Reformed Orthodoxy Redivivus: Heinrich Heppe's "Reformed Dogmatics" in Historical Perspective*

EA RL WM. KENN EDY

"Heppe," the fat, venerable, Reformed dogma ti cs textbook upo n which, since 1861 , generations of Europea n and America n students have cut their theological teeth, has at last made it s Ameri can publishing debut, for the first time in paperback a nd presumably fo r the benefit of eva ngeli cals, judging from the publisher. T his classic contains a grand harvest of quotatio ns o n a ll the topics a nd subto pics of theology (the twenty-eight cha pter headings sta rt with " Natural and Revealed Theology" a nd end with "Glorification") col­ lected fr o m the writings of over fifty Reformed theologia ns of the late sixteenth, the seventeenth, a nd, to a lesser degree, the eighteenth century. Several quotati ons, some of them lengthy, a re adduced to illustrate every numbered subpo int within each cha pter. The o ri ginal edito r, Heinrich Heppe, provided a n o rthodox Reformed theological narrati ve to bind the quotati o ns together. Heinrich Ludwig Julius Heppe ( 1820- 1879), the ce nte na ry of whose death this review is intended to ma rk, taught church history, theology, a nd related subjects at the University of Ma rburg (the West Germa n institution later made fa mous fo r Americans by Rudolf Bultma nn) for nearly three decades. In the nature of the case, the book, whether in the origina l Germa n a nd Latin or in Engli sh, does not ma ke optimum bed-time reading (unless o ne is a n insomniac), but it is worthy of ca reful study by a ll Refo rmed theologues, a nd its literary histo ry, enmeshed, as it was, in at least two Germa n church struggles (with it s quota ti o ns recalling other, more dista nt ecclesiastical battles), is not without a certa in modest dra ma. When the devout, evangeli cal Heppe came fr o m hi s fi rs t a nd o nly pastorate to teach at Ma rburg in electoral in 1849, o ne of the loca l chu rch leaders was a certain August Vilma r ( 1800- 1868). Initia lly the two supernaturalist Christia ns joined forces against rati ona lism a nd revolution (including radical dem ocracy) a nd preached the princi­ pl es of the Reforma ti on (cf. Groen van Prinsterer a nd Kuyper in the Netherlands) in o rd er to renew the Hessia n church which had been spiritua ll y ma ln o urished by a longtime diet of Enlightenment theology. But Heppe, a n Evangelical Allia nce suppo rter, was strongly opposed not only to this "heathen huma ni sm" but also to the "secta ria n ortho­ doxism a nd a nti-evange li cal Roma ni sm" which he thought threatened the Protestant

*A review a rticle of Reformed Dogmatics Set Out and !l/u.1·trated/i'om the Sources, by Heinrich Heppe (fo rword by Karl Ba rth; revised a nd edited by Ernst Bi zer; translated by G. T. T ho mson), G ra nd Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978 [1 95 0]. xiv, 72 lp., $9.95 (pa per).

150 church. So when Vilmar soon began openly crusading for the confessional of the Formula of Concord ( 1577) and for what Heppe saw as a kind of teutonic "Pusey­ ism" (a catholicizing high church trend common then in England; cf. the American Ger­ man Reformed Mercersburg theology of Philip Schaff and 'John W. Nevin), Heppe was a larmed. He poured his talent for hard work and literary production into a pamphlet war with Vilmar and, more importantly, into a nu.mber of major historical works aimed at demonstrating that the Reformation and the church in his beloved Hesse were at heart "Reformed." When Hesse was swallowed up by Prussia in 1866, Heppe interpreted it as the just judgment of God upon Hessian high church Lutheranism! His impolitic, undip­ lomatic, and sometimes bitter anti-Vilmar campaign resulted in the unwarranted Clelay of Heppe's salary increases and promotion at (partly based on police reports of his public drunkenness or at least frequenting of "pubs" and overfondness for spirits, espe­ cially when fatigued or excited) and emotional suffering for the rest of his life, which was cut short by throat cancer. In addition to his scholarly pursuits, Heppe had pastoral concerns; he was co-founder of a deaconess house in Hesse and published a prayer book, revised several times, for use in fami ly devotions. Reflecting the romantic nationalism of the time, Heppe early (by 1850) set forth a controversial reading of the Reformation which has ever since been associated with his name: in addition to the German Lutheran and Genevan Reformed (i.e., Calvinist) Reformations, there was a unique, home-grown "German Reformed" Reformation. This flowed from "old " through Philip Melanchthon (Luther's theological right arm and successor, the author of the Augsburg Confession of 1530; the strict sixteenth­ century Lutherans saw "Philippism" as "Crypto-") and, to a lesser degree, Mar­ tin Bucer (the Strasbourg reformer who influenced Calvin, too). According to Heppe, this indigenous German Reformed theology, less harsh than that of Calvin, taught the Bible's complete authority over all human institutions, a mild form of (single) predestination, and Melanchthon's and Calvin's common view of the Lord's Supper. Heppe viewed the Hei­ delberg Catechism ( 1563) of the Palatinate and the dynamic covenant theology of the theological school at Herborn in Nassau (whose most famous representative was Johannes Cocceius [ 1603- 1669), of "Heilsgeschichte" fame) as the best early examples of German Reformed thinking, which highlighted the personal in religion and which reached its con­ summation in the great Friedrich Schleiermacher ( 1768- 1834), the father of protestant liberalism. Incidentally, the nineteenth-century German-American Mercersburg theologi­ ans took over Heppe's thesis, at least in their anti-Calvin, pro-Melanchthon orientation. In spite of all the strife in which he was involved, Heppe maintained his personal piety to the end. His last major works were on the history of pietism, i.e., Roman Catholic quietistic (e.g., Madame Guyon) and seventeenth-century Dutch Reformed Pietism (e.g., Jean de Labadie). But he seems to have become ever more openly critical of the Reformed orthodoxy embodied in his now famous textbook, which he published in mid-career ( 1861) as part of his larger program to vindicate the (German) Reformed faith over against the confessional, high church Lutheranism of the Formula of Concord. In later years he objected to being regarded as a confessional Reformed theologian and affirmed, instead, that he was a disciple of Schleiermacher (he also seems to have been

