Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Download 4.32 Mb.
Size4.32 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   40

GOAR, SAINT: Reputed missionary on the Mid­dle Rhine. According to his biography in the Acta Sanctorum, he came from Aquitaine to the Rhine in the reign of the Frankish King Childebert I. (511‑558), and built a cell and a chapel on the site of the later town of St. Goar (on the left bank of the Rhine, 15 m. s. of Coblenz), where he passed his life in spiritual exercises and the entertainment of travelers, and converted not a few pagans. His very hospitality was,made a ground of complaint by two clerics from Treves; but he defended him­self so impressively before Rusticus, the bishop of that see, that King Sigebert (561‑576) desired to make him bishop instead of Rusticus. Goar de­clined, returned to his cell, and died there seven years later. The legend, which goes back only to the ninth century, has not the slightest historical value. According to a document of Louis the Pious, dated 820, Pepin and his queen Bertha built a cell over the saint's grave, and Pepin is said to have assigned it to the jurisdiction of Abbot Asuer of Priim, while Charlemagne, in 788, assigned the cell as a residence for Tassilo of Bavaria. In the elev­enth century it was changed into a house of canons, and it continued so till the Reformation.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: The early anonymous life, with commen­tary, a second life and Miracula ere in ABB, July, ii. 327‑346; the later life and Miracula are also in MGH, Script., xv (1887), 361‑373. Consult: A. Grebel, Ga­achichte der Stadt 8t. Goar, St. Go., 1848; P. Heber, Die vorkarolinpiachen chriselichen Glaubenahelden am Rhein, pp. 130‑140; Rettberg, KD, i. 465, 481; Friedrich, %D, ii. 175; DCB, ii. 687‑888.


GOBAT, go"bs', SAMUEL: Second Anglican­

German bishop in Jerusalem; b. at Grdmine (23

m. s.s.W. of Basel), Switzerland, Jan. 26, 1799; d.

at Jerusalem May 11, 1879. Desiring to become a

missionary, he went to the Missionshaus at Basel

(1821), where he received his theological training,

after which he studied in Paris. After having

been ordained in the state church of Baden, he was

sent to England to seek employment from the

Church Missionary Society. He was destined for

Abyssinia, but was compelled to wait three years

in Egypt before he was admitted. In 1829, with his

companion Christian Kugler, he entered the country.

King Saba Gadis received them with kindness, and

a time of zealous and successful work followed.

After three years Saba Gadis was killed in war and

Gobat had to flee from the country. When peace


was restored he went back, but sickness of himself and wife made a return to Europe necessary.

In 1846 King Frederick William IV. of Prussia appointed him to the bishopric of Jerusalem (see JERUaALEM, ANGLICAN‑GERMAN BrsHorRIc IN). Despite the peculiar and difficult conditions, and notwithstanding the opposition of the Oriental bishops and the mistrust of many Anglicans, Gobat labored faithfully until his death. His Journal of a Three Years' Residence in Abyssinia was pub­lished in London, 1834. CTHEODOR SCH"ER.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Mme. L. Roehrich, Samuel Gobat . .

&Bque anglican de Jerusalem, Paris, 1880, Germ. transl.,

Basel, 1884; Eng. transl. (from the Germ.) with preface

by the Earl of Shaftesbury, London, 1884; T. Hchoelly,

S. Gobat, Evanqelischer Bisdkof in Jerusalem, Basel, 1'100.
GOCH, g6a, JOHANN VON (Johann Pupper or Capupper): One of the "Reformers before the Reformation "; b. at Goch (43 m. n.w. of Diissel­dorf) early in the fifteenth century; d. near Mech­lin. Mar. 28, 1475, or later. He probably received his first education in a school of the Brethren of the Common Life, perhaps in Zwolle. He studied at the University of Cologne, and possibly also in Paris. In 1459 he founded the priory of Thabor for canonesses of St. Augustine, and governed it till his death.

Goch stood on the threshold of the Reformation in so far as he minimized the traditions of the Church and acknowledged as the only authorities the Bible and the Fathers. But in the central point of reformatory dogmatics, in the doctrine of justification, he still stood on the ground of the Middle Ages. He attacked monasticism on the ground that it could not be justified from the Bible, and that it lowered the value of grace, since the monastic vow was considered to lead to true Chris­tian perfection. Against the doctrine of a two­fold morality Goch argued that the so‑called " counsels " belong to Evangelical law as well as the " precepts," and are to be observed by both the clergy and the laity. By giving due regard to the secular professions, he rose above the one‑sided asceticism of the Middle Ages. As an extreme nominalist, Goch rejected all speculation in the sphere of religion, and strongly emphasized the authority of the Church. As a mystic he aimed at a closer and more intimate union with God through love of him and our fellow men. His importance


for the history of dogma lies in the fact that he be­longed to the Augustinian reaction at the end of the Middle Ages which, by a revival of the Augustinian monism of grace, tried to combat the Semi‑Pela­gianism and Pelagianism of the time and justifica­tion by works. His literary works remained long unknown. His chief work, De ltbertate Christians, which was written in 1473, appeared in print only

1. Name and General Conception, II. The God of Scripture.

Old Testament: Ethical Conception (§ 1).

