recently translated. His philosophical and religious stand-point is
well discussed, and some portions of his works analysed, in the Rev.
R. A. Vaughan’s _Essays and Remains_ (reprinted from the _British
Quarterly Review_, No. 18). A brief explanation of his philosophy is
seen in Morell’s _History of Philosophy_, ii. 433, and Julius
Scheller’s _Vorlesungen über Schleiermacher_, 1844. His religious
views are criticised, with extracts, in Amand Saintes, part ii. ch.
xiv-xvi; Kahnis, 204 seq.; Lücke, _Stud. und Krit._ 1834, H. 4. The
facts of his life are given in the _Westm. Rev._ for July, 1861.
751 He joined F. Schlegel in the plan of translation, and continued it
after Schlegel had retired from it. He did not however complete the
whole of Plato. The parts finished were published at intervals from
1804-27. The introductions to the dialogues are valuable.
752 J. H. Jung Stilling (1740-1817), a distinguished oculist in
Westphalia, who employed himself in acts of religious usefulness.
His works were published in 1835. His Autobiography, written by
desire of Goethe, has been translated. See an article on him in the
_Foreign Quarterly Review_; vol. xxi.
753 Oberlin (1740-1826), the interesting pastor of the Vosges mountains,
who united efforts for civilization with piety, and the temporal
improvement of his people with the spiritual. His memoir has been
written in English. To the same class of saintly men about the end
of the last century belonged Hamann, Lavater, and Claudius. See
Kahnis, p. 80 seq.
754 Mr. R. A. Vaughan, in the Essay above cited, compares Schleiermacher
with Hugo St. Victor (on whom see Ritter, _Chr. Phil._ viii. 9. 2).
The analogy with Origen is close. Speaking technically, the
difference would be, that the Neo-Platonic school, to which Origen
belonged, was rather one of “Objective Idealism” like Schelling;
Schleiermacher’s of “Subjective Idealism” like Fichte.
755 The Rationalist and Socinian element was taught by Wegscheider.
756 In 1802.
757 Halle was taken by the French in 1806; the university of Berlin was
founded in 1810.
758 He died in 1834.
759 See note 31 (p. 428).
760 Neander’s witness to the effect produced by them is quoted in
Kahnis, p. 208.
761 Cfr. _Glaubenslehre_, § 3-6.
762 Selbst bewuszt-seyn.
763 Schleiermacher’s views are rarely put with sharpness of form; and as
they varied in the manner shown in Note 31, it is hardly possible to
lay down a fixed account of his system. The following remarks are
rather the spirit of his Glaubenslehre than an analysis of it. His
psychological views are seen in § 1-4 of that treatise (ed. 1842);
but the _Reden_, pp. 58, 59, and the introduction by his pupil
Schweizer to the _Entwurf eines systems der sittenlehre_, 1835,
besides his posthumous philosophical works, ought also to be
consulted. His psychological views are nearly reproduced in Morell’s
_Philosophy of Religion_, ch. iii.
764 § 7-10; and also § 11-14.
765 § 129-131.
766 His views on sin are given § 65-85; and on the work of Christ, §
100-105.
767 § 68.
768 § 104.
769 The mode of reconciliation is treated in § 106-112, and indirectly
in the _Weihnachtsfeier_. Mr. Vaughan compares it with Osiander’s
view in the sixteenth century.
770 His views may be seen in § 50-56, especially § 54. His system in
earlier life almost resembled pantheism, as in his praise of
Spinoza. See Reden, p. 471.
771 § 170-172.
772 The person of Christ is discussed § 93-99. Vaughan compares the view
with that of Justin Martyr. See also Strauss’s _Leben Jesu_, § 148.
773 § 121-125.
774 See Note 24 (p. 421).
775 His critical is much less important than his philosophical position.
The same spirit of seriousness marks his writings in this
department. Two of his chief critical works are, his _Ueber den
sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulus an den Timotheus_, 1807, and
_Ueber die Schriften des Lukes, ein Kritischer Versuch_, 1817,
translated into English 1825. The reasons given for his appreciation
of the Gospel of St. John in the _Weihnachtsfeier_, also in his
posthumous work, _Hermeneutik und Kritik_, 1838, and his _Einleitung
ins Neue Test._ 1845, ought also to be taken into account in
estimating his exegetical views.
