illustration drawn from the distribution of political parties in the
foreign parliaments), (α) by Göschel in the work _Von Gott, dem Menschen
und dem GottesMenschen_, 1838; (β) by Dorner in the _Geschichte der Person
Christi_, 1839. (γ) by Gabler and Bruno Bauer, who at that time was on the
side of orthodoxy: 2. from the Hegelian “centre” in Schaller’s _Der
Historischer Christus und die Philosophie_, 1838; 3. from the “left,” (α)
by Weisse, _Die Evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch
bearbeitet_, 1838: (β) by Wilke, _Der Ur-evangelist_; both of whom regard
St. Mark’s as the primitive evangile; and (γ) by Bruno Bauer, _Kritik der
Synoptiker_, 1842, when he had changed to the opposite side of the
Hegelian school: (δ) by Luetzelberger; (ε) by A. Schweizer; both of whom
wrote on St. John’s Gospel. Several of the latter were not intended to be
replies to Strauss, but attempts to reconsider their own position in
relation to him. This was particularly the case in reference to the works
which were written by the Tübingen school, (see next note,) of which
Schwarz gives a description, p. 153 seq.
Note 39. p. 278. The Tubingen School.
The leader of the historico-critical school which bears this name, was C.
Baur (1792-1860), author of various works on the history of doctrine, and
on church history both doctrinal and critical. His work against the Roman
catholic theologian Moehler, which first made him noted, was _Gegensatz
des Protestantismus und Katholicismus nach den principien und Haupt-dogmen
der beiden Lehrbegriffe_, 1833. An account of his works is given in C.
Schwarz’s _Gesch. der neuest. Theol._ p. 165. The following may be here
specified: his work on the history of the doctrine of the atonement, _Die
Lehre von der Versöhnung_, 1838; also _Lehrbuch der Christlichen
Dogmengeschichte_, 1845, and _Die Christliche Kirche der drei ersten
Jahrhunderte_, 1853; the last part of which has been published since his
death. Some interesting remarks, comparing him with Strauss and
Schleiermacher, (though hardly fair to the last,) appeared in the
_National Rev._ Jan, 1861. See also the sketch by Nefftzer in the _Revue
Germanique_, vol. xiii. parts 1 and 2.
The other members of the school besides Baur have been Schwegler, the
commentator on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and author of a Roman History
(died 1857); Zeller, also a writer on Greek philosophy, now Professor of
philosophy at Marburg; whose appointment to Berne in 1847 has been
elsewhere stated to have caused a similar excitement to that of Strauss to
Zurich; Koestlin, Professor of aesthetics at Tübingen; and Hilgenfeld,
Professor of theology at Jena, who is the best living representative of
the modified form which the school has now assumed. Respecting these
theologians, see the notes which Stap has affixed, in the _Revue
Germanique_, vol. ix. p. 560, &c. to a French translation of a part of
Schwarz’s _Geschichte_.
Concerning this school see Baur’s _Die Tübinger Schule_, 1859. The organ
of it from 1842-57 was the _Theologische Jahrbücher_, edited by Baur.
Since it ceased to be published, Hilgenfeld has created a new journal, the
_Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie_, which receives the support
of critics not directly of the Tübingen school, such as Hitzig and Knobel.
Perhaps Schneckenbürger ought to be ranked with the same school; and
Gfrörer also, author of a work on Philo, 1831; but he differed in holding
the authenticity of St. John’s Gospel; and in 1846 became a Roman
catholic, and Professor at Freiberg. See also a paper in Von Sybel’s
_Hist. Zeitschr._ for 1860, part iv. translated in _Biblioth. Sacr._, Jan.
1862. The Tübingen school has met with able opponents, e.g. Thiersch,
Dorner, Ewald, Bleek, Reuss, and Hase.
Note 40. p. 281. The German Theologian Rothe.
Concerning this theologian, now Professor at Heidelberg, see C. Schwarz’s
_Geschichte der neuesten Theologie_, p. 279 seq. The cause why the remarks
in the text are so brief in regard to Rothe is, that the writer has not
been able to see his more important works, which are out of print; and
accordingly he derives his knowledge of him at second hand.
Rothe’s two most important works are, _Die Anfänge der Christlichen
Kirche_, 1837, and _Theologische Ethic_, 1845. An account of the former is
given in the often-quoted article by Scherer (_Rev. des Deux Mondes_, Feb.
