V. History of Dogmatics
The religious-historical method of Troeltsch? The pragmatic method?
REFERENCES: Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. I, pp. 41–103; Kuyper, Enc. der Heil. Godgel. III, pp. 405–415; Hodge, Syst. Theol. I, pp. 1–150;
Shedd, Dogm. Theol. I, pp. 3–15; Miley, Syst. Theol. I, pp. 7–54; McPherson, Chr. Dogm., pp. 1–43; Thornwell, Collected Writings I, pp. 39–52: Macintosh, Theol. as an Emp. Science, pp. 1–46; Foster,
G. B., Christianity in its Modern Expression, pp. 1–79; Van Oosterzee, Chr. Dogm. I, pp. 20–42, 84–109; Raebiger, Theol. Enc.
II, pp. 335–339; Van Dijk, Begrip en Methode der Dogm., pp. 7–89; Lobstein, An Introd. to Prot. Dogm., pp. 58–275; Smith, H. B.,
Introd. to Chr. Theol., pp. 60–83; Lemme, Christl. Glaubenslehre, pp. 14–31; Girardeau, Discussion of Theol. Questions, pp. 45–272; C.
W. Hodge, The Idea of Dogm. Theol., The Princeton Theol. Rev., Jan., 1908; Warfield, The Idea of Syst. Theol., Studies in Theology, pp. 49ff.; Schaeder, Theozentrische Theologie; Barth, The Doctrine of the Word of God, pp. 1–51.
V. History of Dogmatics The history of Dogmatics does not go back to the time of the Apostles, but only to the beginning of the third century, when Origen wrote his Peri Archon. Several periods may be distinguished, namely, the period of the Old Catholic Church, the period of the Middle Ages, the period of the Reformation, the period of Protestant Scholasticism, the period of Rationalism and Supra-naturalism, and the period of Modern Theology.
A. The Period of the Old Catholic Church
In the beginning of this period some valuable preparatory work was done by the catechetical school of Alexandria, but it was not until the beginning of the third century that any important work appeared which purported to be a systematic presentation of theological truth.
In fact, the period of the Old Catholic Church produced only three works of superior value in the field of systematic theology, and even these are rather deficient.
1. ORIGEN'S PERI ARCHON (DE PRINCIPIIS). Origen was the first to construct something like a system of theology. His work was written about the year 218 A. D. In it the author attempts to transform the doctrine of the Church into a speculative science, acceptable to the cultural and philosophical classes of his day. His great ambition was to develop the contents of faith into a science that did not rest on authority, but on its own inherent rational evidence.
In this way he desired to raise pistis to the level of gnosis. While the work testifies to the intellectual clarity and profundity of the author, it also reveals a tendency to sacrifice theology to philosophy. It departs from the current teachings of the Church particularly (a) in the doctrine that human souls preëxisted, sinned in their previous existence, and are now for punishment imprisoned in material bodies; (b) in the notion that the human soul of Christ was already in its preëxistence united with the Logos; (c) in the denial of the physical resurrection; and (d) in the teaching of the restoration of all things, Satan included. The general plan of the work is defective, and does not provide for an adequate treatment of Christology,
Soteriology, and Ecclesiology.
2. AUGUSTINE'S ENCHIRIDION AD LAURENTIUM: DE FIDE,
SPE, ET CARITATE. As the subtitle indicates, the plan of this work is derived from the three Pauline virtues, faith, hope, and love. Under the first heading the author discusses the main articles of faith; under the second, the doctrine of prayer, following the order of the six petitions of the Lord's prayer; and under the third all kinds of moral questions. Though this arrangement is by no means ideal and the work is not always self-consistent, it gives evidence of deep
thought and of an earnest attempt to construe the whole of Christian doctrine from a strictly theological point of view. The author contemplates the entire world with all its rich variety sub specie aeternitatis, making the whole universe subservient to God. Through this and his many other dogmatical treatises Augustine exercised a tremendous influence, which is potent, especially in Reformed circles, even down to the present day. He did more than any other scholar of pre-Reformation times to develop the Scriptural doctrine of sin and grace.
Mention should be made in this connection also of the Commonitorium of Vincentius Lerinensis, which gives a representation of the doctrine of the Old Catholic Church, but can hardly be regarded as a systematic exposition of dogmatical truth. It served, however, to give definite form to the teachings of the Fathers.
