GERMAN THEOLOGY. I. Its new life. At the period of the reformation in Ger many, the spiritual life imparted through the instrumentality of the inspired word, pro duced a reconstruction of theological doctrine as well as of religious institutions and of moral practice. Belief in the Scriptures was no longer demanded on the authority of the church; her voice did not announce the canon or impose the interpretation. But the authority of the Scriptures as the rule of faith was acknowledged, because their doc trine of salvation by faith in Christ—which is their central life—manifested to the soul their divine power. "Christ is the emperor over the Scriptures; a writing that does not urge Christ cannot claim canonical authority." Faith, thus receiving the Scriptures as its rule, came out from the vast, imposing, and powerful system which had been con solidated as the Christianity of the middle ages, and essayed to re-establish the teachings of Christ, and of his apostles in his name. These teachings, as apprehended by the faith of the German Protestants, found expression in the Augsburg confession and apology, in Luther's catechisms, and the Sehmalkald articles. In these, justification by faith is the center around which the system of doctrines is arranged, and from which they all derive their life.
' II. Its formal orthodoxy. Following the reformation came a period of thought and struggle for the preservation and development of the doctrines received. The power of faith was exerted and tasked in the bloody conflicts which ensued on the reaction pro duced chiefly through the hidden agency of the Jesuits. The proofs of the truth of the reformation presented in the Scriptures and by the history of the church, had to be Searched out and exhibited•to view. The presentation and defense of doctrine, conse quently, engrossed the attention of writers and preachers. At first and conflict were far from being deficient in spiritual life. But the power spent in the conflict was not adequately sustained by new supplies; and the vel• effort to make the outward defenses strong, diminished the.sense of dependence on the inward life. Consequently the inward life declined, and, with the decline, the whole system was changed. Justi fication by faith, although it was the central principle in which the life of the whole was contained, was regarded at length only as one of many doctrines, all of which seemed weak and ready to die. Orthodox theology, with all its apparent defenses, became like a massive citadel which, although it could not be stormed, might easily be taken while the defenders within were either dead or dying.
III. Its season of pietistic remval. This state of things was interrupted by a remarka ble revival of practical religion which spread over Germany. It was commenced through the instrumentality of John Arndt, who published, in four volumes, True Christianity—a book intended to arouse persons of all classes, but especially ministers and students, to practical and heartfelt religion, as well as to purify the corrupt morals of the age. It produced-a powerful impression. No book on practical religion has been more widely diffused; not even (it is affirmed) the Pilgrim's Progress or the &tint's .;:est. Its revivalism also awakened the opposition of the rigid and formal theologians. The movement thus commenced was greatly advanced by Spener (1635-1705). One of his pupils was A. H. Francke; Paul Gerhard also belonged to the party. They established religious meetings called "colleges of piety." This name led to the movement being called pietism. It spread rapidly through Germany, and, at first, without excitement or opposition. But as the effect increased, popular agitation was awakened and violent tumults arose which, beginning in Leipsic, extended through the Lutheran churches in the different states of Europe. And from this time, in all cities, towns, and villages where Lutheranism was established, there appeared suddenly persons, of various ranks cad of both sexes, who declared that it was their mission to uproot iniquity, spread true religion through the world, and impart to the church of Christ wiser rules than those which then prevailed. In their writings, in public discourses, and private conversations they explained the means necessary for accomplishing their plans, which they proposed to do withdut introducing any change into the doctrine, discipline, or government of the Lutheran church. The university of Halle, founded by the friends of pietism; became its home and center. The orphan house, established in that city by Francke, was one of its most efficient instrumentalities, because a living proof that it was able, not only to resist religious error, but also to supply the gravest wants of life. During the 30 years after the university was founded, it educated 6,000 theologians. Its oriental college prosecuted diligently the study of the biblical languages, and sent out missions to Mohain• medansand Jews. From Halle the new life was diffused over Europe. The larger cities sholved signs of reviving faith, and even the universities which, at first, had violently opposed the movement, became its friends. Pietism was extended into Wh•temberg and the university of Tubingen by the labors of Bengel, and into Moravia by those of Zinzendorf; Zurich, Basle, Berne, and many other large towns admitted it. It went as far e. as the Baltic and as far n. as Norway and Sweden. Many of the continental courts were influenced by it. Orphan houses like Franeke's became fashionable. The reformed church was awakened; England and the Netherlands received the new movement with joy. Tholuck declares that "the Protestant church of Germany has never possessed so many zealous Christian ministers and laymen as in the first 40 years of the 18th century." IV. Ilse inroad of rationalism. 1. Its incipient adrance.—In the next generation, the fervor of pietism had abated. The diligent study of scriptural truth was exchanged for