15, 1861), pp. 848-860. It appears to view the Christian church from its
ideal side, to absorb the individual in the constitution, to show that
Christendom is the object of Christianity, an institution the great means
of embodying the doctrines; but that, as society becomes fermented by its
spirit, the office of Christianity is fulfilled by the state, and the beau
ideal would be a society where the church is the state. It is a view
similar to that of Coleridge in his _Church and State_, or of Dr. Arnold
in his work on _the Church_. Mr. F. C. Cook, in _Aids to Faith_ (p. 159),
has given some interesting illustrations of this point.
The second of Rothe’s works, the _Ethic_, is briefly described in a
previously-cited article in the _Westminster Review_ for April, 1857. Like
the former it starts with the idea of the identity of ethics and religion.
Regarding personality or the moral relations as the central fact of
existence, it surveys material creation under this aspect. Next it
discusses the moral and religious history of man, as means of enabling the
personal being to subordinate to himself all the forces without or within
him. The object apparently is to show, that the spiritual element is not
an intrusion, but the normal development of nature or providence; and the
moral society, the State, the normal development of the religions society,
the Church. Rothe’s later views have hardly been developed in system.
According to him theology is theosophy; philosophy can work out a theology
from the consciousness.
It is probable that the writer of these lines is unintentionally doing
injustice, through having to trust to secondhand information, to one who
is regarded in Germany as belonging to the highest order of scientific
theologians; though perhaps the interesting account of C. Schwarz leaves
little to be desired.
Rothe, in accordance with his wish to strengthen orthodox theology by an
independent philosophy, and not to support it by material agency, has
lately taken part politically on the liberal side, in some questions
connected with the church constitution of Baden. (See Colani’s _Nouvelle
Revue de la Theologie_, Aug. 1862.)
Note 41. p. 285. The Most Modern Schools Of Philosophy And Theology In
Germany.
The object of this note is to carry on the history of philosophy and
theology to a more recent date than was necessary in the text.
The idealist school of philosophy reached its highest point with Hegel;
and subsequently there has been as great a reaction against this mode of
speculation, as the contemporaneous theological one in religion.
The philosopher who was directly or indirectly the cause of the realist
tendency was Herbart (1776-1841), who succeeded Kant at Königsberg, and
afterwards was Professor at Göttingen. Concerning his system, see Morell’s
_History of Philosophy_, ii. 206, &c. Chalybaüs, ch. iv. and v. He
followed out the _material_, as distinct from the _formal_, system of the
Kantian philosophy, and strove to develop it.
The schools of modern Germany may be reckoned as four:—
(1). The young Hegelian school; e.g. of the younger Fichte, which, though
professedly idealistic, and adopting Hegel’s method, is really affected
largely by realistic tendencies, and seeks for a philosophy of matter as
well as form. See Taillandier in _Revue des Deux Mondes_ for 1853, vol.
iii. p. 633; and also Oct. 1858; Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, ii.
216, &c. Kahnis, p. 252. This school manifests decidedly realistic
tendencies in Kuno Fischer, Weisse, and Branis.
(2.) That which shows a tendency to approach the subject of mental
phenomena from the physiological side, in Drobisch, Waitz, and Volkmann,
somewhat in the manner of the English writer Herbert Spencer.
(3.) A school decidedly materialist, e.g. Vogt, Moleschott, and Büchner.
See Taillandier, _Rev. des Deux Mondes_, Oct. 1858.
These three tendencies form a gradation from the ideal, and approach the
real, until at last the ideal itself is destroyed. The other tendency, if
such it may be called, stands apart, and is akin to the older ideal ones.
It is (4.) that of Schopenhauer (1788-1860), and tries to solve the
problem of existence from the side of the will, instead of the intellect,
and bears a remote resemblance to that of Maine de Biran. His system has
long been before the public, but since his death has been much discussed.
It has been explained by Frauenstädt. It is also well described in the
_Westminster Review_, April, 1853.
We now pass from the schools of philosophy to theology.
We have implied that there are three great schools of it in Germany; the
Neo-Lutheran, the Mediation school, and the Tübingen; and have seen that
they are each in course of transition into slightly new forms in younger
hands. The “Neo-Lutheranism” has assumed a more ecclesiastical position,
which has been called “Hyper-Lutheranism.” The “Mediation” school of
Schleiermacher is replaced by a newer form, modified by Hegelianism in
Dorner. It remains to add, that the Tübingen school is giving place to
another, of which C. Schwarz himself is a representative—a kind of
derivation from the Tübingen school and that of De Wette. Its organ is the
_Protestantische Kirchenzeitung_; and to it are said(1070) to belong Dr.
