5. § 5. History and Literature of Dogmatics.

5. § 5. History and Literature of Dogmatics.

§ 5. History and Literature of Dogmatics.

A. Rise of dogmatics, 2nd-4th century.

. Holy Scripture is not a dogmatics. It contains all the knowledge of God that we need, but has not formulated this dogmatically. The truth is laid down there as the fruit of revelation and inspiration, in a language which is the immediate expression of life and therefore always remains fresh and original. But it has not yet become an object of reflection and has not yet passed through thinking consciousness. Here and there, e.g. [52] in the Epistle to the Romans, there may be a beginning of dogmatic development; more than a beginning it is not. The period of revelation had to be closed before that of dogmatic reproduction could make a beginning.

Scripture is the gold mine, but it is the church that digs the gold out of it, stamps it, and converts it into current coin, Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. II 20 f.

This dogmatic processing of the content of Holy Scripture, however, is not

the work of one single theologian, or of a particular church or school, but of the whole church through all the centuries, of the whole new humanity reborn through Christ. Just as there is unity and continuity in the development of every science, so that is also the case in theology and in dogmatics. These too have a history. Not only in the sense that the material and content were gradually, in the course of centuries, revealed by God; nor merely thus, that the various truths have been gradually more clearly formulated by the church and applied in life; but also yet in this meaning, that scientific consciousness obtained, the longer the more, a clear insight into the organism and the system of that revealed truth. The scientific character too of dogmatics and theology has run through a history.

The Apostolic Fathers, e.g. edited by Hefele-Funk, Tübingen 1878-1881.

Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, Patrum apost. opera. Lips. 1875-'77, ed minor repetita. Lips. 1894. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra canonem receptum, ed sec.

Lips. 1884, translated by Duker and Van Manen, Oud-Christ. letterkunde.

Amst. 1871, still stand entirely on the standpoint of a naïve, childlike faith.

Christianity was not a fruit of human investigation, but of revelation and therefore demanded in the first place faith. One still echoes the H. Scripture.

The biblical concepts, such as of Christ as Lord, his death, faith, conversion, congregation, watching, prayer, alms, resurrection, life, immortality, etc. are indeed adopted, but without reflection awakening and their content being thought into and analyzed. Christianity, moreover, also for the most part found entrance among the simple and the uneducated. All striving is directed all the more to converting the Christian truth into life and to bringing it practically also in cultus and organization to dominion; not on 53 gnosis but on a holy life, on the practice of the Christian virtues of love, gentleness, peace, unity etc. is the emphasis laid. The circle of ideas

within which one moves is therefore also still narrow; many biblical concepts are entirely lacking, and others are weakened or altered; the workholy conception of Christianity is prepared. In general the writings of the Apost. Fathers are ethically stronger and richer than dogmatically. In spite of the same epistolary form and in part the same congregations to whom they address themselves, the difference and the distance between the Apostles and the Apostolic Fathers strikes the eye very strongly. The pagan consciousness could not so quickly take the Christian thoughts into itself,

Lübkert, Die Theol. der apost. Väter, in Niedner's Zeits. f. hist. Th. 1854 S.

589 f. Sprinzl, Die Theol. der apost. Väter, Wien 1880. Lechler, Das apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalter, 3e Ausg. 586-610. Zöckler, Handbuch der theol.

Wiss. Supplementband 1889 S. 18 f. Dorner, Entw. Gesch. der Lehre v. d.

Person Christi, 2e Aufl. I 130 f. Harnack, Dogmengesch. I 125-186.

2. With this simple repetition and practical application of the truth of Scripture, however, theology could not remain standing. The opposition which Christianity gradually experienced from pagan culture compelled reflection and defense. In the first period the pagan power confined itself to persecution, Uhlhorn, der Kampf des Christ. mit dem Heid. 3e Aufl.

Stuttgart 1879, hatred, contempt, and mockery, as they are expressed by Tacitus, Ann. 15:44 and Lucian in his Peregrinus Proteus, Th. Keim, Rom und das Christenthum, herausg. v. H. Ziegler 1881. Stud. u. Kr. 1851, S.

826 f. Herzog2 8, 772. But gradually the pagan world had to reckon with Christianity and attacked it scientifically. Heinrich Kellner has in his

Hellenismus und Christenthum, Kölln 1866 intentionally described this geistige Reaktion des antiken Heidenthums gegen das Christenthum, and finally, S. 431 f. also pointed to its affinity with the combating of Christianity in the present time. The principal scientific opponents are:

Celsus, (W. Th. Keim, Celsus' wahres Wort. Zürich 1873. Origen, contra Celsum. Bindemann, Zeits. f. d. histor. Theol. 1842, 2tes Heft S. 58 f. Baur,

Kirch. Gesch. [54] der 3 ersten Jahrh. 383 f. Herzog2 11, 100 f. Vigouroux, Les livres saints et la critique rationaliste, 3e ed. I 133 s.) Porphyrius, (Baur, ib. 420 f. Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1878. 2tes Heft S. 269 f. Herzog2 10, 524.

Vigouroux, ib. I 156 s.), Fronto, the friend of Aurelius (according to Minucius Felix, Octavius 9, 31. Boissier, Les polémiques religieuses au second siècle, Revue des Deux Mondes 1 Jan. 1879, Herzog2 8, 772), and later still Julian, who, according to the refutation of Cyril, contra Julianum, wrote a book against the Christians, (C. J. Neumann, Juliani imperatoris librorum contra Christianos quae supersunt Lips. Teubner 1880, also translated into German. ib.). All the arguments which later through all centuries have been brought against Christianity are already to be found with them, thus e.g. against the authenticity and truth of many Bible books, the Pentateuch, Daniel, the Gospels, against revelation and the miracles; against various dogmas such as the incarnation, the satisfaction, forgiveness, the resurrection, the eternity of punishment; against morality, such as asceticism, contempt for the world, unculturedness; not to speak of the slanderous accusations of worshiping a donkey's head, child murder, adultery, etc. Yet this scientific combating too has not overcome

Christianity. And the pagans saw themselves compelled either to bring the old religion to new life, as Neopythagoreanism and Neoplatonism attempted, Zeller, Philos. der Griechen 3e Aufl. V 79 f. 419 f., or to mix and connect Christianity with paganism, as happened in Gnosticism and Manichaeism. Especially Gnosticism was a powerful attempt to take up

Christianity into the combination and fusion of all kinds of pagan elements, neoplaton. philosophy, Syrian and Phoenician mythology, Chaldean

astrology, Persian dualism, etc., and thus to divest it of its absolute character. The main question in that connection was this, how the human spirit had come into the bonds of matter and could now be freed from it.

Usually God in Gnosticism is the abstract, undifferentiated unity. From him matter, the cause of evil, is not to be explained. This is derived from a lower god, the demiurge, who stands between the highest God and the sensible world and is identified with the God of the O. Test. For the redemption of the spirits bound in matter there proceed from God various aeons, which represent the various religions and reach their climax in the aeon Christ.

Christianity is thus not the only but the highest religion. Christ, however, is conceived docetically, for it is not the fact, history, but the idea that matters.

Therefore the highest blessedness also consists in knowing; knowledge with asceticism makes blessed. The pistis, theology, may be good for the undeveloped; the gnosis, philosophy is the highest, it is the property of the πνευματικοι. These ideas were brought into agreement with Scripture by allegorical exegesis, and presented in forms and images borrowed from mythology and adorned by fantasy. They changed Christianity into a kind of Religionsphilosophie, of speculative philosophy, which through all centuries, down to the systems of Hegel and Schelling, has exercised its influence, cf. Jacobi in Herzog2 5, 204 f. Harnack Dogm. I 186 f.

Vigouroux t. a. p. I 106 s. and the literature cited there.

Over against these various attacks, defence was necessary. The Christians were compelled to reflect on the content of revelation, and to set a true,

Christian gnosis over against the false. The revealed truth becomes the object of methodical, scientific thinking. Theology arose, not from and for the church and for the training of its ministers, but on the occasion of and for the repulse of the attacks that were directed against Christianity.

Naturally, for such an activity of thought, knowledge of pagan philosophy was necessary; theology in fact arose with the help of and through connection with philosophy. The Gnostics had already attempted this too, but there was an essential difference in the manner in which the Gnostics and in which the Apologists sought that connection. That difference does not consist in this, that the former undertook an acute, and the latter an allmählige Hellenisirung of Christianity, Harnack, Dogmengesch. I 168 f.

413 f. But with the Gnostics the positive, absolute content of the Christian religion was lost, with the Apologists it was preserved; with the former the use of philosophy was material, with the latter in the main formal; the former were therefore disowned by the church, the latter acknowledged; the former presented the various philosophies as a religious process, in which also Christianity was included, the latter attempted to demonstrate the Christian religion, which they acknowledged and accepted, as the highest truth, as the true philosophy, which unites in itself all elements of truth from elsewhere. This latter is even the fundamental thought of the Apologists, and they work this out as follows: God is one, ineffable, spiritual, etc., but through the Logos He is also creator of the world, ultimate cause of all that is, and principle of all the morally good. Gnostic dualism is here overcome; the world everywhere bears the stamp of the divine Logos, matter too is good and created by God. Man was originally created good, received reason and freedom and was destined for the ἀθανασια; this he had to and could attain in the way of free obedience. But he has allowed himself to be seduced by the daemons and has now come under the dominion of sensuality, fallen prey to error and death. Here too dualism is avoided and the cause of sin is sought in the will of man. But therefore new means are now necessary, to bring man back from the way of falsehood and death and

to lead him onward to immortality. God revealed himself through the Logos from the earliest times, and imparted knowledge of the truth also indeed to some Heathens, but especially to the prophets in Israel, and finally in his

Son Jesus Christ. In Him all earlier truth is confirmed and completed.

Through Him as teacher of the truth man is again brought to his destination.

The Apologists are thus intellectualistic and moralistic; yet, e.g., in Justin the striving is not lacking, to understand Christ also as Reconciler and Redeemer, through whose blood we receive forgiveness of sin. Edition of the Apologists Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus and Hermias, in Migne ser. gr. t. 6. Of them Justin is by far the most important, Semisch,

Justin the Martyr, Breslau 1840. Böhringer, Kirch. Gesch. in Biogr. I 1 S.

96-270. Aubé St. Justin philosophe et martyr. Paris 1861. Weiszäcker, Die Theol. des J. M. (Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1867, S. 60-119). Engelhardt, Das Christ.

J. d. M. Erlangen 1878 en Herz.2 7, 318. Stählin, Justin der Martyrer Leipz.

1880. Harnack D. G. I 413-464. Dr. H. Veit, Justinus des Philos. und Martyrers Rechtfertigung des Christ. Strassburg, Heitz. 1894. [57]

3. The beginnings of theology among the Apologists, however, were not only weak but in many respects also not free from one-sidedness and error.

The problems that presented themselves were many and formidable; the relation of theology and philosophy, the doctrine of the Logos in its relation to God, the significance of Christ and his death, etc., were far too deep for the right insight to be obtained all at once. Difference of view manifested itself repeatedly. As soon as there was theology, there was also distinction of direction and school. Two kinds of dogmatic direction can soon be distinguished. On the one hand that which is represented by Tertullianus

(ed. van Oehler, Leipzig 1853, van Gersdorf, Bibl. patr. eccles. lat. vol. 4-7.

Migne, ser. lat. t. 1-2). Cyprianus (ed. Gersdorf. vol. 2-3. Hartel, Vienna 3

vol. 1868-71. Migne ser. lat. t. 4) and Lactantius (ed. Gersdorf. vol. 10-11.

Migne t. 6), and also by Irenaeus, of whom only the principal work Ἐλεγχος και ἀνατροπη της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως, usually cited Adversus haereses libr. V has been preserved (ed. Stieren, Leipzig 1853. Migne ser. gr. t. 7) and his pupil Hippolytus of Rome, probably author of the φιλοσοφουμενα ἠ κατα πασων αἱρεσεων ἐλεγχος first ascribed to Origen (ed. Duncker u.

Schneidewin Gött. 1859. Migne, ser. gr. t. 10). All these stand antithetically over against philosophy. Irenaeus warns very earnestly against it, adv. haer.

II 25-28 and Tertullianus banishes it entirely and as sharply as possible, de praescr. 7, in the well-known passage: what have Athens and Jerusalem, the academy and the church, the Christians and the heretics in common, etc. Yet they all again make the most naïve use of it; Tertullianus is therefore so important for theology, because he introduced a number of termini for the trinitarian and christological dogma, such as trias, trinitas, satisfacere, meritum, sacramentum, una substantia and tres personae, duae substantiae in una persona etc. But in doing so they stand on the foundation of the faith of the church; they are historical, positive, realistic and make between faith and theology, πιστις and γνωσις, no qualitative but at most a quantitative distinction, Iren. adv. haer. I 10, 3. And indeed there is as yet no question of a dogmatic system with these men; the dogmata stand loosely alongside one another, a definite principle is not to be found, indeed in christology by Tertullianus and [58] Hippolytus gnosticism has not been entirely overcome; but nevertheless the theology of these men, especially of Irenaeus, has been that of the following centuries. All the later dogmata are to be found in him. The unity of God, the unity of essence of Father and Son, of the God of creation and of re-creation, the unity of the God of the O. and of that of the N. T., the creation of the world out of nothing, the

unity of the human race, the origin of sin from freedom of the will, the two natures of Christ, the absolute revelation of God in Christ, the resurrection of all men, etc., are by him clearly expressed and maintained over against Gnosticism. Christianity in Irenaeus first unfolded a proper, independent theological science, Harnack, Dogm. Gesch. I 464-547, the articles on the named theologians in Herzog2, the monographs on them, e.g. on Irenaeus,

Böhringer, Kirchengesch. in Biogr. 2e Aufl. I Bd. 1e Abth. Ziegler, Irenaeus, Der Bischof von Lyon, Berlin 1871. Reville, Revue des deux

Mondes 1865. Alzog, Grundriss der Patrologie, 4e Aufl. Freiburg 1888 S 104 f. etc. Zöckler Supplement S. 40 f. [**]

[**] For the sake of brevity, some works are mentioned here for the Councils, Church Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, etc., and literature about them. The acts of the councils are collected in: Joa. Harduinus, Conciliorum collectio regia maxima. Par. 1714. 11 Tomi in 12 vol., runs up to 1714. J.

Domin. Mansi. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Flor.

1759-1788. 31 vol.; a new, improved edition has been appearing since 1885 in Paris. Acta et decreta sacrorum conciliorum recentiorum. Collectio

Lacensis (Maria Laach), 7 vol. Frib. Brisg. 1870-1890, contains the acta of the concilia from 1682-1870. The principal decisions of councils and Popes are collected by H. Denzinger. Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum, ed.

6 aucta ab Ign. Stahl. Wirceb. 1888. The history of the councils has been treated most completely by Karl Joseph von Hefele, Conciliëngeschichte, nach den Quellen bearbeitet, 7 Bde. Freiburg 1885-1671, 2e Aufl. Bd. 1-4 by Hefele himself, Bd. 5-6 by Knöpfler; the work has been continued by Hergenröther, who added Bd. 8-9 to it 1867 and 1890.

The Church Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers have been published, inter alia, by: Andr. Gallandius, Bibliotheca veterum patrum antiquorumque

scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, Venet. 1763-1781, 14 tomi fol. J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, sive Bibliotheca universatis .... omnium S. S.

Patrum, doctorum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum, sive latinorum, sive graecorum. Paris 1844 sq. 473 tomi; series latina 221 tomi, series graeca

166 tomi, patrologia graeca latine tantum edita 86 tomi. Furthermore, various Church Fathers have been published separately by the Maurist monks (Cf. art. Herz2), such as Origenes by Delarue Paris 1733,

Chrysostomus by Montfaucon 1718, Augustinus by Delfau e. a. 1679-1702 etc. And finally there appears an excellent edition of the Lat. Church

Fathers at Vienna under the direction of the Imperial Academy of Sciences:

Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vindob. 1866 sq. in which already various Church Fathers Minucius Felix, Cyprianus, Arnob., Lact., etc. or portions of Church Fathers Tert., August. etc. have appeared. See further Bellarminus, De Scriptoribus ecclesiasticis Romae 1613. Ed. du Pin,

Nouvelle Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques, 47 vol. Par. 1686-1714.

Cave, Historia literaria script. eccles. 2 vol. Lond. 1689, Basil. 1741. Walch, Bibl. theol. sel. Jenae 4 vol. 1757 sq. Ritter, Geschichte der christl.

Philosophie, 4 Theile, Hamburg 1841-1845. Ueberweg, Grundriss der Gesch. d. Phil. der patr. u. schol. Zeit. 6e Aufl. 1881. Nirschl. Lehrb. der

Patrol. u. Patristik, 3 Bde. Mainz 1881-1885. Alzog, Grundriss der Patrologie, 4e Aufl. Freiburg 1888. G. Krüger, Gesch. der altchristl.

Litteratur in den ersten drei Jahrh. Freiburg 1895.

As aids can serve: for ecclesiastical Greek, the dictionary of J. C.

Suicerus, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, ed. 2a longe auctior Amst. 1728, 2 tomi; for medieval Greek C. Dufresne, dominus du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis. Lugd, 1688, 2 tomi; for medieval

Latin C. Dufresne, dominus du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et

infimae latinitatis. Par. 1678, 3 vol.; new edition by the Benedictines in 6 parts 1733-36; by G. A. L. Henschel, Par. 1840-50 in 7 parts; and by Leopold Favre in 10 parts 1883-87. Also Forcellini, Totius latinitatis lexicon, in 4 parts Padua 1771; new edition by Furlanetto in 4 parts. Padua

1828-'31: English edition in London 1826; German by Voigtlander and Hertel in Zwickau and Schneeberg 1829-33, new edition in Italy by Corradini in Padua 1859 and by D. Vinc. De Vit in 6 parts in Prato 1858-79.

For the place-names: J. V. Muller, Lexicon manuale, geographiam antiquam et mediam cum Latine tum Germanice illustrans, Lips. 1831. J. G. Th.

Graesse, Orbis latinus over Verzeichniss der lateinischen Benennungen der bekanntesten Städte usw. Dresden 1861. [59]

Quite different was the attitude that was adopted by the Alexandrian theologians toward philosophy and Gnosticism. In various places, especially in Alexandria, toward the end of the 2nd and at the beginning of the 3rd century, the endeavor awoke to work up the Christian material scientifically and thus mit dem Zeitbewusstsein zu vermitteln, Harnack, D.

G. I 549. The origin and the rise of the Catechetical School in Alexandria is unknown to us, Guericke, De schola quae Alexandriae floruit catechetica

1824. Vacherot, Hist. crit. de l'école d'Alex. 1846-51. Herzog2 I 290-292, but it already existed about 190 and soon increased in esteem and influence.

[60] The first teacher who is known to us through his surviving writings is Clemens Alexandrinus. But he is put in the shade by Origen, the most influential theologian from the first centuries. Their endeavor was to transform the ecclesiastical doctrine of faith into a speculative science. To be sure, they maintained the faith, and, in distinction from the Gnostics, they took their point of departure in the positive doctrine of the church.

Clemens even called faith a γνωσις συντομος, esteemed it higher than

pagan wisdom; Christianity is a way to salvation for all people and can be appropriated only by faith; the content of that faith is summarized by the church in its confession, and the source of knowledge of the truth is solely and alone revelation, Holy Scripture. All this is held just as strongly by Clemens and Origen as by Irenaeus and Tertullian. But the difference begins here, that the Alexandrians assumed a qualitative difference between faith and science. Faith may be good and necessary for the simple; the developed do not have enough with that. Theology must aim to develop the content of faith into a science that does not rest on authority but finds in itself its guarantee and confirmation. The pistis must be raised to gnosis.

The gnosis is here no longer a means to ward off and combat heresy but becomes an end. The pistis leads only to a χριστιανισμος σωματικος, but theology must develop from Holy Scripture the χριστιανισμος πνευματικος.

What Philo had attempted for the Jews, Clemens and Origen undertook for the Christians; they continued the work of Justinus Martyr. In order to reach this goal, they naturally had to have knowledge of and make use of philosophy; they do not indeed attach themselves to a particular system, but they make use of the whole Greek philosophy since Socrates, especially that of Plato and of the Stoa. And with the help of that Origen delivers a system that without doubt testifies to a genial glance and deep power of thought, but that also repeatedly runs the danger of making theology pass over into philosophy. Subordination of the Son, eternity of the creation, praeexistence of souls, dualism of spirit and matter, earthly purification, restoration of all things are so many elements in the system of Origen that brought it into conflict with the faith of the church and [61] later brought about his condemnation. With Scripture all this was brought into agreement by a pneumatic, allegorical exegesis. But in fact in this theology of Origen

the Christian religion is dissolved into ideas. It seeks a transaction between church and world, faith and science, theology and philosophy, a compromise between the foolishness of the cross and the wisdom of the world and is thus the finest and richest type of the Vermittelungstheologie that repeatedly arises in the church, Bigg, The Christian Platonists of Alexandria. Oxford 1886. Harnack D. G. I 547-604, art. in Herzog2 and the litt. cited there and in Harnack; also Zöckler, Supplement S. 51 f.

4. At the beginning of the third century the foundations of Christian theology were laid. The church, over against Paganism and Judaism, over against Gnosticism and Ebionitism, deliberately adopted a firm position, and saved the independence of Christianity. But now in the third century all kinds of internal disputes arise. The great struggle of the 3rd century ran over the relation of the Logos (and the Spirit) to the Father, and the heresy that had to be combated was Monarchianism in its two forms of dynamistic and modalistic Monarchianism. The former, such as the Alogi, Theodotus and his party, Artemas c. s. and especially also in the East Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch since 260, tried to maintain the unity of God in such a way that they held Son and Spirit not for persons but for attributes and denied deity to Jesus; Jesus was a man, equipped in a special measure by the Divine Logos and anointed with God's Spirit. The modalistic

Monarchians, however, taught that the Godhead itself had become flesh in Christ; they thus acknowledged the deity of Christ but identified Father and Son and thus came to patripassianism. This opinion was very widespread in the 3rd century and found much support; it was defended and advocated by Noetus, Epigonus, Kleomenes, Aeschines, Praxeas, Victorinus, Zephyrinus,

Kallistus and especially Sabellius. The monarchians and anti-trinitarians were combated by Hippolytus in Contra haeresin Noeti, and

Philosophumena, and also in the so-called Parvus Labyrinthus (bij Euseb. h. e. 5, 28), by Tertullianus adv. Praxeam, Novatianus de trinitate, Dionysius

Alex. adv. Sabellium, Eusebius [62] contra Marcellum, de eccles. theologia, and de fide ad Sabellium. See Harnack D. G. I 604-709, and art. Monarch. in Herzog2 10, 178. Dorner, Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. P. Christi, 2e Aufl. I 497 f. Lange, Gesch. u. Entw. der Systeme der Unitariër vor der nic. Synode,

1831. Hagemann, Die römische Kirche in den 3 ersten Jahrh. 1864. At the end of the 3rd century the dogma of Christ's deity and of his distinction from the Father stood firm. There were three hypostases in the Divine being, Father, Son and Spirit. This was the faith both in the East and in the West, Harnack D. G. I 667, 709. The concepts with which thought in the following century will occupy itself, such as μονας, τριας, οὐσια, ὑποστασις, προσωπον etc. already exist, but will only later acquire their definite character and fixed value. The foundation has been laid, and the boundaries have been demarcated, within which Christian speculation will test its strength.