New Testament: Fatherhood of God (§ 2).

Attributes of God (§ 3). III. The Doctrine of God in Christian Theology.

Dependence upon Pre‑Christian Thought (§ 1).

Platonism (§ 2).

L Name and General Conception: Though the reality of God's existence is the most certain of all truths to the Christian, it follows from the nature of the case that a thoroughly satisfactory defini­tion of the idea of God can never be reached. A logical definition requires the use of genus and differentia, which are, of course, absent in the case of God; nor can he be subsumed in the same genus with other things. Nevertheless, the religions of the world have succeeded in reaching quite dis­tinct conceptions of one or more gods without strict definitions. All of them, even the lowest, include in their idea of God that he is a being endowed with power over men and nature. A certain spiritual character is attributed to him by the fact of his invisibility; but the religious conception of God includes especially the idea of a will by which he acts on men. The more developed religions con­ceive this will as almighty, and refer the original being of all things to its operation. The most important element, however, according to Chris­tian revelation, is the ethical nature of that will as the absolute good, determining the development of the world toward good ends.

Il. The God of Scripture: The Old Testament revelation is peculiar for its conception of God as wholly and from the beginning standing in an ethical relation to humanity, and espe‑

r. Old Tes‑ cially to his people Israel. It does

tament: not begin with theoretical specula­Ethical tions as to his existence and nature,

Conception. but with his moral claims, his promises, and the proclamation to his people of his acts. The fear of him is based upon his abso­lute ethical exaltation, which repels and condemns all that is morally unclean. The proper name of the covenant God is Yahweh (q.v.). The exposition of the name in Ex. iii. 14 expresses not merely the general and abstract being of God, but the immu­tability of that being, and in its independence of anything beyond itself God's character as a spirit comes out clearly‑a, personal spirit, as distin­guished from a force of nature. This spirit appears as the creative and motive principle of all life in the world, figured as a breath or wind (Ps. civ. 29,


Alexandrian Judaism (§ 3). Gnosticism (§ 4). Post‑Apostolic Theologians (§ 5). Augustine (§ 6). Scotus Erigena (§ 7). The Scholastic Philosophers (§8). The Mystics (§ 9). The Reformers (§ 10). Leibnitz and Wolff (§ 11). Kant and Fichte (§ 12). Hegel (§ 13). Post‑Hegelian Philosophers (§ 14).

in 1521. The work which gives his most mature

thought is Dialogue de quattuor erroribus circa legem

evangelicam exortis, which was printed probably in

1523. (OTTO CLEMEN.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: O. Clemen, Johann Pupper von Goch, Leip. sic, 1896; a very complete treatment will be found in C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, i. 17‑157, where the earlier literature is fully given.

Schleiermacher (§ 15).

Modern Tendencies (§ le).

IV. In English and American Theology. The Deistic Period in England (§ 1).

The Same Period in America (§ 2).

Nineteenth‑Century Developments

(§ 3).

Theistic Arguments (§ 4).

Immanence (§ 5).

Fatherhood of God (§ 6).

30), especially of human life, originally breathed into man by God (Gen. ii. 7; Job xxxiii. 4; Eccl. xii. 7). The infinite fulness of power and majesty comprised in God and displayed in the revelation of his will and power is expressed by the plural form Elohim, used as it is in connection with the strictest monotheistic views. With the belief in the divine holiness is associated from the beginning the thought of a revelation of divine grace and love. God chooses Israel to be his people, redeems them from bondage, and on this ground requires from them obedience to his law. In virtue of the rela­tion in which he thus stands to the people, and espe­cially to the theocratically chosen king (II Sam. vii.; Pa. ii.), to which a filial obedience and confidence are supposed to correspond on their side, he deigns to be called their Father (Ex. iv. 22; Deut. xxxii. 6; Hos. xi. 1; Isa. lxiii. 16). The idea of the unity of God receives a practical application from the first; Yahweh alone is to be recognized and wor­shiped as God, and loved with the whole heart (Ex. xx. 2 sqq.; Deut. vi. 4, 5); and the universal dominion of the One God is everywhere proclaimed as a fundamental truth. It is, then, this ethical­religious view of God and his relation to Israel and to humanity in general, together with the doctrine of the kingdom which he founds, and not any ab­stract conception of the unity of God, that forms the essential characteristic of the Old Testament revelation.

