« PreviousContinue »
1725; The Analyst, addressed to an Infidel Mathematician [Dr. Halley), 1735; Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher, 1732 ; Account of his Life, and Strictures on his Works, 1776 ; Whole Works, 2, 4to., 1784 ; by G. N. Wright, 2 vols., 1843. His defence of Christianity against the atheist was on the basis of his idealistic philosophic theory. On bim see, further, North Am. Rev., Jan., 1855; Brownson's Quarterly, i.; Christ. Exam. (Bowen), xxiv.; Brit. Qu. Rev., July, 1857; Christian Review, April, 1861. Joseph Butler, Bishop of Durham, b. 1692, d. 1752. When nineteen years of age he corresponded with Dr. Samuel Clarke on the Principles of his Demonstration of the Being of God. Fifteen Sermons preached at the Rolls Chapel, 1726 ; his great work, The Analogy of Religion, Natural and Revealed, to the Constitution and Course of Nature, was published in 1736, and has ever since been esteemed the chief work in the deistic controversy, unanswerable on the grounds then assumed in common. His works, best ed. by Bishop Halifax, 2 vols., 1849, reprinted New York. On the numerous editions of the Analogy see, Allibone, Dict. of Authors, i. 314.-In England and America, the vulgar infidelity was represented by Thos. Paine, b. 1737, d. 1809 : Common Sense, 1791; Rights of Man, 1792 ; Age of Reason,
Richard Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, (b. 1737, d. 1816), An Apology for the Bible in a Series of Letters addressed to Thos. Paine, 2d ed., Lond., 1796. Chs. Leslie, (nonjuror, d. 1722), Short and Easy Method with Deists: Works, 7, 8vo., Oxf., 1832. William Paley, b. 1743, d. 1805 : Natural Theology ; View of the Evidences ; Horæ Paulinæ; Moral and Political Philosophy, etc. Complete Works, 4, 8vo., Lond., 1838, and often. Philip Skelton, b. 1707, d. 1787; Complete Works, Lond., 6 vols., 1624 (vol. 4, Ophiomaches, or Deism Revealed, in Eight Dialogues ; vol. 5, Letter to the Author of the Divine Analogy, and the Minute Philosopher). William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, b. 1698, d. 1779. Works, 12 vols., Lond., 1811; The Divine Legation of Moses (vol. 1 and 2, 5th ed., 1766; 3, 4 and 5, 4th ed., 1765; vol. 6, supplement, 1768 (the 7th and 8th Books have never been published); the tenth ed., 3 vols., 1846. On the Warburtonian controversy, see Quart. Review, vol. 2, p. 401. Julian, a Disc. on the Earthquake, etc., Lond., 1750 ; Principles of Nat. and Rev. Religion (Werke, vol. 9). Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian [Bp. Hurd), Lond., 1789. Letter from a late eminent Prelate [Warburton) and one of his Friends (Hurd), 3d ed., 1809. Richard Hurd, Bishop of Worcester, b. 1720, d. 1808; works, 8 vols., 8vo., Lond., 1811. Introduction to the Study of Prophecies--the Warburtonian Lectures for 1772. (In the same series are published works, chiefly on the Prophecies, by Samuel Halifax, 1776; Lewis Bagot, 1780; Robert Nares, 1805 ; Ed. Pearson, 1807-11; John Davison, 1825, etc.) Other earlier works in this controversy, were Bp. Conybeare's Defence of Revealed Religion, 1732; Delaney's Revelation Examined, 3 vols., 1735; Ellis's Knowledge of Divine Things, 1743; Smith's (Elisha), Cure of Deism, 2 vols., 1736, etc.] Among the German apologists were, Haller, (Briefe über die wichtigsten Wahrheiten der Offenbarung, Bern, 1772); Lilienthal (gute Sache der Offenbarung, Königsb. 1750–82); Less, [Authenticity of the New Test., from the German, by Robert Kingdon, Lond., 1804); Nösselt, etc. The “ Wolfenbüttel Fragments" also gave rise to pumerous
controversial writings (comp. the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek, voll. 30 ana 40), the best of which were composed by Döderlein, Less, Michaelis, Barthels and Semler.