B. Dogmatics in the Eastern Church.

5. The period from the 4th to the 8th century in the East is wholly taken up by the Christological controversies. The homoousia of the Son who became man in Christ with the Father was the dogma par excellence. The religious interest at stake here was that God himself had to become man, in order that we human beings, delivered from death, led to immortality and the vision of God, and made partakers of the divine nature, should be. The deity of Christ is the essence of Christianity. No one has understood this better than

Athanasius. His history is that of his century. For him the whole of Christianity is concentrated in redemption unto eternal life through the true

Son of God. Therein he maintains the specific character of the christ. religion, makes the doctrine of the Trinity free from cosmological speculations, which were still connected with it in Origen and Tertullian, and preserves Christianity from secularization, Harnack II 21-27, 204 f.

Athanasius is a Christologist. He feels deeply the religious interest of the deity of Christ. Christ had to be God, in order to be able to be our Saviour.

Because of this wholly unique significance of the Christological dogma, no proper [63] dogmatic systems see the light. There are, however, a number of important dogmatic treatises. Arianism is combated by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his Epistolae de Ariana haeresi deque Arii depositione, by Athanasius in all his writings, especially in his Orationes contra Arianos, by Basil in his Libri V adv. Eunomium and in his Liber de Spiritu Sancto, by Gregory Naz. in his Orationes V de theologia, by Gregory Nyss. Libri s. orationes XII c. Eunomium, by Cyril, Hilary, Ambrose, Fulgentius e. a., and condemned at the Synod of Nicaea and Constantinople. The deity and homoousia of the H. Spirit was defended against Macedonius of Constantinople by Athanasius in his Epistolae ad Serapionem, by Basil in his work against Eunomius, and in his treatise de Spiritu Sancto, by Greg.

Naz. in various of his Orationes theologicae, by Greg. Nyss. in his adv. pneumatomachos Macedonianos, and especially also by Didymus in his works de Trinitate libri tres and de Spiritu Sancto, and was established at the Syn. at Constantinople 381. Already during the question about the homoousia of the Son a second question arose about the human nature and about its union with the divine nature. Apollinaris acknowledged that the Redeemer had to be God, but he could not be a perfect man, for then there

were two beings and two persons and no unity came about. The Logos therefore assumed an ensouled σαρξ and formed therein himself the πνευμα, the I, the principle of self-consciousness and self-determination.

But he was opposed by Athanasius, de incarnatione domini nostri J. C. contra Apollinarem, and de salutari adventu J. C., by Greg. Naz. in his

Epistolae ad Cledonium and by Greg. Nyss. in his Antirrheticus adv.

Apollinarem, and condemned at the Synod at Rome 377 and at Constantinople 381. When the two natures had been established, a difference arose about the nature of their union. Not substantial and essential, but moral and relative, said Nestorius; there are in Christ two persons, ὑποστασεις. But he found a strong opponent in Cyril of Alexandria, who attacked him in various works de incarnatione Unigeniti, adversus Nestorii blasphemias contradictionum Libri V, etc., and was condemned at the Synod at Ephesus 431. The opinion standing in direct opposition to that, of Eutyches, was opposed by Theodoret in his [64]

Ερανιστης ἠ πολυμορφος and Leo Magnus in his Epistola ad Flavianum and was condemned at the Synod at Chalcedon 451.

6. Chalcedonianism, however, brought no peace; the confusion increased; Monophysitism was too strong in the East. It did, indeed, find a powerful defender in Leontius of Byzantium 485-543, called by Harnack II 383 the first scholastic, and it was also recognized at the 5th synod at Constantinople 551. But the Monophysites were not won over, not even by the efforts of Justinian I. The monergistic and monotheletic conflict arising in the 7th century ended with the determination of two wills in Christ at the 6th synod at Constantinople 680. And to the present day there are

Monophysite Christians in Syria, art. Jacobites in Herzog2, Dr. H. G.

Kleijn, Jakob Baradeus. Leiden 1881. They accept one nature in Christ, ex.

not in duabus naturis, reject Chalcedon and recognize the so-called robbersynod at Ephesus, use leavened bread at the Lord's Supper, make the cross with one finger, have taken over imageand saint-veneration from the Greek and Roman church, and stand under the "Patriarch of Antioch" who, however, usually lives in Diarbekr. Of dogmatic importance is the confession of faith of Baradeus in Kleijn p. 110 f. Monophysites are further found in Egypt, called Copts, living under a patriarch in Cairo, Herzog2 1,

178 f., in Abyssinia, under an Abbûna, appointed by the patriarch in Cairo and residing in Gondar, Herzog2 1, 69 f., in Armenia under a Catholicos in Etschmiadsin, a monastery near Erivan in Armenia. See Hofmann,

Symbolik § 62-68, with the literature indicated there and in Herzog, Kattenbusch, Confessionskunde I 205-234.

But dogmatically not only the christological writings are of importance; other treatises also come into consideration. The doctrine of God, his names, attributes, providence were treated in connection with the apologists, who had maintained the Christian concept of God over against Gnosticism. One mostly proceeded from natural knowledge of God, from God as a simple, immutable being, whose existence could be proved psychologically, cosmologically, and teleologically, who indeed was unknowable in his essence, but in Scripture was revealed as Triune,

Chrysostomus, Homiliae

contra Anomoeos [65] seu de incomprehensibili Dei natura, Pseudodiomysius de divinis nominibus,

Chrysostomus de providentia L. III. Theodoretus de providentia orationes X, Harnack II 116-122, Münscher-v. Coelln I 124 f. Cosmology and anthropology were treated especially in connection with Genesis 1-3, and in such a way that Origenism was avoided. God had created the world through the Logos after the pattern of a supramundane spiritual world; sin arose

through free will and is counterbalanced by punishment and redemption, Basilius, Homiliae IX in hexaemeron. Greg. Nyss. Explicatio apologetica in hexaemeron en de hominis opificio, Ambrosius L. VI in hexaemeron.

Augustinus, de Genesi contra Manich. L. II, De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus. Johannes Philoponus, de æternitate mundi c. Proclum, en de mundi creatione l. VII, Anastasius Sinaita, Anagogicæ contemplationes in hexaemeron, libri XII. Harnack D. G. II 122-129. Münscher-v. Coelln I 141 f. Schwane D. G. II. Furthermore, very many tractates were also written on virginity, monasticism, perfection, the priesthood, the resurrection, etc., such as by Ephraem Syrus, Greg. Naz., Chrysost., Greg. Nyss., Chrysost., as well as many apologies against Jews, Heathens, and Heretics. The most remarkable for the history of dogmatics are the Ὑποτυπωσεις, Institutiones theologicæ libr. VII, in fragments in Athanasius, and collected in Gallandii

Bibl. III 662-663. Routh Reliq. Sacr. III and Migne ser. gr. 18, of which the first three books treat of God, the Father and the Creator, the Son and the Spirit, the fourth of angels and demons, the fifth and sixth of the incarnation and the seventh of creation. Further, the Κατηχησεις of Cyrillus, 18 lectures for φωτιζομενοι on the truths of the faith and five for νεοφωτιστοι on the mysteries, baptism, anointing, eucharist, liturgy, Plitt, de Cyrilli Hierosol. orationibus, quae exstant catecheticis. Heidelb. 1855. Gregorius of Nyssa,

Oratio catechetica in 40 cap. contains a philosophical demonstration for the principal truths of Christianity, God's existence, essence, trinity, creation and fall, redemption, sacraments, especially penance and eucharist, and eschatology. Chrysostomus' Catecheses duo are especially moral addresses to the catechumens. Theodoretus gave a compendium of the Christian faith in the 5th book of his Αἱρετικης κακομυθιας ἐπιτομη Haereticarum fabularum compendium. [66] Maximus Confessor treated the truths of faith

of the church in short chapters Κεφαλαια, 200 on the doctrine of God, 300 on the incarnation and sin, 500 on love. Of great significance were also the five writings περι θειων ὀνοματων, περι της οὐρανιας ἱεραρχιας, περι της ἐκκλησιαστικης ἱεραρχιας, περι μυστικης θεολογιας together with 10 letters, which saw the light in the fifth century and for a long time passed as writings of Dionysius Areopagita. They used Neoplatonic philosophy and pantheistic mysticism for elucidation and elaboration of Christian doctrine and were soon highly esteemed, commented upon by Maximus Confessor,

Pachymeres and others, used by theologians, mystics, ascetics especially in the Middle Ages and almost placed on a par with Scripture. All the elements of dogmatic development were finally summarized and united by Joh.

Damascenus in his Πηγη γνωσεως. This work consists of 3 parts. In part 1 Κεφαλαια φιλοσοφικα he gives a sketch of philosophy as handmaid and instrument of theology, specifically of logic according to Aristotle and Porphyrius. Part 2 is historical, Περι αἱρεσεων and gives an overview of the heresies up to Mohammed. Part 3 Ἐκδοσις ἀκριβης της ὀρθοδοξου πιστεως is the properly dogmatic part in 100 capita; he himself acknowledges therein to give nothing but what the fathers have taught and therefore also cites the Greek fathers, and Pope Leo, repeatedly, J. Langen, Johannes of Damaskus, Gotha 1879. Grundlehner, Joh. Dam. Utrecht 1876.

A history of theology and dogmatics in the Eastern church after Damascenus does not yet exist. The patristic period, in which the great dogma-formation took place, ended approximately with Justinian I 527565, or also with Photius ± 860. This whole period from the 6th to the 9th century is a period of transition. The iconoclastic controversy 726-842 is in it the characteristic event, Harnack, D. G. II 452 f. K. Schwarzlose, Der

Bilderstreit, ein Kampf der gr. K. um ihre Eigenart und um ihre Freiheit,

1890. Relics and images were already in use before the 5th century, but the Christological dogma came to support them. The peculiarity of Christianity seemed to lie in this, that it made the Divine sensibly and bodily present.

The image soon became from symbol to bearer and organ of the holy.

Paganism returned in the Christian [67] church. But the defence of the images was precisely connected with that of the freedom of the church and with the religious interests that were then present there. Over against that stood the imperial party, which opposed the images but thereby also wished to subject the church to the state, which wished to leave to the emperor the establishment of an ecclesiastical dogma, which by opposing the images wished to meet Jews and Mohammedans half-way. In the veneration of images the whole orthodoxy drew itself together. In the sensible one wishes to possess and enjoy the Divine. John Damascenus was one of the most powerful defenders of the veneration of images, in his de imaginibus orationes III; he brings them into the closest connection with the incarnation of God in Christ and sees in their opposition Judaism and Manichaeism.

The dogmatic justification of the veneration of images has been the last labour of the church in the East. The Byzantine period, from the 9th century to the taking of Constantinople by the Turks 1453, enters in. It is a time of rest, of powerlessness in producing. The Greek church is that of orthodoxy, it only preserves; the Christological dogma is the dogma par excellence. Yet there has been up to 1453 a strong scholarly life. The writings of the Byzantine theologians, from Damascenus onward to those who experienced the taking of Constantinople, form in the Cursus patrologiae graecae of Migne the volumes 94-161. After Damascenus, whose dogmatics is still to this day norma, from the Byzantine period especially Photius deserves to be mentioned, patriarch of Constantinople 891, whose principal work

Μυριοβιβλος or Bibliotheca contains learned excerpts from all manner of writers and who appeared as dogmatician in his Μυσταγωγια του ἁγιου πνευματος, ed. Hergenröther, Ratisb. 1857; cf. Gass in Herzog2,

Hergenröther, Photius, Patriarch v. K., Regensburg 1867-69. Further Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century, who at the command of emperor

Alexius I wrote a Πανοπλια δογματικη της ὀρθοδοξου πιστεως ἠτοι ὁπλοθηκη δογματων, and Nicetas Choniates ± 1220 who supplemented the work of Euthymius in his Θησαυρος ὀρθοδοξιας, in part published, cf.

Ullmann, Nic. v. Meth., Euth. Zigab. und Nicetas Chon. oder die dogm.

Entw. der gr. K. im 12 Jahrh., Stud. u. Kr. 1883 4tes Heft. Further is the work of Nicolaus Kabasilas, περι της ἐν Χριστῳ ζωης λογοι ἑπτα published by Gass 1849; and a treatise [68] of Demetrius Kydonius περι του καταφρονειν τον θανατον by Kuinoel, Lips. 1786.

After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, the Greek church in the East would have been completely destroyed or shrunk into a sect, if it had not found support in the Russian empire, which was Christianized in the 10th century and adopted the Greek-Orthodox faith in its entirety and without criticism. Of the theological literature after that time we know even much less than in the earlier period. Migne's edition goes no further and leaves us here in the lurch. An overview of names and works is given in Νεοελλενικη φιλολογια, συγγραμμα Κωνσταντινου Σαθα, Athene 1868.

The attempts at union with Rome at the councils of Lyon 1274 and Florence 1439 are known to us from the acts. The correspondence of the Tübingen theologians 1576 with the patriarch Jeremias II was published at Wittenberg

1584, Gass Symb. der gr. K. 45 f.; concerning that of Cyrillus Lucaris with many Protestant theologians and statesmen see Gass, art. Lucaris in Herzog2 9, 5 f., Kattenbusch 141 f. One cannot summarize the history of

this literature in one word: petrifaction, orthodoxyism, etc. The center of gravity of the Greek church has been shifted to Russia, and Russia is still young, has as yet no past and is only now emerging. Its literary and scholarly life has only just begun. From the previous century there is mentioned Theophanes Procopowitsch, who is regarded as the father of Russian systematic theology, Philaret, Gesch. der Kirche Russlands II 209 v. And from this century Philaret, Ausführl. Catech. der rechtgläub. kath. morgenl. Kirche in the work of Philaret Gesch. d. K. Russl. II 293 f.

Macarius, Handbuch zum Studium der christl. orthodox. dogm. Theol., German by Blumenthal 1875. See Zöckler Supplement 112 f. Kurtz, Lehrb. d. K. G. § 68. Gass, Beiträge zur kirchl. litt. u. dogm. gesch. des gr. M. A., 2

Bde. Breslau 1844-47. Also: A. v. Reinholdt, Gesch. der russ. Lit. v. ihren Anfängen bis auf die neueste Zeit 1886. K. Krumbacher, Gesch. der byzant.

Litt. 1891. Kattenbusch, Conf. 252-287. The concept of doctrine of the Greek (Russian) church is to be found in Walch I 431 sq. E. J. Kimmel,

Monumenta fidei ecclesiae orientalis, 2 Bde. 1850. Schaff, Creeds of Christ.

I. 1881. p. 24-82; II 57-73; 275-554. Μεσολωρας, Συμβολικη της ὀρθοδοξου [69] ἀνατολικης ἐκκλησιας I 1883. W. Gass, Symbolik der gr.

Kirche 1872. H. Schmidt, Handbuch der Symbolik, 1890. S. 30 f.

Hoffmann, Symboliek bl. 130 v. Kattenbusch, Lehrb. der vergl.

Confessionskunde I: Die orthodoxe anatolische Kirche I 1892. Furthermore, one may also consult, concerning the churches in the East, especially in Russia, the works mentioned by Walch Bibl. theol. sel. II 559 sq. Le Quien,

Oriens christianus, 3 Bde. 1740. J. Mason Neall, History of the holy eastern church I 1850. Gass, art. Gr. u. gr. russ. Kirche, Konstant. in Herzog2. J.

Silbernagl, Verfassung und gegenwartiger Bestand sämmtlicher Kirchen des Orients, Landshut 1865. Victor Frank, Russische Selbstzeugnisse. I Russ.

Christ. Paderborn 1889. H. Dalton, Die russ. Kirche, Leipzig 1892. Presb. and Ref. Rev. Jan. 1892 p. 103 v. Anatole Leroy Beaulieu, Das Reich des

Czaren und der Russen, autor. German edition provided with concluding remarks by L. Pezold and J. Muller. Sondershausen 1884-90. III Bd.: Die

Macht der Religion, Kirche, Geistlichkeit und Sektenwezen in Russland. H.

Dalton, Evangel. Strömungen in der russ. Kirche der Gegenwart, Heilbronn 1881. Nik. von Gerbel-Embach, Russische Sectirer, Heilbronn 1883 (both in the Zeitfragen des Christ. Volkslebens Bd. VI and VIII). Concerning the Stundists: The Stundists, the story of a great religious revolt. James Clarke,

Fleetstreet, London. Dr. Ferd. Knie, Die russ.-schismatische Kirche, Ihr Lehre und ihr Cult. Graz 1894. Kattenbusch 234 f. 542 f.

C. Dogmatics in the Latin, Roman Church.

8. From the beginning the church and theology in the West bears a character of its own. In Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus this already clearly appears. In the East the dominant thought in dogmatics is this, that man through sin is subjected to the φθορα and now by God himself in Christ is delivered from death and is made partaker of life, of immortality, of the divine nature. The ideas of substance, essence, nature, stand here in the foreground and foster standstill, rest, both in doctrine and in life. In the West, on the other hand, the emphasis falls on the relation in which man stands to God. And this relation is that of a guilty person over against a righteous God, whose commandments he has transgressed [70]. Christ, however, by his work has acquired the grace of God, the forgiveness of sins, the power for the keeping of the law. And this drives out into an active life, into obedience

and submission. In the East one attaches oneself especially to John, in the West to Paul. There the centre of gravity lies in the incarnation, here in the death of Christ. There the person, here the work of Christ stands in the foreground. In the East it depends in the first place on the divine-human nature, on the unity of both natures in Christ; in the West, on the other hand, on the distinction of both natures, on the mediatorial position which Christ occupies between God and man. There the mystical, liturgical, here the juridical, political element rules, Kattenbusch, Confessionskunde I 103 f.

This distinction is present from the beginning. The rupture was a question of time. With the rise of Constantinople the open struggle began.

Constantinople could not point to an apostolic origin and derived all its significance from politics, from the imperial court. It wanted to be a second

Rome. The bishop of Constantinople received according to the council of 381 can. 3 τα πρεσβεια της τιμης after the bishop of Rome, δια το εἰναι αὐτην νεαν Ρωμην. With that it was satisfied, with a place next to Rome.

The East wanted one church, yes, but in two halves, with two emperors, two capitals, two bishops of equal rank. The Greek church calls itself the orthodox, it considers itself in full possession of the truth, it rests and enjoys. But it also calls itself the Anatolian, it binds itself to a particular land and is satisfied with this. Quite different was it with Rome. Rome maintained itself not as a political city next to Constantinople, but placed itself as sedes apostolica high above Constantinople. Rome represented and defended a religious interest. It soon based its claims and rights on Mt.

16:18, and demanded a universal, a catholic position. In the Western church there therefore lies an aggressive, a world-conquering tendency. This twofold direction drove East and West apart. When in addition differences came in customs, rites and especially in the confession of the filioque, the

schism was prepared more and more. In 1054 it came formally into being.

[71] Yet in many respects the West was dependent on the East. For here the church had first been founded. Here the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists appeared. Here the mighty struggle against Gnosticism and Manichaeism was fought. Here the theological and christological dogmas were established at the councils. Synods first arose there, in the second century, in Asia Minor. The ecumenical councils, from 325 until the middle of the 9th century, were all held in the East, in Asia Minor or Constantinople, and up to that of 879 are all also recognized by the Western church. The objective foundations of church doctrine are the same in East and West. Since the second half of the second century, Eastern theology also penetrated into the West. Victorinus Rhetor, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome,

Rufinus transferred the theological world of thought of the East to the West.

Old Test. exegesis, Platonic theology, monasticism, the ideal of virginity made their entry in the West and there married with the Western spirit.

Ambrose † 397, studied the works of Clement, Origen, Didymus, especially of Basil, and transferred Old Test. exegesis (Hexaemeron, de Paradiso, de

Cain et Abel etc. after Basil), the ideal of virginity in the sense of the mystical marriage of the soul with Christ (de virginitate, liber de Isaac et anima, after Origen, Methodius), and also the doctrine of the Trinity and the christology of the Cappadocians, (Libri V de fide, Libri III de Spiritu So, liber de incarnationis dominicæ sacramento) into the West. Hilary of Poitiers † 368, during his exile 356-359 in Asia Minor, in his work de

Synodis seu de fide Orientalium informed the bishops of Gaul about the christological struggle in the East, defends this doctrine in his work de

Trinitate in 12 books, and in his exegetical works on Matthew and some

psalms makes ample use of typical and allegorical exegesis. Victorinus rhetor, highly praised by Augustine, Conf. 8,2, introduced in his writings

Liber ad Justinum Manichæum contra duo principia Manichæorum et de vera carne Christi, in his liber de generatione divina and in his polemical writing Adversus Arium Libri IV the Neoplatonic philosophy into theology and thereby became of the greatest influence on Augustine. Rufinus † 410 spent many years in Egypt and Palestine, and [72] associated with the hermits, with Jerome, Didymus in Alexandria, John in Jerusalem, and was especially of significance because he edited many Greek works of Josephus,

Eusebius, Origen, Basil, Gregory Naz., etc. in Latin. Moreover he wrote a Historia monachorum, biographies of 33 saints in the Nitrian desert, and Peregrinationes ad loca sancta; various commentaries on books of the O. T.; and finally an Expositio symboli apostolici, whose value for history is greater than for dogmatics. Finally Jerome † 420 must be mentioned here.

Although brought up in Rome, he spent the greatest part of his life in Syria and Palestine. His merit lies especially in his many studies of Scripture; in theology he is little independent, and very anxious about his orthodoxy; in his exegesis he often adheres to the allegorical method of Philo and the Alexandrian theologians, above all he is a panegyrist of asceticism; he defended the virginity of Mary against Helvidius, the meritoriousness of fasting and of celibacy against Jovinian, the veneration of the martyrs and of their relics against Vigilantius and, according to Luther's word in the table talks, always speaks of fasting, food, virginity and almost never of faith and hope and love.

9. This entire dogmatic development of East and West culminates in Augustine. The doctrine of the Trinity and the Christology of the Eastern theologians; the doctrine of man, sin, grace, faith, satisfaction, merit of

Tertullian and Ambrose; the Neoplatonism of Victorinus; the doctrine of Cyprian concerning church and sacrament; the monastic ideal of Jerome and Hilary; all that was taken over by Augustine and by him, in his rich experience of life, made into his spiritual property. A theological, dogmatic system Augustine did not provide. The material that flows to him from all sides, from Scripture, tradition, philosophy, and that he expands and increases through his rich personality, did not allow itself to be surveyed at once and systematized. The principal thing that Augustine has produced in this respect is his Enchiridion de fide, spe et caritate, an exposition of the principal truths of faith on the basis of the apost. symbol. But his doctrine

[73] does not lack contradictions, especially not those between his doctrine of the church and his doctrine of grace. Reuter has shown that those contradictions cannot be reconciled, and that the thoughts of Augustine do not allow themselves to be summarized in a system. And yet there has been no church father who has thought through all the theol. problems so deeply and has struggled so much to come to unity, Harnack III 87. He was the first who clearly attempted to give himself an account of all those theol. questions which later would be treated in the prolegomena of dogmatics, and which penetrate to the last psychological and noetic problems. The fixed point from which he proceeds is man, his self-consciousness, his ineradicable longing for and need of truth, happiness, the good, which are all one. This point of departure is certain and reliable (against the skeptics), because doubting itself still presupposes faith in truth and selfconsciousness is the ultimate ground of truth. Augustine himself was consumed by such a burning love of truth. Now Augustine does indeed assume two organs of knowledge, sensus and intellectus. But the knowledge obtained by the latter far surpasses that of the former. The sensible is not the

truth itself; it is only an image of it. Eternal, unchangeable truth is to be found only through thinking. To be sure, Augustine does not deny that we can also ascend through the visible to the invisible, but ordinarily he does not seek the way to truth outside us through nature, but through man's own spirit. There he finds, in his, in the reason common to all, eternal, unchangeable truths, which themselves in turn point back to and are summed up in God: the highest truth, the highest being, the only good, aeterna ratio, principium universorum. Therefore, because God is full truth, being, the good, the beautiful itself, therefore in Him alone there is rest for man, for his thinking and willing. Self-knowledge and knowledge of God are the two poles between which all his thinking moves. The science of nature is indeed not despised, but is nevertheless placed in the background.

