Show I THEOLOGY AS A SCIENCE A singular controversy on the Hiatus of theology as a science la iuractlnp general attention in Germany and has called forth articles by leading theological theo-logical professors Huch as Harnack of Berlin Loofe of Halle Jullcher of Marburg Crenier oC OrlcfRwald and Sccbcrg of Berlin The occasion for this controversy Is I the radical work of Prof Hackel or Jena the leading Darwinian Dar-winian of German entitled WeHriU acl and the scries of books being published pub-lished by the veteran Tubingen law professor Thudlchum entitled Klr llche Falschungen see tht Literary Dlgertt January 20th In thee < Mal M-al the canons of the theological achoL ars arc defied and credence Is i given tb such stories as that Christ was the Illegitimate child of Mary and a Ro ran soldier and that the four gospels were adopted as canonical In the council at Nice out of llfty and more apocryphal records of the life oC Christ because these four In answer to this prayer of the bishops sprang I from the floor upon a table In the pres I onoe of tin assembled ecclesiastics These works were a challenge to theologians the-ologians that demanded a reply and this was not long forthcoming The jjrst to reply was Prof Loofe who In the Chrlstllche Welt No 45 gave Hackel a vigorous lashing denouncing his methods as utterly unworthy of a scholar Prof Harnack In the same I journal < No 49 asks why It Is I that outsiders can without fear of making I themselves COntemPtible In the eyes of the wholo learned world venture Into the domain of theology as Hackel and Thudlchum have done Harnack I says In substance 7 On all matters of theology the most foolish things can be represented as facts and things may be called Into question and the best of authoritative vldence be pushed aside and all that Hclontlilc theological Investigation has taught can be Ignored and yet the perpetrator can continue to enjoy the reputation of a learned professor Why has not theology boon ablo to vindicate itself as n science equal In standing to other sciences Is H not because there is n general suspicion that It has certain cer-tain sccrelH to hide that 1 Is not perfectly per-fectly honest and open and therefore not pursued on the same principles that control scientific research In other 3 lines Is It not for this reason that 9 theology as a science doc not enjoy r the respect In the eyes of the learned D world that by common consent is accorded ac-corded to other sciences Here a lat work is still to be don by the advocates advo-cates of genuine theological science II This view of the case however Is not shared by other equally prominent IF theologians least of all by h the morel more-l conservative Further discussion has ensued In the Berlin Kruoz Zeltung No 593 Prof Crcmer writes In sub Btance us follows I must be acknowledged that theology the-ology Is looked at askance by many scholars and that attacks of the most silly kind ar be made by nontheolo w glans upon the teachings uf theology Without their losing caste but this will continue to be the case as long as theology t the-ology must deal with matters that belong be-long to a sphere beyond and above the natural As long as the fundamental verities concerning the person and work of Christ the Trinity the Alone mont and tin like theology must despair tl te 0 spair of a recognition by outsiders asa as-a science of the same kind with those that deal with secular matters Nor can theology afford to secure for itself a wider recognition on tho part of non w Christian science by the sat rlficc of any ol the cardinal pilticiplrs that belong be-long to its very life but which are not the objects of scientific analysis The story of the birth of Christ o the yesurrccllon of the ascension must be 9 analntajned as historical truths absolutely E abso-lutely essential to theology and to the church and It i these arc the things that theology fa suspected of hiding and not treating In tho light of day as Barnacle seems to suppose the reply re-ply must be that It wouTfl be fatal to secure by a compromise of such essentials essen-tials recognition as a Bclcnre Sccbcrg the new conservative member 4 I mem-ber of the Btrln facul In the same periodical No 601 expresses his full agreement with these views of Crcmtr but adds the following considerations r I must not ht forgotten that theologians e theo-logians themselves are to a great extent ex-tent responsible for the alt that theology the-ology In looked upon with rontopipl In many scientific circles There are controversies 43 con-troversies In every department of science d sci-ence but In none Is thC personal bitterness bit-terness HO pronounced Ui in theology 4 Disagreement in principles becomCH 4 personal nniimilly This old odium theologlcum which Mclanchthon so keenly deplored Is largely responsIble fOI the relatively low status of theological o 4 logical science In the meanwhile Hackel has not been r len t In a newly established Jclpsin monthly called Krltlk and An 4 tlKrltlk No 1 ho hag endeavored to 4 fortify hIs position From this reply 4 it appears that hu based his charges against early Christianity on Information Informa-tion derived from the t Talmud on statements of tho antiChristian writers writ-ers of the first centuries and on other Nlmllar hostile sources Thudlchurn has not replied l but he continues to publish his little hooks In the latest of which he practically mal < H Christianity I I Chris-tianity the manufactured product of n 4 priest party of the fourth and fifth 4 4 Literary runturlcs Digest Translations mr c for the |