Albrecht Ritschl - Forgotten Books

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIES

I D ITED BY

s. HENRY w. CLARK, D .D .

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

AND HIS SCHOOL

TH E GR E AT

CH R I S T I AN TH E O LOG I E S

THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCHOF ENGLAND

By Rev. F. W . WORSLEY, M.A. , B .D .

SCHLE IERMACHER : A CRITICAL AND

H ISTORICAL STUDYBy W . B. S ELB IE , M.A. , D .D .

L IBERAL ORTHODO' YBy HENRY W . CLARK, M.A. , D .D .

AL BRECHT RITSCHLAND H IS SCHOOL

ROBERT MACKINTOSH , M.A . , D .D .

PROFESSOR O? ETHICQ , CHRISTIAN SOCIOLOGY AND APOLOGE‘

I‘ICS ,

IN LANCASHIRE INDEPENDENT COLLEGE ; LECTURER INTHE UNIVERS ITY OF MANCHESTER

LONDON

CHAPMAN AND HALL,Lu).

I 9 1 5

BRUNSW ICK 812 ,s'runrom) mu, 8 IL ,

PREFACE

I '

r would have been idle to propose doing overagain what has been done so admirab ly by Dr .Garvie in The Ritschlian Theology. The plan ofthisvolume is widely different . In working atit I have been greatly indebted to Dr . Garvie ,both for advice and for the loan of valuableessays and pamphlets dealing with the Ritschlianmovement . Although detailed references to hiswork may oftener be of the nature of dissentthan of agreement , they presuppose a generalsilent concurrence . Not for a moment does oneforget his services in clearing away a mass ofill-informed prejudice that hid the real Ritsch l ,and in laying down—once for all—the broad linesof interpretation .

To Prof. Peake I have been indebted for addit ional pamphlets . Still greater was his kindnessin permitting me to work with his own Copyof the Altkatholische Kirche, ed . 2—formerlyDr . Samuel Davidson ’s . My friend , Mr . J . D .

Anderson , late senior student of LancashireCollege , has bestowed immense time and careon my proofs ; though he is not to be heldresponsible for their final form .

Asour foremost British authority on Ritschlv

PREFACE

put on record , a few years ago , his inability thent o discover a copy of edition one of Justification,

vol . iii . , it may be well to make acknowledgmentof obligations to libraries as well as to friends .I have t o thank , then , the authorities of

Dr . Williams ’ Library for the use of their setof Justification, vol . i . in t he second edition ,vols . ii . and iii . in the first . Edinburgh UniversityLibrary possesses a complete set of Justification,

ed . ii . This also I have been able to borrow.

To the library of the New College , Edinburgh , Iam indebted for articles by Diestel in the Jahrbitcher fur deutsche Theologie to the libraryof Mansfield College , through Dr . Bartlet, forTraub ’s article on Ritsch l ’sTheory of Knowledge

(Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche). At theBodleian I have been able to consult editionone of A . K. Kirche, and at the John RylandsLibrary, Manchester, Ritschl

’searly work on

Marcion’sGospel and Luke.

For the present task I procured the twovolumes of Collected Papers also the Life.

Every student of the latter must join in thankingProf. Otto Ritschl for his full and careful work .

With most of Ritschl ’sown writings , includingall the larger ones , I had long been acquainted .

There is one notable exception—t he original textof Justification, vol . i . ed . 1 . Not even yet have Ibeen fortunate enough t o set eyes upon it .

1 But,I I observe , too late, from the Brit ish Museum Library

Catalogue, that that great inst itut ion possessesa Copy .

PREFACE

as the Changes in later editions of that volume arenot great, and as the English translation madefrom edition one is a masterpiece , it is hopedthat little has been lost by working throughthese .

May I conclude by mentioning that I havebeen obliged to write under an inexorable timelimit ? The fact, of course, is no real apology fordefects . But it is something to explain what onecannot excuse .

ROBERT MACKINTOSH .

Manchester,November 30, 1 914 .

CHAP .

II

III

VI

VII

VIII

I '

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTORY

BIOGRAPHICAL

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EARLY CHURCHHISTORY

HISTORY OF DOCTRINE , ESPECIALLY JUSTIFICATION,

VOL . I

B IBLICAL THEOLOGY , ESPECIALLY JUSTIFICATION,

VOL . II

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY , ESPECIALLY JUSTIFICATION.

VOL . III

THE PHILOSOPHICAL BAS IS

THE HISTORY OF PIETISM

YOUNGER LEADERS AND NEW DEPARTURES

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUS IONS

APPEND I'

NOTE A DOGMA AND THE ADJECTIVE DOGMATIC 272

NOTE B—CHRONOLOGY OF THE TUBINGEN S CHOOL ANDOF RITS CHL

’sRELATION TO IT

CONTENTS

NOTE C—“JESUS HAS FOR THE CHRISTIAN CONS CIOUSNES S THE RELIGIOUS VALUE OF GOD

PAO I

NOTE D—THE DEFINITION OF A VALUE-JUDGMENTBIBLIOGRAPHY

INDE'

THE THEOLOGY OF ALBRECHT

RITSCHL

CHAPTER I

VI N T R O D U C T O R Y

IT makes a difference t o one ’s estimate of agreat author from what point of view one ap

proacheshim . The present writer, in youth ,when largely influenced by Hegel through themedium Of Edward Caird , was attracted t o

Ritschl by a Sense that the latter recognizedthe decisive place of Christ in Christian faith—a

truth which seemed t o slip through the meshesof Hegelian dialectic . Such a View of Ritschl isprobably that of most of his British admirers .He attracts uS—when he does attract—in the

interests of Apologetic . Dr . Garvie has furnisheda fine interpretation of t he man and the movement , chiefly from this point of view ; lessfriendly and less helpful interpretations

,by other

Scottish or English authors,are similarly pre

occupied . There has been an almost excessiveconcentration upon Ritsch l ’sapologetic

,and upon

those philosophical questions at the basis Of

B 1

THE THEOLOGY OF

apologetic in dealing with which , t o speak frankly,Ritschl is peculiarly weak .

It requires some boldness,however, to regard

Ritschl as an apologist at all . Verbally, he

repudiates the position with all his wontedcontroversial energy . When he is recasting hisE arly Catholic Church for its second edition (Of

a letter 1 Of 185 5 speaks of doing betterservice than all the apologists —showing thathe is determined not to be reckoned of theirnumber. I have no Pietistic mannerisms , he

writes in 1867, and no apologetic endeavours . ” 2

In 1 875 he furnishes a certain explanation ofthese sallies . Theology hitherto, from its verybeginning, has been radically apologetic, i . e. itdescribe s the Christian religion in terms of infraChristian thought . ” 3 No wonder if he adds ,An end must b e made of this . ”

It is always useful , in forming an estimate ofRitschl ’sexceptional qualities

,to compare the

utterances of his friends and fellow-workers .Sometimes we see in a moment that we aredealing with a mere personal eccentricity . Atother times , what had startled us declares itselfas integral to the Ritschlian movement ofthought . Now the very same tone in regard toapologetics may be observed in Schultz , 4 in

1 Life, vol . i. p . 264 .

2 I bid. , ii. p . 4 4 . With thiswe may compare the b io

grapher’sstat ement , p . 1 67.

3 I bid. , ii. p . 273.

4e . g . Gottheit Christi, p . 630 .

2

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Herrmann,

1 in Kaftan .

2 On the other hand,

Schul tz writes a book upon Apologetics and Kaftancovers the same ground in greater detail . Theremust be a right apologetic as well as a wrong '3

One explanation of what we think so strangewould hold of Ritschl more than of the others .He is only too much the historian . There islittle room for endeavouring to bring men fromoutside Christianity to within it if one is prepared to acquiesce in viewing Christianity aslimited to the progressive nations of the West . ” 4

For,if there is one fixed limitation

,why not

another of a more Gnostic type ? Dr . Garvie ,who knows his Ritschl so well

,expresses the

startling opinion that Ritschl has given no viewOf the grounds of Christian faith . Against thisone might set , as a qualifying consideration , thefact that Ritschl perpetually quotes John vii.

17 If any man willeth to do his will,

” etc .

If we could force Ritschl the historical positivistto answer the great question ,

“What must I doto be saved ? ” he would apparently answer onthe lines of the sage who bade men b e carefulhow they chose their parents . Kaftan chimes inwith the remark that we only can become Chris

1 At least in Die Religion, 1 879 ; e. g. pp . 271 , 327.

For a lat erstat ement by Herrmann, compare infra, Chap . ix.

2e . g . Wesen, pp . 35 5 , 4 78, 4 85 , 486 (ed .

3 For a similar amb iguity in regard to the adject ive“ dogmat ic ,” see Not e A in Appendix .

4 Justification, iii. 22 , especially in ed . 1 .

3

THE THEOLOGY OF

tians if we have lived from youth under Christiannorms . 1 Yet one may persist in believing thatdead soul s hear t he voice of the Son of God , and ,hearing Him , live . There isan apologetic task 'And the Ritschlians are not SO indifferent to itas their words profess . For one ’s own part , onewould thankfully spend one ’s whole life till onewas spent out

, for the privilege of removing asingle obstacle from the path of hearts that areseeking God .

We have already had occasion to refer to thecompany of Ritsch l ’sdisciples and fellow-workers .Like SO great a thing as Protestantism—likeso small a thing as Plymouth BrethrenismRitschlianism, if in a less degree , had severalplaces or sources of origin . And , apart fromthose of Ritschl ’sown household , 2 we Observesimilar movements in more orthodox Lutheranism . A generation ago this was true of MartinKahler, whom Herrmann treated in 1 886 ashaving learned from Ritschl , but to whom heoffered handsome tribute and full apology in thepreface t o edition two of the same work 3—Kahler,who, though little in sympathy with Ritschl

’sresults , prevented the formul ating of a hostileresolution at a meeting of orthodox theologiansin It is a matter of some interest thatone of the best German studies of Ritschlianism,

1 Wesen, p . 4 40 .

3 See below , chap . ix .

3 Ed . 2 of Verkehr, 1 892 see chap . ix . infra .

Ritschl ’sLife, vol . ii. p . 403.

4

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Ecke ’s , 1 emanates from the school of Kahlerand is dedicated to him . More recent movements , like the Modern Positive Theology ofR . Seeberg and Theodore Kaftan ’s Modern Theology of the Old Faith , are a similar orthodoxcounterpart to Ritschlianism .

All these more orthodox parallels will agreein considering Ritschl ’sstarting point attractive ,while criticizing his conclusions . It is Ecke ’shope that in time , from Ritschl ’sinitiative, abody of men may work their way to resultsmuch nearer the Church ’s hereditary creed . Onemay venture to say that Dr . Garvie ’s admirablestudy Of The Ritschlian Theology occupies asimilar standpoint . It is a perfectly defensiblestandpoint . And we must agree that Ritschlat times proposes t o retrench valuable portionsof our Christian heritage . But there is anotherside to the matter . We turn to the Ritschliansas apologists . We wish their help in restatingChristianity for the modern world ; and we caneasily see that the enterprise has been undertaken in more serious and systematic fashion bythem than by any of ourselves . In practicalinfluence

, the religious teachers and apologistsof our land have done splendid service . Buttheory may seem to have been neglected . Asusual, we have been living from hand to mouth ;

1 Not to be confused with the Ritschlian S . E ck who

cont ributesto the Theologische Literaturzeitung.

5

THE THEOLOGY OF

not to use the severer formula which describes usas “ muddling through somehow .

” Accordingly,if our apologetic task is to be worthily discharged , we must face in a more earnest Spiritthan heretofore t he duty of doctrinal restatement . For apologetic ends , among others , wemust drop t he false and the superfluous , whilegiving louder emphasis to the true .

If Ritschl the apologist—for so we dare to callhim—is largely the man in revolt against Hegel ,Ritschl the historian is directly and manifestlythe man in revolt against Baur . On this fieldRitschl won his first laurels when he wrote on theE arly Catholic Church, in the first edition ( 1 85 0)asa semi-Baurian, but in the second edition ( 185 7)as one wholly estranged or emancipated . Inworking at the historical volume (1 870, ed . 1 ofvol . i) of his monograph on Justification, he

again encountered Baur’s methods as displayedin his History of the Doctrine of Atonement ; andagain Ritschl expresses emphatic distrust . Baur’ sHegelian apparatus seemed to have determinedthe Sweep of the development before the evidencehad even been heard . It was dangerous a prioritheorizing . Modern philosophy knew whatChristianity was about, better than Christianityitself had ever known ' Ritschl will rectifymatters. For an imaginary New Testamentmade in Tiib ingen he is to give us the real NewTestament, made in Palestine or neighbouringlands by the hand of God Himself. For the

6

THE THEOLOGY OF

Protestant . Did ever strong conviction put theforce of truth at a lower figure ?If possible , a still more bizarre specimen of this

style of writing history is found in a remarkquoted in the biography 1—that Alsace, after itsreconquest from France

,had to b e rational

ist ic ,” because Rationalism was the last stage

in German cul ture which Alsace knew ” beforethe French overran it . Perhaps in this last sallyRitschl is not ful ly in earnest ; yet he must havemeant something by it . Such handling of historymay be far removed from Baur’s type ofschemat

ism . Is it not in itself pretty far removed fromright reason ? While the a priori mind sees itsfavourite theories monotonously verified in everydirection, t he a posteriori mind unearths picturesque neglected facts , and declares that theyaccount for everything . They may b e facts ;they may account for something ; but, unless youcan measure the amount of their influence inaccordance with some rational scale, we are stillat the mercy of subj ectivity, and favouritism isunchecked .

A change of air is often a wholesome thing .

If Ritschl is far from being immune fromprejudice

,his prejudices differ from ours , and

it may do us good to breathe his atmosphere .He has a taste for paradox and for invertingaccepted estimates . Protestantism is not morebut less individualist than Romanism . The

1 ii. pp . 1 28—9 .

8

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

former is content with the common salvation ;the typical Romanist devotee is in an ecstasy ofprivate fellowship with God or Christ or Mary or

some saint or with the Sacred Heart ; he pilesup the largest possible store of personal supererogat ory merits . Lutheranism is not nearerRome than Calvinism but further Off, because ithas less inclination towards an external legaldiscipline . Per contra , Calvinism gives morescope for Church life and so is less exposedthan Lutheranism to certain religious infirmit ies.Have t he unwelcome phenomena appeared inBritish Calvinism ? They connect themselveswith other points of doctrine and with specialhistorical occasions . ” 1 Here , one thinks , thebankruptcy of Ritschl ’shistorical method ispublicly announced . His fashion of studyinghistory affords no little scope for what might betermed window-dressing . The goods to b e displayed are supplied , we will suppose , by historicfact ; but different clever fellows can arrangethem in different ways , so as to produce verydifferent effects . Yet some of Ritschl ’s scoresare well earned . That may b e t he case when heteaches the high Lutherans how largely Melanch

thon, whose sacramental views they dread,started

the exaggerated reverence for doctrine whichcharacterizesLutheran Protestantism .

Much of Ritschl ’smost important historical1 Justification, vol . i. p . 289 ; in a footnot e which

subsequent edit ionsomit simpliciter.

9

THE THEOLOGY OF

work is done as a Biblical scholar. In thisregion he is still in recoil from Baur and Hegel .Hegel Hellenized everything ; Ritschl sees noHellenism anywhere in primitive Christianity .

Baur saw hopelessly estranged factions in theprimitive Church ; Ritschl sees a far-reachingdoctrinal agreement, a deep underlying spiritualunity . SO, t oo, when he writes volume two ofJustification, Ritschl asks us to bring the teaching of Jesus and that of Paul nearer togetherthan we had supposed possible . We are t o goback once more to the New Testament and weare to realize how largely it constitutes a unity .

Ritschl builds up a great theology upon thedoctrine of t he Kingdom of God

,ethically in

t erpret ed and he has no doubt that such ethicalthoughts are the true historical meaning ofJesus ’ words . Many orthodox writers of distinction have used the Kingdom doctrine inChristian Ethics ; Ritschl declines t o thrust it onone side ; it must rule Dogmatic . At t he sametime, he hopes to be not less fully loyal to t hePauline gospel of reconciliation . If the twocannot merge, they are embraced in a closeenough synthesis . Our theology must be anllipse with two foci 1—duty and reconciliation ;morality and religion ; Church and Kingdom Of

God .

Again, Ritschl ’sBiblical work presupposes1 Rechtfertigung, iii. (ed . p . 6 ; edd . 2 and 3 and E . T .

p . 1 1 .

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

pretty conservative critical findings , and ratherunusual exegesis . This is one means of establishing harmony in the world of Biblical thought .And yet a comrade ofRitschl ’s, Hermann Schultz ,reaches similar results with a less expenditureof exegetical violence . Ritschl—perhaps rightly

-interprets the JOhannean prologue out of theOld Testament , notably out of Exod . xxxiv .

The personal Characteristics of God most High

are the personal characteristics of the incarnateWord of God , Jesus Christ . Schultz finds anyattempt to explain the Logos references exclusively out of the Old Testament geschmacklos .” 2 Again

,Ritschl , early and late , interprets

the pre-existence passages of Colossians andtheir parallels as affirming that the world wasmade not by but for the sake of Christ, who is itsend or aim (as Head of the redeemed). Schultz ,not

,

seriously if at all differing from Ritschl inresult, recognizes St . Paul

’s divergence .

We have already crossed the line whichseparates Ritschl as a Biblical scholar fromRitschl as a Dogmatic theologian . It is rightthat we should realize what high importancehe claims and merits in the region of doctrineproper . His system was given to the world notas a new apologetic but as a new reading ofProtestant and more particularly of Lutheran

1 The O. T . furnishesnot merely grace and t ruth ,

”but

full of grace and t ruth .

”

1 Gottheit Christi, p . 365 ; compare pp . 361 368.

1 1

THE THEOLOGY OF

theology . Such was Ritschl ’sestimate of hisown work ; and so t oo, one gathers , his son andbiographer prefers t o conceive it even now .

At this point we must contrast Ritschl not withHegel or Baur but rather with Schleiermacher .He has been considered ungracious in his attitudetowards his great predecessor . Certainly he isplenteous in criticism ; but he makes considerable if guarded acknowledgments of indebtedness

,

while assuring correspondents , half patheticallyand half testily , that Schleiermacher

’s methodin Dogmatic is repugnant to him .

1 It must bein a different sense that he elsewhere admitshaving learned his method in theology partlyfrom Schleiermacher and partly from Schneckenburger .2

In Ritschl ’s opinion , Schleiermacher as aDogmatist stood condemned at the bar ofhistory . He had founded no school . His artificial or at best purely personal synthesis 3 fellt o pieces as soon as his thought passed into otherminds . Obviously, Schleiermacher was to avery limited extent a biblical theologian . Philosophical prejudices swayed him hardly less thanthey did the Hegelians . Substantially , indeed ,Schleiermacher and Hegel were tolerably near

1 Life, vol . 11 . p . 1 4 9 .

3 I bid vol . i. p . 24 4 ; quot ing Theol. und Metaph. ; seeinfra, chap . V1] .

3 Rechtfertigung, i . pp . 4 86 , 5 4 1 (edd . 2 and E . T .

(of ed . pp . 4 4 1 , 4 9 5 .

1 2

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

each other in philosophical result if far enoughapart in process . Again , Schleiermacher lackedRitschl ’sgreat knowledge of the history oftheology . He boldly manipulated church doctrines

,making them mean what he pleased .

There are aspects in which Ritschl seems hardlyless subjective ; but his knowledge was fuller .He is entitled, therefore , to show something ofthe impatience which the trained expert feels forthe best of amateurs . He does not call usto Schle iermacher . ” He would rather say of t/him what T . H . Green said of Hegel ’s work : '

It must all be done over again .

”

Ritschl does , however, call us Back to theReformers . ” In Justification, vol . i , he seemsto have little but criticism for Luther . That ispart of his campaign against t he High Churchultras of Lutheranism , who were determined thattheir great man should b e spotless and everyother Reformer infinitely less . When free fromthis preoccupation, Ritschl tells us 1 that theprinciples of genuine Lutheranism are spreadingover t he whole field of German Protestantism .

And, when we study other representatives of themovement, we learn that this estimate of Lutheris a true mark of the school .2 One may add that

1 In a review art icle of 185 5 ; L ife, i . p . 378. Comp .

preface to Pietism, vol . iii.1 Compare what issaid in Chap . ix . regarding Schult z and

Herrmann. One may also compare McLeod Campbell ’suse of Luther in hisNature of the Atonement.

1 3

THE THEOLOGY OF

Ritschl goes back t o the Reformers ’ doctrine ofthe free grace of God clean over the head ofSchleiermacher. Definitely, then , Ritschlianismis a Protestant , a very Protestant, theology . Itappeals to the spirit rather than the letter, butis t o give us a distillate of the genuine Luther .When Ritschl lectured on Comparative S ymbolik ,he ignored Eastern Catholicism and t he smallerProtestant sects

,vindicated the Union Of the

Lutheran and Reformed Churches of Prussia, andlooked forward hopefully to union with Romewhen the Church of Rome had risen to thespiritual level of Protestantism . This is wholesome frankness . It may help to counterpoisenot merely Ultramontanism

,but the provinciality

of the average Anglican mind .

Such , then, is Ritschl’sclaim . Is it not of

interest that the whole Protestant world shouldbe stirred by a theology built neither on thelines of radicalism nor on t hose of reaction

,but

seeking t o go back to the Bible and to Luther’sbest teaching

,while employing for the exposition

and defence of old principles all the resources ofmodern knowledge ? An age like ours must notneglect a man or a school mak ing such promises .We have again been overlapping a divisionof this preliminary sketch that still lies in frontof us . It is time now to note , with special care ,that Ritschl is no mere reactionary . He doesnot bid us simply go back t o the Bible or toLuther ; we are to go on to a ful l and vigorous

1 4

THE THEOLOGY OF

is reason to suspect that he will go on fightingfor victory till he has knocked down everyrival . One wishes self- confident minds would layt o heart the golden words of Louis StevensonWe have all a sufficient assurance that, who

ever may b e in the wrong, we ourselves are notcompletely in the right . ”

Another impression regarding Ritschl may b enamed as at least half true yet very little recognized—his resemblance to the old High and Dryschool of Anglicanism . Truly he is not a Highchurchman as we know the breed in this country .

He is thoroughly Protestant both in his doctrinesand in his theory of t he Church . Loyal as he ist o sacraments , he regards them—with a possiblepassing wavering 1—purely as reiterating thatmessage of t he Gospel which faith welcomes t ot he saving of the soul . Yet he is a Churchman

,

and in his own way extremely High . The

doctrine Of the community , which he learnedfrom one of Schleiermacher ’s early writings

,

counted for more and more with him the longerhe worked at theology . In later life , he speaks 2

of the Kingdom of God and t he doctrine of oursonship as the two great Christian revelations

,

omitted by all creeds , but central to t he Lord’s

Prayer. Justification (i),3 however, mentions as

1 In the third version of hisclasslectureson Dogmat ics;compare L ife, i . p . 392 .

2 Life, ii. p . 25 1 .

3 Ed . 1 (E . p . 1 5 8. Omit t ed apparent ly in lat er

edit ions. Ritschl great ly disliked the convent ionally ac

1 6

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

the two real principles of Protestantism individual assurance of salvation and the thought ofthe Church .

As a result, Methodists , Baptists and all Freechurchmen are in Ritschl ’sblack books . Thesummary of his lectures on Theological Ethicssecond version—records his ill will towards theEvangelical Alliance . Along with this goes something of the Old-fashioned Highchurchman

’saversion to enthusiasm as a very horrid thing .

” 1

He dislikes revivalism . He distrusts all consciousefforts after increased holiness . ” Voluntarysocieties for religious fellowship , which haveplayed so great a part in most ages of the ChristianChurch , are to him almost wholly evil . Theywere bad and anti- social in mediaeval Monast icism ; they are bad and anti-social to-day . Aboveall, they are un-Protestant This view comes upin book after book

,until it solidifies into the

three thick volumes of his History of P ietism .

One asks whether this is part of the Ritschlianethos , or a mere eccentricity of the man ? I ambound to record that there is much of it in Herrmann . We cannot therefore write it off as amere aberration . Nor would most of us refuseit a measure of sympathy . Of machine-made

cept ed formal and mat erial principlesof Protestant ism . In collaborat ion with Kat tenbusch he pub lished( 1876)a review art icle—included among the 1 89 3 reprintsshowing how recent and how empty the formula is.

1 Bp. But ler’sphrase to John Wesley .

o 1 7

THE THEOLOGY OF

revivals,God knows

,Great Britain has seen too

much . And, when little groups Of pious peoplethank God they are not like other men—whohas not winced under such un-Christlike Christ ianity ? There is much t o be said on behalf ofthe Kingdom-of-God theology, and of the antiPietist View of the Christian life .

So didst thout ravel on l ife ’scommon way

In cheerful godl iness; and yet thy heartTh e lowl iest dut ieson herself did lay .

But is there no place in God’s great kingdomfor imperfect practical Christianity—such a placeas we have already demanded for imperfectPlatonizing philosophies ? I think one can bea Christian—and a Platonist . I should besurprised if one cannot be a Christian—and aMethodist . Are Ritschl and Herrmann certainthat, when they are rooting up tares , they donot root up wheat as well ? An excellent casemight be made out for the very Opposite view,

that the Landeskirche maintains useful machinery—the skeleton or dry bones of Christianity—butthat the breath of life comes from restless anddangerous souls who innovate . If old Highand-Dry had ever flourished unchecked

, Christ ianity might have died out . AS one element,even the Dry Church may do service . We

have t o learn that Christ haunts strange places .We may meet Him amid what Protestants mustconsider the dark and guilty superstitions of St .

18

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Peter’s at Rome . We may meet Him in thethoughts of honest arid inquirers .

I S it Halle , Weimar , Cassel , FrankfortOr GOt t ingen, I have to thank for

’t

I t may be GOt t ingen, most l ikelyBut pray do not let us leave out the little

Bethel, or the fat weary woman, or the

tall yellow man , like the penitent thief, with hishead bound up in a handkerchief, or the finalcharms of

Heph zibah tune ,The last five versesof the t h ird sect ionOf the sevent eenth hymn of Whit efield ’scollect ion,

TO conclude with the Doxology .

Where two or three are gathered together in Hisname, there is CHRIST.

It may perhaps b e fitting to say somethingabout the personality of Albrecht Ritschl . Inhis presence , one feels oneself in the grasp of apowerful and unusual mind . Sometimes it presents itself to our thought as perverse . Onehardly knows whether Ritschl exhibits the mostvaluable of intellectual qualities , originality, or

the least valuable—eccentricity . Probably the

truth lies midway . In any case,he startles us

and forces us to think . If to us he seems strangelyexotic, that may make him all the more helpfulin our case . He is a great master of gibes andflouts and jeers . ” Apparently he recognized adanger in this direction . Before printing areview article soon after the death of Baur, heasked Weizsacker

, t he editor of the review,

1 9

THE THEOLOGY OF

whether he had said anything unduly strong ;but Weizsacker reassured him , and passed hi swork as it stood . During the first publicationof his magnum opus, the Justification,

he allowedhimself t o b e persuaded by his '

GOt t ingen

colleague , L . Duncker, 1 t o soften many severeutterances . And , in discharging the thanklesstask of collating successive editions , I haveobserved that not a few of the sharper utterances

get eliminated . This development is normal .There are partial signs of mellowing . Yet howmuch remains uncancelled which one cannotread without indignation ' Perhaps the worstpassage of all occurs in Justification, vol . iii , 2

aproposto the High Church zeal displayed againsthim by Lutheran censors I have alwayscounted what Christ says at Matt . vii . 2 1—23 aspart of the consolations of the Gospel . The

words which consoledRitschl culminate as followsThen will I profess t o them

,I never knew you ;

depart from me , ye that work iniquity .

”The

man actually proposes to gratify his partisanfeelings before the judgment- seat of Christ .

Hereaft er ? And do youth ink t o lookOn the t errib le pagesof that BookTo find their fail ings, faultsand errors

Ah , youwill then have other caresIn your own short comingsand despairs,In your ownsecret sinsand t errors

1 Not to be confused with Ritschl ’sfellow-student , MaxDuncker , the h istorian.

1 Ed . 1 , p . 250 ; ed . 2 , p . 270 ; ed . 3 ,p . 275 ; E . T . p . 290 .

20

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

In edi tion three of Justification, vol . iii, he struckupon a new plan for minimizing offence . He wouldcriticize those who seemed in error, but withoutnaming them . Bishop Butler adopted a similarplan

,and his thick-and-thin admirers find the

plan maj estic Possibly it is ; but it certainlyis a hard plan for later generations Of students .George Eliot has told us how the unhappyMerman ,

” 1 when he had got to cross purposeswith the great Grampus , came to be referredto in sermons as some or others . ” Ithink it undesirable that scientific theology

,even

from t he best of motives , should approximate t othe mincing vagueness of a pulpit vocabulary .

Again one inquires how far this peculiarityappears in other members of the school . Thistime the result of our inquiry is reassuring . Onedoes not Observe such littleness or such arrogancein other leaders . Herrmann , indeed , is remorselessly keen in controversy , but Herrmann aboveall his comrades—Herrmann above most theologianswho have ever lived—Speaks on the dryestdetails of theology as one who is serving a presentGod . To adapt a formula of Augustine ’s

, Ego

Ritsilio non crederem, nisi me Herrmanni com

moveret auctoritas. Never has one caught S ightof any soul more passionately a-hungered forrighteousness , nor yet of any soul more triumphant ly j oying in God through Jesus Christ byreceiving the reconciliation . In the differences

1 I S he Samuel But ler of E rewhon ?

21

ALBRECHT RITSOHL

of opinion between Ritschl and Herrmann,it is

not certain that the younger man is alwaysnearer the truth , still less that he is always

(though no doubt he sometimes is) nearer toorthodoxy . But his personality is one of themost splendid assets of the theological movement '

t o which he belongs .We put it to the account , then , not Of Ritschl

’s.

thinking but of his idiosyncrasy as a man if h lS ‘

chosen weapon is a Club and if he seldom allowsit to rest . Carlyle ’s critics thought he needed agreat many volumes to speak the praises ofsilence . There never was a stranger (n

'or yet amore insistent) preacher Of meekness , patience ,humility, than Albrecht Ritschl . The marks Of

‘

the natural man seem to be stamped uponalmost every utterance . Youwould hardly suppose he was the disciple Of One who passed throughGethsemane to Calvary .

When Ritschl ’sold master, Baur, finishes hissurvey Of St . Paul, he rather startles the readerby borrowing a phrase from Paul himself for asummary : Paul was one who had a greattreasure in an earthen vessel . ” Even from adistinguished modern Radical this estimate seemshardly adequate to the apostle of the Gentiles ,but we might venture to use it of the unclassifiab leRitschl . A great truth ; an earthen vessel . Theimperfect yet powerful, the powerful yet imperfect vehicle Of a much -needed message .

22

THE THEOLOGY OF

so unique a claim . The father is described asan enemy of Rationalism and a champion ofthe policy which united the two Protestant confessions in a single Church-fellowship . Briefly ,he stands for a sober and moderate Protestantorthodoxy . His grandson, in the biography ofAlbrecht

,contrasts Bishop Ritschl favourably

with Schleiermacher’s father . Whereas the lattergrew bitter towards his son during the dayswhen he seemed drifting from Christianity ,Albrecht Ritschl ’sfather guided his child gently ,and was rewarded by hearing him ultimatelyenunciate positions which could be greeted notmerely with relief, but with gladness . Prof.Otto Ritschl goes so far as to claim that t heBishop did more than any other S ingle influenceto mould Albrecht Ritsch l ’sfinal beliefs . The

thesis may be exaggerated, but it is a pleasantmanifestation of a grandson’s pious regard .

I

From 1828 the family home was at Stettin .

In 1831 Albrecht became a schoolboy . He soonlearned to know every uniform ; and an interestin military things accompanied him throughlife . Like many German families , the Ritschlswere musical . AS a young man of twenty-one

,

Albrecht is found mastering the organ ; a fewyears later still

,though I am suflicient ly child

of my age to enjoy pepper and salt in my music,

he criticizes what his son describes as the con

24

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

cealed sensuality, mixed with mysticism andpessimistic Weltschmerz, of Wagner

’s productions . No two types of personality, adds thebiographer

,could b e more diametrically opposed

than Ritschl ’s and Wagner’s . To return t o

Ritschl ’sboyhood ; he once saw Schleiermacher(anno The Ritschl family drove t he

great man out into the country for an airing,and t he child Albrecht sat on the box seat . Inthis he afterwards Claimed to trace a parable of

his superiority to Schleiermacher as a theologianof wider outlook and fuller ma stery . He learnedto b e fond of gymnastics , of swimming, ofdancing ; but Skating proved difficult and wasabandoned . His anxious mother did not greatlyencourage exercise, and her criticism of hisfriendships tended to make him shy . He wasconfirmed at the age of sixteen , without formingvery strong religious impressions .When he finished his schooldays—as seniorboy, and also pupil of greatest distinctiontheology was chosen for his life task, partly

(he tells us)from a boy’s love for resembling his

father, but still more from a speculative impulse .

” The university selected was Bonn,in

the then detached area of Rhenish Prussia . AtBonn Albrecht’s cousin, Friedrich Ritschl , theclassical philologist, was a professor . He andhis wife proved warm friends t o their youngcousin during his years at Bonn as student andas teacher . Another attraction for Ritschl ’s

25

THE THEOLOGY OF

father was the presence in the theological Facul tyof Karl Immanuel Nit zsch , one Of the centralleaders of the mediation theology whichclaimed inspiration rather than instruction fromSchleiermacher

,and which sought to steer mid

way between Rationalism and stiff orthodoxy .

The most distinguished of Nit zsch ’scolleagueswas perhaps Bleek , the Biblical scholar . Butno one at Bonn exercised any great influenceupon Albrecht ’s development .The young man ’s studies are interrupted fora time by inflammation of the eyes . When herecovers

,he reads St rauss’sLife of Jesuswithout

being greatly moved ; he assures his father thatNit zsch has satisfied him of the fact that St rauss’scentral assumption—presumably the presence ofmyths in the New Testament—cannot b e madegood . The narrow and reactionary orthodoxyof the Hengstenberg school proved even lessattractive . An exception occurred only once,under the influence of a fellow- student . Diederich’s arguments might be weak ; his testimonyto personal religious help was less easily wavedaside . However, t he pendulum soon Swingsback . He reads Schleiermacher’s Lettersto Lucit e,and hopes soon to acquaint himself with theGlaubenslehre but apparently this was postponed .

To speak of lighter matters : with some compatriots—no doubt in a narrower sense—he deckeda Christmas tree in December 1840 ; something

26

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

of a rarity at Bonn . We are told of the impression made on him by Cologne cathedral “ evenin its then unfinished state . ” We also hear ofa holiday journey into Switzerland and as farsouth as Milan—t he only foreign travel ofRitschl ’slife ; unless we should reckon under this headhis visit in Lord Acton ’s company t o DOllinger ,among the Bavarian Alps , forty-one years afterwards . “ Strictly speaking,

” says his son,

“ hispleasure in travel did not last beyond his earlieststudent days . ” When the party of 1840

,seven

strong, reached Baden-Baden, Albrecht was t heonly one who refrained from staking somethingat the gaming tables . Soon the party dissolvedinto smaller groups . It was a relief to themother when the whole journey was over. Afew months later, when Albrecht was en route

for Halle,she had t he privilege of seeing her son

after an absence of e ighteen months . Duringthe same journey Albrecht, as a guest, heardNeander lecturing on the Epistle to t he Romansat Berlin , but without pleasure .

The young Ritschl ’sdiscontent with Bonnteaching had induced his father to consent to achange

,such as the German university system

facilitates . The choice lay between Berlin andHalle . It was no attraction t o Albrecht thatBerlin contained a large circle of relatives . AtHalle Julius Miiller

,Tholuck , Erdmann seemed

to him names of promise,and Halle finally was

chosen . But here again neither the vigorous27

THE THEOLOGY OF

mediation theology of Miiller nor t he morepietistically tinged Spirit of Tholuck satisfiedtheir new listener . AS for Erdmann, his con

servat ive and theologically orthodox reading of

Hegel was being Challenged by t he revolutionaryschool of the Left—Strauss , Feuerbach and (atHalle itself)Ruge . Nevertheless , in one shapeor other, Hegelianism at that time enjoyed com

manding influence . Young Ritschl was caughtin its strong current ; and , though the biographerClaims that he never completely adopted the

standpoint of the Absolute Philosophy, he

grants that the study was a good because severediscipline for thought . Julius Miiller’sdislikefor Hegelianism lest it shoul d involve Pantheismwas intolerable to young Ritschl . Tholuck ' andhe were at least friends , but even there frictionarose .

He enj oyed Geseniuson Isaiah , finding itimpossible not to laugh at his profane wit . ”

Of Erdmann he speaks sometimes with gratitude ,sometimes with censure . But the decisive impression was made upon him by the reading of

Baur’s book on the History of the Doctrine ofAtonement . He became more than ever Hegelian ,and began to incline to historical studies . Nothingwill satisfy him but a visit t o Tiib ingen. He

considers Baur the foremost theologian of

Germany ,” while assuring his father that Baur

,

Zeller, Vatke and most of the Tiib ingen schoolare much more positive than Strauss

,Feuerbach

28

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

or Bruno Bauer . He preaches more than oncein classroom at Halle . Among his student friendsare Max Duncker the historian , Nasemann thephilologist (a lifelong correspondent), Rogge , hisold room-mate , for whom he once actuallypreached

,and Carl Schwarz, also a theologian,

whose book on Recent Theology Ritschl reviewedwith painful consequences in 185 6 . The close ofthe Halle period is marked by his proceeding tothe degree of Doctor of Philosophy, when hedefended S ix Latin Theses . 1

The next step forward was a first theologicalexamination . The subjects prescribed includeda sermon on Rom . ii . 4—a text t o which Ritschlconstantly turned in later life for its testimonythat repentance is a consequence of grace, notits prerequisite . Rather against the grain, hespent some months in Berlin working for thisexamination

,without leisure to hear many

lectures .” However, he made the acquaintanceof Vatke , a Hegelian divine , and one of theforerunners of the Wellhausen criticism of theOld Testament .2 The examination itself took

1 How many of our university men understand the

propermeaning of a thesis in connexionwith graduat ion

or real i ze that Luther’sninety-five theseswh ich Shook the

world were meant asan appeal to the learned ? S incewrit ing these sent encesI have met with a reference to t ruetheses at Camb ridge in the b iography called J.

1 Hiswork,accord ing to Rob ertson Sm ith (0 . T . J. C. ,

ed . 1 , p . was“encumbered with a massof Hegelian

t erminology of a repulsive k ind .

”

29

THE THEOLOGY OF

place at Stettin,April 23

,184 4 , with satisfactory

results ; a test sermon on 1 Cor . i . 20- 25

being pronounced very good . Presently hehad to put in six weeks of military service .