Deum et animam scire cupio! Noverim me noverim te! God is the sun of spirits. We see and know no truth except in and through his light.

But philosophy is nevertheless insufficient. Not only because of the incapacity of reason to find the way to the truth, but especially also because superbia stands in its way. [74] And humilitas is the only way to life. There is therefore yet another way to the truth, viz. the auctoritas, the fides. It presupposes on the one hand some knowledge, but on the other hand seeks after knowledge and strives for understanding. Not only the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, but also the Trinity Augustine attempted to prove from nature and especially from man himself. But God is for him not the abstract, predicate-less being, but the living God, the highest truth and the highest good, the highest blessedness, and therefore the only and full satisfaction of man's heart. Augustine's whole thinking is religious, theological; he sees everything in God. In that light he also views the world; it is on the one hand a non-being, an image, perishable, but on

the other hand, as God's creation, a work of art, created according to the ideas in God's consciousness, and gradually, step by step, by degrees realizing those ideas, and forming a unity that contains within itself the richest diversity; things differ among themselves in degree of being and thus of truth and goodness. It is a cosmos, resting on idea and number, order, measure, held together by one will, one reason, an amplissima inmensaque respublica; in which the miracles are only contra quam est nota natura, in which sin is only a privatio, is compensated by punishment, and also contributes to the beauty and harmony of the whole. In the pulcherrimum carmen of creation this antithesis too is necessary; sin is like the contrasts in a discourse, like the barbarisms in language, like the shadow on the painting. Augustine tries to insert evil into the order of the whole. But thereby he does not excuse sin. He sets, namely, the goal of things not in the ethically good, but in this, that creation is and more and more becomes a harmonious revelation of all God's virtues and perfections.

And to that end sin too is made serviceable by God's will. Further, one knows how deeply and seriously Augustine conceived of sin. Nondum considerasti, quanti ponderis sit peccatum. He saw it around him and felt it: man seeks God and has need of Him, and he cannot and will not come to Him. In man there is still only good, that he is. Humanity is a massa perditionis. Sin is above all pride, superbia in the soul and concupiscentia is the body. Sin has been in Adam the deed of us all and therefore [75] has become the lot of us all. It is carentia dei, privatio boni, not only an act but a condition, natura vitiata, a defectus, inopia, corruptio, a non posse non peccare. The virtues of the heathens are splendida vitia. Deliverance from that condition exists only through the gratia, which already takes its beginning in the praedestinatio, which reveals itself objectively in the

person and the work of Christ, certum propriumque fidei catholicae fundamentum, but which also must come subjectively into us as gratia interna, and must pour faith and love into us. But that gratia in Augustine works only within the boundaries of the visible church. This is in him an institution of salvation, dispenser of grace, seat of authority, guarantor of Scripture, dwelling-place of love, foundation of the Spirit, indeed the regnum Dei itself. Augustine has deeply felt the importance of the community for religion; the church is the mother of the believers. The doctrine of the praedestinatio and of the gratia cannot be reconciled with this concept of church and sacrament. Multi qui foris videntur intus sunt et multi qui intus videntur foris sunt. There are sheep outside and wolves inside the fold. Augustine also indeed taught the perseverantia sanctorum, but he did not dare to allow the subjective assurance of it. And precisely because of this conception of church and sacrament, faith and forgiveness could not come into their own in the theology of Augustine. Faith and love, forgiveness and sanctification are not clearly distinguished. It is as if faith and forgiveness are only provisional; Augustine passes from these at once to love, sanctification, good works. Communion with God, the religio, thereby becomes the result of a process, which faith, love, good works, etc. gradually bring about. Blessedness, eternal life, the visio and fruitio Dei, nevertheless again become a fruit of merit, and ascesis is one of the means that cause man to attain this goal.

Thus Augustine has become of the greatest significance for later dogmatics. He dominates the following centuries. Every reformation returns to him and to Paul. In every dogma he has found a formula that is adopted and repeated by all. His influence extends to all churches, directions, and sects. Rome appeals to him for its doctrine of church, sacrament, and

authority; the reformation felt itself akin to him [76] in the doctrine of praedestinatio and gratia; scholasticism built further on the subtlety of his observation, the sharpness of his intellect, the power of his speculation,

Thomas was called optimus interpres S. Augustini; mysticism found material in his neoplatonism and religious enthusiasm; Roman Catholic and Protestant piety strengthens itself through his writings; asceticism and pietism find nourishment and support in him. Augustine belongs not to one church, but to all churches together. He is Doctor universalis. Even philosophy cannot neglect him except to its own detriment. And through his beautiful, enchanting style, through his fine, precise, highly individual and yet again universally human expression, he is more than any other church father still today to be enjoyed. He is the most Christian and the most modern of all the church fathers, he stands of all the closest to us. He has replaced the aesthetic world-view with the ethical, the classical with the Christian. Our best, deepest, and richest thoughts in dogmatics we owe to him. Augustine has been the dogmatician of the Christian church. Cf.

Harnack. Dogm. III2 3-215.

10. Augustinianism was for more than a century the object of a fierce struggle; it kept minds divided. It found opposition not only in Pelagius,

Coelestius, Julianus, the proper Pelagians, but also in many monks in Gaul, among whom are especially named Joh. Cassianus, Vincentius of Lerinum, who in his Commonitorium not only indicates the characteristics of tradition but at the end also takes sides against strict Augustinianism,

Eucherius of Lyon, Hilarius of Arles, Salvianus of Massilia, Faustus of Rhegium, Gennadius of Massilia, author of de fide sua ceu de dogmatibus ecclesiasticis in 88 capita. On Augustine's side stood, besides Possidius of Calama in Numidia, Orosius of Bracara in Spain, Marius Mercator in

Constantinople e. a. above all also Prosper Aquitanus, Vigilius of Tapsus in Numidia, Fulgentius of Ruspe, author of de fide ad Petrum seu de regula verae fidei, a short sketch of the principal truths of the faith, Caesarius of Arles, Avitus of Vienna e. a. The synod at Orange in 529 did indeed give some decision in the struggle in favor of Augustine, but did not prevent semipelagian ideas [77] from gaining entrance more and more. The gratia praeveniens was accepted, but the gratia irresistibilis and the particular praedestinatie nevertheless not decidedly accepted, Wiggers. Versuch einer pragm. Darstellung des August. u. Pelag. Hamburg, Perthes, 2 Theile. 1833.

Id. Zeits. f. d. hist. Theol. 1854-1859 treats the same struggle from Gregorius to Gottschalk. Harnack, D. G. III 219 f. In what follows, not much remained of Augustinianism. Pope Gregorius the Great † 604, alongside Augustine, Hieronymus and Ambrosius indeed called the fourth great teacher of the church, produced nothing new, but appropriated the ideas of the earlier teachers of the church and in manifold ways worked them out for life. His direction is practical and at the same time mysticalallegorical. He formed no system, but simply preserved what had been acquired, made the dogmata ready-made for clergy and layman, and above all schematized the various mediators and means (angels, saints, Christ, alms, mass for the soul, purgatory, penance) which make it possible for the weakened will of man to be freed from the punishments of sin. Through all this he labored with faithful care at the education of the new peoples and at the formation of the clergy. He sanctioned the external legal religion of the Roman church, and gave to medieval Catholicism its proper type. He is the keystone of the old, the foundation-stone of the new world. Through his liturgical writings and through his church song he introduced the Roman cultus among the Germans. Through popularizing the dogmata of the

fathers of the church he made the doctrine of the church practically usable for the uncivilized, heathen Germans and promoted superstition, asceticism, work-righteousness. With Boethius and Cassiodorius he exercised great influence on the formation and the rise of learning among the Germans.

Cassiodorius † ± 565 wrote a Liber de artibus ac disciplinis liberalium litterarum and discussed therein the significance of each of the 7 liberal arts and in his work de institutione divinarum litterarum gave a methodology of the theol. study. Boethius, through his translations and explanations of the logika of Aristoteles, the Isagoge of Porphyrius, introduced the knowledge and the use of Greek philosophy among the Germans. And Gregorius transferred theology in the church to the Germans, Harnack, [78] D. G. III 233-244. Lau, Gregor. I nach seinem Leben und seiner Lehre geschildert,

Leipzig 1845, art. in Herzog2. Alzog, Patrologie 500.

In the absence of all culture and amid the unrest of the migration of peoples, there could in the first period among the Germanic peoples be no question of a scientific life. The first traces are to be found in the Bible translation and the Arian confession of faith of Ulfilas † 383. Toward the end of the 5th century the East and West Goths, Vandals, Suevi,

Burgundians, Heruli, Lombards etc. had already been Christianized in an Arian sense. But Clovis 481-511, with his Frankish kingdom, adopted

Roman Christianity. Patrick, author of Confessiones, is apostle of the Irish † 465. Scotland was Christianized by Columba † 597. The Anglo-Saxons were converted by Augustine with 40 monks, sent there by Pope Gregory I in 596. Fridolinus and Columbanus † 615 et al. labored in Francia and Italy; the latter left behind important letters and also a regula coenobialis.

Alemannia, Bavaria, Thuringia, Frisia etc. were Christianized in the 6th and 7th centuries. Boniface is the apostle of the Germans in the 8th century †

755, J. P. Muller, Bonif. eene kerkhist. studie, Amst. 1869. The Saxons were brought in last under Charlemagne by wars 772-804, and the North especially by Ansgar † 865. One of the first dogmaticians is Isidorus

Hispalensis † 636; his writings are of grammatical, historical, archaeological, dogmatic, moral, and ascetic content and comprise all that in that time could be known. He transfers classical and patristic learning to his people. He is not original, but gives extracts from pagan and Christian works. In his Originum sive etymologiarum libri XX he speaks in book 6 about Scripture, in book 7 about God, the angels, prophets, apostles, clerici, believers, in book 8 about the church, in book 9 about the peoples. His Libri

III Sententiarum s. de summo bono is especially excerpted from Augustine and Gregory and has been an example for the medieval collectors of sententiae. Book I deals with God, creation, time, world, sin, angel, man, soul, Christ, H. Spirit, church, heresy, law, Scripture, Old and New

Covenant, prayer, baptism, martyrium, miracles, antichrist, end of the world; book II and III are of ethical content. It is [79] a compendium, which delivers the theological capital of the previous centuries to the Germanic people. But it did not come to an independent elaboration. Charlemagne did indeed attempt by force to introduce the old culture into the Frankish kingdom. And indeed in the Carolingian period there was no lack of men of great learning, but diligent collecting and unindependent reproducing nevertheless remain the character traits of the period, which begins with the 7th century and ends only with the crusades. Augustine and Gregory were the authorities. The principal among these Carolingian theologians was

Alcuin † 804, who combated the adoptianism of Elipandus of Toledo and Felix of Urgel in Liber contra haeresin Felicis, Libri VII contra Felicem and Libri IV adv. Elipandum and furthermore also wrote de fide sanctae et

individuae Trinitatis Libri III, de Trinitate ad Fredegisum quaestiones and Libellus de processione Sp. Si. In all these works Alcuin shows his familiarity with the works of the church fathers; he refutes the adoptian errors with the same arguments that earlier against Nestorianism e.g. were employed by Cyril. The study of Augustine led Gottschalk in the 9th century to confession of the gemina praedestinatio; he found support with Prudentius of Troyes, Remigius of Lyon, Ratramnus, Lupus of Ferrières et al., but was at the same time fiercely opposed by Rhabanus, Hincmar,

Erigena. The filioque came from Spain into the Frankish kingdom and was incorporated into the symbol. Already at the synod at Gentilly 767 one had the conviction that it was symbolic. It was defended with talent by Charles's theologians, Alcuin de processione Sp. Si., Theodulf of Orleans de Spiritu

So. The synod at Aachen 809 decided that the filioque belonged in the symbol. The veneration of images met with opposition in the Frankish kingdom; the 7th ecumenical synod, which demanded servitium and adoratio of the images, was not recognized, but after the 9th century the opposition gradually fell silent. And finally, in the Carolingian period the mass was also further developed, especially by Paschasius Radbertus, liber de corpore et sanguine domini 831, who was opposed by Rhabanus and Ratramnus. Radbertus is also known as author of a compendium de fide, spe et caritate, which summarizes truths of faith into a certain whole.

Especially deserving of mention in this period is also Joh. Scotus Erigena † ± 891, although he [80] belongs more at home in philosophy than in theology. He is not the father of scholasticism but of speculative theology.

He aligns himself with the gnosis of Origen and the mysticism of PseudoDionysius. His fundamental thought is the Neoplatonic doctrine of emanation. In his work de divisione naturae he first says that theology and

philosophy are actually one. The recta ratio and the vera auctoritas do not contend. The fides has its truth, as theologia καταφατικη, affirmativa, in Scripture and tradition, but reason, as theologia negativa, ἀποφατικη, strips this truth of its coverings and tracks down in it the idea. Thus he transforms dogmatic truth into a cosmic and theogonic process. All that is he comprehends under one concept, natura, which in 4 stages of being, through the Logos, reveals itself in the world of appearances and returns again to God.

11. After the tenth century, the saeculum obscurum, a new life awakens everywhere. From the monastery of Clugny there proceeds a religious reformation, which continues in the mendicant orders of the 12th century.

Piety is conceived as a following and imitation of the life of Jesus, especially in his last week of suffering. The crusades bring new ideas and broaden the horizon. The power of the Popes increases and sets nothing less than world dominion as its ideal. Scholarship receives in the Universities its own nursery and enters theology as scholasticism. Theologia scholastica indicates, in distinction from the theologia positiva, which presents the dogmas in a simple, thetic form, that the dogmatic material is worked up according to a scientific method customary in the schools. Scholasticism is in itself nothing other than scientific theology. It begins where the theologia positiva ends. This is satisfied when it has expressed and proved the dogmas. But the theologia scholastica proceeds from those dogmas as its principia, Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 2 en 8, and from there attempts by reasoning to trace the coherence of the dogmas, to penetrate more deeply into the knowledge of revealed truth, and to defend it against all opposition.

In the Middle Ages, however, scholasticism, through various circumstances, acquired a definite character that has brought it into disrepute. In the first

place, in the [81] Middle Ages matters were very lamentable with sourcestudy. Observation was not denied in theory as principium of knowledge, but in fact one simply resigned oneself to tradition and thought that earlier generations had already applied observation sufficiently and had fully set it down in the books. Physics, medicines, psychology, etc., everything was studied from books. In theology the material lay fully before the eyes in Scripture, but especially in tradition, in the church fathers, councils, etc.

Scholasticism did not stand critically and skeptically over against that, but childishly believing. Faith was the point of departure of scholasticism. One sought the dogmatic material in Scripture and tradition and accepted it without any criticism. Of Scripture, in that connection, often not much came into its own. Hebrew and Greek one did not know. Grammatical and historical sense was almost entirely lacking. One drew the material chiefly from the church fathers, from Augustine, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome,

Gregory, Isidore, Pseudodionysius, Damascenus and Boëthius. To that there now came, in the second place, that thinking was gradually trained by the logical writings of Aristotle, in order to process this dogmatic material dialectically and systematically. At first there were of Aristotle only the two logical writings de categoriis and de interpretatione in Latin translation, together with the introduction of Porphyry to the categories, and various commentaries especially by Boëthius known; of Plato one had only a portion of the Timaeus in translation and further quotations in Augustine, pseudo-Dionysius e. a. Scholarship outside theology was divided into the trivium and quadrivium and was contained in the encyclopaedic work of Cassiodorius. Only since the middle of the 12th century did the Organon of Aristotle become fully known and at the beginning of the 13th century also his other works on metaphysics, physics, psychology and ethics. From this

philosophy one borrowed the dialectical method, but further also all kinds of problems and questions about the relation of faith and reason, theology and philosophy, about the reality of the general concepts, about the attributes of God, the miracles, the creation from eternity, the soul, etc.

Aristotle became praecursor Christi in naturalibus, just as John the Baptist in gratuitis. All kinds of cosmological, natural-scientific, psychological, philosophical material was thereby taken up into dogmatics. [82]

Dogmatics was no longer a doctrine of faith but became a system of philosophy, an encyclopaedia of scholarship, in which all kinds of philosophical material was taken up but in which religion often came off short. And finally this whole scholastic system was presented in a form that, the longer it went on, gave rise to serious misgivings. Not only was the material worked up so dialectically, so hair-splittingly teased out and so juridically treated, that the connection with the religious life of the congregation was wholly broken; by preference one occupied oneself with all kinds of subtle questions about angels and devils, heaven and hell, etc.

But the questionnaire form, into which everything was cast, promoted doubt and often let auctoritas and ratio fall completely apart and stand hostilely over against one another. Many a time the cause of a dogma seems wholly lost; but a single appeal to a text, to a church father, makes everything good again. The impression nevertheless remains that things stand hopelessly with the dogma. The language in the long run was not suitable to satisfy with the content of the system. The barbarous Latin that one wrote was, according to Paulsen's remark, indeed a proof that one thought independently and freely formed the words that one needed for one's ideas, but still could not suffice as soon as the sense for the classical, the simple beauty again awakened to some extent.

12. Scholasticism proceeds in three periods, in an aetas vetus, media and nova. It begins with Anselmus. He still lives in the naïve confidence that faith can be elevated to knowledge, and attempts that for the existence of God in his Monologium, and for the incarnation and satisfaction in his Cur

Deus homo. He does it not yet in the Aristotelian-scholastic form, but more in the sense of Plato's dialogues; yet scholastic speculation takes its beginning with him. Lombardus in his Sententiarum libri IV gave not a few tractates, as Anselmus, but a complete dogmatic and ethical handbook. He supplied the text for scholastic theology, and himself already makes a broad use of philosophy, for clarification and defense of the truth. Alexander

Halesius wrote a Summa universae theologiae, which actually is already a commentary on the work of Lombardus; but, while this one reasons at once through to the end over a subject [83], Halesius clothes his thoughts in a strict dialectical, syllogistic form. Therewith the scholastic method was established once and for all. It did not proceed entirely without struggle.

Many had objections to the use of Aristotle in theology. There remained at all times Platonists, who judged Plato to be much more in agreement with church doctrine. Johannes van Salisbury, Gerhoch, Walther van St. Victor,

Petrus Cantor, Alanus ab insulis, Willem van Auvergne e. a. pointed to the dangers of philosophy; and Abaelard seemed a terrifying example. But the scholastic method, covered by famous men, gained ground. Soon Aristotle's philosophy, although modified here and there, was regarded as the best defense of church doctrine. Most completely, according to this method, dogmatics was worked out by Albertus Magnus † 1280, Thomas Aquinas †

1274 and Bonaventura † 1274. All three wrote a commentary on the work of Lombardus, and were later followed therein by many. Fleury in his time already counted 244. Moreover Albertus wrote a Summa theologiae

(unfinished) and a Summa de creaturis; Thomas a Summa theologiae (unfinished), and Summa de veritate cath. fidei contra gentiles;

Bonaventura a Breviloquium. All three have brought scholasticism generally into honor, assured for theology a place of honor among the sciences, and with extraordinary power of thought treated the deepest problems. But scholasticism has not been able to maintain itself at that height. With Duns Scotus † 1308 the confidence is already shaken. He rejects nominalism, but nevertheless combats Thomas everywhere, wherever he but dares and can. The Franciscan de Rada † 1608 later in his

Controversiae theol. inter Thomam et Scotum, Colon. 1620 counted no fewer than 86 points of dispute. The principal of these were those about the knowability of God, the distinction in the divine attributes, original sin, the merits of Christ, etc. and especially also the immaculate conception of Mary. Scotus is indeed still a realist, but he is also skeptical and places theology and philosophy alongside each other, Werner, Joh. Duns Scotus,

Wien 1881. Philosophy does not reach God, theology rests only on authority, on revelation. But nominalism in particular contributed to the decline of scholasticism; it had already arisen with Roscellinus,

Berengarius, but gained ground especially in the 14th and 15th century. [84] Petrus Aureolus † 1321, author of a commentary on Lombardus and of Quodlibeta said that the universalia did not exist objectively in things, but were only thoughts; the real is always individual. Willem Durand de St.

Porciano † 1332 denied the universalia and denied the scientific character of theology, it is no unity, it cannot demonstrate the truth of the dogmata and refute the grounds against them. Willem van Occam † 1349, who denied the pope all power over worldly princes, supported these in their resistance against the pope but also in his turn asked protection from him,

attacked both the school of Thomas and that of Scotus. He took pleasure in showing the uncertainty of theology; existence, unity, omnipotence of God, finitude of the world, immateriality of the soul, necessity of revelation etc., everything is unprovable. Everything is only, because God wills it so. There are no truths of reason. God could become man but he could also become a stone. Platonism and Augustinianism disappear from theology. Everything becomes arbitrariness. Theology perishes in skepticism. Even if in the schools realism also mostly remained dominant: it nevertheless no longer had any creative power, the form became more rigid, the language more barbarous, the method more hair-splitting; subtlety replaced thoroughness, ostentation came in the place of scientific seriousness, dogmatics degenerated into an endless dispute. In addition, the nominalism of Occam gained adherents, Adam Goddam, Armand de Beauvoir, Robert Holkot, from whom the saying would originate that something in theology can be true and in philosophy false, Joh. Buridan, Petrus van Alliaco and Gabriël

Biel † 1495, the last scholastic. Literature on Scholasticism: Alsted, Theol. schol. didact. 1608 p. 4-8. Voetius, Disp. I 12-29. Ueberweg, Grundriss der

Gesch. der Philos. Band II. 6e Aufl. 1881. Windelband, Gesch. der Philos.

1892 S. 207-274. Ritter, Gesch. der Philos. Bd. VII-VIII. Erdman, Grundriss der Gesch. der Philos. I 240 f. Bach, Dogm. gesch. des M. A. 2

Bde., Wien, 1873, '75. Schwane, Dogm. gesch. der mittl. Zeit. 1882.

Harnack, Dogm. gesch. III 312 f., and other dogma-historical works of Hagenbach, Thomasius, Seeberg, Nitzsch etc. Prantl., Gesch. der Logik. Bd.

II-IV. H. Siebeck, Gesch. der Psychol. 2e Abth. 1884. Reuter, Gesch. der relig. Aufklärung im M. A. 2 Bde., Berlin, 1875-77. Werner, [85] Die Schol. des späteren M. A. 3 Bde., Wien, 1881. Stöckl, Gesch. der Philos. des M.

A., 3 Bde., Mainz, 1864-66. Hauréau, Histoire de la philos. schol. 2e ed.,

Paris, 1872, '80. Rousselot, Etudes sur la philos. du moyen-âge., Paris, 1840-42. Pierson, Gesch. van het R. Kath. 3e deel. Id. De Nomin. et real.

1855. Nitzsch, art. Schol. Theol. in Herzog2. H. v. Eicken, Gesch. der mittelalt. Weltanschauung, Stuttgart, 1888. W. Kaulich, Gesch. der Schol.

Philos. Prag, 1863. J. H. Löwe, Der Kampf zwischen Nom. u. Real. im M.

A., sein Ursprung und sein Verlauf, Prag, 1876. M. Maywald, Die Lehre von der doppelten Wahrheit, Berlin, 1871, enz.

