original work of Reimarus, from which the Fragments were taken, remains in
MS. in the public library of Hamburg. It was entitled _Apologie oder
Schutz-Schrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes_. When written, it was
shown only to intimate friends. Lessing was allowed to take a copy, and
showed the MS. to Mendelssohn in 1771. Lessing wished to publish it
entire; but the censorship would not give the imprimatur. Consequently it
came out in fragments among the series of contributions from the
Wolfenbüttel library, which were free from the censorship. The pretended
discovery of them in the library was a mere excuse; and there is proof in
Lessing’s remains that he admitted the fact. See the statement of these
facts in _Lessing’s Leben_, by Guhrauer, (of which, vol. i. is by Danzel;
vol. ii. by Guhrauer,) vol. ii. b. iii. ch. iv. p. 133, note 3, and b. iv.
p. 141.(1067)
Several writers, subsequently to Gurlitt’s examination of the question of
authorship, have written, either on the question of the authorship of the
Fragments, or on the contents of the larger work from which they are
selections. In the _Zeitschrift für die Historische Theologie for 1839_,
part iv. is an article composed from W. Körte’s life of Thaer, in
reference to the former question. Also Dr. W. Klose examined the original
MS. in the Hamburg library, and published an account of it, with
considerable extracts, in several of the numbers of the same journal,
Niedner’s _Zeitschrift_, 1850, (part iv; 1851, part iv; 1852, part iii.)
It is in the preface (_Vorbericht_) to the first of these parts that the
account of Reimarus’s own mental history is given, to which allusion was
made in the text of Lecture VI. (p. 225.)
During the last year the question has been made the subject of a monograph
by the celebrated Strauss. He had heard of the existence of a copy of the
original MS. in private hands at Hamburg, and proceeded to collate it with
the view of publication. He found it to differ in some respects from the
Fragments published by Lessing and Schmidt. He did not consider the
hitherto unpublished parts of the work sufficiently important, either in a
literary or historical point of view, to merit publication _in extenso_;
but contented himself with stating the results of his study of it in a
small work, _H. S. Reimarus und seine Schutz-Schrift, &c._ 1861. It
contains a brief account of the literary question of the Fragments, and of
Reimarus’s life and stand-point; also an analysis of the unpublished parts
of the work, written with the clearness which characterises all Strauss’s
didactic works. It would appear from the analysis that the pieces printed
by Lessing were not only some of the ablest, but some of the least
offensive of the whole work. The concluding pages contain some very
interesting remarks, in which Strauss contrasts the criticism of the
eighteenth century with that of the present day; the characteristics of
the former being, that it charges imposture on the scripture writers; that
of the latter, that it admits their honesty, but explains away their
statements and opinions by reference to psychological and historical
phenomena.
In addition to the sources given above, information is contained in the
following works: Schröckh’s _Christ Kirchengesch._ vi. 275; Schlosser’s
_History of the Eighteenth Century_, E. T. vol. ii. 266 seq.; Hagenbach’s
_Dogmengeschichte_, § 275 _notes_, (where reference is made to Guhrauer’s
_Bodin’s Heptaplomeres_, 1841, p. 257 seq.); _Conversations-Lexicon_, art.
_Reimarus_; Amand Saintes’ _History of Rationalism_, E. T. p. 84; Kahnis,
_Id._ p. 145 seq.; K. Schwarz, _Lessing als Theolog_, of which ch. iv. is
on the _Fragmenten-streit_; Strauss’s _Kleine Schriften_, 1861; Lessing’s
_Werke_, xii. 508. (ed. Lachmann.)
Note 30. p. 242. Schleiermacher’s Early Studies.
It may be interesting to trace more fully the parallel noticed in the text
between the development of Plato’s thoughts and Schleiermacher’s early
studies.