776 The above remarks on Schleiermacher will perhaps be considered
severe by those who know his works, and will be regarded as putting
the worst face on his system. The criticism however of the late Mr.
Vaughan, who deeply appreciated Schleiermacher, and had devoted much
patient study to his works, and who viewed him from the stand-point
of English orthodoxy, coincides with the above estimate of him. A
criticism on Schleiermacher from Bretschneider’s point of view may
be seen in his _Dogmatik_, i. p. 93-115.
777 Especially at Bonn, which was founded in 1818.
778 The following theologians were influenced chiefly by the spirit of
Schleiermacher: Tholuck, professor at Halle, author of various
well-known works, (see the expression of his views in the tract, the
_Guido and Julius, or true Consecration of the Doubter_, in reply to
De Wette’s _Theodor_); Twesten, successor of Schleiermacher at
Berlin, author of the well-known _Dogmatik_; H. Olshausen, the
commentator; Nitzch, author of the _Handbook of Doctrine_
(translated); Julius Müller, writer of the able work on the _Nature
of Sin_; Ullmann, editor of the _Studien und Kritiken_, the organ of
the party. Also Sach, Stier, Tittmann, Umbreit, Ebrart, Hagenbach,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Hundeshagen, Bleek, Lücke, Lange, belong to the
same party; and Gieseler also in the main. Their doctrine is called
the _Deutsche Theologie_. Bunsen must also perhaps be classed with
them, though much freer and less biblical than the others. The
writings of the late archdeacon Hare are perhaps no inapt English
parallel to the tone of these teachers.
779 More especially Moehler, named above (p. 239, note), was influenced.
The modern Catholic theologians are to be treated in the forthcoming
(3rd) edition of C. Schwarz’s _Gesch. der Neuesten Theologie_.
780 For Neander’s life and character as a theologian and church
historian, see the interesting particulars gathered in the _British
Quarterly Review_, No. 24, for Nov. 1850, and in the _Bibliotheca
Sacra_, vol. viii. Neander (1789-1850) was a Jew by birth. About
1805 he embraced Christianity (his life at this period is seen in
his letters to Chamisso); studied at Halle under Schleiermacher
1806; at Göttingen under Planck; was made Professor at Berlin 1812;
author of various early monographs; of the _Church History_, 1825;
_History of the Planting of the Church_, 1832; _Life of Christ_,
1837. His opinions may be learned from the Preface to the third
edition of his Life of Christ, and the Preface to his Church
History. On his position as a church historian, see Hagenbach in
_Studien und Kritiken_ for 1851.
781 His views on sin and redemption are chiefly to be gathered from
criticisms on the Pauline doctrine in the _History of the Planting
of the Church_ (vol. ii.); and on the Christian doctrine in vol. ii.
of his Church History.
782 Introduction to the Life of Christ, § 6.
783 Preface to _Church History_ (first edition).
784 On Fries’ philosophy see Morell, ii. 418; Tennemann’s _Manual_, §
122. Accepting Kant’s categories, he held the existence of an inward
faith-principle, which gives an insight into the real nature of
things; but only as subjective truths, and as tests of truth. The
church historian Hase (see Kahnis, p. 236) is moulded by this
philosophy.
785 Lect. II. p. 61. Similar discussions have arisen with regard to the
integrity and purpose of the books of Job, Zechariah, and Isaiah.
Particulars of these literary questions will be found in
Hengstenberg’s articles _Job_ and _Isaiah_ in Kitto’s _Bibl. Cycl._,
and in Davidson’s _Introduction to the Old Testament_, in the
chapters concerning these books. The classical student need hardly
be reminded of the close analogy between these literary
investigations in the Hebrew literature and those which were
conducted by F. A. Wolf in respect to Homer, and by other scholars
in reference to various classical authors.
