« PreviousContinue »
Comp. Hase, $ 455 ss. Billroth, who belonged to the speculative school expressed himself as follows (Preface to his Commentary on the Corinthians, p. vii.) : " It is the object of systematic theology, to comprehend that which is truly rational, even the Spirit which manifests itself in the Christian religion. But since this Spirit has assumed a temporal form in the revelation of God, it was of course received by men whose education was influenced by the peculiar circumstances of their age. These men were, in the first instance, the apostles," etc. Comp. Marheineke, Dogmatik, p. 358 ss.-Whoever with Strauss (Glaubenslehre, i. 179, note), looks upon such a recurrence to the first times of Christianity, as a sinking back into the unspiritual, will of course see in this the end of the history of the dogma of inspiration. Comp. Schelling, Methode des akad Studiums, p. 198. [Schelling here speaks of those who would thus reduce Christianity to its first, simple elements, and adds: “One might think that the teachers of the Christian religion would be thankful to those in later times, who have derived so much speculative material from the scanty contents of the first religious writings, and shaped them into a system.” Hegel, Phil. d. Relig., iji. 111: “ The biblical text contains the mode in which Christianity first appeared, this it describes : yet this cannot give us in an explicit form what is latent in the principle of Christianity, but only a presentiment thereof;" cited by Strauss, u. 8. For a review and criticism of the whole subject in its present aspects and bearings in German theology, see Rothe, Zur Dogmatik, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1858, on Revelation and Inspiration. Comp. also Köster, Das Verhältniss der freien Thätigkeit zur göttlichen Offenbarung, in the Stud. und Krit., 1852; Richm, Der gottmensliche Character d. heiligen Schrift, ibid., 1859. Philippi, Glaubensl. i. 184, defends “ word-inspiration,” not inspiration of words.] The French orthodoxy has as yet adhered more strictly than the German to the theory of verbal inspiration. Gasparin and Gaussen are its chief representatives. [Gasparin, Plenary Insp., transl. by Montgomery; Gaussen, Theopneustia, transl. by Kirk.] In opposition thereto in recent times we find not only the rationalistic tendency of Scherer and the Revue Protestante (see § 29, note 6], but also more liberal views from the camp of the "believers." Comp. Fréd. de Rougemont, Christ et ses Témoins, Paris, 1856, 2 Tom. Thus in Tom. i., p. 426: La Révélation de Jésus Christ qui est la vie, et dont l’Esprit vit dans l'Eglise, ne suppose point nécessairement un document écrit. ii., p. 161 : On détruit la Révélation quand on la transforme en un système de vérités abstraites.... Voulons-nous nous faire une idée d'une religion d'abstractions : prenons le Koran." Yet still he teaches the strictest subordination of reason to revelation, which he distinguishes from inspiration.
[In the English and American theology, the strict theory of verbal inspi. ration is defended by John Dick, Essay on Inspiration, 4th ed., Glasg., 1840 ; Alexander Carson (against Pye Smith); Jas. A. Haldane, 1845; Eleazur Lord, Plenary Insp., New York, 1857; L. Woods, Lectures on Theology, vol. 1. See also E. Henderson, on Divine Insp. (in Congregational Lects., vol. 4); R. S. Candlish, Authority and Insp. of Script., 1851; Chr. Words. worth, on Insp., 2d ed., 1851, and Lectures in Westininster Abbey, 1861. Coleridge, in his Confession of an Inquiring Spirit, 1831, opposed the verbal
accuracy of the Scriptures. Morell, in his Philos. of Religion, restricted inspiration to intuitional truth (comp. Thornwell, in South. Presb. Quart., April, 1856).-F. W. Newman, Gregg, and Theod. Parker, indentify inspiration with the elevation of the soul by spiritual truth. J. Macnaught, The Doctrine of Inspiration, opposes the infallibility of the Scriptural record. Comp. on these later views the North British, Nov., '52, Aug., '57; British Quart., Jan., '57 ; Kitto's Journal, Oct., '53, Oct., '54, July, '56; Princeton Rev., '51, '57; Church Rev., '56; Church Eng. Quart., '54; Fitch in Bib. Sacra, '55; Torrey in Bib. Sac., '58; Ellis in Christ. Exam. (Unit.), Sept., '56; Lord A. Hervey, Sermons, Univ. Cambr., '56; Heurtley, Lect. Univ. Oxf., '61; B. F. Westcott, Introd. to Gospels, '60, pp. 5–37, 383, sq.-See also Roht. Whytehead, Warrant of Faith, Lond., '54; and especially William Lee, The Insp. of Holy Scripture, its Nature and Proof (Lects. before Univ. of Dublin), 1854, reprinted New York, 1856.]