The author's ideal was to give an exposition of doctrine in harmony with the tradition of the Church, which he defined as quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. The work has a SemiPelagian flavor.
3. John of Damascus' EKDOSIS AKRIBES TES ORTHODOXOU PISTEOS (An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith), 700–760.
This work represents by far the most important attempt in the Eastern Church to give a systematic exposition of dogmatic theology, at once speculative and ecclesiastical. It is divided into four books, dealing with (a) God and the Trinity; (b) creation and the nature of man; (c) Christ's incarnation, death, and descent into hades; and (d) the resurrection and the reign of Christ, and further such subjects as faith, baptism, image-worship, and so on. The order of the last book is very defective. Yet the work is of great importance, and is, from a formal point of view, certainly the best systematic presentation of the truth in this period. It is on the whole conservative and in harmony with the teachings of the Church as they had come down to the author.
B. The Period of the Middle Ages
The period following John of Damascus was characterized by a remarkable dialectical activity, especially in theology. The first centuries were rather barren, but towards the end of the tenth century there was a scientific awakening. In the eleventh century
Scholasticism arose; in the twelfth Mysticism appeared alongside of it; and in the thirteenth century the former, in league with the latter, gained complete ascendancy, and reached its highest glory.
Scholasticism represented an attempt to deal with the doctrinal material found in Scripture according to the strictly scientific method of the schools. On the whole it accepted the contents of the Bible with childlike faith, but it attempted at the same time to represent the various doctrines of Scripture in their inner unity, so as to promote a deeper knowledge of the truth. In course of time it became subject to the controlling influence of philosophy, Platonic and Aristotelian,
Nominalistic and Realistic, and developed in a rather precarious direction. It derived from philosophy, not only its dialectical method, but also many problems and questions of a purely philosophical kind. As a result Dogmatics gradually degenerated into a philosophical system. The interrogatory form, in which the material was often cast, frequently promoted doubt, and in many instances had the result of placing authority and reason in antithetical relation to each other. Among the dogmatical treatises of this period the following are outstanding.
1. WORKS OF ANSELM. The first name of more than ordinary importance is that of Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109). He was characterized at once by deep piety and great intellectual acuteness and penetration. While he did not produce a comprehensive systematic exposition of theology, he wrote several works of great dogmatical value, such as his Monologium and Proslogium, in which he discusses the nature of God and develops his ontological proof for the existence of God; his de fide Trinitatis et de incarnatione Verbi, which, as the title indicates, deals with the doctrine of the Trinity and of the incarnation; and his de Concordia, devoted to a discussion of predestination in the spirit of Augustine. Surpassing all these in importance, however, his Cur Deus Homo? offers a classical
exposition of the satisfaction theory of the atonement. Anselm was the first to deal with this important subject in a thorough and systematic way. His great opponent was Abelard with his moral influence theory.
2. THE SENTENCES OF PETER THE LOMBARD. The first important systematic work of the Scholastic period, which aims at covering the whole field, is Peter the Lombard's Sententiarum libri
IV, consisting of four books: the first on God, the second on His creatures, the third on redemption, and the fourth on the sacraments and the last things. On the whole the work simply reproduces the teachings of the Fathers, though, in distinction from many other works of this period, it also contains a good deal of original material.
For several centuries it was widely used as a handbook of theology, and regarded as the most authoritative exposition of the truth. Many scholars followed the example of Peter the Lombard in writing
Sentences.
3. THE SUMMA OF ALEXANDER OF HALES. Alongside of the Sentences Summae theologiae gradually made their appearance.
Alexander of Hales, a man of great learning, wrote a Summa universae theologiae, which is really a commentary on the work of Lombardus. His work is cast in a strict dialectical and syllogistic form, and served to establish the scholastic method. It treats of God, of the creature, of the Redeemer and His work, and of the sacraments. From a formal point of view this work is somewhat similar to modern works on Dogmatics. Alexander presents both sides of a question, states what can be said in favor of each, and then gives his own conclusion. Bonaventura, his disciple, added to the dialectical acuteness of his master the mystical element, which was coming to the foreground at this time.
4. THE SUMMA OF THOMAS AQUINAS. Thomas Aquinas is undoubtedly the greatest of the Schoolmen. His Summa totius theologiae covers in three volumes nearly the whole field of Dogmatics. The first book deals with God and His works; the second
with man as the image of God, finding in God the highest end of his existence; and the third with Christ and the means of grace. The work remained incomplete, but the material for the doctrine of the sacraments and of the last things was culled from some of his other works and added to the Summa. Formally, the work is controlled by the Aristotelian philosophy; and materially, by the work of Augustine, though the work of this early Church Father is modified in important points and brought into greater agreement with the doctrine of the Church. Thomas Aquinas is the great authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and Thomism is its standard theology.
