## Reformed Dogmatics

Vol. 1. Prolegomena

## Herman Bavinck

MONERGISM EDITOR’S NOTE.

PREFACE.

INTRODUCTION.

1. § 1. Name and Concept of Dogmatics.

5. § 5. History and Literature of Dogmatics.

CHAPTER I. Principia in General.

6. § 6. Meaning of the Principia.

“Reformed Dogmatics.” The Dutch Edition transcriptions were taken

from the open-source ebook repository Project Gutenberg, which are listed

under the title “Gereformeerde dogmatiek.” There were no editorial

alterations of these ebooks. The translation process consisted of taking the

transcribed ebooks from Project Gutenberg, and processing them through

Within the books you will see “[1], [2],” etc. These are page number

indicators from the original text. There may also be hyperlink, footnote, or

endnote indicators in the text. None of these are live in this translation but

were live in the Project Gutenberg edition. While of course this will not be

on the same level of quality as the professionally translated edition of this

work now on the market; the hope with this effort, is to offer an edition that

is completely free for those who by regional or financial constraints may

not be able to acquire that set. Being that Project Gutenberg has several

levels of proofing before publishing a text, we have left the Greek and

## MONERGISM EDITOR’S NOTE.

Hebrew as is. Also, one of the main distinctions between the original Dutch

edition (and this edition) and the contemporary professional translation, is

that in the original Dutch edition, it appears all references were included in

the text body. Also, there is a lot of Latin and German that will remain

untranslated. Lastly, some of the Bible Abbreviations within the text may

not have converted to English properly, especially as it relates to so many

different languages used in a single text.

At the end of each book is a Project Gutenberg Editor’s Remarks section.

This will indicate where the Editor’s from Project Gutenberg adjusted the

original Dutch text before publishing their ebooks. Again, these books are

English via AI/API.

May these books bless you to the glory of God.

S.D.G.

Monergism.

ith a brief word the standpoint of this dogmatics may be set in the

light. Not only the believer, the dogmatician also has confession to

make of the communion of saints. Only with all the saints can he

comprehend what the breadth and length and depth and height are and

confess the love of Christ, which surpasses knowledge. Only in and through

their communion does he learn to understand the dogma, in which the

Christian faith expresses itself. Moreover, in this communion of saints there

lies a strengthening power and an excellent consolation. Dogmatics is at

present not in honour; the Christian dogma does not share in the favour of

the time. Hence, according to the word of Groen van Prinsterer, Ongeloof

en Revolutie 1868 bl. 17, at times a feeling of abandonment, of isolation.

But all the more does it then dispose to gratitude, to be able to appeal to the

alliance of the forefathers. For these reasons more attention has been

devoted to patristic and scholastic theology than is otherwise the case with

Protestant dogmaticians. Men such as Irenaeus, Augustine, Thomas, do not

belong exclusively to Rome. They are patres and doctores, to whom the

## PREFACE.

whole Christian church has obligations. Further, the Roman theology after

the Reformation has also not been forgotten. Among Protestants there is

many a time too little acquaintance both with what they have in common

with Rome and with what separates them from Rome. The revival of

Roman theology under the auspices of [IV] Thomas, makes it doubly

necessary for the Protestant Christian to give himself a well-conscious and

clear account of his relation to Rome.

However, this dogmatics most closely aligns with that type which the

Christian religion and theology in the sixteenth century received through

the Reformation, specifically in Switzerland. Not because this is the only

true one, but because, according to the conviction of the author, it is the

relatively purest expression of the truth. In no confession has the Christian

element, in its religious, ethical, and theological character, so come into its

own; nowhere has it been conceived so deeply and broadly, so spacious and

free, so truly catholic, as in that of the Reformed churches. Therefore it is

all the more to be regretted that this reformation of religion and theology,

just like that of church and science, was so soon checked. In spite of much

good, which the later development shows to be seen not only in this

country, but likewise in England, Scotland, America, nevertheless

stagnation soon set in and deformation followed. Preferably appealing to

the older generation, which in freshness and originality far surpasses the

later, the author of this work considers it the right of the dogmatician, in the

history of Reformed theology, to distinguish between wheat and chaff. To

praise the old only because it is old is neither Reformed nor Christian. And

dogmatics does not describe what has been valid, but what must be valid. It

is rooted in the past, but labors for the future.

Therefore, finally, this dogmatics also wishes to bear the stamp of its time.

It would be an unbegun work to detach oneself from the present; but it

would also not be good for God, who in this age speaks to us no less loudly

and earnestly than in previous generations. Attention has been paid to the

manifold directions which, in the theological field, cross one another. In the

midst of them all a place has been sought and a position chosen. Where

deviation was a duty, account has been given of it. But even then there has

been a striving to value the good, where [V] it was to be found. Often

continued study caused affinity to be discovered, which at first seemed not

to exist at all.

Built upon this foundation, this dogmatics seeks to be a handbook for

those who devote themselves to its study. Even where it cannot win assent,

may it stimulate to study. With this in view, the questions and the different

solutions that have been attempted have been presented as objectively as

possible. Literature has been indicated to such an extent that one can soon

orient oneself and cooperate in the solution.

This first part discusses the introduction and the principia. The second

part will treat the dogma. Probably this will see the light in two parts, which

in no case will be greater in extent than this first part, and will follow as

soon as practicable. A detailed index will conclude the work.

H. Bavinck

Kampen, April 1895.

## INTRODUCTION.

. The name dogmatics is still of recent date. Formerly quite different

names were in use. Origen gave to his dogmatic principal work the

title περι ἀ ρχων. Augustine described his Enchiridium ad Laurentium by the

addition, sive de fide, spe et caritate. John of Damascus gave an Ἐ κδοσις

ἀ κριβης της ὀ ρθοδοξου πιστεως. With Isidorus Hispalensis the name

Sententiae arises, which in the 13th century gives way to Summa theologiae.

Melanchthon spoke of Loci communes rerum theologicarum, sive

hypotyposes theologiae. The expression loci is borrowed from Cicero, and a

translation of the Greek τοπος. Aristotle understood by τοποι the general

rules of dialectic, which were known of themselves and were fixed, and

therefore could serve as στοιχεια των ἀ ποδειξεων, Rhet. lib. II c. 22 § 13.

Metaph. lib. IV c. 3 § 3. Cicero transferred this doctrine of the τοποι from

dialectic to rhetoric, and understood by it those places where the orator

could find the arguments which he needed in his speech. He explains the

expression by sedes, notae argumentorum, and points out as such sources

the concept, the definition, the division, the basic meaning of the word, the

## § 1. Name and Concept of Dogmatics.

synonyms, etc. Top. II c. 2. This use of the word loci does not entirely

correspond with the meaning in Aristotle, and was modified still more in

later logic. Melanchthon himself explains in his Dialectica, lib. IV the

expression loci by signa quaedam, quibus rerum, quae dici tractarique

debent, capita indicantur. Loci communes are according to Cicero, de Orat.

III 27. Brutus 12, such propositions which have no relation to any [2]

definite object, are general and therefore hold always and everywhere; in

distinction from loci proprii, which are concrete and therefore are valid only

with a definite subject or in a special science. Melanchthon wished in his

loci communes to give only the principal chapters of the Christian religion,

as these had been treated especially by Paul in his epistle to the Romans. He

himself therefore describes them by hypotyposes, design, sketch,

lineamenta of theology. And the German translation of Spalatin rendered

the title by: Hauptartikel und fürnehmste Punkte der ganzen Heiligen

Schrift. Name and content of Melanchthon’s dogmatics thus stand in

contrast with the scholastic Sententiae and Summae. It did not intend to

give a complete dogmatic system to the educated, but rather to introduce the

uneducated to the knowledge of Holy Scripture. Cf. Heppe, Dogm. des

Deutschen Protest. 1857 I s. 4-14; Herzog u. Plitt, Real. Enc. 8, 708 f.;

Sanseverino, Philosophia Christiana, ed. nov. Neap. 1878 III 286-315. From

this it can be explained that the name loci communes among the Roman

theologians, with a single exception, found no acceptance. Indeed they use

the expression loci, but not in the sense of Melanchthon, but in that of

Cicero or Aristotle. They understand by it not the articuli fidei, but the

principia or sources of Theology, Dens, Theologia ad usum Seminariorum.

Mechl. 1828 I 5; Billuart, Summa S. Thomae sive Cursus Theologiae 1747

I 47; Daelman, Theologia seu Observ. theol. in Summam D. Thomae 1759 I

18. The famous work of Melchior Canus, Loci Theologici 1563, takes the

expression in the same sense and treats not dogmatics itself, but its sources,

which are ten in number: Scripture, tradition, Pope, councils, church,

church fathers, scholastici, reason, philosophy, history. In contrast, the name

loci communes of Melanchthon was adopted by many Lutheran and

Reformed theologians, such as Chemniz, Hutter, Gerhard, Calovius; Martyr,

Musculus, Hyperius, Ursinus, etc. But nevertheless it had to yield rather

soon to another title. Zwingli had brought dogmatic writings to light under

the title of Commentarius de vera ac falsa religione, Christianae fidei brevis

et clara expositio. Calvin preferred the name of Institutio religionis

Christianae. And later theologians from the Lutheran and Reformed church

returned to the old name of theologia again. In distinction from other

theological disciplines, which gradually increased in number and in weight,

this name of Theologia had to be further specified. For that purpose the

addition didactica, systematica, theoretica, positiva served, and since L.

Reinhart, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae 1659, also that of dogmatica.

This specification lay close at hand, because the truths of faith had long

already been designated with the name of dogmata, and the separation of

dogmatics and ethics begun with Danaeus and Calixtus demanded a

separate name for both disciplines. Since then this addition has obtained so

great a dominion, that it has banished the main concept of theology and has

appeared independently, that it has found assent among theologians of every

confession, and has not been able to be displaced by the newer names of

doctrine of faith, doctrine of salvation, Christian doctrine, etc.

2. The word δογμα, from δοκειν, to seem, denotes that which is

determined, decided and therefore stands firm, το δεδογμενον, statutum,

decretum, placitum. In Scripture it is used of commands of the government,

LXX, Esther 3:9; Daniel 2:13; 6:8; Luke 2:1; Hd. 17:7, of the ordinances of the

O. Covenant Ef. 2:15; Colossians 2:14, and of the decisions of the assembly at

Jerusalem, Hd. 15:28; 16:14. Among the classics it has the meaning of

decision or command and in philosophy that of truths standing firm by

themselves or by proofs, Plato, de Rep. VII c. 16. p. 538 C.; Arist. Phys.

these meanings the word is also taken over in theology. Josephus, c. Ap. I, 8

says, that the Jews from childhood hold the books of the Old Covenant for

θεου δογματα. In the same meaning the church fathers speak of the

Christian religion or doctrine as το θειον δογμα, of the incarnation of Christ

as δογμα της θεολογιας, of the truths of faith, which in and for the church

are valid as τα της ἐ κκλησιας δογματα, and likewise of the teachings of the

heretics as δογματα των ἑ τεροδοξων etc. Cf. Suicerus, Thesaurus Eccles. s.

v.; Herzog2 s. v. Dogmatik; H. Cremer, Wörterbuch der neutest. Gräcität s.

v. The word retains this same sense among the Latins, as Vincentius in his

Commonitorium c. 29, and among the Protest. theologians such as Sohnius,

Opera 1609 I 32; Ursinus, Tract. Theol. 1584 p. 22; Hyperius, Methodus

Theol. 1574 p. 34; Polanus, Synt. Theol. 1625 p. 133.

3. The use of the word teaches us in the first place, that by dogma all

kinds of commands, decisions, philosophical truths, theoretical

propositions, practical rules, etc. can be designated, but what they have in

common is, that there always lies at their basis a certain authority. A dogma

is a proposition that has authority, Harnack, Lehrbuch der

Dogmengeschichte, 2te Aufl. 1888 I. 15. In the word dogma, however, there

does not lie in itself on what authority it rests. With the different dogmas

that authority is also different. With political dogmas that authority is the

government, with philosophical dogmas the inner evidence or the force of

the proofs; with the religious or theological dogmas that authority lies only

in God’s testimony, whether this according to the Protestants is heard only

in Scripture, or according to the Roman Catholics also in the church. A

proposition has authority in church and theology only for this reason,

because it rests on the testimony of God. Therefore, wrongly, by and since

Schleiermacher the essence and character of a dogma is sought in the

ecclesiastical establishment and proclamation, Schleiermacher, Christl. Sitte

1884, S. 5; Rothe, Zur Dogm. 10; Schweizer, Christl. Glaub. I. 23;

Daubanton, Theol. Studien 1885, bl. 136-145; Kuyper, Encycl. III 395 v.