passive assent to it. Spener had endeavored to unite reason and faith, but his follow ers, renouncing reason, clung to faith alone. In this way pietism unintentionally, but really, exerted an influence against the orthodox system of doctrines by attaching great importance to the Bible alone as opposed to creeds, and to the witness of the spirit as opposed to the written word. Zeidler, an eminent minister at Leipsic, honoring the Bible, treated systems'ef doctrine with contempt. Some fervent mystics, in their zeal for the "inner word," spoke lightly of inspiration and atonement. Some insisted dim ply on Christian love and morality, heedless of danger from the assaults of false teach ers. Koch (1754) lamented the low esteem into which the Bible had fallen among all classes of society. This pressure against orthodox doctrine at home was strengthened by influences coming from England and Holland, the force of which may be estimated by the opposition at first made to it, as indicated by the fact that, within 40 years, nearly 90 works were published against various phases of unbelief. 2. The period of historical craieisni.—At the middle of the 18th c. German theology was in a rigid and shallow condition. The contest between pietism and formal orthodoxy had ceased. The second generation of professors at Halle had gone. The old defenders of orthodoxy had dis appeared. Many of the preachers were engaged in collecting curiosities, stamps, and old coins. Just then the era of historical criticism was ushered in. New investigations were begun; antiquity, literature, science, were diligently explored; the circle of relig ious beliefs was thrown open for re-examination. Many of the-results assumed to have been reached had afterwards to be abandoned; others are now admitted and accepted by all parties. On this field also, English deists had already been at work. Toland, Collins, Tyndall, 'Bolingbroke, had attacked the authenticity of the canon, insisting that the apocryphal books threw' doubt also on the Alters; that many passages in the gospel were spumious; that the time at which the canon was settled is unknown ; that the genuine sacred books of the Jews had perished during the exile. Hobbes assigned reasons for rejecting the Pentateuch; Morgan presented the views of Toland and Boling broke in an attractive style.; Collins assails the prophecies, asserting that only in Dan iel are there real predictions, and strangely adding that even these " were written after the events." In Germany, Semler of Halle led the advance, obscuring with mist the old orthodox landmarks, assailing the text of the Bible, denying the relevancy of stand ard proof-texts, disputing the genuineness of many biblical books, and undermining usages and doctrines which, hitherto, all had received. The vigor of critical examina tion, thus awakened, spread rapidly among the universities and the clergy. It was employed on biblical criticism and exegesis, church history, and the history of doctrine. The authority of the church Semler, indeed, held fast, but in a singular manner, affirm ing that the symbols and forms are useful in preserving external unity and uniformity. His great error was in supposing that religion could exist without a doctrinal founda tion. Beginning with the warmth of pietism around him, he gradually abandoned all reverence for the Scriptures. Regarding the inner conviction of a truth-loving human heart as the only test of the inspiration of a book, he rejected Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and the Canticles; questioned the genuineness of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Daniel; and slighted the Pentateuch as a collection of legendary fragments. The New Testament, lie thought, was better than the Old; yet some of its parts he con demned as positively evil. The Apocalypse he rejected as the work of a fanatic; the Gospel of John he distinguished as the only one useful for the modern church. He asserted that Christ and the apostles taught many things in mere accommodation to the prejudices of the age. The doctrines of the Bible Semler vigorously attacked. One after another of the most important seemed, for a time, to be overwhelmed by his stroke. And what he did at Halle, other bold men did in different parts of Germany. Two writers, especially, carried out their principles both in their books and in their lives. Edelmann constructed his theological system in answer to the question—not what is true, but what is useful?—that is, what is seen to be useful? Consequently, beginning with very slight departures from orthodoxy, he reduced Cluistianity, at last, to a weak form of deism. "The reality of everything which exists is God. The world maY be called the body of God, the shadow of God, the son of God. The spirit' f God is in all that exists. It is foolish to ascribe inspiration to special persons only; every one ought to be a Christ, a prophet, an inspired man." Bahrdt went much further, ridiculing the Bible, Christ, and, by his immoral life, making the very name of theologian infamous. Yet he stands as the turning-point of vulgar rational i§m. It had become manifest that criticism, if left to itself, would produce only destruction. And this compelled the search for something that would avert the fall. At the opening of the 19th c., the Scriptures, rationally interpreted, were still regarded as teaching a rational religion. But as the historical exegesis had advanced, the chasm had widened between the traditional and the rational sense. The accommodation theory was increasingly applied to every portion of the Bible, and, at length, the mythical theory began to appear. Baur, in 1800, published a Hebrew mythology of the Old and New Testaments; in which the miracles were explained away as merely natural events.