Chapter 1

reference to the former question. Also Dr. W. Klose examined the original MS. in the Hamburg library, and published an account of it, with considerable extracts, in several of the numbers of the same journal, Niedner’s _Zeitschrift_, 1850, (part iv; 1851, part iv; 1852, part iii.) It is in the preface (_Vorbericht_) to the first of these parts that the account of Reimarus’s own mental history is given, to which allusion was made in the text of Lecture VI. (p. 225.)

During the last year the question has been made the subject of a monograph by the celebrated Strauss. He had heard of the existence of a copy of the original MS. in private hands at Hamburg, and proceeded to collate it with the view of publication. He found it to differ in some respects from the Fragments published by Lessing and Schmidt. He did not consider the hitherto unpublished parts of the work sufficiently important, either in a literary or historical point of view, to merit publication _in extenso_; but contented himself with stating the results of his study of it in a small work, _H. S. Reimarus und seine Schutz-Schrift, &c._ 1861. It contains a brief account of the literary question of the Fragments, and of Reimarus’s life and stand-point; also an analysis of the unpublished parts of the work, written with the clearness which characterises all Strauss’s didactic works. It would appear from the analysis that the pieces printed by Lessing were not only some of the ablest, but some of the least offensive of the whole work. The concluding pages contain some very interesting remarks, in which Strauss contrasts the criticism of the eighteenth century with that of the present day; the characteristics of the former being, that it charges imposture on the scripture writers; that of the latter, that it admits their honesty, but explains away their statements and opinions by reference to psychological and historical phenomena.

In addition to the sources given above, information is contained in the following works: Schröckh’s _Christ Kirchengesch._ vi. 275; Schlosser’s _History of the Eighteenth Century_, E. T. vol. ii. 266 seq.; Hagenbach’s _Dogmengeschichte_, § 275 _notes_, (where reference is made to Guhrauer’s _Bodin’s Heptaplomeres_, 1841, p. 257 seq.); _Conversations-Lexicon_, art. _Reimarus_; Amand Saintes’ _History of Rationalism_, E. T. p. 84; Kahnis, _Id._ p. 145 seq.; K. Schwarz, _Lessing als Theolog_, of which ch. iv. is on the _Fragmenten-streit_; Strauss’s _Kleine Schriften_, 1861; Lessing’s _Werke_, xii. 508. (ed. Lachmann.)

Note 30. p. 242. Schleiermacher’s Early Studies.

It may be interesting to trace more fully the parallel noticed in the text between the development of Plato’s thoughts and Schleiermacher’s early studies.

Though it is impossible to arrange the dialogues of Plato in the chronological order in which they were composed, so as to be able to study the master in his successive styles, yet several systems of arrangement, founded on different principles, seem to coincide so far as to render it probable that Plato’s great theory of ideas or forms grew upon him through these stages: viz. (1) it was viewed as a fact of mind, an innate conception of forms (e.g. in Meno); (2) as useful in guiding perplexed minds to truth, and sifting philosophical doctrines by means of the dialectical process, e.g. in the Theætetus and Parmenides; (3) as representing an objective reality, a true cause in nature external to the mind, as well as an hypothesis in science (e.g. in the Republic); (4) as having a mystical connexion with divinity, and furnishing a cosmogony, Whether this passage, from the subjective conception to the objective reality, be really or only logically the order of development in Plato’s ideal theory, it is clear that the growth of Schleiermacher’s mind admits of comparison with this supposed order of development in Plato; though there is a slight variation in the steps of the process. Schleiermacher went through three stages, (1) the philosophy of Jacobi, (2) of Fichte, and probably (3) of Schelling; from which he learned respectively, (1) to have faith in our intuitions, (2) to construe the outward by the inward, (3) to believe in the power of the mind to pass beyond the inward, and apprehend absolute truth. If the resemblance to the above account of Plato were exactly perfect, the love of a philosophy like Fichte’s ought to have preceded that of Jacobi. Schelling’s influence, it ought to be noted, is very slight on Schleiermacher, compared with that of the others. The traces of it which appear are perhaps resolvable into a similarity to Jacobi’s system.

Note 31. p. 244. Schleiermacher’s Theological Works.

The theological works of Schleiermacher are doctrinal, critical, and pastoral. The latter consist chiefly of the sermons which he delivered in Berlin. The critical works are mentioned in a footnote to p. 248; but it may be useful to give a brief notice of his doctrinal works, of which some are referred to in the text.

The earliest was the _Reden über die Religion an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern_, 1799, (Discourses on Religion addressed to the educated among its despisers,) which ought not to be read in earlier editions than the fourth (1829), the notes of which contain explanations. The object of these discourses was to direct attention away from the study of religion in its outward manifestations, to its inward essence; which he showed to lie neither in knowledge nor in action, but in feeling. See especially Discourse II. _Uber das Wesen der Religion_. For the effect which the discourses created, see Neanders testimony, quoted by Kahnis, _Hist. of Prot._ E. T. p. 208.

The works which succeeded the _Reden_ were the following: in 1800, the _Monologen_ (Soliloquies); in 1803, _Grundlinien einer Kritik der bisherigen Sittenlehre_ (Critique on previous Ethical teaching); in 1806, _Die Weinachtsfeier_ (Christmas Eve); in 1811, the _Kurze Darstellung des Theologischen Studiums_ (Plan of Theological Study;—lately translated), which gave rise to the branch now common in German universities, called _Theologische Encyclopädie_;(1068) in 1821, _Der Christliche Glaube nach den Grundsätzen der Evangelischen Kirche_ (the Christian Faith on the principles of the Evangelical Church), which was improved in the subsequent editions.