Before the visit to Tiib ingen was sanctioned ,the father insisted on a short visit t o Heidelberg .

There Richard Rothe,who was at the zenith of

his career,proved extraordinarily kind . Ritsch l

also met Ullmann , editor of t he S tudien und

Kritiken,and saw something Of Umb reit . But it

was not long before he pushed on to what hisfather laughingly called the promised land .

”

Within a few days,through the kindness of a

friend,he was personally acquainted with Zeller,

Schwegler, Kuno Fischer, and not long afterwards with Baur himself. He observed t he

Tiib ingen custom—it has astonished S ince thensuccessive generations Of Scottish visitors—b ywhich the young theologians pass the eveningtogether in beerhouses .At this early date the Tubingen theory wasstill in process of development . Ritschl ardentlyflung himself into the fray . For an academicpurpose , he chose a theme belonging to t he

field of New Testament study,defending

Schwegler’sradical theory of the dependence of

the canonical Luk e upon Marcion ’s Gospel .Ritschl accordingly dated the canonical Lukebetween 1 4 0 and 1 80 . The essay gave greatsatisfaction to Baur

,who secured its purchase

and publication by a Tiib ingen bookseller, and30

THE THEOLOGY OF

II

If one tries t o take a general view Of theeighteen years spent by Ritschl as lecturer orprofessor at Bonn

,one is struck by the check

in his career . The clever and precocious b oyseemed t o develop with comparative slownessafter his first sensational hit in manhood . One

cause of this might be his connexion with the

suspected Tiib ingen school ; but that cause cannot have Operated alone . From very earlylectur ing days

,indeed, he was forsaking Tiib ingen

positions ; and published work made this plain,notably in the two editions ( 1 85 0, 185 7) of theE arly Catholic Church . By 185 7 there was noground for regarding Ritschl otherwise than asthe representative of a moderate orthodoxy . Itis the most orthodox point in his whole curve .

Still, suspicion may have outlasted its grounds .One learns with surprise of a report formul atedby Dorner in 1 85 0 on behalf of the Protestantfaculty of theology at Bonn , and presentedto the Prussian Government . It criticized andpatronized the younger man

,pushing him gently

back into what the authorities considered hisproper place .

There were several disappointments for Ritschlin other matters besides his promotion . He hadhoped for the appointment of Rothe to a vacantChair in 184 7 but Dorner was preferred . Later,in 184 9 , Rothe came, and the numbers of t he

32

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

theological students at Bonn increased ; butRothe accepted a call back to Heidelbergand the numbers at Bonn fell off again . For atime , it would seem , Ritschl

’sold friend andfellow-student Krafft surpassed him in popularityas a teacher. In 185 0, when a vacancy had tobe filled, Krafft , not Ritschl , was chosen , andthe Government informed the Bonn faculty itregretted it could not find a vacancy for Ritschl

(as had been suggested)in another university . In185 2, after a further disappointment, he becameEwtraordinarius, not becoming Ordinariustill 185 9—when he cut out Krafft .The biographer gives a record of every course of

lectures delivered byRitschl , whether in winter orsummer S emester , and of the numbers attending .

During three and a half years ( seven S emesters),hardly more than one-third of the attendancesgo into double figures ; whereas in the four closingyears of the Bonn period only one lecture out oftwenty-five falls below t en,

and it counts nine , whilethe average over all is above twenty- s ix . Butthere had been worse experiences . In the winterof 184 9 - 5 0 Ritschl had no demand whatever forhis lectures . An altered programme was equallyunsuccessful ; and the P rivat-docent had to sitdown in his lodgings with his TractatusTheologicoPoliticus, sending a message of thanks to hismother for transmitting to him hereditary courage .

It is hardly necessary to say how complete acontrast is furnished by the later GOt t ingen years .

D 33

THE THEOLOGY OF

Never, not even in a Seminar, 1 do we find anattendance of fewer than t en, while classesapproach and sometimes surpass a hundred ; andthe last years of all are t he best . In those daysit was Ritschl who was the foremost theologianof Germany . He had a great door and effectualopened to him , if truly there were many adver

saries.Ritschl had qualified at Bonn as a lecturer inNew Testament . Before he got to work, he feltinclinations towards Church History ; but university regulations did not allow of a new branchof teaching till after two years’ service, and hedid not long use this liberty when it becameavailable . In 185 3, when Dorner left for GOttingen

,Ritschl had opportunity t o do something

in Dogmatic,and his inclinations had been turn

ing in that direction . Hence he was glad t o

serve the Faculty ; but in a little while it cameto appear that they were almost making him amaid Of all work .

” In the thoroughgoingGerman fashion

,he lectures both on Dogmatics

and on Theological Ethics . One feels a diffi cul tyabout the frontier between these two studies .We learn that Ritschl himself introduced intoethics teachings in regard to a Christian’spatience, prayerfulness, faith in providence, whichhe afterwards came to feel claimed a place inDogmatic aswell . GOt t ingen arrangements ledhim to separate Dogmatic into two courses, and

1 Taken in alternat e yearswith H . Schult z .34

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Ethic,

” Dogmatic I,” Dogmatic II regu

larly recur, while the few other courses chieflydeal with New Testament Epistles . ANew Testament teacher ; tempted to diverge into ChurchHistory ; devoting himself afterwards mainly tosystem ; and within Dogmatic, so far as publishedwork goes , mainly to the great doctrine ofJustification and Reconciliation —such in outline is Ritschl ’splace as professor . The biographer reports careful ly on the more importantSystematic courses . He tells us that

,in their

very first form, they contain all the characteristicRitschl ian positions , but that not nearly allforeign matter is extruded—as ultimately it willbe . Ritschl as a lecturer freely enlarged his textby oral additions or corrections . Sometimes hehad to secure the results for his own use in t hefuture by copying out a student’s Heft . Alongwith this classroom work he was producing manyarticles in learned periodicals

,leading up to the

two editions of the E arly Catholic Church, or tothe even greater task of his life

,the trilogy on

Justific ation.

Among new friends wemay mentionHilgenfeld,one of the most loyal of Baur’s followers

,from

whom Ritschl naturally diverged in opinion asyears elapsed till the friendship faded away ;H . Holtzmann and Weizséicker, lifelong friends ,although the latter, so far as the biographerreports , was never personally met ; Diestel, avalued colleague and correspondent

,on whom

35

THE THEOLOGY OF

Ritschl relied for the Old Testament basis so important in his system . Pupils included Nippold,

afterwards a very unfriendly critic ; Link, loyalthrough life, who demonstrated that Ritschlianviews could be made effective by a workingpastor ; ThikOt t er, who also trod the paths ofhis master ’s developing thought, and defendedRitschl ’sviews in a pamphlet which, when translated into French , professed to set forth theThé ologie de l ’Avenir.

” It is impossible notto observe the lack of eminent and brilliantpupils

,such as we read of in the GOt t ingen

period . While Ritschl ’sDogmatic was only halfdefined, his influence had only half its power.And indeed it was by the printed page more eventhan from the academic platform that he madeconverts .A more important and more promising friend

ship dated from 185 6—with R . A . Lipsius, thenat Leipzig, afterwards well known at Jena . WhenLipsiuscommunicated t o Ritschl his postulatesfor Dogmatic, Ritschl had to say to himselfthat he had essentially been working on the

same plan .

” They entered on a lively correspondence . And t he following year, when Lipsiusvisited Ritschl , they walked among the S ieb engebirge with much perspiration but still morepleasure . ” Unhappily this friendship was to beshipwrecked on theological differences . OldBaur himself (der alte Baur)permitted a gooddeal of amicable intercourse even in the face of

36

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

hostile criticism . Ritschl was naturally proudof this . But his unfortunate anonymous reviewof Schwarz ’s book proved unpardonable

,and

killed the friendship outright .We have heard of walks taken in Lipsius

’

company . When ThikOt t er was a pupil, he andRitschl Often went singing together along a certain pretty path not far from Bonn . Andonce

,when Link pays a visit to GOt t ingen as

late as 1 874 , there is the record of a walk takenfor pleasure . But one gathers that Ritschl earlyyielded to that habit of neglecting exercise whichreached an evil perfection when he spent holidaymonths at GOt t ingen working in his garden . The

bill came in promptly . Before the end of theBonn period , obstinate S leeplessnesshad begun .

The greatest losses of these years were t hedeath of his father in 185 8 and of his mother in1861 . Albrecht was present at the Bishop ’sdeath-bed, but not when his mother passed away .

The parents had sympathized warmly in theirson ’s professional disappointments . The carefulfather had had a Copy of the E arly Catholic

Church (ed . 1 , 185 0)presented to King FriedrichWilhelm . It made the author smile to see howsplendidly the binder gilded it, after he hadlearned that it was meant for a great personage .When a gracious acknowledgment came , compliment ing both father and son , the Bishop formallythanked his son for putting him in the way of

such praise .

37

THE THEOLOGY OF

Between the two sad dates fell the happyevent of marriage . 1 The bride was Ida Rehbeck(or daughter of a late pastor

,and

sister-in- law to Pastor Edward Steitz of Frankforton-the-Main, who had become and who remainedRitschl ’swarm friend and theological confidant ;vol . i . of the Justification is dedicated to him .

A long day in the woods with Steitz and Idamade Ritschl sure of his own heart . The sonprints many of his parents ’ love - letters . Theyrange over all t he serious themes of Ritschl ’sthought and teaching . When Opinions differ, thelady tries gallantly t o stand up for her beliefs ,but she is borne down partly by argument andpartly by authority . Ritschl hated weddingj ourneys

,so, one day after the marriage proper

the religious in contrast with the civil ceremony—they took the steamboat for Bonn . Unfor

tunat ely the day was wet, and the crowdedcabin tested their powers of endurance .” It wasno true omen . The marriage was thoroughlyhappy . All that we are shown of Ritschl ashusband and father redounds to his honour . Hewas left a widower within ten years , but re

mained devoted to the beloved memory . Hishalf-sister and

,after her death, another lady

housekeeper cared for his home .

1 There isa veiled reference t o some other unsuccessfulcourtsh ip

38

THE THEOLOGY OF

in Georgia Augusta changes in favour of thePrussians . It was put about in certain quartersthat Ritschl had great influence with a subsequent minister of worship , Falk , Bismarck

’sinstrument in the Kulturkampf ; but the biographer assures us this was a delusion . Healso repels the charge that Ritschl pul led stringsin favour of his personal adherents

, summariz

ing the few and S light efforts he was at anytime induced to make on behalf of pupils .Quotations prove , indeed , that Ritschl wasresolutely anti-partisan . He even chose anorthodox divine to prepare his eldest son forconfirmation .

A still greater event than the campaign ofSadowa was the triumph over France . Oneregrets t o find Ritschl sharing the tone of highmoral superiority which was so common inGermany, and so embittering .

A series of invitations , to leave Gottingen forother universities , helps to prove Ritschl ’spopularity . There is , indeed, some disappointmentamong his friends that he is not called to avacancy at Heidelberg . He is , however, warmlypressed t o transfer himself

,after the peace , to

the remodelled university of Strassburg . Buthe declines to move ; and on four separate occasions , when invited to Berlin, he rej ects theoffer . For he regarded himself as a smallCity man .

” He took a S imilar view of Lotze , acolleague at GOtt ingen whom he greatly valued ,

4 0

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

and who exercised much influence on his thinking. When Lotze was tempted away to Berlin ,Ritschl judged that he had made a serious mistake . I t may have been so ; certainly Lotze didnot long survive his change of sphere . Later

( 1877)we are told how Ritschl was placed firstand Pfleiderer third on a list of names eligiblefor a vacancy at Tiib ingen. It was a time ofkeen controversy . The authorities thought safestto make an appointment which could not becalled partisan .

The great events of this period are of coursebooks . First came the magnum opus vol . i . in1870 ; vols . ii . and iii . in 1874 ; later editions ofone or other in 1882 , 1883, 1888, 1889 . Shorterworks dealt with Christian Perfection ( 1874 ; 2ndslightly revised ed . with Schleiermacher’sReden and their effects on German Protestantism—here the son takes a different view from hisdistinguished father . I nstruction in the ChristianReligion is a valuable summary for students , ifan unsatisfactory school book ( 1875 ; 2nd and3rd edd . revised 1881 and 1886 ; posthumousedd . of 1890 and 189 5 are reprints of ed . Ashort discussion of Conscience ( 1876) removes itfrom the place Of honour it had held in some ofRitschl ’scourses of dogmatic lectures as thereligious faculty proper

,and treats it—under the

influence of his friend Gass—as derivative , notprimary . Theologie und Metaphysik ( 1881 ; 2ndsomewhat revised ed . 1887) Shows the increased

4 1

THE THEOLOGY OF

attention to philosophical prolegomena whichwe also encounter in later editions of Justification,

vol . iii .About this time Ritschl felt it needful t o

concentrate upon some other great theme . He

therefore devoted several years to the history ofa phenomenon which he greatly disliked—P ietism(vol . i. , 1 880 ; vol . ii . , 1 884 ; vol . iii . , Headmits to a correspondent that vol . i . turned outmore than he had expected an Anklageschrift, orspeech for the prosecution . The other volumesare largely pitched in the same key . Yet thework is laborious , thorough , well documented ;and the author never hesitates to praise—thoughhe is Skilled in making praise in one quarterreflect blame upon another. As with Tennysonand the I dylls, so with Ritschl and P ietism,

one

doubts whether engrossment in such a themewas the wisest disposal of time . The last production which we need name—the posthum ouspamphlet on FidesImplicita—exhibits a returnto Doctrine or History of Doctrine .

These busy and prosperous years at Gottingengreatly enlarged the number of Ritschl ’sfriends .First may be mentioned Hermann Schul tz, wholeft GOt t ingen just before Ritschl

’sarrival, butreturned after some years of service at Baseland then at Strassburg to be a colleague andclose intimate . Prof. Otto Ritschl , in his perfect ly respectful reference to Schul tz, ratherunderrates the amount of theological sympathy

4 2

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

which bound him and Ritschl together. It isquite true that the preface to Schultz ’s GottheitChristi speaks Of a religious sympathy whichunited the author not only t o Ritschl but tomen like Schleiermacher - whom Ritschl stronglycriticizes—or like Lipsius, with whom he hadbroken . The difference in viewing such men isone of temperament rather than of Opinion .

Religious sympathy is one thing, detailed theological agreement is another . In the detail oftheology, Schultz was exceptionally near toRitschl . There is a remarkable list of dist inguished pupils—among others , Bender (whodeveloped Ritschlianism on radical lines

,and

gave up theology), Guthe , Robertson Smith ,John S . Black, Duhm , Smend

,Baethgen, Well

hausen,Bornemann , Loofs , Wrede , Baldensperger,

Oskar Holtzmann , Simons , Gunkel, J . Weiss,

Mirb t , Troeltsch ,Bousset . Scholz

,a Moravian

,

who became a disciple and made himself knownby letters , is an interesting figure . For hisbenefit Ritschl softens as far as possible hiswonted censures on Moravianism . UltimatelyScholz found it necessary to j oin the nationalChurch . Kat t enbusch and Wendt were GOt t ingen colleagues who adhered t o the Ritschlianmovement . Men not pupils nor colleagues onthe staff who became enthusiastic supporterswere Schiirer, Harnack, and above all Herrmann .

If Ritschl ’sbooks moved his followers to en

thusiasm , they evoked hostile criticism from the4 3

THE THEOLOGY OF

right 1 and from the left ; in the latter case ,Pfleiderer and Lipsiuswere leaders . A secondburst of hostility seems to have been partly atleast due to t he publication of a ful l statement ofthe new Christology in Schultz’s Gottheit Christi

The final break with Lipsiusbelongs tothis period . Ritschl suspects Lipsiusof jealousy ;Diestel with difliculty makes peace . But Herrmann’s polemic against Lipsius2 sharpens theantagonism

,and personal friendship goes to

pieces . Theologically Lipsius, though a philosophical neoKant ian,

had reached resul ts pract ically coincident with Pfleiderer

’sor Biedermann’s .3

Ritschl could not be expected to concur . Butthe two might have parted in peace .

This separation marks in a sense the rise of aRitschlian school . Lipsiusseemed 4 to treat Herrmann as a mere underling

,speaking or falling

silent at his master’s bidding . Ritschl wasindignant at the suggestion, and Herrmann deniedthat he was the Spokesman of any school .5 Oneknows how British and American philosophers

,

1 Compare what issaid of Ritschl ’srejoinder (Theol. u.

infra , chap . vii.1 In a review art icle and in D ie Religion u.s.w.

but the preface to the lat t er containsan apology for previousseverity in language .

3 The writ er heard himsay so in conversat ion4 In Prot. Kirchenzeitung, 1 877, quot ed in Ritschl ’sLife,i i . p . 309 .

5 D ie Religion im Verhaltnisszum Welterkennen und zurS ittlechkeit, pref. p . vi i i . Comp . infra , chap . vii.

4 4

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

profoundly influenced by Hegel , decline to bedescribed as Hegelians . ” A further unpleasantness appeared when Nippold

1 insinuated thatRitschl pulled strings on behalf of those of hisschool . We can understand that there was adisposition to deny that such a school had anyexistence ; yet one believes that Prof. Otto Ritschlis only doing his duty as a historian when herecords its rise .

”

Though reluctant to be entangled in universitybusiness , Ritschl was highly capable of doingsuch service, and twice was called to the proRectorate . On the first occasion the duty fellto him of pronouncing the GOt t ingen oration onthe 4 00th anniversary Of Luther’s birth . Hissecond pro-Rectorate was marked by a ballattended by a hundred and twenty guests ; tothis his family had instigated him . During thesame term of Office , as public orator on theuniversity ’s l 5ot h anniversary , he retorted onCatholicism the charge of responsibility for allrevolutions . It created much amusement whena Roman Catholic critic treated Ritschl- one ofthe foremost living New Testament scholarsas a non-expert in exegesis , on no better groundsthan that the calendar Of the university did notinclude his name among the New Testamentteachers .Ritschl ’shealth was disturbed from time to

time . There was an attack of typhus in 1 865 ,1 Comp . supra, p . 36 .

4 5

THE THEOLOGY OF

followed in 1866 by inflammation of the lungsand the Old enemy of Sleeplessness gave muchtrouble . In 1883 Ritschl and Schultz werefavoured with anonymous letters from some piouspersons at Hermannsburg, where Ludwig Harmsearlier in the century carried on his vigorouslabours on behalf of evangelical religion andorthodox Lutheranism . The letters intimatedthat several Christians had been praying God t oconvert the two GOt t ingen theologians , but ifthat could not be t o stop their teaching .

After this , when he felt worse than usual, Ritschlwould remark , The people at Hermannsburgare praying .

”The final break-up came rather

rapidly in Ritschl ’s sixty- seventh year . Hisbiographer gives us few detailsCalumny did not leave Ritschl alone even

after death . The Old lurid painting, in fancy’s

hues,Of an infidel

’sdeath -b ed was refurbishedand made to apply to him ; but his son assuresus that neither sickness nor the approach ofdeath interrupted Al brecht Ritsch l ’speace of

soul . He had been no great admirer of PaulGerhardt’s celebrated passion hymn . Perhapsfew of usrealize that the hymn is based onBernard of Clairvaux ’smeditations on the severallimbs of the suffering Redeemer—a species of

mediaeval piety which is also extended t o theVirgin Mother . Ritschl quoted against suchhymns our Charles Kingsley

,whom he did

greatly admire .

” Nevertheless , when he had4 6

CHAPTER III

NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EARLY CHURCH

H ISTORY

DasEvangelium Marcionsund daskanonische EvangeliumdesLucas, 1 846 .

Die Enstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 185 0 .

Ueber den gegenwartigen S tand der Kritik der synaptischenEvangelien. In Tribinger Theologischen Jahrbiicher , 185 1 .

Reprint ed in Gesammelte Aulsa tze, 1 893.

Die Enstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. 2nd ed . (almostwholly recast ), 1 85 7.

Mat erialsin the Life.

Comp . Appendix B .

A REMARK of J . H . Newman’s in early Oxforddays was treasured by W . G . Ward—then hisadorer

,afterwards in the Roman Church his

fierce critic—t o the effect that, as Protestantismcoul d never have developed into Popery , the

primitive Church , whatever it was, cannot havebeen Protestant . Ritschl comes half-way tomeet this clever thrust . He admits in botheditions of the E arly Catholic Church that Prot est ant ism is bound, in the interests of historicalscience, not merely to prove that Catholicism j arswith the New Testament

,but also to explain how

the one grew out of t he other . Polemics may4 8

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

have been necessary ; something else is neededtoo

,especially in modern times .

The primitive Protestant formul a Ritschlstigmatizes as unhistorical . From the Magde

burg Centuriators to Neander and the learnedGerman Irvingite

,Thiersch , it was taught—in

substance if not in plain words—that a Fallseparated the golden age of the apostles fromthe evil age of Catholicism . It was a newthing when the Tiib ingen school began toseek for an historical explanation . They soughtrather than found it . Even externally theyhampered themselves unnecessarily . Schwegler,says Ritschl , paused too soon in his connectedstudy . Baur’s complete sketch belongs to a laterperiod .

The Tub ingen school are inspired by Hegel’sprogramme of progress through antagonism , andthe young Ritschl was himself nearly as muchattracted by Hegel as by Baur. Still, it wouldbe well if we in this country realized that thehistorical theories of Tiib ingen allege historicalarguments . Their philosophical presuppositionsare not in such close connexion with the historicalfindings as either to vindicate or to discredit thelatter . In contrast with the mere negations ofStrauss

,Baur desired to have a (critically and

historically) positive view of each New Testament document . The apostolic age was supposedto be rul ed by controversy ; and each Gospelwas taken as a tendency ” document, Petrine ,

4 9

THE THEOLOGY OF

Pauline or Mediating. Our Matthew was adoctored version of the Gospel according to theHebrews . Luke was a similar version of Marcion ’s true text . 1 Mark—as Griesbach had heldon independent grounds—was a version of t he

common material of these two ; less partisan ,according to Baur. John ’s Gospel was idea inthe garb of facts . Of the Paul ine epistles t hefour great fighting letters were genuine—noneof the rest . The Johannine Apocalypse wasgenuine

,and contained vehement polemic against

Paul . Acts was a careful ly balanced glorifyingof the two party leaders . Outside the New

Testament t he Ignatian Epistles and t he pseudoClementine literature gave rise to burning questions . Baur held by t he old Presbyterian view ofthe entire falsity Of t he Ignat ians. He identifiedthe anti-Pauline virus of the Clementines witht he primitive Jewish -Christian mind . Schweglerhad announced that Catholicism was a development of this primitive Ebionism ; Baur preferredrather t o call it a compromise between Ebionismand Paulinism . Both assumed a long processOf diplomatic approximations leading up to theCatholic solution .

Ritschl first struck into the debate as a youthful recruit on Baur’s side, elaborating Schwegler

’sposition with regard to the Third Gospel . Hewrote astonishingly fast, and his book gave great

1 Comp . supra , p . 30 .

5 0

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

satisfaction to Baur. But it was a false start .Twice over it was refuted from within t he

Tiib ingen school, and Ritschl recanted on thefirst opportunity ( in his article ofOther divergences had begun to appear even

before the publication of the first edition of

the E arly Catholic Church Ritschl hadacknowledged a longer list of genuine Paulinewritings than Baur would admit, and had come

to accept a minimum of genuine Ignatian epistles .In the latter direction he never advanced further ;but even a minimum of genuine letters fromIgnatius was fatal to Baur ’s construction . Therewas not time for long negotiations .When he first gives a synthetic view of the

situation Ritschl is not more than half aBaurian. It might have helped us had he madea formal statement of his critical basis . Neitherthis edition nor the important second edition

( 185 7)does so . If Baur calls Matthew the Oldestcanonical Gospel

, Ritschl in 1 85 0 thinks he candraw from Matthew so luminous a view of theteaching of Jesus that all must confess it to behistorical . The Sermon on the Mount extendsthe Mosaic law to thought (against Pharisaic ext ernalism). Jesus , while requiring faith towardshimself

,allowed the '

two principles of Faith andWorks to stand side by side , without realizingthat they must come to be antagonized . Anotherformula is that Christ embodied in full perfectionthe new Christian righteousness , but was not

5 1

THE THEOLOGY OF

moved to insist on a personal claim that musthave staggered Jewish minds . In 1 85 0 Ritsch lis not yet a Marcosian ; he will announce hisconversion in 185 1 . The Johannine Apocalypseis assigned ( 185 0) to

“ milder ”Jewish Chris

t ianity ,like that of the pseudo-Clementines in a

later generation . Extreme Jewish Christianityis found in t he Galatian proselyt izers . TheEpistle of James is taken as a polemic againstPaul ’s doctrine of justification . For the rest, itis an inexplicable writing . NO use can bemade of it . Acts xv . is interpreted—as by Baur,and as always by Ritschl—Of the same events asGal . ii with which he finds it irreconcilable .He therefore ( in 185 0)holds the passage in Act sto be unhistorical . The Decree may havebeen issued later ; 1 its arrival at Antioch mayhave occasioned the sudden and painful changein Peter’s attitude (Gal . ii . Ritschl did notadmit permanent estrangement between Pauland the Twelve, though he granted that theDecree and its supposed effects at Antioch mighthave stimulated the Galatian heresiarchs .This edition already contains one of Ritschl ’sgreat discoveries

,that Jewish Christianity played

no part in the final Catholic synthesis . Thetragic fact is almost universally admitted to-day .

Correspondingly, the Gentile Christian Churchregarded the gospel as tak en from the Jews andgiven t o Gentiles . We have a hint of this in

1 Comp . Actsxxi. 25 ?5 2

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

edition one ,1 and fuller references in edition

two .

2

How,then

,does edition one hold that Catholi

cism came into being ? It accepts the formula ofGeorgii 3 that Catholicism developed out ofPaulinism . And what led Paulinism to loseheart and pith ? As yet , apparently, edition one

knows no answer t o this question . The Epistlet o the Hebrews

,the Testamentsof the Twelve

Patriarchs, and most of the Apostolic Fathers ,are said to exhibit a weakening Paulinism . Theextrusion of sterner Jewish Christianity is connected with the refounding of Jerusalem as apurely Gentile city (Aelia Capitolina) after thesuppression of Bar-cochb a ’s rebellion . MilderJewish Christianity is thought to have beendriven out in the Quartodeciman controversy .

Justin is the most important figure in t he subApostolic age . Here ,

where Ritschl begins tosketch the genesis of the Catholic idea, he becomesbrilliantly telling . He proves Justin ’s depend

1 pp . 336—7 give the quotat ion from the ApostolicalConstitutionswhich st andson p . 327 of ed . 2 .

1 At p . 1 72 . The present writ er would further cit e

Mat t . vi ii. 1 2 ; xxi. 4 3 ; also the scheme of the Acts(e. g.

xxviii. so st rangely cont rasted with the t eaching of

E phesiansand , in a different way , with the planlessnessofthe Third Gospel . WasLuke freer in int erpret ing the eventsOf hisown l ife ; more bound to hismaterialsin handl ing theGospel period ?

3 1 84 2 : crit icism of Schwegler’sMontanism. Lechler re

peated the formula in 185 1 (Apostolic andPost-ApostolicAge),yet neither writer hasmade Ritschl

’ssignificant discovery .

5 3

THE THEOLOGY OF

ence on St . Paul , but shows how he formulates

( 1) the conception of Christianity as a new law,

(2) the conception of a Rule Of Faith . LaterFathers , of course, follow Justin .

Not less striking is the analysis of early Catholicorganization . Officials exist in all churches fromthe first , 1 but for a time they have no significancebeyond t he local community ; no one yet thinksof calling apostlesOffi cials And for a time theofficials simply represent the members of theChurch . Great decisions , whether elections tooffice or disciplinary sentences , require the concurrence of the members . Finally, there is as yetno readmission to membership after mortal sin ; ofwhich a typical example is apostasy . The firstmain cause of change was Gnosticism . Overagainst the Gnostic claim to a secret tradition fromthe Apostles

,the great Church ( 1)defined the con

cept ion Of heresy (and soon included in it JewishChristianity), (2) claimed a tradition of doctrinalor religious truth in the hands of bishops . Thefirst wavering form of this episcopal theory

,

which makes each local bishop an offi cer Of thewhole Christian Church , and so gives dogmaticvalue to that one type of ministry

,is found in

the Curet onian Ignat ians; even the shorter ofthe Greek texts was supposed by Ritschl toembody episcopacy of a later and more sharplydefined sort .The second great cause of change was the

1 Ed . 1 , pp . 367- 8 ; ed . 2 , pp . 347—8.

5 4

THE THEOLOGY OF

the Tubingen theological j ournal . Baur, in viewof some supposed change in Franz Delit zsch ’sattitude

,had put himself at Ritschl ’sdisposal as

a Champion of the order Matthew, Luke , Mark ,inviting him to criticize freely . Ritschl printsboth authors at the head of his article as maintaining the order in question . Towards Baur heis thoroughly respectful .Part I is devoted to criticizing Hilgenfeld, who

had argued that the (apocryphal)Gospel Of Petermust have been later than the canonical Matthew,

and must have served as a midway stage towardsMark . This new argument for the posteriorityof Mark had to be met before Ritschl could proceed to his central task . We have no need todwell on Part I . In later life H ilgenfeld , whil estill holding with Augustine and many Fathersthat Mark isMatthew ’s pedisequus, did not renewthe theory about the Gospel of Peter .Part II is of more permanent importance . It

argues—for the first time with conclusive success,

says Prof. Otto Ritschl—for the priority amongthe synoptic Gospels of Mark . Weisse andWilke are named to us in modern books as theearliest champions of this view . Ritschl brieflydismisses Wilke as stating the argument in aform which few woul d seriously consider.1 Hisreference to Weisse in the article is casual but

1 Bruno Bauer had discredited Marcosianism by t reat ingthe author asthe earliest evangelist , but a fabulist . Comp .

Volkmar later.

5 6

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

respectful, though a letter Of 1 84 5 had referredto his useless fantasies about the Gospelhistory . Among recent writers Ewald was mostof a Marcosian, but he too had characteristicallydiscredited his results by piling up imaginarydocuments (nine in all in the Synoptics). Ritschlgives a purely abstract critical discussion . Hist orical consequences at stake are never oncereferred to . Is it likely, he asks , that thevariations between Matthew and Mark are dueto Mark’s altering Matthew ? Or are they betterexplained by Matthew’s altering Mark ? Thecomparison is held to be decisive .

( 1)Mark shows how carefully Jesus kept thesecret of His Messiahship . When He workedcures “privately , He insisted on silence . The

demons whom He drove out knew Him (accordingt o the evangelists), but He forbade them to speak .

The name Son Of Man—only twice employed inthe early part of Mark—was a riddle rather thana revelation to those who heard it . Not tillPeter ’s great discovery and his confession of itbefore the disciples at Caesarea Philippi doesJesus begin to unveil Himself even to discipleswith any freedom . On the other hand , Matthewhas much of this material , but in sad confusion .

The demons are not S ilenced . Men are sometimesbidden be silent about cures which were wroughtbefore a crowd , when secrecy was impossible .Jesus’ divine Sonship is freely recognized in manyquarters from early days . Briefly, Mark has a

5 7

THE THEOLOGY OF

coherent, well-thought-out view ; Matthew hasconfused fragments of it .

(2)Mark represents t he disciples as slowlearners ; Matthew has more of the later tendencyt o glorify them .

(3)With a single exception in his introductorysentences , Mark

’s Old Testament quotations areconformed to the L' ' . The phenomena inMatthew are much more complex . The speechesOf Jesus quote according t o the L' ' ; but theevangelist frequently points out fulfilmentsOf

prophecy,and in such cases often goes back

beyond the Greek to the Hebrew form of thetext . We might almost say that Mark’s b ehaviour is uniform and self- consistent

,Matthew ’s

multiform and inconsistent . Which is likelier,that Matthew blended uniform material borrowedfrom Mark with other material or with cont ribut ionsof his own ? Or that Mark carriedthrough a critical Pride ’ s Purge upon Matthew ?It is claimed then for Ritschl that he spoke

the decisive word which gave a starting-pointto modern Synoptic criticism , by affi rming thepriority Of Mark . It remained for others , friendsof Ritsch l ’s, to carry out the thesis in detail .But the beginning had been made

,in the gener

ously hospitable columns of a Tiib ingen organ .

What Hilgenfeld and Volkmar had done, withinthe school , t o check Ritschl

’saberrations, Ritschl

now does in the school’s organ to rectifyHilgenfeldand Baur himself.

5 8

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

On another point, it is true, Ritschl has nolight to give . He is impressed with the un

reliableness of Patristic traditions about theGospels

,and will have nothing to say to the

theory of a Hebrew or Aramaic Book Of Discourses—our second great foundation pillar inSynoptic criticism . The Two Document hypothesis was already current inmore than one form ;

but Ritschl stands aloof.Nor does he furnish us with any detail regardingLuke ’s Gospel . He assumes that, if he has provedt he priority of Mark to Matthew, he hardly needrepeat proofs for the priority Of Mark to Luke .

The greater part of the phenomena whichwarrant our postulating the Logia—or Q , as it isnow generally called—are differently viewed byRitschl . He is certain Luke used Matthew—ifonly because Of the form of the quotation Lukevii. 27=Matt . xi . 10 . This is still Ritschl ’sviewin 1 85 7, where a footnote 1 shows us how heconceived Luk e ’s modusoperandi . Plainly, then ,however guarded in this is a different viewfrom that of Simons

,Wendt and ( since 1 878

3)of

H . J . Holtzmann, according to which the ThirdGospel has borrowed merely a few details fromthe First . Ritschl assumes that the Third Gospelmay have drawn perhaps the central body of itsdiscourses from the First Gospel . The question

1 E arly Cath. Church, ed . 2 , pp . 4 6- 7 .

2 p . 4 8 of reprint .

3 Comp . Ency . Biblica , art . Gospels.5 9

THE THEOLOGY OF

with him is : What other sources did Lukeemploy ? Not till 1874 does he come publiclyinto line with the Two Document hypothesis .1

It was no part of Ritschl ’stask in the 185 1article to deal with t he Fourth Gospel . When hecomes upon the subject in Part I in connexionwith Justin ’s use of the Gospels , he tells uswhat he will repeat in the second edition of theE arly Catholic Church

2 - that he can find no placefor that Gospel in the second century , and isbound to assign it to the first .Between 185 1 and 1 85 7, when the secondedition of the E arly Catholic Church appeared ,Ritschl did several minor pieces Of work bearingon that special field of study . He wrote in aliterary or historical j ournal on the S ignificanceof the pseudo-Clementines dealing specially with a Roman Catholic criticism of the E arlyCatholic Church (ed . In 185 3 he wrote on theBook of E lxai, arguing that this Obscure figurewas a disciplinary reformer, like Montanus orHermas , but working among Essene Christians .An address of 185 3 and an article of 1 85 4

dealt with the authorship of the Philosophumena ,

breaking a lance with Baur . In regard t o thisdetail, too, Ritschl was on the winning side . In185 4 he reviewed Hilgenfeld on the Gospels . In1 85 4 also , helped by a conversation with Baur,he returned to the Essene problem

,working out

1 Justification, vol . I I . (ed . p . 27 not e .

1 Footnote, pp . 4 8- 9 .

60

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

his own theory, and publishing it in the TubingenJahrbiicher In this discussion Ritschlwas not dealing with the Early Catholic Church ,nor yet with early Christian heresies , but with asubstructure . Edition two of his book was toargue that Essene influences played a great partin the Obscure world of so-called Ebionism .

In another way Ritschl ’sattitude towards theEssenes is prophetic of theories which he willadvance as a theologian . He tries to explainthis sect purely out of Jewish conditions ; subsequently he will insist that the New Testamentmust be explained directly out of the Old Testament . Indeed , it is the Old Testament in contrast with later Judaism which he seeks to makethe key to everything, even in the Essene movement . The Essenes were a priestly sect, linenclad

,consciously in rivalry with the temple

priesthood . If they came to dislike animalsacrifice—that is a secondary consequence of theirhaving been excluded from the temple by theindignant official priests . But they are notestranged from the religion of their people . Thetreasury Of the temple profits by their gifts .This supposed effort to realize the ideal ofExod . xix . 6 Ye shall be unto me a kingdomof priests , and a holy nation —is a very charact erist ic Ritschlian hypothesis . It is a goodrule for inquiry

,to begin by asking how far native

conditions may account for strange outgrowths,

and , if native causes prove inadequate , then and61

THE THEOLOGY OF

only then to postulate borrowing or infectionfrom abroad . But, on this , its first appearancewith him ,

Ritschl pushes the principle very far . 1

Edition two of t he E arly Catholic Church ismuch more conservative than edition one in thecriticism and interpretation of the New Testament . First, Ritschl now regards Mark as theoldest and most historical Gospel . Moreover

,he

places all the Synoptics very early . He is quitesure that the canonical Matthew is earlier thanthe fall of Jerusalem .

2 Mark’s record is said toexhibit progressive abrogation Of one imperfectfeature after another in t he Old Testament law .

And in Mark Ritschl discovers the principleregulating Jesus ’ action . The sabbath wasmade for man

,and not man for the sabbath .

” 3

There were laws of two kinds ' For some , manwas made . These were permanent . Otherswere made for man

, 6 . g. perhaps the divorce lawenacted through human hard-heartedness . ” 4

Such laws were provisional, and Jesus abrogatesthem .

With this distinction in hand , Ritschl returnsto Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount . He nowargues that Christ is not dealing simply with theMosaic law

,but with the combined fabric Of

the law and the prophets , a phrase found four

1 A disast rousanonymousart icle of 185 6 on the Tub ingenschool led to a never-healed personal quarrel with Baur.

2 p . 1 5 4 .

3 Mark i i . 27.

4 See Mark x . 5 .

62

THE THEOLOGY OF

Pauline manifesto . If I observe rightly, Ritschldoe s not definitely name its author, speaking ofit simply as “ bearing the name Of one of theheads Of the church at Jerusalem . Still , on thewhole

,it is certainly handled as if it were John

Zebedee ’s . 1 Having vindicated such evidence int he New Testament, Ritschl can argue stronglyfor the existence of spiritual Christianity in t he

Circle of Jesus ’ personal disciples .2

The interpretation of Acts xv . still identifiesit with the interview recorded at the beginningof Gal . ii . , but professes to find no divergence .Paul was asked by the Antioch Church to goto Jerusalem—no doubt he also had a vision ,sanctioning the step . He had private intercoursewith the leaders of the Church ; but the verywords of Gal . ii . 2 suggest that a larger and morepublic gathering, like that of Acts xv . , also tookplace .

3 The decree was no doubt historical ,and no doubt had that time Of origin .

‘1 But unfortunately the decree did not settle everything .

Paul interpreted it geographically, James ethnographically . In other words , it failed to providefor the case of scattered Jewish Christians livingamong Gentile Christians . That case arose at

1 On th ispoint Ritschl ’sviewswavered ext raordinarily .

Comp . infra , pp . 71—2 .