The New Testament revelation is characterized by the fact that God now reveals himself in the highest and fullest sense as a father to all those who share in his salvation or are members of his king­dom, and in the most absolute and perfect way as the father of Jesus Christ. On this a. New Tes‑ relation of sonahip is based the free,

tament: confident access to God and enjoyment Fatherhood of his love and all the blessings con‑

of God. nected with it; and the children are

required to resemble their father in

character (Matt. v. 9, 16, 44). While in the Old

Testament Israel taken as a whole sometimes

appears as a son, here God's relation is to the indi­

vidual; although this fact does not interfere with


the other thought that the children of the One Father form a community, a kingdom of God, and that they can enjoy their union with God only when they are thus united with each other. According to Paul, the Spirit of God dwells in the Church as the motive power and principle of an entire new inner life in the sons of God‑who have also attained to their faith in Christ and their sonship only through the same Spirit (I Cor. xii. 3). The in­ternal change effected from above is set forth as a new birth (see REGENERATION). John contrasts this birth from God with the ordinary human, physical birth (John i. 12; I John iii. 9, v. 4). It is especially John and Paul who conceive God's relation to man under these aspects of self‑revela­tion, foundation of a community, and self‑communi­cation; but I Peter also contains the idea of our being born again of incorruptible seed (i. 23), and James of our being begotten of God with the word of truth (i. 18). The effect of this fatherhood is finally to be the filling of the children with all the fulness of God (Eph. iii. 19, iv. 6).

This whole relation of God to the faithful is

brought about through Christ. He is called the

Son absolutely, the only‑begotten, just as he calls

God his father with a distinction ("my father and

your father," John xx. 17, not " our father ").

This he is by virtue of his primary origin, not through

a regeneration. It is through him that all the

others become children of God; the spirit of their

adoption is his Spirit (Gal. iv. 6; II Cor. iii. 17;

cf. John xiv ‑xvi. ). The fulness of God is communi­

cated to the Church and to the individual as it is

comprehended and revealed in him (Col. ii. 10;

Eph, iv.13, ii. 22). And of him who, as the historic

Christ and Son, is the partaker of the divine life

and the head of the kingdom, and shall see all

things put under him, it is asserted by Paul, the

Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Johannine writings

(including the Apocalypse) that in like manner all

things were created by him and through him, that

in him they have their life and being, and that all

divine revelation is his revelation‑the revelation

of the Logos. Thus the New Testament idea of

God includes the doctrine that from the very begin­

ning the Word was with God and of divine character

and essence. With this relation of God to the

Logos the elements appear which are treated at

greater length in the article TRINITY.

But this relation of God to his children must be clearly distinguished from God's relation to the universal natural life of personal spirits and to nature in general. The expression " the Father of spirits " in Heb. xii. 9 (cf. " the God of the spirits of all flesh," Num. xvi. 22, xxvii. 16) refers not to the regenerate as such, and not to birth from God, but to creation by him, in which (cf. Gen. i. 2) he has imparted his image by the breathing of his Spirit. With the same reference the saying of the pagan poet " We are also his offspring " is quoted in Acts xvii. 28. In this same passage Paul ex­presses the general relation of God to man, which subsists even in those who have rejected him, by the words " In him we live, and move, and have our being." At the same time, it is said of the glorified Christ, who fills the Church, that he fills all things

(Eph. i. 23, iv. 10). and this can only mean the whole world, over which he presides, his divine pow­ers first penetrating humanity, and then through it bringing all things into harmony with his purposes. Thus, as all things proceed from God and exist in him, so he, and especially he as revealed in Christ, with his plan of salvation and his kingdom, is the final goal of all things (cf. Rom. xi. 36).

Both in Christian revelation and in the idea of the fatherhood of God, love is a fundamental ele­ment. It is most forcibly expressed in the asser­tion that " God is love " (I John iv. 8, 16)‑not love in the abstract merely, still less a. loving God.

This is, in fact, the determining eIe­3. Attributes ment in God's nature. From it fol‑

of God. lows that the perfect, almighty One,

who needs nothing (Acts xvii. 25), communicates himself to his creatures and brings them into union with him, in order to make them perfect and so eternally happy. Its highest ex­pression is found in the fact that he gave his Son for us while we were yet sinners, and desired to make us his sons (I John iv. 10, iii. 1, 2; Rom. v. 8, viii. 32). But God is not only love; he is also light (I John i. 5). By this may be understood his perfect purity, which repels and excludes all that is unclean; his function as the source of pure moral and religious truth; and his glorious majesty. That the supreme, holy, and loving God, the Father of spirits, is himself a spirit is taken for granted all through the New Testament. In John iv. 24, where this is brought up to enforce the lesson that he is to be worshiped in spirit, without narrow con­finement to a special place or to outward forms, it is spoken of as not a new truth but one which Jews and Samaritans were supposed already to know, and for whose consequences they should be pre­pared. The Yahweh‑name of Ex. iii. 14 is further developed, in Rev. i. 4, 8, xxi. 6, xxii. 13, into "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come." The eternity of God is thus placed in its relation to the development of the world and to its ultimate conclusion in the completed revelation of God and of his kingdom. See HEATHENISM, § 4.