As the _Reden_ breathed the spirit of Jacobi, the _Monologen_ breathed that of Fichte. They study the ethical, as the former the religious side of man; the action of the personal will as distinct from the feelings of dependence. The dialogue of the _Weihnachtsfeier_ showed Christ as the means of effecting that oneness with the absolute which the two former works had shown to be necessary.

In the _Glaubens-lehre_, Schleiermacher gives a general view of dogmatic theology, viewed from the psychological side, i.e. its appropriation by the Christian consciousness. He studies (1) man’s consciousness of God, prior to experience of the opposition of sin and grace; next, after being aware of such an opposition, as (2) the subject of sin, and (3) the subject of grace; or, in theological language, the states of innocence, of sin, and of grace. Each of these is subdivided in spirit, even when not in form, in a threefold manner; describing respectively the condition of man, the attributes of God, and the constitution of the world, as they relate to the above three named states. The subjective and psychological character of the inquiry is seen in the fact, that when treating the second of these subdivisions,—the Divine attributes,—he does not study them as peculiarities of God’s nature, but as modifications of the mode in which we refer to God our own feeling of dependence. This subjective tendency illustrates the influence of Fichte and Jacobi on Schleiemiacher.

The contrast is an interesting one between a dogmatic treatise of the schoolmen, of the reformers, and of Schleiermacher. The first commences with the Deity and his attributes, and passes to man: the second generally begins with the rule of faith, the Bible; and then, passing to the Deity, proceeds mainly after the scholastic fashion: the third begins and ends with the human consciousness, and its contents.

Note 32. p. 252. On Some German Critical Theologians. (de Wette, Ewald, Etc.)

Some of the theologians of the critical school which is described in the text, deserve a more full notice than was possible in the foot-notes to the Lecture.

De Wette (1780-1849) was educated at Jena, under Griesbach. He was made Professor at Berlin in 1810, but was deprived in 1819, in consequence of the Prussian government having opened a letter of condolence written by him to the mother of Sand, the assassin of the dramatist Kotzebue. (For the history of the excited state of the German students at this time, see K. Raumer’s _Pädagogik_, vol. iv. translated.) In 1826 he was made Professor at Basle. An interesting life of him is given in the _Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1850. His most important works are, his _Einleitung ins Alt. und Neu. Test.; Lehrbuch der Dogmatik_, 1819; his New Translation of the Bible (1839); and Commentaries on several parts of Scripture. On his doctrinal views see Kahnis, p. 231 seq. He is said to have been a man of sweet and amiable character; and indeed he appears to be so in his writings. It has been remarked, as a proof of his singular fairness, that he not only candidly states the opinions of an opponent, but even sometimes confesses his inability fully to refute them.

Along with De Wette ought to be classed a great number of distinguished men, most of whom wrote parts of the Commentary which he designed under the name of _Exegetisches Handbuch_. They were mostly critics rather than writers on doctrine, and represent the modified state of thought of his later life; but still maintain, for the most part, his critical stand-point in reference to the scriptures; and therefore, though contemporary with the new Tübingen and other schools described in Lecture VII, which have arisen since Strauss’s criticism, in that which we called the third period of our sketch, they really belong to the school of critics of the older or second period. Such are, or were, Gesenius, Knobel, Hirzel, Hitzig, Credner, Tuch, E. Meier, Hupfeld, and Stühelin. See Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. xi.

H. Ewald, born 1803, became Professor at Göttingen 1831. In 1837 he was one of the seven professors who sacrificed their position when the new king of Hanover, Ernest, interfered with the constitution. From 1838 to 1848 he was professor at Tübingen: since 1848 at Göttingen. His works are partly on the oriental languages, and partly on theology. Among the latter the chief are, _Die Poetischen Bücher des Alten Test._, 1835; _Die Propheten des Alten Bundes_, 1840; and the _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, 1842-50; a work which, whatever may be thought of the theological aspects of it, if regarded in respect of scholarship, poetic appreciation, and grandeur of generalization, is one of the most remarkable books ever produced even in Germany. (Renan has based upon it the most brilliant of his essays, ess. ii. in the _Etudes d’Hist. Religieuse_.) His works on the New Testament are partly directed against the views of the new Tübingen school. He differs from the older critical school of De Wette, in applying himself more exclusively to the Semitic literature; and cannot be classed with them in any other way than that he represents the effort of independent criticism, linguistic and historic; removed from the dogmatic school, and also from the later forms of critical.

Note 33. p. 255. The Name Jehovah.

The name יהוה is written _Jehovah_, by transferring to it the vowel points of the word _Adonai_, אדני, which the pious scruples of the Jews led them to substitute for it. It was probably read _Yahveh_. In reference to the meaning of _El_, and _Jehovah_, see Gesenius’s _Lexicon_ on the words אל (p. 45. Engl. Transl.), and יהוה (p. 337); also the word _hajah_, היה, (p. 221.) See likewise Hengstenberg’s _Authentie. des Pentateuches_, i. 222 seq.; especially p. 230, where he shows that _jahveh_, יהוה, is derived by regular analogy from the future of the verb _hajah_, היה ( = _havah_, היה). See also M. Nicholas’s _Etudes Crit. sur la Bible_, pp. 115, 163; and the article _Jehovah_ in Smith’s _Biblical Dictionary_.

Note 34. p. 256. The Use Of The Names Of Deity In The Composition Of Hebrew Proper Names.

A curious list of these is given by Dr. Donaldson. (_Christian Orthodoxy_, pp. 235, 6.)