13. A special form of scholasticism was mysticism, which formerly was indeed regarded as hostile to scholasticism but is now better understood in its nature and character. The mystics have never combated scholastic theology; men such as Hugo and Richard of St. Victor have, in their treatises, treated various parts of theology according to the same method as Lombardus, and conversely scholastics such as Halesius, Albertus, Thomas,

Bonaventura have also left behind many mystical writings. Mysticism is even incorporated into schol. theol., Thomas S. Th. II, 2 qu. 179 sq. Of a struggle and antagonism there is therefore no question. In addition, church and theology have at all times distinguished between true and false mysticism; Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Erigena, Almarich, Eckhart,

Molinos, Böhme, etc. have always been condemned, but the writings of pseudo-Dionysius, Albertus, Bonaventura, etc. have always been praised and approved by the Roman church. There must therefore be a distinction between orthodox and pantheistic mysticism. The former, now, did not stand hostile over against scholasticism. But it was indeed distinct from it.

First, in method: scholasticism followed the analytical method of Aristotle and tried, by reasoning, to ascend from finite things to God; mysticism followed the synthetic method of Plato and tried, from the higher contemplation which the soul attained by grace, to gain insight into the

truths of faith. In origin: scholasticism arose especially through the becoming known of the writings of Aristotle, and had as its object the sententiae of Lombardus; mysticism arose especially through the [86] becoming known of the works of pseudo-Dionysius, which found acceptance in the West through the translation of Erigena. In essence: scholasticism is the attempt, with the help of philosophy, to obtain scientific knowledge of revealed truth; mystical theology had as its object the mystical communion with God, which was granted to some privileged persons by special grace, and now described how and by what way the soul could attain thereto and what light from there, from out of that communion with God, could be spread over the truths of faith. Mysticism in this sense has at all times had its representatives in the Christian church, and occurs to a greater or lesser degree among all church fathers; it is most closely connected with the monastic ideal; it proceeds from the supposition that there is not only a knowledge of God through the intellect, but also an experience, finding, communion of God through the feeling. In the Middle

Ages it attached itself especially to Augustine, who first had sounded the depth of the life of the soul and had rendered it in inimitable language, and to pseudo-Dionysius, who had indicated the steps and milestones along which the soul could ascend from finitude to the infinite God. Through practical exercises, such as asceticism, purification, self-torment, flight from the world, etc., or also through theoretical reflection, such as auditio, lectio, oratio, cogitatio, consideratio, meditatio, the soul can already here on earth come to a state of beholding or enjoying God. Thus mysticism is conceived and described in various works of Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugo and Richard of St. Victor, Bonaventura, Thomas, Gerson and Thomas à

Kempis. But it lay at hand that mysticism, thus laying the emphasis on

contemplation, began to disparage knowledge; in the enjoyment of the heart the clarity of consciousness, the value of knowledge, was lost; it came under the influence many times of neoplatonism and acquired, e.g. in Eckhart † 1327 and others, a pantheistic trait, W. Preger, Gesch. der deutschen Mystik im M. A., 2 Bde. Leipzig 1875-81. Görres, Die christ.

Mystik, 2e Aufl. 5 Bde. Regensburg 1880. Harnack, D. G. III 314 f. 374 f.

Art. Myst. in Herzog2. The dogmengesch. and philos. works, mentioned above with the schol., besides the monographs on Tauler, Eckhart, etc.

Kleutgen, Theol. der Vorzeit IV 49 f. Further litter. in Kihn, Encycl. u.

Methodol. der Theol. 1892. S. 453 f. [87] 14. However, in the Middle Ages there was no lack of protests against the direction in which church and theology were developing. Various sects appeared, Cathars, Albigensians, the followers of Amalric of Bena, David of Dinant, Ortlieb, the sect of the free spirit, etc., and renewed the old

Manichaean and Gnostic errors, Reuter, Gesch. der relig. Aufklärung im M.

A. Berlin 1875-'77. L. Flathe, Gesch. der Ketzer im M. A. 3 Bde. Stuttgart 1845. Kurtz, Lehrb. der Kirch. gesch. § 108. Döllinger, Beiträge zur

Sektengesch. des M. A. 2 Th. München, Beck, 1890. The Waldensians came into conflict with Rome through their doctrine of the freedom of preaching,

Comba, art. in Herzog2, Haupt, Waldenzerthum und Inquisition im südöstl.

Deutschl. Freiburg, Mohr, 1890. In many circles there was a return to Augustine and Paul. Bradwardina † 1349, in a writing de causa Dei contra

Pelagium, came forward as a courageous defender of the grace of God, Lechler, De Th. Bradwardina commentatio, Lips. 1863 en art. in Herzog2.

Wiclif † 1384 was dependent on him, just as Hus † 1451 in his turn again was dependent on Wiclif. Wiclif's works have been published since 1882 by the Wiclif Society in London. His doctrine is best known from his

Summa in 12 books, abridged and systematically summarized in his Trialogus, published by Lechler, from his treatise de Christo et suo adversario Antichristo published by Buddensieg, and from his tract de ecclesia published by Loserth. That Hus is wholly dependent on Wiclif has been demonstrated by Loserth, Hus und Wiclif, Prag. u. Leipz. 1884. Even within the church many arose who desired a reformation in capite et membris. Petrus d' Ailly † 1425, Gerson † 1429, Nic. of Clémanges † 1414,

Nicolaus Cusanus † 1464 and others defended the episcopal system; and the reforming councils of Pisa 1409, Constance 1414 and Basel 1431 expressed themselves in that spirit. The council at Constance in the 4th and 5th session declared that an ecumenical council had its authority immediately from Christ and that the pope also was subject to it. But all these reformations had little success. They were criticism of what existed from the same principle, Harnack D. G. III 408 f. 570 f. And when in the 16th century the Protestant Reformation arose, the Roman church soon also took up a position against it. Before the council of Trent the [88] principal theologians were Cajetanus † 1534, Dr. Eck † 1543, Cochlaeus † 1552, Sadoletus †

1547 and others. They are also distinguished by the fact that they freely acknowledge the defects of the church. Their writings are mostly polemical against the Reformers. The most noteworthy is Dr. Eck's Enchiridion locorum omnium adv. Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae 1525, which up to 1576 was reprinted 46 times, Hugo Lämmer, Die vortrident. kath. Theol. des Reformationszeitalters, Berlin 1858. Theology was, especially through the mockery of the Humanists, in disrepute; one looked back on the Middle

Ages as a time of Gothic barbarism; and the pious too desired more simplicity and truth, more practical Christianity. For the Roman theologians some courage was required and some time was also needed, to come to

reflection and to take up again the thread of scholasticism. The council of Trent did indeed adopt various decisions for reformation, but chose as strongly as possible a party against the Protestant Reformation. The dogmas about which there was dispute with the Reformation, such as the doctrine of tradition, sin, free will, justification, the sacraments, were sharply and clearly formulated, in the Roman sense; but the mutual differences were left at rest. The question of pope and council, of Thomism and Scotism, etc. was not discussed or was treated as cautiously as possible, Harnack, D. G.

III 588 f. Herzog2 16, 4 f. and the literature cited there. On the occasion that at Trent one deliberated about holding lectures on Holy Scripture in all monasteries, a Benedictine abbot proposed adding to that a prohibition of scholasticism. But the Dominican Soto took the floor, refuted the objections, praised the usefulness of scholasticism and found general assent,

Kleutgen, Theol. d. Vorzeit IV 80. Gradually scholasticism was restored to its honor, but with modification. Melchior Canus † 1560 devotes in his work de locis theologicis an entire book to the defense of scholasticism, lib.

VIII: de auctoritate scholasticorum doctorum, and concedes that many scholastics have made themselves guilty of various errors; he disapproves those defects but decisively defends the scholastic method. It was simplified and stripped of exaggeration, but otherwise retained. A second change consisted in this, that Lombardus more and more makes room for Thomas.

In the Middle Ages the Sententiae of Lombardus had been the dogmatic handbook; and also after the Reformation Soto † 1560, Maldonatus † 1583,

Estius † 1608 and others still wrote commentaries on that work. But the famous Cajetanus produced a commentary on the Summa of Thomas. And Franziscus Vittoria † 1566, Hiëronymus Perez † 1556, Barth. of Torres †

1558 and others followed his example. Toward the end of the 16th century

Lombardus in most schools had been replaced by Thomas; this one was purer, more extensive, more methodical, and penetrated more deeply into the dogmas than Lombardus. Furthermore, this too was still a difference between the old and the new scholasticism, that the latter allied itself much more closely with positive theology. In the Middle Ages positive dogmatics, i.e. the proof for the truth from Scripture and tradition, was almost wholly neglected; but now this was incorporated into dogmatics and worked out with great learning. Canus wrote a separate work on the sources of proof, which he calls loci theologici; by all neo-scholastics Greg. of Valentia,

Suarez, Bannez, Diego Ruyz, etc., the study of Scripture and tradition is zealously practiced. Exegesis, church history, patristics, archaeology, etc. become their own, independent sciences. Theology is still something other and more than dogmatics. And because finally the new scholastics did not enjoy the repose as the theologians in the Middle Ages, but were attacked from all sides and had to defend the Roman doctrine on all points, there remained no place and no time for the subtle questions and the hair-splitting distinctions; form, method, language, expression became simpler; the works of Canisius, Canus, Petavius, Bellarminus, etc. are written in pure Latin, and in a pleasant style, and are in this respect favorably distinguished from the works of the medieval theologians. But whatever was changed and improved, the spirit remained the same. Rome has not denied itself and has also learned nothing from the Reformation. Indeed, the proper character of the Roman doctrine has come to light even more clearly after and through the Reformation. Pelagianism and Curialism have further developed after the council of Trent and have achieved a complete victory. Compare for the history of Roman theology after Trent: Walch, Bibl. theol. sel. I 148 sq.

Pfaff, Introductio in Hist. theol. liter. 1724 p. 194 sq. [90] 206 sq. M. Brühl,

Gesch. der kath. Liter. Deutschl. vom 17 Jahrh. 2e Aufl. Wien 1861. H.

Hurter, Nomenclator literarius recentioris theol. cathol. 4 vol. Innsbr.

1871-'83. Karl Werner, Gesch. der apol. u. polem. Lit. der christl. Theol. 5

Bde. Schaffh. 1861-67. Id. Gesch. der kath. Theol. Deutschl. seit dem Trienter Concil bis zur Gegenwart, München, 1866, 2e Aufl. 1889. Id. Der heilige Thomas von Aquino, 3 Bde. Regensburg 1858-59. Bd. I Leben und

Schriften. Bd. II Lehre. Bd. III Geschichte des Thomismus. Id. Franz Suarez und die Schol. der letzten Jahrh. 2 Bde. Regensburg 1861, 62.

Schwane, Dogmengesch. der neueren Zeit, Freiburg 1890 S. 16 f. A. Stöckl, Gesch. der Philos. des M. A. III 1866 S. 628 f. Herzog2 15, 589 f. Harnack,

D. G. III 617 f.

15. Neo-scholastic theology arose in Spain and was there especially practised at the universities of Salamanca, Alcala (Complutum) and Coimbra. Franz de Vittoria 1480-1566, born at Vittoria in Cantabrië, belonged to the Dominicans and was sent by his order to Paris to devote himself to theology. There he studied especially Thomas. Having returned to Spain, he became professor at Salamanca and there disseminated the doctrine of Aquinas, on whose Summa he also wrote a commentary. Among his pupils belonged the most famous theologians of Spain, Melchior Canus

† 1560, Loci theolog. 1563; Dominicus Soto † 1560, Comm. in 4m librum Sent. 1557-60 and de natura et gratia libri III 1547 against the Scotist

Catharinus; Barthol. Medina, Expositio in I 2 Thomae 1576. Thomistic theology was especially practised by the order of the Dominicans, to whom, besides the above-mentioned, also belonged: Petrus de Soto, prof. at Dillingen † 1563, Institutiones christ. 1548, Methodus confessionis 1553,

Compendium doctrinae cathol. 1556, Defensio cathol. confessionis 1557 against Brenz; Dom. Bannez, Comm. in I Thomae, 2 tomi 1584, '88;

Didacus Alvarez, de auxiliis gratiae div. et humani arbitrii viribus et libertate etc. Lugd. 1611, de incarn. verbi div. Lugd. 1614; Vincentius

Contenson, Theologia mentis et cordis, 2 tom. Colon. 1687; J. Baptista Gonetus † 1681, Clypeus theol. thomist. 1659-69, diss. theol. de probabilitate casuistarum; Natalis Alexander, Theol. dogm. et mor. sec. ordinem catech. Conc. Trid. [91] Paris 1703; Billuart † 1757, Summa S.

Thomae hodiernis academiarum moribus accommodata, 19 tom. Leodii 1747-59, new edition by Palmé at Paris in 8 vol.; and further still Fr. de

Sylvestris, Joh. Viguerius, Joh. Gonsalez, Martin Ledesma, Joh. Vincentius, Balt. Navarretus, Raphael Ripa, Franz and Dominicus Perez, Gazzaniga †

1799, Praelect. theol. Bononiae 1790 e. a. To the Dominicans the Carmelites attach themselves, of whom especially famous is Salmanticensis collegii Carmelitarum discalceatorum cursus theol. in D. Thomam, 10 vol.

Lugd. 1679 sq. But Scotistic theology too still found adherence and defence in the modern period, with Ambrosius Catharinus † 1553, Fr. Lychetus,

Comm. in I II III librum Sent. Scoti, Venet. 1589; Frassenius † 1711, Scotus Academicus, 4 tom. Paris 1662-77; Dupasquier † 1718, Summa theol. scotisticae; Barth. Durandus, Clypeus Scoticae doctrinae; Thomas van

Charmes, Theol. universa; and further with Brancatus, Mastrius, Faber † 1630, Bonaventura Bellutus † 1676, Lukas Wadding † 1657, editor of Scotus' works at Lyon 1639 v. e. a. The Franciscan de Rada, bishop of Trani, † 1608, gave in his above already cited work an overview of the controversies between the Thomists and the Scotists.

Scholastic theology, however, was practiced especially by the Jesuits, who more than any other order have contributed to its revival and flourishing.

Methodically and with extraordinary talent they took the CounterReformation in hand. As polemicists against the doctrine of the Protestants

there appeared among them Possevinus † 1611; Bellarminus † 1621, Disput. de controv. christ. fidei adv. hujus temporis haereticos, Ingolstadt

1581. Gretser, Opera omnia in 17 tomi, Regensburg 1734 sq. Becanus, Manuale controversiarum. The most famous theologians from the order of the Jesuits are Petrus Canisius † 1597, Summa doctrinae et institutionis christ. 1554, published 400 times in 130 years, and a smaller catechism:

Institutiones christ. pietatis 1566. Franc. Toletus † 1596, In Summam S.

Thomae tom. 4, reissued at Rome 1869, Joh. Maldonatus, pupil of Toletus and Soto at Salamanca † 1583, famous exegete, and writer of many dogm. treatises, de sacramentis, de libero arbitrio, de gratia etc. Leonh. Lessius prof. at Leuven † 1623, Disput. de gratia, decretis divinis, libertate arbitrii et praescientia Dei conditionata Antw. 1610. [92] De perfectionibus divinis libri 14, Antw. 1620. Theologia 1651 etc. Lud. Molina prof. at Evora, later at Madrid † 1600, Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, provid. praedest. et reprob. concordia 1588, de justitia et jure, and commentary on the first part of Thomas. Greg. de Valentia prof. at Dillingen, Ingolstadt, Rome † 1603, Analysis fidei cathol. 1585. Theol.

Comment. in Summam S. Thomae Tomi IV 1602. Mart. Becanus, prof. at Mainz † 1624. Manuale controv. and Theol. scholastica, 3 partes 1612-'22.

Roderich Arriaga, prof. in Valladolid, Salamanca, Prague † 1667, Disputationes theol. 8 tomi 1643 sq. Franz. Suarez † 1617, Commentaria et disputationes in Thomam, tomi V, and many treatises de gratia etc.; a short excerpt from his theology is Theologiae R. P. Fr. Suarez S. J., Summa seu

Compendium auctore T. Noel S. J. Tomi II Paris, Migne 1858. Gabr.

Vasquez † 1604, Comm. in Summam S. Thomae, Ingolstadt 7 vol. 1609 sq.; Didacus Ruyz de Montoya † 1632, Comment. on various loci of Thomas,

Theol. scholastica 1630. Clavis Theol. 1634; Antoine, Theologia universa

speculativa et dogmatica, Paris 1713; Dion. Petavius † 1652, De theol. dogmatibus, 5 tomi, unfinished Paris 1644; and further still Melch. de

Castro, Lusitanus, Zunniga, Tannez, Hurtado, Ripalda † 1648, Mendoza, Lugo † 1660, Arriago, Gotti † 1742, Zaccaria † 1795 e. a. Separate mention is still deserved by the Theologia Wirceburgensis, dogm. polem. schol. et mor. 14 vol. Wirceb. 1766-1771, new ed. in 10 vol. Paris 1880, written by the Würzburg professors S. J.

The Jesuits generally followed Thomas, but as a consequence of their Pelagianism they departed from him in the doctrine of sin, free will, and grace. This became the cause of a protracted struggle. It began with Bajus, prof. at Louvain † 1589, who set forth the doctrine of Augustine concerning sin and the unfreedom of the will and also rejected the immaculate conception of Mary. Already in 1560 various theses of Bajus were rejected by the Sorbonne, and Pope Pius V condemned 79 propositions of Bajus in the bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus 1567. Bajus recanted. But with that the struggle was not over. It flared up again in 1588 through the work of Molina, Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis ... concordia. The Thomists, mostly Dominicans, attacked this work, especially through one of their [93] most famous representatives, Bannez † 1604, who taught a physical predetermination.

Thomists (Bannez, Sylvester, Alvarez, Lesmos, Reginaldi, etc.), respectively Augustinians (Noris † 1704, Laur. Berti †

1766, Bertieri) and Jesuits, Molinists or Congruists (Bellarminus) stood opposed to one another for years. A multitude of polemical writings on sin, free will, grace saw the light, Walch, Bibl. theol. sel. I 179 sq. The commission, appointed in Rome, was dissolved in 1607 without taking a decision; and the pope said that he would later render a judgment and that so long the one party might not anathematize the other. In 1640, when the

work Augustinus of Cornelius Jansen, bishop of Ypres, appeared, the spark was again thrown into the powder. The struggle continued into the 18th century. The men of Port Royal stood on the side of Jansenius, Arnauld †

1694, Pascal † 1662, Nicole † 1695, Sacy † 1684, Tillemont † 1698, Quesnell † 1719. But learning and eloquence were of no avail. In various bulls 1653, 1656, 1664, 1705 and 1713 Jansenism, and in it Augustine, and even Paul, were condemned, and later the bull Unigenitus of 1713 was confirmed still more than once. And just as in dogmaticis Pelagianism triumphed, so in ethicis Probabilism and in ecclesiasticis Curialism or the Papal system achieved the victory.

16. But at the beginning of the 17th century the flourishing period of neoscholasticism was past. Throughout Europe the rationalistic spirit arose.

The philosophy of Bacon and Descartes displaced that of Aristotle. Even theologians, who accepted the scholastic dogmas, thought that another method was necessary; such as Bossuet † 1704, the famous defender of the Gallican system and combatant of the Protestants, Exposition de la doctrine de l'église cath. sur les matières de controverse 1671, Histoire des variations des églises protest. 2 vol. Paris, 1688. Fénélon † 1715,

Thomassinus † 1695, Dogmata theol. The historical and critical studies, which were practised especially in France, pushed theology proper back.

Many learned Maurists and Oratorians even fell into unbelief. In the schools scholasticism did indeed remain dominant for a long time, down into the 18th century. The different directions of Thomists, e.g. Peri, Quaest. theol. 5 vol. 1719-32, Scotists, e.g. Krisper, Theol. [94] scolae scotisticae, 4

Tom. 1728-48, Molinists, e.g. Anton Erber, Theol. specul. tractatus octo 1787, and Augustinians, e.g. Amort, Theol. eclectica moralis et scholastica,

23 tomi, Augsburg, 1752 sq. also continued alongside one another. But

scholasticism nevertheless withdrew more and more into the schools. Other deistic, naturalistic parties arise, gain the upper hand, and exercise influence on Roman theology. Scholastic philosophy was set aside in France by Descartes, in Germany by Leibniz-Wolff. In Austria in 1752 the Peripatetic doctrine was forbidden and in 1759 the direction of the theol. and philos. studies was taken away from the Jesuits. The order was abolished in 1773 by Clement XIV. The Gallican system was defended in 1763 by Nic. van

Hontheim, auxiliary bishop of Trier, in a work de statu ecclesiae et legitima potestate Romani Pontificis and was introduced by Joseph II in 1781 as canon law. The confessional differences were forgotten; in place of the struggle against the Protestants comes that against freethinkers, unbelievers, etc. with Klüpfel, Fahrman, Stattler, Storchenau, Burkhauser. Theology comes wholly under the influence of the changing philosophy. The Aufklärung had its representative in Ad. Weishaupt, prof. at Ingolstad, founder of the order of the Illuminati. Kant's influence is noticeable with Ildefons Schwarz, Peutinger, Zimmer. Jacobi's philosophy found adherents with J. Salat and Cajetan Weiller. Thanner stood under the influence of Schelling. The principal theologian who in the 18th century remained steadfast against all errors was Alphonsus of Liguori † 1787, included by Pius IX in 1871 among the doctores ecclesiae.

17. Also in this 19th century rationalism at first continued to prevail in many Roman circles. In Germany there was a large party which wished to bring the constitution and doctrine of the Roman church into agreement with the demands of the newer time, Dalberg † 1817, Wessenberg † 1860,

Werkmeister and others, Hermes, prof. at Bonn † 1831, Einleitung in die Christkath. Theologie 1819, '29, Christkath. Dogm. 1834, '36 attempted to make revelation, authority rest on reasonable grounds, and gave to reason in

the assessment of what revelation is the same rights as the Wolffian philosophy had given. At first [95] Hermes had many adherents,

Achterfeldt, who published his dogmatics, Braun, von Droste-Hülfshof, prof. in law at Bonn, Spiegel, archbishop of Cologne; but when Pope

Gregory XVI on 26 Sept. 1835 had condemned Hermesianism, his influence declined. Anton Günther † 1863 in Vienna, Vorschule zur specul.

Theol. 1828. Peregrius Gastmahl 1830 etc. associated himself with Hegel's proposition that philosophy and speculative theology are actually one.

There is no twofold truth and certainty. But believing is the beginning and presupposition of all knowing, and all faith, also in revelation, can pass over into knowing and be raised to evidence. Günther also had many adherents,

Pabst, Merten, Veith, Gaugauf, Baltzer, Knoodt; but he was condemned in 1857. Franz von Baader † 1841, Vorlesungen über specul. Dogmatik,

Sämmtliche schriften, Leipzig 1850-57 in 15 parts, under the influence of Böhme and Schelling, sought salvation not in return, but in new development of the old, in renewal of the dogmata, and wished by a theosophical way to raise believing to knowing. His adherents were

Schaden, Lutterbek, Hoffmann, Hamberger, Sengler, Schlüter, but Baader was censured on account of his combating of the primacy. J.