III. The Doctrine of God in Christian Theology: The Christian revelation and its teachings about God supplied a distinct moral and religious need; but even after it had accomplished the foundation of a community based upon these ideas, there was

still room for a clear definition of its :. Depend‑ different elements and an investiga‑

ence upon tion of their relations to other depart‑

Pre‑Chris‑ ments of the intellectual life‑in a tian word, for a Christian science of the‑

Thought. ology. But Christian theology in its

earliest stages made use of the results of pre‑Christian, especially Greek, thought‑the methods and forms of philosophical reasoning, general logical and metaphysical categories, and philosophic views of the Godhead and its relation to the world, which, although they had originated on pagan soil and were in no way permeated by the spirit of Scriptural revelation, were yet considered as elevated far above the common polytheism of the heathen world, and even as borrowed in part from


the Old Testament. These elements had a distinct influence upon Christian theology; and it is also indisputable that, compared with the spirit known in the New Testament writings, the inner life of the succeeding generations showed a marked falling off in energy and depth, and gave room for reao­tions of a non‑Christian tendency, sometimes mainly pagan, sometimes more Jewish, but always based upon the natural disposition of sinful humanity.

In regard to philosophy, it is necessary to bear in mind the more or less direct influence of Plar tonism, which viewed as the highest of all things the good that was above all being and all knowledge, identified it with the divine naus, and

2. Plato‑ attempted to raise the human spirit nism. into the realm of ideas, into a likeness with the Godhead; which taught men to rise to the highest by a process of abstraction disregarding particulars and grasping at universals, and conceived the good of which it spoke not in a strictly ethical sense, but as, after all, the most utterly abstract and undefinable, entirely eluding all attempts at positive description. Neoplaton­ism (q.v.) went the furthest in this conception of the divine transcendence; God, the absolute One, was, according to Plotinus, elevated not only above all being, but also above all reason and rational activity. He did not, however, attempt to attain to this abstract highest good by reasoning or logical abstraction, but by an immediate contact between God and the soul in a state of ecstasy.

This tendency was shared by a school of thought within Judaism itself, whose influence upon Chris­tian theology was considerable. The more Jewish speculation, as was the case especially at Alexandria, rose above an anthropomorphic idea of God to a spiritual conception, the more abstract the latter became. In this connection Platonism was the principal one of the Greek philosoph‑

3. Alexan‑ ical systems toward which this Jewish drian theology maintained a receptive atti‑

Judaism. tude. According to Philo, God is to

on, " that which is " par excellence,

and this being is rather the most universal of all

than the supreme good with which Plato identified

the divine; all that can be said is that God is,

without defining the nature of his being. Between

God and the world a middle place is attributed by

Philp to the Logos (in the sense of ratio, not at all

in the Johannine sense), as the principle of diversity

and the summary of the ideas and powers operating

in the world.

When the Gnostics attempted to construct a great system of higher knowledge from a Christian standpoint, through assimilating various Greek and Oriental elements, and worked the facts of the Christian revelation into their fantastic speculation on general metaphysical and cosmic

4. Gnosti‑ problems (see GNOSTICISM), this ab­cism. atract Godhead became an obscure background for their system; accord­ing to the Valentinian doctrine, it was the primal beginning of all things, with eternal silence (aige) for a companion.

In the development of the Church's doctrine with Justin and the succeeding apologists, and still more

with the Alexandrian school, the transcendental nature of God was emphasized, while the Scrip­tures and the religious conscience of

g. Post‑ Christendom still permitted the con‑

Apostolic templation of him as a personal and

Theologians. loving Spirit. Theology did not at

first proceed to a systematic and logical

explanation of the idea of God with reference to

these different aspects. Where philosophical and

strictly scientific thought was active, as with the

Alexandrians, the element of negation and abstrac­

tion got the upper hand. God is, especially with

Origen, the simple Being with attributes, exalted

above nous and ousia, and at the same time the

Father, eternally begetting the Logos and touching

the world through the Logos. In opposition to

this developed a Judaistic and popular conception

of God which leaned to the anthropomorphic, and

also a view like Tertullian's, which, under the influ­

ence of Stoic philosophy, felt obliged to connect

with all realities, and thus also with God, the idea

of a tangible substance. In this direction Dionysius

the Areopagite (q.v.) finally proceeded to a really

Neoplatonist theology, with an inexpressible God

who is above all categories, both positive and negar

tive, and thus is neither Being nor Not‑being; who

permits that which is to emanate from himself in a

descending scale coming down to things perceived

by the senses, but is unable to reveal his eternal

truth in this emanation. With this doctrine is con­

connected, after the Neoplatonist model, an inner

union with God, an ecstatic elevation of the soul

which resigns itself to the process into the obscure

depth of the Godhead. The ethical conception

of God and redemption thus gives place to a phys­

ical one, just as the emanation of all things from God

was described as a physical process; and as soon

as speculation attempts to descend from the hidden

God to finite and personal life, this physical view

connects itself with the abstract metaphysical.

