were the means of creating a literature, which insinuated itself into
public thought, and familiarised society with spiritual apprehensions long
obliterated. The school of literature commonly called the Romantic,(741)
commencing with such writers as Schlegel and Novalis, fanciful as it may
in some respects seem to be, created the same change in the belief and
tastes of the German mind as the contemporary school of Lake Poets in
England. The German literature bore the marks either of the old
scholasticism, or of the materialism introduced from France, or of the
classic culture introduced by Lessing and his coadjutors. The element now
revived was the mediæval element of chivalry, the high and lofty courage,
the delicate æsthetic taste, which had marked the middle ages.
Herder,(742) to whom Germany owes much, disgusted with the stoical and
analytic spirit of the Kantian philosophy, had already attempted, and not
in vain, to throw the mind back to an appreciation of old history, and
especially had manifested an enthusiastic admiration of Hebrew literature;
but now, as if by one general movement, the public taste was turned to an
appreciation of the freshness of feeling, and fine elements of character,
which existed in the Christianity of the middle ages.(743)
This literary movement prepared the way for and accompanied another,
which, though occurring a little later, may be reckoned as the third
influence which caused a religious reaction. Indeed it is the one to which
the Germans attribute the chief effect. It is found in the outburst of
national patriotism which took place in the liberation wars of 1813;(744)
the spontaneous chivalry which made the heart of Germany beat as the heart
of one man, to endeavour to hurl back Napoleon beyond the limits of the
common fatherland. In that moment of deep public suffering, the poetry and
piety of the human heart brought back the idea of God, and a spirit of
moral earnestness. The national patriotism,(745) which still lives in the
poetry of the time, expelled selfishness: sorrow impressed men with a
sense of the vanity of material things, and made their hearts yearn after
the immaterial, the spiritual, the immortal: the sense of terror threw
them upon the God of battles. It was the age of Marathon and Salamis
revived; and the effect was not less wonderful.(746)
A fourth influence remains to be noticed, which was in its nature more
strictly theological, and limited to the church. When after the return of
peace the tercentenary of the Reformation was celebrated in 1817, an
obscure theologian at Kiel, named Harms,(747) published a set of theses as
supplements to the celebrated theses of Luther, which, by the excitement
and controversy unexpectedly occasioned by them, turned attention anew to
the study of the reformational and biblical theology, and created a
revival of the spiritual element which was too much forgotten.
Such were the four influences—the philosophical, the literary, the
political, the spiritual,—which entered into German life, and produced or
increased the reaction that took place in German theology in the period
which we are about to sketch.
We placed the limits of this second period from about 1810 till the
literary revolution caused by alarm at Strauss’s work in 1835.(748) It was
in 1810, in the depth of Prussian humiliation, when Halle had passed into
one of the kingdoms dependent on France, that the university of Berlin was
founded. Schleiermacher, Neander, and De Wette, were its teachers. The
first was the soul of its theological teaching; and through his agency it
became the great source of a religious reaction. It is around these names
that our studies most centre. The signs indeed of some other movements are
traceable. The deistic rationalism is not dead, but it is dying: it is a
thing of the past: a return to strict dogmatic orthodoxy is also visible
in the Lutheran clergy rather than in the university; but it is as yet in
its infancy: and a new form of gnosticism is observable in the philosophy
of Hegel, but the full development of it belongs to the next period. The
field is now occupied by the partial reaction to orthodoxy, which aimed at
a reconciliation of science and piety, of criticism and faith.(749)
Schleiermacher, with is follower Neander, will typify the philosophical
and more orthodox side of it; perhaps De Wette, and at the end of the
period Ewald, the critical.
Schleiermacher(750) was by education and sympathy eminently fitted to
attempt the harmony of science and faith, to which he devoted his life.
Gifted with an acute and penetrating intellect, capable of grappling with
the highest problems of philosophy and the minutest details of criticism,
he could sympathise with the intellectual movement of the old rationalism;
while his fine moral sensibility, the depth and passionateness of his
sympathy, the exquisite delicacy of his taste and brilliancy of
imagination, were in perfect harmony with the literary and æsthetic
revival which was commencing. German to the very soul, he possessed an
enthusiastic sympathy with the great literary movements of his age,
philosophical, classical, or romantic. The diligent student and translator
of Plato,(751) his soul was enchanted with the mixture at once of genius,
poetry, feeling, and dialectic, which marks that prince of thinkers, and
he was prepared by it for understanding the speculations of his time. The
dialectical process through which Plato’s mind had passed (30) represents
not improbably, in some degree, the history of Schleiermacher’s own mental
development as traceable in his works. The conviction derived from Plato’s
early dialogues, that the mind, in travelling outward to study the
objective, could not prove the highest realities, but must have faith in
its own faculties, prepared him for imbibing the philosophy of Jacobi. The
looking inward to the deep utterances of the soul, the interpretation of
the objective world by means of the internal, prepared him for Fichte. The
mystical attempt to understand the ideas themselves, to use the archetype
for creating an ontology from the objective side, observable in Plato’s
latest works, found its parallel in Schelling. Schleiermacher had large
sympathies with these three processes, but mainly with the first; which
was to be expected from his purpose. Aiming at gaining spiritual certitude
rather than speculating for intellectual gratification, Jacobi’s
philosophy appeared to combine the excellences of the other two systems,
the subjective character of the one, and the intuitional of the other;
with the additional advantage of seeming to give expression to the
instincts of the heart, as well as the intuitions of the mind. Beyond all
these qualities, Schleiermacher inherited from his Moravian education the
spirit of pietism, which, almost extinguished by the recent activity of
mind, had retired to the quiet sphere where a Stilling(752) or an
Oberlin(753) communed with God and laboured for man.
