tub., 1720 : even J. F. Buddeus (born 1667, died 1729), despite his opposition to Wolf (see the previous section), in his Institutiones Theologiæ dogmat. Lips., 1723, '24, '27, '41, 4to. Christian Eberhard Weissmann (born 1677, died 1747): Institutiones Theologiæ exegetico-dogmaticæ. Tub. 1739, 4to. J. Lorenz von Mosheim (born 1694, died 1755): Elementa Theologiæ Dogmat., edited by Windheim, Norimb., 1758, 8.-In the Reformed Church, in addition to J. A. Turretine and Samuel Werenfels (comp. 8 225), J. F. Osterwald, pastor of Neufchatel (born 1633, died 1747), contributed most to the transition to a new state of things. His Compendium Theologiæ, Basil., 1639, 8, remained for a considerable time the text-book of theology for the Swiss Calvinists. [Transl. into English by Rev. John McMains, Glasgow, 1737; a Hartford (N. E.) edition, 1786.]
Among the Lutheran theologians who adopted the method of Wolf, were : Jacob Carpov (professor of mathematics in Weimar, born 1699, died 1768): Economia Salutis Novi Test. sive Theologia Revel. dogmatica methodo scientifica adornata, Vimar., 1737–65, iv. 4. John Gustavus Reinbeck (born 1682, died 1741, as an ecclesiastical counsellor in Berlin; he enjoyed great reputation as a preacher): Betrachtungen über die in der Augsb. Conf. enthaltenen und damit verknüpften göttlichen Wahrheiten, 1731-41, iv. 4. G. H. Ribow (born 1703, died 1774): Institut. Theol. Dogm, methodo demonstrativa traditæ, Gött., 1740, 41. Israel Gottlieb Canz (born 1690, died 1753): Compend. Theol. purioris, Tüb., 1752.
* The danger which many apprehended from the spread of the Wolfian philosophy, was not a mere fancy. “It cannot well be said that the philosophy of Wolf endangered orthodox theology in a direct manner : on the contrary, we find that many of the followers of Wolf either adopted the principle of indifferentism as to positive religion, or formally confirmed it. But the distinction introduced by Wolf between natural and revealed religion, i. e. between religion which may be proved by demonstration, and religion which must be received by faith, prepared the way for the ascendency of the deistic principle of natural religion over the principles of revealed religion :" Lechler, Geschichte des Deismus, p. 448. Comp. Tholuck, 1. c., p. 10–23. Saintes-Ficker (see the literature of the next section), p. 54 sq.
+ Immediately after the publication of the first volume of this work, the opponents of Wolf expressed their belief that its author was either a Socinian or a deist, who neither would nor could discuss the doctrine concerning Christ. But their suspicions were unfounded. See Heinrich, p. 444.
# He also wrote : Philosophiæ Leibnitzianæ et Wolfianæ Usus in Theologia per propa cipua Fidei Capita, Lips., 1749. (This work enjoyed at the time a great celebrity.)
Peter Reusch (born 1693, died 1757): Introductio in Theol. revelatam.
INFLUENCE OF DEISM AND NATURALISM. RATIONALIZING ATTEMPTS.
Lerminier, De l'Influence de la Philosophie du 18° siècle, Paris, 1833, Leipz., 1835. Vil
lemain, Cours de Littérature Française; Tableau du 18° siècle, Paris, 1838, Tom. ii. p. 222, ss. Henke, Kirchengeschichte, vol. vi. edited by Vater. Stäudlin, Geschichte des Rationalismus und Supranaturalismus, Götte, 1826, p. 119, ss. Amand Saintes, Histoire Critique du rationalisme en Allemagne, Paris et Leips., 1841; in German by C. G. Ficker, Lpz., 1847. *Schlosser, Geschichte des 18 Jahrhunderts, vol i. p. 447; ii. p. 443, ss. Hagenbach, Gesch. des 18 und 19 Jahrb. 2te Ausg., Lpz., 1848. Comp. $ 238. [Pusey, ubi supra. John Leland, Deistical Writers, 2, 1754, new ed. 1837. G. V. Leckler, Gesch. des englischen Deismus, Stuttg., 1851. W. Van Mildert, Rise and Progress of Infidelity (Boyle Lectures, 1802–4), 2 vols., Oxf, 1838. Mark Pattison, Tendencies of Religious Thought in England, in Essays and Reviews, 1860, pp. 279-362.]
While natural religion and theology, in a strict and sometimes pedantic scientific form, was thus in Germany retained within its proper limits, and made honorably subservient to revelation, the principles of Deism and Naturalism, developed in the preceding period, gained numerous adherents in England and France,' and soon threatened to make their appearance also in Germany.' During the second half of the eighteenth century, the most powerful attacks upon positive Christianity were made by the anonymous author of the Wolfenbüttelsche Fragmente (i. e. fragments of Wolfenbüttel),' which gave rise to fundamental controversies as to the