Frohschammer, Einleitung in die Philosophie und Grundriss der Metaphysik 1858 etc. rejected the scholastic and the idealistic philosophy, and attempted to build up metaphysics, theology not on abstract reason but on the concrete, general, historical fact of the consciousness of God in humanity. Theology and philosophy thus coincide for him in content; they differ only in method; the natural and the supernatural are not to be strictly separated. Pius IX condemned this philosophy in a letter to the archbishop at Munich 11 Dec. 1862. His works were placed on the index, he himself

suspended in 1863. Frohschammer, however, did not submit and in numerous writings continued to fight for the freedom of science and against the claims of the pope. Thus by Rome on the one hand the independence of science was combated, but on the other hand it was nevertheless also again recognized in its relative freedom. After the revolution traditionalism arose in France, namely the doctrine that the higher metaphysical truths are not to be found by reason, but are obtained only from revelation, which from the first man onward has been propagated in humanity by tradition and is preserved in language. This theory was defended with talent by de Bonald,

Recherches philos. sur les premiers objets des connaissances morales, Paris 1817, Lamennais, Essai sur l'indifférence en matière de religion, Paris

1817, and Bautain, de l'enseignement de la philos. en France au 19e siècle, 1833, Philos. du Christianisme, 1835. But it could find no favor at Rome.

Bautain in 1840 signed six theses that were presented to him, and retracted his doctrine. And likewise the ontologism of Gerdil † 1802, Gioberti †

1852, Rosmini † 1855, Gratry † 1872, Ubaghs and others was rejected, which went back to the idealism of Malebranche and derived all higher truth from the immediate intuition of God and of the ideas.

All these condemnations prove that Rome, after the rationalism of the previous century, became more and more conscious of itself and came to awakening. After the revolution there was also a revival of the Roman church and theology. Romanticism benefited Rome and made many converts, Winckelmann, Stolberg, Schlegel, Ad. Müller, Z. Werner,

Schlosser, Haller etc. In France there came a reaction against the revolution and unbelief through Chateaubriand, Génie du christianisme, Joseph de

Maistre, † 1821, Bonald, Lamennais. Puseyism or Tractarianism, which began under Pusey and Newman in 1833 at Oxford, led many to the Roman

church and strengthened the high-church, ritualizing and Romanizing direction in the episcop. church. The believing theology that arose in Germany at first in many points attached itself to Schleiermacher. His doctrine of Scripture, regeneration, justification, church contained many elements that the Roman Catholics could employ to their advantage. And that indeed happened with talent and zeal through Görres, Baader, Phillips,

Döllinger in Munich; Klee in Bonn; Möhler, Hirscher, Drey in Munich and Tübingen; Staudenmaier and Kuhn in Giessen etc. The men of this direction were indeed not entirely after the heart of Rome and Jesuitism; they all still strove for mediation, they sought a reconciliation of believing and knowing, they attempted by the speculative method to prove the dogmas and were all too liberal toward the Protestants and now and then made important concessions. But they had excellent spokesmen, and contributed much to the revival of Roman theology. [97] But nevertheless, in the long run this conciliatory and mediating direction did not satisfy. Gradually the neo-scholastic direction arose. In 1814 the Jesuit order was restored, and its influence on the Papacy increased more and more; its power extended in all countries. The "freedom of science" was opposed by it with all might. All the above-mentioned condemnations resulted in the famous encyclical of 8 Dec. 1864, and in the Vaticanum of 1870, in which the infallibility of the Pope was pronounced. This neoscholastic direction was in Italy especially advocated by the philosopher

Sanseverino, Philosophia christiana, 7 vol. ed. nov. Neap. 1878 and by the theologian J. Perrone, Praelectiones theologiae, 9 vol. 1838-43; in Germany by J. Kleutgen, Theol. der Vorzeit, 5 Th. 2e Aufl., Münster 1867 and Philos. der Vorzeit, 2 Th., Innsbr. 1878 and A. Stöckl in various philosophical works. The present Pope set the seal upon it on 4 Aug. 1879, by

recommending in his encyclical Aeterni Patris the study of Thomas. And since then there has been a mighty and general striving, to restore the authority of Thomas in every field of science. Political and legal doctrine, psychology and ethics, theology and philosophy are studied in his spirit. In that same spirit dogmatics was treated by Franzelin, Scheeben, Heinrich,

Bautz, etc.; in this country by G. M. Jansen, prof. at Rijsenburg, Praelect. theol. fundam. Ultraj. 1875-76, Theol. dogm. spec. 1877-79. See further literature with Kihn, Enc. u. Meth. der Theol., Freiburg 1892 S. 412 f.

D. The Dogmatics in the Lutheran Church.

18. For the history of Lutheran dogmatics the following can serve as aids:

Walch, Bibl. theol. selecta I 35 sq. Pfaff, Introductio in historiam theol. litterariam 1724 p. 204 sq. G. Frank, Gesch. der prot. Theol., 3 Theile 186275. Dorner, Gesch. d. prot. Th. 1867. Gass, Gesch. der prot. Dogm., 4

Theile 1854-67. Tholuck, Das kirchl. Leben im 17 Jahrh. 1861-2. Id. Das akad. Leben des 17 Jahrh. 1853-4, together forming the Vorgesch. des

Ration. Id. Gesch. des Ration., Ier Theil, 1865. Id. Der Geist der luth.

Theologen Wittenbergs im 17 Jahrh. 1852. Kahnis, Der innere Gang des deutschen Protest., [98] 2 Th., Leipzig 1874. Ritschl, Gesch. des Pietismus,

3 Th. 1880-6. Harnack, Dogmengesch. III 691 f. Zöckler, Handbuch der theol. Wiss., Supplement 144 f. Luther was not a systematic nature; he did not leave behind a dogmatics. All the more was he an original, a creative spirit. He rediscovered the Christianity of Paul and Augustine, understood the Gospel again as a glorious message of grace and of forgiveness, and restored religion within religion. Thereby he became fruitful for the whole

of theology, and for the entire dogmatics; even the old dogmas were indeed taken up by him but animated with a new religious life, Th. Harnack,

Luthers Theologie, 2 Th., Erlangen 1862-66. J. Köstlin, Luthers Theologie, 2e Ausg., Stuttgart 1883. Lommatzsch, Luthers Lehre vom eth. relig.

Standp., Berlin 1879. Before the Lutheran Reformation had a confession, it already had a dogmatics in Melanchthon's Loci 1521, reissued by Augusti

1821, Plitt 1864, Bindseil in Corpus Reform. XXI p. 62. This work, arising from an exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, was practical, simple, soteriological, without any scholasticism, actually much more a confession than a dogmatics. In this work the German Reformation for a time found its unity. But already in 1526 Melanchthon retreated somewhat from the confession of strict predestination, and soon he also began on other points, especially in the matter of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, to deviate from Luther. This dissensus from Luther first comes out clearly in the new editions of the Loci of 1535 and 1543, then in the alteration of the Augustana 1540 and 1542, and finally in the Leipziger Interim and the adiaphoristic conflict caused thereby. Now two parties came to stand over against one another. On the one side the adherents of Melanchthon, the Philippists, especially at the academies at Wittenberg and Leipzig, such as G. Major, Paul Eber, Joh. Pfeffinger, Victor Strigel † 1569, whose Loci

Theologici arose from lectures on Melanchthon's Loci and were published by Pezel in 4 parts 1582-5, Christ. Pezel † 1604, author of Argumenta et objectiones de praecipuis articulis doctrinae christ., Neost. 1580-89,

Sohnius, Opera. Herb. 1609, and others. Cf. H. Heppe, Dogm. des deutschen Protest. im 16 Jahrh. 3 Bde. Gotha 1857. On the other side stood the Gnesio-Lutherans, [99] especially in Weimar and Jena, such as Nic. von

Amsdorf † 1565, Matth. Flacius † 1575, author of the Solida Confutatio et

condemnatio praecipuarum sectarum and many other polemical writings, Joh. Wigand † 1587, Joh. Marbach † 1581, Joachim Westphal † 1574, who especially combated Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Tileman

Heshusius † 1588 and others. The many dogmatic disputes that arose in this first period among the Lutheran theologians, about the law with Agricola, about justification with Osiander, about the descent of Christ into hell with Aepinus, about the obedientia activa with Parsimonius, about the adiaphora, synergism, and crypto-Calvinism with Melanchthon c. s., about good works with Major, about original sin with Flacius, finally led to and were settled in the Formula Concordiae of 1580, Frank, Die Theologie der Konkordienformel, 2 Th., Erl. Deichert 1858-61. It was the work especially of Jakob Andreae † 1590 and of Mart. Chemnitz † 1586, the foremost

Lutheran theologian in this century, author of the Examen Concilii Tridentini, 4 tomi 1565-73, reissued by Preuss 1861, of a treatise de duabus naturis in Christo, etc. 1571, enlarged 1578, and of Loci Theol., published after his death by Leyser in 1592.

19. When the Lutheran dogma was thus ready, it was treated and developed in the 17th century in a scholastic manner. Heerbrand † 1600,

Compendium theologiae 1573, significantly enlarged 1578, and Hafenreffer, Loci Theologici certa methodo ac ratione in libros tres tributi

1603 thereby already made a beginning. The scholastic treatment is then continued by Leonhard Hutter † 1616, Compendium locorum theol. ex

Scriptura sacra et libro Concordiae collectum 1610, Joh. Gerhard † 1637, Loci Communes theologici, 9 tomi 1610-22, best edition of Cotta 1762-87, reprinted Berlin-Leipzig 1864-75, and reaches its high point in Dannhauer †

1666, Hodosophia christiana, Hülsemann † 1635 Breviarium theologiae 1640, Calovius † 1686 Systema loc. theol. 1655-77, Quenstedt † 1688

Theologia didact-polem. 1685, Hollaz † 1713 Examen theol. acroamaticum 1707, König † 1664 Theol. positiva acroamatica 1664. The strength of this dogmatics lay in its objectivity. The dogmata lie ready, the subject submits to them without criticism; they [100] are only worked out and applied exegetically, in the history of dogma, polemically, scholastically, and practically. But already in the 17th century there arose a reaction against this method. Philippism had not been overcome by the Formula

Concordiae; it continued to keep its adherents, especially in Altdorf and Helmstadt. Georg Calixtus, prof. at Helmstadt † 1656, through his study of Aristotle, through his acquaintance with Roman and Reformed theologians, and through his aversion to scholastic orthodoxy, came to a moderate, irenic theology. In his works de praecipuis religionis christianae capitibus 1613, epitome theologiae 1619, de immortalitate animae et resurr. mort. 1627 he advocated a sharper separation of philosophy and theology, and he went back to the original Christianity of the first four centuries, in order to seek in what is common to all Christian confessions a union of Luth. Reformed and Roman Catholics.

20. Calixtus naturally encountered much opposition with his syncretism.

But the century of objectivity had passed. In the 18th century the subject asserts itself; it resumes its rights and rises in revolt against the power of the objective. In Pietism from 1700 to 1730, subjective piety becomes the point of departure, and the center of gravity is shifted from the object to the subject. Spener, the father of Pietism 1635-1705, exercised, through his person and through his works, e.g. Pia desideria 1678, Allgemeine

Gottesgelahrtheit aller gläubigen Christen und rechtschaffenen Theologen 1680, Tabulae Catecheticae 1683, Theolog. Bedenken 1712 etc., tremendous influence. In Halle the principal pietists were Francke † 1727,

Breithaupt † 1732 Instit. theol. 1695. Freylinghausen † 1739 Grundlegung der Theologie 1703. Joachim Lange † 1744 Antibarbarus orthodoxiae 1709.

Mosaisches Licht u. Recht, Rambach † 1735, Der wohlinformirte Katechet 1722. In Wurtemberg, with Hedinger † 1704, Bengel † 1752, Oetinger †

1782, Pietism allied itself with a biblical realism and with apocalyptic expectations. Naturally orthodoxy, e.g. through the mouth of Löscher in Dresden † 1749, acted very hostilely against this Pietism. But the time for orthodoxy was past. In the years 1730-60, in Buddeus † 1729 Instit. theol. dogm. et mor., Weismann † 1760, Crusius † 1775, J. G. Walch Einleitung in die dogm. Gottesgelahrheit [101] 1749 and his son Ch. W. F. Walch

Breviarium theol. dogm. 1775, it enters into an alliance with Pietism and passes over into an affective-pious direction, which lays emphasis on the practice of faith, is averse to scholastic subtlety, is moderate in polemics, and above all devotes its energies to learned historical investigations.

Related to Pietism is Herrnhutism, which likewise was a reaction of feeling against intellectual orthodoxy. The father of von Zinzendorf was a Spenerian. But while Pietism wants to lead to conversion through a Busskampf, Herrnhutism tries to achieve this through the preaching of the dear Savior. It wants to know of no law, but only of Gospel. Grace here so wholly pushes nature aside that Jesus even replaces the Father; Jesus is the Creator, the Ruler, the Father, the Jehova of the O. Test. And his person and suffering were, by Zinzendorf, under Roman influence, conceived so pathologically that the affinity of mysticism and sensuality, especially in the first romantic period, 1743-1750, came very clearly to light. Parallel with Pietism runs Rationalism. Both have, each in its own way, undermined the authority of orthodoxy; both shift the center of gravity into the subject.

Rationalism now arose through the philosophy of Cartesius, Spinoza,

Leibniz † 1716 and Wolff † 1754. They made clarity, mathematical clarity, the norm of truth. Carpovius, prof. in the mathesis at Weimar, attempted in his Oeconomia salutis N. T. seu theologia revelata, dogmatica methodo scientifica adornata 1737-65, to demonstrate church doctrine according to mathematical method. Canz, Reusch, Schubert, Reinbeck, especially S. J.

Baumgarten Halle † 1757, Evangel. Glaubenslehre, published by Semler 1759-60, and J. L. von Mosheim at Göttingen † 1755 belong to this

Wolffian direction. In the main these men were still orthodox, but the religious interest of truth is no longer felt; the doctrine of faith becomes an object of historical erudition and intellectual demonstration. No wonder that among other Wolffians, such as Töllner, Syst. der dogm. Theol., Heilmann,

Compendium theol. dogm. 1761, J. P. Miller, Instit. theol. dogm. 1767, Seiler, Theol. dogm. polem. 1774, an already freer attitude toward church doctrine is adopted. [102] 21. If this rationalistic direction is then from without still nourished and strengthened by English Deism and French unbelief, after 1760 in Germany there arises the Aufklärung, which seeks to bring the sound understanding of the individual man to dominion over all objective truth. Everywhere the positive, the traditional, the historically formed must yield to the rational, the clear-intelligible. Wolff c. s. had still found revelation reasonable. But the Aufklärung was deistic and rationalistic. Frederick the Great was its king, Berlin its center, the Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliotheek 1765-1805 its organ. Dogmatics was worked out in this rationalistic spirit by W. A. Teller,

Lehrbuch des christl. Glaubens 1764. Religion der Vollkommneren 1792.

Henke, Lineamenta instit. fidei christ. 1793. Eckermann, Compend. theol.

1791 and especially by Wegscheider, Instit. theol. christ. dogm. 1815, 8e Aufl. 1844. Against this Rationalism orthodoxy assumed the weakened

form of Supranaturalism. It no longer dared to take its position positively and thetically in faith, but had with its opponents the foundation of reason in common; only it still sought from there to come to revelation, whose necessity, possibility, and reality it defended. The content of revelation, however, gradually shrank in with it; the dogmata are as much as possible freed from everything offensive and by so-called biblical representation made ready-made for reason. On this standpoint placed themselves

Doederlein, Instit. theol. 1780. Morus, Epitome Theol. christ. 1789. Knapp, Vorles. über die christ. Glaub. 1827, especially Reinhard, Vorles. über die

Dogmatik 1801. Storr, Doctrinae christ. pars theoret. 1793. e. a. While a reconciliation of Rat. and Supran. was attempted by Tzschirner, von

Ammon, Schott, and especially by Bretschneider, Dogm. der ev. luth.

Kirche 1814.

22. For Lutheran dogmatics in the 19th century, besides the works cited above, the following come into consideration: Mücke, Die Dogm. des 19

Jahrh. Gotha 1857. E. Lichtenberger, Histoire des idées relig. en Allemagne.

Paris, Fischbacher. Thilo, Die Wissenschaftlickkeit der modernen spekul.

Theol. in ihren Principien beleuchtet, Leipz. 1851. O. Flügel, Die spekulative Theol. [103] der Gegenwart, 2e Aufl. Cöthen 1888. Hagenbach,

Ueber die sogenannte Vermittelungstheologie 1858. Carl Schwarz, Gesch. der neueren Theol., 1857, Dutch by Krabbe. Hartmann, Die Krisis des

Christ. in der mod. Theol., Berlin 1880. O. Pfleiderer, Die Entw. der prot.

Theol. in Deutschland seit Kant und in Gross-Britt. seit 1825. Freiburg 1891. Frank, Gesch. u. Krit. der neueren Theol. u. s. w. edited by P.

Schaarschmidt. Erl. Deichert, 1894. Kattenbusch, von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl. Giessen 1892. For Scandinavia: Presbyt. and Ref. Rev. Oct. 1893.

The peculiarity of Lutheran dogmatics in this century consists in the fact

that it stands almost entirely under the influence of philosophy. In the previous century it had, through Rationalism, almost entirely lost its principle, method, content. It had become a compendium of rational thoughts about God, virtue, and immortality. Kant was the first who, through his sharp critique of pure reason, wholly undermined this rational foundation of dogmatics. His critique was discouraging, even destructive, for the rationalism and eudaemonism of the Aufklärung. But by the practical Vernunft he attempts to regain what he lost through the pure

Vernunft. The categorical imperative, the moral consciousness, gives us the right to postulate the existence of God, freedom, and immortality.

Dogmatics is built up on morality, religion becomes a means for virtue, God an emergency aid for man. The content of religion and dogmatics, developed by Kant in his Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen

Vernunft 1793, is purely rationalistic; Kant still stands wholly in the 18th century, the historical, positive has no value for him, he isolates man from all influences, only the autonomous Vernunftreligion is the true religion.

But through his critique of reason, through his appeal to the moral consciousness, through his strict conception of morality, which even made him speak of the radikal Böse in man and of the necessity of an Art

Widergeburt, he has been of great influence on theology. Not only the moral destination of man, but also the impotence of reason to reach the supersensible, became an argument for the necessity of revelation, of faith and authority. And in this Kantian spirit dogmatics was worked on by Tieftrunk, Dilucidationes ad theoreticam [104] religionis christ. partem

1793. Stäudlin, J. E. C. Schmidt, Ammon and others.

23. Another reaction against the Aufklärung came from the side of feeling.

Sentimentality was a character trait of the second half of the 18th century.

Just as in England Shaftesbury came forward against Hume, in France Rousseau against Voltaire, so also in Germany feeling, with men such as Hamann, Claudius, Lavater, Stilling, Herder, Jacobi, asserted its rights over against cold Rationalism. They all proceed from immediate experience, from the power and intimacy of the mind; that is the deepest essence, the human in man; upon that religion rests, from that faith springs, here man perceives the divine. And from here he sees and discovers the divine around him in nature, in history, above all in Christ, the most human of all men.

The content of faith differed among these men, all the more because they were averse to a system; but the ground of faith is with all the same.

Feeling, faith, Vernunft, inspiration, Begeisterung, experience, or whatever one may call it, is with all foundation and norm of truth. Jacobi, over against the advancing criticism, pointed to the immediate sense, in which another, higher objectivity dawned for man. He thus arrived at a consistent dualism of head and heart, of philosophy and faith, of sensible and spiritual world. In dogmatics this dualism was applied by de Wette, Bibl. Dogmatik,

3e Aufl. 1831, Dogm. der prot. Kirche, 3e Aufl. 1840, Ueber Religion u.

Theol. 2e Aufl. 1821. Das Wezen des christ. Glaubens vom Standpunkt des Glaubens 1840, and after him by Hase, Evang. Dogm. 1826, 6e Aufl. 1870.

Common to all is the separation of believing and knowing, of aesthetic (ethical, religious) and intellectual (empirical) view of the world, of ideal and sensible world. The truth, demanded by religious feeling or consciousness, is inviolable for the intellect; it belongs to another, unobservable world.

24. Closely related to this direction is the theology of Schleiermacher. In his Reden über die Religion 1799 and the Monologen 1800 he stands wholly under the influence of romanticism. Religion [105] is feeling,

feeling for the universe, sense for the infinite, the direction of the mind toward the eternal, just like Spinoza's cognitio Dei intuitiva.

Schleiermacher thus also takes his standpoint in the subject, but not in intellect or will, but in feeling. God is for him the unity of the world, no object of thought, for thought always moves in oppositions, but only to be enjoyed in feeling. And that enjoyment of God in feeling is religion. But with that Schleiermacher now at once connects the idea of community.

From the essence of religion springs the longing for community, for exchange of what has been enjoyed. The religions differ, according as the infinite determines the feeling differently and forms the community differently. In his Glaubenslehre the philosophical fundamental thoughts are the same, but here the feeling is more closely defined as absolute dependence, God conceived as absolute causality, and Christianity defined as an ethical religion, in which everything stands in relation to redemption through Christ. Dogmas thus are and remain descriptions of subjective states of mind, but yet of such as are determined by the Christian community, and thus by the person of Christ. Through these three ideas, of immediate self-consciousness as source of religion, of the community as necessary form of existence of religion, and of the person of Christ as center of Christianity, Schleiermacher has become of incalculable influence.

The whole of theology after him is dependent on him; his dogmatics has been taken over by no one, and yet he has made his influence felt on all directions, liberal, mediating, confessional, and in all churches, Roman,

Luth. and Reformed. The most closely related to him are the so-called Vermittelungstheologen, Nitzsch, Twesten, Neander, J. Müller, Rothe,

Dorner, Martensen, Schenkel etc. The distinctive and common feature of all these men is the subjective point of departure. They all proceed not from an

external authority but from the mind, from religious consciousness. They accept the truth first as content of subjective Christian experience. But they do not stop there; they want to go beyond Schleiermacher, and to that end they connect Schleiermacher's subjective religious point of departure with Hegelian speculation. The agnostic elements in Schleiermacher, which he had in common with Kant, [106] were exchanged for the Hegelian doctrine of the knowability of the Absolute. The truth, first accepted as content of religious experience, then had to be comprehended on the path of speculation as necessary for thought and legitimized before the tribunal of philosophy. Thus faith and science, the natural and the positive, church and culture, authority of Scripture and criticism, ancient and modern worldview would be reconciled and satisfied with one another.

25. This, incidentally, had also been Hegel's aim. Hegel is the most consistent idealist; the Cartesian point of departure here comes to its final consequences. Thinking produces being; all that is, is therefore logical, rational. But he connects this thought with that of becoming, of evolution.

The realization of the thought in being takes place gradually, from stage to stage. In man this thinking first comes to consciousness. But at the lowest stage, as natural, finite spirit, man feels himself separated from God. In religion, especially in the Christian, however, he sees that separation abolished; God and man are one. This unity of God and man is the essence of all religion, but in religion it is not expressed adequately; there it is shrouded in forms of representation and feeling. Only in philosophy does the idea come to its adequate concept; it is absolute knowing, the knowing of humanity of God, the knowing of God of himself. According to these philosophical thoughts Hegel sought to explain all Christian dogmas, trinity, incarnation, reconciliation, etc. Many believed in the Hegelian

reconciliation of theology and philosophy; the so-called right wing, Marheinecke, Daub, Göschel, Rosenkranz, worked over the dogmas in his spirit and sought to unite Hegelian speculation and orthodox theology. But gradually it became public what danger lay hidden in the Hegelian philosophy for the Christian dogmas. Feuerbach, Strauss, Vatke, Bruno

Bauer drew the consequences and gave up the representation, which is the garment of religion, in order to retain only the abstract concept. Strauss saw in the Gospel narratives unconscious symbolic condensations of the ideal truth, that the Infinite pours itself out into the finite, yet not in a single man but in humanity; this is the [107] true son of God, the ideal Christ. In his

Glaubenslehre 1840 he attempts to show that the history of each dogma is at the same time its critique and dissolution. Religion and philosophy differ in form, but therefore also in content; philosophy replaces religion. The neoHegelians, Biedermann, Pfleiderer, have indeed become more cautious, but have nevertheless taken over from Hegel that thinking stands above religious consciousness and thus has as its task to strip religious representation of its temporal, sensuous form, to present it in its ideal core, and to bring it into agreement with our entire world-view.