From a Roman standpoint there would still be something to be said for this,

because the church is infallible. But the Reformation recognizes no truth

except only on the authority of God in Holy Scripture. Verbum Dei condit

articulos fidei, et praeterea nemo, ne angelus quidem, Art. Smalc. Pars II

art. 2. Dogmata and articuli fidei are only those truths, quae in scripturis

proprie ut credenda proponuntur, Hyperius, Methodus theol. p. 34, 35. They

are only such sententiae, quibus credi aut obtemperari necesse est propter

mandatum Dei, Ursinus, Tract. Theol. 22. And therefore among the

Reformed theologians this proposition repeatedly returns: principium, in

quod omnia dogmata theologica resolvuntur, est: Dominus dixit, cf. Ritschl,

Lehre v. d. Rechtf. u. Vers. 3te Aufl. II 2. But from the character of

authority, which is proper to a dogma, it nevertheless follows in the second

place of itself, that as such it is also recognized in a certain circle. There

undoubtedly lies in the concept of dogma a social element. A truth may

stand ever so firmly; if it is not recognized, it is in the eyes of others

nothing more than a sententia doctoris, a private opinion. The concept of

dogma includes that the authority which it possesses also knows how to

have itself recognized and maintained. Therefore a distinction must be

made between dogma quoad se and dogma quoad nos. A proposition is

dogma in itself, abstracted from all recognition, if it rests on the authority of

God. But in order not to identify one’s own opinion with the truth of God, it

is of the highest importance for every believer and especially also for the

dogmatician to know which truths from Scripture under the guidance of the

Holy Spirit in the church of Christ have been brought to general

recognition. The confession can thus be called the dogma quoad nos. But

also in this subjective sense dogma is absolutely not limited to what is

expressly included in the symbols and has been ecclesiastically established.

The church has a life and a faith that is much richer than comes to

expression in the confession. The confession by no means formulates the

entire content of the Christian faith. It also does not belong to the essence of

the church, is incidental, and has almost always been born from special

circumstances. It usually includes only what has found opposition within or

outside it. Thus, just as wood does not burn because it smokes, but the

smoke is nevertheless a sign of burning, so also a proposition is not a

dogma because the church recognizes it, even though it is the case that

recognition by the church is an important, although always fallible, proof of

its truth, Kleutgen, Theologie der Vorzeit, 2te Aufl. I, 97 f. In the third place

the use of the word dogma still teaches us, that it was used now in a

broader, then in a narrower sense. Sometimes the whole Christian religion

is designated by it, and Basilius M., de Spiritu Sancto c. 27 can understand

under δογματα (in contrast with κηρυγματα, the articuli fidei drawn from

Scripture) the ecclesiastical ceremonies and rites, Suicerus, Thes. Eccl. s. v.

δογμα. Polanus t. a. p. says, that dogma in a broader sense includes

everything that is comprised in Holy Scripture, not only the doctrina

evangelii et legis, but also all conciones, historiae sacrae etc. Usually,

however, the word was used in a narrower sense, for the doctrina evangelii

et legis, for those sententiae, quibus credi aut obtemperari necesse est

propter mandatum Dei, Ursinus t. a. p. 22. It thus included not only the

doctrinal, but also the ethical truth. Later, however, the word dogma has

been delimited still more narrowly, in that the doctrina legis was

distinguished and separated from the doctrina evangelii; dogmata were now

only those sententiae, quibus credi necesse est propter mandatum Dei.

Polanus went still further and also made a distinction between the dogmata

and the principia theologiae. Thus dogma became the designation of the

articuli fidei, which rest on the authority of God’s Word and therefore

obligate all to faith. And dogmatics is then the system of the articuli fidei.

4. Yet with that the concept of dogmatics has still only been established in

a formal sense. A definition of dogmatics as the science of the dogmas is of

little use, so long as we do not know the material, the content of the

dogmas. In order now to determine the material concept of dogmatics, we

must remember that dogmatics was originally an adjective for the

description of the main concept theology. Accordingly, in earlier times

dogmatics was commonly conceived as doctrina de Deo principaliter et de

creaturis, secundum quod referuntur ad Deum ut ad principium vel finem,

Thomas, Summa Theol. I qu. 1 art. 3 en 7; Alb. Magnus, Sent. lib. I dist. 1 §

2; Petavius, Opus de theol. dogmatibus cap. 1. —Gerhard, Loci Comm.,

prooemium de natura theologiae; Hase Hutterus Redivivus § 11; H. Schmid,

Dogm. der ev. luth. Kirche § 2. —Fr. Junius, Opera Omnia I fol. 1375-

1424; Polanus, S. Theol. lib. I cap. 1-4; Gomarus, Disput. Theol., thesis 1;

Owen, Θεολογουμενα, sive de natura, ortu.... verae theologiae, libri sex.

Oxon. 1661, lib. 1 cap. 1-4; Voetius, Diatribe de theologia. Ultraj. 1668;

Coccejus, Summa theol. cap. 1. Others, however, had objections to making

God the main concept of dogmatics, and preferred to call its object

something else. Lombardus, Sent. I dist. 1, aligned himself with Augustine,

who in de doctr. christ. lib. I cap. 2 says: omnis doctrina vel rerum est, vel

signorum, and therefore assigned to theology two matters for treatment: res,

i.e. God, world, man, and signa, i.e. sacraments. But this incomplete

determination was soon abandoned and improved by the commentators.

Alexander Halesius and Bonaventura, Proleg. qu. I in 1 Sent. and

Breviloquium Pars I cap. 1, named Christ and his mystical body, the church;

Hugo a St. Victor, De sacr. lib. I c. 2, named the opera reparationis as

the matter and content of theology or dogmatics. And Lutheran and

Reformed theologians also defined the content of dogmatics in this way.

Calovius, Isagoge ad theologiam 1662, most strongly contests that God is

the proper object of theology; the etymology decides nothing here, theology

on earth is quite something different than in heaven, we do indeed strive

here after knowledge of God, but do not attain it. To make God the object of

theology is just as wrong as to make the Prince the object of the politica,

instead of the res publica, p. 283 s. 291 s.; the proper object of theology is

homo in quantum est perducendus ad salutem p. 252, 290 or religion p. 299,

324. And thus also by Amesius, Medulla Theol. I c. 5; Maestricht, Theor.

pract. Theol. I c. 1 § 47; Marck, Merch der Christ. Godg. I § 34; Moor,

Comment. in Marckii Compendium I p. 112; Burmannus, Synopsis Theol. I

c. 2 § 30; Limborch, Theol. Christ. I c. 1, the Deo vivere per Christum, the

religio, the cultus Dei is made the content of dogmatics. The subjective,

practical conception of theology thus gradually began to gain more

acceptance. And when now the philosophy of Kant limited human cognitive

capacity to the visible things, Agnosticism pronounced the unknowability of

God, historical criticism undermined supernatural revelation, this

subjective, practical conception has become the dominant one.

Schleiermacher conceived dogmatics as Glaubenslehre, and defined the

dogmata as Auffassungen der frommen Gemüthszustände, Der Christl.

Glaube § 15, 16. And since then almost all theologians have made this

transition as well. Not God, but religion is the object of theology. And

indeed, religion in general as a historical and psychological phenomenon,

Tiele, Gids Mei 1866; Idem, Theol. Tijdschr. 1ste aflev. 1867; Rauwenhoff,

Theol. Tijdschr. 1869 bl. 1 v. 163 v. Wet op het Hooger Onderwijs van

1876, or more specifically the Christian religion, as it comes to

manifestation in Scripture and congregation. Accordingly, dogmatics is then

given as its content the religio or doctrina christiana, as it is either drawn

from Holy Scripture, or confessed by one or another church, or known

through personal experience. [8]

5. Now Thomas already in his time, against those who gave another

description of Theology, remarked that they came to that because

attendentes ad ea, quae in ista scientia tractantur et non ad rationem,

secundum quam considerantur, Summa Theol. I qu. 1 art. 7. In theology and

thus also in dogmatics, much more is treated than only God; also angel and

man, heaven and earth, indeed all creatures come therein under discussion.

But the question is, under what point of view and with what purpose they

are treated in theology. For, all these things are also treated in other

sciences; the distinctive character of their treatment in theology consists in

this, that they are considered in their relation to God, ut ad principium et

finem, Kaftan, Wahrheit der Chr. Rel. S. 3. Further, the definition of

dogmatics as science of the religio christiana in itself would still not be so

wrong, if, as in earlier time, thereunder was understood that religio which

was objectively laid down in Scripture. But after Kant and Schleiermacher

this definition has acquired another sense and dogmatics has become the

description of that historical phenomenon which is called Christian religion

and also reveals itself in a distinctive faith and doctrine. If now dogmatics is

understood in this sense, then it ceases to be dogmatics and becomes simply

description of what in a certain circle is held for truth in the religious

domain. But science is concerned with truth; if dogmatics really wants to be

science, then it is not satisfied with the description of what is, but it ought to

indicate what must count as truth. Not the ὁ τι, but the διοτι, not the reality,

but the truth; not the real, but the ideal, the logical, the necessary it ought to

demonstrate. As soon as, however, it attempts that, it at once returns to God,

it becomes again theology in the proper sense. For, whoever makes

Christianity into the object of a science of its own, proceeds not from the

fact of the existence of that Christianity — for then treatment of that

historical phenomenon in the litt. faculty would be completely sufficient —

but from a special valuation of that fact, Gunning en Saussaye Jr., Het

ethische beginsel der Theologie 47. Theology as a separate faculty-science

presupposes that in those historical facts of Christianity God in a special

way has revealed himself, thus presupposes and demands the existence

and the revelation of God. That is, theology demands, in order to be and to

remain theology, that everything in it be considered sub ratione Dei. And if

against this the unknowability of God be adduced, then the rule holds: qui

nimis probat, nihil probat. If God is not knowable, thereby not only

dogmatics and theology fall, but also religion, for this is built upon the

knowledge of God. Thus dogmatics is the scientific system of the

knowledge of God, i.e. of that knowledge which He concerning himself and

concerning all creature as in relation to Him in his Word has revealed to the

church.

. About the place of dogmatics in the encyclopaedia of theology there

is almost no difference. All assign it to Systematic or Dogmatic

Theology, i.e. to that group of disciplines which occupy themselves with

dogma, and to which, besides dogmatics, ethics, symbolics, history of

dogma, and elenctics also belong. Only Schleiermacher, Kurze Darstellung

des theol. Studiums, 2te Ausg. 1830 § 195, added it to historical theology,

because it is the science von dem Zusammenhange der in der Kirche zu

einer gegebenen Zeit geltenden Lehre, Der Christl. Glaube § 19, also Rothe,

Zur Dogm. 1863 S. 14, and thus gives a statistics of the present.

Schleiermacher came to this peculiar opinion, because he wished to

separate dogmatics as strictly as possible from apologetics. While the latter,

as part of philosophische theologie, has to show what Christian truth is, the

former has only to describe what counts as truth in one or another Christian

church. Yet Schleiermacher by this absolutely did not intend to ascribe to

dogmatics only a reporting character; he does indeed assign to it a critical

task and demands that it be systematic, that it give its own conviction, and

that it describe not what has counted, but what counts, Dr. Is. van Dijk,

Begrip en methode der Dogmatiek 38 v.; Hagenbach, Encycl. § 80. But [10]

thereby it already goes beyond purely historical description. The Christian

congregation cannot be satisfied with an objective report of its content of

faith, but demands that its faith also be unfolded and set forth as truth. The

dogmatician also does not stand neutrally outside and over against the faith

of the congregation, as over against the religious doctrine of Mohammedans

and Buddhists, but belongs to that congregation, and thus also describes

what for him counts and must count as truth. And finally there is an

essential difference between works such as those of Hase, Schmid,

Schweizer and Heppe, which give an objective description of the Luth. and

Geref. doctrine, and dogmatics, which wishes to demonstrate and present

the truth of religious convictions. If Schleiermacher, calling dogmatics a

historical discipline, meant by that nothing other than that it is a thetic,

positive science, which does not seek its object but finds it and now

describes it, then his intention is to be appreciated, but the designation

nevertheless incorrect. If, however, he entertained the opinion that

dogmatics had only to describe a historical given and made no claim to

normative truth, then his view has very certainly been incorrect and

nowadays is also generally rejected. Hagenbach, Encycl. § 80; Herzog2 3,

2. Since dogmatics thus belongs to the disciplines of dogmatic theology, it

must be well distinguished from its sisters. All disciplines in this part of

theology have to do with dogma, i.e. with the truth, as God has revealed it,

but each in its own way. It can be listened to, as it is confessed clearly and

powerfully by the congregation in its confession, and then theologia

symbolica arises. It can be presented in a simple, comprehensible form, as

milk 1 Petr. 2:2 to the youthful members, the children of the congregation,

and then theologia catechetica speaks, to be well distinguished from

catechetics, the art of doing that. It can be maintained in its truth and right

over against opponents, and then theologia elenctica accomplishes its task.

It can also be set forth thetically and positively, but in a scientific,

systematic form, for developed consciousness, and then dogmatics is

practiced. All these disciplines have in common with one another that

they display the thesauri Sacrae Scripturae, but each in its own way.

Dogmatics does that, as people used to say in former times, in a scholastic,

school-like way, that is, in such a way as ought to take place in the schools

of science. Naturally, if not everything, then much depends here on the

standpoint that the dogmatician takes. If he, with the pietists and theologi

biblici, assumes a sharp antithesis between Scripture- and church-doctrine,

then he will adhere as narrowly as possible to Scripture, also in words and

expressions, and will process the found material as little as possible by

thinking. If he sees in the confession of the church, in the historia

dogmatum, not a corruption but a development of Scriptural truth, then his

dogmatics will be ecclesiastically and confessionally colored. And if he

stands rationalistically over against both Scripture and church, the

convictions of faith that he presents will bear above all a negative character.

All that is a difference of method and will be discussed later. But precisely

for that reason it is not good, with Prof. Doedes, Encyclopaedie, § 48, to

distinguish a threefold dogmatics, viz. N. Test. or Christian, ecclesiastical,

and critical. For thereby equal rank and right of existence are granted to all

three, the confusion increases still more, the N. Test. dogmatics comes to

stand as the Christian one par excellence over against the two others, the

first two kinds of dogmatics can proceed entirely outside one’s own

conviction, and critical dogmatics alone becomes that of one’s own

independent view. The task of dogmatics is rather always one and the same.