In the West there was long a lack of scientific and speculative discussion of the idea of God. Augustine, the most significant name in Western theology, sets forth the conception of God as a self­conscious personal being which fitted in with his doctrine of the Trinity; but as his own develop­ment had led him through Platonism, the influence of that philosophy is found in the

6. Augus‑ idea of God which he developed sys­tine. tematically and handed down. He con­ceives God as the unity of ideas, of abstract perfections, of the normal types of being, thinking, and acting; as simple essentia, in which will, knowledge, and being are one and the same. The fundamentally determinant factor in the con­ception of God by the Augustinian theology is thus pure being in general.

Scotus Erigena (q.v.), who gave Dionysius the Areopagite to Western theology, though Augustine was not without influence upon him, fully accepted the notion of God as the absolute In‑

7. Scotus conceivable, above all affirmation and

Erigena. all negation, distinguishing from him

a world to which divine ideas and

primal forms belong. He emphasizes the other side

of this view‑that true existence belongs to God


alone, so that, in so far as anything exists in the universe, God is the essence of it; a practical pan­theism, in spite of his attempting to enforce a cre­ative activity on the part of God. The influence of this pantheistic view on medieval theology was a limited one; Amahic of Bena (q.v.), with his proposition that God was all things, was its main disciple.

In accordance with its fundamental character, scholasticism attempted to reduce the idea of God into the categories which related to the laws of thought, to being in general, and to the 8. The Scho‑ world. It began by adapting the lastic Phi‑ Aristotelian terms to its own pur‑

losophers. poses. God, or absolute being, was

to Aristotle the priimum mobile, re­

garded thus from the standpoint of causation and

not of mere being, and also a thinking subject. The

ideas and prototypes of the finite are accordingly

to be found in God, who is the final Cause. God,

in Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, is not the

essential being of things, but he is their ease effective

et exemplariter, their primum movers, and their

causa finalia. Aristotelian, again, is the definition

of God's own nature, that he is, as a thinking sub­

ject, actus puru8‑pure, absolute energy, without

the distinction found in finite beings between poten­

tiality and actuality. In opposition to Thomas,

Duns Scotus emphasized in his conception of God

the primum ens and primum movers, the element of

will and free causation. The arbitrary nature of

the will of God, taught by him, was raised by Occam

to the most important element of his teaching about

God. Upon this abstract conception of the will

of God as arbitrary and unconditioned depend the

questions (so characteristic of scholasticism from

Abelard down) as to whether all things are possible

to God.

About the end of the thirteenth century, by the side of the logical reasonmgs of scholasticism, there arose the mystical theology of Eckhart, which attempted to bring the Absolute near to the hearts of men as the object of an immediate intuition de­pendent upon complete self‑surrender. The trans­cendental Neoplatonic conception of the Absolute is here pushed to its extreme, and Dionysius has more influence than Thomas Aquinas. The view of God's relation to the world is almost pantheistic, unless it may be rather called acos­g. The mistic, regarding the finite as naught.

Mystics. This is Eckhart's teaching, although

at the same time he speaks of a crea­

tion of the world and of a Son in whom God ex­

presses himself and creates. This God is regarded

as goodness and love, communicating himself in

a way, but not to separate and independent im­

ages of his own being; rather, he possesses and loves

himself in all things, and the surrender to him is

passivity and self‑annihilation. The 9Wling ideas

of this view were moderated by the practical Ger­

man mystics and found in this form a wide currency.

On the other hand, pantheistic heretics, such as the

Brethren of the Free Spirit combined antinomian

principles with the doctrine that God was all things

and that the Christian united with God was per­

fect as God.

In partial contrast to the speculative theology

which has been considered above, the practical

popular view of the Middle Ages tended to repre­

sent God as a strict autocrat and judge, and to

multiply intermediate advocates with him, of whom

Mary was chief. Luther went back to the God of

Scripture, regarded primarily in his ethical relation

to man, pronouncing curses, indeed, against the

impenitent, but really aiming at man's salvation.

As the love of God has an ethical,

io. The personal character, so it requires from

Reformers, its human objects not self‑annihila­tion, but an entrance with all the power of personality into communion with this love and enjoyment of the filial relation. The Christian, though free from bondage to the world, is to realize that it was made by God to serve his purposes. Melanchthon and Calvin, in like manner, avoiding scholastic subtleties, laid stress upon these practi­cal relations. The dogmatic differences, however, between the Lutheran and Reformed confessions point to a fundamental difference in the way of regarding God. The former emphasizes his loving condescension to man's weakness, and teaches a deification of humanity in the person of Christ and a union of the divine operations and presence with means of grace having a created and symbolic side, which the latter, with its insistence upon the su­preme exaltation of God, can not admit; and it rejects a theory of an eternal decree of reprobation against a part of humanity which the latter defends by appealing to God's rights over sinners and his absolute sovereignty. The next generation of dog­matic theologians was accustomed to define God as essentia apiritualis infinita, and, in the description of his attributes, to pass from general metaphysical terms to his ethical attributes and those relating to his knowledge. The older rationalistic and supra­naturalistic theologians showed an increasing tend­ency to return for their definitions and expositions to the Scriptures. Nor did they .accomplish much in the way of solving the real problems or investi­gating the relation between the content of reve­lation and the knowledge or conception of the divine to be found elsewhere.

