תמונות בעמוד

is not in danger, to tie up their hands. Thus they stand aloof on this ground from the Inner Mission, one of the most promising movements in Germany, and decline the brotherly hand stretched out to them from the great confederation of German Christians, who have four times met in a Kirchentag. This journal stands opposed not only to union between the Lutherans and the Reformed as it exists in Prussia, but even to confederation. With regard to its other aspects, we may remark that it is altogether churchly, if we may use their favourite KIRCHLICH at the risk of their saying, as they said of the ministers in Vaud, that we have neither the word in our language nor the thing in our hearts. Many powerful doctrinal papers, especially by Thomasius, have appeared on Christology, and on the consequences of the Protestant principle ; but so far as it has entered, in common with the other German journals, into questions of church government, which they plainly do not understand, it has less interest to a foreigner.



Another periodical, yearly rising into more importance, and now in its fourteenth year, is the Zeitschrift für die gesammte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche, which gives expression to all the Lutheran dogmas, and which would attach, if that were possible, the middle of the nineteenth century to the second half of the seventeenth. This vigorous organ, conducted by some of the most energetic and learned men of Germany, shows the inaccuracy of a remark made by Nitzsch, in bis Practical Theology, so lately as 1847, that pure Lutheran orthodoxy exists no more; for the great stream of opinion is steadily setting in again to fill the former channels. The chief conductor of this periodical at first, as he is still its leading mind, was Rudelbach, the author of Reformation, Lutherthum, Union; but its management since his removal to Copenhagen has been in the hand of Prof. Guerike of Halle, the wellknown author of valuable works on Church History, Archäology, Symbolik, and Introduction. Other contributors are Delitzsch, a writer on the Church, and certainly one of the greatest living commentators on the Old Testament, and his like-minded friend, Caspari, both of Jewish origin. It receives, too, the contributions of Kurtz, of Keil, of Kahnis, and others of the most fertile minds now rising up, and likely to lay a fresh impress on the age. While it treads the ground of our common Christianity, this powerful journal, which adheres to what it views as truth with a decision worthy of all imitation, is more nearly allied than almost any other to the views of evangelical foreigners. At a time when Germany and Denmark were running a foolish career of national idolatry, when Christian men spake as if enlightened Christianity found its necessary groundwork and its fit vessel for diffusion only through their national peculiarities—while the events of 1848 had not yet fully written their commentary on such fleshly unchristian glorying-Rudelbach, in his paper on Christianity and Nationality, challenged it with an ability seldom equalled. No less able are his papers on the Historic Right of the Reformation and the Romish Church for three centuries, on State-churchdom, on the Idea of Theology, and that of N. T. Isagagik. Delitzsch's contributions, again, are mainly exegetical. We may mention his Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans, his paper on the Genealogies of our Lord, on the Position of the 53rd Chapter of Isaiah in the Old Testament, and on the Origin of Matthew's Gospel, in which its pretended Hebrew origin is demolished root and branch. Caspari appears on the SyroEphraimitic war under Jotham and Ahaz, on which he has thrown the fullest light; Kurtz, in Contributions to the Symbolik of the Old Testament Cultus; Keil, on the names of God in the Pentateuch; Voss, on Satanology. Few journals have such an array of fertile and powerful minds to maintain its influence. And its notices of books, most of which bear the initials of Rudelbach and Guerike, are particularly able and condensed. But we must now turn to its less genial side. It represents a Lutheran tendency still more exclusive than that of Harless, and far more intemperate in tone. It has this decided advantage over the journal of Harless, that it is utterly opposed to the interference of the civil power in matters of religion. The terrible ruin brought upon the church from this source for many generations, and particularly the cruelties inflicted by the late king of Prussia on the Lutherans, who would not enter into the royal plan of union, convinced Rudelbach of the error of past ages on this point. But unfortunately he and his coadjutors adhere to other errors of the past with a tenacity which seems proof against conviction. We can account, indeed, for their measureless attacks upon a union ushered in by deposition, imprisonment, and exile; for it was an outrage on conscience, and is likely to be yet avenged. We can easily see that a condition of ecclesiastical life, thus brought in by secular authority, has no real permanence, and only gives rise to rankling sores or to reactionary and destructive forces as a necessary consequence. This may account for the conductors of this journal rekindling extinguished fires, but it does not vindicate a course of controversy against the Reformed, the effect of which can only mar by an unholy element the glorious revival going forward. The times call loudly and decidedly for other work and for other conflicts. Carrying on their warfare ostensibly, not against the Reformed, but against the Union, they are driven to define with keenness the four points of difference-predestination, the person of Christ, baptism, and the Lord's supper; nay, to multiply the points of difference, and the peculiar shades of difference, with a mischievous ingenuity, not only grating to the Christian feelings, but certain to prove fatally calamitous. They elevate the non-fundamental; and it is clear they must lower the fundamental in the same proportion. This war between living Christians,-this elaborate scientific drawing of all the lines of demarcation between the two churches,—these unmeasured attacks on Calvin and his system,—these declarations that his views destroy all simple faith and touch the fundamental article of Protestantism,-only fill a calm spectator with grief and pity. This is a doleful war between the living members of Christ's body.