Duns Scotus was the great opponent of Thomas Aquinas, but his work was critical and destructive rather than systematic and constructive. It marks the decline of Scholasticism.
C. The Period of the Reformation The theology of the Reformation is characterized by the special prominence given to the absolute normative authority of Scripture, and by the strong emphasis on the doctrine of justification by faith only. Luther was far more practical and polemical than scientific and dogmatical in his writings. The only doctrinal treatise with which he enriched the theological world, is his De Servo Arbitrio, which contains a clear exposition of the Augustinian doctrine of predestination. The period of the Reformation produced especially three works of a systematic character that were of more than ordinary significance.
1. MELANCHTON'S LOCI COMMUNES. This work of Melanchton was the first Protestant handbook of Dogmatics. It follows the order of the Epistle to the Romans in its exposition of the truth. In the first edition of the work the author was in entire agreement with Luther, but in the later editions he made concessions to several opponents and thus parted company with Luther on more than one point. In distinction from Luther, Melanchton stressed the ethical element in Christianity and preferred to place special emphasis on faith as the moral activity of the redeemed. In course of time he revealed an
inclination also to soft-pedal the doctrine of predestination, and to sponsor the doctrine of the free will of man. In these points he yielded to the powerful influence of Erasmus. At the same time he also made concessions to Calvin in his Christology and in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. His final position was somewhat of a half-way position between Luther and Calvin.
2. ZWINGLI'S COMMENTARIUS DE VERA ET FALSA RELIGIONE.
Schaff speaks of this work of the great Swiss Reformer as the first systematic exposition of the Reformed faith. But, while it does contain the fundamental thoughts of the Reformed faith, it can hardly be called a well-rounded, systematic whole. The author does not, like Luther, stress the doctrine of justification by faith above all others, but rather the absolute sovereignty of God and the utter dependence of man. He speaks in stronger and less guarded terms than Calvin about the doctrine of predestination. And in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper he approaches, but yet falls short of, the spiritual view of Calvin.
3. CALVIN'S INSTITUTIO CHRISTIANAE RELIGIONIS. The
Institutes of Calvin is so far superior to the Commentarius of Zwingli as to be a truly epoch-making work. It consists of four books, of which the first three follow the trinitarian order, and the fourth treats of the Church and the Sacraments. The central thought, controlling the whole work, is that of the absolute sovereignty of God. Throughout the whole exposition of the truth doctrine and ethics are closely interwoven, and the practical side of the Christian life is made very prominent. This work of Calvin is rightly lauded for its conciseness, for its clarity of thought, for its well-proportioned parts, and for its warmth of expression. It forms quite a contrast with the later, more scholastic, productions of Protestant theology, and is easily the most important work of the Reformation. As another very important work of the Reformation period Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism may be mentioned.
D. The Period of Protestant Scholasticism
It is not surprising that the theology of the seventeenth century is on the whole, strongly polemical. The Reformation had to break with the immediate past with an appeal to the remoter past. It had to show that the hierarchical Church of the Middle Ages had wandered far from the path indicated by the theology of the early Church.
Moreover, with its defense of the right of private judgment it had disturbed traditional foundations. As a result divergent opinions soon made their appearance in the Churches of the Reformation and were embodied in separate Confessions. There was a great deal of hair-splitting discussion, and in course of time a spirit of formalism and intellectualism gained the upper hand with chilling effect, and led to the introduction of the scholastic method in the study of theology.
1. DOGMATICAL STUDY AMONG THE LUTHERANS. The
vacillating position of Melanchton soon led to reaction. Towards the end of the sixteenth and in the earlier years of the seventeenth century a party arose, which manifested a strong, and sometimes rather fanatical, attachment to the early Lutheran faith, the faith of Luther himself and of the first edition of the Augsburg Confession.