The independent metaphysical systems of the philosophers, which embraced God and the world, did not at first make any profound impression on the thought of theologians. Spinoza's pantheism was by its very nature excluded from consideration; but the philosophy of Leibnitz and Wolff, with its conception of God as a supremely per­ir. Leibnitz feet, personal Being, in whom all pos‑

and Wolff. sible realities were embraced in their

highest form, and with its demonstra­

tion of God's existence, offered itself as a friend to

Christian doctrine, and was widely influential. In

so far, however, as the theologians adopted any of

its conclusions, it was with little clearness of insight

or independent thought as to the relation of these

metaphysical concepts to the Christian faith or as

to their own validity.

A new epoch in German philosophy, with which theology had and still has to reckon, came in with Kant. Confidence in the arguments by which God's existence had been proved and defined was at



least shaken by his criticism, which, however, ener­getically asserted the firm foundation of moral con­sciousness, and so led up to God by a new way, in postulating the existence of a deity for the estab­lishment of the harmony required by

rz. Kant the moral consciousness between the and Fichte. moral dignity of the subjects and their happiness based upon the adaptation of nature to their ends. Fichte was led from this standpoint to a God who is not personal, but repre­sents the moral order of the universe, believing in which we are to act as duty requires, without ques‑

tion as to the results.'

But for a time the most successful and apparently

the most dangerous to Christian theology was a

pantheistic philosophical conception of God which

took for its foundation the idea of an Absolute

raised above subject and object, above thinking and

being; which explained and claimed to deduce all

truth as the necessary self‑development of this idea.

With Schelling this pantheism is still in embryo,

and finally comes back (in his " philosophy of

revelation ") to the recognition of the divine per­

sonality, with an attempt to construct it specula­

tively. In a great piece of constructive work the

philosophy of Hegel undertook to show how this

Absolute is first pure being, identical with not­

being; bow then, in the form of externalization or

becoming other, it comes to be nature

13‑ Hegel. or descends to nature; and finally, in the

finite spirit, resumes itself into itself,

comes to itself, becomes self‑conscious, and thus now

for the first tune takes on the form of personality.

For Christian theology the special importance of this

teaching was its claim to have taken what Christian

doctrine had comprehended only in a limited way of

God, the divine Personality, the Incarnation, etc.,

and to have expressed it according to its real con­

tent and to the laws of thought.

The conservative Hegehans still maintained that God, in himself and apart from the creation of the world and the origin of human personality, was to be considered as a self‑conscious spirit or personality, and thus offered positive support to the Christian doctrine of God and his revelation of himself. But the Hegelian principles were more logically carried out by the opposite wing of the party, especially by David Friedrich Strauss (in his ChristlicheGlaubens­lehre Tiibingen, 1840) in the strongest antithesis to the Christian doctrine of a personal God, of Christ as the only Son of God and the God‑Man, and of a personal ethical relation between God and man. Some other philosophers, however, who may be classed in general under the head of the modern speculative idealism, have, in their specu­lations on the Absolute as actually present in the universe, retained a belief in the personality of God.

The realist philosopher Herba,rt, who recognized a personal God not through speculations on the Absolute and the finite, but on the basis of moral consciousness and teleology, yet defined little about him, and what he has to say on this subject never attracted much attention among theologians. The Hegelian pantheistic " absolute idealism," once widely prevalent, did not long retain its domi‑

nation. Its place was taken first in many quarters, as with Strauss, by an atheistic materialism; Hegel

' had made the universal abstract into

14‑ Post‑ God, and when men abandoned their

Hegelian belief in this and in its power to pro‑

Philoso‑ lute results, they gave up their belief pliers. in God with it. Among the post‑

' Hegelian philosophers the most im‑

portant for the present subject is Lotze with his de­

fense and confirmation of the idea of a personal

God, going back in the most independent way both

to Herbart and to idealism, both to Spinoza and to

Leibnitz. Christian theology can, of course, only

protest against the peculiar pantheism of Schopen­

hauer, which is reallymuch older than he, but never

before attained wide currency, and against that of

Von Hartmann. The significance for the doctrine

of God of the newer philosophical undertakings

which are characterized by an empiricist‑realist

tendency, and based on epistemology and criticism

is found not so much in their definite expressions

about God‑they do not as a rule consider him an

object of scientific expression, even when they allow

him to be a necessary object of faith‑as in the

impulse which they give to critical investigation of

religious belief and perception in general.