Examples of names before the age of Saul, compounded with _El_, are seen in _El_-kanah, _El_-i, Samu-_el_, Abi-_el_. When Saul reigns we find the name Jah or Jehovah appear, in _Jeho_-nathan, Ahi-_jah_, Jedid-_iah_; and during the regal period in the list of kings, Jos-_iah_, _Jeho_-abaz, _Jeho_-i-akim, Zedek-_iah_; and among the prophets, Isa-_iah_, Jerem-_iah_, Mica-_iah_, _Jeho_-sheah. After the fall of Judah we find the name El reappear; e.g. Ezeki-_el_ ( = Hezek-_iah_), Dani-_el_, Micha-_el_, Gabri-_el_, _El_-iashib, Shealti-_el_. After the captivity the name Jah recurs; e.g. Nehem-_iah_, Zephan-_iah_, Zechar-_iah_, Malach-_iah_. The name _El_-i-_jah_ ( = my God is Jah) is an instance of a word compounded with both names.

Donaldson tries to generalize from the above to the effect, that, previously to the age of the early kings, proper names compounded with _El_ were prevalent; and in the regal and prophetic age, those compounded with _Jah_; again, after the fall of Judah, and in the captivity, those with _El_; and after the captivity, with _Jah_. But the selection is too limited to admit of such a generalization being satisfactory. It does however prove the knowledge of the twofold conception implied by the use of the names.

Lecture VII.

Note 35. p. 264. The Hegelian Philosophy.

The purpose of this note is to supply references to sources for the study of Hegel’s philosophy; and also to point out the parallel and contrast in the central thought and tendency of the philosophies of Schelling and Hegel.

The most intelligible account of Hegel’s system is given by Morell, _History of Philosophy_, ii. 161-196; and the best general view of its tendencies, especially in reference to theology, is contained in an instructive article by E. Scherer, in the _Rev. des Deux Mondes_ for Feb. 15, 1861, from which assistance has been derived in this lecture. The student will also find great help in Chalybaüs’s _Hist. of Spec. Philos._ ch. xi-xvii (translated 1854); and A. Véra’s _Introduction à la Phil. de Hegel_, 1855; together with his French translation of Hegel’s _Logic_. (Véra is one of the few Italians who understand Hegel.) The _Philosophie der Geschichte_, and _Geschichte der Philosophie_ are the two most intelligible of Hegel’s works; the former of which is translated into English; but the study of his _Logic_ is indispensable, for seeing the applications of his method, as well as for appreciating his metaphysical ability and real position.

Schelling and Hegel both seek to solve the problems of philosophy, by starting _à priori_ with the idea of the absolute; but in Schelling’s case it is perceived by a _presentative_ power (intellectual intuition), and in Hegel’s by a _representative_. The former faculty perceives the absolute object; the latter the absolute relation, if such a term be not a contradiction. In each case the percipient power is supposed to be “above consciousness;” i.e. not trammelled by those limitations of object and subject which are the conditions of ordinary consciousness. In both systems a kind of threefold process is depicted, as the law or movement according to which the absolute manifests itself.(1069) Sir W. Hamilton has shown the inconsistencies of Schelling’s system, in criticising that of Cousin, who was his great exponent; see _Dissertations_, ess. i. (reprinted from the _Edinburgh Review_, 1829); and Mr. Mansel has extended a similar analysis to Fichte and Hegel. (_Bampton Lectures_, ii. and iii; and article _Metaphysic_ in _Encyclop. Britann._ 10th ed. p. 607, &c. See also Rémusat _De la Philosophie Allemande_, Introduction.) Yet a grand thought, even though, psychologically speaking, it be an unreal one, lies beneath the awkward terminology of the systems of Schelling and Hegel; and their _method_ has influenced many who do not consciously embrace their philosophy. The effect produced by Schelling is the desire to seize the prime idea, the _beau idéal_ of any subject, and trace its manifestations in the field of history; a method which is seen in the French historic and critical literature of the followers of Cousin in the reign of Louis Philippe. (See Note 9, and the references given in Note 44.) The spirit produced by Hegel, is the desire to realise the truth contained in opposite views of the same subject; to view each as a half truth, and error itself as a part of the struggle toward truth. This spirit and method are seen in such a writer as Renan, and is clearly described in the passages quoted from Scherer and others in Note 9.

Note 36. p. 271. The Christology Of Strauss.

The following extract from Strauss’s work conveys his Christology.

“This is the key to the whole of Christology, that, as subject of the predicate which the church assigns to Christ, we place instead of an individual, an idea; but an idea which has an existence in reality, not in the mind only, like that of Kant. In an individual, a God-man, the properties and functions which the church ascribes to Christ contradict themselves; in the idea of the race they perfectly agree. Humanity is the union of the two natures;—God become man; the infinite manifesting itself in the finite, and the finite spirit remembering its infinitude: it is the child of the visible mother and the invisible father, Nature and Spirit: it is the worker of miracles, in so far as in the course of human history the spirit more and more completely subjugates nature, both within and around man, until it lies before him as the inert matter on which he exercises his active power: it is the sinless existence, for the course of its development is a blameless one, pollution cleaves to the individual only, and does not touch the race or its history. It is Humanity that dies, rises, and ascends to heaven; for, from the negation of its phenomenal life, there ever proceeds a higher spiritual life; from the suppression of its mortality as a personal, rational, and terrestrial spirit, arises its union with the infinite spirit of the heavens. By faith in this Christ, especially in his death and resurrection, man is justified before God; that is, by the kindling within him of the idea of humanity, the individual man participates in the divinely human life of the species. Now the main element of that idea is, that the negation of the merely natural and sensual life, which is itself the negation of the spirit, is the sole way to true spiritual life. This alone is the absolute sense of Christology. That it is annexed to the person and history of one individual is a necessary result of the historical form which Christology has taken.” _Leben Jesu_, vol. ii. § 151. (pp. 709, 10. 4th ed. 1840); in the English translation, vol. iii. p. 433.

Note 37. p. 278. Strauss.

A few facts concerning the life and writings of Strauss may be interesting.