It is and by its nature can be nothing other than a scientific exposition of

religious truth, an enarratio verbi Dei, a display of the thesauri Sacrae

Scripturae, a παραδοσις ε ἰ ς τυπον διδαχης, Romans 6:17, so that we have in it

a forma and imago of the doctrina coelestis. Dogmatics therefore is itself

not the Word of God; it is always only a faint image and a weak likeness of

it; it is a fallible, human attempt to think and to speak after, in one’s own,

free way, what God formerly, many times and in many ways, spoke through

the Prophets and in these last days has spoken to us through the Son,

Polanus, Syntagma p. 539; Heidegger, Corpus Theol. Christ. Loc. I § 58.

The question how dogmatics can best fulfill this its task is a question of

method and must later be treated separately. [12]

3. Most closely related to dogmatics is ethics. The word dogma formerly

comprised both, the articuli fidei and the praecepta decalogi, the dogmata

fidei and the dogmata morum. Ethics was either incorporated into

dogmatics, with Lombardus, Thomas, Melanchton, Calvin, Martyr,

Musculus, Sohnius etc., or worked out in a second part after dogmatics,

with Polanus, Amesius, Heidegger, Wollebius, Wendelinus, Maestricht,

Brakel etc. or also treated entirely independently, separated from dogmatics,

with Danaeus, Ethices Christ. libri III 1577, Keckermann, Walaeus,

Polyander, Amyraldus, Pictet, Driessen, Hoornbeek, Heidegger, Osterwald,

J. A. Turretinus, Stapfer, Beck, Wyttenbach, Endeman, cf. A. Schweizer,

Die Entw. des Moralsystems in der ref. Kirche, Stud. u. Krit. 1850, Heft 1;

Gass, Gesch. der chr. Ethik II Bd., 1te Abth. 1886 S. 131 f.; Luthardt,

Gesch. der chr. Eth., 2te Hälfte 1893. The influence of Aristotle, which

already began with Melanchthon’s philosophia moralis 1539, held back the

development of Christian ethics. The separation, which later set in, had as a

consequence that ethics lacked a principle of its own, went to seek this at an

inopportune time in philosophy, as a degenerate theol. ethics came to stand

hostile over against dogmatics and displaced it from its place, and finally

completely erased the boundaries between it and dogmatics. Proof is

furnished by the fruitless attempts to distinguish the two. With Kant religion

no longer has any content of its own, but is only the conception of the good

as a command of God, Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen

Vernunft, ed. Rosenkranz S. 184. Schleiermacher gave to both as content

the Christian life, but dogmatics describes that life in relative rest, ethics in

relative movement, Die Christl. Sitte, ed. Jonas, 2te Aufl. 1884 S. 12-24.

Rothe saw the insufficiency of this distinction and therefore made

dogmatics into a historical subject, which treated the dogmata of the church,

ethics into a speculative science, which develops its material dialectically

out of the God-consciousness, Theol. Ethik, § 15. Dorner, Glaubenslehre I 9

f., Sittenlehre 47, Herzog2 4, 352, Wuttke, Christl. Sittenlehre I 9, Palmer,

Moral des Christ. 24 f. e. a., distinguish the two as knowing and doing,

understanding and will. Doedes, Encycl. § 52 no. 4 and Van Oosterzee, Chr.

Dogm. § 4 no. 4 as doctrine of salvation and as doctrine of life; Gunning,

Het ethische beginsel der Theologie 12 as life of Christ in the church

and in the individual; Daubanton, Theol. Stud. III 114 v. as doctrine of God

and doctrine of man, etc. All these distinctions suffer from the defect that

they seek a principial difference between dogmatics and ethics. And there is

none. The theol. ethics, well to be distinguished from the philos. ethics, has

no principle of its own, but is rooted wholly and entirely in dogmatics. The

indicated lines of separation create a dualism between God and man,

individual and community, salvation and life, rest and movement,

understanding and will, and pave the way for ethics to go seeking a

principle of its own along a speculative philosophical path, as with Rothe,

to lose its theological character and from out of its speculative height to

look down contemptuously upon historical, positive dogmatics. If

dogmatics and ethics must be treated separately, which for various reasons

is desirable, but is still dissuaded by many, such as Sartorius, Nitzsch, Beck,

A. Dorner, Ueber das Verhältniss der Dogm. u. Ethik in der Theol. Jahrb. f.

prot. Theol. Oct. 1889; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis I 14; Wendt, Die Aufgabe

der System. Theol. 1894 S. 12 f., then the distinction between the two can

lie only herein, that man, however at all times absolutely dependent on God,

is nevertheless also a free and independently acting being. Reborn and

renewed by the grace of the H. Spirit, sinful man also again receives desire

and strength to live according to God’s commandments. Dogmatics

describes the acts of God before and toward and in man; ethics describes

the acts which the renewed man now does on the ground and in the power

of those acts of God. In dogmatics man is passive, receives and believes; in

ethics he himself appears acting. In dogmatics the articuli fidei, in ethics the

praecepta decalogi are treated. There the fide is dealt with, here the caritate,

obedientia, bonis operibus. Dogmatics develops what God is and does for

man and makes him know God as his Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier; ethics

sets forth what man now is and does for God, how man wholly and entirely,

with understanding and will and all powers, devotes himself to God out of

gratitude and love. Dogmatics is the system of the knowledge of God,

ethics that of the service of God. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. III 14.; H. Schultz,

Grundriss der ev. Dogm. 2te Aufl. 1892 S. 3; Wendt, t. a. p. 17. Both

sciences are not independent over against each other, but together form

one system, are corresponding members of one organism, Wendt, ib. 19.

. By method of dogmatics is to be understood, in a broad sense, the

manner in which the dogmatic material is obtained and treated. Three

matters come into consideration in this connection: Scripture, the

confession of the church, and the personal faith of the dogmatician.

According as these three are neglected or used and then set in relation to

one another, the point of departure and therefore the path and the result of

dogmatics differ. In fact it always proceeds in such a way that every

Christian, including the dogmatician, receives his convictions of faith from

the circle in which he is born and brought up. Through preaching the church

is founded and transplanted from generation to generation. Faith is from

hearing. Tradition, declared infallible by Rome, was also not rejected

altogether by the Reformation and soon thereafter became a power that put

all freedom in fetters. One received the dogmatic material from the hands of

the church and of the school. Materia theologiae proprie sunt loci

communes, materia remota est S. Scriptura, say Alsted and Alting,

Schweizer, Glaub. der ev. ref. K. I 210. And after the reaction of the socalled Theologia Biblica, in this century the social element in religion, the

ecclesiastical character of dogmatics, has again been set in the clearest light

from various sides. There is scarcely anyone who denies the confessional

determinacy of religion and dogmatics, Schleiermacher, Glaub. § 19; Rothe,

Zur Dogm. S. 27; Lange, Dogm. I 659 f.; Herzog2 12, 651 f. e. a. In this

country the Groningen theologians again laid the emphasis on the church,

H. de Groot, De Gron. Godg. 68, 71-74, 97 v. Instit. theol. nat. § 37;

Voorlez. over de gesch. der opvoeding des menschdoms door God, II. 16de

en 17de voorl. And even modern theologians usually, in the treatment of the

doctrine of faith, attach themselves to the ecclesiastical dogma.

Biedermann, Chr. Dogm. 2te Aufl. II. 170 f.; Lipsius, Dogm. § 7; Scholten,

Leer der Herv. Kerk. [15]

2. But the church with her confession nevertheless cannot be the

principium of dogmatics. The Greek and Roman church have indeed

declared tradition to be infallible, but at all times churches, sects, and

tendencies, to whom the Christian character could not be denied, have, over

against that tradition, made an appeal to Holy Scripture. Indeed, in the

Theologia biblica the attempt has been made, to arrive, without the help of

church and confession, from Scripture alone at a doctrine of faith. It was

already prepared by Erasmus, Joh. Jansen, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes II.

15, the Socinians, Herzog2 14, 389, and the Remonstrants, in the praefatie

before the apologie of their confession. It found support among the many

sects, which thereafter arose in and alongside the churches of the

Reformation. It was introduced in the churches themselves by Calixtus and

Coccejus, and in the 18th century gained more and more ground. Its

intention becomes evident e.g. from the works of A. F. Büsching, Epitome

Theol. Christ. e solis S. S. verbis concinnatae et ab omnibus rebus et verbis

scholasticis purgatae, Gott. 1755. Thoughts on the character and the

superiority of biblical dogmatic theology over the scholastic 1758. Even in

this century such a Biblical tendency in dogmatics is advocated by Beck

and his followers, by Doedes, Doctrine of salvation, 2nd ed. 1876, and also

by Ritschl and his school, which, from the dogmatics corrupted by Greek

philosophy, returns to the revelation of God in the person of Christ.

3. But even thereby the possibility of conflict between the doctrine of

Scripture and the personal conviction of the dogmatician has not yet been

removed. So long as the truth is objectively laid down for the dogmatician

in Scripture or in the doctrine of the church, it seems that no right can be

done to the personality of the dogmatician. Dogmatics then remains an

exposition of the doctrine of Scripture or church, but perhaps without

personal assent on the part of the dogmatician. That, however, is no

dogmatics. For this does not consist in a historical report, but sets forth

what must count as truth, and thus includes the personal conviction of the

dogmatician. Since authority in matters of religion for many wholly fell

away and the religio subjectiva was made independent of the religio

objectiva, religious consciousness, conscience, feeling, reason, or

whatever one wishes to call it, has become the source and standard of

religious representations. The whole of theology, through and after

Schleiermacher, both among the orthodox and among the moderns, is

consciousness-theology. Scholten, Schweizer, Biedermann, Lipsius may

still, in the treatment of the dogmas, proceed from the ecclesiastical

formulation, yet in the end they give nothing other than their personal faith.

And theologians also such as Martensen, Dorner, Hofmann, Philippi, Frank

e. a., take their point of departure in the consciousness of the believer. In

this country Van Oosterzee, Dogm. § 10, included Christian consciousness

among the sources of dogmatics. Des Amorie van der Hoeven Jr. versified

in Geloof des harten: the inexpressible word stands to be read in our heart,

and Christ gave it sounds. Beets, Dichtwerken IV 130 sang: To be wholly

objective, is the demand, is human. But would it be possible? Oh, do not

soothe yourself with any semblance! The systems are personal or inhuman.

And prof. Van Manen, in his inaugural oration at Groningen, pointed to the

personal character of doctrinal theology, Gron. 1884. From that personal

character of dogmatics Doedes, Encycl. bl. 168 v. explains the boundless

confusion that prevails in its domain.

4. Even this survey of the three dogmatic directions makes it clear that

none of the three can do without the other. Each, taken by itself, is onesided and lapses into error. The critical direction, which rejects confession

and Scripture as a source of knowledge and wants to derive all religious

truth from the subject, is in the first place already in conflict with

experience. Also religiously we are products of our environment. We

receive our religious representations and impressions from those who care

for and educate us, and remain at all times bound to the circle in which we

live. A good psychology shows that intellect and heart, reason and

conscience, feeling and imagination cannot on any terrain count as a source

of knowledge of the truth. Just as we are physically bound to nature and

must receive food and drink, shelter and clothing from it, so we are also

psychically, in art, science, religion, morality dependent on the world

outside us. All our knowledge comes from outside; there are no ideae

innatae. Feeling in particular cannot be considered as a source of

knowledge [17], for feeling is never a prius, but always a posterius; it reacts

only to that which affects it and then gives a sensation of pleasure or

displeasure, of agreeable or disagreeable, Tholuck, art. Gefühl in Herzog2;

Bender, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1872 S. 659 f.; Philippi, Kirchl. Glaub. I

60 f.; Hodge, System. Theol. I 65 f.; Hoekstra, Godg. Bijdr. 1864 bl. 1-43.

Id. Philosophical Doctrine of Religion, Amst. 1894 bl. 59 v. 213 v. The

autonomous explaining of the religious and moral human being always goes

together with deism or pantheism. Deism makes the human being

independent of God and world, teaches the self-sufficiency of his reason

and leads to rationalism; pantheism lets God come to revelation and selfconsciousness in the human being and cultivates mysticism. Both destroy

objective truth, leave reason and feeling, intellect and heart to themselves,

and end in unbelief or superstition. Reason criticizes away all revelation,

and feeling gives the Roman Catholic just as much right to imagine Mary as

the sinless queen of heaven as it gives the Protestant to combat this belief,

Schweizer, Glaub. der ev. ref. K. I 94. It is therefore remarkable that Holy

Scripture never refers the human being to himself as a source of knowledge

and standard of religious truth. How could it do so, where it describes the

psychic human being wholly and entirely, in his intellect Psalms 14:3; Rom.

Mark 7:21; in his will John 8:34; Romans 7:14; 8:7; Ef. 2:3; and also in his

darkened and corrupted by sin. For the knowledge of the truth it always

refers him to the objective revelation, to the word, the instruction, that has

1:19 etc. And also, where the objective truth through faith becomes our

personal property, that faith is nevertheless never like a fountain that brings

forth the living water out of itself, but like a channel that conveys the water

to us from elsewhere.