Theology, at least German theology, before

Schleiermacher showed but little understanding of

and interest in the problems regarding a proper

conception and confirmation of the doctrine of God

which had been laid before it in this development of

philosophy beginning with Kant. This is espe­

cially true of its attitude toward Kant himaelf­

and not only of the aupranaturaliats who were sus­

picious of any exaltation of the natural reason, but

also of the rationalists, who still had a superficial

devotion to the Enlightenment and to Wolffian phi­

losophy. In Schleiermacher's teaching about God,

however, the results of a devout and immediate

consciousness were combined with philosophical

postulates. In his mind the place of all the so‑called

proofs of the existence of God is completely sup­

plied by the recognition that the feeling of absolute

dependence involved in the devout

rg. Schleier‑ Christian consciousness is a universal

macher. element of life; in this consciousness

he finds the explanation of the source

of this feeling of dependence, i.e., of God, as being

Io ~e, by which the divine nature communicates

itself. For his reasoned philosophical speculation,

however, on the human spirit and universal being,

the idea of God is nothing but the idea of the abso­

lute unity of the ideal and the real, which in‑the

world exist as opposites. (Compare Schelling'a

philosophy of identity, unlike which, however,

Schleiermacher acknowledges the impossibility of

a speculative deduction of opposites from an original

identity; and the teaching of Spinoza, whose con­

ception o#=iGod, however, as the one substance he

does not share.) Thus God and the universe are to

him correlatives, but not identical‑God is unity

without plurality, the universe plurality without

unity; and this God is apprehended by man's

feeling, just as man's feeling apprehends the unity

of ideal and real.

Marheineke believed it possible as a dogmatic


theologian to set forth the content of the Christian faith from the standpoint of Hegelian philosophy without accepting (or even recognizing as Hegelian) the impersonal, pantheistic idea of the Absolute, and indeed without going deeply into :ti. Modern the train of thought leading up to that Tendencies. idea. Other theologians who more or less followed Schleiermacher, while they agreed with his statements about the devout consciousness, feeling, inner experience, and the like, yet avoided his philosophical definition of God. Others, again, holding to the same point of depar­ture, have striven with zealous confidence to use the main elements of the idea of God thus attained in connection with conceptual speculation and con­struction in the interests of an objective knowledge of God. Among these may be classed Rothe, Mar­tensen, Domer, and especially Frank. The point particularly aimed at by these men is the vindica­tion of the personality of God, in opposition to the pantheistic philosophy noticed above. A tendency has also appeared to recognize the very being of this God in the world of being created by him, thus giv­ing a theistic conception of God in opposition not only to the pantheistic but also to the deistic. This tendency has, on the one hand, done justice to so much truth as lies in the pantheistic concep­tion, and, on the other, by its adherence to Scrip­tural forms of expression, it has led to a more vivid realization of the divine nature in its relation to the world than prevailed among the old rationalists and supranaturalists.

The question has also arisen among theologians of the strict positive school, in consequence of the doctrine of Christ as the God‑Man, whether, and if so how far, it is consistent with the divine nature, as found in the Logos or the second Person of the Trinity, to speak of a Kenosis (q.v.) or self‑emptying, such as was supposed to have taken place in the incarnation of the Logos, bringing with it a sus­pension of his eternal consciousness. This is in direct opposition to the old orthodox teaching, according to which Christ laid aside in his humilia­tion not what affected his Godhead, but what affected his humanity, endowed with divine quali­ties by the Communicatio adiomatum (q.v.).

Biedermann, a dogmatic theologian influenced by Hegelian speculation, treats the notion of the personality of God as one to be rejected from the standpoint of scientific philosophy. It is true that he designates personality as " the adequate form of presentation for the theistic conception of God "; but he goes on to say that a theism of this kind can never attain to pure thought, and is only an unscientific conception of the content of the relig­ious idea, adopted in a polemical spirit against those who think this out logically. As against pantheistic notions of God, however, he is willing to admit the " substantial " validity of the theistic position. He himself describes God as absolute spirit, absolute being in and by himself, and the fundamental essence of all being outside himself. Quite a different tendency of philosophic thought on the matter is met with in Lipsius. He traces the belief in God back to a practical necessity felt by the personal human spirit, and reaches the concep‑

tion of God as a purpose‑determining intelligence and a lawgiving will, and thus as a self‑conscious and self‑determining personality. He finds our knowl­edge of God always inadequate as soon as we attempt to go on to transcendental knowledge of his inner nature, because we are forced to speak of this in metaphors borrowed from our human relations, and to carry over our notions of space and tame to where space and time are not. He declares also that the metaphysical speculations which attempt to replace these inadequate notions by a real knowl­edge of God are them Ives unable to do this, since they can not get beyond the boundary of an eternal and ever‑present existence underlying all existence in space and time, and are unable to define this existence in distinction from spatial and temporal existence except by purely formal logical definitions which really add nothing to our knowledge. It is really Kantian criticism which appears here, more forcibly than in previous dogmatic theology, as it reappears also in the later post‑Hegelian philosophy.