He was born in 1808, and was educated at Tübingen and Berlin. He was _Repetiteur_ at Tübingen in 1835, when he published his _Leben Jesu_, described in the text of Lect. VII. In 1837 he published his _Streit-schriften_, or replies to his critics. In 1839 he was elected Professor of theology at Zurich, an appointment which produced such popular indignation that it was cancelled, and a change of government was caused by it. In 1840 he published _Die Christliche Glaubenslehre im Kampfe mil der modernen Wissenschaft dargestellt_; in which, after an introduction concerning the history of opinions on the relation of the two, he discussed the principles of Christian doctrine, such as the Bible, Canon, Evidences, &c. and next the doctrines themselves; viz. (part i.) on the divine Being and His attributes, as an abstract conception; (part ii.) on the same, as the object of empirical conceptions in its manifestation in creation, &c. See _Foreign Quart. Rev._ No. 54. 1841; and C. Schwarz’s _Gesch. der n. Theol._ b. ii. ch. i. He published also _Monologen in dem Freihafen_, translated 1848; _Soliloquies on the Christian Religion, its Errors, and Everlasting Truth_.

In 1848, the revolutionary year, he was elected to the Wurtemburg Parliament; and took the conservative side, to the surprise of his constituents. He has subsequently lived chiefly at Heilbronn, engaged in literary labours; mostly writing the lives of sceptics, or persons connected with free thought whose fate has been like his own. Among these have been, a sketch of Julian, 1847, intended probably as a satire on the romantic reaction conducted by the late king of Prussia; a Life of Schubart, 1849, a Swabian poet of the last century; one of Maerklin 1851, his own early friend; one of N. Frischlin, 1856, a learned German of the sixteenth century; a life of Ulric von Hütten, 1858; and _Gespräche von Hütten_, 1861; also _Kleine Schriften_, 1861; and a work on _Reimarus_, 1862, concerning which see Note 29. Some of these works are reviewed in the _Nat. Rev._ Nos. 7 and 12.

Note 38. p. 273. The Replies To Strauss.

Schwarz gives an interesting account of the various replies to Strauss, and of the works written by various theologians to support their own point of view against his criticisms. _Gesch. der n. Theol._ p. 113 seq.

The work was criticised,—

I. From the old school of orthodoxy, (α) by Steudel, Strauss’s own teacher, in a work called _Vorlaüfig zu Beherzigenden zur Beruhigung der Gemüthen_. (β) From the new orthodoxy, by Hengstenberg, in the _Evangelische Kirchenzeitung_. (γ) From the school which formed the transition between this and that of Schleiermacher by Tholuck;, in _Glaubwürdigkeit der Evangelischen Geschichte_, 1837.

II. From the school of Schleiermacher, (α) in Neander’s _Leben Jesu_, (β) in Ullmann’s _Studien und Kritiken_, 1836. part iii. Reprinted as _Historisch oder Mythisch_.

III. By the Hegelians; 1. from the “right” of the party (using the illustration drawn from the distribution of political parties in the foreign parliaments), (α) by Göschel in the work _Von Gott, dem Menschen und dem GottesMenschen_, 1838; (β) by Dorner in the _Geschichte der Person Christi_, 1839. (γ) by Gabler and Bruno Bauer, who at that time was on the side of orthodoxy: 2. from the Hegelian “centre” in Schaller’s _Der Historischer Christus und die Philosophie_, 1838; 3. from the “left,” (α) by Weisse, _Die Evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet_, 1838: (β) by Wilke, _Der Ur-evangelist_; both of whom regard St. Mark’s as the primitive evangile; and (γ) by Bruno Bauer, _Kritik der Synoptiker_, 1842, when he had changed to the opposite side of the Hegelian school: (δ) by Luetzelberger; (ε) by A. Schweizer; both of whom wrote on St. John’s Gospel. Several of the latter were not intended to be replies to Strauss, but attempts to reconsider their own position in relation to him. This was particularly the case in reference to the works which were written by the Tübingen school, (see next note,) of which Schwarz gives a description, p. 153 seq.

Note 39. p. 278. The Tubingen School.

The leader of the historico-critical school which bears this name, was C. Baur (1792-1860), author of various works on the history of doctrine, and on church history both doctrinal and critical. His work against the Roman catholic theologian Moehler, which first made him noted, was _Gegensatz des Protestantismus und Katholicismus nach den principien und Haupt-dogmen der beiden Lehrbegriffe_, 1833. An account of his works is given in C. Schwarz’s _Gesch. der neuest. Theol._ p. 165. The following may be here specified: his work on the history of the doctrine of the atonement, _Die Lehre von der Versöhnung_, 1838; also _Lehrbuch der Christlichen Dogmengeschichte_, 1845, and _Die Christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte_, 1853; the last part of which has been published since his death. Some interesting remarks, comparing him with Strauss and Schleiermacher, (though hardly fair to the last,) appeared in the _National Rev._ Jan, 1861. See also the sketch by Nefftzer in the _Revue Germanique_, vol. xiii. parts 1 and 2.

The other members of the school besides Baur have been Schwegler, the commentator on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and author of a Roman History (died 1857); Zeller, also a writer on Greek philosophy, now Professor of philosophy at Marburg; whose appointment to Berne in 1847 has been elsewhere stated to have caused a similar excitement to that of Strauss to Zurich; Koestlin, Professor of aesthetics at Tübingen; and Hilgenfeld, Professor of theology at Jena, who is the best living representative of the modified form which the school has now assumed. Respecting these theologians, see the notes which Stap has affixed, in the _Revue Germanique_, vol. ix. p. 560, &c. to a French translation of a part of Schwarz’s _Geschichte_.