5. Rome has understood this impossibility of a religious and moral [18]

autonomy excellently, and therefore has bound man, on pain of the

salvation of his soul, to the infallible church. This, and thus in the last

instance the infallible Pope, is for the Roman Christian the principium of

his faith. The Papa dixit is the end of all contradiction. But history teaches

that this theoretical or practical infallibility of the church has at all times

encountered contradiction and opposition not only in Rome, but also in the

churches of the Reformation. Not the unbelieving, but the pious circles are

in the first place those who have felt this power of the hierarchy as a

constricting bond for the conscience. Through all centuries there has been

not only a scientific, social, political, but also an intimately religious and

moral opposition against the hierarchical power of the church. It will not do

to explain this opposition from unbelief and disobedience, and, as if

intentionally, to fail to recognize the religious motives that lay at the

foundation of the opposition of the various sects and directions. No one

dares to condemn all these sects, because they rose in revolt against the

church and its tradition. Even Rome shrinks back from this conclusion. The

extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a confession that even to the strongest faith

still falls too heavy. The law, which we see ruling in every domain,

therefore also continues in religion and morality. There is on the one hand a

revolutionary spirit, which wants to demolish to the ground all that has

become historical, in order then to begin building anew; but there is also a

false conservatism, which takes pleasure in leaving the existing untouched

merely because it exists and, according to the well-known word of Calvin,

malum bene positum non movere. Everywhere and in every domain there is

in its time a certain radicalism needed, in order to restore the equilibrium, to

let development proceed, and not to let the stream of life silt up. In art and

science, in state and society and so also in religion and morality, there

gradually arises a rut, which suppresses and violates the rights of

personality, genius, invention, inspiration, freedom, conscience. But then

also always in its time the man arises, who cannot endure under that

pressure, who throws off from himself the yoke of servitude, and who again

takes up the cause of the freedom of man, of the freedom of the Christian.

Those are the turning points in history. Thus Christ himself once acted

against the tradition of the elders and returned to the law and the prophets.

And thus once the Reformation had the courage, not for the sake of any

scientific, social or political interest, but in the name of the Christian man,

to protest against Rome’s hierarchy. Even among the sects and directions

that later arose in the Protestant churches, that religious, ethical motive is

many times not to be denied. The theologia biblica also defends an

important part of religious truth. If church and theology prefer rest above

the struggle, they themselves awaken the opposition, which will remind

them of their Christian calling and task. Rome can of course never approve

such an opposition and must condemn it already beforehand. The

Reformation itself has arisen from it and cannot withhold from others what

it took for itself. And Holy Scripture, although far from all revolutionary

resistance, has nevertheless legitimated the right of contradiction against

every human command that conflicts with God’s Word in the royal word of

6. Thus only that method seems to be the true one, which is applied by the

biblical theologians. But this direction too suffers from great one-sidedness.

It imagines that it stands wholly unprejudiced over against Scripture and

reproduces its content purely and objectively. But it forgets that every

believer and every dogmatician first of all receives his convictions of faith

from the hand of his church. He therefore never comes to Scripture from

outside, without any knowledge and preconceived opinion, but brings from

home already a certain conception of the content of revelation with him and

thus also views Scripture with the spectacles which the church holds before

him. Every dogmatician, when he sets to work, whether he acknowledges it

or not, stands in that historical manifestation of Christianity in which he

was born and brought up, and comes to Scripture as a Reformed or

Lutheran or Roman Christian. One cannot here either simply rid oneself of

one’s environment; one is always a child of one’s time, product of one’s

environment, Toorenenbergen, De Chr. Geloofsleer, bl. 6.; Nitzsch, Lehrb.

der ev. Dogm. 1889 S. 8 f. The outcome accordingly answers to this

expectation; all dogmatic handbooks which have been brought to light by

the biblical direction faithfully reflect the personal and ecclesiastical

standpoint of the author; they can lay claim to no greater objectivity than

that of the ecclesiastical dogmaticians. The pure Gospel, which Ritschl e.g.

finds back in Luther and in Jesus, corresponds wholly to the conception

which he himself has formed of it. All these biblical directions are therefore

also continually judged by history; they do their use for a time and awaken

a forgotten truth, but they do not change the stream of ecclesiastical life and

have no permanence in themselves. Usually they proceed from a religious

conviction which can no longer be found even in Scripture. Indeed they

always begin by appealing from the confession to Scripture, but soon they

go back from Scripture to the person of Christ and end with it by also

assailing his authority. And history always shows again that Christianity has

been preserved relatively most purely in the confessions of the churches.

But such a biblical conception is not only practically impossible, it is also

theoretically incorrect. Scripture is no lawbook, of which the articles only

need to be looked up in order, in a particular case, to know its opinion. It is

composed of many books by different persons, from very different times,

with divergent content. It is not an abstract, but an organic, living unity. It

nowhere contains a sketch of the doctrine of faith, but this must be derived

from the whole organism of Scripture. Scripture is not arranged so that we

should parrot it, but that we, as free children of God, should think it

through. But then all so-called Voraussetzungslosigkeit and objectivity is

also impossible. Then so much study and reflection of the subject is

connected with it, that one person is utterly unfit for it. Centuries are needed

for it. The church is appointed for it, which has the promise of the guidance

of the Spirit in all truth. Whoever isolates himself from the church, i.e. from

Christendom, from the whole history of dogma, loses the Christian truth.

He becomes like a branch that has been torn from the tree and dies away, a

member that has been separated from the body and is therefore destined for

death. Only in the communion of saints is the length and breadth, the depth

and height of the love of Christ to be understood, Ef. [21] 3:18. In addition

to that, the advocates of this direction forget that Christianity is universal

and can and must enter into all forms and conditions. They set grace in

hostile opposition to nature and do not reckon enough with the incarnation

of the Word. For just as truly as the Son of God became man, so also the

thought of God is laid down in Scripture, flesh and blood in the

consciousness of men. Dogmatics is and ought to be, the divine thought

completely entered and taken up into our human consciousness, expressed

freely and independently in our language, in its essence fruit of the times, in

its form of this time (Da Costa). Therefore the antithesis is also incorrect

which is often made between Biblical Theology and Dogmatics, as though

the former would reproduce the content of Scripture, the latter that of the

ecclesiastical dogmas. For dogmatics intends nothing else than to expound

the thoughts of God which He has laid down in the H. Scripture, Maresius,

Syst. Theol. loc. 1. § 8. But it does that, as is proper, in a scientific manner,

in a form and according to a method, as are scientifically required. In this

sense the Reformed formerly defended the right of the so-called theologia

scholastica. They had absolutely nothing against the revealed truth also

being presented in a simpler form under the name of theologia positiva,

catechetica etc. But they most strongly contested that these two differed in

content; what distinguished them was only a difference in form and method.

And by taking this standpoint, they on the one hand maintained as strongly

as possible the unity and coherence of faith and theology, of church and

school, but on the other hand also kept high the scientific character of

theology. The thoughts of God might be ever so lofty and wonderful, yet

they were no aphorisms, but formed an organic unity, a systematic whole,

which could also be thought through and represented in a scientific form.

Scripture itself urges to this theological labour, when it lays the strongest

emphasis everywhere not on abstract knowing, but on doctrine and truth,

knowledge and wisdom.

7. A good method of dogmatics must therefore take account of all three

data, of Scripture, church, and personal conviction [22]. Only then is it

possible to be preserved from gross one-sidedness. Yet it then still comes

down to determining the relation in which these three data stand to one

another. As a rule it goes thus, that we receive our religious convictions

from our environment. That is the case in all religions, and also in

Christianity. We are all born as members of a church. The covenant of grace

takes us up from our birth onward. The promises of God in Christ apply not

only to believers but also to their seed. In critical times, like our own, it

often happens that later there comes a painful breach between the faith of

childhood and personal conviction. If this breach is of such a nature that

one must indeed leave one’s own church but can nevertheless join oneself

to another historically existing church, then it is relatively quickly healed.

There is then indeed change, but no loss of religion itself, of the Christian

name, of the communion, of the confession. There then still remains a

dogma that stands firm and offers us support and comfort in life. On this

standpoint, therefore, a dogmatics also still remains possible, which

describes the truth of God as it found recognition in a particular church. But

often doubt lays hold much more deeply into religious life. Many lose all

faith and come to skepticism and agnosticism; here there is no longer any

question of dogmatics, of faith, of confession, of communion; mere

negation is incapable of founding communion. Others, however, no longer

being able to maintain the faith of childhood, attempt, under serious

exertion and struggle, to acquire for themselves a religious conviction of

their own. Here too, of course, the influence of the environment makes

itself felt; one never comes to a religious conviction wholly independently.

Only, in that case, there is this difference, that what was no longer found in

a church is now sought in a philosophical school. Every philosophy in this

century has in turn been seized upon, in order to awaken and maintain

certain religious convictions. Also on this standpoint there is no longer any

question of dogmatics. There is only still a religious faith, a Glaubenslehre,

a philosophy of religion, a philosophical doctrine of religion.

Dogmatics is therefore possible only for him who stands in the

communion of faith with one or another Christian church. This also

lies in the nature of religious faith. Religious representations are

distinguished from scientific ones, inter alia, in that they do not rest on

one’s own insight, on the authority of any man, but only on the authority of

God. But this includes that they have also found faith and recognition in a

religious circle, i.e. in a church. Only therein does the religious authority of

a religious representation become knowable. A church does not believe its

confession because it scientifically perceives the truth of it, but solely and

only on the ground of the Word of God, whether this expresses itself only in

Scripture or also through ecclesiastical organs. He who seeks his religious

conviction with a philosophical school confuses religion with science and

receives nothing but an always uncertain, by many contested, sententia or

opinio doctoris. Religious faith, however, by virtue of its own nature is

bound to a community and to its confession. Here too it is as everywhere

else. Abstractions, universalia, do not exist in reality. The tree, man,

science, language, religion, theology are nowhere to be found. There are

only particular trees, men, sciences, languages, and religions; just as a

language is connected with a people, just as science and philosophy are

always practised in a certain direction and school, so religion and theology

are to be found and to be cultivated only in a kindred community. A church

is the natural soil for religion and theology. Just as there is not already the

church, so there is also not religion and theology. There are only different

churches, and thus also different theologies. And this will last until the

congregation in Christ shall have reached its full maturity and all have

come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. This

unity is not to be seized with violence, but can best be promoted if each

thinks through the faith of his own church, and presents it most purely. Not

apart from the existing churches, but through these, Christ prepares for

himself his one holy, catholic congregation. And not apart from the different

ecclesiastical dogmas, but through these, the unity of the knowledge of God

is prepared and obtained. In this way the dogmatician will also be able best

to work fruitfully for the purification and the development of the religious

life and the doctrine of his church. Attachment to what exists is a condition

for improvement in the future. In the now lies what will be, Twesten,

Vorles. über die Dogm. 2e Aufl. I 46. This significance of the church for

theology and dogmatics is grounded in the connection that Christ himself

has laid between both. He has promised to his church the H. Spirit, who

would lead her into the truth. The history of dogma thereby comes to stand

in a glorious light. It is the explication of Scripture, Lange, Christl. Dogm. I

3; Schoeberlein, Princip. und System der Dogm. 26; the exposition which

the H. Spirit in the church has given of the treasures of the Word. The

dogmatician therefore has not to draw the material for his dogmatics only

from the written confession of his own church, but to consider this in

connection with the whole distinctive faith and life of his church, and this

again with the history of the entire church of Christ. He therefore stands on

the shoulders of the forefathers. He feels himself surrounded by a cloud of

witnesses, and lets his testimony flow together with that voice of many

waters. Every dogmatics ought also to join in the hymn of praise that is

brought to God by the church of all ages.

8. But by that the history of dogma and the confession of the church have

not yet been elevated to an infallible authority. There is a distinction

between the path along which the dogmatician is formed and the principle

from which dogmatics receives its material. In every science the

practitioner begins to live from the tradition. The first knowledge of his

discipline he always acquires through authority. He must first take up into

himself the history of his discipline and climb to the level and the present

state of his science, in order thereafter to set to work independently and to

acquire for himself an own insight into the object of his investigation. But

no one will therefore regard the tradition, which was of so great importance

pedagogically, as the source of his science. It is no different with the

dogmatician. Pedagogically the church precedes Scripture. But according to

logical order Scripture is the principium unicum of church and theology. In

case of difference, the possibility of which from a Reformation standpoint

can never be denied, church and confession must yield to Scripture.

