The "Wolfenbüttler Königsb. 1750-82); Less, Nösselt, etc. Fragmente" also gave rise to numerous controversial writings (comp. the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek voll. 30 and 40), the best of which were those composed by Döderlein, Less, Michaelis, Barthels, and Semler. 2 See Skelton (offenbare Deisterei, 1756. ii. pref.) quoted by Tholuck i. p. 21: "Our modern apologists too frequently defend Christianity on deistic principles, and too readily represent their own articles of faith in a new dress; they expect that such a course of proceeding will be advantageous to their cause." In proof of this the example of John Taylor might be adduced. Comp. Ernesti, neue theologische Bibliothek, i. p. 115. Tholuck, p. 30. 3 Thus, Jerusalem, Spalding, Zollikofer, and others, whose honest intentions none can reasonably doubt. See Jerusalem, Betrachtungen über die vornehmsten Wahrheiten der Religion, 1768. ii. 5th edit. 1773-92. Second series 2 voll. 1793. Spalding, J. J. (died 1804), Gedanken über den Werth der Gefühle im Christenthum, 1761. (1784.) Ueber die Nutzbarkeit des Predigtamtes, 1775. Vertraute Briefe, die Religion betreffend, 1788. Zollikofer, G. J. (he wrote works of a homiletic and devotional character.) A. W. Sack belonged to the same class of writers: The theory of accommodation adopted by these men is fairly estimated by Steffens: Was ich erlebte, i. p. 258 ss. 4 Compare the introduction to the New Testament. How much sacred criticism was brought into connection with neological tendencies, may be seen in the case of Wettstein; see Hagenbach, in Illgens Zeitschrift 1839. part 1. But the necessity of a critical study of Scripture was no less felt by the advocates of the opposite principles, e. g., Bengel, who strenuously applied himself to it in the service of the Lord. 5 John David Michaelis was born 1716, and died 1791. Comp. Tholuck i. p. 180. Of his disciples Eichhorn is best known as the most eminent of the rationalistic theologians of the present period. Though Michaelis seemed for a time to have adopted the principles of unbiassed criticism and exegesis, he soon after began to adapt his views to the mind of the age. He also endeavoured to explain the miracles of Christ in a natural manner. John August Ernesti was born 1707, and died 1781. He wrote: Institutio interpretis N. Test. Lips. 1761. ed. Ammon. 1792, 1809, 8. "With the name of this theologian history has connected the transition to more liberal principles in the interpretation of Holy Writ." Klausen, Hermeneutik p. 291. On the merits of his work (which are not very great) see Klausen 1. c. p. 294. 7 John Solomon Semler was born 1725, and died 1791, as professor of theology in the university of Halle. Compare his autobiography (which takes in also the history of his times), Halle 1781. 82.ii.voll. It was especially Semler who, "without forming a school of his own, may be said to have carried the torch which kindled the conflagration, the effects of which have not yet disappeared," Tholuck ii. p. 39. Of his numerous (171) writings we mention only those which have reference to our present subject: Von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, Halle, 1771-75. Institutio ad doctrinam christianam liberaliter discendam, Hall. 1774. Versuch einer freien theologischen Lehrart, Hall. 1777 ss. The principal points of Semler's theology are the distinction which he made between theology and religion (ethics), and his endeavours to represent the Sacred Scriptures as having a merely local and temporary character. An account of his life and writings is given by Tholuck ii. p. 39-83. The history of doctrines owes its origin to Semler's introduction to Baumgarten's compendium of systematic theology (vol. i. § 16.) 8 See Lücke, F., Narratio de Joanne Laurentio Moshemio, Gött. 1837. 4. Soon after his death ecclesiastical history was, like exegesis, made subservient to the spirit of the times (Spittler and Henke, the mode of representation adopted by Planck.) The history of doctrines was made use of to show the changeableness of the doctrines of Christianity. Comp. theol. dogm. Gött. 1760. ed. 2. 84. 10 He was born 1727, and died 1764, as professor in Göttingen. He wrote: Comp. theol. dogm. Gött. 1761. ed. 3: 80. 11 He was born 1729, and died 1777, as professor of theology in the university of Kiel. He wrote: Biblische Theologie, oder Untersuchung des biblischen Grundes der vornehmsten theologischen Lehren, Gött. u. Kiel 1771-75. The last part was edited by Vollborth, 1786. Zachariæ understood by biblical theology: "not that theology the substance of which is taken from Scripture, for in this sense every theological system must be biblical, but more generally a precise definition of all the doctrines treated of in systematic theology, the correct meaning which, in accordance with Scripture, should be applied to them, and the best arguments in their defence" Heinrich, p. 515 ss. This was, accordingly, the first attempt to treat biblical theology as a separate branch of theological science, independently of systematic theology. His example was followed by Hufnagel. W. F., who wrote: Handbuch der biblischen Theologie, Erlangen 178591, Ammon De Wette Baumgarten-Crusius, and others. 12 He was born 1733, and died 1807, as professor of theology in the university of Erlangen. He wrote: Theol. dogm. polem. c. comp. dogmat. Erl. 1774. ed 3. 89. 