# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juli 1858_S204
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

204

Prof. Münkel's Judgment on Baumgarten's Defender.

(From the "Verden Zeitblatt" of March 27.)

Baumgarten of Rostock has found an advocate in the learned,
brilliant, and keen-witted professor at Erlangen, Dr. v. Hofmann. This
was to be expected. Baumgarten stands accused, in the consistory's
opinion, on account of his false doctrines in the articles concerning
justification, the satisfaction of Christ, and the thousand-year
kingdom, and is besides suspected of Schleiermacherianism. Now if
Baumgarten can be condemned for this, what will Hofmann defend, seeing
that he himself teaches false doctrines on these very points? Hofmann
has indeed taken pains to twist his teaching so that it should appear
merely a new way of presenting old doctrines. Yet everyone will surely
come away from his defenses convinced that, through this new manner of
teaching, the old doctrine of Christ's passive obedience (obedientia
passiva) unto the forgiveness of sins has received a strong blow, by
which the doctrine of justification is struck just as hard. From
Rostock he suffered the first attack, which he then answered in an
overbearing tone. He has since moderated himself, now that numerous
voices of Lutheran theologians, and of his own colleagues as well, have
risen up against him. Yet from now on his eye looks unwillingly toward
Rostock, where he himself once taught, and he is indeed now in the
position of having to take the offensive against Rostock, unless he is
willing to include himself in the judgment passed on Baumgarten.

The light he has cast upon the consistory's opinion is, however, not
everywhere unfounded, as one may expect from so distinguished a
theologian. It supplements and corrects much that had been presented
from only one side, or that cannot be maintained. It also chooses its
point of attack with great skill, so as to make Baumgarten's teachings
appear as innocuous as possible; and while carefully refraining from
bringing the defendant's actual teaching to light, it shows only this
much — that, on the basis of the statements before us, there is no
ground for condemnation. This is then pronounced, with the deepest
displeasure, at the end of the review. The application lies close at
hand: condemnation is a favorite party maneuver of orthodox
heresy-hunting.

We may leave the review of this review to those whose proper calling
it is. Only by way of example may a few remarks stand here. The
consistory's opinion had picked out the passages in which Baumgarten
ascribes to himself a higher calling, a prophetic consecration, and
asserts that every word of his lips is consecrated by the Spirit.
Hofmann adds to this the other words, in which Baumgarten says: "This
blessed knowledge of the truth that dwells within my teaching,