^{page 257 note 1} vol. XV, no. 2 (June 1962), 133–50.

^{page 257 note 2} vol. XVI, no. 4 (December 1963), 390–414.

^{page 257 note 3} On the one extreme we find Karl Barth describing Ritschl's theology, as only he can do among contemporary writers, as a ‘spasmodic concentration’ rather than a break with Schleiermacher, in Church Dogmatics, Vol. I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, part I, trans Thomson, G. T. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1936), p. 317Google Scholar. At the other extreme are men such as F. Kattenbusch, whom Dr Deegan quotes, vol. XVI, p. 394, Alfred E. Garvie, and Albert T. Swing who find, in Ritschl, the dawn of a new age of theology.

^{page 258 note 1} Ritschl, Albrecht, Schleiermachers Reden über die Religion und ihre Nachwirkungen auf die evangelische Kirche Deutschlands (Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1874), p. 19Google Scholar. (Hereafter this work will be referred to as S.R. Translations from all German sources are my own.)

^{page 258 note 2} ibid., p. 20.

^{page 258 note 3} Ritschl, Otto, Albrecht Ritschls Leben, Erster Band: 1822–1864 (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1892), pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 4} ibid., pp. 244–5.

^{page 258 note 5} ibid., PP- 346ff.

^{page 258 note 6} Ritschl, Otto, Albrecht Ritschls Leben, Zweiter Band: 1864–1889 (Freiburg und Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr, 1896), p. 82.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 7} ibid., p. 83.

^{page 258 note 8} S.R., p. 18.

^{page 259 note 1} See, e.g., Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, vol. I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, part 2, trans. Thomson, G. T. and Knight, Harold (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1956), p. 786Google Scholar. There he declares that Ritschl was only developing Schleiermacher's presuppositions when he made ethics a focal concern of his theology.

^{page 259 note 2} CfHirsch, Emanuel, Geschichte der reuern evangtlischcn Theologie im Zusammenhang mil den allgemeinen Bewegungen des europäischen Denkens, Fünfter Band (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1960), p. 558Google Scholar. Hirsch considers Ritschl to be a continuation of mediation theology. The best he can say for Ritschl is that Ritschl was the end of an old mediation theology and the beginning of a new one.

^{page 259 note 3} Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. XVI, pp. 394ff.

^{page 259 note 4} Other similarities or points of contact between Ritschl and Schleiermacher could and will be given in the form of a footnote at the conclusion of this section. It is possible that some of the similarities relegated to that footnote, e.g. the common view of sin, are more significant than some of the six given in the body of the paper, but these six have been chosen because they represent a good cross section of the theology of both men.

^{page 260 note 1} Recall the reference to S.R., p. 18, given above, where Ritschl says that Schleiermacher's attempt at scientific theology is the only one since the Reformation and, therefore, worthy of note. In Ritschl's opinion, however, Schleiermacher falls short of this goal. For another statement of this position see Ritschl, Albrecht, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, vol. III: The Positive Development of the Doctrine, eds. Mackintosh, H. R. and Macaulay, A. B. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1900), pp. 8–9Google Scholar. (Hereafter this work will be referred to as J. & R., vol. III.)

^{page 260 note 2} See Edghill, Ernest A., Faith and Fact: A Study of Ritschlianism (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1910), pp. 11–15Google Scholar, for a short survey of the relevant material dealing with Kant and pp. 21–23 for a similar account of the material dealing with Lötze. I must add, however, that I do not think, in this instance, Ritschl is the best judge of his own background.

^{page 260 note 3} Schleiermacher, Friedrich, On Religion: Speeches To Its Cultured Despisers, trans. Oman, John (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958), p. 214.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 1} Albrecht Ritschl, S.R., p. 4.

