Ritter’s _Christliche Phil._ viii. 47 seq.; Renouvier, _Phil. Mod._
(278-90); and especially Maine de Biran’s _Life of Leibnitz_ in the
_Biographie Universelle_. Also Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, i.
220, and H. Rogers’s _Essays_ (Essay on Leibnitz,) reprinted from
the _Edinburgh Review_, July 1846.
664 On these canons see Sir W. Hamilton’s _Lectures on Logic_, vol. i.
lect. vi.; Mansel’s _Prolegomena_, ch. vi.; and Mills’s _Logic_,
vol. ii. b. v. ch. iii. § 5.
665 Wolff, 1679-1754. Professor of Philosophy at Halle; in 1723
expelled; restored in 1741; Lange and Buddeus were his great
opponents (see Hagenbach’s _Dogmengesch._ § 274). His philosophy
consisted of an attempt to deduce _à priori_ a system of (1)
cosmology, (2) psychology, (3) natural theology. The latter relates
to God, His attributes in Himself and in creation. See some remarks
by Mr. Mansel on his scheme (art. _Metaphysic. Encycl. Brit._, 8vo.
ed. p. 603). On his philosophy see Ritter, _Christ. Phil._ vii. b.
x. ch. i.; Tennemann’s _Manual_, § (363-5); Morell, i. 228;
Rosenkrantz, _Gesch. der Kantischen Schule_, b. i. part iii. ch. i.
His religious opinions are found in the _Theol. Nat._ 1736, and
_Philos. Moralis_, 1750, and in his _Vernuenftige Gedanken von
Gott_. 1747 (p. 604). See on them Henke, _Kirchengesch._ viii. § 3;
Mangel’s _Bampton Lectures_, note 3. And on the effects of his
philosophy, and the state of theology in Germany at the time of its
influence, see Tholuck’s _Vermischte Schriften_, ii. § 2 and 1.
666 In 1723, in consequence of the petition from the pietist professors,
Frederick I, deposed Wolff. See Kahnis (Engl. Transl.) p. 114.
667 In reference to the introduction of Wolff’s philosophy, the
reference to Tholuck has been already given. See also Schröch’s
_Gesch._ viii. 26; Lechler, 448; Amand Saintes’ _Critical History of
Rationalism_, i. ch. ix.; Hagenbach’s _Dogmengesch._ § 274; Kahnis,
p. 110. Kahnis (115) names Baumgarten, Canz, and Toellner, as
Wolff’s pupils. Mosheim and the Walches were too exclusively
literary to be affected by the new philosophy. Canz of Tübingen was
the first to apply the system to doctrinal theology (1728). See
Pusey, part i. 116.
668 Locke’s philosophy in a distorted form was introduced by the French
philosophers who lived at the court of Frederick II.
669 On the introduction of English deism, see Tholuck, § 3. A few only
of the deist writings were translated, (e.g. Tindal by Schmidt in
1741,) but very many of the replies; which proves how much attention
they excited. See the list in Lechler, p. 447. Up to 1760 no fewer
than 106 answers had been written to Tindal alone. Kortholt, in his
work _De Tribus Impostoribus_, (viz. Herbert, Hobbes, Spinoza,)
1680, was the first to notice English deism. The appeal to reason in
these replies had the same effect as that noticed in the philosophy
of Wolff.
670 For Maupertuis see _Biographie Universelle_. The others have been
named in the notes to Lect. V.
671 See Tholuck, § 4 and 5. He considers that the French literature,
with the exception of Bayle, did not affect the Germans, on account
of its shallowness; but doubtless it did so indirectly.
672 This division does not essentially differ from the threefold one
adopted by Kahnis, into the illumination period, that of the
renovation, and of the church renovating itself.
673 We place the limit at 1810, because it is the date of the foundation
of the university of Berlin, which was the home of the reaction.
674 This date marks the spread of the Kantian philosophy, as will be
shown below.
675 There were thus three chief phases within the church; the dogmatic
at Leipsic, the critical at Göttingen, the pietistic eclecticism of
Semler at Halle. If to this we add the pietism which still reigned
at Tübingen, as seen in Pfaff, &c., we have the condition of the
four universities which were at that time the chief centres of
intellectual activity in Germany.