• See Skelton (Philip, see previous note] offenbare Deisterei, 1756, ii. pref., quoted by Tholuck, i., p. 21: “Our modern apologists too frequently defend Christianity on deistic principles, and too readily represent their own articles of faith in a new dress; they expect that such a course of proceeding will be advantageous to their cause.” In proof of this the example of John Taylor might be adduced [referring to Taylor of Norwich, b. 1694, d. 1762, author of the work on Original Sin, 1738, etc). Comp. Ernesti, Neue theologische Bibliothek, i., p. 115. Tholuck, p. 30.
• Thus Jerusalem, Spalding, Zollikoffer, and others, whose honest intentions none can reasonably doubt. See Jerusalem, Betrachtungen über die vornehmsten Wahrheiten der Religion, 1768, ii., 5th edit., 1773–92. Second series, 2 vols., 1793. Spalding, J. J. (died 1804), Gedanken über den Werth der Gefühle im Christenthum, 1761 (1784); Ueber die Nutzbarkeit des Predigtamtes, 1775; Vertraute Briefe, die Religion betreffend, 1788. G. J. Zollikoffer wrote works of a homiletic and devotional character. A. W. Sack belonged to the same class of writers. The theory of accommodation adopted by these men is fairly estimated by Steffens : Was ich erlebte, i., p. 258 ss.
Compare the Introductions to the New Testament. How much sacred criticism was brought into connection with neological tendencies, may be seen in the case of Wettstein ; see Hagenbach, in Illgens Zeitschrift, 1839, part 1. But the necessity of a critical study of Scripture was no less felt by the advocates of the opposite principle, e. g. Bengel, who strenuously applied himself to it in the service of the Lord.
• John David Michaelis was born 1716, and died 1791. Comp. Tholuck i. p. 130. Of his disciples, Eichhorn is best known as the most eminent of the rationalistic theologians of the present period. Though Michaelis seemed for a time to have adopted the principles of unbiassed criticism and exegesis, he soon after began to adapt his views to the spirit of the age. He also endeavoured to explain the miracles of Christ in a natural manner. (Introduction to New Test,, transl. from the 4th ed., by Herbert Marsh (Bp. Peterborough), 4 vols., in 6, Lond., 1802. Bp. Marsh was attacked in the British Critic, first series, iii. 601-4, iv. 46 sq., 170 sq.; also by Dr. Randolph, Remarks, etc., to which he replied in Letters. Michaelis's Commentaries on Laws of Moses, transl. by Alex, Smith, 4 vols., Lond., 1814 : his Introd. Lectures to Sacred Books of New Test. were translated as early as 1780.]
• John August Ernesti was born 1707, and died 1781. He wrote: Institutio interpretis N. Test., Lips., 1761, ed. Ammon., 1792, 1809, 8.
“ With the name of this theologian is connected the transition to more liberal principles in the interpretation of Holy Writ:" Klausen, Hermeneutik, p. 291. On the merits of his work (which were not very great) see Klausen, I. c., p. 294. [Principles of Bibl. Interpretation, transl. by C. A. Terrot, Bp. of Scottish Episc. Chh., new ed., 1845 ; Elements of Interp., by Moses Stuart, Andov., 3d. ed., 1827.]
John Solomon Semler was born 1725, and died 1791, as professor of theology in the university of Halle. Compare his Autobiography (whích takes in also the history of his times), Halle, 1781, 82, ii. voll. It was especially Semler who, “ without forming a school of his own, may be said to have carried the torch which kindled the conflagration, the effects of which have not yet disappeared :” Tholuck, ii., p. 39. Of his numerous (171) writings we mention only those which have reference to our present subject: Von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, Halle, 1771-75. Institutio ad Doctrinam Chris tianam liberaliter discendam, Hall., 1774. Versuch einer freien theologi. schen Lehrart, Hall., 1777 ss. The principal points of Semler's theology are the distinction which he made between theology and religion (ethics), and his endeavours to represent the sacred Scriptures as having a merely local and temporary character. An account of his life and writings is given by Tholuck, ii., p. 39–83. The history of doctrines owes its origin to Semler's introduction to Baumgarten's Compendium of systematic theology (vol. i., 8 16.)