786 Lect. VII.
787 Perhaps the clearest account of the controversy will be found in
Michel Nicholas, _Etudes Critiques sur la Bible_, Essay i. 1862. See
also Hengstenberg’s _Authentie des Pentateuches_ (Die Gottesnamen im
Pentat. i. 181 seq.); Hävernick’s _Introd. to the Pentateuch_
(English translation), p. 56, &c.; Keil’s _Lehrbuch_, p. 82, &c.;
and Dr. S. Davidson’s _Introduction to the Old Testament_ (1862),
pp. 1-135.
_ 788 Conjectures sur les Memoires Originaux du livre de la Genèse_,
1753.
789 See Exodus vi. 3.
790 The older critics however think that the plural form relates to the
plurality of persons in the divine Being.
791 Jehovah is translated in the English version, the LORD.
792 Independently of comparative mythology, which is still an
hypothesis, there is evidence of the fact in the very derivations
constantly offered of words in the Old Testament, as well as in the
modern investigations concerning language. Ewald has shown in an
interesting manner the means afforded by the Hebrew proper names for
gaining a conception of Hebrew life (see his article on _Names_ in
Kitto’s _Bibl. Encycl._); and a similar analysis has recently been
applied to the Indo-Germanic languages in Pictet’s _Les Origines
Indo-Européennes_, 1859.
793 It is well known that the book of Psalms is divided, in the Hebrew
and the Septuagint, into five books; viz. Psalms i-xli; xlii-lxxii;
lxxiii-lxxxix; xc-cvi; cvii-cl; each of them ending with a doxology,
which is now inserted in the text of the psalm. In the first book
the name _Elohim_ occurs 15 times, and _Jehovah_ 272 times; in the
second, _Elohim_ 164 times, and _Jehovah_ 30 times. This computation
is stated on the authority of Dr. Donaldson, _Christian Orthodoxy_.
794 There are two exceptions, viz. i. 21, xii. 9, which Hengstenberg
considers to prove the rule. On this subject see Hengstenberg’s
_Dissertation on Job_ in Kitto’s _Bibl. Cyclop._ ii. 122, now
reprinted in a volume of his Miscellaneous Essays.
795 De Wette tries to exhibit traces in other books than Genesis, but
unsuccessfully. It is in Genesis alone that the difference can be so
clearly seen, that, even if the peculiar use had no theological
meaning, which not even Hengstenberg denies, it must remain as a
literary peculiarity. A list of the passages in Genesis which have
been considered by these critics to represent the respective uses of
the two names, is given in the learned and reverently written
article _Genesis_, in Smith’s _Biblical Dictionary_, by Mr. J. J. S.
Perowne.
796 The references to these various authors will be found in M.
Nicholas, Essay i.
_ 797 Geschichte des Hebr. Volk._ i. 75 seq.
798 In writing the history of this dispute, as being here viewed only in
its literary aspect, it will be seen that my object has been simply
to select it, for the purpose of exhibiting the gradual increase of
taste as well as of learning shown by the German critics in
reference to questions of the “higher criticism.” Concerning the
theological aspect of it we can all form an opinion, which would
probably be in a great degree condemnatory; but concerning the
literary, none but a few eminent Hebrew scholars. Some of the
greatest of them, Gesenius, De Wette, Ewald, Hupfeld, Knobel, have
given in their adherence to some form of the theory above described.
The references to the works of Hengstenberg, Hävernick, and Keil,
who have written on the other side, are given above. The rashness of
some forms of criticism must not make us abandon a wholesome use of
it; and a literary peculiarity such as that described, if it really
exist, demands the reverent study of those who wish to learn the
mind of the divine Spirit, as it was communicated to the ancient
chosen people, or expressed in the written word. Compare McCaul’s
Essay, _Aids to Faith_, p. 195.
799 Tennyson’s _In Memoriam_, § 95.
800 Matt. v. 6.
801 Rev. xix. 6
802 Lect. VI. p. 218.
803 Hegel, 1770-1831, Professor at Berlin after 1818. The rudiments of
his system are in the _Phenomenology_, written about 1806; the
_Logic_ gives the mature form of it about 1816; the _Encyclopædia_
its completion; the two former works being embodied in the latter.