676 Lessing, along with Nicholai, conducted the _Allgemeine Deutsche
Bibliothek_ from 1765.
677 On the purpose and nature of these institutions, which arose at
Dessau about 1774, see Schlosser, i. 5, 3; ii. 3, 2; Kahnis, p. 47.
On Basedow (1724-1790), see Rose on _Rationalism_, p. 66, note
(second edition), and Schröch, viii. 52.
678 J. A. Ernesti (1707-1781), was author of _Inst. Interpret. Nov.
Test._ 1761 (translated by bishop Terrot). His chief labours were
the editions of several classical authors, among which the most
valuable was Cicero. See Schlosser, ii. 187; Kahnis, 120; Pusey,
132; Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. ii. The Rosenmüllers (the father, J.
G. Rosenmüller, on the New Testament; the son, E. F. Rosenmüller the
antiquarian on the Old,) manifest much the same spirit as Ernesti.
679 Joh. Dav. Michaelis (1716-1791). His chief works were, _Gruend-liche
Erklaerung des Mosaischen Rechts_, and the _Einleitung in die
Schrift, des Neuen Bundes_. The former handled the Hebrew
legislation in a free spirit. The latter work was translated by
bishop Marsh, and led to the controversy about the composition of
the Gospels, to which allusion will be made in the notes of Lecture
VII. See Kahnis, p. 121; Henke, viii. part ii. § 2. Jerusalem and
Spalding manifest the same spirit as Michaelis.
680 Semler (1725-1791), Professor at Halle. His _Lebens-beschreibung_,
published 1781, is the great source for studying his mental
development and the history of his times. His works are numerous,
consisting chiefly of Commentaries and Ecclesiastical History. He
was one of the first to open up the study of the history of doctrine
(_dogmengeschichte_). The works which exhibit his rationalism are
chiefly the _Frei Untersuchen des Canons_, 1711; _Versuch einer
freiern lehrart_, 1777; _Introduction to Baumgarten’s Dogmatik_;
_Institutiones ad Doctrinam Christianam liberaliter docendam_, 1774.
His character is discussed at length in Tholuck. § 6; Pusey, 138,
&c.; Schlosser, ii. 187; Am. Saintes, b. ii. ch. ii. and iii. On the
successors of the writers recently named, see Am. Saintes, b. ii,
ch. iv.
681 In the work on the Canon named in the last note.
682 See the historic sketch of interpretation given in Planck’s
_Introduction to Sacred Philology_, (English translation, 168-186).
Interesting information is supplied in Credner’s article
_Interpretation_ in Kitto’s _Biblical Encyclopædia_; J. J.
Conybeare’s _Bampton Lecture_ for 1824 on the _Secondary
Interpretation of Scripture_; Dr. S. Davidson’s _Sacred
Hermeneutics_ (5-7); and an article in the _North British Review_
for August 1855 on the Alexandrian school.
683 These tendencies must be considered only to express the average.
Thus the school of Antioch, of which Theodore of Mopsuestia is a
type, leaned to the grammatical mode; (see some remarks on it in
Neander’s _Church History_, vol. iv. _init._ Germ. ed.; vol. iii.
_fin._ Engl. Tr.) In the middle ages the Franciscans showed an
inclination to the mystical or allegorical; and the typical system
of the Miracle Plays and of the Biblia Pauperum illustrates the
allegorical spirit of those times.
684 The allegorical is seen in the school of Cocceius (1603-1669) in the
Dutch church. The dogmatic has been alluded to above.
685 The system is called variously, in works of Hermeneutics,
συγκατάβασις, condescensio, demissio, obsequium. It is developed in
Semler’s _Prolegomena_ to some of St. Paul’s Epistles; in the
_Vorbereitung zur Theol. Hermeneutik_, 1762; and in the _Apparatus
ad lib. Nov. Text. interpr._ 1767. Tholuck quotes many instances of
it in reference to him (ii. 61). Concerning the subject see Planck’s
_Introduction to Sacred Philology_, (E. T.) 152-168; Wegscheider,
_Inst. Theol._ § 25; Bretschneider, _Hist. Dogm. Auslegung des N.