This party found able spokesmen in Hutterus and, especially, John Gerhardo (1582–1637), lauded as "the greatest of all Lutheran theologians." His Loci communes theologici is a work of primary importance, noted for the philosophical development and the systematic arrangement of its subject-matter. Calixtus opposed the attitude of the strict Lutherans and insisted on going back to the Apostles' Creed and to the doctrine of the first five centuries. He was of an irenical turn of mind and sought to continue the theology of Melanchton. The Calixtine movement met with violent opposition, however, in the person of Calovius, a man of great learning and ardently devoted to the strict Lutheran position. In his Systema locorum theologicorum, consisting of twelve volumes, he gives a careful exposition of the orthodox Lutheran faith. The works of two other noted and influential Lutheran theologians, namely, Quenstedt and Hollaz, move along the same lines.
2. DOGMATICAL STUDY AMONG THE REFORMED. Differences of opinion were not limited to the Lutherans, but also made their appearance among the Reformed. Some of these were of a purely formal, and others of a more material, nature. There were theologians who were perfectly loyal to the truth, but went far beyond Calvin in its schematic arrangement and in all kinds of logical distinctions; and there were others who minimized and even explained away fundamental truths. Some were unduly influenced in their doctrinal expositions by the philosophical tenets of the age, and especially by the philosophy of Cartesius. a. The original type of doctrine. Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva, was more scholastic than Calvin and more extreme in his supralapsarian view of predestination. He did not write any dogmatical treatise of importance, but nevertheless exercised great influence on the dogmaticians of the seventeenth century. Wollebius and Wendelinus both wrote works of great learning, strictly
Calvinistic, but greatly affected by the conflict with Lutheranism, and therefore scholastic in form. Besides these, Polanus and Pictet also each produced a systematic exposition of the Reformed faith. After Beza, Wm. Twisse, the prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, was one of the earliest to develop the doctrine of predestination with great logical precision and in a rather extreme supralapsarian form.
His works give evidence of great speculative power, and furnish one of the best examples of the inexorable application of the basic thought of Supralapsarianism in Reformed doctrine. Three of the very best Calvinistic works of this period are the Synopsis Purioris
Theologiae by the four professors of Leyden the elaborate work of Petrus Mastricht on Beschouwende en Practicale Godgeleerdheit, in which he takes issue with the position of Coccejus; and Turretin's
Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, a very complete exposition of Reformed doctrine, and one that has exercised great influence on American Reformed theology. In England and Scotland the works of Perkins, Owen, Goodwin, and Boston were of great importance.
b. The Federal Modification of Reformed doctrine. With Coccejus a reaction set in against the speculative and scholastic method of some of the thorough-going Calvinists. He substituted a purely Biblical method, distributing his material according to the scheme of the covenants. However, his position represented not only a formal divergence, but also a material departure, from traditional Reformed theology, and entered ever increasingly into league with Cartesianism. Its really new thing was not the covenant doctrine, for this is already found in the works of Zwingli, Bullenger, Olevianus,
Snecanus, Gomarus, Trelcatius, and Cloppenburg, but its federalistic method. It virtually changed Dogmatics into Biblical Theology, thus making it a historical discipline. Its method was anthropological rather than theological. Two of the best representatives of this school, are Burmannus and Witsius. The Synopsis Theologiae of the former is by far the best of the two, and is free from that forced exegesis which so often characterizes the work of the Cocceian school. The work of the latter, Over de Verbonden (Eng. tr. On the Covenants), is inferior to it, but is better known in this country. It represents a laudible but futile attempt to reconcile the more scholastic and the federal trend in theology. Other representatives of this school are Leydekker, Van Til, C. Vitringa, Lampe, d'Outrein, and the Van der Honerts. This type of theology gradually gained the ascendancy at this time in the Netherlands, though it was strongly opposed by Voetius, and though the more scholastic type of theology still continued to appear in à Marck's Merch der Christene
Godgeleertheit and in Brakel's Redelijke Godsdienst. c. The more radical modifications. The Arminians or Remonstrants represented a radical departure from Calvinism. They opposed its doctrines of predestination, total depravity, irresistible grace, particular atonement, and the perseverance of the saints. Arminius himself did not go to the extremes that were defended by his followers. Episcopius gave a clear and complete exposition of Arminian theology in his Institutiones theologicae, while Grotius in his Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi developed the governmental theory of the atonement. With Limborgh's elaborate
work entitled Theologia Christiana, this party turns in the direction of Rationalism. Maccovius and Voetius were among its strongest opponents.
The school of Saumur represents another attempt to modify strict Calvinism. Amyraldus taught a hypothetical universalism, and Placaeus, the doctrine of mediate imputation. These errors were combatted by Heidegger and Turretin, two of the authors of the Formula Consensus Helvetica.