Not the church but Scripture is α ὐ τοπιστος, judex controversiarum, [25]

sui ipsius interpres. Nothing may be placed on one and the same level with

it. Church, confession, tradition, everything must regulate itself according

to it, submit itself to it. The Remonstrants did indeed accuse the Reformed

that they, by the confession, fell short with respect to the authority, the

sufficiency, and the perfection of Holy Scripture. But the Reformed,

although in this dispensation of the church deeming confession necessary,

in order to explain the Word of God, to ward off heresies, and to maintain

the unity of the faith, contended as strongly as possible that the confession

would have even the least authority alongside Scripture. Scripture alone is

norma and regula fidei et vitae, the confession deserves faith only because

and insofar as it agrees and remains in agreement with Scripture, as a

fallible work of men, revisable and examinable by Scripture. The

confession is thus at most norma secundaria, non veritatis sed doctrinae in

aliqua ecclesia receptae, and therefore binding for all who wish to live in

communion with the church. Within the church the confession has authority

as an accord of communion, as an expression of the faith of the

congregation, but it believes and maintains that confession only on the

ground of Scripture, Voetius, Pol. Eccl. IV 1-74; Turret, Theol. El. Loc. 18.

cap. 30; Examen van het Ontwerp van Tolerantie, 8e Sam. bl. 59-136;

Moor, Comm. in Marckii Comp. VI 353 s., etc. All Christian churches are

one in the confession that Holy Scripture is the principium of theology, and

the Reformation unanimously recognized it as principium unicum. The

Netherl. Confession expresses that in art. 5, and all Lutheran and Reformed

theologians are in agreement with this, Schmid, Dogm. der ev. luth. K. § 4;

Heppe, Dogm. der ev. ref. K. loc. 2. It is true that in art. 2 of the Ned. Conf.

it is confessed that God is known by two means, namely by nature and

Scripture, and by all Reformed theologians the theologia naturalis has been

maintained in its truth and value. But in the first period, before rationalism

had falsified Reformed theology, it was clearly seen that nature and

Scripture did not stand independently and separately alongside one another,

any more than the theologia naturalis and revelata. Calvin incorporated the

theol. naturalis into the corpus of Christian dogmatics, and said that

Scripture was the spectacles by which the believer beheld God more clearly

also in the works of nature, Instit. I. 6, 1. The theologia naturalis originally

had absolutely not as its aim to pave the way gradually and progressively to

the theologia revelata; with it one did not adopt the provisional standpoint

of reason, in order then by reasoning and proof to climb up to the standpoint

of faith. But from the beginning the dogmatician stood on the foundation of

faith, and as a Christian, as a believer, now also viewed nature; and then he

discovered, with his Christian eye, armed with Holy Scripture, also in

nature traces of that God whom he through Scripture, in Christ, had learned

to know as his Father. Subjectively, therefore, in dogmatics it was not first

natural reason and then faith that spoke; it was always the believing

Christian who in the catechism, in the confession, in dogmatics expressed

his faith. And likewise, objectively, nature did not stand as an autonomous

and independent principium alongside Holy Scripture, both supplying their

own set of truths. But nature was viewed in the light of Scripture, and

Scripture contained not only the truth revealed in the strict sense, but also

contained the truths which the believer can discover in nature. Thus Alsted

in his Praecognita Theologiae 1623. p. 115, indeed acknowledges a

theologia naturalis in the unregenerate but this is confused and dark; for the

believer the principia et conclusiones theologiae naturalis are in Scripture

clearly and distinctly repeated, Hodge, System. Theol. I 11. 15; Shedd,

Dogm. Theol. I 68.

Even though there is therefore a knowledge of God from nature,

dogmatics nevertheless has only a single principium externum, viz. Holy

Scripture, just as it also has only a single principium internum, viz.

believing reason. And now not merely in such a way that Holy Scripture

would be only norma and no source, but specifically in the sense of

principium theologiae. There is a great difference between earlier

theologians and those of the present time. Since Schleiermacher went back

from the object to the subject, a crowd of theologians have come to see in

the congregation and its confession the source of dogmatic truth. Not only

have they, and rightly, recognized and expressed the confessional and

ecclesiastical character of dogmatics, but they have also made the

confession of the congregation into a source of knowledge and lowered

Holy Scripture to norma, Schleiermacher, Glaub. § 19; Rothe, Zur Dogm.

27; Schoeberlein 23; Gunning en Saussaye, Het ethisch beginsel 12; [27]

Dr. Van Dijk, Begrip en methode der dogm. 14 v.; Dr. Daubanton, Confessie

en Dogmatiek 29 v., or also placed the confession alongside Holy Scripture

as a source of knowledge, Lange, Dogm. II 3; Van Oost § 9; Von der Goltz,

§ 18; Reiff, I 256. And Dr. Gunning t. a. p. 31-34 even asserted that the

doctrine of Scripture as source instead of as norma was not Reformed, but

actually Remonstrant. But this representation rests on an incorrect

conception of the relation between church and Scripture. In the first time of

the Christian congregation there could still be talk of a pure tradition, which

ran parallel with the writings of the Apostles. But those two streams have

long since flowed together. There is now no knowledge of Christian truth

any longer, except only from Holy Scripture. Even though the religious life

in the congregation nourishes itself much more from devotional works than

from Scripture, Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. II2 12, they are nevertheless only

channels through which the truth of Holy Scripture is supplied to believers

in a more comprehensible form. Moreover, dogmatics is something entirely

different from symbolics. This describes and explains the confession of the

church. But dogmatics dogmatizes, i.e. it sets forth what in the religious

domain does not count as truth, but must count as truth. It ought indeed to

stand in connection with the confession, as also with the school and the

church. But dogmatics nevertheless stands independently alongside the

confession; it expounds the truth of God in a way that is its own. Scripture

has been given to the church, but also to the school, to science; and both

read and investigate, explain and describe its content. Confession and

dogmatics thereby act upon one another; the confession in its turn is just as

dependent on dogmatics as the latter is on the former. Dogmas have not

been produced by the church, but are fruit of theology. First there were the

Apologists, then came Nicaea. First the Reformers appeared and later the

Protest. confessions followed etc., Harnack, Dogmengesch. I 10, and my

article Theol. Stud. 1891, bl. 258-275. And finally the doctrine of Holy

Scripture as unicum principium theologiae is also only purely Reformation

and Reformed. The Nederl. Conf. teaches in art. 2 and 7 expressly that the

knowledge of God and his service is drawn only from Scripture and that it

is thus indeed a source and not only norma. Calvin, Instit. I. cap. 6,

Melanchthon in the praefatio before his Loci and all dogmatici declare

that the knowledge of God can be obtained only clearly and perfectly from

Scripture. Every dogmatics almost begins with the doctrine of Scripture as

unicum principium theologiae. The properties of the auctoritas, sufficientia,

perfectio, which the Protestants ascribed to Holy Scripture over against

Rome, argue the same, Daubanton, Theol. Stud. 1885, bl. 191-210. That in

doing so they preferred not to speak of fons, but of principium, does not in

the least weaken this wholly unique significance of Scripture for dogmatics.

The name principium is even to be preferred above that of fons. The latter

expression indicates the relation between Scripture and theology as a

mechanical one; and makes it appear as if the dogmas could be drawn from

Holy Scripture as water from the spring. But principium points to an

organic connection. Dogmas are not in Scripture, but their material lies

contained in it. Scripture contains the germs, the seeds from which the

dogmas, under the instruction of the Spirit in the church, grow up.

Dogmatics is the truth of Scripture, passed through the thinking

consciousness of man, and reproduced in scientific form.

9. Thereby, however, the personal character of doctrinal theology has not

been done away with. That cannot and may not be, because dogmatics is

not a historical report, but an indication of what, in the religious domain,

must count as truth. This personal character of dogmatics, however, does

not flow from the fact that every bond to the object is cut through and each

person now simply sets forth whatever he pleases. For then dogmatics

ceases to be a science and is nothing but a private opinion. If dogmatics,

according to Prof. Van Manen bl. 23, must abandon the delusion that there

is a truth given from without, objective, then there is no dogmatics any

more. Then there are only subjective opinions, of which the one is just as

good as the other. Every science which lays claim to that name must have

its own object, existing in the real world; further presupposes that that

object is knowable; and is then bound to that object as strictly as possible.

For dogmatics no other requirement holds; it too must have its own object,

that object must be knowable, and to that object it is absolutely bound. But

the denial of such a proper, knowable object may never be made good

with an appeal to the personal character of doctrinal theology. That is a

confusion of two entirely different questions. Of a personal character of

dogmatics there can only then be mention, if it is established beforehand

that it has its own object.

For every science, of nature, history, law, morals, etc., has an object that is

present in the real world. But for that reason every science nevertheless still

bears a personal character; the one certainly less than the other,

mathematics e.g. to a far lesser degree than history. But in proportion as the

sciences are less formal, and lie nearer to the center, in that proportion the

influence of personality increases. A human being can, in the practice of

science, no more than anywhere else, rid himself of himself; he brings his

upbringing, view of life, heart and conscience, sympathies and antipathies

with him, and these of themselves exercise influence on his research and

reflection. This now is in itself not wrong; the dualism that divides the

human being into two halves and, in the practice of the sciences, reduces

him to a pure intellect, is practically impossible and theoretically falsely

conceived. The only requirement is that the human being always and

everywhere, also when he practices science, be a good human being, a man

of God suitably equipped for every good work. And it is no different in

dogmatics; indeed here all this is a fortiori the case. For dogmatics has

precisely to do with the deepest convictions of faith of the human being and

with the center of all science. Here above all it is the requirement that the

human being be a good human being, that he stand in the right relation to

God, whom to know is eternal life.

Therefore it is also the doctrine of Scripture, that the objective revelation

is completed in the subjective illumination. The Reformed doctrine of

Scripture stands in the closest connection with that of the testimonium

Spiritus Sancti. The verbum externum does not remain outside us, but

through faith becomes a verbum internum. The H. Spirit, who gave

Scripture, also gives testimony to that Scripture in the heart of believers.

Scripture itself provides for its own triumph in the consciousness of the

congregation of Christ. For that reason the believer feels himself bound

with his whole soul to Scripture. In it he is introduced by the H. Spirit,

the Doctor ecclesiae. And all his intention is, to take up those thoughts of

God, laid down in Scripture, into his consciousness and to understand them

by thinking. But in doing so he remains a human being, with his own

disposition, upbringing, insight; faith itself does not arise in every human

being in the same way and is not in all of the same strength; reason differs

in sharpness, depth, clarity of thought; the influence of sin continues to

have effect, also in his consciousness and understanding. And as a

consequence of all these influences, doctrinal theology continues to bear a

personal character. That is the case here, as in every science. Even prophets

and apostles saw the same truth from different sides. The unity of faith has

no more been attained than the unity of knowledge. But precisely through

the diversity God leads His congregation toward unity. When that unity of

faith and of knowledge has been attained, dogmatics too has completed its

task. As long as, however, its calling remains entrusted to it, to interpret on

the estate of science the thoughts which God has laid down for us in the H.

Scripture. For this task the dogmatician will be equipped in the most

excellent way, if he lives in communion of faith with the church of Christ

and confesses Scripture as the only and sufficient principium of the

knowledge of God. The dogmatician thus receives the content of his faith

from the hands of the church. In a paedagogical sense he comes through the

church to Scripture. But in doing so he may, no more than any believer,

remain standing there. He has the calling, to analyze the dogmata, which he

has come to know through the church, down to their very fibers, and to

investigate how they are rooted in the H. Scripture. Thus his task would

consist in this, that he first handed over the dogmata objectively, and

thereafter reduced them to the H. Scripture; his method would then be

historical-analytical. But although this method for a single dogma in itself

may perhaps have much that is recommendable; and although it is in

dogmatics also of subordinate value; yet it has this against it, that with it

one does not arrive at a scientific system. The dogmatician therefore does

better to walk another path; not from the river to the source, but from the

source to the river. Without doing injustice to the truth, that the church in a

paedagogical sense precedes Scripture, he can nevertheless take his position

in Scripture itself as the principium theologiae, and then from there

develop the dogmata. He then reproduces, as it were, the labor of thought of

the church; he shows us how the dogmata have grown organically out of

Scripture; how not one single text, but Scripture in its entirety is the firm,

broad soil on which the dogmatic building has arisen. This synthetic,

genetic method then provides him in the second place the advantage, that he

can also point out the unity and the mutual connection of the dogmata. The

different dogmata are not isolated propositions, but they form a unity. There

is actually only one dogma, which has been born from Scripture and has

branched and split into all kinds of particular dogmata. The method of the

dogmatician can and may be nothing other than systematic. And finally he

still has the calling, in this genetic and systematic development of the

dogmata also to draw attention to possible deviations, to supplement

possible gaps, and thus to labor at the development of the dogmata in the

future. That is the critical task, to which the dogmatician is called, but

which in the systematic treatment of the dogmatic material is of itself

already enclosed. In that way he seeks in dogmatics to give an exposition of

the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge, which are hidden in Christ and

are displayed in Scripture.

. As soon as dogmatics arose, a division was also needed of the

material which was treated in it. That division was at the beginning

extremely simple. The three principal works of Clemens Alexandrinus, viz.

Cohortatio ad gentes, Paedagogus and Stromata are indeed connected

together by the idea of the education of the human race by the Logos, but

nevertheless contain no proper division; and the last work does indeed

develop the true philosophy of Christianity over against Heathendom and

Judaism, but Clemens himself says at the beginning of the 6th and at the

close of the 7th book of that work, that in it he only wrote what came into

his mind, and that one therefore must not be surprised at the lack of

order. Origenes’ work περι ἀ ρχων, de principiis, already attempts to bring

some order into the material, and accordingly has four main concepts: God,

world, freedom, revelation; the first book deals with God, the Trinity and

the angels; the second with the world, the God of the O. Test., the good and

evil, the incarnation and the resurrection; the third with freedom of the will,

the temptations and the end of the world; and the fourth with Holy

Scripture, its inspiration and interpretation. The various loci concerning

God, angel, man, Christ, etc. already come to light here, but not yet in good

order and correct delimitation, and also still incomplete; the doctrine of the

sacraments is lacking, that concerning Scripture comes at the end, and a

principle of division is not yet to be discovered. This division of Origenes is

taken over in improved form by Theodoretus in the 5th book of his

Α ἱ ρετικης κακομυθιας ἐ πιτομη, haereticarum fabularum compendium,

which contains a sketch of the orthodox faith. Successively, it deals with

God, world, angel and man, Christ, Scripture and sacrament, resurrection

and judgment, while finally some ethical capita concerning virginity,

repentance, fasting are added to it. Furthermore, this same schema underlies

the Ἐ κδοσις ἀ κριβης της ὀ ρθοδοξου πιστεως of Joh. Damascenus. The

division into four books was first introduced in the Middle Ages, after it had

been translated into Latin by the jurist Johannes Burgundis from Pisa at the

command of Eugenius III, and Petrus Lombardus had taken the lead in his

Sententiae with the division into four books. Damascenus begins with the

doctrine of God, Trinity, attributes (book I), then speaks about the world,

creation, angels, men and providence (book II), subsequently treats the

person and the work of Christ (book III and IV, cap. 1-9), and ends with

some soteriological (faith, baptism, etc.), ethical (law, sabbath, etc.) and

eschatological capita (book IV, cap. 10-28).