13 Döderlein was born 1714, and died 1789, as a professor in Bützow. He wrote: Institutio Theologi christiani in capitibus religionis theoreticis nostris temporibus accommadata, ii. Alt. 1780. 82. 84. 87. In the preface to this work he expressed himself as follows (quoted by Heinrich, p. 493): Theologians are not required in the present time to invent new doctrines, and go beyond Scripture; neither should they rest satisfied with the labours of their predecessors, but define more precisely what they have said, make use of modern explanations and new modes of representing certain doctrines, and have a special regard to the wants of the age. Hence they must examine those doctrines which are now most of all disputed, and define them the more carefully and deliberately. As regards their mode of argumentation, they must also adapt themselves to the circumstances of the times, and avoid approving of and retaining all arguments brought forward by earlier writers, which are in themselves doubtful and uncertain; they must rather avail themselves of great advances recently made in biblical exegesis, so as to become the more prudent in the selection of their arguments by which to prove particular doctrines; they must not consider their number, but their internal merit, and only choose such as are clear and conclusive, etc. 14 Morus was born 1736, and died 1792, as professor of theology in the university of Leipsic. He composed; Epitome theologiæ christianæ, Lips. 1789. Heinrich, p. 498 ss. 15 Teller was born 1734, and died 1804 (compare § 274. note 7.) He wrote: Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, 1763. Religion der Vollkommnern 1792. 16 E. Jacob Danov was born 1741, and died 1782, as professor of theology in the university of Jena. He wrote: Theologiæ dogmaticæ Institut. Lib. ii. Jen. 1772. 76. 17 John Frederic Gruner was born 1723, and died 1778, as professor of theology in the university of Halle. He wrote: Institutionum theologiæ dogmaticæ lib. iii. Halle, 1777. 8. "He was a man of much originality, who had acquired a considerable amount of historical knowledge. His principal endeavour was to prove, like Semler, the later origin of the orthodox doctrines, and the many changes through which they have gone, with this difference, that Gruner, in support of his theory, had recourse to the Platonizantes, Semler to the Judaizantes." Tholuck, 1. c. p. 106. Comp. Heinrich, p. 482. The main idea pervading the whole book is, that the principal doctrines of Christianity had been corrupted as early as towards the close of the first century, by the influence of the platonico-oriental philosophy of the Alexandrian school. 18 J. Caspar Rudolph Eckermann was born 1754, and died 1836, as professor of theology in the university of Keil. Among his works we mention: Compendium theologiæ christianæ theoret. bibl. histor. 1791. Handbuch für das systematische Studium der christlichen Glaubenslehre, 1801. 3. iv. voll. 19 Conrad Philip Henke was born 1752, and died 1809, as professor of theology in the university of Helmstädt, and abbot of Michaelstein. He wrote: Lineamenta institutt. fidei christ. histor. critic. Helmst. 1793. ed. 2. 95. In the preface to this work he enumerates three kinds of superstition which he must combat: 1. Christolatry; 2. Bibliolatry; 3. Onomatolatry; at the same time he speaks of Morus and Doederlein in terms expressive of high esteem. 20 Eberhard Henry Daniel Stosch was born 1716, and died 1781, as professor of theology in the university of Frankfort on Oder. He wrote: Introductio in Theologiam dogmaticam Franc. ad Viadr. 1778. Institutt. theologiæ dogmaticæ ibid. 1779. 8. Comp. Heinrich, p. 551. 21 Samuel Mursinna was born 1717, and died 1795, as pro He wrote: Com- fessor of theology in the university of Halle. pendium theologiæ dogmatica Halle 1777. 8. p. 549: “He has made diligent use of the labours of modern theologians, as far as they have respect to a more correct definition of doctrines; nor has he overlooked the opinions of earlier divines, but made mention of them, as well as stated the arguments commonly adduced in their support; nevertheless he has not always pronounced his own judgment concerning their merit, but left it to his readers to choose between the old and the new." Compendiums of systematic theology, written in a popular style, were published by Less (1779. 89.,) and Griesbach (1786. 89.), who also endeavoured to combine the old with the new. REACTION. § 276. EDICT OF RELIGION. ORTHODOX To oppose a barrier to the further spread of this fast-growing scepticism, was a difficult enterprise, as was clearly proved by the complete failure of the two measures resorted to by the King of Prussia, viz. the publication of an Edict of Religion in the year 1788, and the institution of an ecclesiastical court.1 It was necessary that opposite elements should develope themselves by an internal process. The pietistic tendency of the school of Halle (originally founded by Spener, Francke, and others) had indeed lost much of its earlier vigour, and degenerated into a dead formalism.2 But in opposition to the demonstrative as well as negative tendency of Rationalism, two theologians of Wirtemberg, J. A. Bengel, and F. Ch. Oetinger, 4 gave a new direction to theology, by introducing into it not only positive but also pietistico-mystical elements; Ch. A. Crusius followed their example. Societies for practical no less than scientific purposes were founded, |