3. DOGMATICAL STUDY AMONG THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.
During this period, remarkable for the development of Protestant Dogmatics, there were also a few noted Roman Catholic dogmaticians. Bellarmin (1542–1621) is recognized as a prince among them. His great work, entitled Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei marks him as a man of literary elegance and as a skilful controversilist. It contains a rather complete exposition of Roman Catholic Dogmatics, and represents the ultramontane standpoint of the Jesuits, which is Semi-Pelagian in its doctrine of sin and grace. Another distinguished scholar was Petavius, who published an elaborate, though incomplete work, under the title De theologicis dogmatibus (1644–1650). This work of great erudition is primarily a history of dogma, and is favorably known also among Reformed theologians. Finally, mention should also be made of Jansen's Augustinus, published in 1640, which contains a defense of the Augustinian doctrine of grace, as opposed to the Semi-Pelagian doctrine of the Jesuits. Jansenism was condemned by the Pope in 1713.
E. The Period of Rationalism and Supranaturalism The Dogmatics of this period are of a somewhat reactionary character. On the one hand there was reaction against the formalism and the cold intellectualism of the current study of theology, against what was called "dead orthodoxy," and an attempt to inject new life into the study of theology and to make it more directly subservient to
a living and practical faith. And on the other hand there was a particularly strong and persistent reaction to the dominating influence of Scripture and of ecclesiastical tradition in Dogmatics, and to the doctrines that were taught in the historical Creeds of the Church; and a widespread movement to strike out on new paths, untrammeled by authority, under the guidance of human reason. Old barriers were broken down, and a Rationalistic apostasy became alarmingly prevalent in the Church.
1. PIETISTIC DOGMATICS. The close of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth century saw the rise of Pietism, especially in the Lutheran Church. Its principal representatives were
Spener, Francke, Freylinghausen, J. Lange, Rambach, and Oetinger.
They desired to release Dogmatics from scholastic formalism, and insisted on a return to Biblical simplicity. From this point of view some of them made real contributions to Dogmatics, as, for instance,
Spener, Francke, Freylinghausen, and Oetinger, though none of them produced an outstanding systematic exposition of the truth. Current orthodoxy at first opposed it, but finally yielded to its spirit.
Consequently, a new tendency developed in the study of theology, which emphasized practical piety, was inimical to all scholastic subtlety, and showed great moderation in polemics.
2. RATIONALISTIC DOGMATICS. The principal influence that militated against Pietism appeared in the form of Rationalism, in the rigid method introduced by Wolff, whose ambition it was to reduce all theological statements to mathematical formulae. According to him anything that could not be made perfectly plain by actual demonstration, was not fit to be taught. Carpzovious essayed to demonstrate the truth of the teachings of the Church according to this method. Baumgarten and Mosheim moved along the same line.
In the main these men were still orthodox, but had no proper appreciation of the religious value of the truth. For them the dogma of the Church was primarily an object of historical learning and intellectual demonstration. But the influence of Wolff also marked the inception of a thoroughly rationalistic tendency in the study of
theology. The light of reason induced many theologians to adopt a position that was partly Socinian and partly Arminian. This tendency is seen especially in the writings of Toellner and Semler. In England the rationalistic movement appeared more particularly in the form of Deism, which denied supernatural revelation and aimed at the development of a system of natural religion. The English Deists, however, furnish little material for the history of Dogmatics. Of greater importance is the Unitarian movement, which continues the Socinian element in theology. Priestly constructed a system of pure
Naturalism in his Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion. In Germany Kant was the first to oppose successfully the superficial
Rationalism that glorified in its intellectual enlightenment; but his Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft is still purely rationalistic. Tieftrunk elaborated Dogmatics in the Kantian spirit, and Wegscheider still assumed an advanced rationalistic position.
3. SUPRANATURALISTIC DOGMATICS. Orthodoxy reacted against Rationalism in the weak form of Supranaturalism.
This acknowledged a supernatural revelation and honored Scripture as the norm of religious truth, but nevertheless allowed reason to determine in various ways what is and what is not essential in the Bible. Thus it reduced the contents of revelation and by all kinds of concessions sought to make it square with reason. It was really a compromise between reason and revelation. This weak position is represented by Doederlein, Knapp, and Storr. A reconciliation between Rationalism and Supranaturalism was attempted especially by Bretschneider, who exercised great influence by means of his two works:
Systematische Entwickelung aller in der Dogmatik vorkommenden Begriffe, and Handbuch der Dogmatik der evangelischen Kirche. A somewhat similar position is taken by De
Wette in his Lehrbuch der christliche Dogmatik, and his Ueber Religion und Theologie. He rises above the superficiality and want of spirituality which characterized the illumination, seeks to do justice to the religious feelings, and explains the fundamental truths of Dogmatics as the symbolical expression of the subjective truths of personal experience.