2 Schwegler had almost in termsmade thisimpossib le.

3 Thishasbeen reassert ed since on groundsOf grammar ;by otherson the same groundsstrongly denied. Doctorsdiffer '

4 In Spit e of impart ed nothing to me , Gal . ii. 6 .

64

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Antioch . At first Paul carried the day . Thenemissaries from James appeared and recapturedthe position, impulsive Peter swaying like avane with each gust . SO that ultimately itremains matter of precarious conjecture howPaul and the Twelve were related in after days .Ritschl still inclines to think t he best —Everypoint here is controversial, and it is impossiblefor us to discuss the merits of any . Speakingroughly, we may say that this part of editiontwo, while the most generally acceptable in ourcountry, is perhaps t he least really successful ,certainly the least securely established .

Next we have to notice in edition two thebrilliant sketch of the different Ebionite parties .Here Ritschl takes his start from Justin Martyr .Edition one has already introduced us to Justin’sgreat position as the initiator of Catholicism .

Now we are asked to consider his testimonyregarding different classes of Jewish Christians .Later Patristic testimony is largely drawn fromhim ; or at any rate, Ritschl thinks it representsbut little other first -hand evidence The firstclass is that of the Ebionites proper—the early

,

the Pharisaic Ebionites . They deny the VirginBirth , or even regard Jesus as waso

’

ivflpwrrog ;

they hate the Apostle Paul ; they insist on thenecessity of circumcision for salvation . Secondlycome others who are also

,in a confusing way

,

called Ebionites , but who are better describedby a name we also find given them—Nazarenes ,

r 65

THE THEOLOGY OF

the original name 1 assigned by Jews to the

Christians . Nazarenes keep the law faithfully ,but praise St . Paul and acknowledge t he ful lChristian standing of uncircumcized Gentilebelievers . The Epistle to the Hebrews (regardedas addressed to Jerusalem) and the Testamentsof the Twelve P atriarchs1 are now held to repre

sent this peculiar type instead Of being a weakened Paul inism .

” We can see , then , how JewishChristianity

,even in its milder form , was heading

towards estrangement from the western worldand entanglement in the national doom of Israel .Ritschl points out 3 that Baur took his ideas ofEbionism from the pseudo-Clementines , and couldnot be induced to pay attention to the allimportant testimony of Justin .

As to the pseudo-Clementines , Ritschl nowtreats them as belonging to a third type of JewishChristianity and a second version of Ebionismthe Ebionism described by Epiphanius, i . e. (asalmost all will now grant)Essene Ebionism . Itis Ritschl ’snot improbable hypothesis that theEssenes , hating animal sacrifice, came over ingreat numbers to Christianity when Jesus ’ prediction of the fall of the temple had been fulfilled .

While they accepted Christianity,they remained

in many respects strongly Jewish . They began ,

1 Comp . Actsxxiv. 5 .

1 Recent crit icism holdsthese, apart from some glosses,t o b e pre

-Christ ian.

3 In an art icle of 1861 ; see L ife, i. p . 398.

66

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

like Pharisee Ebionites and unlike Nazarenes ,t o propagate their views among the GentileChurches of the West, and especially at Rome ;and they revived that hatred for Paul whichthe primitive Pharisaic Ebionites had displayed .

The Book of E lxai gives us one glimpse of themthe complicated pseudo-Clementine literatureaffords us fuller knowledge . Here we havereached Ritschl ’slast and deadliest retort onBaur. What Baur had regarded as a simplesurvival of the phenomena of the primitiveJerusalem church is shown to be a strangehybrid—a system equally heretical from thepoints of view Of Judaism and of Christianity .

It is probable that Ritschl has drawn too sharplythe line between Ebionites of the Old school andNazarenes . But his treatment of the EsseneEbionites is masterly .

There is no such fresh material when edition twoproceeds to discuss Gentile Christianity, yet theimprovements in handling are no less conspicuous .First of all, Ritschl now speaks of Catholicism asdeveloped not out of Paulinism but out Of averageprimitive Gentile Christianity—a thing compactedfrom fragments Of all Apostolic teachings, andful ly comprehending none . Here at last Ritschlbreaks with the statement of the problem im

posed On him by Baur and his friends . Onceagain, to employ a phrase of his own

,he dis

t inguishesmore carefully in order accurately tocombine .” At the same time

,we must not mis

67

THE THEOLOGY OF

understand the nature of t he improvement .The biographer holds that Ritschl was breaking through the narrow intellectualism of theTiib ingen school when he came t o recognize asthe basis Of Catholicism not Paulinism—a schemeof doctrine—but Gentile Christianity ; a thingof the life in all its breadth and manifoldness .But may we not hope that the Paulinism of theapostle was more than a scheme of doctrine ?And must we not affi rm that the averageGentile Christianity, out of which Catholicismsprang, fell as far short of the religious depth Of

St . Paul as of the accuracy or brilliancy of histhoughts ?More important than this statement is the explanation which immediately follows it . Primitive Gentile Christianity, even when in touchwith St . Paul, fell short of Paulinism ; and fellshort of the teaching of other apostles ; and ofthe true sense of Christ’s words—because , forlack Of schooling in the Old Testament

,Gentile

converts were unable to comprehend the Christianrevelation .

1 Here then, at last, we have agenuine answer to Newman and Ward . Christ ianity did not indeed start from ProtestantismIt started from imperfect half-apprehension of

1 pp . 282 , 303—4 , 331 . The second edit ion doesnot

repeat the former appeal to Quartodecimanism asexplainingthe extrusion of mild Judeo-Christ ianity from the CatholicChurch . Ritschl in 185 7 held t hat the Quart odeciman

cont roversy had nothing to do with a Jew-and-Gent iledivision of Christ ians.

68

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

those great thoughts of the New Testamentout of which eventually Protestantism sprang .

Meaning the very best, the early Church lostgrasp of much that was most precious in divinerevelation, and walked forward with bandagedeyes into t he darkness Of a new legalism . Oureyes are unbandaged ; let us keep them soIt will further be clear that Ritschl ’swork,

however brilliant and permanently valuable ,does not exhaust the historical explanation ofCatholicism . It constitutes only one instalmentof what we require . Weizsacker, Engelhardt,and notably Harnack 1 have built upon Ritschl ’sfoundations . The early Gentile Christians didnot understand their New Testament ; that is anegative statement . Their minds were warpedby Hellenic ideas ; that is the positive explanation added by Harnack . To -day, new issuesare opening up . Had later Judaism really nodistinctive influence on the original Christianity ?Are there not other foreign influences to be tracedin Catholicism besides the Hellenic ?The incapacity Of Gentile minds for learn

ing from Jesus or from His personal disciplesor from Paul is one of the bases of Ritschl ’slater and more strictly theological work . Thehistorian hands on results to the dogmatictheologian . An interesting question arises here .

Is it purely as an historian that Ritschl affi rms1 All three are named in thissense by the b iograph er ,

i. p . 293.

69

THE THEOLOGY OF

this Gentile incapacity ? Or is there a religiousjudgment behind the affirmation ?We may push our question further back .

When a Christian student investigates Christianorigins

,is he purely presuppositionless ? Ritschl

rather evades this issue . He held, we are told ,that absence Of presuppositions was a duty incritical work strictly so-called , but only there .

Both editions of t he E arly Catholic Church quoteWilh . von Humboldt to the effect that presuppositions are necessary and right in all historicalsurveys . One inclines t o think that this lastdebate might be compromised . Every singleresult reached helps the determination Of out

standing points—there are presuppositions Butalso

,honesty must b e prepared to surrender or

modify results if newly studied details cast afresh light upon the whole—No presuppositionabsolute ' Deeper questions seem to need adifferent answer . The religious mind has groundsOf its own—what Ritschl later calls value - judgments ” — for expecting and seeking historicalresults which will help religion . Of course , thistruth is pecul iarly liable t o abuse . And , in t heE arly Catholic Church, Ritschl seems to confinehimself to purely historical arguments . If hebelieves in the Christian intelligence of Christ’spersonal disciples

, he does not defend his beliefby the affirmation that he and they are alikeChristians , but by means of historical considerations . The recognition of a common principle

70

THE THEOLOGY OF

till late in the second century, and not verycomplete influence then .

1 85 2 . Letter t o K. I . Nit zsch before promotion .

Gospel and Apocalypse are both JOhannine185 7 . E arly Catholic Church, ed . 2 . High-watermark of conservatism in Ritschl ’sNew Testament criticism .

185 9—60 ( lectures). Possibility that all JOhanninewritings have one author . Grave difficultyin giving t he Apocalypse to John Zebedee .

1870 . The barely canonical Apocalypse Of

John,

”Justification, vol . i . ed . 1 , E . T . p . 5 31 .

(The whole passage is recast in ed . 2 , 1882 ;

and the phrase disappears .)1871 . Letter in the Life declares that that un

apostolic ” book , the Apocalypse , speaks ofpunitive justice ' ( ii . pp . 1 1 5

1874 . Justification, ii . The Apocalypse onlyseemst o speak of punitive justice—infra ,

chap . v. ; Acts a writing of secondarycharacter (p . produced pretty late

(pp . 293 Barnabas author of Hebrews,

Luke a “ Petrinist,”1 Peter written from

Babylon (p . 1 Timothy not by Paul

(p . authorship of Ephesians doubtful(pp . 2 1 2 , 242 , (all repeated in ed . 2 ;

doubt of Ephesians apparently strengthened ;see ed . 2 , p .

1878 ( letter). Luther and Calvin happily letalone t he two apocryphal books

,S ong

and Revelation.

72

1885 ( letter t o Holtzmann on his New TestamentI ntroduction). Has not lectured on the

subject for sixteen years . ” 1 Timothy, TitusS imilar in age and character t o t he Didachesome glosses later still . 2 Timothy may begenuine , but he is not yet clear on thepoint . ”

1886 . Vischer has found the egg of Columbus

(Harnack’s phrase ? Compare A . B . David

son in Theological Review and Free Church

CollegesQuarterly, Nov.

1 A Chronology of the Tub ingen School and of Ritschl ’sRelat ion t o it st andsin Appendix , not e B .

73

CHAPTER IV

HISTORY OF D OCTRINE , ES PECIALLYJUSTI FI CATI ON

, VOL . I .

L ife, vol . i. pp . 1 76, et c .

Ueber die Methode der alteren Dogmengeschichte. Jahrb .

fur deutsche Theol. , 1871 (Review of H .Nit zsch). Reprint edGesammelte Aufse tze, 1893.

Geschichtliche S tudien zur christlichen Lehre von Gott.Jahrb. fur deutsche Theol. , 1 865 , 1868. Reprint ed Ges.Aufsatze, Neue Folge, 1 896 .

D ie Christliche Lehre v. d. Rechtfertigung u. Versohnung,vol . 1. Die Geschichte der Lehre. 1870 ; 2nd ed . , revised ,

1 882 ; 3rd ed . (reprint ), 1 889 .

A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation. By Alb recht Ritschl . Translat edfrom the German with the author ’ssanct ion by John S .

Black , M.A . , 1872 .

AT as early a stage in his Bonn professorshipas technicalities permitted , Ritschl lectured onHistory of Doctrine ; it was a new subject inthe Bonn programme . Between 1 84 9 and 1860he gave these lectures six times in all . TheChurch ’s Dogma is the general theme . Threeperiods are distinguished, each ruled by a dogmaof its own , after a preliminary period has seenthe formation Of the (Early Catholic) Church .

The first period, strictly so-called, is dominatedby the doctrine of Christ’s Person , as union Of

74

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

God and Man . In the second period , introducedby Augustine

,the doctrine of t he Church is the

conscious centre Of everything . In t he Protestant period the dominant theme is faith andreligion . It is characteristic of Ritschl t o seekto light up details by great principles ; but theprinciples chosen would not fully commendthemselves to his later thought .We meet with a more developed stage of

Ritschl ’s thought when in 1 871 he reviewsH . Nit zsch ’sGrundriss, vol . i. —all that ever waspublished . By this time Ritschl has alreadyconcentrated himself on his special theme—thedoctrine of Atonement—and has published hishistorical volume . Before we allow ourselves toparticipate in this concentration of attention

,it

may b e helpful to summarize his review article .Even a summary will show us what Ritschlmight have aCcomplished had he worked outhis general views as fully as disciples Of his havedone . He is brilliantly original and suggestive

,

if something of a formalist .He reminds us that the History Of Dogma beganin a consciousness of the variations of theologicalbelief. The Schoolmen registered these variations in order to harmonize them ; the rationalistsof the eighteenth century, on the contrary, in thehope of discrediting dogma . Science must discard both sets of prejudices

,studying impartially

the movement of thought . Hitherto t he treatment had been anatomical rather than physio

75

THE THEOLOGY OF

logical . It had lost itself in detail , misled bythe authority Of the Protest ant loci as arranged ,under the influence of mediaeval tradition

,by

Melanchthon . Nit zsch had done something,but

by no means everything, towards supplying aremedy . In his outline of the patristic period ,he had rightly paid very special attention tothe doctrines of Christ and of the Church ; butthe other dogmas followed on in the old externalsequence . It was wrong, says Ritschl , to separate theology proper and cosmology in studyingthe early Greek-Church mind . Further, differentprimitive Christologies ought to be registered

,as

well as that Logos doctrine which in the endproved victorious . A complete table of ninesections is sketched (p . 1 5 4 of reprint).Nit zsch ’swise emphasis on the doctrine of the

Church is said to lose by being placed too earlyin history ; and the material is thought to bebadly arranged . In theory, Vincentius of Lerinum first formulates the rule of tradition ; inpractice Augustine , or hiseastern counterpartthe pseudo-D ionysius, for the first time places thesacramental conception in the centre of things .Henceforth the Church is all- important, untilthe Germanic nations ’ love of truth leads toconsciousness of the contradictions in Churchteaching

,and ultimately t o a Reformation in

which t he East cannot share .

The Middle Ages really begin with Augustineand pseudo-Dionysius . Protestantism had mis

76

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

understood Augustine,seeing in him purely the

forerunner of Luther . Ritschl is the last manto undervalue that S ide of Augustine . Hishistorical volume argues that the Reformationis due to full insistence on Augustine ’s principleof salvation by grace . But Augustine had otherelements in his thought, which made it impossiblefor him to anticipate Protestantism . He knew ofno assurance of salvation for the individual soul .Election was a hidden mystery . Sacramentsmust make salvation probable

,but could do

no more . Again, his banishment of Chiliasmand his identification of the Kingdom of God withthe Catholic Church made him the law-giver Of

the mediaeval West as pseudo-Dionysius was Ofthe East . We must further recognize that thesacramental significance Of baptism was definedearlier in time than that of the eucharist, wh ichlatter long continued to be a sacrifice ratherthan a sacrament . ” Baptism is t he very foundation of the Church , and the doctrine of baptismthe foundation for the dogma regarding t he

Church, though the latter assumes differentcolours as it confronts heathenism or Gnosticismor Jewish-Christianity. Moreover, the apostlesmust be viewed as representatives Of the firstgeneration of believers rather than as prolongingChrist’s authority a favourite thought withRitschl to the end . Another ful l table of contentsis sketched, p . 1 63 .

It only remained for Ritschl to deal with77

THE THEOLOGY OF

Nit zsch ’streatment of t he Pelagian controversy .

Misled by the customary grouping,Nit zsch

assigns this to the vanishing patristic age . Itreally introduces the mediwval period . Catholi

cism rested on a sort of counterpoise between law,

with its rewards , and sacramental (i . e. at thisstage almost exclusively baptismal) grace . The

fault of Pelagius lay in destroying the Church’sworking compromise . Augustine re-establishedit by grounding infant baptism on a doctrineof original sin . The later Middle Ages

,in

the West,developed Catholic Augustinianism

(A) sacramentally, especially in the doctrine Of

transubstantiation and the extremely importantnew sacrament Of p enance ; (B) in regard toChurch authority—the growing papacy ; (C)Church and State ; if, as Augustine taught, theState is the realm of sin, the Church must claimpredominance . Pseudo-Dionysius

,obeying his

church ’s instinct to concentrate on the cultus ,has something very different in the regions Of

(B) and (C).Isidore Of Seville in the West, John of Damascus

in the East, shape theology as a pure collection oftraditional materials . The living and progressivescholasticism of the later West has no Easternparallel . Even this higher scholasticism has itsroots in Augustine . It stands for the harmonyof faith and reason

,or perhaps rather for a

compromise between them ; in relation to theTrinity, Augustine himself sometimes calls for

78

THE THEOLOGY OF

Church doctrine of Atonement . Still, Ritschl

holds as firmly as ever that t he West has inter

pret ed the essence of Christianity more faithfullythan the East .The problem begins to be defined—all t oo unhappily—when Tertul lian and Cyprian requiresatisfaction from sinners put under Churchdiscipline

,and hold out t o the Church ’s children

a prospect Of acquiring merits . ” Not 1 for

centuries are these great traditional forms ofthought applied to the saving work of Christnot

,in fact, until the appearance of Anselm

’ s

Cur DeusHomo. By that treatise Anselm forcesa new doctrine upon the Church ’s list . He ismuch less successful in getting his view of thenew doctrine accepted by others .Ritschl repudiates the method of Baur—followed in essentials , he says , in Dorner

’sHistoryof P rotestant Theology—b y which two very thinthreads Of thought unloose themselves from theiroriginal connexion, and find it again in such away as to acquire a pecul iar strength .

” 1 Hisown method is very different ; yet the underlyingschematism even in Ritschl is simple . Anselmand Abelard furnish the two great historic typesof theory . The former interprets Christ’s workalmost exclusively in its bearing upon God ; thelatter mainly concentrates on the manwardeffect s . In the terms of Protestant dogmatic,

1 With possib leslight except ions.1 E . T. p . 1 6 ; ed. 2 , or 3, p . 27 .

80

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Anselm expounds Christ’s priestly offi ce , AbelardHis prOphet ic . It may b e fair to say that theReformers go with Anselm against Abelard ; butwe must realize how different their theory is .Or it might represent Ritschl more accuratelyif we said that the Reformers included bothelements—propitiation of God , reconciliation ofmen. Such at least is Ritsch l ’sown task . He isto strike out propitiation, and law in the senseof a code ; but he is to fulfil in detail the Pisgahvision of t he Reformers

,giving us a doctrine

moral but Objective . By way of criticism ,one

might note two doubts . Does Ritschl makesufficiently conspicuous the ever-recurring suggestion that Christ bore punishment ? May therenot be a doctrine of Christ ’s refashioning humannature in t he Passion—a doctrine which does notfit into any of Ritschl ’sready-made receptacles ?Anselm is characteristically mediaeval 1 whenhe represents the suffering and death of Christas required by God ’s injured personal honour,wronged by sin . On the other hand , God

’shonour requires that He should save at leastsome of mankind . Ritschl holds that Anselmis lacking in logic when he slips into speaking ofGod ’s “ justice as requiring propitiation . Thedemands Of honour are indefinite . Other thingsmight satisfy it 1 than those exacted by justice .

1 Ed . 2 , accept ing correct ion from Cremer, emphasizest hismore st rongly .

1 Repentance and confession ?G 81

THE THEOLOGY OF

In a further way Ritschl finds inconsistencybetween different parts of Anselm’s little treatise .When we speak of God ’s honour or glory

,God

appears in His supremacy towering over man’slittleness . But, when we speak of an infringement of God ’s rights

,it sounds like a suit for

damages between equals . Thus not even justicemeans with Anselm what it will later mean t othe Reformers . As Ritschl puts it, Anselm workswith the conception of private law. Person hasinjured person . Some reparation must b e made .

As man (Anselm convinces himself of this withremarkable celerity), Christ is qualified for paying compensation on account Of the injurydone by man ’s Sin ; as God in disguise, Hissufferings and the yielding up of His life arethings unsurpassably

,infinitely

,honorific .

1 Astill further irregularity is detected by Ritschl ’skeen eye when the closing chapters begin toSpeak of Christ ’s merit . A new point of view 'Hitherto we have heard of satisfaction . Now itappears that Christ ’s satisfying God ’s righteousclaims was concurrently a supremely meritoriousact ' But He was God, and stood personally inneed of no recompense . To whom could He sosuitably assign the fruits of His great enterpriseas to those of His human brethren who learn

1 Anselm never says, at least in Cur DeusHomo, that

Christ waspunished . He saysthat Christ’ssufferingswere

more honourab le to God than any punishment could havebeen.

82

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

from His teaching and imitate His virtue ?Anselm therefore applies both satisfaction andmerit to Christ’s saving work . Christ satisfiesGod ’s claims ; Christ merits on our behalf. Asyet, however, the connexion between Saviourand saved is far from being close-knit in theology . On Christ’s side , there is a transferable merit . On ours

,there is imitation Of

Christ .Abelard ’s central thought is not honour as

with Anselm , or penal justice as with Protestantism , but the biblical conception of love . Atleast four times over

,in different contexts , 1

Abelard quotes his favourite scripture, Greaterlove hath no man than this

,that a man lay down

his life for his friend .

” Such love evokes counterlove . Thus the moral theory is launched andstarted upon i tscareer . There is a casual orhesitating reference to Christ’s bearing punishment . There is incidental reference to Christ ’smerits . Nothing whatever is said about satisfaction rendered by Christ to God’s “ justiceor honour . ” Abelard ’s silence rules out orrej ects Anselm ’s suggestions . Abelard has , however—biblical once more -a reference to Christ’sintercession a block of Anselmism—of highertype, says Ritschl, than Anselm

’s own—in therival theory . Again, Abelard , as hostile asAnselm to the thought of ransom paid to the

1 Quot ed in Appendix to Moberly’sAtonement and

83

THE THEOLOGY OF

devil, l declares that the Elect were never inSatan’s power . This

,of course

,is extremely

grateful to Ritschl , and in two ways . Thedoctrine of Election always suggests to him theCommunity . Man is t o b e saved as one Of afellowship—not otherwise . Secondly, Ritschldoes not wish to discover anything remedial inthe work Of Christ . But, at the time , Abelard

’sviews roused Bernard to a furious reassertion ofthe decaying superstition which held that thedevil had been bought Off. The redeemed Of

the Lord surely were redeemed from the handOf the enemy ”

' It is not easy to decide howfar Abelard ’s scattered suggestions cohere . Hiscentral thought is gloriously Christian . Yet ,

has he—or has Ritschl—shown any reasonableethical necessity for Christ’s death ?In this weakness

,Abelard was typical of

average mediaeval thought . Peter Lombard putsAnselm ’s new doctrine upon the list ; but herepeats t he Old hints at solution along withAbelard ’s ; Anselm

’s he omits . The supremelygreat mediaeval master is rather more friendly .

In Thomas Aquinas Christ’s satisfaction and Hismerit are both recognized . They practicallyabsorb two biblical conceptions which Thomasalso names . Satisfaction is taken as t he meaningof redemption,

and merit ofsacrifice. Satisfaction

1 Moberly printsby inadvert ence part of a quotat ionfrom Origen, affirming that doct rine , asif it were Abelard ’sown.

84

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

seems to imply the necessity of Christ’swork ,

which Anselm had proclaimed ; but Thomascautiously falls back on t he view traditionalsince Augustine , that the method Of our salvation

,while congruous and fitting, was not the

only possible method . If the thought of satisfaction is thus weakened, it suffers still morefrom the competition of the thought of merit .Thomas tries to argue that Christ ’s merits areabsolute things , appealing to God de condigno.

Merit de congruo for Thomas is a minor logicalpossibility

,having little or nothing to do with

the scheme Of human salvation . Still , he admitsthe possible existence of such inferior degrees ofmerit . Similarly, if sin is in a sense an infiniteevil

,as committed against the infinite God , it

may also b e described as finite, since it is commit t ed by our finite selves .Duns , the great rival of Thomas , hews a plain

broad track through these hesitations . In threehighly obscure republished articles

,Ritschl ex

pounds mediaeval theology in the light Of theunderlying thought of God . First , there ist he pseudo-Dionysian conception of God as theopposite of the universe . This is purely negative . In itself, it is an empty Pantheism .

Secondly, superimposed on this and modifyingit, the Aristotelian conception views God asfollowing (positive) ends in the world . Butthese ends are only relatively necessary to God .

Even when mediaeval thought says something85

THE THEOLOGY OF

positive and something ethical about its God,

there is still an element of arbitrariness in theconception . Half latent in Thomas

,this element

becomes appallingly clear in Duns 1 and in thelater Nominalists .Sin is finite , and not infinite . Christ’s merit

,

too,is finite—availing for the finite number of

the Elect ; it is not infinite . There is no satisfaction in Christ’s work—only merit . In meritthere is no strict claim upon God, not even inthe merits of the Saviour. Merit ranks as suchbecause God wills it should . Had God so willed

,

Adam might have redeemed himself and hisposterity . Had God chosen to bestow initialgrace, each S inner might have been his own

deliverer . We have a divine Redeemer, it wouldseem , because God needlessly chose that weshould . Socinianism is ready to develop out ofthis phase of mediaeval orthodoxy at a singletouch . And Duns ’ frankness reveals the truedrift of the mediaeval mind . As Ritschl insists ,a doctrine Of the arbitrary election Of individualsto salvation or damnation suggests that capriceis supreme in God . It is even probable—Ritschlhas no doubt on the point—that Duns means toexplain moral right and moral wrong as due toGod ’s capricious choice . Anyhow, that would bethe final logic of mediaevalism .

Protestantism,therefore, is as much con

1 Ritschl half sympathizeswith Duns(in t he reject ionof satisfact ion ?)and thinkshim the ab lest mediaeval mind .

86

THE THEOLOGY OF

phase of Christianity qua subj ective experience .

Protestantism stands by Christ’s satisfaction .

Grace creates t he new system ; but in that newcovenant the cross produces a novel harmonybetween the impulses of divine love and therequirements of divine justice . TO Luther 1

Christ is as it were “ the only sinner as earlyas Calvin there are hints Of the monstrous yetnot illogical thesis , that Christ endured , thoughbriefly, the pains of hell .2 But, in the subjectiveregion, t he paradox of faith rings out clearly .

It is again known t o the Christian mind thatGod “ justifies the ungodly .

” 3 As Ritschl ex

presses it in Kantian language, the decree Of

justification is “ synthetic .

” He argues andquotes to Show that, in the primitive age ofProtestantism , justification was made to rankas prior to renewal . If at times during thatage justification and regeneration appear to besynonyms , Ritschl urges that we must interpretthe second by t he first, rather than hold thatjustification includes renewal . He thinks Prot est ant ism is deteriorating when the divinesentence comes 4 t o b e viewed as analyticthe believer is justified ' This part of Ritschl ’s

1 Quoted by McLeod Campb ell .1 McLeod Campb ell quot esthis, in plain words, from no

lessa man than John Owen. Ri tschl quot esQuenstedt .

Isit from P5 . cxvi. 3 ?1 Yet all th isisfound in Bernard ; see Ritschl , i. (ed .

1 1 4 .P4 Asearly asthe Scot t ish Halyburton.

88

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

work appealed strongly to Herrmann . He pointsout that Ritschl , whom his enemies called amere moralist

,vindicates the priority Of the

religious element in Christianity over all itsblessed moral influences.1

Yet there is a grave difficulty here . Protestantism seems t o split the religious life into twounconnected parallels . All that Puritanism cando is to warn us passionately that we must dist inguish justification from sanct ificat ion. Butwhat Of their connexion ? Is nothing to be said ,first or last, except that the two lie side by side ?Does Ritschl ’s“ ellipse ” really help us much ? 2

Protestantism soon began t o translate religions insight into formulated doctrine . Ritschl isconvinced that this had t o be done . The Churchcould not live permanently in the thin ether ofa first unanalysed joy . No one proved quiteequal t o the new task . Ritsch l urges upon HighLutheran bigotry that Melanchthon , whom HighLutheranism SO disparages , was the leadingdogmatist . It was he who first assigned extremeimportance to theological orthodoxy ; who firsthinted at that vulgar Protestantism which holdsthat Christ turned a God of anger into a God oflove ; who feared that too much of free gracemight produce immoral effects

,and therefore

reintroduced legalism ; who worked not with asystem but with a string of Loci

,drawing details

1 Die Religion, u.s.w . p . 1 4 .

1 Comp . supra , p . 1 0 ; infra ,p . 1 35 .

89

THE THEOLOGY OF

ever more and more largely from mediaevalsources .Still

,it was not the work of any one man to

create the Protestant scholasticism . That systemarose by normal process—b y the emergence ofheterodoxies

,and the consequent stiffening of

orthodox definitions . The first Reformers—inthis resembling Abelard—had all inclined tospeak of Christ’s life, or active Obedience, as wellas of His death . But the new doctrine receivedprecise formulation through the work of twoerrant spirits—A . Osiander the Lutheran

, J .

Piscator the Reformed .

”

Osiander spaced out doctrinally the conceptionof Atonement . There was a difference in timeas well as in meaning between Christ’s work forGod and His work for men . Christ ’s death hadalready reconciled God to us . Christ was nowwilling to bring the individual back to God ,by justification . But this justification Osiandertakes in the mediaeval and exegetically falsesense of an actual moral change . Christ makesus good If this is the main thing, the Catholictradition is right ' The paradox of religiousfaith may be lost again . Osiander’sfurtherassertions outrun not only Western but EasternCatholicism, though they recall the peculiaritiesof the latter . Christ “ justifies us ( in a Catholicsense)by making us share His eternal righteousness as Logos . Finally—with a return towardsProtestantism—our participation in this eternal

90

THE THEOLOGY OF

need of. forgiveness ; this was secured from thelaw by the double righteousness . We had needOf positive acceptance with God, which may b ethought to carry us beyond law, into a regionmore truly gracious . Christ ’s two Obediences“ in their conjunction 1 satisfy justice ; if wesubordinate passive to active, they constituteHis saving merit . ” 1 The assertion that Christwaspunished instead of usisnot a complete

doctrine of atonement . When Protestantism, inthe two confessions , had fully worked out itscentral doctrine , the result was so artificial thatit immediately began to crumble .A new note was sounded by Grotius , who ,seeking to defend against Socinus the Church ’sfaith in Christ’s satisfaction ,

” allowed himselft o alternate with t he conception of subst itut ionary punishment, remedying the past

,the

very different conception of penal example , safeguarding the future . Ritschl does not seem t o

realize with sufficient clearness how , both in Grotiusand in its later history , the Penal Example theoryof Atonement is a transitional phase of thought .While it seeks t o relieve the diffi culties Of orthodoxy, it is less than half-conscious Of beinganimated by a different view of punishment .Punishment is retribution, valuable for its ownsake if for nothing else . Fiat justitia, ruatcaelum Protestant orthodoxy so felt and spoke ,though it persuaded itself that punishment could

1 Ritschl ’ssummary .

9 2

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

be transferred—had been transferred in our caseto Christ . Grotius asserts an administrativerather than a legal necessity for atonement . The

maxim he is feeling after is S aluspopuli supremalea' . AS Caiaphas said before him, One manought to die for t he people . Or : Sin is liable t othe death penalty . But when it shall be exacted ,and when it may be remitted—these are questionsfor the wisdom of the ruler. He may relax law,

if he provides something morally effective as asubstitute for punishment . In the Christianscheme

,the death Of Christ is that Something .

1

Grotius half-consciously treated punishmentas a deterrent . The eighteenth century goesbeyond this . It almost everywhere treats punishment simply as remedial . In German Protestantism, a body of Lutheran divines seeks to bringtheology up to the level of the age ’s enlightenment . With various hair- splitting distinctions ,carefully registered by Ritsch l , various repre

sent at ivesof the Aufklarung take this that andthe other evil out of the schedule Of things whichwise men have cause to fear—Of things whicha kind God might W ish t o remove from Hischildren’s life ( say , by t he tragic expedient ofconcentrating them in the Passion of t he FirstBorn). Not so ' There should be no forgiveness ; that would mean loss of wholesomeChast enings. There is no very dark guilt any

1 I omit Ritschl ’sslight reference to the evasive formulaeof t he Arminian divines.

93

THE THEOLOGY OF

where . And there is no risk of final tragic miscarriage in the neat and well-regulated universeof a kindly and reasonable God .

Still,even in this phase of opinion, Ritschl

discovers a Christian element . The thought ofGod as Father is for the first time getting towork in the theology of the West . The agesupposes Divine Fatherhood to be a truth ofNatural Theology . The supposition is false .

Divine Fatherhood is the sacred essence ofChrist’s revelation ; not matter-Of-course, butwonderful . The meaning of being justified byfaith is supremely this trust in Fatherly providence . In support of his interpretation, Ritschlquotes early Protestant statements of doctrineand later hymns . The reality of advance in theeighteenth century is borne out by a furthercomparison . In old days , when men Challengedthe tyranny of penal law in theology, they contended that God was ewleaz. SO Duns taught

,and

after him the later Nominalists , and the Socinians ,and in measure the Arminians . God might if Heliked be unconditionally lenient . No one couldset bounds to His will . It is surely moreChristian to say, with the eighteenth century ,that God ’s loving goodness makesHim seekour welfare . The age believed that too lightly,on insuffi cient evidence . Yet the belief wastrue .

A great check to the levity of the age wasfurnished by the philosophy of Kant . He

9 4

THE THEOLOGY O F

been critically established .

” 1 This use ofKantian terminology is hard to understand .

With Kant, Criticism is a method, superior to t heagelong seesaw between Dogmatism and Scept icism .

2 That primary usage is recognized byRitschl himself ; Kant seeks to establish critically, i . e . with scientific strictness,” 3 the concep

tions Of moral freedom and guilt . If resul ts arereached with scientific strictness

,can any use

Of them be unduly dogmatic What Ritschlseems to mean is , that criticism discloses conscience and the moral nature as among the preconditionsOf the good life

,but affords no guarantee

that, isolated from God , Christ or the Church ,individual man is capable of moral victory .

The other great name at the watershed betweenthe centuries is Schleiermacher. According toRitschl ’sgrouping

,Schleiermacher revives Ab e

lardism .

”He had already said much the same

of two less celebrated men—TOllner, in the midstOf the Enlightenment

,and Tieftrunk, probably

the most important of that group of Kantiandivines who tried t o get into closer touch withessential Christianity . TOllner and Tieftrunkshare one great thought ; they may have reachedit independently . With the Older writer, itsparkles like a jewel in t he dust amid his ordinary

1 E . T . pp . 39 9 401 ; ed . 2 , or 3 , pp . 4 4 1 , 4 43.

1 Comp . PascalsPense'es.1 p . 387 or 4 29 . Justification, iii. p . 5 30 , E . T. , confuses

one st ill more . Comp . infra, pp . 185 - 6 .

9 6

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

ideas . What of guilt ? If Christ indeed freesus from punishment

,will not the problem Of

personal guilt still prove intolerable ? TOllner

can only suggest that,independently of delivering

from punishment,God by a deed of sovereign

power sets our guilt aside . That was at anyrate better than the teaching of TOllner’s halforthodox Opponents , who told him he ought tob e thankful if punishment were transferred fromhim to Christ, and that he need not troubleabout so shadowy a remainder as guilt . Tieftrunk with no great success tries t o reconstructatonement in terms Of law

,apart from the

anomaly of transferred punishment . He andothers of his group spoke much of the peculiarsignificance of guilt ; but the group producedsmall effect

,and in time disappeared . Does not

Ritschl say truly that they have left us the legacyat least of an urgent question ?TOllner and Tieftrunk were in a pretty literalsense Ab elardians. They conceived of Christ’swork almost exclusively as manifestation of theDivine, though perhaps they did not recapturethe deep biblical emphasis upon the manifestation of divine love which is so impressive inAbelard . Schleiermacher is less narrowly Abelardian. He does not find in Christ manifestation merely, but decisive historical communicationto disciples of a new attitude towards God . Suchemphasis does he lay on the novelty Of theChristian mind that he excludes the Old Testa

H 97

THE THEOLOGY OF

ment from the circle of what is Christian . Ritschlcriticizes Schleiermacher on both points , demanding ful l loyalty to the Old Testament , and givinghints of something more constructive than eitherAbelard or Schleiermacher displays .One of his own Chief positions Ritschl con

fessedly inherits from Schleiermacher . The doc

trine of the community, which Ritschl finds inthe fathers of the Reformation, is definitely andindependently formulated by the father Of moderntheology . Ritschl does not mainly appeal to theGlaubenslehre. He thinks this position receivesless than justice there . To make the individualProtestant Christian , unlike his Catholic brother,reach the Church through Christ is to strengthena dangerous prejudice . It is an early ethicaltreatise of Schl eiermacher’s on the Chief Goodwhich

,according to Ritschl , works out in masterly

fashion, and independently of the Reformers, thetruth that the supreme moral blessing can onlybe enjoyed in fellowship . Th is treatise mustalso have helped to ripen Ritschl ’sview of theKingdom of God as itself our supreme good .

A second conception for which Ritschl thanksSchleiermacher is that of Christ’s vocation.

Several writers champion this thought ; it mayhave been in the air ; but Schleiermacher

’sadvocacy was peculiarly important . The termis biblical ; but the Bible

,of course

,frames

no systems . Vocation is to supersede bothSatisfaction and Merit as referred to Christ .

98

THE THEOLOGY OF

comes when , sharing in this consciousness , wecease to view evils as penal or indeed as trul yevil at all . Ritschl has no room for any doctrineof Christ as immediately imparting new life .Redemption in this sense he will not admit ;and in any of its senses he thinks that we mayeasily exaggerate the importance of the metaphor.With him

,reconciliation stands first . In just ifi

cation,along with forgiveness and trust, we

accept God ’s aim and make it our own . Then,indeed

,evils cease t o look penal, and become

disciplinary . It would not be safe to treatthese discussions as mere questions of language .Through the differences in speech , differences inthought show themselves plainly .

It is an improvement in edition two that thechapter on the speculative philosophers is transferred from the last place to the second last .These philosophers make the attempt to interpret Atonement not in moral terms—as reconciliation Of the will —but in terms of pure thought .Atonement for them means the essential unityof the divine and the human . Ritschl thinksthis a mere aberration . Some adherents of theschool extract orthodox Trinitarianism from theirprinciples . Others , probably with better logic ,are more radical . Ritschl shows how largelySchelling anticipates the negative positions ofStrauss . With a malicious pleasure he tracesthe same tendencies of thought in the HighLutheran Kliefoth .

100

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Having disposed of this erratic school,the

later editions end with certain positive advancestraceable in the period after Schleiermacher .Ritschl complains , it is true, Of the immenseconfusion of our age . More ominous still, thePietist revival, far from orthodox though it wasin several points , gradually led to a completerepristination of Lutheran orthodoxy Suchcame to be the professed attitude of HighLutheranism , however largely infected withmodern theories Of kenosis . Extreme Calvinist ic orthodoxy, one may add , had never waveredin its acceptance of the post-Reformation subtleties which Evangelical Arminianism —i . e.

