DOGMATIC THEOLOGY 856 DOGMATIC THEOLOGY
Banmgaiten, the last named being wholly under the influence of the Wolflan philosophy. The new meth- od WEB more fully developed by Semler, Michaelis, Teller, TdUner, Ddderlein, Horus, and others, who prepaived the way for Bationaliam, among whose early representatives were Grnner, Eckermann, and Uenke. A new epoch began with the philosophy of Kant, by which the works of Tieftrunk, St&udlin, and Am- mon were more or less influenced. The orthodox system was adhered to by Storr and Reinhard, more, however, with regard to its supranatoralistio char- acter than to all its ecclesiastical definitions and de- velopments. Aognsti pleaded the authorilp of the old doctrinal system, and the same was done by De Wette, who distinguished himself for dialectical keen- ness, and by Daub and Marheineke, who tried a me- diation between the old theology and Hegelian specu- lation. In opposition to these attempts, Wegscheider consistently developed the views of the former Ra- tionalists, and gave to the Rationalistic system the last finish. Bretschneider also proceeded from a Ra- tionalistic stand-point, but in many questions tried to mediate between Rationalism and the old Church doc- trine. A powerful influence upon German theology was exercised by Schleiermacher, who undertook the bold task of not only mediating between Rationalism and Supranaturalism, but of merging the two into an entirely new system, which was to acknowledge the claims of both. He based his Christliche Gkuie nei- ther upon historical authorities nor upon philosophical speculation; but, regarding the Christian revelation solely as a new, divine, world-redeeming principle of life, he represented dogmatic theology as the ex- hibition of the Christian consciousness manifesting itself in the Church. Several theological schoob sprung from Schleiermacher; and even the schools opposed to his system felt and acknowledged its im- portance and its influence. Some of the adherents of Schleiermacher defended from his stand-^oint all the essential doctrines of Biblical orthodoxy. Others at- tempted a middle course between the system of Schleier- macher and the symbolical books of the German Pro- testant Church, as Twesten (^Varletimgen Hber die Dog- fnaUk der evAtOh, Urche, 2 vols. Hamburg, 1826-1829 ; 4th edit. 1887) and Nitzsch (8y*tem der chrutUchm Lehre, Bonn, 1829 ; 6th edit 1851).
A third school rejected these two as deviations from the true spirit of Sdileiermacher, and claimed the full- est independence of theological investigation with re- gard to both the doctrines of the Bible and the Church Confessions. To this school belong Schweizer (Die Glaubenslehre der etfang.-re/in'm. Kircke, 2 vols. Zu- rich, 1844-1847) and Baumgarten-Crusius (Grwidriu der eo,-kirchl. DogmaUk^ Jena, 1830). They were suc- ceeded by Schenkel, who developed a system of dog- matics from the stand-point of conscience {CkrUUiche Doffmaiik, Wiesbaden, 2 vols. 1858-59). While one school of Hegel, already referred to, claimed that the new speculative philosophy of the absolute was iden- tical with the orthodox dogmas, another school, the Toung Hegelians, proclaimed that religion, carried to its perfection by reason, is only a god worship- ping himself; that a god-man, as an individual, had never an existence upon earth. From this school proceeded Dr. F. Strauss, who, after declaring in his *' Life of Jesus" the Biblical account of the life of Jesus a myth, attacked in his "Christian Doctrine in its Historic Development" {Die chrisUieke Glauberu- lehre, Tnbmgen, 1840-41, 2 vols.) even the belief in the personality of God and the immortality of the soul, and tried to undermine every fundamental doctrine of Christianity by tracing its history. L. Feuerbach, in his essence of Christianity {Weten dee Chrittenthumi^ 1841, Leipzig), went even beyond Strauss to the ex- treme limit of nihilism, rejecting religion itself as a dream and an illusion. Under the influence of both Schleiermacher and Hegel, the so-called Tubingen
school, of which F. C. Baor was the comprehend the historic development of the the dialectic process of the idea itseli; aad i velopment of the undeveloped doctrine of into a more adequate unity of contents and fism. Vi have no complete system of dogmatics froa aaf |a» inent writer of this schooL Many Gennan tke^apB sustain either an eclectic or an indepeadcat tela with regard to the philosophical schools just Thus liebner {ChrisOieht Zki^moeii, Getting, lift ii i) and Lange {CkrietHcke DogmoUk, Heiddbii|, Hi- 1852) were called the Epigoni of speculative ^th^ and Hase, the Church historian, was a pramiaeeti^ resentative of speculative rationalism {LMmkk evafi^Z>09ma(£k(Stottg. 1826, 5th edit 18a(r)L hk rect opposition to the rationalistic and specoktinlfr ology, as well as to the vague sapraiistoialiMi tf di 18th century, there dereloped itself at ^ begi^ of the present century a school which dfinsn^ »»- toration of the original theological method of tk Bi- formed churches, as it existed in the 16th eentan, » pecially of the old Lutheran dogmatics, iwag^ works of this class are H. Schmid {Dogmas ier 9- luth, K, Erlangen, 1843, 5th edtiion, 1868) snd Pt% (KirdtUche Glaubenelehre, Stuttgardt, 1854-63^4 r^. Ebrard wrote a msnnal of dogmatics frtn the sod- p<mit of the evangelical school in the United En^ ical Church, which is based upon the doctnses c» mon to the old Lutheran and old Befonned ctoc^ (jChristUche Dofftnatik, Konigsberg, 1851-52, J ftfc. 31 edit. 1862-68). Previously Tob. Beck, abandoeiBgtk traditional method of theological schools, «m^ « bring the doctrines of the Bible, without regnit»4> ological controversies and symbolical books, iits a ij> tem, using many new terms (Die chieU. LAniin> echqft, Stuttgardt, 1840).