F. The Period of Modern Theology In the nineteenth century the theological currents multiply, so that it will be necessary to call attention to several schools, though they can hardly be called schools in the strict sense of the word. Some of them simply represent a general tendency which, however, expresses itself in a variety of ways, and may even reveal sharp differences.
1. SCHLEIERMACHER AND HIS SCHOOL. Schleiermacher stands as an intellectual giant at the beginning of the theological development of the nineteenth century. He united in himself the various theological currents of his day, and sought to fuse them into a religious unity. This resulted in a syncretism of Rationalism,
Supranaturalism, and Pietism. He had learned by experience that Christianity had introduced a new and higher life into the world, and was convinced that this life had to incorporate all possible religious currents. His big heart caused him to take a sympathetic attitude with respect to all schools of thought, and to assimilate the good elements in each. But when he attempted to transform his religious experiences into intellectual concepts, and to combine these into a coherent dogmatic system, he did not succeed. His theology became in fact a confirmation of all kinds of opinions. This accounts for the fact that both Roman Catholics and Protestants, both Rationalists and Mystics, appeal to him. However great a religious thinker he was, his scientific theology was not a success. It is composed of all kinds of heterogeneous elements, and is therefore full of contradictions. In his Reden ueber die Religion and his Monologen
(Monologues) he is entirely under the influence of Romanticism, an initial phase of German idealism, which served as a transition from Kant to Hegel. Religion is the sense of God, of the Infinite, and of the Universe, for the Universe is God. Schleiermacher speaks of it as a "Hinneigung zum Weltall." And God is not an object of thought, but only an object to be enjoyed in the depths of one's feelings. That enjoyment of God is religion. His Glaubenslehre contains the same philosophical principles with this difference, however, that religious feeling is now described as a feeling of complete dependence, that
God is represented as absolute causality, and that Christianity is characterized as an ethical religion, in which everything is related to the redemption through Christ. According to Schleiermacher dogmas are descriptions of subjective states of consciousness or feeling, more particularly, of such states of consciousness as are determined by the Christian community, or by the Person of Jesus. With him Dogmatics leaves the solid foundation of the Word of God and is made to rest on the shifting sands of human experiences.
No one adopted the Dogmatics of Schleiermacher as a whole, and yet he had a controlling influence on the whole theological development after him. Among the immediate disciples of Schleiermacher none was so true to his dogmatic principles as A. Schweizer. His most important works are: Die Glaubenslehre der reformirten Kirche; Die
Protestantischen Centraldogmen innerhalb der reformirten Kirche, and Die christliche Glaubenslehre. In the first of these works he combines Schleiermacher's feeling of dependence with the Reformed doctrine of predestination; and in his later works he stresses the fact that Dogmatics must go to the living Christian consciousness for its material. His representation of Reformed doctrine is open to several objections. Somewhat similar to his works are those of J. H.
Scholten, De Leer der Hervormde Kerk, and Schenkel, Die christliche Dogmatik vom Standpunkte des Gewissens. Lipsius assumed a standpoint essentially distinct from that of Schleiermacher, but yet has this in common with the latter, that he seeks to build up his system from the standpoint of the Christian consciousness. For him religion is not only a feeling dependence, but also a sense of freedom.
He denies the unique significance of the incarnation and makes Christ the typical Son of Man, in whom man first realizes his spiritual communion with God. Rothe may also be mentioned in this connection. Like Schleiermacher, he took his starting point in the Christian consciousness, the consciousness of communion with God and of redemption through Christ, and considered Dogmatics as a historical discipline.
2. THE SPECULATIVE SCHOOL. The philosophical movement from Kant to Hegel had a determining influence on the historical and scientific development of theology. The influence of Hegel was the most far-reaching. Like Schleiermacher, he did a great deal to brush aside the old vulgar Rationalism, and to show the untenableness of Supranaturalism. But while Schleiermacher sought to deliver theology from the domination of philosophy, Hegel encouraged the study of theology in the very terms of philosophy. The theologians who accept and apply his principles are rightly called speculative theologians. Their theology is essentially and in principle speculative.