Methodism -brushed aside . The two confessionsagree in telling the modern world that not onejot or tittle is to pass from the Protestant Scholast icism . Elsewhere, however, in one point afteranother

, Ritschl sees the beginnings of a soundmoral doctrine of Atonement . Or at the leastthe modern Christian mind is seen groping aftersome such thing . Can Ritschl give the agewhat it plainly needs ? He believes he can .

1 01

CHAPTER V

B IBLICAL THEOLOGY, ESPECIALLYJUSTI FI CATI ON

,VOL . 11 .

THIS part of Ritschl ’swork occupies an almostparadoxical position . It is regarded by theauthor and by his son as the central stronghold . Hence it stands after the history ofdoctrine and before the positive theory, as thesupreme court of appeal ; we find the same threeparts similarly arranged in Schultz ’s GottheitChristi. Yet vol . ii . of Ritschl ’smagnum opusremains untranslated ; it is less circulated evenin Germany than vol . iii . ; and Prof. Otto Ritschlhasto make the admission that much of thedetailed exegesis failed to carry conviction .

Before we deal with vol . ii .—rather more ful lythan we should have cared to do

,had it been

accessible in translation—something must besaid about Ritschl ’searlier performances in thesame field, and upon his presuppositions .Ritschl stands upon t he whole for the assertionof harmony between different types of Bibleteaching. The master discovery of his career asa Bible student

,announced in edition two of

A . K . Kirche, dominates his work ever after102

THE THEOLOGY OF

and third to be in downright antagonism to eachother . Ritschl early stood aloof, and afterwardsrevolted . In this case the characteristic attitudegoes back as far as A . K . Kirche (ed . for in itRitschl already emphasized the agreements b etween S t . Paul and other apostles . In editiontwo and in the Justification this emphasis growsstronger .The English reader must not, however, supposethat Ritschl sees no diversities within Scripture .At times he will even blame a New Testamentwriter for not being equally sharpsight ed inreading his Old Testament . 1 Beck of Tiib ingen

was intolerable t o Ritschl , at least in youth , fromhis fault of mixing all the Bible in one bowl . ” 1

Ritschl is also perfectly aware of the divergenceof St . Paul from other writers of t he New Testament . Still, he stresses the agreements . Inhandling St . Paul he is helped by t he view hetakes of him as a dithyrambic 3 orator ratherthan a systematic thinker . Not without helpfrom this undervaluing of the logical kernel ofthe apostle ’s thought, Ritschl is able t o argue ,first, that Paul holds the same view of Christ ’ssacrifice, as ensuring access to God , which otherapostles teach ; secondly, that Paul is warranted

1 The Epist le to the Heb rewsisb lamed for mixing upprophet ic and legal doct rinesOf forgiveness—thingswhichought to b e st rict ly separated .

1 Life, vol . i. p . 87 .

1 Justification, vol . 11 . 37, p . 335 ed . 1 , 338 ed . 2 , 339 ed . 3.

104

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

in remodelling the sense Of the word just ification in order to check Pharisee error, whilethe Reformers are similarly warranted in usingSt . Paul ’s language as a weapon against Romanisterror ; thirdly, that Paul

’s view of the Mosaiclaw is unhistorical and apocryphal . We maywell question whether Pauline thought, howeverdithyrambic in its utterance, has not more Ofcompact texture than such an analysis will admit .The question of rejecting parts of St . Paul ’s

teaching is even graver . Ritschl is to be abiblical divine

,but he does not concede that

everything in the Bible binds us . What is theprinciple of selection ? His friend ThikOt ter

suggests that nothing in the New Testament isnormative unless it lies along the lines of OldTestament piety and doctrine . He instances thisvery doctrine of the law in St . Paul as clinchinghis point . Paul was Pharisaic rather than loyalto the Old Testament in that view ; thereforewe strike it out . The principle succeeds wellenough in that particular instance . But will italways work ? ThikOt t er

’sessay was read andapproved by Ritschl , but we cannot b e sure thathe endorsed every detail

,nor yet that he felt

bound to give authoritative ruling upon diffi

cult points .1 Paul had b een a Pharisee,and

On Ritsch l ’sown showing—repeatedly manifeststraces of Pharisaism

,even in more important

1 Did not Browning form a hab it of referring quest ionersto the Browning societ ies?

105

THE THEOLOGY OF

doctrines . Jesus was no Pharisee . He was noschoolman of any sort . And yet in regard t o theMaster, as well as in regard to His strange andgreat disciple , the question arises—Was He un

affected by His historical environment ? Can we

rigorously, in explaining Christ’s words , go back

over the whole of contemporary Judaism t o thedocum ents of the Old Testament ?The Old Testament has little to say to us abouta future life ; and Ritschl is among those whocut down the evidences of the first rise of thatgreat hope , by refusing t o discover personalimmortality anywhere in the beliefs of thePsalter . Between the Old Testament and theNew, the great hope had conquered the mindsof most Jews

,taking the form of the Pharisee

doctrine of resurrection . More than this : we findJesus teaching that “

the Kingdom Of God isat hand .

” Before Him,and after Him, Kingdom

Of God implies an eschatological transformation .

It may be right to discover deeper meanings inChrist’s doctrine of the Kingdom than belongto the phrase elsewhere ; it can hardly be rightto force the words of Jesus into sharp and unrelieved contrast with everything of their own

age . Similarly, Paul ine soteriology has t o be adoctrine of salvation for the immortal individual .The salvation of the tribe might be good andsufficient Old Testament doctrine ; the mercyOf the Lord is from everlasting to everlastingupon them that fear him , and his righteousness

106

THE THEOLOGY OF

tion, vol . further informs us that Ritschl hadbeen misled by Klaiber until after t he timewhen he wrote A . K . Kirche (ed . The same

footnote aflirmsthat Klaiber influenced Baur.A good deal more Characteristic of the Tiib ingenschool (one would suppose)is Schwegler

’sformula,according to which Paulinism is the immanentdialectic of Judaism itself—the dialectic development of the religion Of law into the religion offreedom .

” 1 Almost the same formula reappearsin Pfleiderer 1 Paul ’s doctrine of redemptionis a means of escape from the religion of law bythe use Of the very forms of the religion of law—and is denounced in Justification, vol . ii .3

The volume of 185 0 , however, Shows us Tiib ingeninfluence leading Ritschl to a highly orthodoxinterpretation of Paul . There is a harmony ofgrace and justice in the death of Christ

,a death

which He personally had not deserved . Thelaw asked for obedience or punishment . ”

Christ as tl amfigtov, or sin-Offering, is aSubstitute .

4 Still, neither the Tiib ingen schoolnor Ritschl was bound to accept St . Paul ’sauthority, and A . K . Kirche (ed . 1) summarizesthe Klaiber interpretation Of Romans vi.—viii . asa supplementary doctrine of atonement by which

1 Quot ed at p . 1 9 of A . K. Kirche, ed . 2 , from NachapostolischesZeitalter, i. pp . 1 5 5—6 .

1 Ritschl Cit esit from an art icle of 1872 in Hilgenfeld’s

Zeitschriflfur wissenschaftliche Theologie.

3 35 ; ed . 1 , p . 312 ; ed . 2 , p . 31 5 ; ed . 3 , p . 317.

4 pp . 85 , 86 (A . K. Kirche, ed .

108

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Paul relieved difficulties of which he couldnot but be conscious in the theology of penalsubstitution . This supplement, which Ritschl in1 85 0 calls with Baur a mystical ” doctrine ofpersonal and moral salvation through Christ,had its difficulties t oo ; the final result being that—still according t o the Ritschl Of 1 85 0—Paulyielded to the eschatological current, tacitlydiscredited both his penal and his mysticaldoctrines Of atonement, and threw the Christiansalvation into the future . This is a noteworthymodification of the orthodox interpretation ; andyet one would not have believed that Ritschlin print, too —had ever gone so far towardsaccepting the orthodox tradition . And he givesa place of dominating importance to Romans ii .13, harmonizing it 1 with iii . 20 in view of thefact that no one does actually keep the lawan interpretation which in later life Ritschlvehemently rejected .

Prof. Otto Ritschl has pointed out that theintroduction to vol . ii . of Justification containsprolegomena to Dogmatic rather than to BiblicalTheology . This ought to warn us against expecting too much in the way of system from vol . ii .Originally, Ritschl had hoped that a secondvolume might complete his task . Only the fearof unwieldiness led to a further division of his

1 A . K. Kirche, ed . 1 , p . 78. The view taken Of Paul inismin A . K. Kirche, ed . 2 , seemsto be purely t ransit ional .

109

THE THEOLOGY OF

materials . Hence vol . 11 . gives just so much ofbiblical discussion as may lead up to the constructive treatment .The introduction contains four sections . 1

dealing with Dogmatic or Positive Theology,repudiates Schleiermacher ’s view, that this centralpart of theology is to be a statement of theChurch ’s authoritative dogmas . Ritschl findsno historical warrant for Schleiermacher’s idea .

Theology aims at truth , not at reproducingaccepted views . Are we thrown back, then, uponthe subj ectivity Of each theologian ? No ' Thetheologian draws the contents of his system 2)from the Bible . Experience, whether in Hof

sor in Lipsius’ version of it, is an unsat is

factory basis for any system . But there is noneed to talk of an infallible Bible . Indeedwhile the authority of scripture is polemicallyabsolute

,the religious life itself is fed much more

by the teaching of the living Church than byscripture . Yet we must look t o the first generation of the Church—apostles and apostolic men ;men also who enjoyed a right understanding of theOld Testament presuppositions of the Gospel .These men of the first generation , in supplementto Christ and in due subordination to Him , havegiven us our norm in t he New Testament . True4) Biblical Theology will never absolutely

coincide,even if it were systematized , with

Dogmatic . Some views of some apostles areapocryphal . ” We cannot settle in advance

1 1 0

THE THEOLOGY OF

We take one more step forward ( in 7)whenwe note that Jesus connects forgiveness andsalvation not merely with Himself but withHis death . The Gospels furnish no materialsfor deciding how early Jesus began to givethis teaching . The two great synoptic passages

(Mark x . 4 5 , xiv . 22—25 , and their parallels)hadbeen set aside by Baur, and if admitted theyhad been explained away by Holsten . Ritschlsubmits very penetrating criticisms , especially ofthe latter . Both scholars , he thinks , were misledby undervaluing Mark . Since Mark ’s record isearly and trustworthy, how are we to interpretthese passages ? We are now taken back 8)for the first time directly to the Old Testamentand especially to its poets and prophets .Still, the primary point of departure is the rituallaw, with its sacrifices Offered for the community,not for individuals and with its confinement ofsacrifice t o sins Of ignorance .

” It is true thatwe read of certain special sacrifices , or even ofother means of propitiation, 1 when the covenanthas been definitely broken . But the prophetsshrink from dwelling upon such sacrifices lestthey should encourage superstition . They preferto teach a hope in God ’s mercy to the very uttermost, independently of sacrifice . Both versionsOf the law,

“ in the form in which we have them ,

”

have made room for the great thought of mercyto the uttermost—repentance , Of course , being

1e. g. the story of Phinehas, Num . xxv. 1 1 .

1 1 2

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

presupposed . When Jesus disentangles the hopeof salvation from external politics

, He cuts theground away from those who would interpretHis ransom death as a vicarious punishment .Have we not such language in Isa . liii . ? Mustnot that passage have affected t he mind ofJesus ? Do we not need to attach some morepositive value to the sufferings and death of

Christ than Ritschl has yet indicated , or willever be in a position to point out ? In 9 , withlaborious skill, he removes Isa . liii . out of hisway . It is argued that t he hymn referredoriginally t o some royal sufferer

,and (with

Ewald) that it was incorporated by the exilicprophet . If such considerations reduce theauthority Of the passage

,the scanty use made

Of it in the New Testament warns us afreshagainst overvaluing it . True

,Acts viii . 35 sug

gests to us that there wasa Jerusalem traditionwhich interpreted the passage of Christ’s death .

Yet Matt . viii . 17 proves that the tradition hadnot attained dogmatic definit eness. It was stillfelt legitimate to apply the words quite otherwise . The references to Isa . liii . in the passionnarratives Of Mark and Luke are set aside upongrounds of textual and historical criticism re

spect ively . John i . 29 (36)is also, not unreasonably, referred to the Christian Evangelist ratherthan to the historical Baptist . Ritschl contendsthat Jesus is more original—nay

,more of a “

re

vealer —if He arrived unaided at the thought ofI 1 13

THE THEOLOGY OF

a redeeming death . But, if any one likes , hemay b e permitted t o hold that Jesus was helpedby Isa . liii . —an unusual stretch of concessionfrom Ritschl . Only it is held that the opinioncannot be proved .

In 10 and 1 1 we are given a positive inter

pret at ion of Mark x . 4 5 . Three points have beensignalized 1 : ( 1)Ransom is paid t o God—comp .

PS . xlix .—not t o the devil . (2)Jesus does what

no man could do,whether for himself or for

others . (3)He,not personally liable to death ,

voluntarily surrenders His life to God (Job xxxiii .The passage

,therefore , deals with de

liverance from death,not from sin ; and Ritschl

rationalizes or modernizes 3 so far as to makedeliverance from death equivalent to deliverancefrom the fear Of death . The other great passage—the words at the Last Supper—Ritschl holdsover for treatment in chapter iii which discussest he whole New Testament doctrine of Christ ’s

sacrifice .ii . discusses Reconciliation and Forthe light of the biblical idea Of God .

”

It is one of Ritschl ’sfixed points that the thoughtof God controls to a great extent every theologyand every religion . If, like many mediaeval andsome post-reformation thinkers , we make t he

1 A. B . Bruce , Training of the Twelve, ed . 2 , 1877, pp .

286- 7.

1 DO these thoughtsform a coherent unity ?3 Yet comp. Heb . ii. 1 5 .

1 1 4

THE THEOLOGY OF

feature in God to regarding love in that way .

Edition two tells us 1 that t he thought of holinessis all but cancelled in the New Testament . Itsprimary meaning had been negative . It impliedthe dangerous reaction of God ’s presence uponcreaturely weakness . I f it stands high in the OldTestament, that is because the law—we alwaysfind Ritschl treating t he law as basal—CO

ordinates ritual uncleannesses or Offences withtrue sins . Edition two , while largely swayed atthis point by Baudissin

,complains that the latter

has not recognized an occasional higher view Of

holiness , in which the conception becomes positive . Just because He is the holy One

, God

pledges salvation to His people .

1 In speakingof God ’s attribute of love (towards the com

munity of the redeemed), Ritschl characterist ically warns us against mixing in the thoughtof our love towards God . Whoever reallyloves God either says nothing about it or speaksin indirect

,reserved

,allusive fashion .

” 3

Next we have two sections 1 4 and 1 5

dealing exclusively with the attribute of righteousness, one in the Old Testament and one in

Vthe New . We learn that there is no such thingx' as punitive justice in the Bible The very basisOf a penal theory Of atonement is thus destroyed ;one may sympathize with the result rather than

1 p . 101 .

1 One m ight quote insupport of thisPs. xxu. 3.

3 13 ; p . 97 ed . 1 , p . 100 ed . 2 , ib. ed . 3.

1 1 6

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

with the process . It is qua Judge not qua

Righteous one that God in the Old Testamentis said to punish . The stems are different inHebrew,

and Ritschl , following Diestel, insiststhat the two underlying ideas are equally distinct from each other . Positively, Divine righteousnessthroughout the Bible means the systematic way in which God pursues His plan of savingHis chosen ones 1 PS . lxix . 27 is tellinglyquoted . If God righteously deals judgmentto the wicked, we are asked to infer that theprocedure is righteous as clearing the wayfor the final salvation of the good . In Romansiii . 3

, 5 amatootvn and a tom; 68m“

; are treatedas synonymous . ” A characteristic warning isdropped from the later editions Anyone whoexcuses himself from hard work at the theologyof the Old Testament is unfit to expound theNew .

” 1 Even St . Paul thinks biblically ofrighteousness . Even the Apocalypse 3 makesonly a seeming use Of the conception of penaljustice . We ought not to speak of penal justiceat all, but Of divine anger or—in JacobeanEnglish—wrath . The five Closing sections Of

chap . ii . give a résumé Of Ritschl ’sviews regardingthis attribute—if for convenience we may so

1 Thismust be at least part of the t ruth .

1 Ed . 1 , end of paragraph on p . 1 173 SO al l edit ionsOf Justification, inspit e of the opposite view

found in a let t er of 1871 ; Life, ii. pp . 1 1 5—1 6 ; comp . supra,p . 72 .

1 17

THE THEOLOGY OF

describe it—views already published to the worldin a Latin programme Of 185 9 .

The anxiety of the Greek-Christian mind forescape from unworthy anthropopathisms was responsible for transforming the metaphor of wrathinto t he fiction of penal justice . Ritschl furthercriticizes t he favourite modern sentimental ”

view started by Dippel, that wrath is a phaseof j ealous love ; and he demolishes the semimaterialism of Weber . The idea of divine wrathgrew out of sudden calamities overwhelmingapostates , who in perishing forfeited not merelythe natural blessing Of life , but fellowship withGod . Secondly, wrath was extended t o coverGod ’s dealings with foreign nations who setthemselves against His purpose of mercy towardsHis own . A still further modification ariseswhen the mere purpose to launch acts of judgmentis spoken of as wrath but if we look closerwe realize that a purpose to act is quite normallyso described . Breach of the covenant , then ,makes God angry ; and later prophets give asystematic picture of a day of judgment overtaking ( 1)disloyal Israelites , (2)foreign foes . Onthe other hand

, God is never said to be angrywith Adam

,or with Adam’s posterity merely as

such . In t he Psalms 1 8) even such habitualthings as persecution by foreign oppressors arereferred to divine anger . In this way righteousmen come to fear its touch . But the ground oftheir fears is sympathy with their nation, and at

1 18

THE THEOLOGY OF

he insists on finding that eschatological sensein all the great New Testament passages . At1 Thess . ii . 1 6 , it is intimated that God will

deal effectively with persecuting Jews ; atRomans i . 18, He will Show His wrath againstthe monstrous Gentile vices ; at Eph . ii . sinapart from grace is destined to ripen into astate calling for destruction . We are to dist inguish 21) Paul

’s certainty from a nonChristian point of view,

according to whichwrath is destined for all, from what Ritschlregards as Paul ’s higher Christian certaintyGod ’s grace must triumph

,making even sin

(and the increase of sin under law) a means tothe fulfilment Of the gracious purpose . Nor doesRomans v . connect the universal doom of death ,inh erited from Adam ,

with divine wrath . Evenfor Paul, only rej ection of Christ (2 Cor . ii . 1 5 , 1 6)seals t he threat of wrath against those who haveheard the Gospel . So far from penal justicebeing administered, those who suffer at the greatday are put out of existence .

” What have weto do with explaining such action ? Salvation iswhat we understand , what we live by ' For Christians , who dare not explain special calamities bydivine anger, the latter thought has no religiousvalue at all, but is a homeless and shapelesstheologumenon.

” If it is urged that Jesus onthe cross felt the wrath of God—He spoke ( likethe psalmists He is said to have quoted) hypo

1 More credib ly , perhaps1 20

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

thetically or—more impressively, perhapsHe who calls upon God as his God is not farfrom God nor God from him .

” Edition one added ,Though we can understand how suffering mustforce that dreadful doubt upon the torturedsp two suppresses the admission .

deals with the interpretation ofth Christ as a sacrifice for sin . Aftersome remarks 22)on Paul, and a postulate (onecannot say, a proof)that forgiveness in the NewTestament is everywhere referred t o the Christiancommunity rather than to the individual

, Ritschlgoes on t o trace t he thought of Christ ’s sacrificialdeath through the New Testament except inJames and Jude ,

” and to insist against RichardSchmidt that in this thought—and not in Rom . vi.

with its exceptional doctrine of salvation—havewe t he clue t o St . Paul . It is natural that thethought of Christ’s sacrifice shoul d so pervade

t he New Testament if, as the Gospels assure us,Christ gave it currency . How should Paul differfrom his Master ? Or from the first disciples ?Why else emphasize blood in a death , likecrucifixion, produced by the slow torture Of painand not literally by blood-shedding ? The Epistlet o the Hebrews emphasizes priesthood

,and

priesthood implies sacrifice . If tl aomigtov (Rom .

iii . 25 ) is now taken as meaning mercy seat,

”

was not that sacred obj ect sprinkled with sacrificial blood ? The vagueness of John xvii . 1 9

suggests later reflection . In all this emphasis v

1 21

THE THEOLOGY OF

upon sacrifice the New Testament utters not onehint of penal substitution ; fbnég is not o

’

wu’

.

In 23 New Testament references t o the covenant sacrifice

,the sin-Offering, and the Passover

are dealt with . In 24 the author seems tolose himself in archaeology, as he inquires whatpartsof the sacrificial ritual are emphasized .

From 25 we are expected to carry away con

clusions: the Old Testament knows nothing ofpenal substitution, or of appeasing divine anger,or of covering sin from God ’s sight . Sacrificeis designed to protect creaturely weakness in thedivine presence . Expiation is a heathen thought,not a biblical . There is some very violentexegesis (e. g. of 1 Sam . iii . 1 4 , where we are notto b e allowed to suppose that sacrifice is contemplated for grave sins). Positively

,sacrifice in

the Old Testament means safe approach to God .

The same view is verified without difficulty 26)in the maj ority Of New Testament writers ,although the rather significant admission is madethat we cannot with certainty trace in the NewTestament the thought of God ’s physical dangerousness. —What

,then

,does sacrificial approach

mean —Paul 27)must be S imilarly interpreted .

We must abstain from any reading of his thoughtswhich would imply penal substitution .

’

Anol r5‘

t gco0 tg

has come just t o mean deliverance . But sacrificial doctrine is assuredly present . Even when ,by a novelty

,Paul speaks Of reconciliation ,

”

there is no reconciliation of God ; and the change

122

THE THEOLOGY OF

Chapter iv. discusses Righteousness as anattribute of Believers . ” It follows a S imilarmethod to that so successful in chapter i . Broadgeneral truths are first stated ; then followmore special affirmations . This chapter accordingly begins with po ints common to all NewTestament writers , and introduces pecul iarities inSt . Paul ’s language or thought as legitimate andinconsiderable modifications . First, 30 characterist ically goes back to the Old Testament,

” andstudies its “ idea of human righteousness . ” Lawmay be more concerned with holiness thanwith righteousness , but the religious lyrics ofthe Old Testament ” have the finest possibleview ofhuman goodness

,whatever their national

limitations . ” The prOphet ic development ofthe law —edition two modifies the phrase, butinsists that our Lord

,like the men of His age ,

must have viewed the law as literally Mosaicand as earlier than all the prophets—gives thisgreat teaching . Even Jer . xxxiii . 1 6 is inter

preted of active human goodness . Many atleast of the Old Testament repudiations ofsacrifice are aimed merely at superstitious trustin the opusoperatum.

The Active Righteousness of the Kingdom ofGod, in the teaching of Jesus , is the subject Of31 . Edition one already suggests that hypo

crisy in the Sermon on the Mount does notmean deliberate imposture

,but placing ceremony

and conduct on one level . Presumably edition1 24

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

two means t o repeat the same thought wheninstead of hypocrites it renders actors —asSeeley did in E cce Homo.

32 follows the same usage of Righteousness through the New Testament ep istles ,noting many examples in St . Paul . We are toldthat New Testament writers—Paul and othersconsciously distinguish righteousness (as a thingof deeds, directed towards men) from self-consecration (shaping habitsin the presence of God).Ritschl thinks this a most significant piece ofNew Testament theology . When later epistlesbegin t o speak of good works

,

”Ritschl is less

favourably impressed .

Why 33) did not the fine insight of theapostles retain the whole point of view of Jesus ?Partly, the eschatological habit of thought displaced the ethical doctrine Of the Kingdom Of

God . Partly, the practical task of developinglove within the little Churches made the Churchleaders almost oblivious of the worldwide task ,and of the heroic duty to love one ’s enemies .Yet Ritschl finds within the New Testament all V

the elements—he can hardly mean that he findsthe crystallization—Of his own doctrine about theorganized Church, as a thing of this world ,

”

in contrast with that ethical co-operation inwhich the Kingdom of God is producedby Christian love .

34 . Why did St . Paul introduce the'

new V

conception of righteousness by faith ? Con A

1 25

V

THE THEOLOGY OF

sciously , deliberately, exclusively, in order tokeep outside the Christian Church t he Phariseefalsification of religion . Al l were in agreementthat righteousness must be completed by God ’srecognition and acceptance of it . Paul proposesa righteousness which consists in divine acceptance and in nothing besides Elsewhere 1 Ritschladds a further point . Because the Phariseeslooked eagerly t o a future day of judgment

,

Paul teaches justification in t he past, when theelect Church was accepted along with its risenLord . Paul might have reasoned more effec

t ively1 if he had availed himself of the dis

tinction between righteousness and consecration . Ritschl thinks that t he Epistle to theHebrews practically does this .While treating the Paul ine peculiarities asconscious strategy, Ritschl Often diverges intomore credible reports of the facts . He is wellaware how much of the Pharisee there is in theintellect of Paul . In 35 we study Paul ’sconception of the Mosaic law .

” It is no satisfactory reproduction of Pauline thoughts to saythat, if only man had not sinned , his own legalrighteousness would have saved him The truthis, Paul has two inconsistent views of the OldTestament law

,which go back to two different

sets Of experiences in his Jewish days . Editionthree insists that self-righteousness

,or blame

1 p . 329 ed . 1 , 332 ed . 2 , 333 ed . 3, in 37 .

1 Ed . 2 contentsitself with saying effect ively .

1 26

THE THEOLOGY OF

is far from being a fantasy or self-deception onthe part of God .

” Yet statements of a differentnature are made stronger than ever beforeThose in fellowship with Christ are not righteousin the judgment Of any other than God .

” Editionone had defined the Pharisee error as a confusion of elements in the religious life which theOld Testament careful ly distinguishes . ” Ritschlimpresses one more favourably when he insistsin all editions- on t he harmony between thePauline thought of justification and the generalNew Testament doctrine of acceptance throughChrist’s sacrifice .

37 deals with Christian blessings supplemen

tary to justification . St . Paul is still in view .

The theory of a divine gift of active goodness is apietistic counterpoise to misunderstood Lutheranism .

” 1 Least of all could St . Paul use righteousness in a double-barrelled sense, meaning

( in t he same breath) an imputed and also animparted righteousness . Yet it seems t o be

“ admitted that he alternatesthe meanings . Thereal benefit of justification is peace 1 with God

,

hope,eternal life . Or the real benefit of justi

ficat ion is glorying in sorrow—is faith in God ’sfatherly providence . Taught by the Reformers ,Ritschl has discovered this at last in the New

1 One supposesthat the theory of the Christ ian com

munity and the principlesof Christ ian ethicsare to passfor the whole t ruth in that direct ion.

1 Sub ject ive feelingsof peace b eing rigorously excluded

1 28

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Testament . The gift of t he Spirit, we are told ,is not connected with justification in any fashionby St . Paul . That problem remains fortheology .

1

38 expounds the sense in which the NewTestament recognizes a dependence of the stateof justification upon active human goodness . ”

The Epistle of James , outside the polemicalpassage in ch apter ii .—Ritschl does not admit( later than 185 0)that the polemic is aimed againstPaul—exhibits very striking recognition of grace .1 Peter is manifestly at home in the thought ofgrace, of hope , of self-consecration, but it doesnot dwell upon this problem of righteous acts .Paul touches on it comparatively slightly . But

unlike Luther, Paul teaches no habitualimperfection in the Christian . In a sense , hesees every Christian as perfect in his callingqualitatively

,not quantitatively . This Obscure

doctrine of qualitative perfection is named asa reason why the problem was prevented fromClearly shaping itself for St . Paul .In 1 John alone 4 0)do we find ( 1)recogni

tion of habitual moral imperfection in Christians ,and—connected with this realism in moral judgment a demand that only those who live inrighteousness shall be suffered to enj oy theblessings of redemption . This recalls Jesus ’

1 One assumesit isto b e solved by the doct rine of the

community taken along with the cont rast between the

religiousand the ethical .K 1 29

ALBRECHT’

RITSCHL

teaching on forgiveness . Yet John is far frombreaking with optimism . Leibnitz might wellrevive it In doing so, he set a further problemto theology ; such is the conclusion of edition one .Edition two strikes a rather different note .On ethical problems the New Testament is notso entirely normative as upon questions offaith .

Ritschl has been allowed to speak for himselfat some length . At the end of his biblicotheological survey he leaves us less than everclear regarding the question of authority . Andhis attempt to exhibit harmony where he doesrecognize authoritative teachings may seem to usnot infrequently masterful rather than masterly .

1 30

THE THEOLOGY OF

t o find a remedy for the Protestant perplexityregarding the assurance of salvation . Is itlogical, to bid us discover defects in all our worksin order that we may rest upon God ’s grace

,and

yet to insist that we must have good works tosubmit lest we be moral impostors ? Ritsch lperceives the mischief clearly, 1 and is confident ofhaving found a remedy .

The Atonement 1 is the central doctrine Of

Christianity,

” and its statement requires analmost complete outline of systematic theology .

”

It is St . Paul , therefore, who defines the centraldoctrine ; justification ( instead of forgiveness)andreconciliation are his terminology . True , theKingdom Of God counts for a great deal in thisvolume

,and for little with St . Paul ; neverthe

less,St . Paul is mainly followed . But Ritschl

keeps nearer biblical usage than English theologydoes , when it talks of the Atonement as asynonym for t he work Of Christ .Vol . iii . renews the effort of vol . 11 . to construct

prolegomena for dogmatic . The result is againdisappointing . If one ventured to sum up induct ively Ritschl

’sdeterminant thoughts , something like the following would result .

1 p . 164 of the t ranslat ion.—The b iographer givespret ty

full reportsof the successive coursesof Dogmat ic lectures,in which Ri tschl workshisway from an early dogmat ic half

orthodoxy to the charact erist ic posit ionsof later years. The

summarized courseson Theolog ical E thic make even lessappeal to Brit ish readers.

1 Comp. Prefaces.1 32

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

First,immense importance attaches t o the

doctrine of the community . Clear and fullbiblical authority is claimed for it, and clear andful l authority in the usage of the Reformers .Conversely

,the qrpc

'

br ov IpeGSog of Socinianismwhich Ritschl condemns as heartily as any otherevangelical—is its neglect Of the worshippingfellowship ; the Church sinks into a school 'Again , neglect Of t he thought Of the Com

munity is what makes chap . ii . of St . James sounfit t ed to afford guidance in dogmatics . 1

of the Introduction to our volume does namethis great thought ; but Ritschl , almost isolatedamong Protestants in demanding that the centraldoctrine be stated in terms of t he Church as such ,ought to have used more emphasis .Secondly, light is to b e thrown on the mystery

of atonement by distinguishing two stages in sin .

This also has its biblical grounds . Earlier theology—particularly in dealing with atonement—iscensured for making no use of it .Thirdly

,theology must be rul ed by teleological

concepts . Schleiermacher noted this as involvedin Christianity , but, according to Ritschl , failedt o do justice to his discovery

,relapsing into a

kind of pantheistic naturalism . The teleologicalprinciple will make theology truly ethical andtruly religious .Fourthly ; the relation between theology andreligious experience is discussed only in casualreferences . If theology is a scientific account Of

1 33

THE THEOLOGY OF

spiritual truth, with which side are its affinitiesCloser ? With science , or with edificat ion ? Bytemperament

,but also by conviction

, Ritschlpronounces for the former . Theology is notdevotion ; as a science , rather, it is disinterestedcognition .

” 1 Negatively he implies the sameview when he rebukes Hofmann for distrustingthought . 1 But there is some obscurity . In discussing the Reformers

,vol . i . insists on a dist inc

tion between immediate religious experience,

which has an intuition of Christ as a presentSaviour

,and the doctrinal reflexion which must

insert time - links (notably, one concludes , thatgreat link the community)between the historicalJesus and the spiritual needs of the modernbeliever . It is hard to harmonize this with apassage in the later volume ; 1 t he redeemedones may

,as their ideas take a temporal form

,

have the impression of a Change from divinewrath to divine mercy but the differencebetween our individual religious thinking

,and

the form of theological cognition sub specie( eternitatis, should never be forgotten God

always loved the heirs of salvation ' Whichdwells in the eternal—experience, or theology ?Fifthly, unity and system appear to be necessary equally to theology and to the religious life .

In the case of theology , this demand helps toexplain the hard arrogance of Ritschl . His

1 i ii . t r. p . 213.

1 i. t r. pp . 5 40, 5 4 1 .

3 iii. t r. pp. 323, 325 .

1 34

THE THEOLOGY OF

to God ; religion to God, not to men . Love t oGod and to men are two separate and distinctqualities . 1 We are blessed not only in fellowship with God, but also in fellowship with all theblessed . For the former we have only God tothank ; the latter we produce through our personal contribution to the common weal of theKingdom of God .

” 1 Thomas Aquinas may havebeen right in teaching that love to God justifies ,if he woul d only refrain from adulterating it withlove t o men .

3 The moral necessity that faithshoul d work by love follows from the fact thatthe same God both guarantees reconciliation andfreedom from the world , and bestows the impulseto help in realizing the divine kingdom .

” 4

One might state as follows —Our modern habitis to lay great stress upon goodness . We regardit as a unity

,however variously manifested . If

faith is distinct from works , it is still morally good,and good in an intenser degree . This may notbe the ful l truth ' It may be wise to alternate other representations

,which exclude the

remotest danger of legalism . But to our formul a—Or t o something like it—modern evangelicalthought returns, with a sense of home-coming.

J Ritschl will not have it ' Goodness means twoirreducible things bound together : a and b

morality plusreligion ; love to God pluslove toman . This belief is one reason for Ritschl ’sex

1 iii. t r. p. 105 .

2p. 669 .

3 pp . 103—4 .

4 p . 5 22 (not Ritsch l’sital ics).

1 36

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

treme dislike to mysticism .

1 If for a moment oneceases to assert t he free independent activity ofthe individual (of course within the community)—we are destroying morality . Others mightonce more aim at alternating representations .Assuredly there is danger in mysticism ; but isthere not danger in moralism ? The same beliefexplains the unexpected form in which Ritschlcriticizes t he Roman Catholic position . It isCatholic doctrine t o view Christianity firstand foremost as the form of a moral direction ofthe will

,set in opposition to sin .

” Protestantism represents it first and foremost as the truereligion . But Christianity is primarilyreligion .

” 1 A curiously scholastic way Of

stating the caseSeventhly, we know that Ritschl declines to

mark out the limits of Bible authority .

3 Is notthe upshot of his treatment that he sees hardlymore than two sets of teachings in scripture :authoritative fragments of one great system , and—aberrations ? While hailing the authority ofJesus as superior to St . Paul ’s , 4 he accepts thelatter’ s theological terminology ; and yet teaching in Rom . xi . 5 is condemned ; in Rom . v . ;

6 in1 Timothy (a

“ pseudonymous epistle).7 Ritschl

in youth had been offended by Neander’s evasive

1 Another reason ishisdread that the h istorical Christmay be superseded.

1 i i i . t r. pp. 80 3 Supra, pp . 1 1 0, 1 1 1 .

4 iii. tr. p . 313.

5 p . 4 5 9 .3 p . 366 .

7 p . 131 .

137

THE THEOLOGY OF

handling of different New Testament teachings,

as all harmonious in the end . Is there not room,

is there not need, for some alternating pointsof view ? If Neander wrongly exaggerated

,has

not Ritschl wrongly denied ?

We have tarried too long over the introductionto the volume, or rather over our own view Of

how it might have been Shaped . It is time tosummarize the contents of the system . Happilythis volume is translated, and we may be brief.There are four parts : (A) The Conceptionof Justification and its Relations (B) ThePresuppositions (C) The Proof (D) The

Consequences .” Brief titles to each of the ninechapters and of the sixty-eight sections are theonly help given us in following a very complextrain of thought . Plainly, Ritschl

’sscheme lendsitself to repetitions . Nor does the meaning ofhis titles always declare itself. The titles ofthree sections ( 10—1 2) dealing with forgivenessexhibit no clear progress of thought ; when one

compares title and substance, one feels even moreperplexity . The themes Of 5 2 and 5 4 arealmost verbally identical . Nor will the readereasily guess that 1 4 Forgiveness of sins , asa negative Operation, distinguished from just ification as a positive - warns us against drawingthe distinction ; or that 17 Justification as ajudicial act of God —concludes that judicialis quite the wrong word to use ; God forgives asRuler, and still more 1 8)asather .

138

THE THEOLOGY OF

He was always fatherly towards the chosen community ; but of us to God . Ceasing to distrustHim

,we also accept His master-purpose—the

setting up of His kingdom upon earth—as ourown.

At this point,then, Ritschl seems to qualify

the absoluteness of the Old Protestant dualism .

He is a champion of the theology Of bothand 1 but he allows a certain contamination of what Protestant orthodoxy called theforensic by what Protestant orthodoxy calledthe physical . ” The contamination is slight ; 1

the new goodness , Of course , is Godward, notmanward . But the tinge of colour is there . Itis unexpected . One is not sure that it is permissible .

The closing section ( 1 6) insists that just ification is Synthetic . ” 3 The sinner is justified ;not, The believer is justified . Further

,the divine

sentence is an assertion of will . God chooses toregard sinners as just—an interpretation pregnantwith consequences .Chapter ii . adds The General Relat ions of

Justification —a further specimen of characterist ic phraseology . 1 7, Justification is not reallyjudicial , but a fatherly act of adoption .

If faith is its condition,the community

comes to our rescue ; it believed, before we hadany being ; we may share its treasure of divine

1 1 iii. t r. p . 79 (end ofa

1 40

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

forgiveness . And faith contains something oflove—towards God . The last three sections ofthe chapter are rearranged in edition two (andsubsequently). The title of 22

, Justificationreferred to the Community and to the Individualin it,

” goes up to 20 20,Freedom of Believers

from the Law,

” is renumbered 21 ; and 21 ,

Particularity or Universality of the divinepurpose of justification ,

” is renumbered 22 . Insubstance the new 20 seems to be fresh material21 is practically or entirely the Old 20 ; andthe new 22 contains 21 and 22 of the first editionwith some omissions . We lose the statement 1

that t he winning of Mohammedan nations forChristianity is all the more improbable , inasmuchas Islam excludes the GraeCO-Roman aestheticand legal forms of human culture . ” Anothersneer at missions is also struck out . But latereditions still refer to t he pietistic desirefor individual conversions and condemnation ofmediaeval mass methods . Edition one had addedthe remark that history was against t he Pietists .They employ after the event the same violenceupon history which they resent in the conversionOf t he European peoples to Christianity ; unfortunately, with less result 1 Later editionsalso drop a passage in which Ritschl 3 had philoso

phized on seeds , like Butler or like Tennyson .

Experience teaches us in nature, that manyorganic germs and ill-developed fruits perish

1 Ed . i , p . 1 13.

1 p . 1 13, lower.

3 p . 1 1 5 .

1 4 1

J

THE THEOLOGY OF

without the quality of the species being affected ;further

,that individual organisms, plant or

animal,may live on though lacking certain parts .