T._ 1806. A list of foreign works in reference to it is given at the
end of the article _Accommodation_, in Kitto’s _Biblical
Encyclopædia_. For a criticism on it see J. J. Conybeare’s Bampton
Lecture for 1824. (Lect. VII.)
686 Mark x. 5.
687 E.g. by Kidder in his _Testimony of the Messias_, 1694; Nicholls,
_Conference with a Theist_, 1733; and by Sykes, in several works
from about 1720-40.
688 Dr. Pusey speaks (_Inquiry_, p. 139, n.) of two works by Semler on
Demons, (of which I have seen only the second, 1779,) the first
directed against the belief in the occurrence of possessions in the
present day; the second to show that some of the Greek words
descriptive of such phenomena in the New Testament need not
necessarily imply superhuman agency.
689 Because it seemed to involve the notion of dissimulation on the part
of the scripture writers, or even of the divine Being.
_ 690 Introd. ad Doctr. Christianam_, b. i. See Am. Saintes, p. 107.
691 E.g. The Wolfenbüttel Fragments. See Am. Saintes, p. 86, and
Niemeyer’s _Letzte Aeusserungen ueber religioese Gegenstaende zwei
Tage vor seinem Tode_, which he quotes.
692 His doctrinal views are seen in the _Lebens-beschreibung_, part ii.
p. 220, &c.
693 Lessing (1729-1781). In 1754 he joined Nicholai and Mendelssohn in
literary criticism; in 1757, in the _Bibliothek der Schönen
Wissenschaften_; and in 1765, in the _Allgem. Deutsche Biblioth._ An
account of his life and literary character may be seen in the
_Foreign Quarterly Review_ (No. 50) for 1840, and an able criticism
on him by C. Dollfus in the _Revue Germanique_ for 1860 (vol. ix.).
Consult also Menzel’s _Deutsch. Litt._ iii. 291, &c.; Metcalfe’s
work based on Vilmar, p. 400 seq. A separate study of his
theological opinions was made by C. Schwartz in 1854, entitled
_Lessing als Theolog_, especially c. iv.; see also Bartholmess, b.
ii. ch. ii.
694 Published in 1766.
695 H. S. Reimarus (1694-1768). See Schlosser, ii. 26, &c., and the
article _Reimarus_ in the Conversations Lexicon.
696 See Note 29 at the end of this volume.
697 The Fragments are here named according to the order of their
original publication; not that in which they are usually printed,
as, e.g. in the Berlin edition, 1835.
698 Compare Strauss’s description of them in his _Leben Jesu_, Introd. §
5. Lessing’s own object in their publication is expressed in the
concluding pages of his edition of them.
699 The chief opposition arose from Göze, a pastor of Hamburg, who
attacked Lessing even before the last and most obnoxious fragment
was published; but both Semler and Jerusalem also wrote against him.
See Boden’s _Lessing und Göze, Ein Beitrag zur Lit. und
Kirchengesch. des 18 Jahrh._ 1862; also the references given at the
end of Note 29 (p. 427); especially Hagenbach’s _Dogmengesch._ §
275, note.
700 See the note on p. 87.
_ 701 Die Erziehung des menschlichen Geschlechts_, lately partially
translated into English. It conveyed the thoughts suggested by the
perusal of some apologies for religion.
702 The theologians Steinbart and Teller represented a similar spirit.
703 On Edelmann, who died 1767, see Kahnis, p. 126; and on Bahrdt
(1741-92), Id. pp. 136-145; and Schlosser, ii. 211. The life of
Bahrdt is a sad subject for study. Kahnis (p. 125 seq.) enumerates
other deists, some of them earlier than those whom we are now
considering, e.g. Knuzen, Dippel (1673-1734).
704 See the reference above, p. 219.
705 The contrast of the English, French, and German periods of
illuminism is well drawn out by Kuno Fischer (_Bacon_, ch. xi. 2, 3,
and xiii. 3). I have been unable to discover positively whether the
term in its first use meant merely _Renaissance_ (cfr. the Italian
term _illuminati_), or whether it meant the philosophy which makes
its appeal to common sense, being connected with the Cartesian
principle, _wahr ist, was klar ist_. The former appears almost
certain; but some of the German writers seem to favour the latter.