Daub has been called "the founder of Protestant speculative theology." He came successively under the influence of Kant, Fichte,
Schelling, and Hegel. Together with Marheineke and Rosenkranz, he thought it was quite possible to harmonize the principles of Hegel with the truths of the Christian religion, and made use of those principles in the formulation of the truth. These theologians were on the whole comparatively conservative, and constitute what is generally called "the right wing" of the Hegelian school, of which Marheineke was the recognized leader. In his System der christlichen
Dogmatik he applied the principles of Hegel and follows the trinitarian method. The work of John Caird on The Fundamental
Ideas of Christianity is also strongly influenced by the Hegelian philosophy.
The "left wing" of the Hegelian school is represented especially by Strauss and Biedermann. It sacrifices the old content of the Christian truth to the new speculative form. The Christliche Glaubenslehre of Strauss is purely critical and destructive. The various dogmas are tested by the demands of modern science and found wanting. In the Christliche Dogmatik of Biedermann the principles of Hegel are worked out in a purely pantheistic way. The authority of the Bible is not acknowledged, and the personality of God and personal immortality are both denied. Pfleiderer discarded the Hegelian terminology, but is entirely in harmony with the fundamental principles of Hegel.
3. THE NEO-LUTHERAN SCHOOL. The negative position of the Hegelian school naturally evoked reaction. Some reiterated the confessional doctrine of the Lutheran Church, and others sought a via media. At present we are concerned with the former only. The socalled Neo-Lutherans made an earnest attempt to restore the old confessional truth on the basis of Scripture. Thomasius of Erlangen in his work on Christi Person und Werk presents an evangelical type of Lutheran Dogmatics, in which he makes Christology central. His kenosis doctrine, however, is scarcely compatible with the Lutheran doctrine of Christ's ubiquity. He maintains the satisfaction theory of the atonement, but in the doctrine of the Trinity hardly escapes a certain type of subordinationism. A second representative, Kahnis, maintains a somewhat freer attitude toward Lutheran orthodoxy. He follows the trinitarian method in his Lutherische Dogmatik. His doctrine of the Trinity is more or less Sabellian, and his Christology is marked by a certain subordinationism and by a kenosis doctrine similar to that of Thomasius.
Frank of Erlangen also departs in several points from pure Lutheranism. In his System der christlichen Wahrheit he postulates two principia cognoscendi in theology, namely, Scripture and the believing subject, held in unity by the principium essendi, which is
God. The idea of God becoming man is the central thought of his theology, and from it he derives his principium divisionis. In its broad features his theology is in harmony with the doctrine of the Church. The work of Kaehler of Halle shows some resemblance to that of Frank. He also proceeds from the standpoint of Christian experience, and postulates a special kind of knowledge in the Christian. Philippi is the best representative of pure Lutheranism in Germany. His Kirchliche Glaubenslehre is a clear and well arranged exposition of the doctrine of the Church from a strictly confessional point of view. According to him Dogmatics seeks to elaborate the thought of the restoration of man in communion with God, and it is from this point that he derives his principle of division. In our own country strict Lutheranism finds expression in Schmid's Doctrinal
Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Pieper's Christliche Dogmatik, and Mueller's Christian Dogmatics.
4. THE MEDIATING SCHOOL. There were many theologians who did not go as far as the Neo-Lutherans in their reaction against the speculative movement in theology. They preferred to steer a middle course and to seek a compromise. Hence they are called "mediating theologians." On the whole these scholars are clearly dependent on Schleiermacher, and with him take their starting point, not in the objective revelation of God, but in the subjective religious consciousness. But with this Schleiermacherian starting point they combine Hegelian speculation. What is first accepted as the content of experience, is next set forth speculatively as a necessity of thought, and thus justified before the bar of philosophy. Only a few names can be mentioned here. The greatest of the mediating theologians is
Dorner, who on the one hand assumes a sympathetic attitude towards the confession of the Church, but on the other hand freely criticizes it and incorporates in his system all kinds of speculative elements, which cannot be harmonized with the orthodox. Scriptural position. This is quite evident in his attempt to explain the Trinity, and in his conception of Christ as the ideal man, with whom the Logos is progressively united. His System der christlichen
Glaubenslehre contains a wealth of dogmatical and historical material, and is noted for its elaborate and acute criticism.