Possessing therefore the two great elements which had been united in the
Reformation,—endowed on the one hand with the largest sympathy with every
department of the intellectual movement, and the mastery of its ripest
erudition, and at the same time with a soul kindled with a hearty love for
Christianity,—he was fitted to become the Coryphæus of a new reformation,
to attempt again a final reconciliation of knowledge and faith. Whether we
view him in his own natural gifts and susceptibilities; in the aim of his
life; in his mixture of reason and love, of philosophy and criticism, of
enthusiasm and wisdom, of orthodoxy and heresy; or regard the transitory
character of his work, the permanence of his influence; church history
offers no parallel to him since the days of Origen.(754)
His early education was received in the university of Halle; an
institution which had long been the home of pietism, and has continued
with but few intervals(755) to evince much of the same Christian spirit.
He became professor there early in the century,(756) until the town
passed, as already stated, into the power of the French. He removed to
Berlin when that university was founded,(757) and continued to exercise
his influence there, from the pulpit and the professor’s chair, for a
quarter of a century, until his death.(758)
Before the conclusion of the last century, while still the literary
influence of Weimar was at its height, he wrote Discourses on
Religion,(759) to arouse the German mind to self-consciousness; which
produced as stirring an effect in religion(760) as Fichte’s patriotic
addresses to the German nation subsequently in politics; and from them may
be dated the first movement of spiritual renovation, as from the latter
the first of German liberation from foreign control. In successive works
his views on ethics and religion were gradually developed, until, in his
_Glaubenslehre_ (31) he produced one of the most important theological
systems ever conceived. We can give no idea of the compass exhibited in
that work, nor spare time to trace the growth in Schleiermacher’s own mind
as new influences like that of Harms, which he rejected, indirectly
influenced him; but we must be content to define his general position in
its destructive and constructive aspects.
The fundamental principles(761) were, that truth in theology was not to be
attained by reason, but by an insight, which he called the Christian
consciousness,(762) which we should call Christian experience; and that
piety consists in spiritual feeling, not in morality. Both were
corollaries from his philosophical principles.
There are two parts, both in the intellectual and emotional branches of
our nature;—in the emotional, a feeling of dependence in the presence of
the Infinite, which is the seat of religion; and a consciousness of power,
which is the source of action and seat of morality;—and in the
intellectual, a faith or intuition which apprehends God and truth; and
critical faculties, which act upon the matter presented and form
science.(763) In making these distinctions, Schleiermacher struck a blow
at the old rationalism, which had identified on the one hand religion and
morality, and on the other intuition and reason. Hence from this point of
view he was led to explain Christianity, when contrasted with other
religions, subjectively on the emotional side, as the most perfect state
of the feeling of dependence; and on the intellectual, as the intuition of
Christianity and Christ’s work: and the organ for truth in Christianity
was regarded to be the special form of insight which apprehends Christ,
just as natural intuition apprehends God; which insight was called the
Christian consciousness.(764) Thus far many will agree with him. Perhaps
no nobler analysis of the religious faculties has ever been given.
Religion was placed on a new basis: a home was found for it in the human
mind distinct from reason. The old rationalism was shown to be untrue in
its psychology. The distinctness of religion was asserted; and the
necessity of spiritual insight and of sympathy with Christian life
asserted to be as necessary for appreciating Christianity, as æsthetic
insight for art.
In its reconstruction of Christian truth, however, fewer will coincide.
Following out the same principles; in the same manner as he regarded the
intuitions of human nature to be the last appeal of truth in art or
morals, so he made the collective Christian consciousness the last
standard of appeal in Christianity. The dependence therefore on apostolic
teaching was not the appeal to an external authority, but merely to that
which was the best exponent of the early religious consciousness of
Christendom in its purest age.(765) The Christian church existed before
the Christian scriptures. The New Testament was written for believers,
appealing to their religious consciousness, not dictating to it.