Dittenberger, court preacher at Weimar, C. Schwarz, who holds the same
position at Gotha; Ellester of Potsdam, Sydow of Berlin, and Schweizer of
Zurich. Their position seems to be more ethical and less evangelical than
the members of the party of free thought in the protestant church of
France.
Note 43. p. 289. The Modern Theology Of Switzerland And Holland.
It will be observed, that no notice has been taken in the text, of the
modern theology of Switzerland and Holland. It may be desirable therefore
to suggest an outline here.
THE THEOLOGY OF SWITZERLAND.—The materials for the account of it are
scanty and disjointed. Since the reform of the Swiss universities during
the present century, theological thought has chiefly taken the colour of
the adjacent countries, Germany or France, in the respective universities
where those languages are spoken. In the church of Geneva, about a quarter
of a century ago, there seem to have been two parties, similar to those in
the French protestant church: one professing the old Calvinistic
orthodoxy, which had degenerated into semi-Socinianism; the other, the
result of a revival of biblical truth and spiritual religion, under such
pastors as D’Aubigné, the historian of the Reformation, and recently
Gaussen, the writer on _Théopneustie_. A movement was commenced under
Vinet of Lausanne, which may be considered to be the only native school
which Switzerland has produced. It was a mixture of science and
earnestness, founded chiefly on a combination of Pascal and
Schleiermacher. Concerning Vinet, see a very just article in the _North
British Review_, No. 42, August 1854; and see below, Note 46. Scherer was
a friend of Vinet, but has since changed his views, or, as some would
think, developed logically their results, and has long left his
professorship at Geneva, and acts with the new liberal school in the
French protestant church. See Note 46.
German Switzerland has been connected with Germany rather than France. The
teaching at the university of Basle was moulded by De Wette, who was made
professor there in 1826, a few years after his removal from Berlin. Its
character, however, expressed the more orthodox and moderate views of his
later years. The instructive writer Hagenbach, professor there, belongs to
the “mediation school” of theology, and is a worthy representative of its
learned and devout spirit. Zurich possessed a teacher, Usteri, belonging
to the school of Schleiermacher; and others, whose tone rather resembled
that of the critical school of De Wette, or of the Tübingen school. The
well-known critics Hitzig and Knobel, were formerly its professors; and at
present Schweizer is there, concerning whom see Note 41. A few years after
Strauss had published his noted work, he was elected, as stated before,
theological professor at Zurich, but the appointment was cancelled by a
revolution of the people. See the Address of Orelli (translated 1844). The
appointment of Zeller of the Tübingen school to Berne, created a similar
excitement. In the proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance at Geneva,
1861, professor Riggenbach, of Basle, stated that some of the journals of
eastern Switzerland adopt sceptical principles. (_News of the Churches_,
Oct. 1861.) He named the _Zeit-stimmen aus der Reformirten Kirche der
Schweiz_, which is edited at Winterthur by Lang, a pupil of Baur. In
German Switzerland, however, as well as French, there exists a biblical
school of theology; of which professor Riggenbach of Basle is an example.
THE THEOLOGY OF HOLLAND.—The sources were given above (p. 110.) for the
study of Arminianism and Calvinism in the seventeenth century. The
subsequent history is soon told. We omit, of course, the history of the
Romish church in Holland, and of the Jansenist secession from it, which
took place in 1705.
The Protestant church continued to exist in two branches; viz. the
Calvinists, or established church, who professed the creed of the synod of
Dort; and the Remonstrants, who professed the moderate Arminianism of
Episcopius; similar to that which was taught by our own Hales and
Chillingworth. The studies in the established church were specially
devoted to exegesis, in reference to which the name of Schultens of
Leyden, in the last century, is well known; manifesting a slight
inclination to free inquiry in Van der Palm (1763-1838).
About 1830, the condition of the church was a cold orthodoxy, much like
that of the “moderate” party in the church of Scotland before the rupture
of 1843. The stronghold of this party was the university of Utrecht.
Living isolated, and resembling the English in not easily admitting
foreign influences, the Dutch read little of German literature. A
periodical existed, the _Theological Contributions_, which used to bestow
praises on the school of Bretschneider.