Alongside of Dorner mention should be made of Julius Mueller, a man of great moral earnestness and of deep insight into the truth.
His Die christliche Lehre von der Suende is still the greatest monograph on the subject of sin. He revived the ancient idea of a pre-temporal self-determination of each man to sin, in order to maintain the voluntary origin of sin in the life of each individual despite the fact that man is sinful from the time of his birth. Nitzsch and Martensen also belong to this class of theologians. The Christliche Dogmatik of the latter, written in a very attractive style, reveals a syncretistic tendency. On the whole he is true to the Lutheran doctrine, but connects with it a mystical and a speculative
element. He follows the trinitarian division in Dogmatics, and in his Christology defends a certain type of kenosis doctrine.
5. THE SCHOOL OF RITSCHL. Another German theologian who formed a school is Albrecht Ritschl; and even of him this cannot be asserted without qualification. It is difficult to say what constitutes the unity of the Ritschlian school. His followers scarcely agree in any point, except in their gratitude for the inspiration derived from their common master, and in their conviction that the characteristic feature of Christianity as a historical religion is found in Christ as its
Founder. Ritschl gave the most complete exposition of his system in his Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versoehnung.
He claims to be in harmony with Protestantism in general and, more particularly, with the doctrine of the Lutheran Church. While he desires to banish metaphysics (especially ontology) from theology, he is himself controlled by a purely speculative theory of knowledge.
Strictly speaking, his scientific position is that of an agnostic. In his doctrine of God he is really a Unitarian, and in connection with the atonement he accepts the moral influence theory as the only tenable one. He distinguishes between scientific and religious truth. The latter is based, not on judgments of being, but exclusively on judgments of value. The truth of a religious idea is determined by the value which it has for the Christian life. We honor Christ as God, not because we consider Him to be very God, but because He has for us the value of a God. In the doctrine of sin and redemption he deviates from the confession of the Church. He largely ignores the work of the Holy Spirit, and professes ignorance respecting the future life. The doctrine of the Kingdom of God is central in his system. Christ is its
Founder, and all those who come under His influence are its citizens, and are controlled by the principle of love to God.
Hermann accepts the principles of Ritschl in general. By means of his work on Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott he did a great deal to popularize the leading principles of the Ritschlian theology. He is more subjective and even less Biblical than Ritschl, and reveals a tendency to exchange the rationalistic element of Ritschl for a certain
religious mysticism. The most prominent dogmatician of the school is Julius Kaftan. He modifies the dogmatic positions of Ritschl in more than one respect, asserts that judgments of value cannot be dissociated from judgments of being, and denies the distinction between scientific and religious truth as it is usually represented by the critics of Ritschl. His work on Die Wahrheit der christlichen
Religion is important for the introduction to Dogmatics, and his Dogmatik is a clear systematic presentation of the truth. He seems to be inclined to make important concessions to orthodox theology in the doctrine of sin, of redemption, and of the Person of Christ. Of all the followers of Ritschl no one has returned in greater measure to the doctrines of the Church than Haering in his work on The Christian
Faith.
6. REFORMED THEOLOGY. Reformed dogmatic theology had several distinguished representatives during this period, who were absolutely opposed alike to vulgar Rationalism and Supranaturalism, to the speculative movement and to the theology of experience with its subjectivism. It was indeed in a sad state of decline at the opening of the nineteenth century and during its first decennia.
Supranaturalism had made large inroads in the circles of Reformed theologians; and this, according to the words of Dr. Bavinck, "wanted to be Biblical, but was anti-confessional, anti-philosophical, anticalvinistic; it produced a dogmatics which was deistic in theology,
Pelagian in anthropology, moralistic in Christology, collegialistic in ecclesiology, and eudaemonistic in eschatology." But there has been a repristination of Reformed theology, especially in the Netherlands, through the labors of Kuyper, Bavinck, and many others. It is regrettable that their works are not better known in our country. In Scotland a great deal was done in the field of Dogmatics by such men as Hill, Dick, Cunningham, Bannerman, Crawford, Candlish, and others. And for our own country we need only to mention the names of Breckenridge, Thornwell, Dabney, Ch. Hodge, A. A. Hodge, Shedd,
H. B. Smith, Warfield, and Girardeau. Mention may also be made of the Barthian theology, though its Reformed character is of a rather dubious nature.