For the sources for the study of his system, &c. see Note 35 at the
end of this book.
804 See p. 237.
805 Schleiermacher sought it in the consciousness of dependence, craving
for an infinite object; and regarded Christianity as supplying the
means for the perfect harmony of this principle with the opposing
one of voluntary power. Hence, the solution of difficulties in
religion would be sought in such a system by seeing the adaptation
of the Christian scheme to human needs, not in the solution of the
mysteries themselves.
806 Marheinecke (1780-1846), Professor of Theology at Berlin, the author
of many works, chiefly on dogmatic theology, of which his
_Symbolik_, 1810, and _Dogmatik_, 1827, are the most important. See
Bretschneider’s explanation and criticism on his system (_Dogmatik_,
i. 115-140). Perhaps the name of K. Daub (1765-1836), Professor at
Heidelberg, ought also to be added. Originally Hegel’s teacher, he
adopted his pupil’s system. See Kahnis’s remarks, p. 244 seq., and
Amand Saintes, part ii. ch. xvii. It has been usual to classify the
followers of Hegel under the analogy of political parties in foreign
parliaments, thus:—in the extreme right, Heinrichs and Goeschel; in
the right, Schaller, Erdmann, and Gabler; in the centre, Rosenkranz
and Marheinecke; in the left centre, Vatke, Snellmann, and Michelet;
in the left, Strauss, Bruno Bauer, and Feuerbach. See Morell, _Hist.
of Philosophy_, ii. 199, 203. Several of these however are
philosophers rather than theologians. A simpler classification of
the Hegelian theologians is into three parties: the first, Daub and
Marheinecke, and more recently Dorner; the second, Chr. Baur and the
Tübingen school; the third, Strauss, B. Bauer, and Feuerbach.
807 See the article by Scherer in the _Revue des Deux Mondes_, Feb.
1861, p. 841; and on the influence of Hegel see Kahnis, p. 244 seq.,
and Am. Saintes, P. II. ch. 17; and Bartholmess, b. xii.
808 See Note 24 (p. 412).
_ 809 Leben Jesu_, 1835.
810 The account of this controversy may be seen in bishop Marsh’s
_Dissertation_, 1807; and a continuation of the history subsequently
to his work in the introduction to the _Translation of
Schleiermacher’s Essay on St. Luke_, 1825 (by the present Bp.
Thirlwall). The controversy is also treated with great learning and
reverence by Dr. S. Davidson, _Introd. to New Test._ i. (373-425).
Important references and quotations in regard to it are given in the
Appendix to Tregelles’ edition of _Horne’s Introd._ 10th ed. vol.
iv.; also see Amand Saintes, _Hist._ p. ii. 12; Renan’s _Etudes de
l’Hist. Relig._ (Ess. 3); Hase’s _Leben Jesu_; Quinet’s review of
Strauss (_Œuvres_, vol. iii). A series of studies on the subject is
in course of publication in the _Revue Germ._ 1862, by Michel
Nicholas.
811 Wetstein, with Mill, Calmet, and others, regarded St. Mark’s Gospel
to be the epitome of St. Matthew’s. Griesbach and Dr. Townson
thought that St. Luke as well as St. Mark had seen the one by St
Matthew. A further list may be seen in Tregelles (as above), p. 642;
and Davidson (as above).
812 Michaelis regarded the Greek translator of St. Matthew to have had
access to the same Greek document as St. Mark and St. Luke. Semler
and Lessing advocated a Hebrew or Syriac original. Eichhorn adopted
the theory of an Aramaic original, which was adopted with slight
alterations by bishop Marsh. (It was criticised by bishop Randolph,
by Mr. Veysie, and in Falconer’s _Bampton Lectures_, 1810.)
Schleiermacher regarded the Gospels to be pieced together out of
separate documents. Gieseler’s hypothesis was put forward in 1818.
_ 813 Probabilia de Evangel. et Epist. Joannis origine et indole_, 1820.
The theory suggested was, that it was written in the second century.