A little before 1830, a movement of evangelical piety had been kindled in
the church, through the influence of the poet Bilderdyk (who died 1831),
and of his two disciples, the Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam, Da Costa (who
died in 1860), and Cappadose. Their position however was, a return to the
rigid decrees of the synod of Dort and the theology of Calvin. They
resembled very nearly the party in the church of Scotland which formed the
free church. They acquainted themselves with German theology for the
purpose of refuting it; and Da Costa wrote a work, _The Four Witnesses_,
on the four Evangelists, in reply to Strauss; which has been translated.
In 1834 they separated from the national church under two pastors, De Cock
and Scholte, and endured much persecution. The _Voices of the Netherlands_
was the periodical which expressed their views. Van Oosterze, pastor at
Rotterdam, belonged to them. This party has been represented in the Dutch
parliament by Groen van Printsterer. It has lost its political influence
in some degree in recent years, by opposing political reforms.
Almost simultaneously with this Calvinistic revival, a school arose in the
university of Groningen, a “mediation” school, modelled upon
Schleiermacher, under the influence of the Platonist Van Heusde
(1778-1839), led by Hofstede de Groot, Pareau, and Muurling. Its organ was
_Truth in Charity_. The views held were a spiritual Arianism. They may be
seen in a novel published recently (1861) at Cape Town, for the Dutch
colonists, entitled, _The Pastor of Vliethuizen, or Conversations about
the Groningen School_, translated by Dr. Lorgian.
These three parties were the chief in Holland, until about 1850. Since
then a more decided movement of free thought has begun in the university
of Leyden. Up to that time the venerable Van Hengel remained there, the
example of the old philological orthodoxy of Holland. Two professors have
now created an independent movement, more nearly resembling that of the
Tübingen school; J. H. Scholten, in dogma; and, with rather more advanced
views, the orientalist H. Kuenen in philology. (A list of some of
Scholten’s publications may be seen in the _Westminster Review_ for July,
1862, page 43, note. His _Hist. comparée de la Philos. et de la Relig._
was translated by Reville, in the _Nouvelle Rev. de la Theologie_, April
18.) Busker Huet has asserted still more advanced views than these,
apparently simple naturalism. The Positivist philosophy has found an
advocate in Opzoomer, one of the professors at Utrecht.
The sources of this account are chiefly found in Ullmann’s paper in the
_Studien und Kritiken_, 1840, part iii. translated by professor Edwards,
with additions, in the American _Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1845; and in an
interesting article by A. Reville of Rotterdam, himself one of the liberal
school of the French protestant church, in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_ for
June 15, 1860. Chautepie de la Saussure, pastor of the Walloon church at
Leyden, formerly of the Groningen school, has also written in French, _La
Crise Religieuse en Hollande_, 1859; but it is chiefly devoted to personal
questions. A sketch of the Dutch universities and their intellectual
characteristics was given by Esquiros in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_,
1856, vol. iii.
Note 44. p. 297. The Eclectic School Of France.
The Eclectic School is sketched in Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, vol.
ii. c. viii; Damiron’s _Essai sur l’Histoire de la Philosophie en France
au 19ème siècle_, 1828, pp. 280-385: Nettement’s _Histoire de la Litt.
Franc. sous la Restoration_, 1853, vol. i. b. ii. p. 127 seq.; vol. ii. b.
viii. p. 290 seq.; and _Hist. de la Litt. Franç. sous le Gouvernement de
Juillet_, vol. i. b. vi: also in Taine’s _Philosophie Française du 19ème
siècle_. The last writer is wholly unfavourable to the school, on the
ground of the uselessness of metaphysical philosophy.
The eclectic school was the means of uniting together the philosophy of
Scotland and Germany, which had previously been running in separate
streams. The leading minds of the school have been four,—Royer Collard,
Maine de Biran, Cousin, and Jouffroy.
The founder of it, R. Collard (1763-1845), was a disciple of the Scotch
school, who about 1812 commenced an attack on the philosophy of Condillac,
very similar to that of Reid on Hume. He devoted himself to the analysis
of the intellectual and moral parts of men, in order to assert the
existence of a world within, independent of sensational impressions. The
next writer, Maine de Biran (1766-1824), devoted himself especially to the
examination of the will and the notion of cause, and reproduced the ideas
of Leibnitz. The third, Cousin (born 1792), succeeded Collard in 1815 as
professor at Paris; and in his early lectures followed the Scotch school.