Concerning this school see Baur’s _Die Tübinger Schule_, 1859. The organ of it from 1842-57 was the _Theologische Jahrbücher_, edited by Baur. Since it ceased to be published, Hilgenfeld has created a new journal, the _Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie_, which receives the support of critics not directly of the Tübingen school, such as Hitzig and Knobel. Perhaps Schneckenbürger ought to be ranked with the same school; and Gfrörer also, author of a work on Philo, 1831; but he differed in holding the authenticity of St. John’s Gospel; and in 1846 became a Roman catholic, and Professor at Freiberg. See also a paper in Von Sybel’s _Hist. Zeitschr._ for 1860, part iv. translated in _Biblioth. Sacr._, Jan. 1862. The Tübingen school has met with able opponents, e.g. Thiersch, Dorner, Ewald, Bleek, Reuss, and Hase.

Note 40. p. 281. The German Theologian Rothe.

Concerning this theologian, now Professor at Heidelberg, see C. Schwarz’s _Geschichte der neuesten Theologie_, p. 279 seq. The cause why the remarks in the text are so brief in regard to Rothe is, that the writer has not been able to see his more important works, which are out of print; and accordingly he derives his knowledge of him at second hand.

Rothe’s two most important works are, _Die Anfänge der Christlichen Kirche_, 1837, and _Theologische Ethic_, 1845. An account of the former is given in the often-quoted article by Scherer (_Rev. des Deux Mondes_, Feb. 15, 1861), pp. 848-860. It appears to view the Christian church from its ideal side, to absorb the individual in the constitution, to show that Christendom is the object of Christianity, an institution the great means of embodying the doctrines; but that, as society becomes fermented by its spirit, the office of Christianity is fulfilled by the state, and the beau ideal would be a society where the church is the state. It is a view similar to that of Coleridge in his _Church and State_, or of Dr. Arnold in his work on _the Church_. Mr. F. C. Cook, in _Aids to Faith_ (p. 159), has given some interesting illustrations of this point.

The second of Rothe’s works, the _Ethic_, is briefly described in a previously-cited article in the _Westminster Review_ for April, 1857. Like the former it starts with the idea of the identity of ethics and religion. Regarding personality or the moral relations as the central fact of existence, it surveys material creation under this aspect. Next it discusses the moral and religious history of man, as means of enabling the personal being to subordinate to himself all the forces without or within him. The object apparently is to show, that the spiritual element is not an intrusion, but the normal development of nature or providence; and the moral society, the State, the normal development of the religions society, the Church. Rothe’s later views have hardly been developed in system. According to him theology is theosophy; philosophy can work out a theology from the consciousness.

It is probable that the writer of these lines is unintentionally doing injustice, through having to trust to secondhand information, to one who is regarded in Germany as belonging to the highest order of scientific theologians; though perhaps the interesting account of C. Schwarz leaves little to be desired.

Rothe, in accordance with his wish to strengthen orthodox theology by an independent philosophy, and not to support it by material agency, has lately taken part politically on the liberal side, in some questions connected with the church constitution of Baden. (See Colani’s _Nouvelle Revue de la Theologie_, Aug. 1862.)

Note 41. p. 285. The Most Modern Schools Of Philosophy And Theology In Germany.

The object of this note is to carry on the history of philosophy and theology to a more recent date than was necessary in the text.

The idealist school of philosophy reached its highest point with Hegel; and subsequently there has been as great a reaction against this mode of speculation, as the contemporaneous theological one in religion.

The philosopher who was directly or indirectly the cause of the realist tendency was Herbart (1776-1841), who succeeded Kant at Königsberg, and afterwards was Professor at Göttingen. Concerning his system, see Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, ii. 206, &c. Chalybaüs, ch. iv. and v. He followed out the _material_, as distinct from the _formal_, system of the Kantian philosophy, and strove to develop it.

The schools of modern Germany may be reckoned as four:—

(1). The young Hegelian school; e.g. of the younger Fichte, which, though professedly idealistic, and adopting Hegel’s method, is really affected largely by realistic tendencies, and seeks for a philosophy of matter as well as form. See Taillandier in _Revue des Deux Mondes_ for 1853, vol. iii. p. 633; and also Oct. 1858; Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, ii. 216, &c. Kahnis, p. 252. This school manifests decidedly realistic tendencies in Kuno Fischer, Weisse, and Branis.

(2.) That which shows a tendency to approach the subject of mental phenomena from the physiological side, in Drobisch, Waitz, and Volkmann, somewhat in the manner of the English writer Herbert Spencer.

(3.) A school decidedly materialist, e.g. Vogt, Moleschott, and Büchner. See Taillandier, _Rev. des Deux Mondes_, Oct. 1858.

These three tendencies form a gradation from the ideal, and approach the real, until at last the ideal itself is destroyed. The other tendency, if such it may be called, stands apart, and is akin to the older ideal ones. It is (4.) that of Schopenhauer (1788-1860), and tries to solve the problem of existence from the side of the will, instead of the intellect, and bears a remote resemblance to that of Maine de Biran. His system has long been before the public, but since his death has been much discussed. It has been explained by Frauenstädt. It is also well described in the _Westminster Review_, April, 1853.

We now pass from the schools of philosophy to theology.

We have implied that there are three great schools of it in Germany; the Neo-Lutheran, the Mediation school, and the Tübingen; and have seen that they are each in course of transition into slightly new forms in younger hands. The “Neo-Lutheranism” has assumed a more ecclesiastical position, which has been called “Hyper-Lutheranism.” The “Mediation” school of Schleiermacher is replaced by a newer form, modified by Hegelianism in Dorner. It remains to add, that the Tübingen school is giving place to another, of which C. Schwarz himself is a representative—a kind of derivation from the Tübingen school and that of De Wette. Its organ is the _Protestantische Kirchenzeitung_; and to it are said(1070) to belong Dr. Dittenberger, court preacher at Weimar, C. Schwarz, who holds the same position at Gotha; Ellester of Potsdam, Sydow of Berlin, and Schweizer of Zurich. Their position seems to be more ethical and less evangelical than the members of the party of free thought in the protestant church of France.