Though it is impossible to arrange the dialogues of Plato in the
chronological order in which they were composed, so as to be able to study
the master in his successive styles, yet several systems of arrangement,
founded on different principles, seem to coincide so far as to render it
probable that Plato’s great theory of ideas or forms grew upon him through
these stages: viz. (1) it was viewed as a fact of mind, an innate
conception of forms (e.g. in Meno); (2) as useful in guiding perplexed
minds to truth, and sifting philosophical doctrines by means of the
dialectical process, e.g. in the Theætetus and Parmenides; (3) as
representing an objective reality, a true cause in nature external to the
mind, as well as an hypothesis in science (e.g. in the Republic); (4) as
having a mystical connexion with divinity, and furnishing a cosmogony,
Whether this passage, from the subjective conception to the objective
reality, be really or only logically the order of development in Plato’s
ideal theory, it is clear that the growth of Schleiermacher’s mind admits
of comparison with this supposed order of development in Plato; though
there is a slight variation in the steps of the process. Schleiermacher
went through three stages, (1) the philosophy of Jacobi, (2) of Fichte,
and probably (3) of Schelling; from which he learned respectively, (1) to
have faith in our intuitions, (2) to construe the outward by the inward,
(3) to believe in the power of the mind to pass beyond the inward, and
apprehend absolute truth. If the resemblance to the above account of Plato
were exactly perfect, the love of a philosophy like Fichte’s ought to have
preceded that of Jacobi. Schelling’s influence, it ought to be noted, is
very slight on Schleiermacher, compared with that of the others. The
traces of it which appear are perhaps resolvable into a similarity to
Jacobi’s system.
Note 31. p. 244. Schleiermacher’s Theological Works.
The theological works of Schleiermacher are doctrinal, critical, and
pastoral. The latter consist chiefly of the sermons which he delivered in
Berlin. The critical works are mentioned in a footnote to p. 248; but it
may be useful to give a brief notice of his doctrinal works, of which some
are referred to in the text.
The earliest was the _Reden über die Religion an die Gebildeten unter
ihren Verächtern_, 1799, (Discourses on Religion addressed to the educated
among its despisers,) which ought not to be read in earlier editions than
the fourth (1829), the notes of which contain explanations. The object of
these discourses was to direct attention away from the study of religion
in its outward manifestations, to its inward essence; which he showed to
lie neither in knowledge nor in action, but in feeling. See especially
Discourse II. _Uber das Wesen der Religion_. For the effect which the
discourses created, see Neanders testimony, quoted by Kahnis, _Hist. of
Prot._ E. T. p. 208.
The works which succeeded the _Reden_ were the following: in 1800, the
_Monologen_ (Soliloquies); in 1803, _Grundlinien einer Kritik der
bisherigen Sittenlehre_ (Critique on previous Ethical teaching); in 1806,
_Die Weinachtsfeier_ (Christmas Eve); in 1811, the _Kurze Darstellung des
Theologischen Studiums_ (Plan of Theological Study;—lately translated),
which gave rise to the branch now common in German universities, called
_Theologische Encyclopädie_;(1068) in 1821, _Der Christliche Glaube nach
den Grundsätzen der Evangelischen Kirche_ (the Christian Faith on the
principles of the Evangelical Church), which was improved in the
subsequent editions.
As the _Reden_ breathed the spirit of Jacobi, the _Monologen_ breathed
that of Fichte. They study the ethical, as the former the religious side
of man; the action of the personal will as distinct from the feelings of
dependence. The dialogue of the _Weihnachtsfeier_ showed Christ as the
means of effecting that oneness with the absolute which the two former
works had shown to be necessary.
In the _Glaubens-lehre_, Schleiermacher gives a general view of dogmatic
theology, viewed from the psychological side, i.e. its appropriation by
the Christian consciousness. He studies (1) man’s consciousness of God,
prior to experience of the opposition of sin and grace; next, after being
aware of such an opposition, as (2) the subject of sin, and (3) the
subject of grace; or, in theological language, the states of innocence, of
sin, and of grace. Each of these is subdivided in spirit, even when not in
form, in a threefold manner; describing respectively the condition of man,
the attributes of God, and the constitution of the world, as they relate
to the above three named states. The subjective and psychological
character of the inquiry is seen in the fact, that when treating the
second of these subdivisions,—the Divine attributes,—he does not study
them as peculiarities of God’s nature, but as modifications of the mode in
which we refer to God our own feeling of dependence. This subjective
tendency illustrates the influence of Fichte and Jacobi on Schleiemiacher.
The contrast is an interesting one between a dogmatic treatise of the
schoolmen, of the reformers, and of Schleiermacher. The first commences
with the Deity and his attributes, and passes to man: the second generally
begins with the rule of faith, the Bible; and then, passing to the Deity,
proceeds mainly after the scholastic fashion: the third begins and ends
with the human consciousness, and its contents.
Note 32. p. 252. On Some German Critical Theologians. (de Wette, Ewald,
Etc.)
Some of the theologians of the critical school which is described in the
text, deserve a more full notice than was possible in the foot-notes to
the Lecture.