26. While Hegel's philosophy thus led to the rejection of Christianity, it became known, especially since 1830, that Schelling had gradually abandoned the system of identity and was now developing a positive philosophy, in which not necessity but freedom prevailed and in which will and deed took the place of the logical process. Like Hamann, Lavater, etc. in the previous century, Schelling gradually came to the conviction that there is yet another, deeper being and life than that of the logical understanding, namely that of the will, of the deed, of freedom. But all life is becoming, an interaction of opposites. Thus it is in God, and thus it is in

the world. In God there is first the dark ground of nature, then the understanding, and out of both the will is born. In the world there is first chaos, then spirit, thereafter the cosmos. And thus in religion there is first the natural impulse in Paganism, then the Word or the Light in Christ, and finally the being of God in all. Under the influence of Böhme and Oetinger,

Schelling connected with this all manner of theosophical speculations.

Theosophy always occupies itself with two problems, with the transition between God and world and between soul and body. The first problem is solved by this, that the ground of the world is sought in the nature of God, and that the theogony, the trinitarian process in God, is more or less identified or at least paralleled with the cosmogony. God himself first comes to full unfolding of his essence in and through the world-process.

The second problem is solved in the same way by the idea of Geistleiblichkeit. The spiritual, God, the soul, [108] is not in the strict sense incorporeal, indeed not material, but übermateriell, and thus the spirit in its turn has the task of spiritualizing and of making spiritual-corporeal the body, the world, whose coarse materiality is a consequence of sin. This theosophical speculation of Schelling found acceptance in theology: Baader,

Görres, Windischmann, J. F. von Meyer, Steffens, Wagner, Stahl, Rothe, Hamberger, Fr. Hoffmann, Keerl, Osiander, Lange, Delizsch, Bähr, Kurtz,

Splittgerber, have all, to a greater or lesser degree, undergone his influence.

27. It was natural, of course, that resistance arose from the side of ecclesiastical orthodoxy against this manifold intermingling of theology and philosophy. Upon the theology of mediation there had to follow one of separation. The study of the confession, the historical dogmatics of de

Wette, Bretschneider, Hase, Schmid, Schneckenburger, benefited the confessional consciousness. Altlutheraner such as Guericke and Rudelbach,

Neolutheranen such as Harms, Hengstenberg, Keil, Philippi, Vilmar, Kliefoth, Höfling, Thomasius, Hofmann, men of the positive Union such as Kahnis, Luthardt, Zöckler, H. Schmidt, Frank, Grau, etc., labored at the restoration of the old Lutheran theology. Yet they too were children of their time. Pietism continued to have an effect in men such as Hengstenberg and Tholuck. Vilmar, Löhe, Münchmeyer e. a. were, in their conception of church, sacrament, and office, not free from Roman exaggeration; the South

German theologians in Erlangen, Thomasius, Hofmann, and also the present positive theologians stand more freely over against the confession and deviate in important points, Christology, satisfaction, Scripture, from the old-Lutheran dogmatics. Even so orthodox a Lutheran as Philippi, like

Hofmann and Frank, proceeds from the subjective consciousness of faith and has thus borrowed his point of departure from Schleiermacher.

Alongside these confessional theologians stand the Biblical theologians, among whom Beck is the foremost, who want to build up the dogmatic system neither from the believing consciousness nor also from the confession but only from Scripture. But Beck conceived that Scripture in the sense of that mystical theosophy which since Oetinger and Michael

Hahn was practiced in Swabia, as a system of heavenly truths, which were an imprint of heavenly powers and implanted these through [109] the working of the H. Spirit in the soul of man, and thereby often arrived at a rather arbitrary exegesis, and at a system which indeed was deep and original but also was not free to be acquitted of a one-sided asceticism and individualism.

28. From yet another side there arose opposition to the mixing of philosophy and theology. Liebmann, in his work Kant und die Epigonen,

Stuttgart 1865, and F. A. Lange, in his Geschichte des Materialismus 1866,

gave, in the philosophical domain, the watchword: back to Kant. The speculation of Hegel and Schelling had led to nothing; the understanding had once again to come to awareness of its finitude and limitation, and not presume to have any knowledge of the supersensible. There may, alongside this, remain room for faith, the imagination, but reason is limited to what is sensibly perceptible. This standpoint of Neo-Kantianism was adopted in the dogmatic domain by Lipsius and Ritschl. But with no unimportant difference. Lipsius acknowledges, Ritschl denies, the mystical element in religion. Lipsius considers religion a proper, independent power; Ritschl allows it to be absorbed almost entirely into the ethical. Lipsius considers religion in the first place a matter of the individual; Ritschl, of the community. Lipsius in any case still attempts to bring the religious representations into agreement with the results of science; Ritschl separates theology and science entirely and completely. For Lipsius the grace of God in Christ is, for Ritschl the Kingdom of God founded by Christ is, the main content of revelation, etc. But both nevertheless align themselves with Kant's aversion to metaphysics, with his doctrine of the limitation of human cognitive capacity. Therefore Ritschl wants a complete separation of metaphysics (philosophy, science) and religion (theology). Religion and theology do not pronounce judgments of being but judgments of value. It says nothing about the unknowable essence of things but only expresses the value and significance that they have for us. By such a separation Ritschl attempts to assure for religion and theology a proper place of their own, unassailable for science. Religion does not rest on science, but is grounded on a principle of its own, on the moral nature of man. It has a content of its own, viz. not judgments of being but judgments of value, i.e. purely relig.ethical statements. It has a goal of its own, viz. [110] to make man, in an

ethical sense, independent of the world. Ritschl's theology now has great influence, not only in but also far outside Germany. Various causes explain its rise. The apparent reconciliation of believing and knowing, the religiousethical conception of religion, the connection with the revelation of God in Christ, with Holy Scripture and with the theology of Luther and Melanchton, the rejection of all theol. naturalis and scholastic dogmatics, etc., have procured for this theology a sudden diffusion and an extraordinary rise. A host of men, Herrmann, Kaftan, Häring, Harnack,

Schürer, Gottschick, Kattenbusch, Stade, Wendt, Schultz, Lobstein, etc., have joined it, and apply its principles to the whole field of theol. science.

Yet the Ritschlian doctrine of the cognitive capacity, the complete separation of theology and metaphysics, the moralistic conception of religion, the restriction of religion to judgments of value, etc., are unsatisfactory. This direction too will in the long run be able to satisfy neither the head nor the heart, cf. my essay on the Theol. of Ritschl in the Theol. Stud. of Dr. Daubanton e. a. 1888.

E. Dogmatics in the Reformed Church.

29. With all agreement, even up to and including the confession of predestination, there was nevertheless from the beginning an important difference between the German and the Swiss Reformation. The difference in country and people, where Luther and Zwingli appeared, the difference in origin, upbringing, character, and life-experiences, contributed to causing the two to diverge. It lasted only a short time before it came to light that both reformers were of a different spirit. In 1529 the peace was indeed

signed at Marburg, but only on paper. And when Zwingli fell away and Calvin, in spite of his high esteem for Luther and in his rapprochement in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, nevertheless in principle chose the side of Zwingli, then the schism between Lutheran and Reformed Protestantism became greater and greater and a fact that could no longer be undone. The historical investigations into the characteristic distinction of both in this century have clearly demonstrated that there [111] lies at its basis a difference of principle. In earlier times one simply summed up the dogmatic differences, without reducing them to a common principle, Hoornbeek,

Summa Controv.

618.

But Max Goebel, Die relig.

Eigenthümlichkeit der luth. u. ref. K. 1837, holl. vert. Gron. Smit 1841, delivered the first attempt at a historical and principled explanation of the distinction between the two. Since then various men have continued that investigation, such as Ullmann, Semisch, Hagenbach, Ebrard, Herzog,

Schweizer, Baur, Schneckenburger, Guder, Schenkel, Schoeberlein, Stahl, Hundeshagen, whose works are cited and assessed by Voigt, Fundamentaldogmatik, 1874 S. 397-480, Scholten, Leer der Herv. Kerk, 4e dr. II 309 v. etc. The distinction seems still best represented by the fact that the Reformed is theological, the Lutheran anthropological. The Reformed does not remain standing in history, but climbs up to the idea, to the eternal decree of God; the Lutheran takes his standpoint in the midst of salvation history and has no need to penetrate more deeply into the counsel of God.

With the Reformed, therefore, election is the cor ecclesiae; with the Lutherans, justification is the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. There the first and principal question is: how does God come to his honor; here, on the other hand: how does man come to salvation. There the struggle is directed especially against paganism, idolatry; here against Judaism, works-

righteousness. The Reformed has no rest before he has traced everything backward to the decree of God and has tracked down the διοτι of things and has made everything forward subservient to the honor of God; the Lutheran is satisfied with the ὁτι and enjoys in the salvation of which he partakes through faith. From this difference in principle the dogmatic controversies in the doctrine of the image of God, original sin, the person of Christ, the order of salvation, the sacraments, church government, ethics, etc. can easily be explained.

The history of Reformed dogmatics is much more difficult to describe than that of the Lutheran. The Reformed church is not limited to one country and people, but has expanded in different countries and among different peoples. The Reformed type is not set down in one confession but has found expression in numerous confessions. The dogmatic development, e.g. in the [112] doctrine of election, of justification, of regeneration, of the sacraments, etc., has been much richer and more many-sided in the Reformed church than in the Lutheran. And finally the history of Reformed dogmatics has been practiced much less than that of the other churches; there still lies here a field open for research. The principal works which deal with it are: C. M. Pfaff, Introductio in historiam theol. literariam, Tüb. 1724 p. 258 sq. Walch, Bibl. theol. sel. I 211 sq. B. Pictet, De Christel. Godg.,

Dutch transl. 1728 part III. A. Ypey, Concise literary history of systematic dogmatics 3 parts, 1793-98 I 200 v. II 55 v. Id. History of the Christian

Church in the 18th century, Utrecht, 1797 v. part VII and VIII. A.

Schweizer, Die Glaub. der ev. ref. K. 1844 I 1-134. Id. Die Centraldogmen der ref. K. 2 Bde. 1854, '56. J. H. A. Ebrard, Christl. Dogm. 2e Aufl. 1862 I 44 f. J. H. Scholten, Doctrine of the Reformed Church I 67 v. C. Sepp, The dogmatic instruction in the Netherlands during the 16th and 17th century, 2

parts, Leiden, 1873, '74. Furthermore the above-cited works of Gasz, Dorner, Frank, Ritschl etc. and the literature to be mentioned later.

30. Reformed dogmatics begins with Zwingli. With him the fundamental ideas are already present, the theological point of departure, the absolute dependence of man, predestination, the human nature of Christ, the spiritual conception of church and sacrament, the ethical and political tendency of the Reformation. But Zwingli still has many gaps in his theology; through his humanism he conceives sin and reconciliation too superficially; through his spiritualism he sets God and man, divina and humana justitia, sign and thing signified in the sacrament etc. abstractly dualistically over against each other; his clarity and lucidity of thought cannot compensate for the lack of depth; and he does not arrive at a somewhat rounded and coherent system. Zwingli only designed the general outlines, within which the different directions in the Reformed churches later moved. Only Calvin's organizing and systematic spirit gave the Swiss Reformation its delineated doctrine and firm organization. His theology already stood fixed with the first edition of his Institutie in 1536. There is expansion, development but no change. Calvin differs in this from Zwingli, that he banishes all philosophical and [113] humanistic ideas and aligns himself as strictly as possible with Scripture. Further, he better maintains the objectivity of the Christian religion, of the covenant of God, of the person and the work of Christ, of Scripture, church and sacrament and therefore stands more strongly against the Anabaptists. Further, he overcomes both Luther's antithesis between the spiritual and the worldly and that of Zwingli between flesh and spirit, and is therefore indeed rigoristic but in no respect an ascetic. Finally, he brings unity and system into his thoughts, something which neither Luther nor Zwingli was able to do, and in doing so never

forgets the connection with the Christian life. Calvin gradually knew how to win all Switzerland over to himself, also in the matter of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper (Consensus Tigurinus 1549) and predestination (Consensus

Genev. 1552, Tweede Helv. Conf. 1564), Hundeshagen, Die Conflikte des Zwinglianismus, Lutherthums und Calvinismus in der Bernischen

Landeskirche von 1532-1558, Bern 1842. Calvin's Institutie was soon studied everywhere. Those of Bern later appealed to Calvin just as much as those of Geneva, Zurich, Basel and Schaffhausen. Entirely in Calvin's spirit, dogmatics in Switzerland in this 16th century was treated by Beza,

Tractationes theol. 1570, Petrus Martyr Vermiglius, Loci Communes 1576, Musculus, Loci Comm. 1560, 1567 and Aretius, Theol. problemata 1579.

From Switzerland Calvin's theology spread to France. In 1536 he dedicated his Institutio to Francis I with a preface. He became the soul of the French Reformation. His doctrine was generally accepted; his works were translated into French and disseminated; with him one sought counsel and comfort, and many went to Geneva in order to be trained for the ministry of the word. The principal theologians in France in this century were Chandieu † 1591, who under the pseudonym Sadeel, Zamariel wrote various theological tractates, de verbo Dei, de Christi sacerdotio, de remissione peccatorum etc., Marlorat † 1562, author of Thesaurus S.

Scripturae in locos comm. rerum et dogmatum, published in 1574 by Feugueraeus, and du Plessis Mornay † 1623, who is known through his

Traité de l'Eglise 1578, Traité de la vérité de la religion chrétienne 1581 and especially also through his, in citations very inaccurate, Le mystère d'iniquité c'est à dire l'histoire de la papauté 1611. [114]

Through the emigrants to East Frisia, the Palatinate, Cleves-land, and from out of the South, Calvinism also penetrated into the Netherlands.

Calvin's Institutio was already translated into Dutch in 1560. Dathenus, de Brès, Modet, Marnix, Caspar Heydanus, and others were strict Calvinists.

Many sought their education in Geneva and Heidelberg. But already in 1575 the academy at Leiden was founded, and in 1585 that at Franeker.

Feugueraeus, Danaeus, Saravia, Trelcatius Sr., Bastingius, Junius were at Leiden; Lubbertus, Lydius, and Nerdenus were at Franeker the most famous professors in this century. The theological labor consisted chiefly in polemic against Rome and against the Anabaptists. But nevertheless various dogmatic handbooks already saw the light, by Gellius Snecanus, Methodica descriptio et fundamentum trium locorum communium S. Scr. 1584, by Bastingius the first exposition of the Catechism 1590, by Feugueraeus

Propheticae et apostolicae, i.e. totius divinae et canonicae scripturae thesaurus 1574, by Trelcatius Sr. Loci Communes 1587, by Junius Theses

Theologicae (Opera Omnia I 1592 sq.).

Calvinism also found acceptance in England and Scotland. There it came into conflict not only with Rome, but also with the Reformation which was undertaken from above by Henry VIII and Elizabeth. The Reform-minded, who under Mary fled to the Continent, there became acquainted with the doctrine of Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, Martyr, etc., and, upon their return, at once took offence at the half-measures of the English Reformation. The difference at first concerned the ceremonies. In doctrine Puritans and Anglicans were originally in agreement. English theology down to the beginning of the 17th century bore a decidedly Calvinistic character. At the Universities Calvin's Institutes were taught. Even the episcopal form of government was defended by Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker e. a. not as the only true one, but only in the interest of the well-being of the church, Schaff,

Creeds of Christendom, 3 vol. New-York 1881 I 602 etc. But when in and

since 1567 the nonconformists, among whom Pilkington, Whittingham, Thomas Sampson and Humphrey from Oxford were the principal ones, separated, the conflict extended over the whole church government. The most powerful advocate of the presbyterial form of church polity was

Thomas Cartwight, prof. at Cambridge, deposed 1570, died 1603. And toward the end of the [115] century there was added yet another difference in doctrine; William Perkins † 1602, All the works, 3 vol. Amst. 1659 v. and William Whitaker † 1595, Opera, Genev. 1610 2 vol., professors at Cambridge, attempted still to maintain predestination in the 9 Lambeth

Articles, Schaff, Creeds I 658 III 523, which they submitted to Elizabeth's counsellor Whitgift, but the high-church and the Pelagian sentiment gained the upper hand more and more. In Scotland, however, Calvinism was introduced with force by John Knox † 1572, John Craig † 1600, e. a., and finally also recognized by the King 1581.

In Germany the Reformed church and theology were less dependent on Calvin. The Heidelberg Catechism, the theology of Pareus, Ursinus,

Olevianus, Hyperius, Boquinus, also of à Lasco, shows in many respects a character of its own. Hofstede de Groot, Ebrard and Heppe have explained this peculiarity from Melanchthon; but this representation is unhistorical and sufficiently refuted. Much better is it derived by Prof. Gooszen in two studies on the Heidelberg Catech. 1890 and 1893 and by Dr. Van 't Hooft,

The Theol. of Heinrich Bullinger 1888 from the successor of Zwingli in Zurich. Yet between the theology of Calvin and of Bullinger there is not a single material, but only a formal and methodological difference. It is the distinction between the supraand the infralapsarianism, between the strictly-theological and the federalistic point of departure, which has always existed in the Reformed churches and has been recognized on both sides as

Reformed, cf. my essay Calvin. and Reformed in De Vrije Kerk, Febr. 1893, and the reply of Prof. Gooszen, Faith and Freedom, Dec. 1894. Alongside

Ursinus and Olevianus, in Heidelberg the strictly Calvinistic Zanchius also worked.

31. Already toward the end of the 16th century the scholastic method arose in Reformed theology. The simple treatment of the dogmas, such as we find it in Calvin, Hyperius, Sohnius, could in the long run not suffice. In Martyr, Sadeel, Junius we already encounter familiarity with the questions that in the Middle Ages were treated by the scholastics. Especially Zanchius

† 1590 is in his works De tribus Elohim, de natura Dei, de operibus Dei, de incarnatione (Opera Omnia in 8 tomi, Geneve 1619) and Polanus a Polansdorf † 1610 in his Syntagma [116] Theologiae excellently familiar with the theology of the church fathers and of the scholastics. In a scholastic manner dogmatics is then treated in the Reformed churches in this century, in the Netherlands by Trelcatius Jr., Scholastica et methodica locorum omnium S. Scr. institutio 1604, Nerdenus, Systema theol. 1611,

Maccovius, Collegia theologica 1623, ed. 3a 1641. Loci Comm. Theol.

1626, Fr. Gomarus, Opera theol. omnia Amstel. 1664, Gisb. Voetius, Disputationes sel. 5 partes, Ultraj. 1648-59, and elsewhere especially by J.

H. Alsted, prof. at Herborn and Weissenburg † 1638, Theol. scholastica didactica, exhibens locos communes theol. methodo scholastica 1618. The scholastic method, however, found by no means general assent. Maccovius received at the Synod of Dort the admonition, ut cum Spiritu Sancto loquatur, non cum Bellarmino ant Suarezio, Heringa, De twistzaak van

Maccovius, Archief voor Kerk. Gesch. III 1831 bl. 505 v. The dispute of Maccovius and Amesius, ib. bl. 643 v. and Van der Tuuk, Joh. Bogerman bl.

229 v. and of Maresius against Voetius had its ground in the same scholastic

method. Maresius called Voetius a theologus paradoxus, counted no fewer than 600 paradoxa in his theology, and accused him especially that he lacum asphaltidem scholasticorum derivare in fontem Siloe; see his

Theologus paradoxus retectus et refutatus 1649 and against that Voetius, Disput. Sel. V. 572-716. But also where one guarded oneself against philosophical terminology, scholastic distinctions and vain scholastic questions and presented the truth in a more simple form, the 17th century was nevertheless the century of objectivity. The material lay ready, it only needed to be ordered. Tradition became a power. Not only Scripture, but also the confession, yes even the dogmatic treatment received an unassailable authority and made Camero utter the complaint that in doctrine one could not deviate ἀπο των δοκουντων εἰναι στυλοι, without being persecuted, Schweizer, Centraldogmen II 237. The principal theologians in our country were Polyander, Walaeus, Thysius and Rivetus, writers of the Synopsis Purioris theologiae, Trigland, Hoornbeek at Leiden; Maccovius,

Acronius, Amesius, Schotanus, Bogerman, Cloppenburg, Arnoldus at Franeker; Ravensperger, Gomarus, H. Alting, Maresius at Groningen;

Voetius, Essenius, Mastricht, Leydecker at Utrecht; further Bucanus at Lausanne, Wollebius at Basel; Danaeus, Franc. Turretinus and B. Pictet at Geneva; [117] J. H. Heidegger and J. H. Hottinger at Zurich; Chamier,

Bérault, Garissoles at Montauban; Tilenus, Dumoulin, Beaulieu at Sedan; furthermore Benj. Basnage, David Blondel, Sam. Bochartus, Jean

Mestrezat, Charles Drelincourt, Jean Daillé and especially the theologians at Saumur Camero, Amyraldus, Cappellus, Placaeus, cf. Félice, Histoire des

Protestants de France 7e ed. 1880. In England in the 17th century the highchurch and Arminian direction gained ground; it found support with the Stuarts, with the archbishops, with the nobility, and was promoted by

Bancroft, the successor of Whitgift 1604-1610, who in a sermon 1589 defended the episcopate as necessary, Buckingham 1625-28, archbishop

Laud 1628-45, Lord Clarendon † 1674. On the other hand there were still many theologians in the Anglican church, who indeed defended

Episcopalianism but nevertheless remained faithful to Calvinism. Thus Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury, 1583-1604, counsellor of Elizabeth, archbishop Abbot 1604-1623, fallen into disgrace in 1622, the delegates to the Synod of Dort Carlton, Hall, Davenant, prof. in Cambridge, later bishop of Salisbury, Determinationes quaestionum quarundam theologicarum,

Cambr. 1634, Ward, Goad, Balcanqual and furthermore men such as Burton, Warton, Prynne, Rouse, Preston, Usher, Corpus theologiae, Dublin

1638, Dutch trans. by Ruytingius, 't Lichaam der Godd. leer Amst. 1656, Morton, Joh. Prideaux, Lectiones theologicae, Scholasticae theologiae syntagma 1651, Saunderson, Hammond, Opera Omnia Lond. 1684,

Westfield, Stillingfleet, Op. Omn. Lond. 1709, Tillotson archb. of Canterbury, Works Londen 1704, John Pearson, Exposition of the Creed

1659, Lectiones de Deo et ejus attributis, Burnet † 1715 prof. in Glasgow, later bishop of Salisbury, An exposition of the 39 articles. Roger Boyle,

Summa theologiae christ. Dubl. 1687. J. Forbesius a Corse, prof. at Aberdeen, Instructiones histor. theol. de doctrina christ. 1699. Thomas

Pierce, Pacificatorium orthodoxae ecclesiae corpusculum 1685. Foggius, Theol. speculativae schema 1712. W. Beveridge, Thesaurus theol. or a complete system of divinity Lond. 1710-11. Th. Bennet, Instructions for studying 1 a general system or body of divinity, 2 the 39 articles of religion,

Lond. 1715. Among the Puritans from this period are especially known Bradshaw, Raynolds, Baynes, Byfield, Rogers, Hooker, White, Archer,

Hildersham, Davenport, Lightfoot, Seldenus, Twissus, Calamy, [118]

Gataker, Baxter, Bates, Mead, Owen etc. Arminianism had in England, both among the dissenters and among the Anglicans, great influence. And alongside that, from France also Amyraldism was transferred to England.