Note 43. p. 289. The Modern Theology Of Switzerland And Holland.

It will be observed, that no notice has been taken in the text, of the modern theology of Switzerland and Holland. It may be desirable therefore to suggest an outline here.

THE THEOLOGY OF SWITZERLAND.—The materials for the account of it are scanty and disjointed. Since the reform of the Swiss universities during the present century, theological thought has chiefly taken the colour of the adjacent countries, Germany or France, in the respective universities where those languages are spoken. In the church of Geneva, about a quarter of a century ago, there seem to have been two parties, similar to those in the French protestant church: one professing the old Calvinistic orthodoxy, which had degenerated into semi-Socinianism; the other, the result of a revival of biblical truth and spiritual religion, under such pastors as D’Aubigné, the historian of the Reformation, and recently Gaussen, the writer on _Théopneustie_. A movement was commenced under Vinet of Lausanne, which may be considered to be the only native school which Switzerland has produced. It was a mixture of science and earnestness, founded chiefly on a combination of Pascal and Schleiermacher. Concerning Vinet, see a very just article in the _North British Review_, No. 42, August 1854; and see below, Note 46. Scherer was a friend of Vinet, but has since changed his views, or, as some would think, developed logically their results, and has long left his professorship at Geneva, and acts with the new liberal school in the French protestant church. See Note 46.

German Switzerland has been connected with Germany rather than France. The teaching at the university of Basle was moulded by De Wette, who was made professor there in 1826, a few years after his removal from Berlin. Its character, however, expressed the more orthodox and moderate views of his later years. The instructive writer Hagenbach, professor there, belongs to the “mediation school” of theology, and is a worthy representative of its learned and devout spirit. Zurich possessed a teacher, Usteri, belonging to the school of Schleiermacher; and others, whose tone rather resembled that of the critical school of De Wette, or of the Tübingen school. The well-known critics Hitzig and Knobel, were formerly its professors; and at present Schweizer is there, concerning whom see Note 41. A few years after Strauss had published his noted work, he was elected, as stated before, theological professor at Zurich, but the appointment was cancelled by a revolution of the people. See the Address of Orelli (translated 1844). The appointment of Zeller of the Tübingen school to Berne, created a similar excitement. In the proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance at Geneva, 1861, professor Riggenbach, of Basle, stated that some of the journals of eastern Switzerland adopt sceptical principles. (_News of the Churches_, Oct. 1861.) He named the _Zeit-stimmen aus der Reformirten Kirche der Schweiz_, which is edited at Winterthur by Lang, a pupil of Baur. In German Switzerland, however, as well as French, there exists a biblical school of theology; of which professor Riggenbach of Basle is an example.

THE THEOLOGY OF HOLLAND.—The sources were given above (p. 110.) for the study of Arminianism and Calvinism in the seventeenth century. The subsequent history is soon told. We omit, of course, the history of the Romish church in Holland, and of the Jansenist secession from it, which took place in 1705.

The Protestant church continued to exist in two branches; viz. the Calvinists, or established church, who professed the creed of the synod of Dort; and the Remonstrants, who professed the moderate Arminianism of Episcopius; similar to that which was taught by our own Hales and Chillingworth. The studies in the established church were specially devoted to exegesis, in reference to which the name of Schultens of Leyden, in the last century, is well known; manifesting a slight inclination to free inquiry in Van der Palm (1763-1838).

About 1830, the condition of the church was a cold orthodoxy, much like that of the “moderate” party in the church of Scotland before the rupture of 1843. The stronghold of this party was the university of Utrecht. Living isolated, and resembling the English in not easily admitting foreign influences, the Dutch read little of German literature. A periodical existed, the _Theological Contributions_, which used to bestow praises on the school of Bretschneider.

A little before 1830, a movement of evangelical piety had been kindled in the church, through the influence of the poet Bilderdyk (who died 1831), and of his two disciples, the Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam, Da Costa (who died in 1860), and Cappadose. Their position however was, a return to the rigid decrees of the synod of Dort and the theology of Calvin. They resembled very nearly the party in the church of Scotland which formed the free church. They acquainted themselves with German theology for the purpose of refuting it; and Da Costa wrote a work, _The Four Witnesses_, on the four Evangelists, in reply to Strauss; which has been translated. In 1834 they separated from the national church under two pastors, De Cock and Scholte, and endured much persecution. The _Voices of the Netherlands_ was the periodical which expressed their views. Van Oosterze, pastor at Rotterdam, belonged to them. This party has been represented in the Dutch parliament by Groen van Printsterer. It has lost its political influence in some degree in recent years, by opposing political reforms.

Almost simultaneously with this Calvinistic revival, a school arose in the university of Groningen, a “mediation” school, modelled upon Schleiermacher, under the influence of the Platonist Van Heusde (1778-1839), led by Hofstede de Groot, Pareau, and Muurling. Its organ was _Truth in Charity_. The views held were a spiritual Arianism. They may be seen in a novel published recently (1861) at Cape Town, for the Dutch colonists, entitled, _The Pastor of Vliethuizen, or Conversations about the Groningen School_, translated by Dr. Lorgian.

These three parties were the chief in Holland, until about 1850. Since then a more decided movement of free thought has begun in the university of Leyden. Up to that time the venerable Van Hengel remained there, the example of the old philological orthodoxy of Holland. Two professors have now created an independent movement, more nearly resembling that of the Tübingen school; J. H. Scholten, in dogma; and, with rather more advanced views, the orientalist H. Kuenen in philology. (A list of some of Scholten’s publications may be seen in the _Westminster Review_ for July, 1862, page 43, note. His _Hist. comparée de la Philos. et de la Relig._ was translated by Reville, in the _Nouvelle Rev. de la Theologie_, April 18.) Busker Huet has asserted still more advanced views than these, apparently simple naturalism. The Positivist philosophy has found an advocate in Opzoomer, one of the professors at Utrecht.