Inspiration is not indeed thus reduced to genius, but to the religious
consciousness, and is different only in degree, and not in kind, from the
pious intuitions of saintly men. The Bible becomes the record of religious
truth, not its vehicle; a witness to the Christian consciousness of
apostolic times, not an external standard for all time. In this respect
Schleiermacher was not repeating the teaching of the reformation of the
sixteenth age, but was passing beyond it, and abandoning its reverence for
scripture.
From this point we may see how his views of doctrine as well as his
criticism of scripture were affected by this theory. For in his view of
fundamental doctrines, such as sin, and the redeeming work of Christ,
inasmuch as his appeal was made to the collective consciousness, those
aspects of doctrine only were regarded as important, or even real, which
were appropriated by the consciousness, or understood by it.(766) Sin was
accordingly presented rather as unholiness than as guilt before God;(767)
redemption, rather as sanctification than as justification; Christ’s death
as a mere subordinate act in his life of self-sacrifice, not the one
oblation for the world’s sin;(768) atonement regarded to be the setting
forth of the union of God with man; and the mode of arriving at a state of
salvation,(769) to be a realisation of the union of man with God, through
a kind of mystical conception of the brotherhood of Christ.(770)
Hence, as might be expected, the dogmatic reality of such doctrines as the
Trinity was weakened.(771) The deity of the Son, as distinct from his
superhuman character, became unimportant, save as the historical
embodiment of the ideal union of God with humanity.(772) The Spirit was
viewed, not as a personal agent, but as a living activity, having its seat
in the Christian consciousness of the church.(773) The objective in each
case was absorbed in the spiritual, as formerly in the old rationalism it
had been degraded into the natural. It followed also that the Christian
consciousness, thus able to find as it were a philosophy of religion, and
of the material apprehended by the consciousness of inspired men,
possessed an instinct to distinguish the unimportant from the important in
scripture, and valued more highly the eternal ideas intended than the
historic garb under which they were presented.
The ideological tendency, as it is now called,(774) the natural longing of
the philosophical mind that tries to rise beyond facts into their causes,
to penetrate behind phenomena into ideas, grows up in a country, as is
seen by the example of ancient Greece, when the popular creed and the
scientific have become discordant. Suggested in Germany by the old
rationalism, it had been especially stimulated by the subjective
philosophy of Kant and Fichte. Historic facts were the expression of
subjective forms of thought. The Non-ego was a form, in which the Ego was
expressing itself. This theory, suggested to Schleiermacher from without,
fell in with his own views as above developed, and affected his critical
inquiries. When he involved himself in the great questions of the higher
criticism, which have been already treated in connexion with Semler,
subjective criticism(775) was used in an exaggerated manner, not merely to
suggest hypotheses, or to check deductions by Christian appreciation, but
as a substitute _à priori_ for historic investigation. In the controversy
as to the composition of the Gospels, which will be hereafter explained,
he was led, by his ideological theory and his instinctive perception of
the relative importance of doctrines in theological perspective, to
abandon the historical importance of miracles as compared with doctrine,
and also the verity of the early history of Christ’s life, considered to
have been communicated by tradition; while he held fast to the moral and
historical reality of the latter.(776)
These remarks must suffice to point out the position of Schleiermacher. We
have seen how completely he caught the influences of his time, absorbed
them, and transmitted them. If his teaching was defective in its
constructive side; if he did not attain the firm grasp of objective verity
which is implied in perfect doctrinal, not to say critical, orthodoxy; he
at least gave the death-blow to the old rationalism, which, either from an
empirical or a rational point of view, proposed to gain such a philosophy
of religion as reduced it to morality. He rekindled spiritual
apprehensions; he above all drew attention to the peculiar character of
Christianity, as something more than the republication of natural
religion, in the same manner that the Christian consciousness offered
something more than merely moral experience. He set forth, however
imperfectly, the idea of redemption, and the personality of the Redeemer;
and awakened religious aspirations, which led his successors to a deeper
appreciation of the truth as it is in Jesus. Much of his theology, and
some part of his philosophy, had only a temporary interest relatively to
his times; but his influence was perpetual. The faults were those of his
age; the excellencies were his own. Men caught his deep love to a personal
Christ, without imbibing his doctrinal opinions. His own views became more
evangelical as his life went on, and the views of his disciples more
deeply scriptural than those of their master. Thus the light kindled by
him waxed purer and purer. The mantle remained after the prophet’s spirit
had ascended to the God that gave it.