• From the time of Spinoza (Tract. Theol. polit. c. 6, De Miraculis) and Hume, the rationalists did not cease to oppose the reality and credibility of miracles, while the adherents of the modern (formal) supernaturalism rested belief in revelation especially on that branch of evidence; in this they differed, e. g., from Luther, comp. Hase, Dogmatik, p. 207. The theory of preformation advanced by Bonnet (according to which God has a priori included the miricles in the course of nature), did not meet with general approbation, see his “philosophische Untersuchungen," etc., edited by Lavater, Zürich, 1768. [See Duc de Caraman, Chs. Bonnet, Philosophe et Naturaliste, Paris, 1859.] The modern theory of Olshausen, who regards the miracles as a quickening of the processes of nature, bears some resemblance to the preceding. Lavater believed that miracles are still taking place. According to the philosophy of Kant, it is neither possible absolutely to prove the reality of miracles, nor can their possibility be absolutely denied (a difference is made between logical, physical, and moral possibility); sce Tietrunk, p. 245, ss. (Kant, Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, p. 107, ss.) The rationalists endeavored to explain the miraculous as soinething natural, while the natural philosophers' asserted that nature transfigured by spirit (the blending of the two in one) is the only true miracle. But thus the reality of the miracle (in the Scriptural sense) was destroyed, and it was regarded as the symbolical expression of a speculative idea. See Schelling, Methode, p. 181, 203, and comp. Bockshammer
p and Rosenkranz, cited in Strauss, Dogmatik, p. 244, ss. [Bockshammer (Freiheit der Willens, transl. by Kaufman, Andov., 1840) says, that what is willed in the spirit of truth and purity with a mighty will, is willed in the Spirit of God, and it is only a postulate of reason, that nature cannot withstand such a will. Hence Christ is the great miracle-worker. Rosenkranz (Encycl. d. Theol. p. 160), defines miracle, as nature determined by spirit; spirit is the basis of nature, and hence nature cannot limit it. This power was fully concentrated in Christ.] The natural interpretation of miracles rather served the purposes of rationalism, while the adherents of modern speculative philosophy gave the preference to the hypothesis that the miracles related in Scripture are myths, because it is more agreeable to the negative tendency of that school. This hypothesis was most fully developed by Strauss, in his Leben Jesu. [Strauss's Life of Jesus, transl., 3 vols., 1836; reprint. N. Y., one vol.-See in reply Mill's Christ. Advocate Publications, 1841-44 ; Norton's Genuineness of Gospels, '55; Alexander's Christ and Christianity; Christ. Rev., July, 1856; Brit. Quart., 5; For. Qn., 22; Bibl. Sacra, 2, 8; North American, July, 1860. J. R. Beard, Voices of the Church, in Reply to Strauss, Lond., 1845.) The adherents of the mediating theology used a more liberal, but also considerate and cautious mode of reasoning, in defending the credibility of the historical relations of the sacred writers. But some of them, e.g. De Wette and Schleiermacher, also admit mythical elements. As regards the idea of miracle itself, they make a distinction between the objective and the subjective, and, generally speaking, adopt the principle of Augustine, who did not regard a miracle as something absolutely supernatural (comp. Vol. i., & 118, note 1.) See Schleiermacher, i. p. 120; De Wette, p. 34 ; Twesten, i. p. 357, ss., and Nitzsch, p. 64, are more inclined to admit real miracles. [Also Julius Müller, see his De Miraculorum Jes. Christ. Natura et Necessitate, 1839.] The literature is more fully given by Bretschneider, Entwurf, p. 235, ss. Comp. also the views of Herder on this point, Dogmatik, p. 60, the poetical view of miracles.-A new construction of the idea of miracles in Weisse, Phil. Dogmatik, $ 119–127. [He says, that the general notion of miracle comprises all the acts by which God revealed himself to his people, and guided their destinies; the giving the law was the great miracle under the Old Testament. He admits, however, that there are mythical elements in the history. See also Lange's Dogmatik, i., and Schenkel, i.- Wardlaw, on Miracles (1852, N. Y., 1853), and Trench, take different views as to the relation of miracle and doctrine : according to the former the miracle proves the doctrine; the latter is inclined to the converse position. (Comp. JourDal Sac. Lit., April, '54; Thornwell, in South. Presb. Rev., 1856, and South. Qu. Rev., July, 1857; Princeton Rev., Oct., '53, April, '56.)-Alexander in his Christ of Christianity, classifies the definitions of miracle. On the general questions, see L. Woods, Works, vol. iv.; N. W. Taylor, Lects. on Theology, 1858.- Baden Powell in his Order of Nature, 1859, and his essay on the Evidences in the Essays and Reviews, 9th ed., 1861), attacks the whole argument from miracles ; comp. D. R. Goodwin in Am. Theol. Rev., July, '61; and Christ. Remembr., July, '61.]
Among orthodox theologians, Bengel and Crusius in particular treated of prophetic theology, and attached great importance not onty to the prophecies, but also to the types of the Old Testament (comp. § 277). The latter supernaturalists did not go quite so far. After the antiquity of some prophecies (e. g. those of Daniel) had been impugned, and the Messianic prophecies had been referred to other historical events, the rationalists at last maintained that in the Old Testament there are no prophecies at all referring to Christ, to say nothing of the types. See Eckermann, Theologische Beiträge, i. 1, p. 7, ss., and comp. the literature given by Bretschneider, Entwurf, p. 207, ss. The adherents of the modern moderate orthodoxy did
, not pay so much attention to the announcement of particular and more incidental events as to the internal necessity of the historical development of the kingdom of heaven, in which the earlier periods are prophetic of those which take place in later times, and according to which everything finds its higher fulfilment in Christ, who is the centre of the history of the world. See Herder, Dogmatik, p. 196, ss. Schleiermacher, Darstellung des theologischen Studiums, $ 46; Glaubenslehre, i. p. 105. There is, however, a difference of opinion between Twesten, i. p. 372, ss., and Nitzsch, p. 66, on the one haud, and De Wette, p. 36 ($ 24, b), and Hase, p. 209, on the other.