Similarly,nations may persist in their historical

and ethical significance , even though part of theirpopul ation refuse their tasks and forfeit theirprospects . ” This parallel may suggest anxiousquestions of theodicy and , indeed, thedestruction of our kindred affects us very muchmore than a tree is affected by the fall Of unripened fruits . ” But the logical inference stands

SO careful of the type he seems;So carelessof the single l ife.

Chapter iii . The Subj ective Aspect of

Justification considered in detail discussesfaith and assurance . Roman Catholic ant ago

nism to the latter is only half-hearted . Ritschlquotes to show how that Church employs doubleweights and measures . Lutheranism used tocommand assurance . The Reformed (and manyLutheran books of devotion)put it on a syllogismWhoever believes is saved . But I believe .

”

Later scholastic Protestantism introduced theBusskampf—nearly equivalent to the Old Scottishlaw work —as a normal if not necessaryantecedent to religious peace . Al l are wrong 'If we understood first the thought of the Community, secondly the identity between savingfaith and faith in God ’s fatherly providence

,the

problem would disappear or solve itself. He who1 42

THE THEOLOGY OF

t ively invert his meaning if we supposed that aready-made doctrine of sin was presupposed inhis doctrine of Atonement . The fact of sin ispresupposed ; but Ritschl , here as ever, insiststhat grace is 4 0) the standard of the Christianidea of sin .

” Instead Of speaking of original Sin,

we may more fit ly speak Of the kingdom of

Sin 4 1)—due to the immeasurable interactionsand consequences Of individual wrongdoing ; aposition borrowed from Schl eiermacher 1 Theequation between Evil and divine Punishment 4 2) is unwarranted , partly becausethings formerly penal may be transformed if theyfunction as healing chastisements . Sin mayb e forgiven 4 3) at a lower stage . There is atendency with some mediaeval theologians—andRitschl responds warmly—to regard the electas God ’s all along, not needing any miracle Of

redemption ; while assuredly, for Ritschl , thoseultimately lost never were redeemed .

As to t he subj ect of chapter vi. —the Personor Work 1 of Christ—it may more accuratelybe described as equivalent to Ritschl

’sdoctrine ofatonement than as either its presupposition orits consequence . 4 4 interprets the DivinityOf Christ qua religious knowledge . ” Briefly,Christ is known as saving us . No irrelevantdogmatic assertions may enter into this confessionof faith . The same topic 4 5) viewed as aproblem of theology requires us to regard

1 Supra, p . 9 9 .

1 E . T. p . 4 18.

1 4 4

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Christ as the purpose rather than as the agent ofGod in creating

'

the world,and to take this as

the true sense of scripture . 4 6 pleads for cont inuity , not contrast, between the two statesOf humiliation and exaltation, and for a re

modelling Of the three Offices —as prophet,priest

,king—SO that they shall no longer 1

Offer only distinctions and contrasts withoutreducing these to an ultimate unity .

”Ritschl ’s

solution is that Christ as royal prophet fully andfinally utters God to men, and as royal priestfully and finally represents men before God . Wemust alternate 1 the religious and the ethicalestimate of Christ the divine and thehuman, the (royal) prophet and the (royal)priest . But we begin historically 48) withthe ethical estimate of Christ according to Hisvocation of establishing the Kingdom of God ; 3

we shall inevitably end , if we are loyal to Christand to the community, with Christ as Divine ,the perfect revelation of God .

” 4 The originof the person of Christ is not a subj ect fortheological inquiry

,because the problem tran

scends all inquiry .

” 5 Ritschl holds with E cce

Homo The abysmal deeps of Personalityhide this secret . It pleased God to beget nosecond son like Him . Christ ’s divinity 4 9)is found to consist in a victory over the worldwhich is largely a victory of faith , such as our

1 E . T. p . 432.

1 E . T. p . 439 .

3 p . 45 0.

4 p. 4 5 2 .

5p. 4 5 1 .

L 1 4 5

THE THEOLOGY OF

own may be . AS priest 4 9) He is not ourSubstitute but rather our Head .

1 He was apriest for Himself —living the life of faith as ahuman person and gaining its victory in His ownexperience—before He became guarantee to Godfor all His fellows .Part (C), The Proof, deals with the

Necessity of Justification,” first “ in general ”

(chap . then (chap . viii .)with the Necessityof Basing the Forgiveness of Sins on the Workand Passion Of Christ . ” What does Ritschlmean here by necessity Is it hypothetical

( in some one of the many significat ionsof thatslippery adjective), or is it categorical ? Does hemean that forgiveness is necessary if we are tobe saved, or that forgiveness is certain from sogood a God ? The former

,rather than the latter .

Chapter vii. then affi rms , Grace, not good works ,must be central in salvation ; while chapter viii .affirms , In spite Of all alleged Objections and allreal diffi culties

, we must carry back the divinegrant of forgiveness to the mediation of Christrevealed in His community 5 6, Chaptervii. is rul ed by Ritschl ’sdualism of the religiousand the ethical . There are two necessities .Each has its claim

,and each its purpose . We

are forgiven in order that we may enter eternallife, i . e. may be victors over the world 5 2

,

We are to do good in order that we may help to1 Thisisnot Ritschl ’sphraseology . I fancy it isJohn

Sterling’s.

1 4 6

THE THEOLOGY OF

satisfaction to the God against whom humanhistory had so sorely offended . Do we emphasize5 9) Views of Christ’s saving work on indi

vidualsapart from the mediating conception oft he community All such- even in St . Paulat Romans vi.—are subordinate .

” 1 All thatis scientifically valid is the doctrine Of the electand reconciled community . True withinthe community the religious experience of personal faith in Christ may and ought to come toits perfection . But immediate access to Christ,as the spring Of a new righteousness in life, is notverifiable Regeneration gives no additionof moral power . It is pagan to look for moralpower as a magical gift .Part (D), The Consequences , contains onlya single chapter which lays all stressupon religious consequences of justification . The

world is to be ruled not negated . Faith63) is essentially faith in providence . The

central religious virtue is patience or ishumility The central religious act isprayer mainly, of course , prayer in common

,mainly also (says Ritschl)the prayer which

thanks God for blessings Of which faith alreadyfeels secure—such prayer as one may Offer toa Father . The three functions

,faith

,humility

,

prayer—patience dropping out—are predomi1 Ritschl assumesthat a doct rine of the redempt ion Of

character through the grace of Christ must necessarily beindividual ist ic . Why ?

48

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

nant ly (without exclusion of other elements inany one)the first of them religion as knowledge,the second religion as tone of feeling, the thirdreligion as act . Taken all together they sum upChristian Perfection if the New Testament does not speak precisely SO , the Reformershave given us this fitting formulation of thespirit of the New Testament in protest againstmediaeval views of perfection . The fuller titleof this section in edition one was significantChristian Perfection as the subj ective certaintyof reconciliation .

” Last of all, 68 providesthat the moral side of Christianity shall not b eforgotten . It deals with action in our moralcalling —not with the endless task of Obedienceto a supposed statutory law . And it shows ,Kantian fashion

,how the dutiful mind produces

for its own guidance, and freely obeys , thespecialized requirements of true moral law inever-changing circumstances . Almost the lastnote is an already quoted utterance of dualismWe are blessed not only in fellowship with God ,but also in fellowship with all the blessed .

After this entanglement in detail, let us try torecapitulate in our own fashion the principalnovelties of the chapter .Ritschl seeks t o give us ethiCO-religious , or

subjective,doctrines—Of punishment , Of God , of

Christ, Of atonement . He insists and repeats

that nothing is to b e considered as a punishment1 4 9

THE THEOLOGY OF

except what the conscience of the sufferer imputes to himself as such . One would gladly agreethat righteous punishment is what consciencemay and ought to recognize as such ; but ap

parent ly Ritschl would hesitate to admit thistranslation of his formula ; certainly he feels noneed of it . How his formula as he gives it meetsthe case of the ill- instructed conscience, whichwrongly refuses to regard—or wrongly regardsafflict ion as penal, one does not see .The doctrine of God , again, is very largelyethical . It is even more important to noteRitschl ’sposition, that the knowledge of Godcomes through Christ alone . The historical fact—that ethical monotheism, after the appearanceof Jesus Christ on earth, burst its former narrowlimits and spread over the lands of civilizationis at least patient Of the interpretation put onthe fact by faith . We cannot prove to demonst rat ion that Christ is the Saviour of the world ,but history bears a certain witness to that grandtruth . At this point, at least, Ritschl is noblyChristian . He stands through life for theteaching of Matt . xi . 27 : None knoweth theFather save the Son and he to whomsoever theSon willeth to reveal him .

The doctrine of Christ is the newest thing inthis volume . There has been nothing beyondpartial hints of it in Ritschl ’searlier writings .In seeking to give a new theory of atonementwhich shall do justice to evangelical faith and to

1 5 0

THE THEOLOGY OF

faith which lays hold of forgiveness are not twothings , but one . We have no reason t o assertGod’s fatherliness except the revelat ion

‘

of Christ .To Ritschl it seems a fatal error to call providencea truth of natural religion .

” Did not the OldTestament toil after such faith , almost in vain ?The grea religious gifts of God seem

,to

unbelief, like fairy gold which turns into witheredleaves . What is this inner freedom to which weare called—this victory over the world which wemay share with our Master ? Patience ; resignation ; a having nothing,

” it may be,while

possessing all things . ” It is a gift of innerpeace ; but outward sensible verification there isnone—only God , only Christ .The question has been debated whether Ritsch l

is reasonable or perverse when he speaks ofbelievers as sharing the Godhead ” of Christ .Schultz concurs with him ; and it is well toapprehend the kind of evidence by which theytry to justify it . If Christ’s Godhead is ethicalbefore it is religious, and if faith in us is essent ially a laying hold of God

’s fatherhood—truly, itis not easy to keep the two doctrines from fusing

,

as they so unexpectedly do .

Let us address ourselves now to the immediatepurpose Of the Chapter .The Atonement, for Ritschl , is essentially a

doctrine Of Christ ’s sacrifice . To that conception all other Bible teaching on the subj ect isrigorously subordinated . What then does sacri

1 5 2

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

fice mean ? Ritschl ’sprimary interpretationsafeguard against God’s physical holiness—isan Obsolete thought in New Testament days .Is sacrifice merely a traditional usage ? Doesit impose itself on the mind by mere weight ofcustom ? How,

then,

‘ can it feed the soul, orexplain the significance of Jesus Christ ? Again,sacrifice in the New Testament is especially Sin

Offering . Ritschl and Schultz both seem to leantowards the gift-theory of sacrifice . If thattheory satisfies us , then Sin-Offering has no dist inct ive meaning or message .

Ritsch l accepts no light on the positive meaning of Atonement from special Old Testamentsacrifices for renewal Of a broken covenant . Nordoes he seem to dwell on the fact that thecovenant of Sinai was held to have been ratified

,

not t o say constituted,by sacrifice . While the

covenant holds,sacrifice avails ; when the cove

nant is broken,sacrifice is idle . The explanation

why God forgives is—His covenant purpose . He

needs no propitiating, so long as there is anypossibility of His proving propitious . What issacrifice ? With immense expenditure of b ib lical and theological learning, Ritschl unveilsthe Shrine—and it is empty . Or, if that istoo harshly said ; Do Ritschl

’sassertions—thatChrist’s obedience in His vocation is the principlewhich makes it sacrificially precious to God , andthat Christ destines to us in the community theresults Of His life and death—do these really

1 5 3

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

compose into a coherent faith ? Or are theybroken echoes of grander truths ?

1/ What strikes one finally in this volume,as a

theory of atonement, is the ease with which onecould cut out sin and all its consequences , leavingRitschl ’stheology almost unchanged . It is well,as F . D . Maurice urged , that we should not beginour thoughts of religion after the Fall . ” It iswell

,with Ritschl , to explore the life of faith in

God and in His providence . Positive religiousfunctions are as precious as moral renewal .But do we not need something more ? That Godresolved to admit certain human beings into acommunity of eternal life ; that Christ acceptedthe divine purpose allotted to Him

,and aecom

plished it in a supreme fidelity which t rium

phant ly endured all tests ; that the sins of theredeemed were only half- sinful and so could easilybe forgiven ; that other sinners were —hardlypunished in righteous anger, rather cast asrubbish to the void is this the truth of Godand the mind of Christ ? I for one cannotbelieve that the sin of the world is a separableaccident of the mission of Jesus, or of the faithand life Of the Church which He redeemed by Hisblood .

THE THEOLOGY OF

On Values generally , compare further

H . HOffding , The Philosophy of Religion, E . T. 1 906 .

Rashdall , The Theory of Good and Evil, 1 907 .

H . Munst erberg , PhiIOSOphie der Werte, 1 908.

Urban, Valuation itsNature and Laws, 1 909 .

And earlier worksasnamed by Reischle .

WITH the third volume upon JustificationRitschl entered on a fresh stage in his life ofcontroversy . This was partly due to his breakingnew ground , when his Dogmatic volume incidentally raised the problem of philosophical just ification for the Christian creed . Ritschl ’sviewsgave scandal alike to the orthodox and to the

”radicals ; younger men, ful ly more interested thanhe was himself in philosophy proper, rushedforward t o give him their support—a supportmingled with friendly criticism ; and the clamourgrew . Henceforward students Of Ritschl areinclined to devote only too much attention t ophilosophical prolegomena . Henceforward , also,Albrecht Ritschl ploughs no lonely furrow .

Schul tz gives a detailed statement of the newChristological doctrine . Herrmann and thenKaftan deal not only with apologetic issues

,but

with religion or dogma . However these mindsdiffer, they all in some sense go back to Kant .And they all desire a theology closely in touchwith the religious life—a theology unalloyed withalien elements .

( 1) In 1874 Ritschl lays down the main linesupon which he and all his comrades will work ,

1 5 6

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

though certain particular assertions are destinedto disappear even from Ritschl ’slater editions .Again and again he declares that Religion andtheoretical knowledge are opposite activitiesof the mind ,

” though dealing with the samefield of obj ects ,

”i . e. the world and mental

life .

” 1 In recognizing that religion does notexist in order to minister t o any—even thehighest~int ellectual curiosity, we verify the assertion with which we started of the differencein kind between religion and theoretical knowledge .

” 1 We shall have to cross-examine Ritschlupon other questions affecting philosophy besidesthis proposal to define the frontiers . But thisis his starting-point ; and while we are studyinghim we must begin here . We can also recognizeit as ranking among the primary motives of hispartners in the other boats .

(2) Passing on from form to substance : wenote in edition one an assertion to which Ritschlalways adhered ; with which Herrmann ful lyconcurs ; to which there are plain parallels inKaftan , even if Kaftan criticizes ; and which

1 Vol . iii. ed . 1 , 27, p . 1 70 .

1 ib. 28, p . 1 78. Prof . Ot to Ritschl callsour at tent ion

to an interest ing at tack on t he old false theory Of know

ledge and the Old bad metaphysics, 4 5 , p . 357 also toa definit ion, 4 4 , p . 343 : We know the kind and the

qual it iesof a thing—itsdefinit e character—only by its

act ion on us; and we regard the kind and t he scope of a

thing’sact ion ast he thing

’sessence . Thisforeshadowswhat Ritschl will formulat esome yearslater ; see infra, p . 181 .

1 5 7

THE § THEOLOGY OF

was adopted by Ritschl ’sold friend and subsequent adversary , Lipsius. This is the celebratedanalysis of religion as springing from a twofoldroot

,being due on one hand to man’s physical

position as a helpless part of nature,and on the

other hand to his irrepressible moral claim .

Dr. Garvie is more severe in criticism even thanKaftan . He describes Ritschl ’sanalysis as apathology and not a biology ,

” quoting againstit one of the translations of a hymn ascribedto Xavier

,My God , I love Thee .

” Since Dr.Garvie pronounced this verdict, William James ’sbrilliant book, The Varietiesof ReligiousExperience, has adopted Francis Newman

’s contrastof the once born and the twice bornor—as an alternative form of expression—Jameswill contrast the religion of healthy-mindedness and the sick soul . ” Who can helprecalling sacred words ? They that are wholehave no need of a physician, but they that aresick ; I came not t o call the righteous butsinners . Ritschl, indeed , is not dealing whollyor even mainly with the desperate sickness ofsin . Perhaps that is a misfortune . But, if so ,Ritschl is not too pathological . Rather he is notpathological enough . On the other hand, Christian faith does not tell merely of disease but ofremedy . Not the sick soul—the healed soul 1

(3) On the basis of this appeal to human need,1 The Lat in hymn islegit imat e devot ional rhetoric ; but

t heology will take it with a grain ofsalt .

1 5 8

THE THEOLOGY OF

God is by no means practical faith ; it is an actof theoretical knowledge .

” This interpretationof religious faith as involving true theoreticalcertainty held its ground almost everywhere inedition two

,but was cancelled in edition three .

And yet we shall have to notice presently howhesitatingly—nay, in how self-contradictory afashion—Ritschl recanted . On the other hand

,

we must recognize that, even in the first edition ,it is only one special train of thought, dealing withmoral realities

,which is said to give theoretical

certainty of God .

(4)Another attempt found in edition one todefine the peculiarities Of religion follows Lotzemore directly than Kant . Religion always workswith the conception of a whole ; and every trainof thought which works with the conception Of awhole is religious . From this view also we Shallfind Ritschl receding—and again with much selfcontradiction . The view of things in edition one

is at least coherent . Ritschl held that religionneeded to grasp the unity of the world . Bythis he meant the world of nature ; he did notmean nature and man

,or nature along with man

and with any other rational creatures who mayanywhere exist . Least of all did he mean theuniverse taken along with its Maker . Havinggrasped all nature as a unity, religion measuresman against it and proclaims his superiority—a

superiority safeguarded by God . Dr . Garviepoints out that in edition two this idea Of whole

1 60

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

ness as belonging to the essence of religiousthought is being displaced by t he doctrine ofValue- judgments . That is a new formulation .

Edition one speaks indeed of values ; but it doesnot put forward the thesis that the differencebetween religion and science lies in the fact thatvaluation is essential to the first and accidentalto the second .

We turn next to t he early contributions ofHerrmann and Kaftan . Herrmann’s little treatiseof 1 876—Metaphysicsin Theology—puts upon theagenda of debate

,more deliberately than Ritschl

had ever done,the proposal to banish meta

physics from the interpretation of Christianity .

But one would not have anticipated from th istreatise the line which Herrmann follows in thelonger work Of 1879 . We learn in that bookthat metaphysic is as far removed as religionitself from being a pure theory . It is due tothe hidden working of a practical impul se . Thebeginnings of metaphysic exist in every mind .

We cannot wonder that men who have no betterhelp should b e dazzled by its glamour . It suggests for belief three noumena—an Odd triad

,for

which Herrmann makes himself responsible theidea of the soul , the idea Of the thing-in- itself

,

and the idea of the world-whole ( in Ritschl’s

sense, apparently). Dogmatic metaphysicsupposes that we can make definite assert ionsabout these great ill -defined conceptions . We

M 161

THE THEOLOGY OF

cannot ' Al l we can know is part after partwithout a whole—the never-ending (grenzenlos)procession of finite phenomena in boundless time and boundless space, or the neverending scientific inquiry where each answercontains the germ of a fresh question, for everand ever more .Here then is a new effort to draw, on Kantian

principles , a scientific frontier between faithand knowledge . As a student of Kant, moreat home in Kant’s thoughts if not more loyal inadm iration for him than Ritschl was, Herrmannought to be able to achieve success if anyonecan . He tells us ( in 1 879) that he agrees withthe interpretation Of Kant given by the neo

Kantians of Marburg, while he declines whatthey add to Kant—an attempt to Obtain results

for knowledge from the practical philosophy ofthe master . (Here one contraststhe Ritschl ofedition one ') On the other hand, Herrmanndoes not consider that he is tying up Christianitywith the basis of the Critical philosophy . Ifany other system will allow him t o contrastNature and Spirit, and to distinguish indepen

dent knowledge from the domain of theconcrete moral ideal,

” theology will not inquirewhether in other respects philosophy is deistic ,pantheistic , theistic, or anything else 1—an

offer which probably means a good deal lessthan at first it seems to convey . It is perplexing

1 Metaphysicsin Theology, p . 21 ; comp . Garvie , p . 66 .

1 62

THE THEOLOGY OF

asks , is surely wasted breath . In some minds,

the thought of a part cannot exist without thecorresponding if difficult thought of a whole .We pass into a different atmosphere when we

turn to Kaftan ’s contribution in t he Wesen.

Kaftan is an empiricist . The Wahrheit revealshim , quaintly enough, as an enthusiastic admirerof J . S . Mill’s philosophy . True, he is an em

piricist of an unusual, perhaps a paradoxical,type . He agrees with Kant in holding—ih amodified but really intensified sense theprimacy of the practical reason .

” All man’ sspiritual certainties must have been historicallycreated ; nothing can be naturally given—thatis his plea . He attaches great value to discovering the genesis of moral ideas ; a nonempiricist does not see why . Moral ideas haveno apriority for Kaftan—by this perhaps heonly means innateness- but they are distinctive 'In another way his empiricism shapes the planof the Wesen. We are to gather the nature ofreligion from a study of empirical facts . Ritschland Herrmann

,in their zeal for positions bor

rowed from Kant, have worked with an“ ideal ”

Of religion as if it were a definition .

” They arewrong ' In defining the essence of religion, wemust include only those elements which are heldin common by all forms of religion

,Of every

shade and colour . The essence of Christianity,when it is discussed in Part II . Of the book, issimilarly to be based upon facts . One conceives,

1 64

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

then,that Kaftan’s criticism Of Ritschl and

Herrmann, for interpreting religion in terms of

man’s moral need,is actuated by his empiricism .

Ritschl and Herrmann had thought to simplifythe process of study by discarding much wastematerial and concentrating upon higher forms .Kaftan resolutely insists upon beginning atthe beginning . Religion seeks ( 1) natural goodthings upon earth—savage religions ; (2)moralgood things on earth—national cults ; (3) a supernatural, non-ethical

,good —mystical Brahman

ism ; (4) a superearthly1 moral good , the King

dom of God Christianity . Kaftan’s attackbecomes more formidable when Dr . Garvie part icipat esin it . In the latter we cannot explainit by empITICIst sympathies .The present writer cannot help agreeing with

Ritschl ’sreview in the Theol . Literaturzeitungagainst Kaftan and incidentally against Dr .Garvie— that it is impossible to work on thephilosophy of religion without being actuatedby one ’s conception of t he religious ideal . If itis legitimate for Kaftan to report that religionseeks natural ”

( in Opposition to moral ”

)goods and ultimately one superearthly good—inthis revealing its true nature ; why may not othertheologians report that religion reveals its truenature when it offers to supply man ’s moralnecessities—then

,and not till then ? Or how will

the empiricist policy work ? Social phenomena1 Kaftan insistson thisdefinit ion, against Ritschl .

1 65

THE THEOLOGY OF

do not carry their names written on their foreheads . None Of them is labelled for us , Iam a religion

,

” or I am not a religion .

”The

student has to decide , in the light of facts but Offacts helped by theory , how to classify and whent o distinguish . If theories without facts are

empty,” facts without theory are blind .

”

One must still believe that the poorest savagewho pesters the spirits for cows or for

Children or for other natural earthly goodsis hungering for God all the time and blindlyseeking Him . Else—must we not hold thatthe different religions are separate entities , misleadingly huddled together under the Shelter ofa general name ?We turn now to speak Of what is perhaps the

most outstanding result of the Wesen,the rise t o

popularity of the phrase value - judgments . ” 1

Apart from possible affinities in thought withthe Reformers (not in phraseology), or apart fromdoubtful connexions with Kant and de Wette,the origins of this phrase belong to the ideasof Herbart and Of Lotze . By the former, alljudgments which are not theoretical and indifferent are classed together as aesthetic . ButHerbart was a thoroughgoing intellectualist

,

seeking to develop all the wealth of psychicalcontent from the interaction Of separate int ellectual presentations . ” A change

,highly welcome

1 Compare Note C in Appendix : Jesushasfor t he

Christ ian consciousnessthe ReligiousValue Of God .

1 66

THE THEOLOGY OF

There are several occurrences before those puton record in t he authorities named at the headof this chapter. What I take t o b e the first ofall—p. 4 0—is significantly followed by a quotation from Lotze . It is also worth noting thatt he term does not once occur 1 in Herrmann’sbrochure of 1 876, t he Metaphysicsin Theology.

In Herrmann ’s usage, Werthurtheil always seemsto refer to a specific feeling ofself ; but the Lotzetradition—accepted even by the rigorous Herrmann—gives to this feeling a wealth Of variedreference ; much that is hedonic ; much thatis ethical . Herrmann ’s accurate knowledge ofKant enables him to cite one passage from Kanthimself 1 in which feeling is said t o b e appealedto in all practical belief—surely an exceptionalutterance 'By the end Of the decade the term was mani

fest ly catching on . It occurs thrice at leastin Schultz’s Gottheit Christi 3 And itbecomes a matter of conscious theory anddefinition with Kaftan, in the Wesen (alsoRitschl , in his review of the same year, proposesa correction ; Value-judgments occur everywhere

,but the “ indirect ones of science may

be disregarded . However, he does not in thisarticle employ the phrase value- judgment

1 I believe .

1 Krit ik d . reimer Vernunft 607 quot ed in Die

Religion,p . 63.

3 pp . 2 , 343 n. , 4 40 ; the preface isdat ed Nov. 1 880 .

1 68

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

except in summarizing Kaftan . The Theologyand Metaphysic of t he same year does not con

tain the term .

1 Finally,Ritschl introduces the

phrase into edition two of Justification, iii .since when it has fairly held the field . He nowspeaks of “ independent and accessory valuejudgments

,rather than of direct and in

direct Finally,in the posthumously published

FidesImplicita 1 it has been noticed thathe recurs to the description of the religious judgments of faith as direct value- judgments . ”

Dr . Garvie has praised Kaftan for avoidingRitsch l ’sassertion—a great deal may be saidboth for and against it 3—that religion consistsin judgments of value . Faith, according toKaftan, enunciates theoretical judgments ,

” 4 butthose theoretical judgments which emanate fromfaith are based upon judgments of value .Al l judgments are e ither theoretical

,

” or elseare value- judgments of three sorts—natural

,

moral or aesthetic . The last Kaftan dismissesas of no visible importance for theology .

5 Oft he other two

,religious value-judgments must

b e rigorously classed with natural desires because1 Ed . 2 , 1 887, hasit not (comp . , however, Werthbestim

mung, p . 5 7 one presumesed . 1 wassimilar in thisrespect .

2pp. 68, 70 .

3 Comp . Note D in Appendix (the Definit ion of a ValueJudgment ).

4 A not e to E . T. of Truth of Christian Religion (11 .employsasa synonym a t erm with st ill more quest ionab leassociat ions, ontological .

” 5 I S that certain

1 69

THE THEOLOGY OF

they begin with these and because they must atall costs be distinguished from moral judgments .A judgment Of value expresses a relation tofacts ; a theoretical judgment expresses a fact .Kaftan’s second edition (of the Wesen)rej oins toRitschl that he knew Judgments of Value wereubiquitous ; apparently he had not thought thefact needed emphasizing .

Obviously it will be dangerous if carelessreaders should combine Kaftan’s definition withRitsch l ’susage . According to the former, valuejudgments do not affirm existence . Accordingto the latter, religious affirmations consist innothing but value-judgments ' No wonder thescornful men accused the movement of thoroughgoing scepticism . I t adds to the confusion whenKaftan’s Dogmatik

1 praises Ritschl ’semphasison the contrast between S einsurtheile and Werth

urtheile—precisely the contrast which Ritschldeclined to draw ' It is no sufficient safeguardwhen Kaftan adds that Ritschl ’sown languageis at the least liable t o be misunderstood .

”

Dr . Garvie has suggested that Ritschl desiresus to content ourselves with a long to the end

,

while Kaftan bids us advance to yvc‘

cotg. Greatrespect is due to every one of Dr . Garvie ’s conelusions

,but I cannot concur with him here .

First,verbally

,it happens that Kaftan definitely

repudiates yva‘

Sotg.

1 But also , substantially,1 p . 37, ed . 5 .

1 Wahrheit,

i. pp . 1 4 , 1 5 ; Dogmatik, ed . 5 , p . 240 .

170

THE THEOLOGY OF

certain mystical element in religion, he is mainlyoccupied in trouncing his orthodox antagonists .Part 1 . deals with Luthardt , who in 1 878 hadcharged Ritschl with banishing all metaphysicsfrom theology, and with other sins . One mayconjecture that Herrmann ’s brochure of 1 876

furnished the ground for the first charge . Ritschlnow deals with the problem of metaphysic in afashion of his own . He does not, as we mightperhaps have expected , separate epistemologyfrom ontology , praising the first and banishingthe second . He takes the two together, andtells us that he must of course employ his ownmetaphysics in his theology . One metaphysiche is resolute to exclude—the traditional scholasticview, going back to Aristotle, which formulatesan abstract doctrine of the thing without adverting to the distinction between things that aremental or moral on the one hand and merelyphysical things on the other. Ritschl insists ,against Luthardt , that both the cosmological andthe teleological arguments are metaphysical inthis sense . A more helpful criticism perhaps isthat which affirms that neither of these arguments really leads us outside or beyond the world .

At the same time , Ritschl repels Luthardt’sView,

that there is danger Of the cosmological argument proving pantheistic . Pantheism, he says ,

relig ious myst icism which dislikesdivine personality(p . He hasvindicated the word . Hashe done muchmore

1 72

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

is a Brahmanical , not a metaphysical mode ofthought . Is this a hint from Kaftan ? 1 Theontological argument is strangely passed over asbeing, in the sense in which Ritsch l is speé king,non metaphysical .” And Kant ’s moral argument is left out, because obviously ” it dependsupon Christian ideas . This sentence foreshadowsRitschl ’swithdrawal from the assertion Of Justification, iii . ed . 1 , that a moral argument demonstrates the being of God theoretically .

”

Part II . is aimed against Frank of Erlangen,who severely censured Ritschl for not placing adoctrine of the Absolute at the head Of thedoctrine of God . Ritschl makes merry as herecalls how the Absolute attracted him once

,

in his own callow youth . . He insists that itmeans

,What stands out of all relations ; also,

A Thing for every thing considered asa unity fulfils the definition of causa sui . Inworshipping the Absolute under the name ofGod

,Frank is reverencing a metaphysical idol .”

Or again ; Frank worships an omnipotence whichIsloving, but Ritschl a love which is omnipotentRitschl further attacks the orthodox Philippi forbuilding up a doctrine of God out of separateunconnected elements . This criticism mightseem to appeal to specul ative preferences . ButRitschl is confident that it has directly practicalsignificance .A third Part attacks Ritschl ’sbéte noir, the

1 Comp . supra, p . 165 .

1 73

THE THEOLOGY OF

doctrine of a mystical union between the individual believer and Christ . Mystical union wouldnever have been talked of, had an intelligentfaith

'

in the Reformation view of Christianityheld its ground . Ritschl points out that thefirst orthodox Lutherans who employ the newterm choose it as a symbol of something unknown

,ineffable

,and (he thinks) meaningless .

Critics of hisown may rightly desire somethingin advance of moral union, asthey understand thelatter . They are wrong in seeking a mystical,i . e metaphysical

,

”i . e. Neoplatonic supple

ment . The Neoplatonic God is just the ideaof the world . Special j oy is given to Ritschlby a passage in Gottfried Arnold, where thehighest stage of mystical experience is describedas metaphysical .Part IV. directly attacks the Neoplatonic

metaphysic . It may be postponed till we speakof the next edition of Justific ation, vol . iii .Part V. follows . Ritschl ’stask might seem

now to have been accomplished . Apart fromthe doctrine of God

,Dogmatic has no oppor

tunity of setting up any metaphysical thoughtas a theological truth . The remaining themesof theology are so peculiarly things of the spirit

[in contrast to nature] that metaphysic can onlycome into consideration as a formal rul e for thestudy Of religious entities or relationships . Butevery scientifically cul tivated theologian musthave his own theory of knowledge, and must

1 74

THE THEOLOGY OF

endure . In contrast with them,Melanchthon in

his early period is quoted with great effect . We

know God non specul at iviscogit at ionibus, utloquar verbis usitat is, sed pract iciscogit at ionibus,hoc est , cum corda pert errefacta agnit ione peccatireiiciunt se in Christum , et in eo apprehendunt

promissam misericordiam .

” 1 Scriptura docet

nos de Filii divinitate non tantum specul ativesed practice, hoc est iub et ut Christum invocemus,ut confidamusChristo and SO of the Spirit .1

More important than the explanations andpolemics of the 1881 pamphlet is the remodelling Of some important sections—especially 3 and28—in 1883 (Justification, iii . ed . The processgoes still further in edition three Inorder to sum up the effects of Ritschl ’ssecond orthird thoughts , we may review the points whichwe singled out from edition one .

( 1) The effort to define frontiers is morevigorously pressed than ever.

(2) The twofold root of religion is still asserted .

(3)Whether influenced by Herrmann or byMelanchthon, Ritschl breaks with his assertionsof edition one and goes over to Kant . It is,after all

,by practical and not by theoretical

knowledge that we come to know God as revealedin the moral life ' This is a very noteworthychange from asserting that we have a theoretical

1 p . 61 ; quot ing lecturesof 1 5 33 .

1 p . 62 ; quot ing CorpusReformatorum,xxi. 366 .

1 76

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

knowledge of God,with which scientific theology

stands or falls , even if t he same train of argumentis now commended t o us as practical ” knowledge . Unlike Kant, Ritschl in edition one con

ceived that mind dealing with materialsfromthe moral nature attains theoretical knowledge.

Edition three,looking t o the field whence the evi

dence isdrawn,agrees to call t he process of reason

ing practical and non-theoretical . Much may besaid for both views ; therefore also, much mayb e said against each view ' Ought we t o drawthe inference which Ritschl proclaims in regardto the Flacian controversy ? Do we need arestatement of t he question at issue ?Unfortunately Ritschl stands condemned for

the way in which he makes known his change ofOpinion . What he gives in one breath he takesback in th e next . Many hostile critics havedwelt upon these extraordinary phenomena . Afriend of Ritschl ’scan only plead guilty, andappeal for a lenient sentence . The facts are

these ; he repeats the Old view .

1 He reassertsthe same position in new statements . 1 He introduces even in edition two a paragraph cuttingdown severely the S ignificance Of Kant ’s proof.3

1 Ed . 1 , p . 1 90 ; ed . 2 , p. 207 ; ed . 3, p. 21 2 ; E . T . p . 222

Kant wrongly let himself,1 Ed . 2 , p . 2o7 = ed . 3, p . 21 1 E . T . p . 221 I f the

exert ion, Also ed . 3 (newly), p . 21 2 , E . T . pp . 222—3 .

3 Ed . 2 , pp . 206—7 = ed . 3, pp . 210—1 1 E . T. p . 221

(Kant“expressly limitsthe idea Of God to the sphere Of

religiousknowledge177

THE THEOLOGY OF

Finally, leaving unchanged the argument of

p . 1 9 2 , ed . 1 , edition three inverts the conclusion ' This acceptance Of the idea Of God isno practical belief but an act Of theoretical knowledge

,

” 1 becomes This acceptance of t he idea ofGod is

,as Kant Observes

,practical faith and not

an act of theoretical cognition .

” 1 Did ever ascientific theologian so express himself before ?One can only exclaim with St . Paul, Thou thatteachest another, teachest thou not thyself ?

(4) The case is little better in regard to Wholeand Part . The influence Of Lotze upon Ritschl ’smind has weakened ; we again infer that theinfluence of Kant, powerfully represented byHerrmann

,has strengthened . Yet here once

more the maturer Ritschl blows hot and cold .

What he had yielded , he yielded perhaps ratherto weight Of authority than t o clearness of convict ion. Edition one had treated t he thoughtof a whole as invariably religious . If the thoughtappears in science

,religion is infecting scientific

knowledge . Herrmann agreed that the conception of a whole was invariably practical

,but

held that it need not be religious—it might b emetaphysical . Ritschl now pronounces his ownformer thesis unsatisfactory upon two sides .First

,there may be religions without any con

cept ion of a whole . Lower religions lack it .Here one is tempted t o think that Kaftan ’s

1 Ed . 1 , p . 1 92 ed . 2 , pp . 209- 10 .

2 Ed . 3, p. 21 4 ; E . T. pp. 224—5 .

1 78

THE THEOLOGY OF

(5 )We now have to add a new entry to our

previous list . The Old attempt to distinguishreligion from science by t he difference of theObjects with which they respectively deal ”

being, however irresolutely, disclaimed, there isneed and room for another set of landmarks .And this is held to be found in the exerciseof different mental functions . Science workswith uninterested theoretical judgments

,but

religion with judgments of value . Edition twoof Justification ( 1883) already lays down thenew affirmations . Among “ independent valuejudgments

,two classes are mentioned—moral

and religious . Apparently Kaftan’s influenceleads Ritschl to make the distinction betweenthese two sharper than ever . I cannot thinkthe term independent other than singularlyunfortunate . Ritschl probably means by it ,judgments in which the element Of valuation isof independent significance or importance . Thephrase soundsas if it meant that judgments ofvalue were independent of fact . The new doctrine ought t o be more happily expressed . There

isa God is , for Ritschl , a value- judgment ; Godis the greatest possible j oy to t he saint and 1

the greatest possible terror to the sinner. Tothink of God while omitting His relation to usnot to think ‘

Of Him continuously as the beingwith whom we have to do —is irreligioustrifling . The Ritschlians are expounding and

1 But would Ritschl care to emphasize this?1 80

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

developing the Protestant doctrine of faith,with

which Ritschl ’sown last publication deals .(6)Edition two of Justification,

iii . , also contains a deliberate pronouncement on Theory ofKnowledge

,elaborated from the statement in

Theology andMetaphysic . We are told that thereare three possible views . First, there is thescholastic view, which Ritsch l associates with thegreat name of Plato . A thing is more than itsqualities ; and knowledge of the thing is otherand deeper than knowledge of its manifestations ;the vague memory image helps to create thisfalse impression . S econdly, the Kantian

1 viewA thing is more than its qualities or manifestations—and we know only the latter ' Thirdly,

Lot ze’sview : We know the thing precisely in

its qualities . Ritschl holds by the third .