When the conservative reaction occurred in 1822, consequent on the
assassination of the duke de Berri, the constitutional party was thrown
into disgrace; and Cousin therefore retired into Germany, and there
imbibed the spirit of the great schools of philosophy, especially of
Schelling and Jacobi. He has given, his own history in the preface to
_Fragments Philosophiques_, vol. ii. Lastly came Jouffroy, the translator
of Dugald Stewart, who improved upon the Scotch school. See Sainte-Beuve’s
criticism on Jouffroy. (_Crit. Litt._ vol. i.)
Damiron was an admirable exponent of the eclectic school; Benjamin
Constant, Degerando, and Lerminier, partially belonged to the same school.
Its effects are ably stated in Morell. The delicate hand of E. Renan also
has sketched the influence of _Cousin et L’école Spiritualiste_, in the
_Revue des Deux Monds_, April. 1858; reprinted in his _Essais de Morale et
de Critique_.
Note 45. p. 300. The Catholic Reactionary School Of France.
Concerning this school, see Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, vol. ii. pp.
274-318; Damiron (as in the last note), pp. 105-197; Nettement (second
work), vol. i. b. v.
The members of this school all agree in reposing upon the principle of
_authority_; but differ in the source in which they place it. Their
philosophy accordingly does not aim at discovering truth, but only the
authority on which we may rely as the oracle of truth.
The founder of the movement was De Maistre (1753-1821), the bitter
opponent of the Baconian philosophy, whose doctrine, about the time of his
death, was absolute submission to the catholic church. See concerning him
C. Rémusat in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, May 1857; and E. Scherer’s
_Mélanges de la Critique Religieuse_. Lamennais belonged to the same
movement. In his early manner, as expressed in his _Essai sur
l’Indifference_, 1821, he found the test of truth in primitive revelations
transmitted by testimony; in his later, he abandoned this school, and
strove to work out philosophy, in part independently of authority. The
next writer, De Bonald, sought for truth in the same source, viz.
fragments of divinely communicated knowledge, transmitted in the languages
of mankind. On Bonald see C. Rémusat (_Revue_, as quoted above). The Abbé
Bautain improved upon this system by placing the ground of certitude in
the authority of Revelation, and considered the office of philosophy to
end when it has shown the necessity of a revelation. Next to him came
D’Eckstein, who sought the test of truth in authority based on researches
into the catholic beliefs of mankind. The two latter views, it will be
perceived, are far nobler than the former. Maret, whose writings have been
before cited, also belongs to this reactionary school.
Note 46. p. 304. The Modern School Of Free Thought In The Protestant
Church Of France.
The object of this note is to enumerate some of the chief of those
theologians to whom allusion is made in the text, and to exhibit their
relations to each other.
One of the best known is Colani, a pastor at Strasburg, the able editor of
the _Nouvelle Revue de la Theologie_, and author of several volumes of
sermons: also A. Reville, pastor of the Walloon church at Rotterdam, a
frequent writer in the same Review, and in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_;
Reuss, a professor at Strasburg, author of a history of the early church,
in French, and _Beiträge zu den Theologischen Wissenschaften_, in German;
Scherer, the friend of Vinet, once professor at Geneva, author of
_Mélanges de Critique Religieuse_, reprinted mostly from Colani’s Review,
of which the first four papers give his theological views on Inspiration,
the Bible, and Sin.(1071)
The able critic, Michel Nicholas, professor at Montauban, author of
_Etudes Critiques sur la Bible_, and _Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs
pendant les deux siècles antérieurs à l’ère Chrétienne_, probably may be
classed with the same; but he has not written on doctrine. A. Cocquerel
_fils_, pastor at Paris, also is connected with Colani’s Review, and is
considered to possess the same sympathies.
The difference of the point of view of these writers from that of the
Eclectic school would be, that while the latter would regard the human
race as able to pass beyond Christianity, the former would only wish to
get rid of the dogmas which they think have been superadded in the course
of ages, and to return to the simple teaching of the sermon on the mount.
One writer more has been reckoned with the same party by the English
public, E. De Pressensé, a pastor in the free Protestant church at Paris,
author of the Church History so often referred to in this volume, and of
sermons on the _Sauveur_, and editor of the _Revue Chrétienne_; but he
appears to possess an evangelical and more orthodox tone than some of the
above.