De Wette (1780-1849) was educated at Jena, under Griesbach. He was made
Professor at Berlin in 1810, but was deprived in 1819, in consequence of
the Prussian government having opened a letter of condolence written by
him to the mother of Sand, the assassin of the dramatist Kotzebue. (For
the history of the excited state of the German students at this time, see
K. Raumer’s _Pädagogik_, vol. iv. translated.) In 1826 he was made
Professor at Basle. An interesting life of him is given in the
_Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1850. His most important works are, his
_Einleitung ins Alt. und Neu. Test.; Lehrbuch der Dogmatik_, 1819; his New
Translation of the Bible (1839); and Commentaries on several parts of
Scripture. On his doctrinal views see Kahnis, p. 231 seq. He is said to
have been a man of sweet and amiable character; and indeed he appears to
be so in his writings. It has been remarked, as a proof of his singular
fairness, that he not only candidly states the opinions of an opponent,
but even sometimes confesses his inability fully to refute them.
Along with De Wette ought to be classed a great number of distinguished
men, most of whom wrote parts of the Commentary which he designed under
the name of _Exegetisches Handbuch_. They were mostly critics rather than
writers on doctrine, and represent the modified state of thought of his
later life; but still maintain, for the most part, his critical
stand-point in reference to the scriptures; and therefore, though
contemporary with the new Tübingen and other schools described in Lecture
VII, which have arisen since Strauss’s criticism, in that which we called
the third period of our sketch, they really belong to the school of
critics of the older or second period. Such are, or were, Gesenius,
Knobel, Hirzel, Hitzig, Credner, Tuch, E. Meier, Hupfeld, and Stühelin.
See Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. xi.
H. Ewald, born 1803, became Professor at Göttingen 1831. In 1837 he was
one of the seven professors who sacrificed their position when the new
king of Hanover, Ernest, interfered with the constitution. From 1838 to
1848 he was professor at Tübingen: since 1848 at Göttingen. His works are
partly on the oriental languages, and partly on theology. Among the latter
the chief are, _Die Poetischen Bücher des Alten Test._, 1835; _Die
Propheten des Alten Bundes_, 1840; and the _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_,
1842-50; a work which, whatever may be thought of the theological aspects
of it, if regarded in respect of scholarship, poetic appreciation, and
grandeur of generalization, is one of the most remarkable books ever
produced even in Germany. (Renan has based upon it the most brilliant of
his essays, ess. ii. in the _Etudes d’Hist. Religieuse_.) His works on the
New Testament are partly directed against the views of the new Tübingen
school. He differs from the older critical school of De Wette, in applying
himself more exclusively to the Semitic literature; and cannot be classed
with them in any other way than that he represents the effort of
independent criticism, linguistic and historic; removed from the dogmatic
school, and also from the later forms of critical.
Note 33. p. 255. The Name Jehovah.
The name יהוה is written _Jehovah_, by transferring to it the vowel points
of the word _Adonai_, אדני, which the pious scruples of the Jews led them
to substitute for it. It was probably read _Yahveh_. In reference to the
meaning of _El_, and _Jehovah_, see Gesenius’s _Lexicon_ on the words אל
(p. 45. Engl. Transl.), and יהוה (p. 337); also the word _hajah_, היה, (p.
221.) See likewise Hengstenberg’s _Authentie. des Pentateuches_, i. 222
seq.; especially p. 230, where he shows that _jahveh_, יהוה, is derived by
regular analogy from the future of the verb _hajah_, היה ( = _havah_,
היה). See also M. Nicholas’s _Etudes Crit. sur la Bible_, pp. 115, 163;
and the article _Jehovah_ in Smith’s _Biblical Dictionary_.
Note 34. p. 256. The Use Of The Names Of Deity In The Composition Of
Hebrew Proper Names.
A curious list of these is given by Dr. Donaldson. (_Christian Orthodoxy_,
pp. 235, 6.)