On its nature, see Kahnis, p. 61-63.
706 A very interesting article on Weimar and its celebrities appeared in
the _Westminster Review_ for April 1859. The illustration about the
court of Ferrara, just below, is taken from it. Mr. G. H. Lewes, in
his _Life of Goethe_, gives incidentally sketches of the
intellectual and moral influence of the court of Weimar.
707 Alfonso d’Este reigned from 1505-34. He was the husband of Lucrezia
Borgia.
708 i.e. from about 1790 to 1810.
709 Kant’s great work, _Kritik der reinen Vernunft_, appeared in 1781,
but was not known out of Königsberg until one of his disciples,
Schulze in 1784, elucidated it in a separate work. The _Jenaische
Litertur-Zeitung_ also favoured it. In 1786 Reinhold became
Professor at Jena, and began to teach Kant’s system. See Schlosser,
vol. ii. p. 182-4.
710 Herder did not adopt the new philosophy of Kant. His theological
writings were rather earlier than 1790. They created a love for the
literature of young nations, and for the Hebrew religion, in a
literary rather than a spiritual point of view. On Herder’s
religious influence, see Schlosser, ii. 278, &c.; and the article by
Hagenbach in Herzog’s _Real. Encyclop._, also Hagenbach’s _Gesch.
des 18 Jahrh._ § 4 and 5; and Quinet’s _Œuvres_, vol. ii.
711 Kant lived 1724-1804. On his philosophy see Chalybaus, _Hist. of
Speculative Philosophy_ (translated 1854); Am. Saintes’ _Philos. de
Kant_, 1844; Cousin, _Leçons de la Phil. de Kant_, 1843. A good
account of it also is given in Morell’s _Hist. of Philosophy_, i.
233-63, in R. Vaughan’s (sen.) Essays, and in a Lecture by Professor
Mansel on the _Philosophy of Kant_, 1860. See also the references in
Tennemann’s _Manual_, § 387-94. In reference to its theological
effects, see Am. Saintes’ _Critical History of Rationalism_, ii. 5
and 6; Bartholmess, b. V. and vi. The parts of Kant’s writings which
are of special importance for ascertaining his theological views
are, his work _Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen
Vernunft_, 1793, and his criticism on natural theology in the
_Kritik der reinen Vernunft_, b. ii. div. 3. See Strauss, _Leben
Jesu_, introd. § 7. Staüdlin, Ammon, and Tieftrunk, were Kantist
theologians.
712 In the _Kritik der reinen Vernunft_ above named, which was so called
because he strove to analyse the _pure_ reason, before it is defiled
by contact with the world through experience.
713 The categories, the test of the existence of which is necessity and
universality.
714 This appears in his _Kritik der practischen Vernunft_.
715 Illuminism is used as the translation of _Aufklaerungs-Zeit_.
716 The difference between Wolff and Kant is, that while the former
sought a philosophy of religion _ontologically_, the latter sought
it _psychologically_, by first ascertaining the functions of the
mind in reference to religion.
717 Such as Schleiermacher.
718 Paulus, 1761-1851; Professor at Jena, and from 1811 at Heidelberg.
Some of his works are named below.
719 K. G. Bretschneider, 1776-1848; General Superintendent at Gotha. A
short autobiography was published after his death, which is
translated in the _Bibliotheca Sacra_ for 1852-3. His best work is
the _Handbuch der Dogmatik_, 1814, 1838. He was the writer of the
_Probabilia_ concerning St. John’s Gospel, named in Lect. VII.
720 F. Reinhardt (1753-1812) of Saxony. His supernaturalism was perhaps
rather ethical than biblical. (See Kahnis, 187, Am. Saintes, c.
viii.) Storr (1746-1805) was Professor at Tübingen. The belief in
the supernatural had never died out. A philosophical supernaturalism
was seen in Flatt, Planck, Schröch and a truly biblical kind in
Knapp. Along with Reinhardt ought perhaps to be reckoned Morus and
Döderlein; at a little earlier period Seiler, and a little later
Steudel: on this school see Am. Saintes, ch. iv.
