[See page image]

Page 44

work, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung and Vers6hnung (3 vols., Bonn, 1870-04; 4th ed., 1895-1902; Eng. tranal. of vol. i., Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, Edinburgh, 1872, of vol. iii., The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, New York, 1900). A brief summary of the basal concepts of this work was given by Ritsehl in Ueber die christliche Volkommenheit (G6ttingen, 1874; 3d ed., 1902); his judgment of the theological tendencies of the nineteenth century was set forth in Schleiermachers Reden fiber die Religion and ihre Nachurirkungen auf die evangelische Kirche Deutschlands (Bonn, 1874); and he prepared a compend of his theological system in Unterricht in der christlichen Religion (1875; 6th .ed., 1903). His only important later contribution to systematic. theology was the Theologie and Metaphysik (Bonn, 1881; 3d ed., 1902). After 1876 he turned again to historical problems, as in the Geschichte des Pietismus (3 vols., Bonn, 1880-86).

Between 1870 and 1874 Ritschl declined a call to Strasburg and four calls to Berlin, as well as an invitation to become a member of the supreme ecclesiastical council of the State Church of Prussia. In 1876-77 and in 1886,87 he was prorector of the university, and in 1878 was elected a member of the national consistory of Hanover, although he seldom attended its sessions. After his death, his briefer contributions were collected under the title of Gesammelte Aufsdtze (Freiburg, 1893).

11. Theology: Although Ritschl exercised a profound influence at Bonn, the so-called " Ritschlian school " did not rise till nearly a decade after he had gone to G6ttingen; and the movement was led less by his students than by those who had been impressed by his writings, especially by his study

of the atonement. Ritschl himself,

:. Attitude however, was opposed to all forms of toward Dog- partizanship, nor did he construct a

matics and formal system of dogmatics, the nearPhilosophy. est approach to this being the Un-

terrieht mentioned above. At the same time, in the middle portion of the third volume of his work on the atonement he found himself compelled to give an almost complete outline of dogmatics to furnish the setting for the cardinal doctrine of Protestant Christianity, though he felt himself at liberty to omit some topics and to treat others briefly. To the latter category belong the questions of general methodology and of the principles of dogmatics, which border on the sphere of philosophy. Later, however, in the Theologie and Metaphysik he devoted attention to the problems of epistemology as expounded by Kant and Lotze, in so far as they were pertinent to theology, although the science of epistemology always remained to him one of subordinate importance. This very attitude, however, led to many misinterpretations of his system. Since he appealed to epistemology, he was charged with making his dogmatics depend on the solution of problems involved in the theory of knowledge; and since in his later years he held that religious knowledge finds expression in independent or direct value-judgments, some of his critics accused him of constructing a quasi-Feuer-

bachian theology. As a matter of fact, however, Ritschl's " direct or independent value-judgment " meant nothing more than that theoretical religious knowledge is differentiated from the theoretical knowledge of science simply by the fact that the former is conditioned by the inherent practical interests of the soul rather than by the impersonal endeavor to offer an objective explanation of the problem of existence. It is, therefore, entirely incorrect to charge Ritschl with the constructive use of a philosophy which he excluded on principle. His entire system of thought was centered in, and conditioned by, Christian revelation; and it applied the interpretation of a distinctively Christian religion to all the great phenomena of the soul and of the history of Christianity. It was quite characteristic, then, that, in his work on the atonement, Ritschl should proceed from the history of the development of the dogma in question back to the Biblical teachings on the theme, thus reversing the customary procedure. Maintaining that the final revelation of God was given in the person and works of Christ, and at the same time postulating the inadequacy of the mere facts recorded concerning him in the New Testament, Ritschl held that the foundation of theological doctrines must be sought in the primal consciousness of the Christian community, the sole source here being the New Testament.

While the position just outlined implies that Ritschl was essentially a Biblicist, his attitude was materially conditioned by the ecclesiastical character which he ascribed to dogmatics. Like Luther, moreover, he held that the Bible is the word of God only in so far as it emphasizes Christ,

a. Theolog- so that, while all ordinances and beical Position liefs of primitive Christianity are not sad Biblical binding on Christian theology and on