• See F. Lücke, Narratio de Joanne Laurentio Moshemio, Gött., 1837, 4. Soon after his death ecclesiastical history was, like exegesis, made subservient to the spirit of the times (Spittler and Henke; the pragmatic method adopted by Planck.) The history of doctrines was made use of to show the changeableness of the doctrines of Christianity.
Comp Theol. Dogm., Gött., 1760, ed. 2, 1784.
Heilmann was born 1729, and died 1764, as professor in Göttingen. He wrote : Comp. Theol. Dogủ., Gött., 1761, ed. 3, 80.
Zachariae, was born, 1729, and died 1777, as professor of theology in the university of Kiel. He wrote : Biblische Theologie, oder Untersuchung des biblischen Grundes der vornehmsten theologischen Lehren, Gött. u. Kiel, 1771-75. The last part was edited by Vollborth, 1786. Zachariæ understood by biblical theology : “not that theology, the substance of which is taken from Scripture, for in this sense every theological system must be biblical, but more generally a precise definition of all the doctrines treated of in systematic theology, the correct understanding of these doctrines, in accordance with Scriptural notions, and the best proofs :" Heinrich, p. 515, ss. This was, accordingly, the first attempt to treat Biblical Theology, as a separate branch of theological science, independently of systematic theology. His example was followed by W. F. Hufnagel, who wrote Handbuch der biblise chen Theologie, Erlangen, 1785-91, Ammon, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius and others.
" Seiler was born 1733, and died 1807, as professor of theology in the university of Erlangen. He wrote: Theol. Dogm. Polem. c. comp. dogmat. Erl., 1774, ed. 3, 1789.
18 Döderlein was born 1714, taught at Altorf and Jena, and died 1789, as a professor in Bützow. He wrote Institutio Theologi Christiani in capitibus religionis theoreticis nostris temporibus accommodata, ii., Alt. 1780, '82, '84, '87. In the preface to this work he expressed himself as follows (quoted by Heinrich, p. 493) : “ Theologians must not now invent new doctrines, and go beyond Scripture; neither should they rest satisfied with the labors of their predecessors, but define more precisely what they have said, make use
of modern explanations and new modes of representing certain doctrines, and have a special regard to the wants of the age. Hence they must examine those doctrines which are now most of all disputed, and define them the more carefully and deliberately. As regards their mode of argumentation, they must also adapt themselves to the circumstances of the times, and avoid approving of and retaining all arguments brought forward by earlier writers, which are in themselves doubtful and uncertain ; they must rather avail themselves of the great advances recently made in biblical exegesis, so as to be more prudent in the selection of the arguments by which to prove particular doctrines; they must not consider their number, but their internal merit, and only choose such as are clear and conclusive," etc.
Morus was born 1736, and died 1792, as professor of theology in the university of Leipsic. He wrote: Epitome Theologiæ Christianæ, Lips, 1789, Heinrich, p. 498 ss.
16 Teller was born 1734, and died 1804 (compare 8 275, note 7.) He wrote Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, 1763 ; Religion der Volkommnern, 1792.
16 E. Jacob Danov was born 1741, and died 1782, as professor of theology in the university of Jena. He wrote: Theologice dogmatica Institut., Lib. ii., Jen., 1772, 6. The Ketzeralmanach of 1781 (Bahrdt's) says of bim : " He wears an ontside coat like a regular divine, but under it is the uniform of a free partisan.”