The sources of this account are chiefly found in Ullmann’s paper in the _Studien und Kritiken_, 1840, part iii. translated by professor Edwards, with additions, in the American _Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1845; and in an interesting article by A. Reville of Rotterdam, himself one of the liberal school of the French protestant church, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_ for June 15, 1860. Chautepie de la Saussure, pastor of the Walloon church at Leyden, formerly of the Groningen school, has also written in French, _La Crise Religieuse en Hollande_, 1859; but it is chiefly devoted to personal questions. A sketch of the Dutch universities and their intellectual characteristics was given by Esquiros in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1856, vol. iii.

Note 44. p. 297. The Eclectic School Of France.

The Eclectic School is sketched in Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, vol. ii. c. viii; Damiron’s _Essai sur l’Histoire de la Philosophie en France au 19ème siècle_, 1828, pp. 280-385: Nettement’s _Histoire de la Litt. Franc. sous la Restoration_, 1853, vol. i. b. ii. p. 127 seq.; vol. ii. b. viii. p. 290 seq.; and _Hist. de la Litt. Franç. sous le Gouvernement de Juillet_, vol. i. b. vi: also in Taine’s _Philosophie Française du 19ème siècle_. The last writer is wholly unfavourable to the school, on the ground of the uselessness of metaphysical philosophy.

The eclectic school was the means of uniting together the philosophy of Scotland and Germany, which had previously been running in separate streams. The leading minds of the school have been four,—Royer Collard, Maine de Biran, Cousin, and Jouffroy.

The founder of it, R. Collard (1763-1845), was a disciple of the Scotch school, who about 1812 commenced an attack on the philosophy of Condillac, very similar to that of Reid on Hume. He devoted himself to the analysis of the intellectual and moral parts of men, in order to assert the existence of a world within, independent of sensational impressions. The next writer, Maine de Biran (1766-1824), devoted himself especially to the examination of the will and the notion of cause, and reproduced the ideas of Leibnitz. The third, Cousin (born 1792), succeeded Collard in 1815 as professor at Paris; and in his early lectures followed the Scotch school. When the conservative reaction occurred in 1822, consequent on the assassination of the duke de Berri, the constitutional party was thrown into disgrace; and Cousin therefore retired into Germany, and there imbibed the spirit of the great schools of philosophy, especially of Schelling and Jacobi. He has given, his own history in the preface to _Fragments Philosophiques_, vol. ii. Lastly came Jouffroy, the translator of Dugald Stewart, who improved upon the Scotch school. See Sainte-Beuve’s criticism on Jouffroy. (_Crit. Litt._ vol. i.)

Damiron was an admirable exponent of the eclectic school; Benjamin Constant, Degerando, and Lerminier, partially belonged to the same school. Its effects are ably stated in Morell. The delicate hand of E. Renan also has sketched the influence of _Cousin et L’école Spiritualiste_, in the _Revue des Deux Monds_, April. 1858; reprinted in his _Essais de Morale et de Critique_.

Note 45. p. 300. The Catholic Reactionary School Of France.

Concerning this school, see Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, vol. ii. pp. 274-318; Damiron (as in the last note), pp. 105-197; Nettement (second work), vol. i. b. v.

The members of this school all agree in reposing upon the principle of _authority_; but differ in the source in which they place it. Their philosophy accordingly does not aim at discovering truth, but only the authority on which we may rely as the oracle of truth.

The founder of the movement was De Maistre (1753-1821), the bitter opponent of the Baconian philosophy, whose doctrine, about the time of his death, was absolute submission to the catholic church. See concerning him C. Rémusat in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, May 1857; and E. Scherer’s _Mélanges de la Critique Religieuse_. Lamennais belonged to the same movement. In his early manner, as expressed in his _Essai sur l’Indifference_, 1821, he found the test of truth in primitive revelations transmitted by testimony; in his later, he abandoned this school, and strove to work out philosophy, in part independently of authority. The next writer, De Bonald, sought for truth in the same source, viz. fragments of divinely communicated knowledge, transmitted in the languages of mankind. On Bonald see C. Rémusat (_Revue_, as quoted above). The Abbé Bautain improved upon this system by placing the ground of certitude in the authority of Revelation, and considered the office of philosophy to end when it has shown the necessity of a revelation. Next to him came D’Eckstein, who sought the test of truth in authority based on researches into the catholic beliefs of mankind. The two latter views, it will be perceived, are far nobler than the former. Maret, whose writings have been before cited, also belongs to this reactionary school.

Note 46. p. 304. The Modern School Of Free Thought In The Protestant Church Of France.

The object of this note is to enumerate some of the chief of those theologians to whom allusion is made in the text, and to exhibit their relations to each other.

One of the best known is Colani, a pastor at Strasburg, the able editor of the _Nouvelle Revue de la Theologie_, and author of several volumes of sermons: also A. Reville, pastor of the Walloon church at Rotterdam, a frequent writer in the same Review, and in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_; Reuss, a professor at Strasburg, author of a history of the early church, in French, and _Beiträge zu den Theologischen Wissenschaften_, in German; Scherer, the friend of Vinet, once professor at Geneva, author of _Mélanges de Critique Religieuse_, reprinted mostly from Colani’s Review, of which the first four papers give his theological views on Inspiration, the Bible, and Sin.(1071)

The able critic, Michel Nicholas, professor at Montauban, author of _Etudes Critiques sur la Bible_, and _Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les deux siècles antérieurs à l’ère Chrétienne_, probably may be classed with the same; but he has not written on doctrine. A. Cocquerel _fils_, pastor at Paris, also is connected with Colani’s Review, and is considered to possess the same sympathies.