Examples of names before the age of Saul, compounded with _El_, are seen
in _El_-kanah, _El_-i, Samu-_el_, Abi-_el_. When Saul reigns we find the
name Jah or Jehovah appear, in _Jeho_-nathan, Ahi-_jah_, Jedid-_iah_; and
during the regal period in the list of kings, Jos-_iah_, _Jeho_-abaz,
_Jeho_-i-akim, Zedek-_iah_; and among the prophets, Isa-_iah_,
Jerem-_iah_, Mica-_iah_, _Jeho_-sheah. After the fall of Judah we find the
name El reappear; e.g. Ezeki-_el_ ( = Hezek-_iah_), Dani-_el_, Micha-_el_,
Gabri-_el_, _El_-iashib, Shealti-_el_. After the captivity the name Jah
recurs; e.g. Nehem-_iah_, Zephan-_iah_, Zechar-_iah_, Malach-_iah_. The
name _El_-i-_jah_ ( = my God is Jah) is an instance of a word compounded
with both names.
Donaldson tries to generalize from the above to the effect, that,
previously to the age of the early kings, proper names compounded with
_El_ were prevalent; and in the regal and prophetic age, those compounded
with _Jah_; again, after the fall of Judah, and in the captivity, those
with _El_; and after the captivity, with _Jah_. But the selection is too
limited to admit of such a generalization being satisfactory. It does
however prove the knowledge of the twofold conception implied by the use
of the names.
Lecture VII.
Note 35. p. 264. The Hegelian Philosophy.
The purpose of this note is to supply references to sources for the study
of Hegel’s philosophy; and also to point out the parallel and contrast in
the central thought and tendency of the philosophies of Schelling and
Hegel.
The most intelligible account of Hegel’s system is given by Morell,
_History of Philosophy_, ii. 161-196; and the best general view of its
tendencies, especially in reference to theology, is contained in an
instructive article by E. Scherer, in the _Rev. des Deux Mondes_ for Feb.
15, 1861, from which assistance has been derived in this lecture. The
student will also find great help in Chalybaüs’s _Hist. of Spec. Philos._
ch. xi-xvii (translated 1854); and A. Véra’s _Introduction à la Phil. de
Hegel_, 1855; together with his French translation of Hegel’s _Logic_.
(Véra is one of the few Italians who understand Hegel.) The _Philosophie
der Geschichte_, and _Geschichte der Philosophie_ are the two most
intelligible of Hegel’s works; the former of which is translated into
English; but the study of his _Logic_ is indispensable, for seeing the
applications of his method, as well as for appreciating his metaphysical
ability and real position.
Schelling and Hegel both seek to solve the problems of philosophy, by
starting _à priori_ with the idea of the absolute; but in Schelling’s case
it is perceived by a _presentative_ power (intellectual intuition), and in
Hegel’s by a _representative_. The former faculty perceives the absolute
object; the latter the absolute relation, if such a term be not a
contradiction. In each case the percipient power is supposed to be “above
consciousness;” i.e. not trammelled by those limitations of object and
subject which are the conditions of ordinary consciousness. In both
systems a kind of threefold process is depicted, as the law or movement
according to which the absolute manifests itself.(1069) Sir W. Hamilton
has shown the inconsistencies of Schelling’s system, in criticising that
of Cousin, who was his great exponent; see _Dissertations_, ess. i.
(reprinted from the _Edinburgh Review_, 1829); and Mr. Mansel has extended
a similar analysis to Fichte and Hegel. (_Bampton Lectures_, ii. and iii;
and article _Metaphysic_ in _Encyclop. Britann._ 10th ed. p. 607, &c. See
also Rémusat _De la Philosophie Allemande_, Introduction.) Yet a grand
thought, even though, psychologically speaking, it be an unreal one, lies
beneath the awkward terminology of the systems of Schelling and Hegel; and
their _method_ has influenced many who do not consciously embrace their
philosophy. The effect produced by Schelling is the desire to seize the
prime idea, the _beau idéal_ of any subject, and trace its manifestations
in the field of history; a method which is seen in the French historic and
critical literature of the followers of Cousin in the reign of Louis
Philippe. (See Note 9, and the references given in Note 44.) The spirit
produced by Hegel, is the desire to realise the truth contained in
opposite views of the same subject; to view each as a half truth, and
error itself as a part of the struggle toward truth. This spirit and
method are seen in such a writer as Renan, and is clearly described in the
passages quoted from Scherer and others in Note 9.
Note 36. p. 271. The Christology Of Strauss.
The following extract from Strauss’s work conveys his Christology.