Ritachl, again, is reminiscent of Kant in his oppo­sition to all " metaphysical " statements about God, and in the way in which he places God for our knowl­edge in relation to our personal ethical spirit, as well as the powers which he attributes to this latter in relation to nature (cf. Kant's so‑called moral proof or God as the postulate of the practical reason). Through the revelation in Christ, God becomes to him to a certain extent an objective reality, and, rejecting the conception of God as the Absolute, he prefers to define him simply as love. Against this not only dogmatic theologians like Frank and Nitzach, but Kaftan also objects that love is found also in the finite sphere, and thus can not sufficiently express the essential nature of God, which differ­entiates him from the finite. Ritachl himself says, moreover, that the love which God is has the attri­bute of omnipotence, and that God is the creator of the universe, as will determining both himself and all things, while these definitions can in no way be deduced from the simple conception of love. Kaf­tan begins by the statement that God is the Abso­lute; and this signifies to him not only that God has absolute power over all that is, but also and even more that he is the absolute goal of all human en­deavor. Nitzsch employs the term " supramun­dane " to include the domination of the universe and to express at the same time not only the thought that he who conditions all things is himself uncon­ditioned, but also the moral and intellectual exal­tation of God.

The whole body, therefore, of these modern theo­logians hold fast to an objective doctrine of God with a strict scientific comprehension of terms; and they agree in displaying a characteristic which dif­ferentiates them from earlier schools of thought, though varying in degree and in logical sequence­the consciousness that the Christian doctrine of God is based not upon the operations of reason but upon the revelation of God in Christ, of which the witness is in our hearts and that it must grasp as the fundamentally essential in God and his relation to us the ethical element in him‑must conceive him, in a word, primarily as the sacred Love.

(J. KdamLiNt.)



IV. In English and American Theology: In Great

Britain and America the idea of God has undergone

many vicissitudes. In the period of

:. The Deism (q.v.), 1650‑1800, the doctrine

Deistic of God was profoundly affected by

Period in certain modern questions which were

England. already emerging: the scientific view

of nature as a unity, the denial of the

principle of external authority, the right and suf­

ficiency of reason, and the ethical as compared with

the religious value of life. The deists yielded to

none of their contemporaries in affirming that God

was personal, the cause of the fixed providential

order of the world, and of the moral order with its

rewards and punishments both here and hereafter.

The cosmological was the only theistic argument.

God's wisdom and power were expressed neither in

supernatural revelation nor in miracle. His nature

was perfectly apprehensible to man's reason. He

was, however, absolutely transcendent, i.e., not

merely distinct from but removed from the world,

an absentee God. This process of thought reached

its negative skeptical result in David Hume; the

being of God could be proved neither by rational

considerations nor by the prevailing sensationalist

theory of knowledge. Outside of the deists, the

demonstration of the being and attributes of God

by Samuel Clarks (q.v.) was thoroughly represent­

ative of the time. Something must have existed

from eternity, of an independent, unchangeable

nature, self‑existent, absolutely inconceivable by us,

necessarily everlasting, infinite, omnipotent, one

and unique, intelligent and free, infinitely powerful,

wise, good, and just, possessing the moral attributes

required for governing the world. Bishop Butler

(Analogy of Religion) held as firmly as the deists

the transcendence of God, and if he made less of the

cosmic, ethical, and mysterious than of the redemp­

tive side of the divine nature, this is to be referred

not to hid underestimate of the redemptive purpose

of God, but to the immediate aim of his apologetic.

Accepting the fundamental tenet of Matthew Tindal

(q.v.), i.e., the identity of natural and revealed

religion, he shows that the mysteries of revealed

religion are not more inexplicable than the facts of

universal human experience. Thus he seeks to open

a door for God's activity in revelation‑prophecy,

miracles, and redemption A new tendency in the

idea of God appears in William Paley (q.v.). The

proof of the existence and attributes of the deity is

teleological. Nature is a contrivance of which God

is the immediate creator. The celebrated Bridge­

water Treatises (q.v.) follow in the same path,

proving the wisdom, power, and goodness of God

from geology, chemistry, astronomy, the animal

world, the human body, and the inner world of

consciousness. Chalmers sharply distinguishes be­

tween natural and revealed theology, as offering two

sources for the knowledge of God. In this entire

great movement of thought, therefore, God is con­

ceived as transcendent. God and the world are pre­

sented in a thoroughly dualistic fashion. God is the

immediate and instantaneous creator of the world

as a mechanism. The principal divine attributes

are wisdom and power; goodness is affrmed, but

Download 4.32 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   40

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page