17 John Frederic Gruner was born 1723, and died 1778, as professor of theology in the university of Halle. He wrote : Institutionum Theologiæ dogmaticæ lib. iii., Halle, 1777, 8. “ He was a man of much originality, and historical knowledge. · His principal endeavour was to prove, like Semler, the later origin of the orthodox doctrines, and the many changes through which they have gone, with this difference, that Gruner, in support of his theory, had recourse to the Platonizantes, Semler to the Judaizantes :" Tholuck, l. C., p. 106. Comp. Heinrich, p. 482. The main idea pervading the whole book is, that the principal doctrines of Christianity had been corrupted as early as the close of the first century, by the influence of the Platonic and Oriental philosophy of the Alexandrian school.
18 J. Caspar Rudolph Eckermann was born 1754, and died 1836, as professor of theology in the university of Kiel. Among his works were: Compendium Theologiæ Christianæ theoret. bibl. histor., 1791; Handbuch für das systematische Studium der christlichen Glaubenslehre, 1801, 3, iv. voll.
10 Conrad Philip Henke was born 1752, and died 1809, as professor of theology in the university of Helmstädt, and abbot of Michaelstein. He wrote: Lineamenta Institutt. Fidei Christ, histor, critic., Helmst., 1793, ed. 2, 95. In the preface to this work he enumerates three kinds of superstition which he must combat: 1. Christolatry; 2. Bibliolatry; 3. Onomatolatry; at the same time he speaks of Morus and Doederlein in terms expressive of high esteem.
30 Eberhard Henry Daniel Stosch was born 1716, and died 1781, as professor of theology in the university of Frankfort on Oder. He wrote: Introductio in
Theologiam dogmaticam., Franc. ad Viadr. 1788; Institut. Theologiae Dog. maticæ, ibid., 1779, 8. Comp. Heinrich, p. 551.
» Samuel Mursinna was born 1717, and died 1795, as professor of theol. ogy in the university of Halle. He wrote : Compendium Theologiæ Dogmaticæ, Halle, 1777, 8. Comp. Heinrich, p. 549 : “ He made diligent use of the labors of modern theologians, as far as they have respect to a more correct definition of doctrines ; nor did he overlook the opinions of earlier divines, but made mention of them, as well as stated the arguments commonly adduced in their support; nevertheless he did not always pronounce his own judgment concerning their merit, but left it to his readers to choose between the old and the new.” Barhdt, in bis Ketzeralmanach, calls him the “ staffquartermaster of the reformed partisan-corps."
Compendiums of systematic theology, written in a popular style, were published by Less (1779, 89), and Griesbach (1786, 89), who also endeavored to combine the old with the new.
REACTION. EDICT OF RELIGION. ORTHODOX PIETISM.
To oppose a barrier to the further spread of this fast-growing scepticism, was a bold enterprise, as was clearly proved by the failure of the two measures resorted to by the King of Prussia—viz., the publication of an Edict of Religion in the year 1788, and the institution of an ecclesiastical tribunal.' It was necessary that the opposing elements should develop their results through an internal process. The pietistic tendency of the school of Halle (originally founded by Spener, Francke, and others), had indeed in its second stadium lost much of its earlier vigot, and degenerated into a dead formalism." But in opposition to the demonstrative as well as negative tendency of Rationalism, two theologians of Wirtemberg, J. A. Bengel,' and F. Ch. Oetinger,' gave a new direction to theology, by introducing into it not only positive, but also pietistic and mystical elements ; Ch. A. Crusius, followed their example. Societies for practical as well as philosophical purposes were founded,' in order to keep alive positive religion among the people. Thus, in the minds of many, the faith of their forefathers was preserved not only as a dead legacy, but assumed here and there, for the most part in the form of Pietism, depth and independence, in contrast with the superficial tendencies of the age.' [“ Pietism let dogmas stand in their external form, believing that it could have religion and Christianity, if not without dogmas, yet without a system of dogmas in this particular form. By emphasizing the internal experience of religion, its subjective worth .... pietism itself made the transition to another standpoint, in which the individual (subject), not only lays claims to his own subjective rights, but is also under