of Brentius and Jakob Andrea was beginning to loosen its hold upon the limes. J. W. Jiiger, the learned chan- cellor (1702-20), had ventured upon the innovation of introducing a more attractive method in theology than that in vogue. I'latt" and Weismann also broke awav from the polemical methods of orthodoxy, and souglit to impart greater simplicity and life to theol(>gical in- struction. In another direction, the so-called enlight- enment or neology of the 18th century was gaining Ijromincnce ami power, and was rejecting not merely the form, but the snbstance, of the orthodox teachings. Storr was not al)le to deny that the crisis which had come upon theology had its origin in very adeiiuale causes; but he could not fully accept all its residts, and therefore assumed a position midway between the con- tending parties, so as to be able to retain much of the sub- stance of tlie old orthodox theology while adopting much of the methods of the new. He endeavored to base his teaching wholly on the Scriptures, and for that ]iiirpose brought together a mass of isolated passages to serve as the basis of his theology; but he had no conception of the organic unity of Scripture, of its living combi- nation into separate principles, and of a consequent ge- netic unfolding of scriptural truths. Baur strikingly remarks that Storr recognised no canon, but only pas- sages, of the Scriptures. His system was furthermore impaired by the Pelagianizing tendency of his mind, which led him to tone down the contrast between the fundamental doctrines of sin and grace, and to make grave concessions to neology with regard to the doc- trines of the atonement and of the person of Christ. His great object was to render Christianity plausible to the destructive criticism of his time: and the endeavor to realize that object occasioned in his bearing a cer- tain indecision and ambiguity of manner, so that his theology is made to seem forced and constrained. Great attention is given to the discussion of unimportant and particular ideas, while the thought of a connected and organic system of Christianity has no proper recogni- tion in his works. This disposition to expend effort upon subordinate details is apparent in all his works, and especially in his criticism of Kant's Rcli'/ioji iuner- lialb (ler Grenzen der reinen Ventunft. and in the works he aimed against the "accommodation hypothesis" of Semler, Teller, and others. It was his misfortune to want the historical sense, and that attitude of imitarti- ality towards doctrine which would have enabled him to discover the gradual development of scriptural truth. His system of Christian dogmatics and ethics aims to be simply a bringing-together and conned ing of the results of exegesis; and this aim is realized by the mo- saic-like collocation of isolated passages in such a man- ner as to justify the above criticism of Baur that Storr had no authoritative rule, but only a fragmentary view of Scripture. In this way he gave expression to the principle of the authority of Scrijiture upon which he professed to erect his entire system.
The school of Storr was. more particularly, composed of Joliann Friedrich Flatt, Friedrich (iottlieb Siisskind, and Karl Christian Flatt, all of them pupils, successors, and in part colleagues of Storr in the theological facul- ty (for a more particular notice of these scliolars, see the articles under their names). The older F'latt was an acute and learned man. exceedingly conscientious and careful, naturally cheerful, but infirm in body and greatly afflicted by repeated sorrows, in conseipience of which he developed a measure of irritability ami mel- ancholy in his disposition. He left lectures on Chris- tian ethics Jind on the Pauline epistles, which were pub- lished from notes by his pupils. Siisskind devoted his scientific activity chiefly to the elucidation of funda- mental questions in doctrines and apologetics consid- ered with reference to the philosophy current in his day. Against Kant and Fichte he discussed the office and the limitations of reason, and against Schelling he endeavored to secure the theistic basis of Christianity. His investigations in the line of doctrine were chiefly
TUBINGEN SCHOOL, THE NEW 573
concerned with the idea of the possibility of the for- njveness of sins, or, in other words, of the remission of penalty. He also discussed, in a fragmentary vvay, the thcoldijv of Schleiermacher (see SUsskind, Vermischte Schrifltn, 1831). His leading personal traits were great intellectual penetration and energy of the will, united with sternness of manner and the utmost conscientious- ness of spirit. He was a master in logic, bold and con- fident in debate, the dialectician of his school. His ability was nevertheless impaired by the lack of spec- ulatis'e power and depth. The younger Flatt was rath- er a receptive than an independently creative charac- ter. His earliest work attempted to prove that the Kantian theory of atonement, according to which the forgiveness of sins is determined by, and consequent on, the measure of moral reformation, is not the only rea- sonable, but also the only allowable, view under the New Test. He was induced to retract the teachings of that book, and in time became wholly identified with the tendency of Storr and the elder Flatt.
The peculiarity of these theologians lay in the ab- stract theism beyond which they were not able to ad- vance by reason of the want of true philosophical sense. They employed a pitiless logic to expose the gaps and weaknesses of transcendental speculation, but failed to attain to a living apprehension of their own theism ; and, while they defended their theory of revelation with the utmost tenacity, they rendered that theory thor- oughly intolerable to reason by numerous provisos, ex- planations, and moditications. This criticism applies to everything which is peculiar to their teaching, and indicates what is, more than any other feature, the characteristic of their school.