In addition, the Apostles’ Creed, in connection with the baptismal

formula, already early offered another division for the dogmatic material.

The Expositio symboli of Rufinus and Augustine’s book de fide et symbolo

provided commentaries on it, and treated the main matters of the Christian

faith on the basis of the trinitarian schema, which lay at the foundation of

the apostolic symbol [33]. But Augustine was not only in this division an

example for many later writers, but in his Enchiridium ad Laurentium he

treats the whole dogmatic and ethical material under the three Christian

virtues faith, hope, and love; however, in a very uneven manner. After an

introduction, cap. 1-8, Augustine sets forth that which must be believed

from cap. 9 to cap. 113, chiefly on the basis of the apostolic symbol, but

then devotes only three capita (114-116) to hope, in which he takes the

Lord’s Prayer as guiding thread, and the remaining capita 117-122 to love.

Faith, prayer, and commandment thus form here the schema of dogmatics,

which later has often, especially in catechisms, been adopted. Isidore of

Seville also, in the first book of his Sententiarum sive de summo bono libri

III, in the main follows this order of the apostolic symbol and in 30 capita

treats of God, creation, world, angels and men, Christ, the H. Spirit, the

church, Scripture and sacraments, resurrection and last things, and then in

the second and third book treats exclusively ethical material.

2. The arrangement which Lombardus chose in the Middle Ages is more

reminiscent of that of Origenes, Theodoretus, and Damascenus. His

Sententiae are divided into four books. The first treats de mysterio trinitatis;

the second de rerum corporalium et spiritualium creatione et formatione:

creation, angels, the hexaemeron, man, the fall, sin; the third de

incarnatione verbi: the person and the work of Christ, faith, hope, love, the

4 principal virtues and other ethical subjects; the fourth book de

sacramentis: on 7 sacraments, the resurrection, the judgment, heaven and

hell. Here already perceptible progress is to be observed: the subjects are

not only better grouped and delimited, but the whole is also split into four

parts, each with its own, distinct object; the ethical material is not, as with

Theodoretus, added at the end, but incorporated into the dogmatics itself;

the sacraments, formerly only briefly discussed, are treated at length; on the

other hand, the arrangement leaves much to be desired in many respects,

and various subjects such as Scripture, church, and especially also the

soteriological, are almost not mentioned at all. Most Scholastics attached

themselves to this work of Lombardus and wrote commentaries on it.

Some introduced fortunate improvements in the ordering of the material.

Thomas, e.g., develops in the prologue to his commentary on the Sententiae

in a fine way, that first God, and then his works: creation, restoration and

consummation are the subjects of the 4 books. But a place of honor is also

occupied, from a formal point of view, by the Breviloquium of

Bonaventura. First, Bonaventura has a prooemium precede his work and in

it gives in 7 paragraphs a fine overview of the doctrine of Scripture,

especially of its content, which he briefly unfolds in its length and breadth,

depth and height. And then he gives in 7 partes a sketch of the truth of faith;

pars 1 treats de trinitate, pars 2 de creatura mundi, pars 3 de corruptela

peccati, pars 4 de incarnatione verbi, pars 5 de gratia Spiritus Sancti, pars 6

de medicina sacramentali, and pars 7 de statu finalis judicii. Here there is a

firm, methodical course, a complete mastery of the material, a pure

delimitation of the subjects, and also a consciously chosen principle of

division; for in pars 1 cap. 1 Bonaventura says that, although theology treats

all those seven subjects, it is nevertheless scientia una, for God is not only

rerum primum principium et exemplar effectivum in creatione, sed etiam

refectivum in redemptione et perfectivum in retributione. Entirely different

is the division of Thomas in his Summa. This work has three partes, the

partes are divided into quaestiones, and these again into articuli. Pars I

treats in 119 quaestiones of God and his creation, before and outside sin:

God as principium and exemplar of all things. Pars II speaks of man as his

imago, and again falls apart into a prima and secunda; the prima comprises

114 quaestiones, begins with the final end of man, namely blessedness, and

develops with a view to that the will qu. 6-17, the good and sinful quality of

human acts, passions and habits qu. 18-54, the virtues in general qu. 55-70,

the sins in their division, seat, cause and consequences, qu. 71-89, then the

external and internal motives that spur man to the good, the law, the gospel,

grace and merit, qu. 90-114. The secunda of this second part then treats in

189 quaestiones of the sins and virtues in particular, especially according to

the order of the three theological and the four cardinal virtues. After

thus the final end of man has been determined and his virtues and sins have

been set in the light, Pars III describes the way by which we can come to

the blessedness of immortal life, that is, Christ and the sacraments. In 90

quaestiones the person and the work of Christ and then the concept of

sacrament, baptism, confirmation, eucharist and poenitentia are described.

Here the work of Thomas ends; at his death he left it unfinished. The

supplementum, which has been added to it from his other writings, contains

99 quaestiones, continues the sacraments, and treats in qu. 69-99 the state of

souls after death, the resurrection, the judgment, blessedness and

damnation. An appendix speaks in 3 quaestiones still about purgatory. The

division of Thomas deviates from that of Bonaventura not only, but in many

respects also lags behind it. To be sure, in Pars I qu. 1, an extensive

development is given of the essence of theology, but over against that the

doctrine of Scripture remains entirely undiscussed. Further, Thomas at the

beginning of the second part at once leaps to the final end of human life,

and is thereby compelled often to anticipate what can only be treated later.

The Christian virtues, the gospel, the law, the grace, which Thomas includes

in this second part, presuppose the person and the work of Christ. The

division of Thomas is already connected with the Roman doctrine of the

ordo supernaturalis, to which man must be elevated. After the first part has

treated of God, the second part speaks of man, who as the image of God is

destined for the gratia supernaturalis but cannot attain it, and the third then

points out in the person of Christ and the sacraments the way by which man

can reach this his destination. God, man, Christ are thus the subjects of the

three parts, Werner, Der h. Thomas v. Aq., Regensburg 1858 I, 801 f.;

Kleutgen, Theol. der Vorzeit, 2e Aufl. V, 60-70; Kling, Descriptio Summae

theol. Th. Aq., Bonn 1846. Finally, the quaestionary form of treatment is

also not without objection, Pierson, Studiën over Joh. Calvijn, I 228 v.

Thomas sets forth each truth of faith in the form of a question, and brings

forward all that opponents have raised against it. With an appeal to one or

another authority, Scripture, church fathers, Aristotle, however, he

proves the truth of what is asked and draws up the conclusio. This is then

elucidated and finally defended against the objections that have been raised.

3. These divisions were mostly adopted by the later Roman theologians,

not only in the commentaries which, e.g., were produced by many medieval

theologians and also later still by Estius e. a. on the Sententiae of

Lombardus, or by Suarez, Valentia, Vasquez, Billuart, Daelman etc. on the

Summa of Thomas; but also in independent dogmatic works. Thus the

division of Thomas was adopted by Mart. Becanus in his theologia

scholastica, Mogunt. 1619, the local method of Theodoretus, Damascenus,

Lombardus by Petavius, Opus de theol. Dogm. Paris 1644. Proleg cap. I §

4. But scholasticism had yet another influence on the division of the

material. Bonaventura had already included the doctrine of Scripture in the

prooemium; Thomas treated beforehand the essence of theology: the

development of scholasticism led to the distinction of articuli mixti and

puri, to the doctrine of the praeambula fidei and motiva credibilitatis. Thus

the material for the prolegomena became more and more extensive. And

when the Reformation soon appeared with the exclusive authority of

Scripture, it became necessary for the Roman theologians also to give an

account of the principia of theology. Melchior Canus especially, in his loci

theologici 1563, developed the doctrine of the loci, i.e. of the sources of

Theology. This work is not a dogmatics, but a topica, in Cicero’s sense (see

above, p. 2). He treats in 12 books ten sources of theology, namely

Scripture, tradition, Pope, concilium, church, church fathers, scholastici,

reason, philosophy and history, of which the first seven are reducible to

two, Scripture and tradition, and the last three are only ministerialiter

theological. In this way, gradually, before dogmatics proper a broad

introduction has become necessary, which, also through the principled

contestation of theology on the part of philosophy etc., has grown into an

entire fundamental dogmatics. Most Roman dogmatics accordingly treat in

a first part the essence or concept of theology, the praeambula fidei (theol.

naturalis), the motiva credibilitatis (religion, revelation, prophecy, miracles,

wondrous spread of the christ., martyrs etc.), faith, the sources

(Scripture and church), theology and philosophy (faith and reason), concept

of dogmatics. Thus in Klee, Heinrich, Jansen, Scheeben, Liebermann,

Perrone e. a. Perrone’s work, e.g., treats vol. I de vera religione, and in the

two last parts VIII and IX on the loci theologici; these two indeed appeared

later after dogmatics proper, but belong, according to the author’s own

declaration, vol. VIII, praef., in substance to follow the first part. In these

loci Perrone deliberately, in distinction from Canus, places the church

before Scripture. And thus is the arrangement with most Roman

dogmaticians of more recent times. The church presses more and more into

the foreground; it is the principium fidei. The course of dogmatics is then

usually that of the local method. One begins with God, considered in

himself as one and triune; and then proceeds to God, considered in His

relation to the creatures, and indeed first as Deus Creator, then as Deus

Redemptor, thereafter as Deus Sanctificator and finally as Deus

Consummator.

4. Dogmatics among the Reformers was, from the outset, anti-scholastic

and was at first presented in a very simple and practical form.

Melanchthon’s Loci, published in 1521, arose from lectures on Paul’s

Epistle to the Romans. They are thoroughly practical, treat only

anthropological and soteriological capita, especially those of sin and grace,

law and gospel, and leave the objective dogmata of God, Trinity, creation,

incarnation, satisfaction entirely undiscussed. But the edition of 1535 was

greatly expanded by Melanchthon and introduced the secunda aetas of the

Loci; it was dedicated in a preface to Henry VIII, began with 5 new capita

on God, unity, Trinity, creation, and the cause of sin, was further enriched in

the middle with some chapters, and expanded the last three ethical capita

into ten chapters of ethical, ecclesiological, and eschatological content,

together 39 capita or articles. In 1543 the Loci entered their tertia aetas: a

preface was added pio lectori; the number of loci declines, owing to

simplification, from 39 to 24; but the content has nevertheless increased

significantly. The last edition prepared by Melanchthon himself is that of

1559. The successive editions show an ever greater approach to the

synthetic division, which begins with God and descends to his works in

nature and grace; but in this connection it is noteworthy that the

prolegomena are entirely lacking, that Christology comes off too short

because Christ’s person and work are not treated separately, that the

dogmatic and ethical remains most closely connected and the whole is

concluded not with the eschatological dogmata but with some ethical capita,

Phil. Melanchtonis Loci Theol. ed. Augusti 1821 p. 167 f. Die Loci C. des

Ph. M. in ihrer Urgestalt nach G. L. Plitt. 2e Aufl. von Dr. Th. Kolde,

Erlangen. Deichert 1890. Herzog2 9, 503 f. Zöckler Handb. der Theol.

Wiss. II 622 f. and the edition of the Loci in the Corpus Reformatorum.

Zwingli’s Commentarius de vera et falsa religione, Opera ed. Schuler et

Schulthess III 153 and his Fidei Christianae Expositio ib. IV 45, also treat

some dogmatic loci, but were soon put in the shadow by Calvin’s

Christianae Religionis Institutio. The first edition appeared in Latin at Basel

in March 1536 and contained a praefatio of Aug. 1535 to Francis I, and

thereafter six chapters on the law, faith, prayer, the sacraments, the Roman

sacraments, and freedom. It was expanded three times in 1539, 1543 and

1559. The last edition was about five times larger than the first, and indeed

contained increase and expansion, but no change. Melanchthon had in the

later editions become synergistic and crypto-Calvinistic; Calvin remained

the same. Melanchthon’s Loci became more synthetic in form, but retained

the character of a series of loci; Calvin’s Institutio more and more acquired

a systematic form. The edition of 1559 contains four books, on the

knowledge of God as Creator, as Redeemer, as Sanctifier, and a last book

on the external means of grace. The division is thus not purely Trinitarian

but is derived from the apostol. creed; hence a fourth part comes at the end,

dealing chiefly with church and sacraments. The first book gives much

more than the title promises, also treats the sources of the knowledge of

God and the doctrine of the Trinity. Cosmology and anthropology are

distributed over the first and second book. The third book contains, besides

soteriological, also many ethical chapters, together with the doctrine of

election and of the resurrection. The point of departure of the Institutio is

theological, but Calvin does not proceed from an abstract concept of God,

but from God as he is known by man from nature and Scripture, Köstlin,

Calvins Instit. nach Form und Inhalt in ihrer geschichl. Entw. Stud. u. Kr.