“This is the key to the whole of Christology, that, as subject of
the predicate which the church assigns to Christ, we place instead
of an individual, an idea; but an idea which has an existence in
reality, not in the mind only, like that of Kant. In an
individual, a God-man, the properties and functions which the
church ascribes to Christ contradict themselves; in the idea of
the race they perfectly agree. Humanity is the union of the two
natures;—God become man; the infinite manifesting itself in the
finite, and the finite spirit remembering its infinitude: it is
the child of the visible mother and the invisible father, Nature
and Spirit: it is the worker of miracles, in so far as in the
course of human history the spirit more and more completely
subjugates nature, both within and around man, until it lies
before him as the inert matter on which he exercises his active
power: it is the sinless existence, for the course of its
development is a blameless one, pollution cleaves to the
individual only, and does not touch the race or its history. It is
Humanity that dies, rises, and ascends to heaven; for, from the
negation of its phenomenal life, there ever proceeds a higher
spiritual life; from the suppression of its mortality as a
personal, rational, and terrestrial spirit, arises its union with
the infinite spirit of the heavens. By faith in this Christ,
especially in his death and resurrection, man is justified before
God; that is, by the kindling within him of the idea of humanity,
the individual man participates in the divinely human life of the
species. Now the main element of that idea is, that the negation
of the merely natural and sensual life, which is itself the
negation of the spirit, is the sole way to true spiritual life.
This alone is the absolute sense of Christology. That it is
annexed to the person and history of one individual is a necessary
result of the historical form which Christology has taken.” _Leben
Jesu_, vol. ii. § 151. (pp. 709, 10. 4th ed. 1840); in the English
translation, vol. iii. p. 433.
Note 37. p. 278. Strauss.
A few facts concerning the life and writings of Strauss may be
interesting.
He was born in 1808, and was educated at Tübingen and Berlin. He was
_Repetiteur_ at Tübingen in 1835, when he published his _Leben Jesu_,
described in the text of Lect. VII. In 1837 he published his
_Streit-schriften_, or replies to his critics. In 1839 he was elected
Professor of theology at Zurich, an appointment which produced such
popular indignation that it was cancelled, and a change of government was
caused by it. In 1840 he published _Die Christliche Glaubenslehre im
Kampfe mil der modernen Wissenschaft dargestellt_; in which, after an
introduction concerning the history of opinions on the relation of the
two, he discussed the principles of Christian doctrine, such as the Bible,
Canon, Evidences, &c. and next the doctrines themselves; viz. (part i.) on
the divine Being and His attributes, as an abstract conception; (part ii.)
on the same, as the object of empirical conceptions in its manifestation
in creation, &c. See _Foreign Quart. Rev._ No. 54. 1841; and C. Schwarz’s
_Gesch. der n. Theol._ b. ii. ch. i. He published also _Monologen in dem
Freihafen_, translated 1848; _Soliloquies on the Christian Religion, its
Errors, and Everlasting Truth_.
In 1848, the revolutionary year, he was elected to the Wurtemburg
Parliament; and took the conservative side, to the surprise of his
constituents. He has subsequently lived chiefly at Heilbronn, engaged in
literary labours; mostly writing the lives of sceptics, or persons
connected with free thought whose fate has been like his own. Among these
have been, a sketch of Julian, 1847, intended probably as a satire on the
romantic reaction conducted by the late king of Prussia; a Life of
Schubart, 1849, a Swabian poet of the last century; one of Maerklin 1851,
his own early friend; one of N. Frischlin, 1856, a learned German of the
sixteenth century; a life of Ulric von Hütten, 1858; and _Gespräche von
Hütten_, 1861; also _Kleine Schriften_, 1861; and a work on _Reimarus_,
1862, concerning which see Note 29. Some of these works are reviewed in
the _Nat. Rev._ Nos. 7 and 12.
Note 38. p. 273. The Replies To Strauss.
Schwarz gives an interesting account of the various replies to Strauss,
and of the works written by various theologians to support their own point
of view against his criticisms. _Gesch. der n. Theol._ p. 113 seq.
The work was criticised,—
I. From the old school of orthodoxy, (α) by Steudel, Strauss’s own
teacher, in a work called _Vorlaüfig zu Beherzigenden zur Beruhigung der
Gemüthen_. (β) From the new orthodoxy, by Hengstenberg, in the
_Evangelische Kirchenzeitung_. (γ) From the school which formed the
transition between this and that of Schleiermacher by Tholuck;, in
_Glaubwürdigkeit der Evangelischen Geschichte_, 1837.
II. From the school of Schleiermacher, (α) in Neander’s _Leben Jesu_, (β)
in Ullmann’s _Studien und Kritiken_, 1836. part iii. Reprinted as
_Historisch oder Mythisch_.