– Hofmann in bis Weissagung und Erfüllung (Nördlingen, 1841-4, 2 Thle. and in his Schriftbeweis, 1852 [new ed., 1859), endeavors (in the sense of a speculative mysticism) to give a profounder view of the idea of prophecy. Lutz (1849), represents a cautious bermeneutics ; see particularly 2 Divis. C. 1 and 2. [On Hofmann, see Princeton Rev., April, 1859. Comp. also Delitzsch, Bibl-proph. Theologie, 1845. Hävernick, Theol. des alten Test., 1848. Reinke, Messianische Weissagungen, Giessen, 2, 1860. G. Baur, Geschichte der alttestamentlichen Weissagung. Giessen, 1861, Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, 2te. Aufl., 1861. Hengstenberg's Christology, transl. by Reuel Keith, 3, 1836; new edition, with Hengstenberg's modified views, in Clark's Foreign Theol. Library, 4 vols., 1854–8. The Messianic prophecies are also fully discussed in John Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony, 3 vols. Among the older works, see John Davison, d. 1834), Disc. on Prophecy, 5th ed., Oxf., 1845, delivered at the Warburtonian Lecture, 1825; in the same series, Lectures by Hurd, Nares, Pearson, Nolan, McCaul, etc.-John Maclaurin, Evang. Proph, relating to the Messiah (Works, Goold's ed., 1860, vol. 2).—The nature of prophecy is discussed by S. Lee, Cambr., 1849; S. H. Turner, Origin, Character, etc., of Proph., 1852; Moses Stuart, Hints, 2d ed., 1842; P. Fairbairn (of Glasgow), Nature and Functions, Edbg., 1856, Phila., 1857; W. Lee in his Lectures on Inspiration, Lect. iv.-Bunsen's views are rehearsed by Rowland Williams in the (Oxford) Essays and Reviews.]
The views of Swedenborg concerning the nature and significance of the sacred Scrip tures were peculiar; see Hauber, Swedenborgs Ansicht von der heiligen Schrift (Tübinger Zeitschrift, 1840, part 4, p. 32, ss.) He regarded (like the supernaturalists) the Scriptures as the Word of God, but he differed from the latter in applying this appellation not to what we commonly call the sacred Scriptures, but to another Scripture antecedent to ours-viz., the Scripture of angels, which is both antecedent and superior to the terrestrial. As regards the empirical Scriptures, he has his own Canon (comp. Hauber, p. 80), and in the writings, which he admits as canonical, he makes a distinction between those passages in which God himself speaks (quando e cathedra loquitur), and those in which angels speak in his name. But even in these cases a new revelation is necessary, that the spiritual meaning of Scripture may be apprehended by all readers. This spiritual sense, too, is a sense before the sense, to which we cannot attain hy rising from beneath upward, but which must be imparted from above downward.—Play with symbols and an. alogies.-Swedenborg's doctrine about the Scriptures was closely connected with his christological views.-On Oetinger's “massive” views of Scripture, see the Preliminaries to his Theology (Stuttg., 1842), and Auberten, p. 339, sq., et passim.
As regards the relation in which the Old Testament stands to the New, we find that those rationalists who, after the examplo of Kant, regarded the sacred Scriptures merely as a means of edification, made but a slight distinction between the one and the other, because there was in the Old Test. (e. g. in the book of Proverbs) much that was subser. vient to moral purposes. Nor did they concern themselves much about the difference between canonical and apocryphal writings (some even preferred the book of Jesus Sirach to the writings of Paul and John.)—But even some orthodox theologians were induced, by idealistic and poetical tendencies, to give the preference to the Old Testament. Thus Herder is manifestly more supernaturalistic in respect to the Old Testament, than to the New. De Wette, too, was inclined to concede to the Old Test. (so far as religion must assume an æsthetic form) on account of its sacred poetry, a higher rank than to the New (see his Religion und Theologie, 212). Umbreit also has this tendency in a special degree.—On the other hand, some rationalists attached greater importance to the New Testament. Comp. Wegscheider, T. i. c. 1. & 32. Schleiermacher, in harmony with his entire theological system, ascribed normative authority to the New Testament alone, asserting that the Old Testament has only historical significance; Glaubenslehre, ii. & 132. The advocates of modern supernaturalism have again attached special importance to the Old Testament, and written elaborate expositions upon its christology and eschatology (e. g. Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Auberlen, Hofmann, Kurtz, Delitzsch, Baumgarten). On the other hand, a more critical and historical point of view has been taken by Bleek, Hitzig, Vatke, Knobel, Stähelin, and others; while Ewald represents a peculiar tendency.