One might describe this as a reasonable idealof knowledge . It sets before us what knowledgeaims at . Also, in some respects at least, ituseful ly formul ates Lot ze ’sadvance upon Kant . 1

Yet one must agree with Ritschl ’scritics thatthe formula is too thin to be of much service inphilosophy . It is an aspiration rather than anachievement . It puts the question , not amiss ;it does not contain the answer . Ritschl furthergives it a religious colour by connecting know

1 Newsince the statement of 1881 (Theol. and1 Yet it may be right to report t hat , according to the

sympathet ic crit ic ism of Traub , the third posit ion isreallythe genuine Kant ianism

181

THE THEOLOGY OF

ledge of a thing in itsqualitieswith knowledgeof God in Hisrevelation. One doubts whetherthis is quite fair . The point with Christianity,especially Ritschlian Christianity , is this , thatGod is known in certain historically and morallyconditioned revelations . Briefly , God is knownin Christ and only in Christ . One may believethis with all one ’s heart ; and yet one mayconsider it an assertion belonging to a differentregion from that of technical epistemology . The

question is , In which manifestations God revealsHimself. Any scheme Of theology could adaptitself t o Lot zean

” metaphysics . Lotze himself was no Ritschlian . On t he whole, it seemsa piece of controversial vehemence, unworthy ofRitsch l ’sbetter self, when he affects to find thedeepest difference between his own views andthose of his critics in their respective metaphysics . Ritschl possesses attraction for the religiousmind in that he seeks to make Christiantheology more Christian . Were there no suchhope

, one would never take Off one ’s coat toelucidate or to vindicate his meaning .

Leaving the attempt to draw a clear linebetween religious knowledge and science, weturn to consider some other issues in regard toRitschl ’sphilosophy . What is the service ofphilosophy to theology ?(a) It may furnish t he theologian with his

tools , and become part of his formal outfit . To

1 82

THE THEOLOGY OF

proved diffi cult, well-nigh impossible , to entrustso much t o reason as faith’s handmaid whilerefusing to allow her any personal activity . Theremedy of superseding reason by a more Christianor more regenerate logic would surely be adesperate one .

(b)Reason may b e asked absolutely to demonstrate t he being Of God, and to make theology ascience ; though not apparently t o demonstratet he truth of Christianity . This was the teachingof Justification,

vol . i . The later Ritschl will notadmit any such material use Of reason ; nor willHerrmann ; nor Kaftan .

(c) If constructive apologetic is retrenched ,there may still b e room and need for a defensiveapologetic . When earlier views of theology asa science become impossible in the light of t he

admission that the theologian cannot prove hiscase to the theoretical intellect, Ritschl

’sphiloSophy still undertakes the humbler task ofjustifying t he claim of theology t o be a scienceby proving that the conception of personalitycan without contradiction be applied to God .

” 1

Edition one had made the bolder claim thatthis argument was to serve as the crown andculmination of the philosophical proof of thenecessity of the thought of God .

” 1 Further

1 30 ; ed . 2 , p . 21 3 ; ed . 3, p . 21 7 ; E . T . p . 228 [presentwrit er

’sitalics]. Traub considerst hat even thisisillegit imat e .

1 Ed . 1 , p . 1 94 .

1 84

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

still ; editions one, two and three all containtelling arguments against materialism and pantheism . In edition three these passages cannotbe understood otherwise than as defensive ; theycannot b e so much refuta

‘

tions of error as evidencethat the adversary of Christian belief has failedto prove his case . And, in the present writer

’sjudgment

,they are employed in the same interest

even in edition one . For even in that editionmoral experience is the one source of demonst rat ive proof.(d)A still humbler task for reason would

b e that of showing the logical harmony betweendifferent parts Of the Christian position . Editionone repeatedly deprecates this view Of reason’ stask 1 The later editions seem at times to implyit ; for religious cognition the existence of Godis beyond question

,since the activity of God

becomes to us a matter of conviction through theattitude we take up to the world as religiousmen.

” 1 Moreover,in all editions

,

3 the proofof the necessity of forgiveness addresses itselfexclusively to those who concede at least oneelement in the Christian view of the world andOf self. So we have the odd resul t in editionone—with wandering echoes in later editions

1e. g. 29 , pp . 1 9 0 , 1 92—“

Something more than a

reflect ion upon the int ernal coherence of religiousbelief .”

One passage survives(E . T . p . one disappears(p .

1 29 ; ed . 2 , p . 203 ; ed . 3, p . 207 ; E . T. p . 21 8.

3 5 4 ; ed . 1 , p . 4 64 ; ed . 2 , p . 4 9 1 ; ed . 3, p . 4 99 ; E . T.

p . 5 30 .

185

THE THEOLOGY OF

that Kant’s ethical proof of the being of Godis not merely a reflection upon t he internalcoherence of religious belief, while his implicitcontribution t o the Christian thought of for

givenessisabsolutely modelled on Christianideas . ”

Typesof philosophy—We have next to inquirewhat type of philosophy is presupposed in the

divergent utterances of Ritschl or in the positionsof his friends .The present writer 1 has been in the habit of

recognizing three traditional types of thoughtEmpiricism, which extracts all knowledge out

of the data of experience—Fact is all Idealism

(of the Hegelian type), which traces everywherethe victorious march of necessary principlesthe Idea is all and Intuitionism, which explainsknowledge partly from experienced matter of

fact,part ly from principles slipped into the mind

ready-made by the wisdom Of the creator . Afourth type appears in Kant, who distrusts factsand distrusts ideas , but finds a revelation oftruth in the conscience . And a fifth type mightbe established , perhaps under the name ofphenomenalism ; a type nearer to scepticism thanempiricism itself is . While a more nai’f empiricism believes it can account for all knowledge out

of presentations which are given to themind ; this type of opinion is ful ly half-persuadedthat individual facts—lying on the top of each

1e. g. art . Theism in Encycl. Brit.

186

THE THEOLOGY OF

thing so old-fashioned as intuitionism,but it is

coquetting with something not dissimilar underthe name of Realism . The Ritschlian leaderswill have nothing to say t o realism . The thoughtOf a return not back to Kant but back beyondKant

,back to philosophical dogmatism, has no

charm for them . In this sense, at any rate, theyshare Kant’s idealism .

The man who, upon system ,goes in his recoil

from Hegelian intellectualism t he whole wayback to empiricism is Kaftan . TO b e empiricistwithout being naturalistic is almost a tour de

force yet the same extreme recoil appears inRitschl when he is mainly historian and notso much moralist . Revelation , for him as forKaftan

,consists in sundry given facts ; whereas

it must seem that human experience with noa priori standards Of judgment would b e totallyunable to distinguish true revelations from Shams ,and must be at the mercy of the loudest shouter .Herrmann has declared his readiness t o maintainhis philosophical basis for Christianity even if hehad to accept t he empiricist grounding of theaxiom of causality which some ( it appears)haveimputed to Kant . I do not apprehend thatHerrmann would persevere in his task as a theologian if he had to concur with Kaftan in strippingthe moral law of its apriority ; though hedisengages apriority from the fiction of innateness .When Ritschl appeals (as in Justification, vol . i .)

to Kant ’s scientific establishment of moral188

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

truth , he appears to make his nearest approachto Herrmann ’s profound Kantian ethic . Whenmore historically minded

,Ritschl approaches

Kaftan in his extreme recoil from Hegel or fromPlatonism .

” Again,when and so far as the

value- judgment takes the form of an appeal tofeeling

,we seem to b e at t he mercy of empiricism .

If the value- judgment is to be safe and helpful ,it must have moral authority behind it

,and there

must be no pedantic antagonizing of moralityand religion . There are times when a polemicalrecoil seems to drive Ritschl almost into phenomenalism

, justifying Dr . Garvie’s summary

God is , so t o speak, lost in His kingdom ,Christ

in His vocation,the soul in its activities . ” 1

Idealism in Ritschl is most clearly representedin the demand for systematic unity in theology .

What individual facts can warrant that claim ?One more question may be raised . What is

the Basisof Certainty (a) in ordinary knowledge,(b) in the knowledge Of God ? Dr . Garvie blamesRitschl for raising at least the first half of thisquestion . Still, it may assist clearness Of thoughtif we know upon what epistemology a theologianrelies .In Justification,

iii . ed . 1 , p . 185 , Ritschl allowsa great deal to feeling and will in establishing thereality of an objective world . Theoretic knowledge doeS not afford the supreme guarantee .The actuality of things stands firm in percep

1 The Ritschlian Theology, ed . 2 , p . 62 .

1 89

THE THEOLOGY OF

tion,memory and imagination ; t he immediate

impression Of it arises continually In feelings of

pleasure and pain, and in reciprocal actionbetween things and our own will . ” Then he goeson to apply the same tests to the knowledge ofGod . The imaginative idea of God in religionis freed from the suspicion of being an emptyimagination

,because corresponding feelings and

movements of will give our spirit the certaintythat it is taking its place in the world—or abovethe world as a pecul iarly constituted whole .

This experience guarantees the actuality of God,

in convincing us of the activity of God .

” Sucha view appears to myself rank subj ectivism .

Again,it seems t o belong t o that dogmatic mode

of thought which Kantians of all types havesupposed that Kant destroyed . If the valuejudgment is meant t o b e a ful l proof of reality,we should have t o pass the same censure uponthat doctrine . Before he has devised a formularegarding value- judgments , though several yearslater than 1874 , Ritschl again speaks similarlyThe feeling of the self which accompaniesour Spiritual activity is the sufficient ground ofcertainty for the knowledge of all that which conduces towards our actual existence in t he worldas active beings and beings of a peculiar value .

” 1

A second view refers certainty to t he peculiarsolidity of moral truth . This is the steady teach

1 Theol. and Metaph. , p . 5 0 ; I quot e ed . 2 butassume that the passage occurred in ed . 1

1 9 0

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

world or of Christianity deeper than moralityturns out to be shallower and more naturalistic .

SO, too, when metaphysic proposes to thinktogether the two regions—Lot ze

’sworld offorms and his world of values—I observe (Ritschlwill say) that we are back precisely at the premoral heathenish thought of God . It is no

wonder if at one time I denounce your badmetaphysic and praise my good one , but at othertimes rather beg men to turn to anything exceptmetaphysics for help—to living experience , oreven t o

i

empiricism ; t o conscience ; to Christ .For indeed I believe in all these

,and in their

harmony with one another .We may not b e able to accept the plea ; butit may help us towards the acknowledgment thatRitschl has been occupied with a difficult, anecessary, a Christian task . And it may leadus t o ask whether there are not mischievoustendencies in Ritschl ’scritics on t he right andon the left . He—blustering waverer that he ishe has not hit the gold . It is hardly probablethat the extremists have shown better marksmanship .

CHAPTER VIII

THE H ISTORY or PIETISM

RITSCHL desires to be a reformer of Protestantism . His programme is a simple one . He summons men to return to the inner principles Of

the Reformation . The Pietistic reformers , whosestory he now tells

,have anticipated him in a

way which he cannot approve . Hence his taskis largely one of exposing them . In praising thereadableness of the book, Prof. Otto Ritschlthinks to explain that quality in part by thefact that his father is dealing here with manifestat ionsOf the religious life and not with drydoctrine . There are tokens of sympathy , butthe general tone hast o be and is unfavourable .

Instead of returning to Luther, Pietism is Chargedwith prolonging the mediaeval reform of manners ,notably the Franciscan . Hence from Ritsch l ’spoint of view this history is a pathology . Aboutnon-Pietist churchly types of Protestantism ,

nothing is said unless by accident . Naturallywe hear a great deal about Spener . Ritschltakes the piquant view that the chief author ofPietism was never a Pietist himself. Spenerthen

,incidentally

,may Show us something of

the workings of normal Lutheran faith in God0 1 93

THE THEOLOGY OF

through Christ ; and others of the healthierPietists do the same thing in a measure . Yet

the author necessarily views his task largely asan exposure .

One Observes how confidently Ritschl takesfor granted the results of hisprevious work, andhow convinced he isthat he is the real championof Luther’s spiritual insight . The preface tovol . i . admonishes us that he judges all thingsfrom his standpoint within the Lutheran confession .

” Primarily, Ritschl criticizes Pietismlike a wise broad-Churchman, who prefers theservice Of God and men in society to that typeOf piety which flees far from the world intoa monastery

,or into some spurious Protestant

imitation . But this is only one side Of thematter . Here, as always , Ritschl is much concerned with the doctrine of Providence . Here,as always, he is convinced that we owe therevelation of God ’s Fatherhood to Christ . Justifying faith means self-committal to the Godwho has sought and found us . Unlike monksand nuns—even, as one female Pietist plaintivelysays, unlike Catholic priests—evangelical Christians are exposed to all the storms of care ; yetwe may be made more than conquerors throughOne that loved us . The recluse Christian is notmerely a Shirker of the moral task, or a deserterfrom the post God gave him ; he dishonours bylack of trust the God to whom he professes specialdevotion .

Ritschl begins his task by saying something1 9 4

THE THEOLOGY OF

definitely non-Christian views within the Church .

He taught men to believe in the grace of Godthrough Christ . Still, he was too indulgenttowards the joys of love-making between thesoul and its Redeemer. It was lamentable whenProtestant Pietism turned back from the teachings of the Reformation to mediaeval blunders .We are not to think, however, that Ritschl

explains the rise of Pietism by a S imple referenceto pre- existing Romanism or pre-existing myst ic ism . He has something subtler 1 to Offer us .Direct Romanist influences are recorded

,as in

that strange bird Of passage Labadie , or again inBrakel the Older, all whose ancestors down tohis father had been Roman Catholics . 1 Or again,Ritschl calls attention to Terst eegen

’sgallery ofreligious models

,almost all Of them saints of the

Counter-Reformation . Yet he seeks the primarycauses elsewhere . Once more

,he is not disposed

to allow great influence to the workings of Boehm eor others like him . Perhaps he undervalues theseinfluences . Boehmist conventicles occur beforePietism ; Boehmists denounce existing churchesas Babel,

” before any Pietists take up thatextreme position ; the English Boehmists use thewatchword Philadelphia

,which appears (earlier

than Spener) in a project of and whichforms the inspiration Of Zinzendorf ’s earliestefforts .What is Pietism ? The word appears in the

history of Lutheranism as a nickname attached1 Infra, pp . 208—9 .

1 Vol . i. p . 275 .

3 Vol . ii. p . 137.

1 96

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

to the disciples of Spener,who himself gave

occasion for it by calling his conventicles 1 Collegia

pietatis. Ritschl , with apologies for possiblemisunderstanding

,applies the name to earlier

similar manifestations within the Reformedchurches Of the Netherlands . The statement thatSpener was not a Pietist is balanced by theassertion that Lodenst eyn was the first Pietistof all .” The historical denotation of the nameis to be expanded , to suit its connotation . Thevery Oldest nickname would seem to have beenPrecisians ,

” growing out Of a dissertation bythe orthodox Calvinist Voet of Utrecht, 1 De

Prcecisitate. The same early group called themselves the Fine ones

,

” 3 to which their enemiesadded , surely at random ,

the Roman Catholicnames Beguines and Begging Sisters, and alsothe name Quakers . 4 Of more importance is thegreat name Puritan , 5 claimed in the Netherlandsessentially in the same sense as in England .

” 3

It is not to be supposed that these ContinentalPrecisians and Puritans were necessarily, inRitschl ’s sense Of the word

,Pietists . Other

elements have to be discovered before he allowshimself to use that designation . This , in partat least, justifies his refusal to extend to Englanda survey already pushed as far as Holland . Herecognizes parallelism, but not identity, b e

tween the Pietism which is his theme and the

1 He also himselfspoke of ecclesiolce in ecclesia .

1 I . p . 1 12 .

3 From Lam. iv. 1 , 2 ? i. p . 338 n.

4p. 1 5 5 .

5p. 1 12 .

6p. 343.

1 97

THE THEOLOGY OF

Independentism or other extremer Puritanismsof England .

An earlier definition of Pietism than Ritschl ’s,Schneckenburger

’s, had been greeted by Ritschlon its appearance with enthusiasm .

1 Accordingto that view, Pietism was piety of the Reformedtype intruding into the Lutheran churches .Further study led Ritschl to modify the definition . He retained in part the impressions whichhad once made him accept it . He always recognized, in the precisianist tendencies of ethicallife among t he Calvinists or other Reformed , thestarting-point of Pietism . Pietism had a certain right to life within the Reformed churches 1

as an effort to make their recognized discipline areality . Correspondingly, Pietism did not proveso inevitably disintegrating within the Reformedas within the Lutheran communion .

( 1) The first feature of Pietism , according toRitschl , is the making use of conventiclesunoffi cial gatherings for promoting the Christianlife . The characteristic social structure ofPietism is the conventicle . ” 3 In this Ritschlsees the illegitimate Protestant parallel to themonastic orders of Catholicism . Correspondingly , he charges those who practise conventiclepiety with necessarily claiming superiority overother Christians , 4 who follow no such usage .

And it may be that Conventicles are only safewhen they are practised in the clear conscious

1 Life, i. p . 266 1 Pietism, i. p . 4 47.

3 I . p . 371 .

4p. 101 .

tion Army , it may offer a many-sided religiousfellowship from which sacraments are deliberatelyomitted . Ritsch l always fears the tendency tosecession . In Lutheranism, where Pietism is soexotic, he thinks the result almost inevitable . Ifit is avoided or minimized , as when Francke correctsthe bad effects of Spener’s leniency

,we are

in t he presence of a miracle of personal influence,like Bernard ’s when he tamed and half-Christian ;

ized mysticism . The history traced by Ritschlin section after section ends , as if in a reductioad absurdum, in a secession . In Holland, in t heReformed Churches of Rhenish Prussia

,on a

smaller scale inWiirtt emb erg, he sees this with ashudder, and bids us shudder with him . Rathersingul arly, he sees a different but hardly a betteroutcome from t he central Lutheran PietismSpener’s . Apart from a small brood Of extremistse

’

cts,Halle Pietism led up rather to the Aufklar

ung—Spener doing much more pioneer work forit than the heterodox Dippel —or else it ledback to a high and dry orthodoxy . Zinzendorfian

Pietism Ritschl does not trace to the end of itscareer . The end, indeed, is not yet ' But hedepicts it in several phases—first rising , likeHalle Pietism a century before it, to supremacy ;then becoming an extravagant confessional orthodoxy (Lutheran, not Reformed); then waning,and likely to make way for sound LutheranRitschlian Protestantism .

1

Even on Ritschl ’sown principles , one doubts1 Comp . Preface to vol . iii.

200

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

whether these warnings are justified . The smallerand earlier sects—Labadie ’s separation from theReformed

,or t he sects who broke away from

Spener ’s movement—may b e due simply t o thedangers inherent in the conventicle . But one

feels sure that different motives from these hada share in creating the sober Continental FreeChurches of later growth . One may not agreewith all their motives . One may smile at t heOld-fashioned Dutch attitude towards psalms andtowards hymns . But one desires t o contemplatethese Churches with detachment, if sympathy isforbidden , and to give them fair play . Unlessseparation , whether from the State or from acorrupt Church , is always necessarily sinful, weshall not be prepared t o say

,A conspiracy ,

concerning all whereof this people say,A con

spiracy ; not to fear their fear, nor to b e in dreadthereof. ” If separation from the world unhappilyinvolves separation from some professed Christians , even t he latter separation may b e a duty .

Ritschl ’senthusiasm for Church-and-State willnot even consider such a plea .

(4)Less definite , yet still demanding someattention , is the doctrinal change noted amongthe Pietists . They think less of forgiveness ; orthey lay disproportionate emphasis upon t he

moral task . Technically, this deviation manifests itself in t he doctrine of saving faith . Sorespected a theologian as the Old German Reformed Lampe is found affi rming

—ih later lifethat the divine sentence Of justification is a

201

THE THEOLOGY OF

recognition of the inh erent value of faith .

Similar teaching is found in the great Bengel .

( 5 ) Preoccupation with the moral task is noguarantee against Antinomianism . And, evenwhen that worst of heresies does not arise ,soberer Pietists may show signs of sickly morality .

A few specimens may be quoted here . Sexproblems repeatedly receive undesirable handling .

Labadie had asserted that original Sin wouldnot b e transmitted if parentage was perfectlyfree from animal passion . A child was born t oLabadie ’s disciple Yvon . For some minutes ,we are told, it did not weep . The news wascarried to Labadie, who exclaimed C’

est un enfantdu régne Presently, by good fortune for itsearthly prospects , the little one burst into aloud cry . This also had to be reported toLabadie

,who could only remark that the vessels

coul d not have been so pure as one had hoped .

1

Another misfortune was the appearance of theHarold Skimpole type in certain quarters ; e. g.

among the Reformed, in Jung Stilling ; amongthe Lutherans , in Bogat zky . Terst eegen, on theother hand, earned his bread by honest toil .Yet he is very markedly of the Cloister. Hetreats marriage, perhaps even business , simply asa hindrance to spiritual communion . Anothercomplaint from a Pietistic quarter speaks of afoolish imitation of mannerisms . Almost allthe scholars of F . A . Lampe limp , because helimped a little .

—I t is a fact —Tersteegen was1 I . p . 233 n.

202

THE THEOLOGY OF

position . He believes in a quick and joyfulconversion which seemed to Terst eegen to savourof levity .

” Both these men belonged to t heext ensive spiritual family of St . Bernard

,and to

no other ; but Zinzendorf belongs to the branchof Thomas

, Terst eegen (as a Quietist) to that OfDuns . ” Ritschl could not so loudly insist thatmysticism is the effort to b e sure of one’ssalvation here and now, or that Pietist pietyis mystical piety at the heart, if he had not thishistorical thesis to maintain, that Pietism is athrow-back to mediaeval monasticism . He complains that, as early as Lodenst eyn,

1 an unwarranted effort is made to contrast healthyand morbid mysticism ,

” and to identify theformer with Reformed theology at its best .Admissions made by Voet in favour Of Tauleras an individual are unwarrantably applied byLodensteyn t o mediaeval mysticism in general .Love to Jesus ,

” according to Ritschl , is nottypical Christianity and certainly not typicalProtestantism . The lover, according to St . Bernard , forgets the greatness of the Beloved in therapture of ecstatic intercourse .

1 But the evan

gelical Protestant will never for a moment ceaseto call Jesus Lord . And the bond which unitesus to the Saviour is not our poor love, but faithin God’s gift and purpose of grace . In this book,Ritschl is more occupied with the Catholic than

1 I . pp . 167- 8. Comp . something similar cit ed from a

Lutheran crit ic of Piet ism , Loescher, ii. p . 408.

1 I . p . 4 9 .

204

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

with the Pantheistic affinities of mysticism . Oneither ground his condemnation is emphatic .

(7) The character of the mystical traditioneven in Christianity i s largely erotic . AS soonas the individual rather than the Church isregarded as the subj ect of Christian experience,Ritschl forecasts danger. The danger growsurgent when the metaphor of marriage is transferred from the Bride the Lamb ’s wife to theindividual soul . There pours in from the Songof Solomon a tide of dangerous spiritual ”

teaching . With a just pride, Ritschl points outthat Luther had understood the Song in itshistorical and literal sense . But the uniomysticacame to be defined ; and Bernard

’s influencecarried away with it many orthodox Protestantsand an even larger proportion of Pietists .Here again we have to be on our guard againstextreme severity . Ritschl calls 1 the languagewhich speaks of union with God in one spiritthe very S ignature of mysticism ,

apparently forgetting a fact which he notes in the immediatecontext , 1 that the language is St . Paul

’s .3 Inthe New Testament, of course, it is an obiter

dictum to make it central may upset thebalance of scriptural thought . Yet the occurrence of such language even once is a guaranteeto those who reverence St . Paul that mysticallanguage may be employed to express Christiantruth . It proves , too, that even so delicate andperilous a thing as sex-mysticism has a message

1 I . p . 128.1 p . 129 .

1 See 1 Cor. vi. 17.

205

THE THEOLOGY OF

for us . Those physical processes which havebeen described as the sacraments Of lovemust b e capable of spiritual significance . Thisis the ground upon which erotic mysticism maydemand partial acceptance from Christians today . We cannot pretend

,like so many of our

fathers, that the Song of Songs is a designedallegory . But we cannot deny that a lovebetween man and woman

,which while it is

passionate is in its own sphere pure , revealssomething of the God whose name, in a farhigher region , is the same word—love . Thistruth assuredly is delicate . Much dealing withit must be perilous . Yet it is truth and no lie .On mysticism in general one might pronounce

a S imilar judgment . Religion seeks to give avoice to unspeakable things

,which it is not

possible for a man to utter . In this bewilderment, flinging out words at an Object exceedingabundant in its greatness beyond what we canthink, Christians will hardly accept an embargoupon mystical imagery . The thing will breakthrough all tariff barriers . But let us be onour guard against the dogmatists of mysticism .

Historical Christianity is not an exoteric scheme,with mysticism as its higher and finer esotericinterpretation . Mysticism is a legitimate andsuggestive exoteric parable, very good as poetry ,but dubious as fact . The reality b eyond allother realities is communicated by Jesus Christ .Thisisthe true God and eterna l life. My littlechildren, guard yourselvesfrom idols.

206

THE THEOLOGY OF

learned from the English .

” 1 The founding ofthe London Missionary Society is recorded withvisible ill-will . 1 All this is characteristic of theRitschl who wrote Justification,

iii . ed . 1 . Hehas some strange tales to tell of early Protestantmissions .

( 1 0) Lastly, we may mention the ever-recurringbelief in the restitution of lost souls . Of course,this belief is not universal among Pietists . Some ,like Lampe

,combat it . Some , after professing it,

surrender it again . But it is constantly makingitself heard . It is a genuine though not aninvariable characteristic . Whether we embracethe belief or not we must surely be moved tofind

,in this gallery of deeply earnest if not

always morally wise spirits , so much exhibitionOf t he largest possible hope in God ’s mercyEven Bengel holds the doctrine

,though he

Shrinks from teaching it publicly .

Such being the outline Of Pietism as Ritschlconceives it, we have now to glance at thedifferent phases which he detects in its history .

He arranges his materials confessionally ; withineach confe ssion , geographically ; only within eachlimited geographical area, Chronologically . Pietism begins in the Netherlands as an evolutionof Calvinism ,

to the detriment of its Protestantcharacter

,under conditions which existed at that

time nowhere else . For since the great massOf the people took Lutheran views of life, and

1 p . 5 22 .

1 p . 5 33.

208

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

therefore rejected the moral rigour of Calvinism ,

its leaders found themselves compelled to con

centrate upon special societies - conventicles“in order effectively to reform the people’ s life .

” 1

Voet, who somewhat enlarges the quasi convent iclesrecognized by the orthodoxy of his Church ,is a forerunner . Cocceius, who has no taste forconventicles , is a forerunner in a different way .

By his study of the covenants and economies heprepares men to look eagerly for a golden age .

Lodenst eyn makes the decisive move : Labadiecomes , troubles the Church, and disappears againmysticism has its votaries but wins no greatsuccess . Dutch Pietism is mainly of two types .The first type , as already noted , was interested inthe precise regulation of Christian life . Afterwards arose what called itself evangelical Pietism

,

” more interested in the beginnings of conscious personal Christianity

,criticizing the tradi

t ional type as legal . Modern evangelistic leadersmight criticize in its turn that evangelical ”

Pietism which demanded so terrible a struggle asthe price Of peace .Next we are taken into the Reformed Churches

of Germany and Switzerland . The districtsimmediately abutting on the Netherlands werelargely influenced by the religious history ofHolland ; while the course of things in MidGermany is characteristically explained ; Pietismthere at once became separatist, S ince Churchdiscipline was wholly absent ; and therefore

1 I . p . 1 92 .

209

THE THEOLOGY OF

Pietism coul d not hold its ground within theChurch , or make others believe in its legitimacy .

”1

With the exception of Lavater, who belonged toZurich , most if not all of those named to us inthese chapters are Germans . There is Lampe OfBremen, who united in himself the two streamsof Dutch Pietism

,precisian and evangelical, and

whose influence kept the dogma of predestinationa living force in his circle of churches down toKrummacher in the nineteenth century . Thereis Joachim Neander, remembered by his hymns ,and praised by Ritschl because

,when he was

disciplined by Church authority for Pietisticirregularities , he submitted unmurmuringly andgave up the Offending practices . There is Tersteegen, the godly lay recluse , memorable as ahymn writer, and notably Quietist . He movesRitschl t o pay an unusually graceful thoughguarded compliment . Terst eegen

’sletters, themost direct revelation Of the man, impress mealways like a cool room with softened light, inwhich one recovers from t he heat and t he conflictof work and the blinding rays of the sun . It isnot, indeed, our calling, to enj oy rest in any suchhermitage ; but it does one good to have beenthere, even though one must return quickly towork and to the battle Of life .

” 1 There isLavater

,the liberally minded clergyman, the

physiognomist, the friend of Goethe ; influencedfor the worse in the direction of Aufklarung,Ritschl tells us , by Spener ; and , in spite of fine

1p. 398.

2p. 4 92 .

10

THE THEOLOGY OF

not an Old-fashioned precisian ; he believes in aChristian ’s call to the culture of virtues . Heappears in fact to be a favourable if earlyspecimen of the preachers of a higher Christian life .There is Krummacher, and there is Kohlb riigge

the former indirectly and by way of preparation,the latter directly—responsible for the settingup Of a Free or separated Church in RhenishPrussia . In the same chapter we meet with theRoman Catholic allies of Pietism whose story istold in Fleming Stevenson’s Praying andWorking,and with the man who

,after his transition to

Protestantism,did so great a work for t he rough

boys Of Hamburg—Gossner . It is strange to readOf Lutheran Auld Lichts (dasalte Licht)in Hollandabout 1 79 4 ; from their ranks came forth Collenbusch to his task among the Reformed of Germany . Not less strange is it to learn 1 that inmany churches of the Reformed on the lowerRhine

,during a whole century , the impressed ,

the awakened and the converted—or those who

wished to pass as members of each class—stoodup at the part of the sermon directed to them ,

and remained standing till that part was finished .

”

The second and third volumes are devoted toLutheran Pietism

,but they make no effort to

bring the story to so recent a date as (e. g.)Krummacher

’s. Perhaps they contain less ofvariety than vol . i. ; on the other hand theyunfold

,section by section, a more compact and

coherent tale.1 p . 4 34 , note .

21 2

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

Once again, before dealing with Pietism proper,we have to hear something about its antecedents .Apart from the doctrine ofuniomystica, the mainpreparatory influence recognized by Ritschl within Lutheranism is Arndt’s WahresChristenthum,

a well-known devotional book, full of mysticism .

Thus mysticism is early at work in the Lutherancircles moving towards Pietism . Al though it failsto capture Spener or Francke , who praise Arndt,but do not borrow this particul ar commodity,early hymns are quoted in proof of the factthat mysticism and the eroticism of the Songof Songs were at work . Certainly the gentlemanwho promised himself a thousand kisses fromthe sweet mouth Of Jesus 1 had little to learnfrom any quarter in the way of bad taste .It was Spener’s intention

,by the use of that

novel instrument, the conventicle, to revive thelife of the Church . Ritschl thinks he can provethat Spener Copied (not earlier German convent icles, though such did exist, but)a Lutheranconventicle at Amsterdam, which in its turn , hehas no doubt, was imitated from the practice Ofthe Reformed in Holland . Spener writes in thebewildering Lutheran fashion about the baptismalassurance of grace . He will not sanction the demand, which some were accepting from Englishbooks ,

” that a convert must know the precise dateof his conversion .

1 He has none of the legal prec isianism of Voet or Lodenst eyn.

3 Only slowlyand by degrees does he come to the thought of

1 I I . p. 78.

2p. 1 1 4 .

8p. 134 .

213

THE THEOLOGY OF

completing Luther’s reformation .

1 He has noneof the canting “ language of Canaan .

” 1 Heis and intends to continue an essentiallyorthodox Lutheran . Ritschl ’scurious charge ofAufklarung is partly based on Spener’s blendingadherents Of different confessions in the sameconventicle ,3 partly on his connecting assurancewith good works .4 Or he detects something of indifference towards dogma in the confinement ofSpener ’s interest t o religious life .

3

And yet Ritschl is respectful towards Spener.He even finds a good sense for the assertion thattheology ought to b e the work of the regenerate .One would have expected Ritschl to blaze outagainst the impropriety Of distinguishing regenerate and unregenerate , in a Christian landand a land of Infant Baptism ' But he prefersto connect the Pietist requirement with his ownView

,that no propositions are legitimate in theo

logy except such as minister practically t o piety .

This is a more sympathetic strain than thescientific hardnesswhich sometimes characterizesRitschl ’sjudgments .The most serious charge brought against Speneris one of excessive gentleness towards the wilderPietists

, e. g. the Petersen pair. Of the maleOffender Ritschl has a low Opinion ;

“ the onlyPietistic element about him was- his wife .” Thegrowth of radical Pietism is interpreted as due

1 p . 1 40 .

1 Based on Isa . xix . 1 8—possib ly a corrupt t ext .

8p. 1 5 9 .

4p. 1 1 6 .

5p. 5 67.

21 4

THE THEOLOGY OF

ness . He also think s there was a grave declensionfrom the manly vigour of Spener or Francke toan effeminacy like Bogat zky

’s.Vol . iii . opens with a survey of Pietism inWiirt t emb erg . Here we are still in Lutheranterritory

,but under very different conditions .

There is a strong tendency towards politicalliberty . This brought Clergy and peasants intosympathy

,and separated them from the nobility .

Again, t he more intense separatists must haveemigrated from Wiirt t emb erg at an early periodnor was there so much orthodox polemic as inNorth Germany . As a resul t, the leaders ofWiirt t emb erg Pietism are free from separatistleaven, and yet are gentle in their judgment ofseparatists . There is Beata Sturm , whose ad

mirerscompare her t o a nun. There is Moser,a fine Christian character, making a discriminating use of the teachings of other Pietists ; noblind follower Of the crowd ; the best discipleof Spener.” 1 There is Pfaff, who is criticizednot merely as Of doubtful orthodoxy, but as acharacter Of less solid goodness . Yet he also isdevoted to Spener’s aims and programme . Thereis Bengel, the first text-critic of the New Testament in German Protestantism , persisting inthe task in spite of narrow-minded censures fromFrancke junior . Bengel is the CocceiusofWiirt t emb erg ,

” 1 though hardly by conscious discipleship. He knew better than the later HallePietists that there may be different types of

1 p . 40.1 pp . 76—7 .

2 16

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

conversion .

1 He is really more loyal to Lutherand to Spener than they are 1 He and Oet ingerare free from the mediaeval leaven . The latter

,

though a Universalist, is gently dealt with .

Wiirtt emb erg Pietism would know nothing ofthis doctrine

,but there may have been a sense

of something half comprehended . A popul arlegend tells how Oet inger was once overheardpreaching to a congregation of ghosts. AnotherPietist—Reuss—is criticized as formulating the

cold intellectualist eighteenth century apologeticOf credibility .

3

The Aufklc‘

trung, says Ritschl , frightened theparty of separation back towards the AugsburgConfession .

4 It is strange to read of the disciplesof one of the Older leaders of this tendency

,

Pregizer, attending church worsh ip at leastoccasionally, but shaking their heads gravelywhen they heard doctrine to which they couldnot assent . To this day the conventicle flourishesin Lutheran Wiirt t emb erg .

Last, not least, we have Zinzendorf and hiscommunity . We must be prepared to find Ritschlfiercely opposed to that ardent and devoted ifstrangely erratic spirit . Ritschl is before allthings a Churchman . His zeal for the Gemeindeis meant to be a vindication of the sacred essenceof Christianity as a religion . Zinzendorf, first

1 p . 65 .

1 p . 68.

3 p . 1 25 .

4 Though they expressed their acceptance with modificat ions, intheir new denominat ion.

21 7

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

and last, felt it impossible to attach this almostsuperstitious value to the Established Churchesof Protestant lands . He begins with a Philadelphian programme . When he welcomes tohis territories Moravian refugees , he goes on toerect for them a new strange church , which isand is not—to be Lutheran . Theoretically, theseproceedings were incorrect . Practically theremay have been touches of what was vacillating,ambitious , uncandid . Zeal for home missions inZinzendorf is a new Offence to Ritschl ; it meansthe Spread Of this hybrid Moravianism . Andzeal for foreign missions counts little or nothingin his favour. Curiously enough , as a theologian,Zinzendorf gives great satisfaction . He is a kindOf Ritschlian before Ritschl . Has he not calledthe Saviour an Amtsgot t His mystical anderotic elements are of course condemned, thoughwith a wise reticence .

All in all, a reader who is not a thoroughgoingRitschlian will think better Of the Pietists thantheir historian himself did . That this shoul dbe possible is one of the best testimonies to thehistorian’s impartiality .

218

THE THEOLOGY OF

New Issues—Sense of Kingdom of God

J. Weiss (a) Jesu Predigt vom Reiche Gottes, 1892 ,

2nd ed . 1 900 , enlarged and modified .

Comp . ib. (b)Die Nachfolge Christi u. die Predigt derGegenwart, 1 89 5 .

W . Bousset , JesuPredigt in ihremGegensatz zum Judentum ,

1892 .

Albert Schweit zer : Von ReimaruszuWrede, 1 906 ed . 3,

1 9 13 ; E . T. from ed . 2 , Quest of'

the Historical Jesus,1 9 10 .

Real historical Posit ion of Luther

Emst Troeltsch (a)ProtestantischesChristentum und

Kirche in der Neuzeit, 1 906 (dieKultur der Gegenwart).(b) I/uther u. die Moderne Welt, 1 908 (Wissenschafl u.

Bildung, pamphlet ).Comp . further : (0)Wesen der Religionu. der Religionswissenschaf t, 1 906 (die Kultur der Gegenwart).(d)Die Wissenschaftliche Lage u. ihre Auforderungen an

die Theologie, 1 900 (pamphlet ).Original Contentsof the GospelAdolf Harnack : DasWesen der Christentums, 1 900

E . T. What isChrist ianity 1 901 .

The History of Religion school ; comp . Max Re ischle ,Theologie u. Religionsgeschichte, 1 904 (five lectures),with authorit iesthere quoted alsoHaering

’sDogmatik

and Troeltsch (c), (d), supra.

IT is time for us to say something about t hegroup of men who stood nearest to AlbrechtRitschl , all of them partially independent of him ,

yet all with great and admitted Obligations .The Oldest to be named is the late HermannSchultz , well known by his OldTestament Theology.

While it is interesting to consul t his brief statement on the three main systematic issues , we

are mainly concerned with his older and larger220

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

work on the Godhead of Christ . Schultz makesthe strongest claim to have arrived by a personaldevelopment at ideas in essential agreement withthose of his colleague . In his preface to the

Gottheit Christi, he tells us that he had designedto discuss the whole of Christology in order toShow that—not the sequence of events in the lifeof Jesus

,but—the fact Of Jesus ’ recognition in

His Church as the Christ is vitally important tofaith . Changing professorial duties had interrupt ed and delayed the work . Meantime Justification, iii . appeared , and Schultz felt that muchof his task was superseded . Ritschl ’swork hasbeen a very welcome opportunity for remodellingmy statement, SO as t o make it, I trust, in manyways clearer and more convincing . But in allessential matters Ritschl ’sstatement couldonly strengthen convictions which I had heldfor years .” 1 He dedicates his book to Ritschl ;and a note on p . 5 10 praises some of theolder theologian’ s work almost patronizingly asessentially correct . ”

Under the new conditions Schultz confines hiswork to the special assertion that Christ is God ,and—within that great doctrine—to the com

municatio idiomatum . He is working out forhimself in detail a suggestion, which also occursin one of Herrmann ’s earliest books , 1 thatthis Lutheran doctrine contains the hope of anew Christology . Schultz further tells us 3 that

1 Gottheit Christi, preface .

1 Ill etaphys. in Theol. , p . 5 4 .

3 Gottheit Christi, p . 10 .

221

THE THEOLOGY OF

Ritschl in an obiter dictum sanctioned the samehope . On the other hand , there seems no suchhint in Justification, iii . not even in later editions subsequent to the appearance of Schultz’smonograph . Nor does Kaftan say anything ofthis nature in his Dogmatik . Therefore , if oncemore we discover real sympathy in our groupof independent leaders

,that sympathy has its

limits .Schultz ’s methods largely resemble Ritschl ’s.