721 i.e. _Rationalismus Vulgaris_. On Rationalism, see Note 21 (p. 413.)
On this particular kind see Kahnis, p. 169. It is distinguished from
naturalism chiefly by being connected with the church, and by the
opinion that it is the very essence of Christianity. It was
represented by Paulus in criticism, Wegscheider in dogma, and Röhr
in preaching.
722 As Woolston, Bolingbroke, and Voltaire. Cfr. Strauss, _Leb. Jes._
Introd. § 5.
723 Eichhorn (1752-1827), one of the most learned men of his age. For
illustrations see his _Einleitung_, § 435, and cfr. § 421. The
instances cited in the text, from one of his works which the writer
could not consult, are quoted from the _British Quarterly Review_,
No. 26; cfr. also Strauss, _Leben Jesu_, § 6.
724 In his _Exeget. Handb. des Neuen Test_. The account will be found by
referring to the respective narratives. See also his commentary on
the miracle of the tribute money, and of the feeding the multitudes.
See Kahnis, pp. (171-6). Eichhorn stopped short when he came to
apply his principles to the New Testament. L. Bauer (_Hebr.
Mythol._), Gabler, Vater, Bertholdt, Von Lengerke, and Von Böhlen,
though some of them were affected by later influences, belonged in
the main to this rationalist critical school.
725 The difference of legend and myth is now well known. “Myth is the
creation of a fact out of an idea; legend the seeing an idea in a
fact.” Strauss, _Leb. Jes. Einl._ § 10. The myth is purely the work
of imagination, the legend has a nucleus of fact.
726 Henke, 1752-1809, Professor at Helmstädt, is said to have been the
first who made use of the term “Bibliolatry” in the preface to his
_Lineamenta Instit. Fidei Christianæ_. He probably however only
brought it into use. (The writer remembers to have seen it occur
somewhere earlier, but cannot recall the reference.) He was a church
historian of great learning, whose works have been frequently used
for reference in Lect. V. Kahnis speaks with great respect (p. 177)
of his earnestness. For Henke’s position as a church historian see a
note in the Preface to these Lectures.
727 Concerning Bretschneider see a preceding note on p. 231.
Bretschneider shows in his reply to Mr. Rose, and in his
_Autobiography_, that he was much hurt at being classed with the
rationalists. In truth the dogmatic tendency which we are here
describing admits, as is shown more fully in Note 21, (p. 413), of a
twofold subdivision. (1) “Rationalists” proper, who are pure
Socinians, but hardly believe in the supernatural element of
revelation: such were Wegscheider and Röhr; also Echermann and C. F.
A. Fritsche may be reckoned with the same school (see Kahnis, 177
seq.; Am. Saintes, ch. vii.); and (2) “Rational Supernaturalists,”
like Bretschneider, Schott of Jena (1780-1835), and Tzchirner of
Leipsic (1778-1828), who believed in a supernatural revelation, but
held to the supremacy of reason;—a position not very unlike Locke’s
in the _Reasonableness of Christianity_. The tone of opinion changed
so much in Germany after 1830, that Bretschneider, who in earlier
life had been considered to lean towards orthodoxy as opposed to
rationalism, appeared in later life, though really standing still,
to side with the rationalists against the reaction which took place
in favour of supernaturalism. A volume of sermons, translated by
Baker in 1829, called _The German Pulpit_, contains, along with a
few sermons of more spiritual tone, many sermons by preachers of
this school. See on this school Am. Saintes, ch. viii. Mr. Rose also
has collected many facts in reference to this part of the subject;
also Staüdlin in his _Gesch. des Rat. und Supernat._, and P. A.
Stapfer (_Arch. du Christianisme_, 1824), quoted by Rose (second
edition).
728 J. F. Röhr (1777-1848), Superintendent at Weimar; noted as a
preacher. His Historical Geography of Palestine has been translated.
729 Wegscheider (1771-1848); Professor at Halle. His chief work is
_Inst. Theol. Chr. Dogmat._ 1813.
730 Hundeshagen calls Kant a second Moses, on account of the moral
revolution which his teaching effected.