^{page 261 note 2} ibid. Whether or not both men, or either, actually achieved their goal regarding history is, of course, quite another question. Both Karl Barth and Emil Brunner think they failed. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I:1, p. 166, comments upon Lessing's ‘foul, wide ditch1’ between the Bible and us and then remarks that nineteenth-century theology, including that of both Schleiermacher and Ritschl, found it increasingly easy to leap over this ditch. Brunner, Emil, The Mediator, trans. Wyon, Olive (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1947), pp. 56–65Google Scholar, suggests the same thing. Ritschl could construct his theology as he did, says Brunner on p. 56, ‘only … because it does not contain any reference to an unique historical event’. See also Hök, Gösta, Die Elliptische Theologie Albrecht Ritschls (Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1942), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 3} ibid., pp. 26–27.

^{page 261 note 4} Ritschl, Albrecht, A Critical History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, trans. Black, John S. (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1872), pp. 446–451Google Scholar. (Hereafter this work will be referred to as J. & R., vol. I.)

^{page 261 note 5} Schleiermacher, Friedrich, ‘Ueber den Begriff des höchsten Gutes (Erste Abhandlung)’, Sämmtliche Werke, Dritte Abtheilung: Zur Philosophic, Zweiter Band: Philosophised und uermischte Schriflen (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1838), pp. 446–468Google Scholar. For a more readily available statement by Schleiermacher on this subject, see Schleiermacher, Friedrich, The Christian Faith, eds. Mackintosh, H. R. and Stewart, J. S. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1928), pp. 26ff.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 6} Albrecht Ritschl, J. & R., vol. I, p. 447.

^{page 262 note 1} Albrecht Ritschl, S.R., p. 9.

^{page 262 note 2} ibid.

^{page 262 note 3} For Schleiermacher's part, see, Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, paragraph 113, pp. 525ff. The heading of paragraph 113 reads, in part, ‘All that comes to exist in the world through redemption is embraced in the fellowship of believers, within which all regenerate people are always found.’

^{page 262 note 4} Again, for Schleiermacher's part, see, ibid., paragraph 2, pp. 3ff. The heading of paragraph 2 reads, ‘Since Dogmatics is a theological discipline and thus pertains solely to the Christian Church, we can only explain what it is when we have become clear as to the conception of the Christian Church.’ See also Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I:1, p. 89, for his comments agreeing with my statement.

^{page 262 note 5} Albrecht Ritschl, J. & R., vol. III, p. 139. See also ibid., p. 110, and J. & R., vol. I, pp. 443–52.

^{page 262 note 6} Albrecht Ritschl, J. & R., vol. III, p. 3.

^{page 262 note 7} ibid., p. 4.

^{page 262 note 8} Here is the historical point of origin, referred to above in point three of this section, which both men considered necessary for their theology.

^{page 263 note 1} I shall not attempt to evaluate the actual success of Schleiermacher in achieving this goal inasmuch as I have done so elsewhere. See my article, ‘The Question of Development in Schleiermacher's Theology’, Canadian Journal of Theology, vol. X, no. 2 (April 1964), 75–87.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 2} Albrecht Ritschl, J. & R., vol. I, pp. 476–85.

^{page 263 note 3} ibid., p. 480.

^{page 263 note 4} See, e.g., Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1:2, pp. 123, 350; Emil Brunner, op. cit., pp. 94–97.

^{page 263 note 5} Gösta Hök, op. cit., pp. 49–50.

^{page 264 note 1} ibid., p. 50.

^{page 264 note 2} Albrecht Ritschl, J. & R., vol. III, pp. 108–9.

^{page 264 note 3} Other similarities which might have been discussed, along with some secondary references dealing with them, include (1) the common view of sin for which see Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, vol. IV: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, part 1, trans. Bromiley, G. W. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1956), pp. 376–377Google Scholar, on Schleiermacher and ibid., pp. 381–3, on Ritschl; (2) the common view of evil for which see Emil Brunner, op. cit., pp. 134–7; (3) t n e common depreciation of the Old Testament in relation to the New Testament for which see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1:2, p. 488; and (4) the relation between the subjectivity of Schleiermacher and the use of övalue judgments’ by Ritschl for which see Orr, James, The Ritschlian Theology and the Evangelical Faith (London: Hodderand Stoughton, 1898). P. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 4} Ritschl makes this point many times. The charge is repeated at various points in j. & R., vol. III, but the most extended attack is in J. & R., vol. I, pp. 452–93. Some account of Ritschl's attack in this section was taken above under point 6 of the previous section.