Gesch. der prot. Dogm. I 99 v. Pierson, Studien over J. Kalvijn I 127 v. and

the edition in the Corpus Reform.

5. Lutheran and Reformed theologians at first almost generally followed

this synthetic division of Melanchthon and Calvin. For various reasons it

was held to be the best. Not only Reformed theologians such as Hyperius,

Methodus Theol. 1574 p. 11-16, Alsted Theol. schol. didact, in de praefatio,

Ursinus, Opera, Heidelb. 1612 I 417, H. Alting, Oratio inauguralis de

methodo loc. comm. Heidelb. 1613, Leydecker, de Verit. Rel. Christ. 1690

p. 77; but also Lutherans, such as Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, vol. II,

tract. I p. 54, Declaratio tabulae trium methodorum theologiae, bij Gass,

Gesch. der prot. Dogm. I 46, gave preference to the synthetic method,

because in it, as Hyperius says, a primis principiis per formas ac differentias

ad finem usque fit progressus. This division was therefore preferred,

because it followed that same historical course which God had delineated in

His revelation; because it offered the least occasion for a priori speculation

and best preserved the positive character of theology; and because it was

analogous to the method in the other sciences, which also begin with the

simplest elements or principia and then proceed to the composite. This

division accordingly remained dominant in the Lutheran church up to

Calixtus; one finds it in the main in Strigel, Selneccer, Heerbrand, Chemniz,

Hutter, Gerhard, etc. In Reformed theology it is followed up to Coccejus, by

Sohnius, Musculus, Hyperius, Ursinus, Martyr, Wollebius, Polanus,

Amesius, etc. But nevertheless it is importantly modified in some points.

Already soon an introduction was prefixed to dogmatics proper, in which

the concept of theology, the doctrine of Scripture, and on a single occasion

also, e.g. in Amesius and Maestricht, the essence of faith was treated.

Dogmatics was thus divided into two parts, de principiis theologiae

and de articulis fidei, Polanus, Syntagma Theol. p. 133. In the corpus itself

there came better distinction and delimitation, and also more systematic

ordering of the loci: election, treated by Calvin in the third book, came

forward in the doctrine of the decrees; the doctrine of world, man, Christ,

etc. each received its own place; the conclusion of dogmatics was not taken

up by some ethical capita, but by the consummatio seculi; the ethical

material was either discussed in soteriology or also in a second part, de

operibus, in distinction from the first de fide, or with Danaeus and Calixtus

separated entirely from dogmatics. The treatment of the individual loci in

the 17th century became ever more scholastic; the connection with the life

of faith was felt ever less and less.

6. The reaction against this scholasticism could in the long run not fail to

appear. It began in the Luth. church with Calixtus, in the Geref. with

Coccejus. Calixtus conceived theology as a practical science and in his

Epitome theologiae 1619 followed the analytical division. This was not new

insofar as Thomas too, after the doctrine of God, in the second part

proceeds to the destiny of man and in the third part describes the way that in

Christ leads thither. But Calixtus begins at once with the end, the destiny of

man. Part I treats de fine, d. i. de immortalitate animae, resurrectione et

extremo judicio. Part II speaks de subjecto, d. i. about God, angel, man, sin.

Part III treats de mediis, d. i. about praedestinatie, incarnatie, Christus,

justification, word, sacrament, etc. These three parts form the pars

communis, which concerns all believers; but after that there still follows a

pars propria, which especially treats of the church and is in particular of

importance for the office-bearers. Even if there was much good in it, to

emphasize, over against the scholastic treatment of theology, its practical

character, nevertheless this division is burdened by many objections. Apart

from the fact that the doctrine of the church treated in the pars propria is a

truth of importance for all believers; it makes a strange impression that

dogmatics begins with the end, immortality, etc.; the second part must

treat of the subject of theology, man, but also contains the whole doctrine

about God; the third part corresponds best to its title, but does the

soteriology come up short alongside the soteriology, Gass, Gesch. der prot.

Dogm. I, 304 f. Yet this analytical method was followed by the later

Lutheran theologians, Calovius, Quenstedt, König, Baier, Scherzer. And

also among the Reformed it found acceptance. Barth. Keckermann at

Dantzig had already before Calixtus in 1603 brought to light a systema S.

Theologiae, in which he, with appeal to Ursinus in his Catechesis, defines

theology not as a scientia contemplatrix but as a disciplina operatrix, or

better still as a prudentia religiosa ad salutem perveniendi, cap. 1. Therefore

he chooses with decisiveness the analytical method, for the synthetic

method is proper to the sciences, but the analytical suits the disciplinae

operatrices. And thus he then divides his theology into three parts. In the

first part he treats of the principia of theology, namely God, the principium

essendi, and his Word, the principium cognoscendi. From these two alone

the end and the means leading thereto become known to us. In the second

part he then says with a single word that the end of Theology is vita, salus

aeterna, just as Ursinus in his catechism question 1 places this at the head.

The means to reach this end are twofold: knowledge of our misery, and

deliverance from that misery, lib. II, cap. 1. Book II thus treats of man and

his sin, and Book III of the media salutis, election, Christ, church,

justification, sacraments. Remarkable further is that Keckermann with

preference compares theology with medical science and even borrows from

it the names for the different parts of his theology. Bonaventura Brevil. Pars

I, cap. 1, had already done this before him. Following him and others,

Keckermann speaks of a pars pathologica, therapeutica, diaetetica of

theology, p. 214, 295, cf. Kuyper, Encycl. I, 40.

Likewise, by Coccejus the theological standpoint was exchanged for the

anthropological. The new element in his Systema doctrinae de foedere et

testamento Dei 1648 did not consist in the concept of the covenant as such,

which already occurs in Zwingli and Calvin and had been developed by

Bullinger, Olevianus, Cloppenburg. But it lay herein, that Coccejus for

the first time arranged the whole dogmatic material from out of this

concept, and thereby intended to give a more biblical-theological, antischolastic dogmatics; further, that in the arrangement of the material he

followed the historical order of the dispensations of the covenant,

distinguished these dispensations so sharply, that their unity was lost and

could be preserved only by arbitrary typical exegesis; and finally, that he

considers the whole history of the covenant of grace from the beginning to

the end as an abolition of the covenant of works; sin, Christ, New

Covenant, bodily death and resurrection are the five turning points, through

which successively the covenant of works is deprived of all its power and

operation, cap. III § 68. This division is burdened by many objections; it

does not take its standpoint theologically in God, but in the covenant of

God and man and thus cannot treat the doctrine concerning God and man

otherwise than beforehand in an introduction, by way of presupposition; by

its historical course it effaces the boundary between the history of

revelation and dogmatics and thereby undermines the latter; it falls into

manifold repetitions and of itself comes to it, on the one hand, to exaggerate

the analogies and on the other hand the distinctions in the different

dispensations of the covenant. Yet it found imitation with many, e.g. with

Momma, Heydanus, Vitringa, Braun, Witsius, and also with Lutherans, such

as W. Jäger, 1702. And even Leydecker, a follower of Voetius and opponent

of Coccejus, attempted to connect the trinitarian division with the

federalistic in such a way, that the successive economies of grace were

brought into connection with the three persons and the threefold activity in

the Trinity, Schweizer, Gl. der ev. ref. k. I 115 f.

7. But an even greater change came in the form of dogmatics through the

influence of philosophy. This is expressed especially in the fact that

dogmatics proper in its material content becomes poorer and poorer, and the

pars formalis continually gains in size and breadth. Up to this point it had

been quite otherwise; the prolegomena were entirely lacking, or were small

in scope and dealt at most with theology and Scripture; all strength was

devoted to the elaboration and defense of the particular dogmas. The

foundation lay so firm that it was not investigated at all; all labor was

spent on the building that was erected upon that foundation. This changed

through philosophy, through the rights that reason gradually arrogated to

itself over against revelation. It was no longer satisfied with the modest role

of handmaiden, and demanded a voice in the chapter. In the pars materialis

this had as a consequence that all scholastic elaboration of the dogmas was

avoided as much as possible; one goes back from the confession to

Scripture and embraces the historical, biblical method; the dogmas are

simplified and worn down and lose what is distinctive; all deeper reflection

on the dogmas is banished; simplicity becomes superficiality. But the

influence on the formal part of dogmatics was even greater. Here one

abandoned the Reformation starting point of faith and returned to that of

Roman theology. First, one thought that human reason, even outside faith,

could produce from itself all the truths of the theol. naturalis; the theol.

naturalis preceded the theol. revelata as praeambula fidei, reason was

emancipated from faith, from revelation, both stood independently

alongside each other. S. van Til treated them both separately in his

Theologiae utriusque compendium, cum naturalis tum revelatae 1706.

Subsequently that reason not only received its own domain alongside

revelation, but also extended its power over that revelation itself. To it was

granted the right to investigate the truth of revelation. In the theologia

naturalis one stood on a firm foundation, on a purely scientific basis; from

this standpoint revelation too was investigated, and if then reason by all

manner of rational and historical proofs, as so many motiva credibilitatis,

had demonstrated the truth of revelation, then it was surely reasonable to

believe that revelation and to submit to it. Thus the prolegomena became

ever more extensive. First one deals with religion as distinguished from

theology; then with the theol. naturalis and the natural or rational truths;

next with revelation, whose possibility, necessity, and actuality are

demonstrated at length; and finally with Holy Scripture, whose truth is

supported by all manner of historical, critical, rational proofs. And only

after that long road does one arrive at dogmatics proper, which looks as

sober and as simple as possible. The whole standpoint has changed; the

starting point is no longer faith but reason. What wonder that this in deism

and rationalism denies all revelation, a revelation that after all gives nothing

new and is wholly superfluous. This order of treatment is essentially proper

to scholastic and Roman theology. The Socinians have never risen above

this rationalistic standpoint, Fock, Der Socin. 291 f. And the Remonstrants

have returned again to this method. Limborch, Theol. Christ. speaks in cap.

1 de theologia ac religione, in cap. 2 de existentia Dei and then in cap. 3 v.

about the H. Scripture. Episcopius in his Instit. Theol. expands this

introductory material still further, speaks first even about the requirements

of the theologian, and then about the practical character of theology, the

theol. naturalis, religion, revelation, and the H. Scripture. Gradually this

expansion of the prolegomena also penetrated into orthodox dogmatics. The

division of dogmatics into two parts: de fide and de operibus leads Amesius

and Maestricht, at the beginning after theology and Scripture, also to

discuss the nature of faith; Marck and Moor speak in the third chapter about

religion; Brakel begins with a chapter about the theol. naturalis. There is

thus much difference and confusion about what belongs in the introduction.

But gradually in the 18th century a series of subjects for the introduction

begins to become fixed, such as theology, natural knowledge of God,

revelation, Scripture; e.g. in J. A. Turretinus, Werenfels, Osterwald, Buurt

and all theologians of rationalistic and supranaturalistic direction.

8. Now it was indeed by Kant that the rationalistic foundation of

dogmatics was undermined, and Schleiermacher did indeed try to save faith

and doctrine of faith, by restricting them to feeling and the description

thereof. But in fact no change has come about in this order of dogmatics.

The attacks on the Christian religion in this century are directed in the first

place against the foundations themselves. In earlier centuries faith was more

powerful and the question: why do I believe, hardly arose. The foundations

seemed so firm that an investigation of them was entirely unnecessary; all

strength was devoted to erecting the building. But now dogmatics is

contested precisely in its philosophical presuppositions; not this or that

doctrine in dogmatics, but the possibility of dogmatics is denied,

Pierson, Ter uitvaart 1870. Human cognitive capacity is limited to visible

things; revelation is deemed impossible; Holy Scripture is deprived of its

divine authority by historical criticism and even the right and the value of

religion is seriously disputed. By and in part through all this the religious

life has been strongly diminished; there is indeed much movement in the

religious sphere, but there is little truly religious life. Faith no longer feels

sure; even among believers there is much doubt and instability. The

childlike and at the same time heroic: I believe, is seldom heard and has

made room for critical doubting. Perhaps one still believes his confession,

but one no longer confesses his faith (Schweizer). In times of awakened

religious life one speaks as one having authority, and not as the scribe; then

the words: I know in whom I believe, sound from the lips. But in a critical

time like ours there is uncertainty precisely about the principia, about

source of knowledge, method, proof, etc. The pars formalis is therefore still

the most important part of dogmatics. A whole apologetics precedes

dogmatics, Hoekstra, Godgel. Bijdr. 1864 bl. 2 v. Schleiermacher did

indeed make dogmatics into a positive, historical science and tried to free it

from all apologetics. But he had philosophy precede historical theology, to

which dogmatics belongs, which had to take its point of departure über dem

Christenthum, in religious communal life in general, and from there

critically had to determine the essence of Christianity, Kurze Darstellung

des theol. Stud. 2e Ausg. § 32 f. In fact he thus did not free theology from

philosophy, but made it as dependent on it as possible. This also appears in

that in his Glaubenslehre he has a broad introduction precede it with all

kinds of Lehnsätze from ethics, the philosophy of religion and apologetics.

