the foundation of every Dogmatik. The systematic development must rest on the foundation of a structure reared according to principles; and it is just by this that Dogmatik proves itself to be a science. This principle needs not first to be sought for, but is assigned to Dogmatik by the Confession, in the doctrine of Justification by faith. It is by this doctrine that to everything else its place is assigned. The man who, by faith, lays hold of the merit of Jesus Christ, is justified by God. In this, three things are implied, the faith, the object of faith, and the effect of faith. The object of faith is the revelation of God in Christ Jesus; faith is the fruit of regeneration which the Spirit of Christ works by the means of grace; justification is the judicial union of man with God, which, by and through sanctification, becomes a union of eternal life with God in the heavenly Church, the goal of the Church Militant. But in whatever way we may proceed as to the method, at all events, as long as the doctrine of Justification by faith is acknowledged as the material principle of Protestantism, it must, in Dogmatik also, hold its position as a principle. But, in the latest works on Dogmatik (Martensen, Lange, Ebrard), not even an attempt is made. As in the History of Doctrines, so in the Dogmatik of our time also, the most successful labours are not to be sought for in Compendiums, but in Monographs. The study of Dogmatik will, in all probability, not for a long time produce any comprehensive representations of that importance which Gerhard, Quenstedt, Calovius, Hollaz had in the seventeenth century. On the study of Church History, as we already pointed out, the historical spirit, after the liberation-wars, has exercised a considerable influence. While the period of Illuminism had been satisfied with the one-sided demand of a critical, pragmatical treatment, according to the sources, this historical spirit added the demand that the historian should enter more deeply into the life pervading the Church. Even historians like Gieseler, who still stood in the service of Illuminism, could not refuse to render obedience to this claim. Here also—and we only mention Neander—it was, in the first instance, a subjective Christian spirit who, with cordial sympathy, entered into the phenomena of the past life of the Church. In opposition, however, to the narrowness which attached to this stand-point, freer and wider stand-points, like that of Hase, had a relative right. The spirit of historical representation which alone corresponds to the history of the Church, is to feel as a Churchman. But since there does not exist a Catholic Church, but only particular Churches, the historian who feels this, who has that spirit, will not be able to deny the peculiarities of his particular Church. There needs not, however, to be any fear that the Lutheran Church-historians will return to the standpoint of the Magdeburg Centuriators. The period which we have reviewed has, among other things, also made provision that such may not be the case. The Confessions again stand arrayed against one another. They who see nothing but mischief in this may well ask themselves whether they seek what is divine, or what is human. Many impure elements are mixed up with this struggle, but it would be against truth to deny that an earnest striving after the victory of truth manifests itself in it. And how can the sad discord of the individual Churches ever be removed, unless that which separates them be again made the subject of earnest inquiry? But wherever there is inquiry, there is, in the sublunary world, fighting also. Certain it is, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church cannot adopt the Tridentine conclusions, nor can she adopt the Reformed Confession, both on account of the distinctive doctrines, and on account of the position which the Confession there occupies. The watchword of our Church, in this struggle, can only be: "Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." Our crown is our Confession. |