The difference of the point of view of these writers from that of the Eclectic school would be, that while the latter would regard the human race as able to pass beyond Christianity, the former would only wish to get rid of the dogmas which they think have been superadded in the course of ages, and to return to the simple teaching of the sermon on the mount.

One writer more has been reckoned with the same party by the English public, E. De Pressensé, a pastor in the free Protestant church at Paris, author of the Church History so often referred to in this volume, and of sermons on the _Sauveur_, and editor of the _Revue Chrétienne_; but he appears to possess an evangelical and more orthodox tone than some of the above.

In truth there are two distinct parties in the movement which we are describing, each of which stands in a different relation to the older parties of the protestant church. At the beginning of the century the French protestant church held an unpietistic kind of supernaturalism, not very unlike that of Reinhard in Germany, of which the best living type is the eloquent and learned A. Cocquerel _pére_. About 1820 an awakening of the spiritual life of the church took place, under the action of the Spirit of God primarily, and through the agency of such ministrations as those of Adolphe Monod instrumentally. From the former school has arisen the movement seen in Colani and Reville; from the latter, that seen in Vinet and Pressensé. The former is a change which has passed over the old Latitudinarian school, much like those which in Germany have taken the place of the teaching of such men as Reinhard and Bretschneider. Of the pastors named above, who belong to this class, A. Cocquerel _fils_ is the least removed from the ordinary creed. His stand-point may be compared to that of Schleiermacher, or of the school of Groningen. (See Note 41.) Reville and Colani advance very much farther. The other movement, of which Vinet of Lausanne was the cause, has sprung from the application of science to the newly-spreading views of evangelical religion. Vinet tried to harmonize religion and knowledge, by presenting Christianity on the ground of its internal rather than its external evidence, and proclaimed it as ethics built on doctrine; which doctrine he held to be built on historic fact. His position may be best compared with Neander’s in Germany, or perhaps in some respects with that of Tholuck. Nearly the same position is assumed by Pressensé at Paris, and Astié at Lausanne. Pressensé rests upon the Bible as the “formal principle” of theology, and the work of Christ as the “material.”

-------------------------------------

The writer feels much hesitation in venturing to classify these authors, which nevertheless seemed desirable on account of the spread of their writings in England. The above description, founded on personal study of their works, is confirmed by two criticisms on them; one by C. Rémusat, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Jan. 1862; the other in the _British Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1862. But care ought to be used in describing the actors in a movement which is not complete; and in making the attempt, to distinguish especially those who are conceived to deviate from vital truth in doctrine, from those who may differ in questions of literature or criticism. It is due to these writers to express admiration for their genuine love of intellectual and political liberty, much as we may be compelled to differ from their theological opinions.

Lecture VIII.

Note 47. p. 320. Modern Opinions With Respect To Mythology.

In the last century the opinions on the nature of mythology were two. That which taught that myths are distortions of traditions derived from the early Hebrew literature, was put forward in the seventeenth century, as early as philosophy was applied to the subject, by Huet and Bossuet, and retained its hold throughout the last century, and is advocated in the present by Mr. Gladstone (Work on Homer, vol. ii. ch. ii). The opposite theory interpreted myths by an Euhemeristic process, or allegorized them by regarding them as originally descriptions of the physical processes of nature. In the present century Creuzer (_Symbolik_, 1810) applied the method of comparison, and, studying Greek mythology in correlation with that of other countries, taught in a Neo-Platonic sense that myths are a second language, the echo of nature in the consciousness. Creuzers system was opposed by Lobeck about 1824, Voss, and G. Hermann, who objected to the excess of symbolism and the sacerdotal ideas implied in it; and by Ottfried Müller, and Welcker, on the narrower ground of asserting the independence of Greek mythology from foreign influence. More recently the careful study of the Sanskrit language and early literature by Max Müller, Kuhn, &c. has thrown new light upon the subject; and the solution of the problem is now approached from the side of language, and not merely from that of tradition or monuments. The distinction of myth and legend is now clear; the family relationship between the myths of different nations is made apparent; the date in human history of their creation; and the cause of them is sought in the attempt to express abstract ideas by means of the extension of concrete terms. See the Essay on _Comparative Mythology_ by Max Müller, in the Oxford Essays for 1856. See also the Journal for Comp. Phil. of Kuhn and Aufrecht. And for a criticism on Creuzer, see E. Renan’s _Etudes d’Histoire Religieuse_ (Ess. i).

Note 48. p. 363. The External And Internal Branches Of Evidence.

It may be almost superfluous to name that the evidences are usually divided into 1. external, and 2. internal. Each of these requires a subdivision into (α) the divine, and (β) the human.

The _external divine_ are miracles and prophecy; the _external human_ are the historical proof as to the authenticity and genuineness of the literature which contains the narrative of the miracles and the prophecy. The _internal divine_ are sought in the accordance of the materials of the Revelation, the character of Christ, the scheme of Redemption, &c. with the moral sense of man, and with the expectations which we should form antecedently of the contents of a revelation; the _internal human_, in the critical evidence of undesigned coincidence. Looked at logically, the second is like the corroboration of the testimony of a witness; the fourth, like cross-examining him. The first two may amount almost to demonstration, being what Aristotle (_Rhet._ i. 2.) would call τεκμήρια: the two latter have only the force of probability; the third being antecedent probability, εἰκός; the fourth, the ἀνώνυμον σμηεῖον, or circumstantial evidence. The argument of analogy used by Butler, which may be regarded as almost(1072) one form of Aristotle’s παράδειγμα (_Rhet._