Another religious organ, and that which of all others has perhaps wielded the greatest influence, because armed for every emergency, and ranging over every field, is the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung of Hengstenberg, more popular than most of the others, and able, with its compact body of contributors, to bring overwhelming resources into the field. This journal has existed since 1827, and has waged an exterminating war against Rationalism in every shape. It has proved an unsparing assailant, light-armed and fearless, profound when necessary, and deeply spiritual, varied, full of impassioned ardour, and throwing itself with rare versatility into any question bearing on ecclesiastical or social, political or Christian life. In 1829, when it brought

. before the public the errors of Gesenius, as gathered from his public lectures at the University of Halle, and more particularly when it turned its polemics against the errors of Schleiermacher, then in the zenith of his influence, Neander and others, who had contributed to its pages and furthered its success, publicly withdrew from connection with it. Hengstenberg, with his ardent impatience, called for the ejection of the Rationalists by an act of authority; whereas Neander, with an eye sharpened by tracing the course of ages, and jealous of human authority, maintained that the false element of Rationalism, which was only a reaction against dead orthodoxy, would be separated with safety only by the fireproof of history. With regard to the standing-point of this church journal, it has been the advocate of the Union as an accomplished fact in Prussia. Though maintaining that the union of the two churches has entered deeply into ecclesiastical life, and asserting the non-necessity of confessional controversy, it is clear that the bias of the journal, though held back by such events as those of 1848, is preponderating more and more towards the distinctive points of Lutheranism. Based on the unaltered Confession of Augsburg, and manifestly desiring not to be encumbered by the Concordiæ Formula, the old banner of distinctive Lutheranism, it avows its desire of progress on the firm basis of the past. This able organ, the dread of Rationalism, and the resolute champion of scriptural truth, has, since external questions so much came up, been less employed than formerly in the department of theology. But in the believing spirit which pervades it, and in the ready concentration of talent on any given point, one always sees more clearly than anywhere else the pulsations of the church's life and the throbbing heart of German Christianity. The accounts given of the state of religion in Germany, and indeed in other Protestant countries, of the Canton de Vaud, of the German churches in America, of Protestantism in France, of missions to the Jews, are highly valuable, as well as accurate. And no less interesting are its reports of pastoral conferences and of the Kirchentag, and its strenuous advocacy of the Inner Mission. But we must mention, too, that it represents a tendency from which German Christianity has much to dread. The advocate of Erastianism and of the chief episcopate of the crown, it utters no voice for the freedom of the church, nor for the independent exercise of ecelesiastical affairs in loyalty to the church's one and only Head, representing that what churches true to their confession may do is no safe course, nor incumbent duty in the present state of Germany. Not only is this church journal painfully Erastian, but also attached to the interests and party of the court, and to the right divine of kings, to an extent which impresses impartial foreigners with the fear that the German church may have to pay the penalty of forfeiting the support and confidence of the people. The Kirchenzeitung sketches an idea of a Christian state, which, though partly true, proceeds on outward forms, rites, and recognitions, rather than on the animating life. One painful feature of the journal is the kind, softened, and apologetic way in which it speaks of the errors of Rome. Scarcely a German Christian, indeed, can be found who speaks of Rome, as Luther did, as the Antichrist. As if to illustrate how extremes meet, the very journal which has waged for a quarter of a century an unsparing war against Rationalism, sees something good in the rationalistic system of Rome, and alleges that she is a sister church.

We can only further notice two remaining journals,—those, however, of highest literary ability, and certainly of greatest theological name.