Now the example of Schleiermacher, to have philosophical theology

precede historical theology in an encyclopaedic way, has indeed found

imitation only among a few; but in connection with him it has nevertheless

become customary to begin dogmatics with an apologetic part. Thus Voigt

wrote a Fundamentaldogmatik, Lange a philosophical dogmatics,

which preceded the positive, Van Oosterzee laid an apologetic foundation,

Dorner has a more fundamental part or Apologetik precede, Biedermann a

prinzipieller Theil, Lipsius and Nitzsch a Principienlehre, etc. The advice of

Liebner, Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1856 I 196 f. to develop in the introduction only the

concept of dogmatics, since otherwise a whole dogmatics comes before

dogmatics, and the concepts of religion, revelation already presuppose the

doctrine of God and man, has been little followed. The subjects that are

treated in this Principienlehre are not the same with all, but nevertheless

mostly run over the concepts: nature of our knowledge in religious matters,

religion, revelation, Holy Scripture and church. The chapter theology,

formerly often included, has been moved to the Encyclopaedie. The

division of material dogmatics is very different. Some follow the trinitarian

division, such as Martensen, Lange, Kahnis, Ebrard, Schweizer. Others

proceed from Christ and treat the presuppositions, the person and the work

of Christ, such as Liebner, Thomasius, Lange. The contrast of sin and grace,

with the presupposition preceding it of the relation of God and world, lies at

the basis of the division of Schleiermacher and Rothe, zur Dogm. 29.

Hofmann, Philippi, Lutbardt, have taken the foedus concept, i.e. the

communion of God, as point of departure and treat the origin, the

disturbance, the objective restoration, the subjective realization and the

completion of that communion. The kingdom of God is chosen as

principium dividendi by Van Oosterzee; the concept of love by

Schoeberlein; that of life by Oetinger, Reiff, etc., while finally many follow

the usual order of theology, anthropology etc., such as Vilmar, Hodge,

Shedd, Böhl et al.

9. As regards, first of all, the division of dogmatics into a general and a

special part, this has not only become necessary through the principled

opposition to dogmatics, but is also in itself useful and good. Already early

on a need was felt, in order, before the dogmas proper, to set forth the

essence of theology and its principles in the light. Polanus already made a

distinction between the principia and the articuli fidei. And gradually it has

become an urgent need for the believer, not only to know what, but

also why he believes. But to that end the task of the first, general part of

dogmatics is also determined. This first part must not concern itself with all

kinds of encyclopaedic questions, such as the essence, the history, the

division of theology, as Gretillat, Exposé de théol. system. I 1885, p. 199 s.,

still does. Formerly that happened, because theology was identified with

dogmatics, and because theological encyclopaedia was not yet practised as

a separate discipline. Now, however, the development of the essence of

theology must be left to encyclopaedia; in dogmatics there belongs only the

exposition of the name, concept, method, division and history of dogmatics

itself, as happens in the introduction. But also in another way must the

principled part of dogmatics be limited. The method, which already arose

with Scholasticism and then later also found acceptance among the

Protestants, namely, first to treat the natural knowledge of God (praeambula

fidei) and thereafter all the historical and rational proofs (motiva

credibilitatis) for revelation, deserves disapproval, because it at the

beginning and in principle gives up the standpoint of faith, fails to

recognize the positive character of dogmatics, passes over onto the terrain

of the opponent, and thus in fact is rationalistic and makes dogmatics

dependent on philosophy. To that also belongs the attempt to identify the

theologia or religio naturalis with the foedus operum and then to treat it as a

preparation for the theologia revelata, which in substance is one with the

foedus gratiae, Schweizer, Gl. der. ev. ref. K. I, 107-115, II 1 f. and Scholten

L. H. K. I 304 v. Cf. Dr. van Dijk, Studiën, VI 1880, 1e stuk blz. 11 v. Both

make natural religion (foedus operum, status integritatis), the religion of

law (foedus gratiae ante legem en sub lege) and the Erlösungsreligion

(foedus gratiae post legem) into three moments in the religious process.

Thereby revelation is not only deprived of its supernatural character, but

also use is made of the Reformed division against its intention. The foedus

operum, before the fall, is no preparation of but forms an antithesis with the

foedus gratiae, which first appears in history after the breach of the foedus

operum by sin. The distinction of theol. naturalis and relevata, on the other

hand, is a wholly different one, not a historical but one which still

always exists and continues in theology. Over against such a rationalizing

of religion and theology, with Schleiermacher, Rothe, Frank, Ritschl, etc.,

the positive character must be maintained. The principia fidei are also

articuli fidei, which rest not on human reasonings and proofs but on divine

authority. The recognition of revelation, of Scripture as God’s Word, is a

fruit and act of faith. In dogmatics from beginning to end the believer has

the floor, both in the principia and in the articuli fidei; he confesses and

gives account of his faith, of its ground and of its content. In the first part,

therefore, only the principia fidei are developed. These are twofold,

principium externum and internum, objectivum and formale, Voetius, Disp.

I 2. Alting, Theol. Schol. didact. p. 10, just as the religio objectiva and

subjectiva must be distinguished. And in these two the whole first part of

dogmatics is dealt with.

In the arrangement of the material in the second part, the trinitarian

division is to be rejected, because it naturally cannot include the treatment

of the Trinity itself in one of the three oeconomies and therefore, by way of

supposition, must let it precede in a chapter. Furthermore, with this division

there is the danger that the opera ad extra are far too much conceived as

opera personalia and are too little regarded as opera essentialia, as common

works of the three persons, or, on the other hand, that, with the maintenance

of unity, the Trinity is taken only oeconomically and is misunderstood in its

ontological character. Finally, to this division there is still connected the

shadow-side, that the loci concerning creation, angel, man, sin, church, etc.,

distributed under the persons of the Trinity, cannot come into their own. But

far more objections exist against the christological division. However much

that is attractive it may have at the first glance, it is nevertheless unusable.

It rests, in the first place, often on the incorrect representation, as if not

Scripture but specifically the person of Christ were the principium and the

source of knowledge of dogmatics, and yet we know nothing of Christ

except from and through Scripture. Furthermore, Christ is very certainly the

center and the main content of Holy Scripture, but precisely because he is

the center, he is not the point of departure; he presupposes God and man,

just as he also did not appear immediately, but only many centuries

after the promise in history. Next, it is beyond doubt that Christ has

revealed the Father to us, but this speaking of God through the Son does not

nullify the speaking of God in many ways through the prophets; not the

New Testament alone, nor also the words of Jesus alone, but the whole of

Scripture is a Word of God, which comes to us through Christ. Finally, it is

clear that the christological division can treat the loci concerning God,

creation, world, man only by way of suppositions and postulates and thus

cannot develop them in their rich significance. The other divisions, derived

from the three virtues faith, hope, love, faith, prayer and commandment,

from the destination and the final end of man, from the covenant or the

communion of God and man, from the kingdom of God, from the concepts

of life, love, spirit, etc., may have much in their favor practically and may

be in their place in a catechism; they cannot be considered for a dogmatics,

which is the system of the knowledge of God. They are for that purpose not

central and general enough. They are therefore either brought in from

outside and do not govern the system, as with Van Oosterzee; or they are

strictly maintained as a principle of division but do short to various loci.

10. The content of dogmatics is the knowledge of God, as He has revealed

Himself in Christ, through His Word. The distinctive character of the

believer’s knowledge consists in this, that he views everything religiously,

theologically, that he considers everything in the light of God, sub specie

aeternitatis. That is the difference between his and a philosophical or

scientific worldview. In dogmatics it is always the believer, the Christian,

who speaks. He does not speculate about God, he does not proceed from an

abstract, philosophical concept of God, and does not come by way of

theologia naturalis to theologia revelata. He does not reason about God, as

He exists in Himself, for this knowledge is completely unattainable. He

describes only that knowledge of God which has been revealed to him in

Christ. Thus, even when in the first part of dogmatics he treats of God, His

attributes, the Trinity, he speaks and thinks as a believer, as a Christian, as a

theologian and not as a philosopher. In every dogma, therefore, the heart of

religion beats. Dogmatics is no philosophical system, dogmatics is

theology. But for that very reason the dogmatician in his system of the

knowledge of God does not describe how he came to faith and through faith

subjectively and successively obtained insight into the various truths of

faith. That would be an analytical method, which is excellent in a catechism

but does not fit in a dogmatics. But he explicates the content of his faith, as

it is objectively, in revelation, spread out by God Himself before his eye of

faith. He derives the principle of division and the arrangement of the

material not from his own life of faith, but from the object itself, which he

has to describe in his dogmatics; not from the believing subject, but from

the object of faith. Even if, therefore, we wholeheartedly agree with it, that

in dogmatics always and everywhere, from the beginning to the end, the

believer thinks and speaks; yet this is something entirely different from his

also deriving the ordering of the dogmatic material from his own

experience. Thereby dogmatics would be misunderstood in its character,

pass over into anthropology, and cease to be theological. It remains this

only if the system of dogmatics is derived from its own material and

content.

If this point of departure has been well chosen, there are only two

divisions that recommend themselves for it. The first is the already

discussed trinitarian division. There is much that is attractive in it; hence it

repeatedly found acceptance and also exercised great influence in

philosophy. It recommends itself by its purely theological character. God is

beginning and end, alpha and omega. Nature and history are subsumed

under Him. All things are from God and unto God. The trinitarian guards

against uniformity and guarantees life, development, process. But thereby at

the same time its danger is indicated. It is too speculative, it sacrifices

history to the system, it so readily takes up cosmogony into the trinitarian

life of God and then becomes theogony. The philosophy of Erigena, Böhme,

Baader, Schelling, Hegel serves as proof. Therefore that division deserves

preference which is theological and at the same time bears a historicalgenetic character. It too takes its point of departure in God and considers all

creatures only in relation to Him. But, proceeding from God, it descends to

His works, in order then through these to climb up again to Him and to end

in Him. Also in this division, therefore, God is the beginning, the [51]

middle and the end. From Him, through Him, and unto Him are all things.

But God is not here dragged down into the process of history, and history

here comes better into its own. Between God and His works a distinction is

made. In those works He appears as Creator, Restorer, and Perfecter. He is

exemplar effectivum in creatione, refectivum in redemptione, perfectivum

in retributione. Dogmatics is the system of the knowledge of God as He has

revealed Himself in Christ; it is the system of the Christian religion. And

the essence of the Christian religion consists in this, that the creation of the

Father, destroyed by sin, is restored again in the death of the Son of God

and by the grace of the H. Spirit is re-created into a kingdom of God.

Dogmatics shows us how God, the All-sufficient in Himself, nevertheless

glorifies Himself in His creation, which, even when it is shattered by sin, is

nevertheless gathered together again in Christ Ephesians 1:10. It describes to us

God, always God, from the beginning to the end, God in His being, God in

His creation, God over against sin, God in Christ, God through the H. Spirit

breaking all resistance, and leading the whole creation to the goal

determined by Him, the glory of His name. Dogmatics is therefore no dry

science. It is a theodicy, a hymn of praise on all God’s virtues and

perfections, a song of adoration and of thanksgiving, a δοξα ἐ ν ὑ ψιστοις

## 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. 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

## § 5. History and Literature of Dogmatics.

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. 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 ἀ θανασια; 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 Ἐ λεγχος

και ἀ νατροπη 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 α ἱ ρεσεων ἐ λεγχος 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 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.

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 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 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, ο ὐ σια,

ὑ ποστασις, 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 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, ὑ ποστασεις. 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 image- and 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 12 contra Anomoeos 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 aeternitate mundi c. Proclum, en de

mundi creatione l. VII, Anastasius Sinaita, Anagogicae 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 Ὑ ποτυπωσεις, Institutiones

theologicae 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 Α ἱ ρετικης κακομυθιας ἐ πιτομη Haereticarum

fabularum compendium. 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

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 α ἱ ρεσεων and gives an overview of the

heresies up to Mohammed. Part 3 Ἐ κδοσις ἀ κριβης της ὀ ρθοδοξου 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 527-

565, 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 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 ἁ γιου

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

ὁ πλοθηκη δογματων, and Nicetas Choniates ± 1220 who supplemented the

work of Euthymius in his Θησαυρος ὀ ρθοδοξιας, 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

published by Gass 1849; and a treatise 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

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.

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 ε ἰ ναι

α ὐ την 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 Matthew 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.

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 dominicae 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 Manichaeum contra duo principia Manichaeorum 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 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

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. 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 Pseudo-

Dionysius. 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, ἀ ποφατικη, 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 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, 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

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 principal theologians

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

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,

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

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. 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 †

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 Counter-

Reformation 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. 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,

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 †

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. 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 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 †

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 1862-

75. 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, 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,

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

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 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,

der Theologie 1703. Joachim Lange † 1744 Antibarbarus orthodoxiae 1709.

Mosaisches Licht u. Recht, Rambach † 1735, Der wohlinformirte Katechet

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. 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 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 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, 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 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 neo-

Hegelians, 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, 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 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. 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 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. 1653 p. 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, worksrighteousness. 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 ὁ τι 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 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 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 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 supra- and 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 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 ἀ πο των δοκουντων ε ἰ ναι 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; 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 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.

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 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 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

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 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 1648-

1690, 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 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

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 ὑ ποτυπωσις 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 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 †

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 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 †

William Whiston, Arthur Ashley Sykes, Thomas Sherlock † 1761, Daniël

Waterland † 1742, John Coneybeare, John Leland, James Foster, William

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 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 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.

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, 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

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 1703-

1791 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 onesidedness 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

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.

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. 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

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

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 New-

England 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, New-

Theology 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 1745-

1801 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 1774-

1854, who defended the old Calvinism. Puritanism, however, has more and

more abandoned the standards of Dordrecht and Westminster. At the synod

of the Congregat. 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 1797-

1878, 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. 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 New-

York, 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. New-

York 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.