^{page 264 note 5} Mozley, John Kenneth, Ritschlianism: An Essay (London: James Nisbet and Co. Ltd., 1909), p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 6} Albrecht Ritschl, J. & R., vol. I, p. 445.

^{page 265 note 1} In this respect, one cannot help but recall the position maintained by Rudolf Otto, that Schleiermacher was no introspective mystic. See Otto, Rudolf, The Idea of the Holy, trans. Harvey, John W. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Religious Essays: A Supplement to ‘The Idea of The Holy’, trans. Brian Lunn (London: Oxford University Press, 1931), pp. 68–77; Mysticism East and West (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1932), pp. 233ff.

^{page 265 note 2} Barth, Karl, Protestant Thought: From Rousseau to Ritschl, trans. Cozens, Brian (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), pp. 317–318Google Scholar, makes this criticism of Emil Brunner's attack upon Schleiermacher in the latter's Die Mystik und das Wort. Recall also the reference made above to Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 1:2, p. 786.

^{page 266 note 1} Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, p. 674.

^{page 266 note 2} Since this article was written I have been engaged in study of the sense in which Schleiermacher may be said to be mystical. The problem is much more complex than this section indicates, and I hope to do some writing on it in the future.

^{page 266 note 3} Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. XVI, p. 394.

^{page 266 note 4} Reported in Orr, James, The Ritschlian Theology, p. 48Google Scholar. Orr has quoted this material from Kattenbusch, F., Von Schleiermacher zu Ritschl (2nd ed.; Giessen: J. Richer, 1893), p. 70Google Scholar. I have relied upon Orr's account of Kattenbusch because I was not able to obtain a copy of the latter.

^{page 266 note 5} Swing, Albert Temple, The Theology of Albrecht Ritschl (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1901), p. 54Google Scholar. Later, pp. 58–59, Swing declares, ‘Ritschl was not without inspiration from Schleiermacher's fundamental and vitalising thoughts, and yet he is so much unlike him in the sphere in which he has done his work, that we may practically leave Schleiermacher out of our consideration when we are not speaking of unconscious development.’ See also Ernest A. Edghill, Faith and Fact, p. 53.

^{page 266 note 6} Albert Temple Swing, op. cit., p. 55.

^{page 267 note 1} Ernest A. Edghill, op. cit., p. 53.

^{page 267 note 2} Ritschl, Albrecht, Theologie und Metaphysik (2nd ed.; Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1893), p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 3} Albrecht Ritschl, J. & R., vol. III, p. 34.

^{page 267 note 4} ibid.

^{page 267 note 5} Ritschl, Albrecht, Theologie und Metaphysik, p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 6} See, for example, Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, vol. III: The Doctrine of Creation, part 2, trans. Knight, Harold et al. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1960), p. 446Google Scholar; see also, Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 438; see also, James Orr, op. cit., p. 48; see also, Gösta Hök, op. cit., p. 336.

^{page 267 note 7} This possibility is suggested in Otto Ritschl, Albrecht Ritschls Leben, Zweiter Band, p. 410.

^{page 267 note 8} Ritschl, Albrecht, Theologie und Metaphysik, p. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 9} Garvie, Alfred E., The Ritschlian Theology (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1899), P.53.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 1} Albrecht Ritschl, J. & R., vol. III, p. 13.

^{page 268 note 2} Ritschl, Albrecht, Theologie und Metaphsyik, p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 3} Gösta Hök, op. cit., p. 336. See also ibid., pp. 49–50.