Both often flowed together and found their union in the neonomian theory, which gave occasion to an important and long-lasting struggle. The neonomians laid the ground of justification in faith, as e.g. the Arminian

John Goodwin, the friend of Milton, in his The banner of justification displayed, Imputatio fidei 1642, Richard Baxter, Justifying Righteousness,

Dr. Dan. Williams, Works, 1750. Benj. Woodbridge, The method of grace in the justification of sinners 1656. Over against that stood others, who were wrongly called anti-nominians but actually had to be called antineonomians and placed the ground of justification only in the imputed righteousness of Christ, such as Dr. Crisp, Dr. Tully, Justificatio paulina sine operibus 1677. Isaac Chauncy, Neonomianism unmasked 1692. Id.

Alexipharmacon, a fresh antidote against neonomian bane 1700. John Eaton, The honeycombe of free justification by Christ alone 1642, William

Eyre, Vindiciae justificationis gratuitae 1654 etc., cf. Witsius, Misc. Sacra II p. 753 Sq. James Buchanan, The doctrine of justification, Edinburgh Clark,

1867 p. 176, 464. Generally speaking, however, the center of gravity of English theology lay not in the dogmatic but in the biblical, churchhistorical, patristic, archaeological and practical studies. The political and ecclesiastical relations naturally gave occasion to that, Gass, Gesch. der prot. Theol. III 297 f. Ypey, Syst. Godg. II 268 v. and furthermore

Weingarten, Die Revolutionskirchen Englands 1868. Neal, Historie der Puriteinen, Rott. 1752 v. Marsden, History of the early and later Puritans from the reformation to the ejection of the nonconf. clergy in 1662, 2 vol.

London 1852. Dr. Stoughton, History of religion in England from the

opening of the long Parliament to the end of the 18th century, 8 vol. 1881.

Dr. Tulloch, Rational theology and Christ. theology in England in the 17th century, 2 vol. 1872. Richer and more powerful in proportion was the dogmatic life in Scotland. Here Calvinism had found a suitable soil and was further developed in a strict, positive spirit. The principal theologians in this period were: Rollock, since 1583 principal [119] of the university at Edinburgh, writer of commentaries on the letters of Paul, the Psalms, Daniel and especially also of a treatise on the efficacious calling; John Welsh, of Ayr, who wrote against Romanism; John Sharp, who brought to light a harmony of the prophets and the apostles; the brothers Simpson, Patrick, who gave a church history, William, who wrote on the Hebr. accents, and Archibald, who gave an exposition of the seven penitential psalms; Boyd of Trochrigg, prof. at Saumur, in 1614 principal of the university at Glasgow, famous for his commentary on the letter to Ephesians, which not only gives an exposition but is a true thesaurus and contains all kinds of dogmatic and theological excursuses, on trinity, praedestinatie, incarnation, sin, baptism, etc.; David Calderwood, who sojourned in this country and wrote his Altare damascenum against the Anglican episcopate; Samuel Rutherford, prof. at St. Andrews, known not only for his Letters but also for many other works,

Exercitationes apol. pro divina gratia 1637, de Providentia, Examen Arminianismi, The spiritual Antichrist etc.; George Gillespie, writer of Nihil respondes, Male audis, Aaron's Rod blossoming, Miscellanies; and furthermore still Baillie, Dickson, Durham, Dr. Strang, James Wood, Patrick

Gillespie, Hugh Binning and others cf. David Calderwood, The history of the Kirk of Scotland, 7 vol. Edinb. 1842. Buckle, History of civilization in England, 5 vol. Leipzig 1865, ch. 17-20. James Walker, The theology and theologians of Scotland, Edinb. Clark 1872. This positive development of

Reformed dogmatics reaches in a certain sense its high point—and at the same time its end point—in the canones of Dordrecht 1618/19, in the confession and the catechism of Westminster 1646, in the Consensus

Helveticus 1675, and the Walcheren articles 1693.

32. But already in the 17th century the principles were present which undermined Reformed theology and brought it to decline. In the century of the Reformation there was not only a Lutheran and Calvinistic reformation, but alongside these two other parties also appeared, namely the Anabaptists and the Socinians, who precisely in the Reformed church and theology in Switzerland, the Netherlands, England, America have at all times been of great influence. They represent the mystical and the rational element [120] in religion and theology. See for the Anabaptists and Mennonites: older literature of Luther, Melanchton, Zwingli, Bullinger, a Lasco, de Bres,

Modet, Marnix, Taffin, Caspar Heydanus, Spanheim, Faukelius, Schotanus, Hoornbeek, Cloppenburg etc. in Walch Bibl. Theol. sel. II 13-29, and more recent literature of Arnold, Schenkel, Erbkam, Hase, Halbertsma, Blaupot ten Cate, Hoekstra, Gorter, Cramer etc. in Scholten, L. H. K. II 271-308.

Further L. Keller, Gesch. der Wiedertäufer u. ihres Reiches in Münster 1880. Goebel, Gesch. des christl. Lebens u. s. w. I 1849 S. 134 f. Ritschl,

Gesch. des Pietismus I 1880 S. 22 f. J. H. Maronier, Het inwendig woord, Amst. 1890. L. Keller, Die Reformation u. die älteren Reformparteien,

Leipzig 1885, various essays by Sepp in his Geschiedk. Nasporingen, 2 parts 1872/3 and Kerkhist. Studiën 1885. A. Brons, Ursprung, Entw. u.

Schicksale der Taufgesinnten oder Mennoniten, Norden 1884. Art. Anabapt. en Mennon. in Herzog2. For the Socinians and Unitarians of earlier and later time one compares Fock, Der Socinianismus 1847. Trechsel, Die

protest. Antitrinitarier vor Faustus Socin, 2 Bde 1839/44. Art. Socin in Herzog2. Harnack, Dogmengesch. III 653-691.

Arminianism already had its forerunners in the 16th century in Coolhaes, Coornhert, Wiggerts, and others, but at the beginning of the 17th century it became a power in the church. It rose in opposition to the confession of God's absolute sovereignty on the well-known five points: predestination, satisfaction, man's depravity, conversion, and perseverance. See their

Remonstrance, presented to the States in 1610, the Confessio and the Apologia pro confessione, drawn up by Episcopius, Opera II 69 sq. 95 sq.; of the confession there appeared in 1665 a Dutch edition by Uytenbogaert.

Arminius, Opera Theologica, Francof. 1631. Uytenbogaert, Instruction in the Christian religion 1640. Episcopius, Institut. Theol. Opera I 11 sq.

Limborch Theol. Christ. ed. 5a 1730. Curcellaeus, Opera Theol. Amst.

1675.

Cartesianianism was in principle a complete emancipation from all authority and from all objectivity, and a building up of the whole cosmos out of the subject, out of thought. Cogito, ergo sum. The rejection of all tradition and the seemingly certain mathematical method, by which Cartesius concluded to the existence [121] of the world, of God, of the spirit, pleased many. Cartesius gained many adherents, also among the theologians. Renerius and Regius in Utrecht; Raey, Heerebord, Abr.

Heydanus in Leiden, and further Roell, Bekker, Joh. v. d. Waeyen, Hautecour, Andala, adopted Cartesianianism and carried rationalism into the church. The relation of reason and revelation now became the principal question; reason emancipates itself from revelation and attempts to regain its independence, A. C. Duker, Schoolgezag en eigen onderzoek, Leiden

1861. To that there now also came Coccejanism, which indeed was related

to Cartesianianism in method. Coccejanism was also a reaction against traditional theology and therefore soon, toward the end of the century, entered into alliance with Cartesianianism. What was new in Coccejus †

1669 was not his covenant doctrine, as is now generally acknowledged, for this already occurs with Zwingli, Bullinger, Olevianus etc. and in this country with Snecanus, Gomarus, Trelcatius, Cloppenburg etc., but his federalistic method. Coccejus' Summa doctrinae de foedere et testamento

1648 was a biblical-historical dogmatics, made Scripture not only into principle and norma but also into object of dogmatics, and thus placed the theologia scripturaria over against the theologia traditiva, the foedus over against the decree, history over against the idea, the anthropological method over against the theological; the danger of this method consisted in this, that it drew down the eternal, unchangeable (substantia foederis) into the stream of the temporal, historical (oeconomia foederis) and thus transferred to God himself the idea of becoming. But many followed the Coccejan method,

Heydanus, Wittichius, Momma, Burman, Braun, Van der Waeyen, Witsius, Camp. Vitringa, S. van Til, Joh. d'Outrein, F. A. Lampe e. a., Diestel,

Studien zur Foederaltheol. Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1865, 2tes Heft. The struggle of Voetians and Coccejans and thereafter that of green and dry, free and stiff

Coccejans continued on into deep in the 18th century. It ended in fact with a victory of Coccejanism and Cartesianianism. Scholasticism had had its time, the flowering of Aristotelian philosophy was past. Most chairs were filled with Coccejans. The coming of Lampe to Utrecht 1720 was a victory of the Coccejans. The dogmatic handbooks that now saw the light are mostly Coccejan, Melchior, Systema [122] 1685. C. Vitringa, Korte grondstellingen der Godg. 1688. S. van Til 1704. T. H. v. d. Honert,

Waeragtige wegen Gods 1706. Ravestein 1716, J. v. d. Honert 1735 etc. In

the main they are still orthodox, but they are mostly small in scope, avoid all scholasticism, and on many points already deviate from the old presentation. Doubt arises concerning the particular satisfaction, election, generation of the son (Roell), the trinity (P. Maty), the covenant of works

(Alting, Vlak, Bekker, etc.), reason and revelation (Roell). The Voetians were more and more pushed back, and withdrew into silence. Marck's

Merch 1686, Dutch trans. 1705 and Brakel's Redel. Godsd. 1700 were the last dogmatics in their spirit, but also already bereft of the power of the earlier ones. Pietistic, Labadist, antinomian ideas penetrated into their circles, Lodenstein, Labadie, Koelman, Lampe, Verschoor, Schortinghuis,

Eswijler, Antoinette de Bourignon etc.

33. And thus was the course of theology in all Reformed churches. In France the academy of Saumur became the centre of all kinds of sensational theses. Camero † 1625 not only joined Piscator in Herborn in the denial of the imputation of Christ's obedientia activa, but moreover taught that the will always follows the understanding and that therefore the bending of the will in regeneration was not a physical but an ethical act. Amyraldus † 1664

Traité de la prédestination made the common doctrine of the voluntas signi, of the earnest and well-meant offer of grace, into a separate decree, which preceded that of election. Thereby he laid a Remonstrant foundation under the Calvinistic edifice and ran the danger of weakening man's inability to believe into a moral one. Cappellus † 1658 asserted in his work Arcanum punctationis revelatum, 1624 published anonymously at Leiden by Erpenius, that the Hebr. points quoad figuram had later been invented by the Jewish scholars and inserted into the text, and provoked contradiction from Buxtorf 1648. In his Critica sacra 1650 he taught that the Hebr. text was not uninjured, and in his Diatribe de veris et antiquis Hebraeorum

literis 1645 that the Samaritan script was older than the Hebr. square script.

Placaeus, de statu hominis lapsi ante [123] gratiam 1640 denied the immediate imputation of Adam's sin. Claude Pajon † 1685 denied the necessity of the gratia interna, and was opposed by Jurieu in his Traité de la nature et de la grâce 1687. The theological struggle in France thus ran especially over the nature of subjective grace. Camero limited it to illumination of the understanding, Amyraldus made objective grace universal, Pajon taught the superfluousness of a special subjective grace.

Deism and rationalism were thereby prepared.

In England there was great diversity among the nonconformists. The Presbyterians, after the Westminster Synod, declined both in number and in influence, and had to make room for Independency, which was already embraced in the 16th century by Robert Browne, Johnson, Ainsworth and John Robinson † 1625, Works, 3 vol. London 1851, cf. Ned. Archief v. K.

Gesch. v. Kist en Royaards 1848 VIII bl. 369-407, and which increased in power and esteem during the civil war. At the Westminster Synod the Presbyterians still had the majority and the Independents still had only a few votes, Thomas Goodwin † 1680, Philip Nye † 1672, Jeremias

Burroughs † 1646, William Bridge † 1670, William Carter † 1658, Sydrach Simpson † 1658, Joseph Caryll † 1673 e. a. But already in Oct. 1658, at a meeting in London, delegates from more than a hundred independent congregations were present. There the Savoy Declaration was drawn up, translated into Latin by Hoornbeek 1659 and printed after his Epistola ad

Duraeum de Independentismo, Schaff, Creeds I 820-840 III 707. Their principal theologian was Dr. John Owen 1616-1683, Works, 21 vol. London

1826; the Doctrina Christiana of Milton was published in 1827 at Brunswick, Stud. u. Kr. 1879, 4tes Heft. See further Jos. Fletcher, History

of independency in England since the reformation 4 vol. London 1847-49, and other litt. in Schaff, Creeds I 820. Baptism also already occurred sporadically in England in the 16th century, but only since 1633 did it begin to form its own congregations. In 1644 it counted 7 congregations in and 47 outside London. In 1677 the Baptists issued a Confession of faith, which differed from the Westminster confession and the Savoy Declaration only in church government and baptism. On the basis of this [124] confession, in 1693 a catechism was drawn up by William Collins, which was generally accepted. From the Calvinistic Baptists the General, Arminian or Free-will

Baptists are distinguished. Baptism later found dissemination especially in America through Roger Williams † 1683. For dogmatics it has done little, but it has produced powerful preachers in John Bunjan † 1688, Robert Hall,

John Foster, etc., Schaff, Creeds I 845-859, III 738-756. J. M. Cramp, Baptist History from the foundation of the Christ. Church to the close of the 18 century, Philad. 1868. The period of the civil war was in England, in the religious and theological sphere, a time of the greatest confusion. All kinds of ideas and directions churned together. Formerly these were for a time held to be so many sects, but much better are they, with Weingarten, regarded as nuances in the one great party of the Saints. Arminian, baptistic, chiliastic, antinomian, and even libertine sentiments found entrance. A religious individualism prevailed. In Quakerism this reached its climax. The emancipation from tradition, the confession, the church connection is completed therein, in that each believer is set on his own, even detached from Scripture, and in himself, in the Spirit, in the inward light, possesses the source of his religious life and knowledge. All that is objective,

Scripture, Christ, church, office, sacrament, is set aside; the believers live from a principle of their own and also distinguish themselves in society by

their own morals, customs, clothing, etc. George Fox 1624-1640, Works, 3 vol. London 1694-1706 was founder of this sect, Robert Barclay 16481690, Apologia theologiae vere christianae, Amst. 1675 was its theologian, and William Penn 1644-1718 its statesman, William Sewel, History of the rise, increase and progress of the christian people called Quaker, London

1725. Th. Evans, An exposition of the faith of the religious society of friends, Philad. 1828. Schneckenburger, Vorles. über die Lehrbegriffe der kleineren prot. Kirchenparteien 69 f. Weingarten, Rev. Kirchen Englands

364 f. Möhler, Symbolik 492 f. Schaff, Creeds I 859-873. Herzog2 art.

Quäker.

All these individualistic generations paved the way for Deism. The realism of the English national character, the nominalism of Duns Scotus,

Roger Bacon and William of [125] Occam, the empiricist philosophy of Francis Bacon † 1626 had already prepared it. And when now in the 17th century the confusion in religious convictions was added, and all England was divided into parties and sects, in many the thought awoke that only in that which was common to all could the essence of religion be situated.

Latitudinarianism found acceptance and ran out into deism. The line of the deists was opened by Herbert of Cherbury † 1648, who in his work de veritate 1624 and de religione gentilium 1645 reduced the essence of religion to five truths: existence of God, veneration of God, virtue, repentance and retribution; but this original, true and pure religion has in all manner of ways been falsified by the priests. This was the program of deism. From there the struggle against revelation was now subsequently undertaken. Locke † 1704, The reasonableness of christianity 1695, assigned to reason the decision concerning revelation. John Toland † 1722,

Christianity not mysterious 1696, pronounced that Christianity contained

not only nothing against but also nothing above reason. Anton Collins † 1729, Discourse on freethinking 1713, recommended free, i.e. unbelieving, thinking. Thomas Woolston † 1731 wrote Discourses on the miracles of our saviour 1727-30 and attempted to explain these by allegory. M. Tindal †

1733, Christianity as old as creation 1730, set aside the whole of revelation.

Deism ended in skepticism with Henry Dodwell, Christianity not founded on argument 1742. And this skepticism was completed in the philosophical domain by D. Hume † 1776.

34. Around 1750 the decline of Reformed theology set in everywhere. The dissolving elements, already present in the previous century, continued to operate and undermined dogmatics. After Coccejanism had gained the victory in this country, from 1740 to 1770 came the period of the Tolerants.

The power of the truth was denied; from the confession one withdrew back to Scripture; distinctive Reformed doctrines, inherited guilt, covenant of works, particular satisfaction, etc., were abandoned; under fair form and biblical name all kinds of Remonstrant and Socinian errors arose. The confessors of the Reformed religion at most still acquiesce in what is present, but they no longer live in it and no longer speak out of it. The old

[126] dogmatics became an object of historical study. Prof. Bernh. de Moor wrote a Commentarius perpetuus in Marckii Compendium, 6 vol. Lugd. B.

1761-71, and Rev. Martinus Vitringa gave a commentary on the Doctrina Christ. religionis of his father Campegius Vitringa, under the title Doctrina

Christ. relig. per aphorismos summatim descripta, ed. sexta. Cui nunc accedit ὑποτυπωσις theologiae elencticae in usum scholarum domesticarum

Campegii Vitringae, curante Martino Vitringa, qui praefationem, prolegomena et adnotationes adjecit, nec non analysin v. cl. Theodori

Scheltingae, 9 partes, Amst. 1761. Among the few who with heart and soul

held fast to the old Reformed doctrine and defended it with talent and further developed it, Alex. Comrie † 1774, A. B. C. des geloofs 1739,

Eigengesch. des zaligm. geloofs 1744, Verklaring van den Catech. 1753, Brief over de rechtvaardigmaking 1761, cf. Dr. A. G. Honig, Alex. Comrie,

1892, Nic. Holtius † 1773, Verhandeling over de rechtv. door het geloof 1750, and J. J. Brahé, Aanmerkingen wegens de vijf Walch. art. 1758 occupy a first place. The first two in their Examen van het ontwerp van

Tolerantie, in 10 Samenspraken, Amst. 1753-59 took up the struggle against the Tolerants, among whom the Professors J. van den Honert, J. J. Schultens and Alberti especially had to suffer. Alongside them J. C. Appelius also still deserves to be mentioned, who is known through his struggle about the Lord's Supper, Zedig en vrijmoedig onderzoek, etc. 1763. Over het avondmaal 1764. Aanmerkingen over het rechte gebruik van het Evangelie.

Vervolg van de Aanmerkingen, etc. De Hervormde leer 1769.

But since 1770 the so-called neology increased more and more in influence. English deism, French unbelief, and German rationalism found here a fertile soil. The revolution was a total change in conceptions.

Orthodoxy was, in the form of a not rationalistic but rational, moderate, biblical supranaturalism, carried over into the 19th century, and as such had its principal representatives in P. Chevallier, Schema Institutionum theol.

1773-75. Br. Broes, Institut. Theol. theor. 1788. J. van Nuys Klinkenberg, Instruction in religion 12 parts 1780 v. Samuel van Emdre, Catechism of the H. Religion 1780. W. E. de Perponcher, Considerations. Religion 1790 etc., especially H. Muntinghe, Pars theologiae [127] christ. theoretica 1800. And likewise it went in other countries. France in the 18th century no longer had any proper Ref. theology. The revocation of the edict of Nantes banished the best forces outside the country. In the 18th century Paul Rabaut † 1794

and Antoine Court † 1760 acquired for themselves the honorary name of restorers of the Ref. church in France. The French ministers received their training mostly in Lausanne, where a special seminary had been established for the French students according to the plan of Antoine Court. In Switzerland the Consensus Helvetius 1675 could not check rationalism. J.

E. Wettstein and his son in Basel, J. C. Suicerus and his son Henricus in Zurich, Mestrezat and Louis Tronchin in Geneva raised objections against it, Schweizer, Centraldogmen II 663 v.; already in 1685 efforts were set in motion to set it aside, and in the 18th century these in Geneva, Basel,

Appenzell, Zurich, Bern etc. were crowned with good success. J. F.

Osterwald, minister at Neufchatel † 1747 forms the transition from 17thcentury orthodoxy to 18th-century rationalism. In his Traité des sources de la corruption, qui règne aujourd'hui parmi les Chrétiens 1700, Catéchisme

1702, Compendium theol. Christ. 1739 he complains about dead orthodoxy and the finely spun dogmata, he passes over many doctrines in silence, e.g. about election, and seeks revival of morality. With him J. A. Turretinus †

1737, Opera 3 vol. and S. Werenfels † 1740, Opuscula, ed. 2. 1739 formed the Swiss triumvirate. The moderate orthodoxy represented by them soon led to decided heterodoxy in J. J. Zimmermann † 1757. Opuscula 1751-59.

J. J. Lavater † 1759 art. Genève in the Dictionn. Encycl. of Diderot and d'Alembert, J. Vernet, Instruction Chrétienne 1754. The mathematical method of Wolf was applied to theology by D. Wyttenbach, Tentamen theol. dogm. methodo scientifica pertractata, 3 tomi 1747, J. F. Stapfer, Institut. theol....... ordine scientifico dispositae, 5 vol. 1743, Grundlegung zur wahren Religion Zurich 1751-52, Bernsau, later prof. at Franeker, Theol. dogmatica, methodo scientifica pertractata 1745-47, in Germany by Ferdinand Stosch † 1780, Summa paedagogiae scholasticae ad

praelectiones academicas in theologiam revel. dogm. 1770, Sam. Endemann prof. at Marburg Instit. theol. dogm. 1777 and Sam. Mursinna prof. at Halle, Compendium [128] theol. dogm. 1777. In England dogmatics was almost wholly taken up by the questions about prediction, miracle, and revelation, which had been placed on the agenda by deism. Although apologetics was often rationalistically colored, it nevertheless had many, and among them also some excellent, representatives, Samuel Clarke †

1729, Nathan Lardner † 1768, Joseph Butler † 1752, Richard Bentley, William Whiston, Arthur Ashley Sykes, Thomas Sherlock † 1761, Daniël

Waterland † 1742, John Coneybeare, John Leland, James Foster, William Warburton † 1779, Richard Watson † 1816, William Paley † 1805,

Evidences of Christianity 1794. Natural Theology 1802 etc. Among the dogmatic works that saw the light in this period, the principal ones are those of Hutchinson, of which an extract is given in A letter to a bishop concerning some important discoveries in philosophy and theology 1735; of Stackhouse † 1752, A complete body of speculative and practical divinity

1709, Dutch transl. 1758, Isaac Watts † 1748 known not only for his spiritual songs and logic but also for his catechism 1728, Philipp Doddridge

† 1751, Rise and progress of religion in the soul 1745, and others. Among the Scottish divines in the 18th century there come to the foreground

Thomas Boston † 1732, A complete body of divinity, 3 vol. 1773, Fourfold State, Dutch transl. 1742, A view of the covenant of grace, Dutch transl. by Comrie 1741; Adam Gib, and the first five Seceders, Fisher, Wilson,

Moncrieff and the brothers Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, whose works have also been translated into Dutch, new edition, Amst. 1856. Of importance was the so-called Marrow controversy, which began in 1717 on the occasion that the work of the Independent Edward Fisher, The marrow of

modern divinity, published in 1647, was again issued in Scotland. The neonomian struggle, which in the previous century had been fought in England, was thereby transplanted to Scotland. The book was attacked by Principal Hadow of St. Andrews in a work entitled The antinomianism of the marrow detected 1721. People accused the "Marrow divines," among whom Boston was the principal one, of antinomianism, but did not keep themselves free from neonomianism. The General Assembly condemned some propositions in the Marrow book as errors; which also gave occasion for the separation of the Erskine's, who had ranged themselves on [129] the side of Boston. Neonomianism was the preparation for rationalism, which gradually also penetrated into the theology and church of Scotland and in men such as Simpson, Mc. Laurin and others is already clearly noticeable,

Walker, The Theology and theol. of Scotland p. 25 v. 39 v. 53 v. James Buchanan, The doctrine of justification 1867 p. 182-188. Merle d'Aubigné,

Germany, England and Scotland, Rotterdam, 1849.