There is something of the same half-pedanticprofessional learning . As Ritschl tries to attaina higher view of the Atonement by cross-questioning not only the greatest minds but the lessermen—a Hunniusor a Heidegger or a Maccoviusso Schultz carries his appeal not only to Lutherbut to Brenz and Kemnitz . Ritschl, however,does at last give us clear moral outlines of doctrine . Whether satisfactory or the reverse, hisown views are not scholastic . Schultz does notemerge so completely . There are two elementsin his appeal . First, he relies on Luther

’s centralachievement

,the re-discovery of the personal

Christ . Secondly, he tries to exploit the moretechnical Lutheran bias in Christology . It is , ofcourse

, conceded that all t he historical schoolsof Lutheranism ,

from the Reformer downwards,presuppose the doctrine of two Nature s inone Person ; but, unlike the ancient school ofAntioch

,or t he formula of Chalcedon, or the

reformiert theologians , Lutherans are biassedtowards unity

,which in orthodox Christology

222

THE THEOLOGY OF

quity1—especially at the Lord ’s Supper ; Schul tz

protests against making the issue t oo narrowlysacramental, but he tries in his half-pedantic wayto show a marked religious superiority in Luther’sview of the sacrament over Zwingli ’s . Even outof the technicalities of the scholastic Lutherandoctrine, with help from criticisms of his own ,Schul tz tries to elicit normative truth and arevolutionized Christology . One cannot state thedetails .Schultz has been classified by Haering as

representing a more positive or more orthodoxview of Christ’s divinity—on the basis of Hisabsolute humanity—than Ritschl possesses . The

evidence appears to be ambiguous . There are

certainly very strong statements in Schul tz whichtravel in the direction of orthodoxy . We cannotdoubt his sincere purpose to confess that—as herepeatedly expresses it 2 this man is God .

”

Christ ’s Godhead is to b e Wesenhaft .3 We mustmaintain the confession of his Homousia .

” 4

On the other hand,Christ is a human God .

” 5

He owes His existence t o a creative miracle .

” 5

The Bible is geocentric ,” 7 and we are to b e

resolutely geocentric also,

8 taking no account ofany possibilities with which we have no immediate

1 Originally a sneer of Calvinist crit ics, but proudlya ccept ed .

2 pp . 286 , 371 ; comp . 697, 710 .

3 pp . 5 40 , 69 5 .

4 p . 5 4 1 .

5 p . 673 .

6 pp . 65 6—7 .

7 pp . 388, 464 .

8 p . 709 . The Dogmatik warnsusnot to ext end t hisrequirement to S cience.

224

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

personal concern . He is for us the truth , thelight, the love, the life, equal in essence to theFather . God is in Him essentially and for ever . ” 1

Yet 2 Dogmatic must allow itself no utteranceswhich are incompatible with 1 Cor . xv . 28, i . 6 .

with the conviction that the kingdom of God initself is greater than the kingdom of Christ,although for Christian piety t he two absolutelycoincide . The revelation of God in Christ isincluded in the greater revelation of God, andhas in that its end and its aim .

”

Perhaps the meaning is this . The Godheadwhich is in Christ is the absolute Godhead oft he most High ; but Christ Himself is man ; andthere is no ground for asserting that a communicat ed Deity is the sole possession of thehum an race . To mankind it comes throughChrist alone ; but it goes beyond Christ . Independence on Him, all His people within Hiscommunity attain a divine humanity ; Schultzagrees with this much-questioned and surelyquestionable finding of Ritschl ’s.At other points Schultz seems to brush asidesome of Ritschl ’spersonal eccentricities . Hequotes sympathetically Luther’s statements , sorepugnant to Ritsch l, that God hates sin butloves the sinner,3 and exercises penal justice .4

He knows of Fatherly anger, 5 of holy love .

6

He corrects the Ritschlian exegesis of Romansviii . 3 7 of the Johannine prologue ,8 of the Pauline

3 p . 710 .

3 p . 186 .

4 p . 1 94 .

3 p . 5 66 .

7 p . 409 .

8 pp . 361—8.

225

THE THEOLOGY OF

references t o pre -existence . 1 These last Schultzplucks up courage to interpret in their naturalsense ; he also dares affirm that they cannotbind the Church of to-day . On the other hand ,he agrees with Ritschl in essential matters suchas the ethical interpretation of Kingdom of God .

2

He is in agreement, too, when he discoversthe roots of Socinianism in orthodox mediaevalteachers ; 3 when he severely condemns modernkenotic theories . The much-flat t ered myst icism is for him also no better than naturemagic .4 There are other points in which he coincides with Ritschl ’searlier years against his laterviews . Thus he retains a Trinitarian summingup of his theology ; 5 the Trinity seems to havedisappeared from Ritschl ’sdogmatic since thebeginning of his Gottingen period . Al so Schul tzpermits himself to say that Christ became God .

”

Ritschl ’s later condemnation of the phrase 6

affords Schultz’s critics an opportunity fordamaging attacks .7

We have already had occasion to mentionHerrmann ’s earlier writings . The most impor

1 pp . 4 20—1 .

2 pp . 375—7.

3 p . 162 .

4 pp . 9 1 , 1 28.

5 p . 625 .

6 The thought of man becoming God in t ime isasimpossible asthe thought of God becoming man in t imefirst Got t ingen lectureson Dogmat ic , 1 864—5 ; Life, 11 .

p . 25 . Earl ier coursesspoke of“der Gewordene Got t ”

(Li/e, i . p . confining Christ ’sGodhead to t he stat e of

exaltat ion .

7 Grau, S elbstbewusstsei fn Jesu (1887 pp . 271 , 726—7.

226

THE THEOLOGY OF

t o be separated from each other,in Kaftan’ s

fashion . As Dr. Garvie tells us,Herrmann ’s

apologetic has two foundations— the moralnature of man 1 and the historical Christ . Bothfoundations are necessary . We have no libertyto select one and neglect the other. The manwho is not morally in earnest can neverunderstand what blessedness is ; the manwho does not look in hishelplessness to JesusChrist will never attain to blessedness . If Herrmann write s upon Ethics , he tells of Christ asthe Person at whose touch ethical life arises .And , if he begins to speak on Dogmatic , hepushes back to the recognition of our moral needsand dangers as giving a meaning t o the gospelof Christ . He is a convinced Kantian ; but heagrees with Ritschl that the neo-Rationalism of

Religion within the Boundsof Mere Reason doesno justice to Kant’s own practical phi losophy .

Again,the vision of Christ which Herrmann pro

claims is a perception of His inner life .” Christthus apprehended becomes a fact in our ownlife

,and overpowers us . Not ext ernal events ,

but the personality and character of Jesus- theseare knowable, are verifiable .Herrmann is in earnest with the negative

implications of his test . He insists , againstRitschl , that we must not include even t he

resurrection of Jesus among the immediatelyverifiable certainties .2 This insistence is partly

1 Though thiswording of oursmight notsat isfyHerrmann2 Dogmatik, p . 612 .

228

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

due t o Herrmann ’s j ealousy of mere probabilitiesin religion . Faith must be certain, or it has forhim no warrant at all .Again

,Herrmann substitutes for the Ritschlian

appeal to the New Testament—and indirectly tothe Old Testament as well—this central impressioncreated by the personality of Jesus . He namesKaftan and Kat t enbusch ,

among Ritschl ’sdisciples, as having specially welcomed Ritschl ’sreturn to an older emphasis on the Bible .Schleiermacher

,according to Herrmann , struck

a truer note,especially in the Reden Herrmann

ignores the vague romanticist basis of that bookon the rather unconvincing ground that Schleiermacher must have presupposed Christianity ,though he neglected to work out his assumptions .The Dogmatik is held to be of considerably lowervalue, on account of its endeavour to reproducewonted Church teaching. Yet it is the Dogmatikwhich regards Christian theology as a descriptionof faith ; and it is the Dogmatik which callsreligion Absolute Dependence —a phrase Herrmann reverences ; for such dependence is onlypossible in the free submission of free souls . ” 1

Hofmann, and even in measure Frank, with theirtheology of the regenerate life, come nearer thetruth than Ritschl ; he was more hamperedthan the Erlangen Lutherans by the doctrinaltradition ' Yet Herrmann will not test experi

ence subsequently by scripture,as the Erlangen

divines do .

1 Dogmatik, pp . 5 96—7.

229

THE THEOLOGY OF

Some have praised and some blamed Herrmannfor this concentration upon a smaller focus of

authority than Ritschl ’s. The new method escapes dependence on doubtful findings in NewTestament criticism . Also—as Herrmann noteshe is not tempted to the non-natural exegesis ofRitschl or Hofmann ; they have almost rivalledorthodoxy in wresting the scriptures Whetherwe praise or whether we blame, let us note thischange and remember it .The central thing, then,

according t o Herrmann,in Christianity and in human life , is the impressionproduced by Jesus on the moral mind of man . Ithas been well said of Bishop Butler that the Godhe worshipped was a magnified human conscience .

There is not less of conscience in t he religion ofHerrmann than in Butler’s ; but Herrmann hasthe happiness to worship a God who is not merelyour judge , terrible in righteousness , but our

Redeemer and Saviour . Again, in contrast withevangelicalism (from Paul downwards) whichpostulates knowledge of the death of Christ,Herrmann will not regard even that event asbelonging t o the necessary primal certainties .What is primary , what is certain, is the impression of the moral glory and strength of Christ .Such a force cannot be considered anythingexcept a reality . It is no cunningly devisedfable . Nor is it a mere postulate ; it is a fact,and reveals itself as the authority emancipatingand completing our own inner life . For when,in this fashion

,Christ comes into the life of any

230

THE THEOLOGY OF

is in all minds one faith , which arises when Godshines into our heart by the vision of the faceof Christ . With equal naturalness and necessity ,

there are many differing non-authoritativethoughts of faith in the many minds thatlearn of Christ .One is made to recall a dialogue by Mr. Henry

James,in which a cultured and sympathetic man

talks with some women who try to drag him intotheir discussion . At every turn he makes thecomment, I know what you mean '” Theycan extract nothing more from him . Just suchis Herrmann’s attitude towards the thoughts ofSt . Paul or St . John or later lesser saints . Hewill be found unfailingly sympathetic , infiexib lynon-committal . There is no great Christianthought you can name to him which he willnot greet with a glow . There is none to whichyou can tie him . Is there a vein of int ellec

tual scepticism here ? Is the theologian ’s mindwarped ? One cannot help thinking that, incourse of time

, Christians who love Christ andwho cease launching anathemas at each otherwill be able to reach a wider basis of agreement .It is true that

,as living persons, we must experi

ence the common salvation each in his own way .

Yet surely in his own way each experiences thesame and we have a most personal interest inthe thoughts of others who worship with us thesame God and follow the same Saviour .One result of Herrmann ’s attitude towards the

Glaubensgedanken is his repudiation of that thought232

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

of system in theology which Ritschl so empha

sized . In 1879 he had accepted Ritschl ’sview ;a correctly treated Dogmatic was to be awhole, just as the personal spirit is a whole .

Such a whole can be vindicated by proof asuniversally valid .

” 1 In 1 9 06 he has come to feelit a gain that we are free from any such fetters .Orthodox theology showed great tact in avoiding system and choosing the looser form of loci ,

” 2

which gave individual doctrines of scripture uncurtailed—not sacrificing any one of them to thesupposed requirements of logic .Once more Herrmann shows concentration

when he makes his escape from what one sometimes ventures to call the Protestant dualism , athing which Ritschl had seemed to intensify .

Herrmann closes the gaping wound . There is noredemption except for the man who is seekingGod and goodness . There is no finding of goodness for anyone except in the God who has expressed Himself to us in Jesus Christ . There isno failure to find on the part of any who trulyseek .

If Herrmann seems far removed from thenormal utterances of Christian faith , yet—hashe not insisted that without personal faith inChrist no one is right with God ? And that noone possessing such faith can be wrong withGod ? Are not these tenets absolutely central

1 Die Religion, p . 431 , with reference in footnote

to Ritschl , Justification, iii. p . 1 1 .

2 Dogmatik, p . 625 .

233

THE THEOLOGY OF

to Christianity ? If there might seem dangerof purely erotic or sentimental Christianity

,the

fault is in our formulation . Herrmann has takent he best of precautions in limiting Christ’s offert o t he morally earnest man .

”

And yet the theology and religion of WilliamHerrmann impress one as a steep and narrowpath , on which few feet will ever be able t o

follow the dauntless pioneer . Individualist ashe is in regard to the thoughts of faith

,

”loneli

ness in regard to faith will not satisfy him . Heinsists that the strange mountain track where heclimbs is the king ’s highway, trodden by all thesaints of t he past, destined to b e used by all t hesaints of the future . His novel forms of speechor turns of thought are for him identical withessential Christianity . Alas ' one cannot seethings so . His is one form of expressing t he

Christian appeal—a form in many ways peculiarlyadapted t o twentieth-century needs among cultured persons in the West ; t he exclusive formof God’s appeal ? Surely not . One thinks thereis a Christianity very near that of the New

Testament for which the forgiving love of Godis the first word and almost the last . I havewritten unto you , my little children , because yoursins are forgiven you for His name ’s sake .

” Onethinks

,too

,that Christianity is something a shade

less bleak and bare than it seems on Herrmann’spages . But one offers these criticisms with allpossible diffidence in the presence not only ofgreat power of thought but of deep and pure

234

THE THEOLOGY OF

and that the apologetic sections of Haering’s

Dogmatik are built precisely on Kaftan’s lines .Kaftan ’s Dogmatik reveals a large measure of

agreement with Ritschl . There is the twofoldstudy of Kingdom of God and Atonement ; theappeal to scripture ; the ideal of a theology 1

extending not a hair-breadth beyond (the contents of) faith . Kaftan, however, if not precisely in the same sense as Herrmann, moderatesRitschl ’semphasis upon system . The unity oftheology is to be a unity of spirit . It does notmuch matter how we group the topics ' Thetraditional loci may serve . Yet a reader of theDogmatik cannot think that Kaftan ’s detail iswell balanced .

At several points he seems to push asideeccentricities 2 of Ritschl ’s. There is, in commonwith Herrmann, warmer emphasis on redemption

-a conception which Ritschl thrust into thebackground . Atonement in the Old Testamentis demanded by sin

,not by creaturely weakness .

Penal justice is clearly acknowledged . The

transferability of Christ’s deity—favoured bySchul tz as well as by Ritschl—is disclaimed . IfChrist’s deity includes much that is transferableto us , it stands also for that which is unique anduntransferable .At other points again Kaftan may seem to be

1 p . 1 78.

3 There isdanger ofsub ject ivity in t he use ofsuch t ermsUnlessmany fellow-workersand followersst rike out t hesame quest ionab le posit ionsfrom Ritschl ’sscheme

236

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

going half-way back towards traditional orthodoxy .

1 With all his fondness for the cleancut in Apologetic

,he tends in Dogmatic to

break off sharp edges . There is at least a suggestion of half-and-halfness

,of the Vermittler . He

will separate the treatment of t he Person fromthat of the Work of Christ . The divine and thehuman in Christ are not a unity ; they standfor separate features in the spiritual history ofthe Master . A doctrine ( if not the doctrine) ofthe Trinity is formulated .

2 While disowning hist orical—one might more fit ly say, unhistoricalmysticism as definitely as his fellows

,he wishes

to make a place for mystical, i . e. immediate ,dealing with God . One would have thoughtthat no one who had passed through the mill ofthe critical philosophy could have proposed tomark off God in this obj ective fashion from theworld and the self ; but then Kaftan is hardly atrue Kantian . He takes up a similar mediatingattitude towards the Absolute . Ritschl ’swarnings are to b e careful ly noted , but he carriedthem too far.” Ritschl has vacillated on manyquestions of philosophy and is certainly open tocorrection ; but one distrusts the rul e of was'ayaw in the world of thought . The Three Officesof Christ are reinstated without reference t o

Ritschl ’sstriking systematization . In regard tothe origin of sin

,Kaftan goes back t o positions

1 Classificat ion here isperhapseven more uncertain.

3 The same was cert am t rue of Herrmann’sclasslectureson Dogmat ic in the summer of 1899 .

237

THE THEOLOGY OF

which Ritschl abandoned .

1 Although the primaryquestion is that of t he nature of sin, there musthave been a fall into sin on the part of the firsthuman beings . We infer this from the dolefulfacts of t o-day ' A non-empiricist finds it hardto grasp what an empiricist thinks he has gainedby such discoveries . Kaftan is no believer in aCovenant of Works . In original sin he doesperhaps believe .

Unlike Herrmann’s,Kaftan ’s Dogmatic seems

t o resolve itself into a string of postulatese. g. regarding omnipotence , providence, miracle .

The assertions postulated all doubtless occurin scripture

,and that fact lends them a ful ler

measur e of authority ; but the ul timate nerve ofproof, according t o Kaftan, seems to be the judgment that such truths are precious or desirable .

The judgment as to fact rests upon a judgment asto value . Even the Christian revelation seemsto b e , with Kaftan , hardly more than a postulate .

We know it is a fact because it deserves to be one ,

exhibiting as it does the highest possible unionof religion and morality . This Apologetic andHerrmann ’s diverge greatly . The latter’s hasthe difficul ty of seeming to confine all realreligion and all real morality within Christianity .

Kaftan ’s has the danger of losing itself in externals

, and of never attaining to real authority .

It is difficul t not t o think that Kaftan’s bookis padded with a good deal of irrelevant historicalmaterial . An account of t he contents of Chris

1 Ritschl ’sLife, vol . i . pp . 235 , 384—5 .

238

THE THEOLOGY OF

R . C. Moberly, or—less ecclesiastically again—inthe essay of the younger Mr . Moberly in Foundations. Ritschl opened fire upon his proselytein edition two of Justific ation,

iii . but Haeringstuck to his guns and makes an excellent fight .Perhaps there is no more timely message toserious theologians to-day than this Dogmatik .

It presupposes an Apologetic appealing to thereligious experience

,and to nothing else . It

suggests that evangelical Christians who believein the personal pre-existence of Christ must bearwith other evangelical Christians who find thatbelief unverifiab le ; on the other hand , thatthe more radical minds must not be impatientor contemptuous towards the conservatives . Amovement which can inspire such a book as thishas not exhausted its promise either to the worldof thought or to the higher world of life and faith .

Besides noticing the sequence of theologicalutterances by the leaders of the school, we havea less comfortable task in noting various challengeswhich , from within the school itself, havebeen directed against several of the foundationsof Ritschlianism .

Albrecht Ritschl died in 1889 . In 189 2 his

pupil and son-in-law,Johannes Weiss , whose

recently announced death is so great a loss totheology

,published some seventy pages on Jesus’

Preaching of the Kingdom of God. As all theworld knows, this essay , and more especiallyedition one of it

,is the classical formulation of

240

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

the rigidly eschatological interpretation of theKingdom of God even as conceived by Jesus .We are shown that in the contemporary mindthe divine kingdom was a thing supernaturalonly indirectly moral ; a thing of the futurfi

only in a rhetorical sense a present reality . Thatbrilliant fanatic of the eschatological view, AlbertSchweitzer, reproaches Weiss with the concessions of edition two

,and seeks t o explain not

merely Jesus ’ teaching but even His personaldevelopment by the clue which eschatologyfurnishes . On re-reading Weiss ’s 189 2 pamphletone is impressed with its forcibleness . To a largeextent its positions have commended themselvesin debate . It is possible that we ought to seekmediating positions

,and so secure a larger truth .

But, if the Kingdom has a definite primarymeaning, according to which it involves t he overthrow of the present world , it is doubtful whetherwe can in any true sense bracket with that meaning an ethical ” kingdom . The inner significance of the great hOpe—it is both a great hopeand a great fear —may be God ’s reign in men’shearts . But could the New Testament age

possiblyuse Kingdom of God in a spiritualizedsense ? If not

,we must recast many of the

primary positions of Ritschlianism .

Again,it may be possible—Weiss himself

thought it was- to employ Kingdom of God

(modernized or spiritualized) as the frameworkfor a dogmatic system . But that becomes adifferent thing if we know that we are not literally

R 24 1

THE THEOLOGY OF

reproducing Jesus ’ teaching . In any case, wemust regard our Lord as having been much lessof a theological lecturer than Ritschl led numerousreaders to suppose . There may be gain for ushere

,as well as losses and trials . It may be that

the other-worldliness of the apocalyptic mindserved in God ’s providence as a vehicle for theunworldliness of the Saviour . On the otherhand, it looks as if the thought of Jesus had notconsciously penetrated the error regarding timesand seasons which beset the whole piety of theage . Even if we resisted Weiss ’s evidence asto the proper sense of Kingdom of God, otherevidence must force the admission that Jesusaccepted the imminence of the Last Day . Ritschlchecked as if by violence the conviction thateschatological excitement goes back through theapostles to the lifetime of t he Master . Suchviolence is no longer honest.Another interesting early book by We iss contains some forcible criticisms on Herrmann . Itdiscusses TheFollowing of Christ and the Preachingof To-day, and therefore is an effort at mediation ,making extensive concessions to the modern mind .

It actually seems to take for granted that therewill continue to be large sections of the ChristianChurch knowing nothing of personal religion 'Herrmann is charged with the sin of leading menbeyond dependence on the Church into a personalprivate relation to the Master ; the danger offanaticism is thought to b e deplorably near .Both Ritschl and Herrmann are charged with

24 2

THE THEOLOGY OF

once a teacher of Ritschl ’sipsissima verba in theUnterricht,

1 has placed itself within the currentof that radicalism which sees in Jesus a prophetor teacher, nothing more . Even the eschatological school may be of value in such an emergeney . Whatever the eschatological Christ wasto His own thoughts , He was not a negligibledetail of the Gospel .

Another attack from a friendly quarter isTroeltsch ’sView of Luther and the Reformation .

This goes far beyond challenging individualexcrescences in Ritschl ’s form of statement .The view common t o all the Ritschlian leaders ,that Luther opens up a new and deeper insightinto Christianity

,is set aside . We are told that

Luther is essentially a mediaevalist, while weourselves are essentially modernist . The worldhas been forced out of Mediaevalism ,

Catholicor Protestant

,by the radicalism of the Reformed

Church, of the smaller sects , and then of theEnlightenment . Strangely enough

,one finds

Troeltsch drawing from Luther his own programme

2 for the modern religious mind . Inthat programme there is no distinctive place for

Christ .3 The author of the programme owes hisprimary loyalty not to Christ but to modernism . He will be as much of a Christian ashis Modernism permits ; as little a Christian as

1 Ritschl ’sLife, ii. p . 337.

3 See hispamphlet not ed above, Lutheru. diemoderneWelt .3 One isnot at tacking t he personal Christ ianity of the

writer, but histheology . The lat ter one isforced to condemn.

24 4

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

his Modernism requires . Learned and powerfulthough his contribution to history may be

,his

mind is in the grasp of anti-evangelical presuppositions . If Ritschl capriciously invertsordinary estimates , Troeltsch forfeits the elementof truth contained in Ritschl ’smost freakishsuggestions . We are not bound t o accept theauthority of such a critic . His religious estimateshave more to do with his findings than hisimmense knowledge of history . Those to whomChrist is the light of the world will still regard asthe essential thing in Luther the great fact thathe Christum recht verstand.

One cannot date or define with precision therise of the History-of-Religion school . Still

,it

is a conspicuous element in the contemporaryreligious situation ; and , as has repeatedly beenobserved , 1 the new school is largely recruitedfrom theologians who had belonged to the

Ritschli an tendency . The change in theirthoughts is partly due to reaction from Ritschlianexcesses . Ritschl explained Christianity narrowly out of the Old Testament, if even morecentrally out of the personality of Jesus . Suchhistorical theories lent themselves as vehiclesto a supernatural faith . They permitted t he

interpretation that God intervened peculiarly1 Comp . Reischle ’spamphlet noted above . He quot es

Got tschick in the same sense . Of namesmade prominentin Reischle ’snarrat ive, A. E ichhorn, Gunkel , Bousset werepersonal pupilsof A. Ritschl ; Scheibe , Grill , Heitmullerapparent ly were not .

24 5

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

in Israe l, uniquely in Christ . The History-of

Religion school stands for explaining Christianity,

as far as possible, by contemporary conditions .More is made of Judaism ; less importance isattached to the earlier classical age of the OldTestament . Judaism itself is held to have beeninfected from other faiths ; and there are scholarswho more boldly still assum e direct borrowingperhaps in the sacramental theology of St . Paulfrom non-biblical religions . Gunkel has actuallythought that a syncretistic religion is a fittingdescription for Christianity . A curious variantof these views appears when Albert Schweitzertells us that

,in the spirit of their century, Jesus ,

and John the Baptist before Him,invented

sacraments as eschatological safeguards .It appears

,then, that the historical basis of

Ritschlian supernaturalism is gravely threatened .

That basis need not have been crowned with asupernatural structure, nor need the new basisnow proposed to us exclude supernaturalism .

Yet anti-supernaturalism is the predominantbias . That such an attitude should prevail, andprevail among men largely trained in Ritschlianism

,is a blow to the school and a menace to the

task of theology , whether apologetic or dogmatic .We shall not fear ultimate failure ; but we mustnot promise ourselves immediate success . Therewill be difiicul t lessons to learn—of generosityin dealing with non-Christian religions , of firm

ness and caution as we defend the supremetreasure of our faith in Christ .

24 6

THE THEOLOGY OF

The historical positions of t he school have beenlittle if at all modified . Substantially they re

main as they were . Kingdom of God in theGospels means a present ethical reality . Thisbeing granted

,we must reach an interpretation

of Paul separated by no appreciable discontinuityfrom the thoughts of Jesus . Modern study ofreligions had helped Ritsch l to formulate thedistinctiveness of Christianity, and in doing thatwas supposed to have done its all . If we shouldthink that such historical bases as these are

scientifically ill- secured,we must conclude that

much of the Ritschlian synthesis is premature .

The spirit and aim of the movement may abide .

Its actual constructive work will need remodelling .

In regard to philosophy ; we must once morecontent ourselves with what has been already saidon personal points such as the waverings or amb iguit iesof Albrecht Ritschl . Seeking for whatis essential and permanent in the movement

,we

note one great bond of union . All members ofthe school , so far as the present writer is aware ,repudiate a constructive system of rationalismor idealism . They are all in recoil from Hegel .Negatively, they will not tolerate , in Christianfaith or Christian theology, specul ative doctrinesof the Absolute . 1 Prof. Garvie thinks them mistaken , even on their own premises . If faith and

( scientific) knowledge were two separate things ,a theologian ought not to trouble himself at all

1 Slight qual ificat ion isnecessary in regard to Kaft an ;comp . supra, p . 237 .

248

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

about metaphysical findings . Yet surely theschool had some reason for caution . Not afew types of metaphysics enter into consciousrivalry with Christian belief. If Dr. Garvie ’shypothetical recommendation were acceptedif philosophy were left to go its own way

, un

scrutinized—there would be danger of a doctrineof Two Truths . 1 What guarantee could b e giventhat theses which faith rules out might not bedemonstrated in philosophy ? That need not

follow, but it might ; and the Ritschlian leadersintend to take precautions in good time .Within this measure of agreement, marked

divergences occur . Let us record some of thesein regard to miracle and the allied topic of freewill .(a)According t o old-fashioned Natural Dualismour world contains a region of absolute lawflanked by a region of absolute immunity fromlaw ; and miracle is an interference with the lawregion on the part of Divine freewill . This isthe highest and boldest of all possible dogmaticaffirmations on both points—ou freewill

,and on

miracle .

(b) It may be held that there are two views ofthings : that, from one point Of View, all is determined ; that, from another point of view, allthat concerns ourselves IS of the nature of re

1 According to lat e mediaeval Nominalism , a doct rine

might be t rue in philosophy and false in theology . I have

heard Prof . Herrmann repudiat e such t rifling with t ruth .

He wil l assert two realit ies he will deny with all hismight two t ruths. See infra, p . 25 4 .

24 9

THE THEOLOGY OF

sponsible personal activity . This is Herrmann ’sposition

,in agreement with Kant . From such

a scheme of thought, miracle as a thing to bescientifically formul ated—miracle as an exceptionto natural law—disappears . Of course, the moresimply religious conception of miracle holds itsground , for which Ritschl al so may be quoted .

Miracle on this view is t he conspicuous andwonderful act of God for our help ; whetherwithin or apart from laws of nature

,we neither

know nor care . The present writer’s main difficulty in accepting Herrmann ’s position on naturallaw is the fear of a Twofold Truth . If, as Kantand Herrmann both affirm , a human actionphenomenally considered is as much necessitatedas an eclipse

,

1 can the same action be morallyfree We prefer libertarianism , whateverdiffi culties may attend it.

(c)Kaftan throws himself into a strong currentof modern opinion . Since he began to write

,

the current has been reinforced by Prof. JamesWard ’s two series of Gifford lectures ; while inBritish theology an important monograph byDr. H . R . Mackintosh presupposes a similarphilosophy . Laws of nature are to b e depotentiated . They are useful fictions of the

human mind, due to a very partial view of factsif our summary is brusque, that may make it allthe clearer . If, then, obj ective reality containsno laws

,freewill ceases to b e a problem . In any

1 Kant , Critique of P rac . Reason, p . 231 ; Abbot t’st r

p . 1 93 Herrmann, Die Religion, p . 220 .

25 0

THE THEOLOGY OF

foreign minds , under pretext of interpreting themto the insular reader. One has every wish toavoid that example ; but one cannot whollyrefuse to outline conclusions whatever mayprove to be their fate .

( 1) One would greatly like to see an attempt atbringing the spirit of Ritschlian theology intoalliance with some more positive and constructivemetaphysic than his or his friends ’ . A writeralready mentioned in these pages

,Prof. Troeltsch ,

has plead ed for a religious a priori in thePhilosophy of Religion . The result in his casemay fail to satisfy us . One can understand how,

in face of such possibilities,Albrecht Ritschl

should try to make good his appeal to historicalempiricism .

” Metaphysic may become a rivalto the distinctive revelations found in Christ 'Yet one is not satisfied that such a resultnecessarily flows from believing in constructivemetaphysic .For instance, if we should suppose that Theism

is competent, it would not follow that the argument at ive demonstration, A God exists, entersinto any real competition with Christ ’s message,The God for whom I speak desiresand purposestobe your friend. Personally, one may incline tohold that Theism is not demonstrable apart from

(a) the moral life, and (6) its culmination in theChristian life . Intellectual argument may leaveus to the very end wavering between Theism andPantheism . But even if not- does demonstrationof a God-fact reveal God ’s Fatherly heart towards

25 2

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

us ? Unless we make that foolish affirmation ,Christianity stands unchallenged .

(2)Whatever is true of religious a priori, theremust be an ethical a priori . There must be anindependent root of certainty in the conscience ;developed biologically and historically how youwill—i . e. in whatever way you can prove it hasbeen developed—but veracious , authoritative,self-commending . It may be in itself incomplete

,

We may need God , as revealed in Christ,to

round it out and bathe it in its true glory . But ,on dark days of doubt, the inner law and thehuman t ie will still be near and strong if heavenis hidden . And he who does not love the brotherhe has seen cannot love t he God whom he has notseen . Still further, the moral a priori is not therival of faith . It is rather a postulate than anaffirmation . It says to us , Such things must be .Christ says to us , Behold , these things are 'Better than in your best dreams .”

(3)Another caution must be stated in regardto the relations between the findings of int ellectual philosophy—if such are to be respectedand the more

'

immediate convictions of Christianfaith . It is one of Ritschl ’sfixed assumptionsthat

,if we put any trust at all in metaphysic, we

must grant metaphysic the last word upon al l

disputed points . It may possibly be the casethat this is generally assumed in German theological debate .

1 But one thinks that an a priori

1 The late Princ ipal D . W. Simon, who knew Germanywell and wasanything but favourab le to Ritschl ’sviews,

25 3

THE THEOLOGY OF

philosophy may arise which will hand on tentative results to be remodelled by t he moraland religious consciousness . We must not keepposing t he dilemma : True or false ? From Hegelwe must learn to establish provisional positions ,and t o reach affirmations that are relatively true ,feeling certain that no future evolution of thoughtwill destroy our assertions—rather it will transmute them into worthier forms—yet also feelingcertain that the form in which we hold andtreasure truth is not the highest possible .

(4) One ventures to doubt the possibility ofdividing the world of knowledge into two regionswhich are eternally to eo-exist without havingany intercourse one with the other . It is moreprobable that they must be thought together,

”

whatever of diffi culty and danger that task mayinvolve . This may be the only escape from t he

intellectual dishonesty which speaks of“ Two

Truths .” One possible example has already beennoted . It may be t he case that intellectualreasoning leads up towards belief in God . Or,if we cannot be certain of that ; it is conceivablethat monism—the unity of all things , assumed inhuman knowledge , and more and more verified asknowledge advances—has a religious significance .Or, again, one might contend that moderndoctrines of evolution imply t he d iscovery ofa growing purpose in nature

,and therefore to

hassa id to me that great allowancesmust be made forpeculiarly Ge rman condit ionswhen we are passing judgment on what we deem defec tsin men like Ritschl .

25 4

THE THEOLOGY OF

regard to which religion and science may andmust exchange pourparlers.(6)Yet, strangely enough , one feels constrained

to urge upon the Ritschlians the necessity of morefrankly recognizing the limits of our knowledgein matters of religion . There is a familiar imagewhich compares utterly illegitimate theologicaldogmas to astronomical theses regarding the

back of the moon—that region of our satellitewhich never rturnsearthwards . Of course, it ispossible that, in the progress of science , we shalllearn unexpectedly by indirect processes whatthe back of the moon is like . And it is alsothinkable that propositions or facts which seemirrelevant to religion may hereafter prove to beindirectly connected with it . On the other hand ,it is at least possible that they never will . Henceit may be a Christian duty to be icily in

different towards such affirmations . We shouldnot really enrich astronomy by guessing hardwhat the back of the moon may be like . Nor dowe really enrich Christian theology when we addto it affi rmations which have no discoverablebearing on the moral and spiritual life . Sucha bearing might be one day discovered ? Or evenone day revealed ? The significant fact is that,so far, it is not 'Let us take one example .1 Honest exegesis

of the New Testament will hardly fail to report

1 Will t he reader please note that what isspoken of here

isnot the doct rine of Christ ’spersonal pre-existence , but ofHiscreat ive act ivit y ?

2 5 6

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

that several passages think of t he Son of Godas the divine agent in creation . Christ madethe nebula in Orion ; fixed it in the sky ; haskept it in its place through ages which it makesthe mind giddy to measure ; will dispose of itagain when He has fulfilled His purposes with it .Now, it is a grammatically and logically flawlessproposition that the First Person of the Godheadmade the worlds through the agency of the SecondPerson of the Godhead . But what that meanswhat difference it would have made t o us

,or to

the nebula in Orion,if the Eternal Father had

made the worlds apart from the mediation oft he Son—no soul of man can see . Had we livedin the first century, believing that this littleplanet was t he centre of all things

,with angels

peering into its affairs (and into no others)fromabove

,with the pit gaping precisely beneath it

we also,in the first century

,should no doubt have

found it a natural expression of our Christianfaith

,that the Logos had acted as t he divine

agent in creation . But we belong to an olderand sadder age . We are twentieth-centuryminds

,with many new difficulties in the way of

belief. It is no part of our duty to weight withprecarious theories that central gospel whichwe preach t o others and by which our own soulslive . But, if it is not our duty to do this , itcertainly cannot be our right . Personally

,we may

believe the dogma, if we choose and if we can .

But we must not insist upon it in presenting thegospel to our age .

s 25 7

THE THEOLOGY OF

The Ritschlian thesis is hardly less Open tocriticism . It affirms that nature is to be explained from the religious point of view notaetiologically but teleologically and only telcologically . The Kingdom of God is the upshotand purpose of all creation- the kingdom whereJesus reigns and God through Him . What ,then, of the nebul a in Orion ? This apparently,that—for reasons unrevealed and undiscoverable—the nebula had to be just what it is in orderthat Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His gospelmight be just what they are . 1 Well ' It maybe true . God alone knows what necessities—or

what high spiritual expediencies—connect seemingly brute facts with supreme moral purposes .But, on the face of things , it does not look as ifany such assertion were true . And I for one ,as I decline to hamper myself with the old dogmaChristuscreator , so I refuse to become responsiblefor a new dogma

,affirming that the nebul a was

necessary to the Christhood of Jesus . What ,then

,is the relation between Jesus Christ and

the nebul a in Orion ? With t he utmost reverence

,speaking in God ’s presence , I answer that

I neither know nor care .It may further

,indeed

,be true that the whole

physical universe is nothing else than a schoolroom where souls are trained . It istrue thatthat is the supreme fact about the universe ;

1 I t may be that no Ritschlian meansthis. I can only

report that their concurrent t est imony seemsplainly to

say it .

25 8

THE THEOLOGY OF

revealed in nature , but absolutely revealed inChrist and in Him alone . On the one hand ,nature partially reveals God . There is t oo muchtendency in Ritschlianism t o obliterate this confession of our faith, and to View nature exclusivelyas that from which God rescues us,—a scripturaltruth , 1 undoubtedly, but not the whole truth .

On the other hand, t he supreme and exclusiverevelation which redeems and saves

,is Jesus

Christ . This, and nothing else , as Ritschl haspointed out

,is the purport and pith of t he

prologue to the Fourth Gospel . If elaborateddogmatic certitudes throw this truth into t he

shade, they may b e doing honour to t he huskof revelation

,but they destroy its kernel .

The essential and abiding features of theRitschl movement may b e stated in a single word—concentration . Our apologetic must become aconcentrated apologetic, our dogmatic a concent rat ed dogmatic . The great argument forChristian faith , the great theme of Christianfaith , are one and the same . How do we know ?By concentration upon Christ . The moral natureand needs of man furnish that to which Christmakes His appeal ; but that which makes appealto us

,with authority, with saving power, is

Christ Jesus . What do we know ? We knowthe Christ upon whom faith concentrates itself.As to a concentrated apologetic : ( 1) one

possible thesis—dogmatic , however, rather than1 Comp . Eph . u. 1 2 .