A short time before Neander's death, and with the prestige of several of his papers, as well as with the support of Nitzsch, Julius Müller, and Tholuck, there appeared a new periodical, called the Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Christliche Wissenschaft und Christliches Leben. Placed under the management of Schneider, the accomplished pupil, and, as he himself mentions, the spiritual son of Neander, and receiving the contributions of those who have usually been enrolled as the élite of German theology, this journal at once assumed a high position. The hand of Nitzsch, whose merit lies in introducing the Christian life into systematic theology, is obvious in the very title of this journal. Tholuck, after conducting his Anzeiger for twenty years, and finding its longer existence difficult, discontinued it at the close of 1849, and transferred his lucubrations to the pages of this more recent organ. In assigning reasons for the disappearance of his Anzeiger, which always had too much of speculation, he mentions the increasing tendency to the practical work of the ministry, and a disinclination to engage in theoretical theology, the isolation of those who had made common cause, the violence of parties, and the political conflicts which the Revolution summoned forth ; and he alleges that the stream of the predominantly practical must for a while flow on before his theoretic theology would again enter into its rights. Many will wish with us that that stream may flow on in increasing volume for ever.

As to the standing-point of this journal, we may sufficiently define it when we remark that the contributors are all more or less attached to that peculiar development of theology to which Schleiermacher gave origin and form, and that the leading minds, though all of them to a large extent in advance of him, were his immediate pupils, and none of them beyond the charmed circle of his influence. The principle of the review and of the party is the internalization of the Christian faith. They cannot accept a symbolically fixed system of doctrine; and Dr Julius Müller, not concealing the dangers of this tendency taken by itself, acknowledges that it needs to be balanced by the strictly orthodox and churchly apologetic tendency, while the latter, if left alone, will hardly escape torpor, externalization, and dead orthodoxy. There is a pregnant truth in this remark. We should be afraid that what has been before may be again, and that the tendency of Harless, Rudelbach, and Hengstenberg, left to itself, and without its necessary complement, might



land the church in that condition from which a one-sided subjective tendency, like that of the pietism of Spener, would only be a natural, a necessary, and, we may add, a right reaction. What an evangelical foreigner laments in this tendency, is not its highly subjective evolation of the spiritual life-for in that respect it has much akin to the spiritual development of the Puritans-but its erratic latitudinarian tendency. The two tendencies are necessary, if orthodoxy and life are to run in two separate channels; but so far from thinking with Julius Mäller that these two tendencies, in the shape of two parties, must run parallel and balance one another in the same church, we are very confident that they may run parallel and balance one another in the same individual mind. But there may be a bigotry for latitudinarianism as well as for outward orthodoxy, and in no party is this more inconsistent than in those who attach themselves, as this journal does, to a tendency predominantly subjective. Who can read, for instance, that dangerous paper of Tholuck on Inspiration, which appeared in this journal in April and May 1850, without feeling that there may be a zeal as great for objective error as for objective truth, and a bigotry too in defending error when no duty calls for the expression of it ? But with all these defects, to which we take just exception, it must not be concealed that if this unnecessary defence of doubtful questions were abandoned, the men of this tendency in some respects possess more than any what draws us to them,-a warm attachment to central truth, a strong inner spiritual impulse, a love to the essential questions of Protestantism, a recognition of all varieties of gifts, and a full appreciation both of the material and of the formal principle of Protestantism.

V.-THEOLOGISCHE STUDIEN UND KRITIKEN. One other journal, in some respects the greatest, is the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, which has just completed the twenty-fifth year of its existence, and in which have appeared many of the ablest papers which, during that time, have exercised the minds of German divines. Its conductors are Ullman, Umbreit, Gieseler, Lücke, and Nitzsch, authors familiar as household words to the theological public, and critics who have travelled the wide field of theological learning, and encamped upon its heights. This journal, defective enough in many of its doctrinal views, and positively erroneous and dangerous in not a few, has this peculiar distinction belonging to it, that it aims to set forth the personal Redeemer as the central point of all theology and of all religion. Though by no means at the mark which we would wish, there is a love to Christ spread over it, a perception of spiritual religion, a return from mere externalization to the centre which is Christ, a delineation of religion as a life and not a dogma, which we gladly recognise. It cannot be denied that it allows a haze to lie over doctrine, and that it does not define religion as fed by definite truth so much as reposing in the dark chamber of feelings. Following very much in the line of Schleiermacher, though in advance of him, and too much infected with that reflection which pervades his school, it possesses most of the excellencies and most of the defects already mentioned in the previous paragraph regarding the Deutsche Zeitschrift, but is considerably more mystical. The study of Ullmann's life has lain largely among the spiritual mystics

« הקודםהמשך »