35. At the beginning of the 19th century Reformed theology was almost everywhere in a sad decline. In the form of supranaturalism theology was practised here by Van der Palm, Van Voorst, Borger, Clarisse, Kist, van

Hengel at Leiden, by Abresch, Chevallier, Muntinghe, Ypey at Groningen, Heringa, Royaards, Bouman, Vinke at Utrecht, by many capable and eminent ministers Dermout, Broes, Donker Curtius, van Senden, Egeling etc. and by many essayists in the Stolpian bequest 1756, Teyler's Society

1778 and the Hague Society 1787. This supranaturalist direction wanted to be rational, not rationalistic in the sense of Wegscheider, Röhr, Paulus; it maintained revelation and argued its necessity, possibility and truth on all kinds of rational and historical grounds. It wanted to be biblical and was anti-confessional, anti-philosophical, anti-Calvinistic; it acquired a

dogmatics which was deistic in theology, Pelagian in anthropology, moralistic in Christology, collegialist in ecclesiology, and eudaemonistic in eschatology. It was in the northern provinces of the country about 1835 replaced by the Groningen theology, which, in the footsteps of the Socratic philosophy of Van Heusde † 1839, replaced the idea of revelation and doctrine by that of education, and thus incorporated an ethical element in the relation of God and man. God was here not in the first place Teacher, but the great Educator, who through nature and history, through the person and the church of Christ, trained human beings as his children into wise and pious Christians, into God-likeness. The opposition which it experienced from orthodox, soon also from modern quarters, and the inner development into an Evangelical direction, made that it had to make way about 1850 for Modern Theology. This arose [130] with Opzoomer who became professor at Utrecht in 1845 and applied the empiricist philosophy of Mill and Comte to religion. He arrived at anti-supranaturalism. Scholten in his Leer der

Hervormde Kerk finally gave a modern dogmatics under Reformed flag.

And Kuenen appeared as advocate of evolution in the field of Old Testament Scripture. There was thus gradually a development in the theological field toward unbelief; modern theology no longer has any dogmatics. Over against these negative directions, however, in this century in our fatherland there arose the positive directions of the Réveil and the secession, of the Utrecht and the ethical-irenic school and finally of Calvinism, which strives also theologically to win a position of its own. See further my essay on the Gesch. der theol. in Nederland, Presb. and Ref.

Review April 1892, and Tijdschr. voor Geref. Theol. June and July 1894 p.

161 ff. and the literature indicated there. In Germany Reformed theology has declined further and further. The Reformed church had conquered a

broad territory in Germany. Its theology was practised in Heidelberg, Duisburg, Marburg, Frankfurt a/O, Herborn, Bremen, Halle. Thus it remained until the middle of the 18th century. But then came the Aufklärung, in 1817 the Union, subsequently the influence of the philosophy of Kant, Schleiermacher etc., and all these causes have brought the Reformed church and theology in Germany wholly to decline. To be sure, at the beginning of this century there came some awakening also of Reformed consciousness, with Krafft in Erlangen, G. D. Krummacher in Elberfeld, Geibel in Lübeck, Mallet in Bremen etc. But this was nevertheless not strong enough. Even men such as Ebrard † 1888 in Erlangen, Heppe † 1879 in Marburg have by their Melanchthonianism inflicted great damage on the Reformed cause. Only Wichelhaus † 1858 in Halle, Karl Südhoff † 1865 in Frankfurt a/M., Böhl in Vienna, Dr. A. Zahn in Stuttgart, O. Thelemann in Detmold, Kohlbrugge † 1875 in Elberfeld e. a. took their stand decisively on the foundation of the Reformed confession.

At present there is in Germany not a single theological university or school, and not a single theological professor of Reformed confession any more, A.

Zahn, Die Ursachen des Niederganges der ref. Kirche in Deutschl. Barmen 1881. Id. Abriss einer Gesch. der ev. Kirche auf dem europ. Festlande im 19

Jahrh. Stuttgart 3e Aufl. 1893, 12tes Kapitel. [131] 36. In Switzerland and France there came a revival through the Réveil, which was transplanted there from Scotland. The Réveil, (cf. Wagenaar, Het reveil en de afscheiding, who gives litt. on p. 40. H. von der Goltz, Die reform. Kirche Genfs im 19. Jahrh. Bazel u. Genf 1862. Léon Maury, Le réveil religieux dans l'église réformée à Genève et en France, Paris,

Fischbacher 2 vol. 1892. W. van Oosterwijk Bruijn, Het Reveil in Nederland, Utrecht 1890. Pierson, Oudere Tijdgenooten 1888) was a

powerful, spiritual movement, but was from the outset unecclesiastical and anti-confessional. It took its stand on a general-Christian foundation and was further characterized by its individualistic, aristocratic, methodistic, and philanthropic character. In Switzerland it laid emphasis especially on two dogmas, election (Cesar Malan † 1864. Biography by Malan Jr. Amst.

Höveker 1874) and inspiration (Merle d'Aubigné † 1872. Gaussen † 1863).

But Alexander Vinet 1797-1847, who in 1822/'23 came under the influence of the Réveil, proceeded theologically from another idea. The vital principle of his faith and his theology was the harmony of Christianity and conscience. Thereby he was led to urge so strongly the connection of dogma and morality, the ethical side of truth; thereby he came to his synergism and to rejection of election etc. Vinet, however, held fast to the principal truths of Christianity to the end, Dr. J. Cramer, Alex. Vinet as christ. moralist and apologist portrayed and appreciated, Leiden, Brill 1883, and the litt. cited there on p. 6. Much further, however, went his pupil E.

Scherer, who was at first strictly orthodox but gradually broke with his past, and ended his life in complete unbelief. Since then there arose in France and Switzerland a liberal Protestantism, Pécaut Le Christ et la conscience,

Paris 1859, Martin-Paschoud, Réville; Cougnard, Buisson. Thus there stood two directions, a liberal and an evangelical, over against each other. But within the latter the principles of Vinet continued to operate, later still supported by the influence of Ritschl. There are now three directions to be distinguished: a liberal or left side, Bouvier in Geneva; a mediating direction, Pressensé, Astié, Sécrétan, Sabatier, Leopold Monod, Chapuis,

Dandiran, Lobstein; and an evangelical, moderately orthodox, Godet father and son, Porret, Berthoud, Martin, Doumergue, Bertrand, [132] H. Bois,

Gretillat. The struggle between these two directions now runs especially

over two questions. The one concerns authority in matters of religion, namely whether this lies in Scripture, in Christ, or in reason and conscience.

The second concerns the person of Christ, namely whether he is truly God or has emptied himself through kenosis or is also only a man, differing from us in degree, cf. Gretillat in The Presb. and Ref. Review, July 1892 and July

1893.

37. An overview of theology in England and Scotland is given by Pfleiderer, Die Entw. der prot. Theol. in Deutschl. seit Kant u. in Grossbritt. seit 1825, Freiburg 1891, S. 386 f. Ad. Zahn, Abriss einer Gesch. der ev.

Kirche im britischen Weltreich im 19 Jahrh. Stuttgart 1891. Dr. Carl Clemen, Der gegenwärtige Stand des relig. Denkens in Grossbrittannie,

Stud. u. Krit. 1892, 3tes Heft S. 513-548. G. Elliott, Bilder aus dem kirchl.

Leben Englands, Leipzig Akad. Buchhandlung. G. d'Alviella, L'évolution relig. chez les Anglais, les Americains et les Hindous 1884. Walker, Present theological drifts in Scotland, Presb. and Ref. Rev. Jan. 1893. Religious

England, as we know it today, is a work of Methodism. John Wesley 17031791 was not a scholarly theologian, but a powerful preacher, who individualized the gospel, and made it a question of life for every human being cf. J. Wedgwood, John Wesley and the evangelical reaction of the eighteenth century 1870. The Methodism that arose through him and George Whitefield 1714-1771 was not in the first place a deviation from one or another of the 39 articles, but it concentrated the whole truth of religion around two centers, namely around the sudden, conscious experience of guilt and grace, i.e. around personal conversion, and secondly around the revelation of that new life in an entirely new form, consisting in this, that one went out to convert others, abstained from various adiaphora and held Christian perfection to be attainable already in this life. This one-

sidedness led to the result that gradually various dogmas were contested, modified, or regarded as of subordinate value; cf. on Methodism the art. by Schoell in Herzog2. Saussaye, Godsd. Bewegingen 109 v. Möhler,

Symbolik § 75-76. Schneckenburger, Vorles. über die Lehrbegriffe der kleineren prot. Kirchenparteien [133] 1863 S. 103-151. Kolde, der

Methodismus u. seine Bekämpfung, Erlangen 1886. Id. Die Heilsarmee ib.

1885, holl. vert. van Dr. A. W. Bronsveld. Methodism has exercised an incalculable influence, on Independents, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans;

Wesley has been the re-creator of English and American Protestantism, the revivals have since then no longer departed from the Prot. churches, he was the Archbishop of the Slums, the father of the inner mission, the founder of Christian socialism. Methodism, however, was in the main limited to the people. In the higher circles, in politics, philosophy, letters, cold liberalism remained dominant. Against that there came reaction through romanticism,

(W. Scott, Southey, S. T. Coleridge † 1834), which on ecclesiastical and theological terrain was transplanted into the Oxford movement. This movement has considerably strengthened the high-church party, which had already existed from the 16th century onward, and has powerfully promoted

Roman doctrine and rite in the Anglican church. Cf. art. Traktarianismus in Herzog2. The writers too of Lux Mundi 1890, Canon Holland, Moore,

Illingworth, Talbot, C. Gore e. a. attempted to renew Puseyism and to make the Christian dogmas plausible, by placing them in the light of the more recent time. Alongside the high-church party the broad-church party has appeared, which was already prepared in the 17th and 18th century by Latitudinarianism, and in this century received excellent representatives in Thomas Arnold † 1842, Hampden † 1868, F. D. Maurice † 1872, Ch.

Kingsley † 1874, Whately † 1863, F. W. Robertson † 1853, A. P. Stanley †

1881. Averse to the Methodism of the low-church party, they all have in serious and noble manner striven for a reconciliation of Christianity and culture. The church, according to their conviction, had to become an educational school of the people; religion had to reconcile itself with all that is true, good and beautiful, wherever it might be found; and Christianity had above all to reveal its power in the moral renewal of society. This broad, tolerant standpoint found more and more assent. The rise and progress of ritualism, the manifold sects and directions, the distress of the lower society and especially also the Higher Criticism, which already with bishop

Colenso made its entry into the English world, and then by Rob. Smith, T.

K. Cheyne, S. R. Driver was propagated [134], have secured for the broadchurch direction the upper hand. One of the principal spokesmen in the present time is F. W. Farrar, dean of Westminster Abbey. But by no means only in, also far outside the Established Church this broad standpoint is now taken up by many. Among the principal spokesmen belong now the Baptist

J. Clifford; the Congregationalists E. W. Dale, The old Evangelicalism and the new 1889, Dr. Joseph Parker in London, Dr. Fairbairn of Mansfield

College, The place of Christ in modern theology, cf. Theol. Stud. van Dr.

Daubanton, May, June 1894; the Presbyterians Prof. Henry Drummond, The natural law in the spiritual world, Summum bonum etc. Marcus Dods, A. B.

Bruce, Apologetics, or Christianity defensively stated, Edinburgh Clark 1892. James Lindsay, The progressiveness of modern Christian thought,

Edinb. Blackwood 1892. Horton, Inspiration and the Bible Rev. J. B. Heard, Alexandrinian and Carthaginian Theology Edinb. Clark, Hulsean lectures,

Prof. Edw. Caird, The evolution of religion, 2 vol., James Orr, The Christian view of God and the world, as centring in the incarnation, Edinb. Elliot.

1893, cf. my essay, Theol. Stud. van Dr. Daubanton 1894. And furthermore

also Flint, Milligan, Gloag in the Establ. Church of Scotland, Brown, Rainy, Davidson, Salmond, Laidlaw, G. A. Smith, in the Free Church, Cairns,

Muir, Thomson, J. Smith in the United Presbyt. etc. Besides by its christological point of departure, which concentrates everything around the incarnation, this direction is further characterized by its unifying tendency.

The ecclesiastical differences are erased or presented as of slight significance; practically one works together with men of every church and direction; and theoretically many even strive for union of all Protestant churches, as e.g. J. Clifford. W. T. Stead certainly goes the farthest, when he hopes for a "church of the future" that will lead the whole social reform, take up into itself the whole culture, even up to the theaters, and will encompass all people. Often there then also goes together with this the hope for a restoration of all things on the other side of the grave; see from the rich literature only The wider Hope, Essays and Strictures on the doctrine and literature of future punishment by numerous writers, lay and clerical,

London, Fisher Unwin 1890. Strict Calvinism is losing ground by the day.

[135] Here and there it is still maintained, in the Scottish Highlands, in Wales etc., but of a scholarly cultivation and defense there is no longer any question. By contrast, the doctrine of evolution is spreading in England by the day. After Deism had already subjected the miracles, the prophecies and revelation to a formidable criticism, under the influence of the doctrine of descent of Darwin, the agnosticism of Spencer, the empiricism of Stuart

Mill and the materialism of Tyndal, Huxley, Evolution and ethics 1893 cf.

Tijdspiegel, April 1894 this religious process of dissolution has continued still further. The criticism of the Christian dogmas received an unexpected, strong support from Edwin Hatch, The organisation of the early christ. churches 1881, The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the christ.

church, Hibbert lectures 1888, who, just as already Hampden before him in his The scholastic philosophy in relation to christ. theology 1832, explained the dogmas from the connection of pagan philosophy with original

Christianity. Unitarianism, which in 1773 founded its first congregation and now in James Martineau, A study of religion, its sources and contents 1888,

The seat of authority in religion 1890 possesses an excellent spokesman, is gradually gaining in influence. Many have even broken entirely with Christianity, G. Eliott, Ch. Bradlaugh, A. Besant, W. St. Ross, Morley, J. C.

Morison, cf. Ch. Bradlaugh, A. Besant and Ch. Watts, The freethinkers textbook 1876; and seek their religious satisfaction in Buddhist theosophy

(Mevr. Blavatzky, A. Besant), in morality (M. Arnold, Literature and dogma 1873, God and the Bible 1875, who defined religion as morality touched with emotion and God as the eternal power, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness), or in a society for ethical culture, (founded 1876 in America, 1886 in England. W. M. Salter, Die Religion der Moral, deutsch von G. von Gizycki, Leipzig 1885) or even in Mohammedanism, for which in 1891 in Liverpool a mosque was opened.

38. For the history of dogmatics in America one may consult, inter alia, Encyclopedia of living divines and Christian Workers of all denominations in Europe and America. Being a supplement to Schaff-Herzog,

Encyclopedia of religious knowledge. [136] Edited by Rev. Ph. Schaff and Rev. S. M. Jackson, New-York 1887. Adolf Zahn, Abriss einer Gesch. der

Evang. Kirche in Amerika im 19 Jahrh. Stuttgart 1889. Fr. Nippold, Amerik.

Kirchengeschichte seit der Unabhängigkeitserklärung der Ver. Staaten, Berlin 1892. All churches have been successively transplanted into America and Canada from England and other countries of Europe. The Episcopal church is the oldest and richest and dates already from the immigration into

Virginia in 1607. The Dutch Reformed Church has been established there since the discovery of the Hudson and of Manhattan Island 1609. The Independents or Congregationalists first landed at Plymouth 1620. The Quakers were led by William Penn in 1680 to Pennsylvania. The Baptists gained a firm footing in America on Rhode Island through Roger Williams

1639. The Methodists found entrance there through Wesley 1735 and Whitefield 1738. The German churches, both the Lutheran and the Reformed, were established there since the middle of the previous century.

The Presbyterian churches are divided there into different groups. A sketch of the Presbyt. theology is given by Prof. Schaff in his Theological

Propaedeutic, 2 parts, New-York 1892 '93, II p. 374-405, and in The Independent, New-York vol. 45 No. 2321, 2324, 2329 and 2330. For Congregationalism see Congregationalists in America, ed. by Dr. Albert E.

Dunning, New-York, Hill and Co. 1894. Almost all these churches and directions in churches were of Calvinistic origin. Of all religious movements Calvinism has been the most powerful in America. It is not limited to one or another church, but under all kinds of modification is the animating element in the Congregat. Bapt. Presbyt. Holl. and German

Reformed churches etc. From all sides it was brought into America, from England, Scotland, France, Holland, Germany. It formed the character of New-England during the colonial period 1620-1776. One must, however, distinguish between the Puritan Calvinism, which came especially from England and found entrance in New-England, and the Presbyterian

Calvinism, which from Scotland was introduced into the Southern, Middle and Western States. Both forms of Calvinism had as basis the Westminster confession of 1647, but in both there soon also arose a struggle between an old and a new school. The first and principal theologian of New-England

[137] was Jonathan Edwards 1703-1758, art. in Herzog2, biography by Prof. A. V. G. Allen, at Houghton, Miffin and Comp. New-York, 1st part of American religious leaders. His works have been published in 4 parts at New-York, Carter and Brothers 1881. He combined deep metaphysical power of thought with a serious piety. In 1734, still before the coming of Wesley into America, there took place in his congregation at Northampton a remarkable awakening; and later he, with his friend Whitefield, has repeatedly led and defended such revivals. Theologically he waged the struggle especially against Arminianism, which penetrated into NewEngland through the writings of Daniel Whitby and John Taylor. He attempted to strengthen Calvinism by his metaphysical and ethical speculations, but has nevertheless in fact weakened it by his distinction of natural and moral inability. He became the father of the Edwardians, NewTheology Men, New-Lights, as they are called, who indeed maintained the Calvinistic doctrine of God's sovereignty and election, but united therewith the rejection of inherited guilt and the universality of the atonement, just as the Saumur theologians did in France. His son Jonathan Edwards 17451801 in the doctrine of satisfaction in essence advanced the theory of Grotius. Samuel Hopkins, a pupil of Edwards 1721-1803, whose works in 1852 at Boston were published by Prof. Park of Andover, wrote a system of theology, in which he reproduced the system of Edwards and especially elaborated the disinterested love to God in the sense of Fénélon and Madame Guyon. Nathaniel Emmons 1745-1840, Works, Boston 1842 was one of the principal defenders of Hopkinsianism. With Timothy Dwight

1752-1817, Nathaniel W. Taylor 1786-1858 the system of Edwards was modified in a Pelagian sense. And in the present time at Andover, under the leadership of Dr. Egbert C. Smyth, prof. in church history, it led to the

defense of a progressive orthodoxy and to the doctrine of the future probation. The Old School in the theology of New-England was especially represented by Dr. Bennet Tyler 1783-1858, and Dr. Leonard Woods 17741854, who defended the old Calvinism. Puritanism, however, has more and more abandoned the standards of Dordrecht and Westminster. At the synod of the Congregat. [138] churches in America, at St. Louis 1880, a new confession of 12 articles was prepared, in which the characteristic

Reformed doctrines have been omitted.

39. Theology in the Presbyt. churches in America has had a parallel course. Here too a schism arose not only among the theologians, between the Old Lights and the New Lights, but also in the churches between the Synod of Philadelphia and New-York 1741-1758. One of the first theologians was John Dickinson 1688-1747, whose principal work is a defence of the five articles against the Remonstrants. The Old School found support especially in Princeton college, founded 1812, and was represented there by Dr. Archibald Alexander 1772-1851, Dr. Charles Hodge 17971878, Systematic Theology London and Edinb. Nelson 1873 3 vol. and his son and successor Archibald Alexander Hodge 1823-1886, Outlines of Theology, ed. by W. H. Goold. London, Nelson 1866. Evangelical

Theology, ib. 1890. The so-called Princeton Theology is in the main a reproduction of the Calvinism of the 17th century, as it is set down in the Westminster confession and the Consensus Helveticus and especially worked out by F. Turretinus in his Theol. Elenctica. The same system is also advocated by the Southern theologians James H. Thornwell 1812-1862,

Robert J. Breckinridge 1800-1871 and Robert L. Dabney. One of the youngest representatives of the Old School is W. G. T. Shedd, since 1890 emeritus professor of Union Seminary at New-York, Dogmatic Theology, 2

vol. New-York, Scribner 1888. Between Hodge and Shedd, however, there is a remarkable difference. The first is federalist and creationist, the second is realist and traducianist. Both, however, again agree in this, that they construe election very broadly and include under it also all children dying in infancy. The New Lights deviated from the Old School, apart from the authority of the general synod, the revivals, the union with the congregationalists etc., especially also in the matter of inherited guilt and the particular satisfaction, to which later have also been added the inspiration of the H. Scripture and eschatology. Representatives of this new direction were Albert Barnes 1798-1870, Lyman Beecher 1775-1863 and Thomas H. Skinner 1791-1871, who, however, none of the three have left behind a theol. system. [139] Barnes and Beecher were accused of heresy but acquitted. Yet it again came to a schism in the churches in 1837, when the Old School obtained the majority in the General Synod and cut off four synods from the communion. In 1869, however, they were again united, especially through the influence of the Union Theol. Seminary at NewYork, founded in 1836. Here dogmatics was taught by Dr. Henry B. Smith

1815-1877, System of Christian Theology, ed. by W. S. Karr, 4 ed. NewYork Armstrong 1890, who sought a mediation between Old and New

School in the Christocentric standpoint. One of his pupils, Lewis French Stearns † 1892 wrote Present day Theology, and therein advocates all the newer ideas about inspiration, providence, kenosis, praedestination, salvation. Another Professor in Union Seminary, Dr. Charles Briggs, was in 1892 accused of heterodoxy, because he holds reason to be a source, accepts errors in Scripture, recognizes the Higher Criticism, The Bible, the Church and the reason; Messianic prophecy; Inspiration and inerrancy etc., and in 1893 was condemned by the General Assembly. But with that the crisis is

not over. The Reformed churches in America are living through a difficult time. The dogmas of the infallibility of the H. Scripture, of the Trinity, of the fall and the impotence of man, of the particular satisfaction, of election and reprobation etc. are secretly denied or openly contested. The revision question is indeed temporarily off the track in the Presbyt. church, but will probably come up again. The present seems not to be favourable for the flourishing of Reformed theology, cf. my essay The future of Calvinism,

Presb. and Ref. Review Jan. 1894.

CHAPTER I. Principia in General.

Monergism Books

↑ Back to top