It was well answered by Schott, Stein, and others. The controversy
has been revived in more modern times; the Tübingen school denying
the authorship to St. John, Ewald and others, asserting it. The
subject is discussed in Davidson’s _Introduction to the New
Testament_, i. 233-313. See also two articles in the _National
Review_, No. 1, July 1855, and No. 9. July 1857.
814 On the spirit of Kant’s philosophy in this respect, see Strauss’s
own remarks, _Leben Jesu_, Introd. § 7.
815 On the contrast of myth and legend there are some good remarks in
Strauss, who quotes George’s _Mythus und Sage_ for the explanation;
also in the _Westminster Review_ for April 1847 (p. 149), an article
which, though written in favour of Strauss, gives an instructive
account of the object and position of his work. The history of
Strauss’s work, with its antecedents and consequents, mainly based
on Schwarz (b. ii.) and on Scherer, but bearing marks of independent
study, is given in Mr. F. C. Cook’s Essay on Ideology in the _Aids
to Faith_, 1862. Theodore Parker has given an accurate analysis, and
of course a defence, of Strauss (_Miscellaneous Writings_, p. 231).
816 The new view of the nature of myths is developed in Max Müller’s
Essay on _Comparative Mythology, Oxford Essays_, 1856. See also Note
47 (p. 450).
817 Strauss, _Leben Jesu_, § 152. (ii. p. 713.)
818 § 1-16. It contains a history of the different explanations of
sacred legends among the Greeks; the allegorical systems of the
Hebrews (Philo,) and Christians (Origen); the system of the Deists;
and the Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist; the naturalist mode of Eichhorn
and Paulus, and the moral of Kant; lastly, the rise of the mythic,
both in reference to the Old and New Testaments. Then the discussion
of the possibility of myths in the Gospels, and a description of the
evangelical mythus.
819 § 1-142.
820 § 17-43.
821 § 44-110.
822 § 111-142.
823 § 143-152. The author gives the dogmatic import of the life of
Jesus, criticising the Christology of Orthodoxy, of Rationalism, of
Schleiermacher, the Symbolic of Kant and De Wette, the Hegelian; and
draws his own conclusions.
824 This idea is well brought out in Renan’s critique on Strauss.
(_Etudes Relig._ Essai iii.)
825 One passage of this kind is quoted by Amand Saintes (p. 263) from
Lücke in _Stud. und Krit._ vol. ii. p. 489.
826 Edgar Quinet (_Œuvres_, iii. 316, reprinted from _Revue des Deux
Mondes_, Sept. 1838). His words are, “Un jeune homme plein de
candeur, de douceur, de modestie, une âme presque mystique et comme
attristée lu bruit qu’elle a causé.” The unaltered view which
Strauss now takes of his own work, after the interval of twenty-five
years, is given in the Vorrede to his _Gespräche von Hütten
übersetzt und erlaütert_, 1860. It is quoted in the _National
Review_, No. 23, art. 7.
827 The effect which it produced is described, with details of the
answers written, in book ii. of the excellent little work of C.
Schwarz already named, _Geschichte der Neuesten Theologie_, 1856.
This part of the work is translated into French, with some useful
notes, in the _Rev. Germ_, vol. ix. parts ii. and iii. See Note 38.
The most useful replies are those of Neander and Dorner. Dr. Beard
also published a valuable series of papers called _Voices of the
Church_ (1845), containing translations of the Essay by Quinet above
quoted, of one by A. Cocquerel (père), and others. Dr. Mill’s work
on _The Application of Pantheistic Principles to the Gospels_ (1840)
is intended also as a reply. The Life of Christ, contained in vol.
i. of Dean Milman’s _History of Christianity_, also contains
important remarks on Strauss’s scheme.
828 P. 241.
829 Scherer clearly brings out this relation of Strauss’s work, in § 5
of the article before quoted.
830 Accordingly it will be understood that the mention of “the old
Tübingen school” of the last century denotes a Pietist school like
that of Bengel or Pfaff; the mention of “the new Tübingen school”
means one of ultra-rationalism.