In strict truth he did not found a school. Though his mind was
dialectical, he had too much poetry to do this. Genius, as has been often
observed, does not create a school, but kindles an influence. The
university of Berlin, the very centre of intellectual greatness in every
department from its foundation, was the first seat of Schleiermacher’s
influence; and the political importance of the capital added impulse to
the movement. The reaction extended to other universities,(777) and not
only marked the chief theologians of an orthodox tendency which are
commonly known to us,(778)—Tholuck, Twesten, Nitzch, Julius Müller,
Olshausen,—but even modified the extreme rationalist party, and diffused
its influence among theologians of the church of Rome.(779)
It is impossible to specify the views of those who were the chief
representatives of the effects of Schleiermacher’s teaching. One however,
his friend and colleague, deserves mention, the well-known church
historian Neander.(780) Brought up a Jew, he passed into Christianity,
like some of the early fathers, through the gate of Platonism; and,
knowing by experience that free inquiry had been the means of his own
conversion, he ever stood forth with a noble courage as the advocate of
full and fair investigation, feeling confidence that Christianity could
endure the test. More meditative and less dialectical than Schleiermacher,
and too original to be an imitator, he surpassed him in the deeper
appreciation of sin and of redemption; placing sin rather in alienation of
will than in the sense of discordance, and holding more firmly the
existence of some objective reality in the anthropopathic expression of
the wrath of God removed by Christ’s death.(781) His great employment in
life was history; not, like his master, philosophy and criticism. Viewing
human nature from the subjective stand-point, the central thought of his
historical works was, that Christianity is a life resting on a person,
rather than a system resting on a dogma. Hence he was able to find the
harmony of reason and faith from the human side instead of the divine, by
noticing the adaptation of the divine work to human wants. The inspiration
of the scriptural writers was viewed as dynamical not mechanical,
spiritual not literal;(782) and Christianity as the great element of human
progress, being the divine life on earth which God had kindled through the
gift of his Son.(783) The great aim accordingly of Neander in his
historical sketches was to exhibit the Christian church as the philosophy
of history, and God’s work in Christ, realised in the piety of the
faithful, as the philosophy of the Christian church. The history of the
church in his view is the record of the Christian consciousness in the
world. The subjective and mystical spirit engendered by such a conception,
was in danger of converting history into a series of biographies; but the
deep influence which it possessed in contributing to foster the reaction
against the old rationalism will be obvious. It becomes us to speak with
reverence of the writings of a man whose labours have been the means of
turning many to Christ. Though lacking form as works of art, yet, if they
be compared with works of grander type, where church history has been
treated as an epic, we cannot help feeling that the depth of spiritual
perception and of psychological analysis compensates for the artistic
defects. We are conducted by them from the outside to the inside; from
things to thoughts; from institutions to doctrines; from the accidents of
Christianity to the essence.
Neander’s teaching, while an offshoot from Schleiermacher, marks the
highest point to which the principles of the master could be carried. It
advances farther in the hearty love for Christ and for revelation, and
bears fewer traces of the ancient spirit of rationalism; being allied to
it in few respects, save in the wish constantly exhibited to appropriate
that which is believed; but the wants of the heart, not the conceptions of
the understanding, are made the gauge of divine truth, and the interpreter
of the divine volume.
We pointed out that the great reaction in the present century was marked
not only by the philosophical and doctrinal school just described, but by
a contemporaneous one, which employed itself on literary and critical
inquiries in reference to the Bible, and was the continuation of the
earlier rationalist criticism on improved principles. The most important
name representing this critical movement in the beginning of the period
was De Wette. (32) Perhaps too we may without injustice mention, as a type
of it at the close of the period, a theologian who is almost too original
to admit of being classified—the learned Ewald.
De Wette was nurtured amid the old rationalism of Jena, at the time of its
greatest power, about the beginning of the present century; and imbibed
the peculiar modification of the doctrines of Kant and Jacobi which was
presented in the philosophy of Fries.(784) It was the appeal to subjective
feeling thence derived which preserved him from the coldness of older
critics, and caused his labours to contribute to the reaction. His works
were very various; but the earlier of them were especially devoted to the
examination of the Old Testament, and the later to the New.
The peculiarity of this school generally may be said to be, a disposition
to investigate both Testaments for their own sake as literature, not for
the further purpose of discovering doctrine. These writers are primarily
literary critics, not dogmatic theologians. Like the older rationalists,
they are occupied largely with biblical interpretation; but, perceiving
the hollowness of their attempt to explain away moral and spiritual
mysteries by reference to material events, they transfer to the Bible the
theories used in the contemporary investigations in classical history, and
explain the Biblical wonders by the hypothesis of legends or of myths.
Though they ignore the miraculous and supernatural equally with the older
rationalists, they allow the spiritual in addition to the moral and
natural, and thus take a more scholarlike and elevated view of the Hebrew
history and literature. The system of interpretation adopted is the
transition from the previous one, which admitted the facts but explained
them away, to the succeeding one of Strauss, which denies the facts, and
accounts for the belief in them by psychological causes.