731 i.e. Kant, Jacobi, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel; on whom see Morell, ii.
ch. v. § 2, and Chalybaüs, _History of Speculative Philosophy_.
732 J. G. Fichte (1762-1814); Professor at Jena; deprived for the
supposed atheistic tendency of his philosophy (1799); afterwards
Professor at Berlin. His great work is his _Wissenschafts-lehre_,
1794. He was the author of the celebrated patriotic addresses to the
German people. The educational institutions of Pestalozzi were
founded on Fichte’s philosophy, as Basedow’s on Rousseau. See
Kalnis, p. 216.
733 Jacobi (1743-1819); President of the academy of sciences at Munich.
734 On Fichte see Chalybaüs, ch, vi. and vii.; Tennemann, Manual §
400-5; Morell, ii. p. 89-122; Lewes, _History of Philosophy_;
Mansel’s art. _on Metaphysics_ in _Encycl. Britan._ p. 607. On
Jacobi see Chalybaüs, ch. iii.; Tennemann, § 415; Morell, ii. 402;
Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. xiii.
735 This atheistic corollary is not deducible from Berkeley’s system,
and was not designed by Fichte.
736 See Chalybaüs, ch. viii.; and Morell, ii. 118.
737 Schelling (1774-1854), Professor at Munich and Berlin. See
Chalybaüs, ch. ix-xii.; Tennemann, § 406-11; Morell, ii. 122-161;
Bartholmess, _Hist. Crit. des Doctr. Relig._ b. ix.
738 1770-1831. See Lect. VII.
739 See some remarks on this point in Mr. Mansel’s _Lecture on the
Philosophy of Kant_.
740 Lect. VII.
741 The Romantic school included L. F. Stolberg, the Schlegels, Tieck,
Novalis (Hardenberg), Fouqué. See Kahnis, p. 202; Morell, ii. 421;
Vilmar. (English translation), p. 500 seq.; Carlyle’s _Essay on
Novalis_ (Misc. Works, vol. ii.); and Bartholmess, ii. b. xi.
742 Herder, 1744-1803. See a previous note. His most interesting works
were, the _Spirit of Hebrew Poetry_ (translated 1802), and the
_Philosophy of History_ (translated 1800).
743 The influence of the movement extended into the Roman catholic
church; and Hermes, Moehler, and Goerres, were affected by it.
Hermes (1775-1831) was Professor at Bonn; and, endeavouring to find
a philosophy for Romish doctrines, was opposed by his own church.
Moehler, 1796-1838, author of the _Symbolik_, which revived the
controversy with Protestantism, and was answered by the most learned
Protestant theologians, has been pronounced (by Schaff) to be the
ablest Romish theologian since Bellarmine and Bossuet. Goerres
(1776-1848), a mystic writer in Bavaria. See Am. Saintes, c. xx.;
and on Goerres see Quinet, _Œuvr._ vi. ch. vii.
744 See Hundeshagen, _Der Deutsch Prot._ § 12; Kahnis, p. 223.
745 This patriotism still lives in the poetry of Koerner.
746 This allusion is used by Kahnis (p. 220). He also (p. 221) refers
the great outburst of historic study which followed, to the historic
sense then awakened.
747 Harms (1778-1855). See Am. Saintes, part ii. ch. ix; Kahnis, p. 223
seq., where some of Harms’s Theses are given. They are founded on
the doctrinal spirit of the sixteenth century, and are full of force
and humour. Some of them are directed against rationalism; others
are the asseveration of high Lutheran tenets. The following are
specimens: No. 3. “With the idea of a progressive reformation, in
the manner in which it is at present understood, Lutheranism will be
reformed back into heathenism.” No. 21. “In the sixteenth century
the pardon of sins cost money after all; in the nineteenth it may be
had without money, for people help themselves to it.” See Pelt in
Herzog’s _Real. Encyclop._ sub _voc._
748 On this second period, see Schwarz’s _Geschichte der Neuesten
Theologie_, b. i.; and for brief notices of the whole of the German
movement, see Hagenbach’s _Dogmengeschichte_ (period 5).
749 It has been more recently, for this reason, called the
Mediation-Theology (_Vermittellungs-Theologie_).