260

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

apologetic, and dogmatic in a bad rather thanin a good sense—explains t he concentration ofpower to save in the single figure of Christ bythe fact of human sin . The suggestion—perhapswe might say , the assertion—is that, sin apart ,the human race could have worked out its salvation, not, perhaps , without t he heavenly Fatheror without the power of His Spirit

,but without

Jesus the Son of God . This assertion was veryclearly formulated by Rothe, 1 a theologian of

the generation before Ritschl ; it meets us morethan once on the pages of Ritschl ’sfriendSchultz ? One can work out for oneself thefanciful picture of an unstained humanity inferring from t he barest hints of nature a tremblinghope in God

,and keeping faith alive upon these

scanty rations until death rent the veil for eachbelieving soul

,and ushered it into the j oy of

God ’s presence . On the other hand , sin is apervasive and basal fact in our religious life .

Theories which eliminate it are daring things .

(2)The alternative assertion—human dependence not simply upon God

,but essentially upon

God in Christ—might take different lines . Itmight commit itself to a heightened historicalempiricism .

” There is no knowledge at all of

God, among men, except precisely where theinfluence of Jesus tells ' Or it might appeal tothe connectedness of mankind as a race , andinterpret the central position of t he Son of Man

1 Zur Dogmatik ed . 2 , p . 5 9 .

2 E . g . Apologeti c, E . T. p . 5 1 .

261

THE THEOLOGY OF

by the fact that it is God ’s good pleasure to saveus not one by one but in a fellowship which linkseach to all . The extreme dogmatic developmentof the latter position is the assertion that Christwould have become incarnate even if man hadnot sinned . But usually, if not always , such adoctrine ceases to relate itself to man’s moralneeds and becomes a cosmological speculation :

Incarnation asthe crown of evolution ' It isnot thinkable but that the self-manifesting Godshould employ this supremest method of manifesting HimselfOne ventures to suggest that both assertions

what we have numbered ( 1) and what we havenumbered (2)—really trench upon the unknowable . We have no materials for answering thequestion, how the human race would havedeveloped in the absence of sin . We have nomaterials for affirming how God under suchconditions woul d have revealed Himself. Itis possible for us to raise these questions . It isnot possible for us to answer them . Our onlywisdom , therefore, is to let them be, and toconcentrate upon what we know—that we havesinned , and that God in Christ is our Saviour.

(3)Another difficulty has been raised in regardto the Old Testament . If Christ alone revealsGod

,what of those who trusted in God before

Christ ? The strangest conundrums have beenbased upon this query , and have been addressedto Ritschl ; as if the older dispensation of God

’sgrace could in the nature of things be intelligible

262

THE THEOLOGY OF

with a sinking heart that, if God had allotted t ooneself a place in the age and t he society t o whichPlutarch belonged , one woul d have had no betterprospect—perhaps none so good .

Personally, t he present writer believes withouta shadow of doubt that God extends t he knowledge of Christ to those who have passed intoanother world , if this world has given ( 1) noopportun ity at all or (2)no real opportunity ofclosing with the gospel . Such a belief is notformulated in the New Testament . It did notfall within the horizon of an eschatologicallyminded age . Nor had that age had time to feelthe force of those deeply Christian motives whichurge upon one ’s mind t he belief in question . Irepeat that personally, and as a Christian, I couldnot feel life endurable unless I held this belief.When one has fought one ’s way through doubtto certainty

,one has the unshakable assurance

that God understands us perfectly—here we

stand ; we can do no otherwise ; so help usGod —and that we , in such measure as weakdisciples of Jesus may, but also, in such measureas we need—understand God . Yet one does notpretend that this can be anything more thanpersonal b elief, or than one of those extremeinferences which lie on the far border- line betweenthe sacred and t he unmeaning . By such personalfaith one lives ; but one cannot force it on others,or preach it aspart of the message . There maybe unimagined ways in which God accomplishesthat twofold purpose—of testing or judging men,

264

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

and of saving them—which gives our life itsmeaning . So far, however, as one

’s thoughtcan reach

,this is what one holds

That God saves men through Christ alone .That He loves all .That it is impossible God Himself should reveal

a fixed purpose of leading each soul in the end

to bliss,without thereby destroying the moral

meaning of choice .That t he revelation of Christ raises the responsib ility of those to whom it comes , making possiblethe attainment of greater heights—or a moreterrible fall .That it is inconceivable Christ should merelyintensify human chances

,bright and dark . That

it is immeasurably better to know Him thannever to have heard of Him . That God doesHis best for every one ; which best is Christ,and knowledge of Christ—if not here , then elsewhere ; if not now,

then after the dense veil ofdeath has been passed .

( 5 ) On the revelation of Christ to non-humanraces of moral beings, if (as we may well suppose)such exist, it becomes us to be silent . Here wepass beyond possible relation to our own moralneeds and succours . The pages of the NewTestament may exhibit beginnings or hints ofsuch doctrines . But not angelology itself, andstill less the soteriology of the angels

,has any

place in the confession of Christian faith . Thosewho would insist on framing such definitions

265

THE THEOLOGY OF

are seeking to grasp that elusive material whichhaunts the b ack of the moon .

Dogmatically, no less than apologetically, weare to concentrate upon Christ .

( 1) It may seem , indeed , that God is no lesscentral to Christianity—to Christian faith, toChristian theology—than Christ can be . It mayseem so ? It isso ' Those who have reachedGod—logically or illogically

,legitimately or irregu

larly—have reached the one sure foundation .

They are heirs of God . But if, in point of fact,to know God is one part (or rather one aspect)of the gift which Christ alone bestows , then, inbidding men concentrate upon Christ, we do notbid them forget God—we tell them how for thefirst time they may learn concerning Him . Oneaspect of the needed Christian concentration isto know the Father . He who truly knowsthe Father has all that life

,has in essence all

that heaven itself can give him . But this knowledge is Christ’s gift .

(2)Everything, therefore, in the prospects ofRitschlianism turns upon the solvency of its newChristology—or, if you will, upon the prospect ofa Christianity without any Christology as tradit ionally known . God is One, without a secondto Him actual or thinkable . And Christ is One,for He is the only way to God . As such, He sharesGod ’s glory or divineness . When we see inHim the world ’s only Saviour and only hope, weare calling Jesus Lord .

”To do this is not a

266

THE THEOLOGY OF

(4) In the same spirit we might make roomfor a Trinitarian doctrine or formula . Salvationcomes to us from the Father through the Son ;from the Son who lived and died and rose againfor us , through the abiding Spirit . Any attemptto treat the doctrine of t he Trinity as throwinglight upon philosophical riddles is irrelevant tofaith . Any attempt t o enforce the later orthodoxview—that the Trinity is a revealed mystery

,

”

to b e assented to , but never even fractionallyto be understood—that is high treason againstChrist . Such a View suits the Church of Rome ,but is mere self-murder for the children of theReformation . They ought to know better whatfaith is .

(5 ) It is in a different direction that one maysuspect undue limitation of religious belief on

the part of Ritschl and his colleagues . All, oralmost all , of them exclude from theology whatwe may call a doctrine of the salvation of character by the grace of Christ . With Herrmannprobably the most rigorously concentrated of all—salvation is faith . It is indeed also goodwill,so far as faith can be interpreted as implying thegood will ; but in no other sense . One acceptsthe statement that

,in becoming Christians , we

do not cease to be moral . It must be a truththat t he b eginmng , the middle, and the end of

the Christian life is achieved by t he exercise of

personal choice . But is that affirmation the onlysense in which truth addresses us ? May we notalso argue that, in becoming moral, we do not

268

ALBRECHT RITSCHL

cease to b e Christian ? One has ventured tobelieve that the vital element in Christianity isthe assertion, Through Christ alone

,but with

absolute sufficiency through Christ . The assertion holds good, as the Ritschlians tell us , of theknowledge of God . Such knowledge is not apart of salvation but the whole of salvation seenfrom one side . We accept the belief from Christ—He makes it credible—that , in spite of endlessmoral difficulties , God is perfectly and gloriouslygood . When we add Christ t o other evidence

,

we can believe in God ; rather, we cannot butbel ieve . So with the blessing of forgiveness .And not less so

,surely

,with the new life True ,

we cannot make this a matter of as immediatedemonstration .as Herrmann

’s appeal to faith .

Yet it is Christian t o hold that new moral life isthe gift of Christ, the sure gift of Christ, the giftof Christ alone . And the assertion will not lackits sufficient proof.

A hostile critic will ask whether such a mod ifiedRitschlianism as one has sought t o outline isanyt hing better than a velleity—a capriciouslychosen fragment or group of fragments out of alarger body of doctrine into which the tooth ofmodern doubt gnaws further and further .One can only testify to strong personal per

suasion that there is a unity and coherence inthat which one gets for the moral life from God

through Christ , such as is found nowhere else ;that

,both in thought and in life, this faith of

269

THE THEOLOGY OF

ours works ; and that our faith is not weakenedbut purified by dropping extraneous elements .Upon the ethical and spiritual principle one isperfectly clear. In the intellectual formulationthere are, and may continue to b e, profounddifficulties . This Something which one has

,how

ever imperfectly, isolated, grasped, reverenced,isChristianity . God has given to us eternallife, and this life is in his Son.

” If anyone addson ext raneous elements—e. g. a doctrine of Christ ’spersonal pre-existence on the ground that we haveindependent information of the fact as a fact

(viz. in the New Testament)—he may be savingtraditional orthodoxy, but he is saving it at thecost of Christianity itself ; and the cost is tooheavy . Great efforts are made to advertise analleged loopline, by which we may attain religiouscertainty—even

,one judges , may attain mystical

religious communion—apart from Christ ' NonChristian mysticism , or mysticism as a truthhigher and deeper than the Gospel, is a deadlything which ends in death . Along this loopline innumerable trainloads of passengers aredispatched ; but not one company, not one soul,gets through . Either they must come back, andenter in by the gates into the city ; or they muststay for ever outside . Our primary apologeticduty is to make men trust the right thingGod ’s message through Christ—and distrust thewrong. Our apologetic duty, did I say It is ourprimary and fundamental Christian duty . Whatever Ritschlianism has done or left undone, it

270

APPEND I'

NOTE A

DOGMA AND THE ADJE CTIVE DOGMATI C

THE RE isno lessamb iguity in the Ritschl ian use of the

above wordsthan in Ritschlian referencesto Apologet ic .

”

(1)Herrmann exchangesone view for another. (a) In hisearly writ ingshe employsthe adject ive asa term of praise ,equivalent to relig ious in cont rast with what ismerelymetaphysical .” But (b)on the first page of hisDogmatik

in die Kultur der Gegenwart he emphat ically declarest hatwe must not mainly understand by a Dogma a definit ionupon Church authority . Such a definit ion isonly the laststage in a long process, which hasall along been actuat ed

by the though t of a revealed doctrine. And that concept ionisthe main element in dogma .

’

Here Herrmann d ifferslinguist ically from most of hiscomrad es. 1 But for the

moment what concernsusisthat dogmatic hasbecomean epithet of blame. (2)Kaftan runsthe two usagessidebyside . (b)He denouncesthat historical type of dogma

which isdue to a mixture of Greek and especially of

Platonic philosophy with Christ ianity ; but (a)he demandsa

“new dogma . (3)Harnack , of course , insistson the

historical definit ion.

If one isto read Ritschlianswith advantage , one mustkeep asking oneself which aspect or which significat ion of

the dogmat ic they have in mind .

1 In preparing ashor t art icle on Dogma for the Encyc . Br it. I couldnot ca ll t o m ind who wasresponsible for the asser t ion I have justquo ted from Herrmann ; and , though I consul ted several well -informed

friends, none of them wasab le to supply the reference .

272

APPENDIX

NOTE B

CHRONOLOGY OF THE TUB INGEN SCHOOL AND OF RITSCHL'

S

RE LATION TO IT

1831 . Baur on The Christ Party at Corinth in TubingenYear Book .

1831 . Baur on The Pastoral Epistles.1 84 1 . Schwegler

’sMontanism.

1 842 . Georgii’sreview.

184 5 . Ritschl , while st ill at Heidelberg , defendsBaur (inZeller’sTheol. Year Book)against Diet lein on Primitive

184 5—6 . Ritschl at Tub ingen.

184 5 . Baur’sPaulus the first larger work from Baur’sown pen,

stat ing Tub ingen conclusions. E . T. 1874—6 .

184 6. Schwegler’sPost-Apostolic Age first completestate

ment of Tubingen results.1 846 . Ritschl ’sGospel ofMarcion.

184 6. Baur’sart icle onsame sub ject in Theol. Year Book.

1846—7. Ritschl ’s first lecturesat Bonn—beginning of

divergence in crit icism .

1847. Ritschl ’sreview of Baur’sPaulus.1 847. Baur on the Canonical Gospels.1847. Ritschl proposesto defend Cureton’sthree Syriac

epist lesof Ignat ius. Baur declinesfor the Year Book.

1849—5 0 . E arly Catholic Church, ed . 1 ; semi-Baurian.

1 850 . Volkmar in the Tubingen Year Book refut esRitschl ,Schwegler and Baur asto Marc ion and Luke.

1850 . Hilgenfeld’sCritical I nvestigationsinto the Gospels

of Justin, the Clementine Homilies, and Marcion

concurring with Volkmar , u.s.185 1 . I have regained Baur

’sfavour by crit icizing himNo one hasach ieved that before.

”—Life, i. p . 168.

1 85 1 . Baur’sMarcusevangelium.

1 85 1 . Ritschl ’srecantat ion asto Luke and championing of

Mark ’spriority , Tubingen Year Book.

1 85 1 . Lechler’sApostolic and Post-Apostolic Age.

1 85 1 - 7 . Comp . supra , p . 60.

r 273

APPENDIX

185 1 . Ritschl worksagain on the Curetonian Ignat ians,without eventually pub lishing .

1 853. Baur’sFirst Three Centuries.1 85 3. fi rst personal meet ing of Ritschl and Hilgenfeld .

185 4 . Ritschl , Caiusor Hippolytus? in Tubingen YearBook.

1 85 4 . Visit t o Tub ingen ; friendly int ercourse with Baur ;const rained with Schwegler .

1 85 4 . In working for a second edit ion of Early Catholic

Church, Ritschl becomesconsciousof hiswide divergence.

185 4 . Reviewsthe modified Tub ingenism of a book byHilgenfeld on the Gospelsin Zarncke’sLit. Centra lblatt.

1 85 4 . Zeller on Acts E . T . 1 875 .

1 85 6 . Anonymousreview for Zarncke of Schwarz ’sContributionstowardsa History of Recent Theology. Finalb reak with Baur .

Jan. 1 85 7. Death of Schwegler .

1 85 7 . Second ed it ion of E arly Catholic Church. Fundamental antagonism to the Tub ingen theory .

1 85 8. Ritschl abandonsvisit to Zeller at Marburg becauseBaur isZeller’sguest .

185 9 . Baur’svolume on The Tubingen S chool speaksof

Ritschl ’s recantat ion and standard of revolt .

”

1 860 . Zeller’s anonymous art icle on the Tub ingenH istorical School in v . Sybel

’sHistorische Zeitschrif t.Dec . 2 , 1860 . Death of Baur .

1 861 . Ritschl ’ssharp reply to Zeller in Jahrbucher furdeutsche Theologie .

1 861 . Friendly meet ing with K. R . Kost lin, once of the

Tub ingen School .

1 867. Int erview with Hilgenfeld at Jena , at any rat e

not unfriendly .

”-The rest isSilence .

NOTE C

JE SUS HAS FOR THE CHRI STIAN CONSCIOUSNE SSTHE RE LI GIOUS VALUE OF GOD

THI S phrase occursin A. B . Bruce’sApologetics

p . 39 8, ashisown credo. I t hasbeen largely quot ed , even

within inverted commas, as Ri tschl ’s.” That isnot

274

APPENDIX

Ritschl ’sown most st riking statement standsin all

edit ionsof Justification, vol . iii.1 An authority which

either excludesall other standardsor else subordinatesthem to itself, which at thesame t ime regulatesin exhaust ivefashion all human t rust in God , hasitself t he worth ?

of

Godhead .

” This, of course, dat esasearly as1874 .

We cannot therefore deny that the Bruce formula fairlyrepresentsthe language of Ri tschl ’sclosest friends, and

standsnot far removed from hisown. (I do not , of course ,guarant ee the exhaust ivenessof any of my lists.) I t rustthe Philist ineswill not abuse th isinformat ion Too prob ab lythey may ; but it iswell to speak the t ruth .

The subsequent history of the Bruce formula ishardl ylessint erest ing than itsRitschlian pre

-history . On one

side , of course , it hasbeen denounced ; not alwayssocourteously asby Prof . H. R . Mack intosh , who italicizesmost of t he phrase 3 asthe normat ive summary of Ritschl ,if elsewhere 41 of certain Ritschl ians, and who asks5 whetherChrist has the reality aswell asthe rel igiousvalue of God .

”

Another passage 6 makesDr. H . R . Mackintosh ’spersonalposit ion clear Christology isonly a reasoned account of

how the Man Jesushasfor usthe value and reality of

God . I t isint erest ing to compare with thisan earlier

passage ,’ where Dr. Mackintosh issummarizing the religioust eachingsof Actsi. —xii. I n other waysalso Christ’sperson had the religiousvalue of God,

” 3 while there isa

total absence of the idea of pre-exist ence .

”Apparent ly ,

then, we mayshare the rub r ic of t he apostolic Church withouta speculat ive Christology , but not Dr . Mack intosh ’sI believe I am right in saying that Dr . Selb ie hasput

forward the Bruce formul a asa rallying-cry for posit ive

Christ ian unity . I t hasbeen employed by a moderator

of the Presbyt erian Church of England in a Synod sermonor address The last place where I have observedit isin Prof . Bethune -Baker

’sopen let ter to Bishop Gore .

1 § 4 5 ; ed . 1 , 35 0 ; ii . p. 376 ; iii. p. 383 ; E . T. p. 405 .

1 One m igh t a ost render the rank .1 Doctrine of the P erson of JesusChrist, p. 279 .

1 286. p. 4 10.

1resent writer’sitalics.

276

APPENDI'

Men of the first or the second centuries, who had foundin JesusChrist the revelat ion of God , and for whom in

their own experience, He had the religiousvalue of God, 1would be predisposed to believe , even if wrongly , that He

entered on human life abnormally .

The formula may be open to crit icism , but it seemstobesupplying a felt want . I t looksasif the heresy of yesterday wasto become a b inding test of orthodoxy to-morrow.

NOTE D

THE DEFINITION OF A VALUE -JUDGMENT

WHEN a child says Fire burns he probab ly means,There isa fire there , burning . But when a man saysthesame thing , he

—more sophist icated be ing that he ismeans, If or asoften asconflagrat ion t akesplace , it involvesthe phenomenon of combust ion. Can one really rest rictthe value-judgment to either type Scient ific judgmentsare all universal asoften asyouhave Or, in other

words,they are hypothet ical If you have—or

Isit not a value-judgment to say , If we have or even had

rel ig ion, it isor would be b lessed The return of my dead

Beloved would be unbearab le happiness—can we refuse tocall tha t a value-judgment ? Isit not (lamentably) thehypothesisof an unreality , of an impossibility I can con

ceive the saint ’scry of rapture I t isgoodf or me to draw nearto Godshrivelling in the agnost ic to the pathet ic or peevishnote Belief isa happy thing f or those who can manage it .

I can conceive that each might suitab ly be called a value

judgment . Ritschl woul d limit the term to the first .

Ritschl ’senemiespretend that the gravitat ion of the t erm

isinevitab ly towardsthe second . Neither can be excluded .

Unless, indeed , the religiousvalue-judgment except ionallyconnot esfact Every rel igion affirms There ishelp And

the union of supreme helpfulness, supreme righteousness,supreme reality , supreme power—it isall t riumphant lyaffirmed when one who haslearned of Christ says, I believein God.

1 Present writer’sitalics.277

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Orr, The Ritschlian Theology and the Evangelical Faith,1897. (Full of knowledge but fuller of prejudice .

Very useful b ibliography t o dat e .) Other referencesin The Christian View of God, et c . ; 4 th ed other

wise , 3rd 1, 1897.

Ritschlianism Expository and Cri tical Essays, 1 903.

(Reprints. Slight .)Garvie , The Ritschlian Theology, Critical and Constructive,

1 89 9 , ed . 2 , 1 902 . (The standard discussion. Fullaccount of literature to dat es, in t ext and notes.)

Swing , The Theology of Albrecht Ritschl, 1 901 . (Supra, p . 131 .

Slight . Bibl iography of periodical literature recom

mended asserviceab le .)W. AdamsBrown, The Essence of Christianity A S tudy

in the History of Definition. (Chap . vii. isa capab lediscussion of Ritschl and hisS chool, with excellent

lit erature to dat e

G . Galloway , S tudiesin the Philosophy of Religion, 1 904 .

(See Essay VI . Sl ight . Not favourab le in itsverdict .)J. K. Mozley ,

Ritschlianism, 1 909 . (Church of England .

Generousand sympathet ic .)‘

Edghill , Faith and Fact A S tudy of Ritschlianism. (Afine spirit , t oo early lost , but represent ing a narrower

Angl icanism . The book isunsympathet ic .) 1 9 10.

B .—Supplementary list of selected foreign booksor

( 1)Criticisms.

Luthardt (Orthodox High Lutheran), Zur Beurtheilung derRitschl’schen Theologie in Zeitschrift fur kirchl. Wissenschafi u. Leben, 1881 and 1 886 .

H. Weiss(see p . Ueber d. Wesen d. pers'

onlichen Christenstandes, in S tud. u. Kritiken, 1 881 .

O. Fl iIgel , A . Ritschl’sphilosophische Ansichten, 1886 . (AHerbart ian theologian, with whom Ritschl feelsoc

casional sympathy . Mainly host ile .)Lipsius, Die Ritschl ’sche Theol. In Jahrb . Prot. Theol . ,

and reprint ed ,1888.

280

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl ’sche Theol. In Jahrb . Prot. Theol. ,and reprint ed 189 1 .

Frank (E rlangen Lutheran), Zur Theologie A . Ritschls,ed . 3, 1 89 1 .

Geschichte u. Kritik der neueren Theologie, 1 898.

Nippold (see pp . 36 , Die Theologische E inzelschule, u.s.w .

1 893 . (Bib liography recommended .)Handbuch der neuesten Theologie, iii. 1 901 .

Wegener, Albrecht Ritschl’sI dee desReichesGottesim Lichte

der Geschichte, 1 897. (Compare referencesin Garvie .

Useful for history ,though rather st rongly unfriendly .)

(2)Morefriendly in variousdegrees, or more purely historical.Baldensperger (see p . La Théologie deA . Ritschl, inRevue

de theol. et de philos. , 1 883.

Chantepie de la Saussaye [Dut ch], 1884 .

Scholz (see p . A . Ritschl in Preuss. Jahrbucher, 1889 .

Bom emann (see p . Die TheologieA .Ritschls, in ChristlicheWelt, 1889 .

Herrmann, Der evang. Glaube u. die Theol. A . Ritschls,1 890 .

Schoen, LesOriginesHistoriquesde la the’

ol. de Ritschl, 1 893.

S . E ek (see p . 5 Die theol . EntwickelungA . Ritschls,in Christl. Welt , 1 893.

Ecke , Die theol. S chule A . Ritschlsu. die evang. Kirche derGegenwart I , 1 897. (See p . 5 . Vol . ii which hasnowappeared under aseparat e t it le , haslessconnexion withRitschlianism . A furt her volume ispromised .)

Harnack , Ritschl u. seine S chule, in Christliche Welt, 1897.

J. Wendland , A . Ritschl u. seine S chuler, 1 89 9 .

(Praised for hisreferencesto the l iterature . Author

of a work on miracleswhich hasbeen t ranslated .)J. Weiss

, Die I dee desReichesGottesin der Theologie (chap .

1 900 .

v. Kiigelgen, Grundrissder Ritschl ’schen Dogmatik, ed . 2 ,

1 903.

VVladimir [Russian], 1 903.

Kat tenbusch , Von S chleiermacher bisRitschl, ed . 3, 1903.

281

Tit ius, A . Ritschl u. die Gegenwart, in S tud. u. Kritiken,

1 9 13.

Several of the above ent riesare borrowed from art .

A. Ritschl in Herzog-Hanck or in S . M. Jackson’sNew Schaff-Herzog ”

A very full b ib l iography of

Ritschl ’sown writ ings, great and small, will be found in

two partsat the end of the two volumesof the Life.

282

INDE'

Goebel , 195Gospel ofMarcion and ofLuke, 30,50 f

Green:T. H 13, 25 1

Gunkel , 43, 24 5 n. , 246

Haering , 219 , 220 , 236, 239—40,247, 279

Harnack , 43, 69 , 73, 220, 243—4 ,279

Hegel , 1 , 6, 10, 12, 28, 45 , 187,189 , 254

Herrmann, 3 f . , 2l i 43 f 79 ,89 , 15 5—7, 161—5 , 167, l 7l i 176,187—9 , 191 , 219 , 226 -35 , 237n. ,

249 n. , 250 i . , 25 8, 275 , 279 ,281

Hilgenfeld, 35 , 5 6, 5 8, 273 f .History of Pietism, 7, 17, 42 , 71 ,193 fi .

Hofmann, 134 229 f .

Holiness, 1 15 f 119

Holsten, 112Holtzmann, H. J 35 , 5 9 , 73

Oskar , 43Humboldt , W. , 70

Idealism , 186, 188 f.

Ignat ian Epistles, 50 i . , 54 , 273 f.Immortality , 106 f .

Instruction in the Christian Re

ligion,4 1 , 131 , 244 , 280

Intuit ionism, 186 i.

James(Epist le of 5 2, 63, 129 ,133

James, Prof. W. , 15 8

Justification, 6, 9 f . , 12n. , 13, 16,20, 35 , 38, 4 1 f . , 74 ii . , 276

Just in, 53 f . , 65 f .Kaftan, Jul ius, 3, 155 -7, 164—71 ,173, 178—9 , 188, 19 1 , 219 , 229 ,235—9 , 248 n. , 250—1 , 275

Theodor, 5Kahler, 4Kant , 94 3 156, 15 9 , 178, 181 ,186—9 1 , 228, 239 , 250

Kat tenbusch , 17n. ,43, 229 , 282

Kingdom of God , 10, 16, 18, 1 11 ,125 , 132, 143, 24 1 , 24 8

Kingsley , 46Kl aiber, 107 f.Kliefoth , 100

Lactant ius, 1 19Le ibni tz , 130Link , 36 f .

Lipsius, 36, 43 f 110, 15 5 , 158.281

Loci ,” 76, 89 , 233, 236Loofs, 43, 267Lotze , 40 f 143, 160, 166—8, 178,181 f .

Loyola , 7Luthardt , 172, 175 , 280Luther , 13 f. , 29 n. ,

4 5 , 72, 119,193 if .

Lutheranism , 9 , 13, 39 , 128

Mackintosh , H. R 131 , 250, 276,278

Melanchthon, 9 , 76, 89 , 176Menken, 147

Methodism, 17f 101 , 199 n.

Mielke, 131Mill, J. S 164

Miracle , 238, 24 9 fi . ; comp. 228

Missions, 14 1 , 207 f. , 215Moberly , R . C. , 83n 84 n. , 240

W. 240

Mohammedanism , 14 1

Moravianism , 43, 218

Myst ical Union, 174 , 205—6, 213Nazarenes, 65 f .Neander, 27, 49 , 137- 8Neoplatonism, 174 , 195 ; comp.

Ps. -DionysiusJ. H 48, 68

Nippold, 36, 45 , 281Ni tzsch , H . , 75 ff.

K. I . , 26, 72

Osiander, 90 i . , 175

Paul inism, 5 3, 67, 104—9 , 121 , 148Perfect ion,

4 1 , 129 , 149

Pfleiderer , 4 1 , 44 , 281

Philadelphia,” 196, 218Philippi, 173

284

INDEX

Philosophumena , 60 ; comp. 274Piet ism , 2, 7, 5 5 , 101 , 128, 193 ff .Piscator , 90 f.Plato , 181 , 189

Plutarch , 263

Prayer, 148 f.Pre-existence ofChrist , 240, 256n. ,

267Pseudo-Clement ine Literature , 50,66 i . , 273

Pseudo-Dionysius, 76 f 85

Psychology , 163, 247n.

Punishment , 149—5 0

Quartodecimanism, 53, 68n.

Redempt ion, 99 f . , 123, 230, 233,236

Reischle, 15 5 , 220, 245Revelat ion (Book of), 50, 52, 63 f71 f 117

Ritschl , Otto, 24 , 4 1 , 15 5 , 157 n. ,

227, 247Roman Ca tholicism , 137, 139Rothe, 30, 32 f 261

Sacraments, 16 77 f. , 246Sacrifice, 121 if 15 2 ff.

Scheibe , 15 5Schleierma cher, 12 f . , 16, 25 f 4 1 ,43, 96 ii . , 1 10, 133, 144 , 147,175 , 229 , 239

Schmid , 195Schmidt , 121Schneckenburger, 175 , 198Scholz, 43, 281Schiirer, 43

Schultz, 2 f. , 11 , 42 if 46, 102, 153,15 5 , 156, 168, 219 , 220—6, 236,279

Schwarz, 29 , 37 comp. 274

Schwegler , 30, 49 f . , 5 3 n. , 64 n. ,

71 , 273 f .

Schweitzer, 220, 24 1 , 246berg , 5

Selbie , 276Servetus, 7Simon, D . W. , 253 n.

Sin, 133, 143 f. , 238Smi th , Robertson, 29 n. , 43Socinianism, 86, 91 , 133, 147,226

Spener, 193, 197, 200, 203, 213- 17Steitz, 38Strauss, 26, 28, 49 , 100Synthet ic, 88, 140

Teleology, 133, 25 8Testamentsof the Twelve Patriarchs, 5 3, 66Theological E thics,” 31 , 34 i . ,132 n. , 135

Theologie and Metaphysik, 4 1 ,171—6, 190

Theology and religion, 133 f.Thiersch , 4 9ThikOt ter, 36 f 105 , 131

Tholuck , 27 f . , 79

Time and eternity , 134 , 15 1Traub , 15 5 , 181 n. , 184 n.

Troeltsch , 43, 220, 244—5 , 252Twofold Truth ,

”24 9 , 254

Ullmann, 30, 47 n.

Universalism , 208, 217, 265

Value-Judgments, 15 5 i 161 ,166—71 , 180, 275 , 277

Vatke , 28 f .

Volkmar, 56 n. , 5 8, 273

' avier, 158Zeller, 28, 30, 274

Zinzendorf , 200, 203 i 211 , 217 f.

Zwingli, 200, 203—4 , 21 1 , 217- 18

285

Ward , 250

Weiss, H . , 175

J. , 43, 220, 240—3Weizsacker, 19 , 35 , 69Wellhausen, 29 , 43, 63, 103

Wendt , 43, 5 9

Wesley , 17 n. , 5 5

Wrath , 117 if .

IN GREAT BY

SONS , L IMITED ,

BRUNSW ICK sr . , STAMFORD s'r . , sn. ,

Each volume will b e by ascholar of acknowledg ed eminence.

I t ishoped that wh ile theseriesw ill b e found indispensab le toclerical and m inisterial students, it w ill also, by the thoroughnessand clearnessw ith wh ich the b ooksare wrough t out ,supply the needsof that large numb er of the think ing laitywh ich isinterested in theolog ical mat t ersto-day .

The first three volumesare ready, and are asfollows

SCHLEIERMACHER : A CRITICAL AND

H ISTORICAL STUDY

By Rev. W . B . S ELBIE , M.A. , D .D ., Principal of Mansfield Colleg e , Oxford.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH

OF ENGLAND

By Rev. F. W . W ORSLEY, M.A. , E .U.

Admirable the volume will c erta inly add to the fame of the

series. ' —Nottz'

ngham Guardmn.

LIBERAL ORTHODOXY : AN H ISTORI

CAL SURVEYBy Rev. HENRYW . CLARK, D .D . Author of A Historyof Eng lish Nonconform ity , etc .

Among the subsequent volumesw ill b e “The Theology of

the Roman Church ,”

Calvin and Eng lish Puritanism ,

”

“D orner ,” “But ler,

”

Quakerism,

” “August ine , ” “Orig en,Myst ic ism ,

”Luther,

”E c lec t ic Theolog ies,” W esley,

The Tractarian S chool,” “ The Tub ing en S chool, ” et c .

CHAPMAN AND HALL , LTD .

I I HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W .C.

Chapman Hall’sPub lications

THE FIRST AUTHENTIC HISTORY OF ENGLISH

NONCONFORMITY

The H istory of Engl ishNonconform ityBv HENRY W . CLARK,

D .D .

Author of “Meaningsand Me thodsof Spiritua l Life ,Ed itor of The Grea t Christian Theolog ies, ' e tc . , e tc .

In Two Vols. 9 00 pag es. Demy 8vo. 308 . ne t .

Vo l. I—From W ic l if to the Restora t ion.

Vol . l I—From the Restora t ion to the Close of the 1 9 th

Century . E ach volume sold separately . 1 55 . net .

He hasd ischarg ed w ith c onspicuoussuc c essa task tha t haslongbeen lying ready for some hand qua lified to do it justice . But he hasdone much more than tha t . To rescue the idea l tha t anima ted Non

conformity a t itsfirst beg inningsand a t every c risissince , and to

esta blish it asa positive and cha lleng ing truth ag a inst t he attitude ofbleak neg a tion wh ich the name Nonc onformist se emsOften to imply, isto render the truest service to the re l ig iouslife of to—day .

'

D azly Newsand Leader .

WORKS BY THE REV . R. J. CAMPBELL , M.A.

The New TheologyCrown 8m . 2 5 . 6d . ne t .

Thisisnot a reprint of Mr . Campbe ll ’sse rmons, but a comple te c ritica land expository study dea ling w ith the same subje c t, and se tting forththe whole of the Author 'sviews.

Christian ity and the Soc ial OrderCmwn 8m . 2 8 . net .

A very remarkable S ign of the time .—D az1y Ma il .

A notable and impressive document . —B e z'

ly Chronicle.

There issinc er ity, there isa fine fearlessness, there isa passiona tesympa thy w ith the poor and oppressed .

' —Buzly News.

IN PREPARATION BY THE SAME AUTHOR

The S tory of the C ity TempleI l lustra ted. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d . ne t .

W ORKS BY W. L . COURTNEY, M.A. , LL .D .

Fellow of New Colleg e , Oxford .

Editor of “ The Fortnig h tly Review .

The L iterary Man’s Bib le

Demy 8m . 103 . 6d. ne t .

Fifth and Cheaper Ed it ion. D emy 8vo . 3s. 6d.

Thisisa c ritica l c olle c tion of those passag esof the O ld Testamentwhich seem to stand out asthe most va lua ble from the point of view of

pure litera ture . The re a re narra tive passa g es, poe tica l passag es, andpassag esof prophecy and most a re a c companied by brief c rit ica l notes,re ferring them to the ir prope r da tes, and indica ting the chang esmade

in the text by the d iffe rent revisions.The book isd ivided into th re e pa rts, dea ling respe c tive ly with narrative lite ra ture , prophe tic l itera ture , and poe tic and philosoph ic lite ra ture .

Mr. Courtney hasse t h imse lf to expla in the value of the Bible asa human and h istorica l document, and carried out hisa ttempt withsympa thy, g ood taste , and sound scho larsh ip.

—S tandard.

In preparation, and uniform cwlth The Literary Man'sBible.

’

The L iterary Man’s New Testament

Demy 8m . 108 . 6d . ne t.

The obje c t of the present work isto provide , in the case of the NewTesta ment, the same he lp to litera ry reade rsaswasfurnished in the verypopula r

“ Literary Man'sB ible , ' the va lue of which hasbeen so fully

apprec ia ted both by thescholar and the layman. Not a ll the booksof theNew Testament are of the same authentic ity , and an a ttempt hasbeenmade to d iscrimina te be tween those bookswhich are g enera lly re cognisedto be g enuine ascontrasted with those of more doubtful va lid ity. The

va riousbooksof the New Testament a re presented asfa r aspossible inthe historica l orde r of their composition ; and thisa rrang ement W ill b efound useful asindica ting the g radual owth of documentsin the earlyChurch and the deve lopment of the hurch itse lf. Thus, the E pistlesof S t . Paul pre cede the Gospe ls, the last pla ce be ing reserved for theGospe l of S t . John, the Apoca lypse , and the o ther so-c alled Johanninew ri tings. The text w ill be tha t of the Authorised version, asin the caseof the former work .

WORKS BY W . H . MALLOCK

Author of “A Human Document, ' The Hear t of Life ,“The Individualist, e tc .

Re ligion asa Credib le DoctrineDemy 8vo. 12 3 .

The interest o f mankind in these problemsisundying ,and it w ill b e

ha rd to find in recent worksa discussion of viewsw ith g rea ter candourand ability than ishere presented .

”—Daz'

ly Telegraplz.

S CIENTIFIC W ORKS BY'

THE LATE ALFRED

RUS SEL WALLACE , C .M. , LL .D etc .

The World of L ifeA Manifestation of Creative Power , D irec tive Mind ,

and Ultimate PurposeFul ly I llustra ted . S ix th and Ch eaper Edit ion.

Larg e Crown 8vo. 6s. ne t .

The obje c tso f th isbook are , briefly, to extend the'

a pplica t ion ofDarwinian Evolution to c lassesof fac tswh ich have h itherto re ce ivedlittle a ttention ; and , se condly, to show throug hout the whole org anicworld we a re absolute ly driven to the re cognition of a CREATIVE AND

D IRECTI VE POW ER.

Man’s Place in the Un iverse

A S tudy of the Resultsof Sc ientific Research inrelation to the Unity or Plurality of Worlds

A New and Cheaper Edi t ion, containing a New Chapterdevoted to “ An Addit ional Argument dependent on the

Theory of Evolut ion.

Foolscap 8vo. 18 . ne t.

A book wh ich cannot fa il t o command a ttention. Everybodyw ill W ish to know wha t D r. Wa lla c e hasto say . There W i ll b e multitudeswho w ill b e fasc ina ted with the unique and drama tic positionwhich he assignsto man.

—THE BI SHOP or RIPON.

My L i feA Record of Eventsand Opinions

Wi th numerousPortra its,Illustra tions, Fa c-simile Le tters, e tc .

New and Ch eaper E dition, a b ridg ed . Crown 8vo. 6 3 .

Besidesg iving full and extreme ly interesting de ta ilsof the g rea tsc ientist'searly l ife and educa tion, hisfirst inc lina tion and a ttra c tiontowa rdssc ience , and an anecdota l narra tive of h istrave lson the Amazon

and in the Ma la y Archipe lag o , the book re la testhe h istoric inc identsc onnec ted w ith h isassoc ia t ion w ith Darw in, givesfull a c c ountsof a ll

the people he me t , and a very particular h istory of hisinvestig a tion of

S pir itualism and t he va riousc ontroversiesinvolved by histheories.

”Eondon : CHAPMAN HALL , L td.