831 The materials for the following sketch have been largely supplied by
the work of Schwarz, and partly by an article before cited in the
_Westminster Review_ for April 1857. Schwarz, after devoting the
first chapter of book ii. to the Straussian contests, devotes the
second and first three chapters of book iii. to the history of these
four movements.
832 See Amand Saintes, book ii. ch. 18; Hase, § 450; Hundeshagen, _Der
Deut. Prot._ § 17. Bruno Bauer, born 1809, was once Professor at
Bonn, and teacher at Berlin. In his first manner he showed himself
to be a disciple of Hegel, in works published from 1835 to 1839,
such as a criticism on Strauss, and also on the Old Testament. From
1839 to 1842 he exhibited a destructive tendency directed against
the sacred books; e.g. a work on the Prussian church and science,
and a criticism on St. John’s Gospel. The persecution which he
encountered stimulating his opposition, he showed in his next works
(in 1842 and 1843) a spirit of defiance in his _Das Eklekte
Christenthum_. From 1843 to 1849 he connected himself with questions
of politics, and wrote largely on social science. Since that period
he has again written, both in theology, criticisms of the Gospels
and Epistles, and on politics. A list of his works and a sketch of
his mental character may be found in Vapereau, _Dict. des Contemp._
1858.
833 On this movement see Schwarz, b. iii. ch. i.; and on the German
political socialism see the _North British Review_, No. 22, for Aug.
1848. Feuerbach (see Vapereau) was author of many works on the
history of philosophy about 1833 to 1845. His chief works on
religion were _Das Wesen des Christenthums_ (1851), and _Das Wesen
der Religion_, 1845. The former work was translated in 1854, and
contains a discussion (1) of the true or anthropological essence of
religion; (2) of the false or theological. His collected works have
been published. The _Hallische Jahrbücher_ was his organ. Criticisms
on his school are given by Bartholmess (_Hist. Crit. des Doctr. de
la Phil. Mod._ b. xiii. ch. ii.), and by E. Renan (_Etudes de
l’Hist. Relig._ p. 405).
834 Ruge, once a teacher at Halle; went into voluntary exile at Paris,
like Heine, in 1843; was mixed in the revolutionary schemes of 1848;
and in 1850 became an exile in England. See Vapereau.
835 See above, note on p. 16. Gutskow and Mundt belonged to the same
school. The former a dramatic poet, whose works against religion
were about 1835, in the Prefaces to Letters of F. Schlegel, &c.; the
latter, librarian at Berlin, was noted for his political connexion
with the party of young Germany, rather than for any assault on
religion. See Vapereau for an account of his works. The spirit of
this school was tinged with bitterness against existing
institutions.
836 Gaspard Schmidt (1806-1856) wrote in 1845, under the pseudonym of
Max Stirner, _Der einzige und sein Eigenthum_. His later works were
on political economy.
837 As schools of thought have been occasionally named in this narrative
in connexion with universities, it may facilitate clearness to
collect together the few hints which have been given concerning the
subject. In the first period previous to 1790, we showed the
theological tendencies of the four universities, Göttingen, Leipsic,
Halle, and Tübingen: next, in the period after 1790, the state of
Jena as the home of rationalism and of the Kantian philosophy. In
our second period we pointed out the condition of Berlin as the seat
of philosophical reaction under Schleiermacher and Hegel; and
indirectly of the universities which represented the school of De
Wette. In the third period, the school of Lutheran reaction has
specially existed in Berlin, Leipsic, Erlangen, Rostock, and the
Russian university of Dorpat; the school of “Mediation” chiefly at
Berlin, Heidelberg, Halle, and Bonn; and the historico-critical at
Tübingen. It may be useful to add, for the completion of the
account, that the Tübingen school is now almost extinct in its
original home; and that the two universities which at the present
time represent the freest criticism are supposed to be Giessen and
Jena. The latter is marked by the realistic school of philosophy
described in Note 41. Hilgenfeld, the best representative of the
Tübingen school, is Professor there; see Note 39, at the end of this
volume.
838 E.g. Th. Mommsen.
839 Viz. the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, and the two to
Corinth.
840 An explanation and criticism of some of these opinions are given in
Davidson’s _Introduction to the New Testament_.