15 1 influenced by Hegel, e.g., in his idea of development). Heppe was P.articularly negative about what he deemed the scholastic, speculative doctrine of double predestination of Calvin and especially of the Canons of Dort. But, for some reason, his reservations about "Calvinism" are rarely, if ever, clearly manifested in his 1861 textbook, a lthough he does not refrain from indulging in theological judgments there. Perhaps he comes closest to overt criticism of the sc holastics when he expresses hi s preference for the early rather than the late Reformed doctrine of scriptural inspiration. He does not, however, utter any disapproval at all of the doctrines of the decrees, election, and reprobation; he seems, rather, to be actively assenting to them in hi s textbook. This is puzzling.' T he scene now shifts to 1924, sixty-three years after the first publication of Heppe's dogmatics, which had become a recognized reference work. Karl Barth ( 1886- 1968), a novice theological professor at the University of Gottingen, West Germany, was anxiously seeking a source book that would provide a positive, vertebrate theology; prior to his professorate, Barth had concentrated mostly on destroying the liberal position, not on theological construction. He came upon "Heppe," which, unlike the more recent, liberal theology of Schleiermacher and Ritschl, provided him with a window on the rich thought world of the church reformed and catholic- and on theologians very seriously trying to wrestle with the biblical data, a lbeit in a "scholastic" manner.2 Barth came to regard as a God-send the theological meat served by Heppe, and Barth's later, multi­ volume Church Dogmatics is full of long, fine-print excurses of exhilarating conversa­ tion with the Reformed fathers he met in Heppe's textbook. Barth's critical respect for the Protestant "scholastics" more or less set the pace for the "neo-Reformation" theolo­ gians in general who, as their name suggests, id entified more closely with Luther a nd Calvin than with their orthodox epigohes. Barth taught in the early 1930's at the University of Bonn where he led in drawing up the Barmen Declaration (1934) of the German "Confessing Church"; this ma nifesto affirmed obedience to the one Word o( God, Jesus C hrist, as opposed to the supposed revelations in "blood, race, and soil" which the "German Christians," Hitler's church sup­ porters, were proclaiming. The next February ( 1935), just before the Nazis expelled Barth from Germany and banned his writings, he contributed an enthusiastic foreword to a fresh edition of "Heppe," to be published that year in Germany, thoroughly revised and corrected by a young pastor of the Wiirttemberg Lutheran church, Ernst Bizer. These words of Barth evidently escaped the censor's notice and were for a decade hi s only "work" lega lly available in the T hird Reich. The new edition of "Heppe" was intended, like its predecessor, as a tract for the times, because it represented the church's theological reflection on its confession of God's unique revelation in Scripture and in Jesus Christ-· the complete negation Of twentieth-century totalitarianism's claims in general and of Nazism's cla ims in particular. Barth's strong endorsement of "Heppe," albeit with some reservations, is a little surprising in view of the facts that Heppe was a self-confessed follower of Schleiermacher who had kind words for natural revelation a nd natural theol­ ogy in hi s textbook (chapter I), and that Barth had just had a vehement dispute with Emil Brunner because of the latter's espousal of natural revelation. Ernst Bizer ( 1904- 1975) studied in the mid I 920's at Marburg University (where

152 Heppe had taught a half century earlier) under, among others, Rudolf Bultmann, ele­ ments of whose dialectical theology (e.g., his view of God, hi story, the Word [God's promises, not my experience], and faith) Bizer added to his own "inherited" Wurttemberg Pietism and early religious socialism. Bizer then spent the school year of 1927- 1928 as an exchange student at Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey- "Old Princeton" Uust before the I 929 reorganization which ended its exclusive ly orthodox stance)- where he was critical of its "fundamentalism" (e.g., doctrine of an inerrant Bible), scholastic intellec­ tualism, and philosophically unsophisticated pre-Kantian outlook, but nevertheless appre­ ciative of its piety. His Th. M. thesis there was on the subject of Barth a nd orthodoxy, his mentor being none other than Professor Caspar Wister Hodge (I 870- 193 7; Charles Hodge's grandson), who introduced Bizer to Reformed dogmatics and instilled in him a love for the same. Thus equipped with a "neo-Reformation" theological perspective and a knowledge and critical appreciation of Reformed scholasticism, Bizer returned to a troubled Germany to finish his studies after which he became a pastor. T hen, as his contribution in the church struggle of the early Nazi years, he ed ited a nd published not only "Heppe" but a lso J oha nnes Wollebius' Compendium Christianae Theologiae (I 935), a seventeenth-century Swiss Reformed theologian's standard textbook,J as well as ed ited an independent, C hristian theological journal which soon merged with that of Barth and his coterie. Bizer continued in hi s pastorate until 1942, when he was drafted into the German army; he was severely wounded on the Russian front and later captured on the Western front by the French. After the war, Bizer was for many years professor of church history in the reconsti­ tuted theological faculty at the University of Bonn (where Barth had been until hi s expul­ sion in 1935). His writings were mostly historical-theological studies of the Reformation era, e.g., the Lutheran and Reformed interpretations of the Lord's S upper. 4 In I 958 he issued a second, unrevised but corrected, ed ition of Heppe's dogmatics, with the much­ needed additi on of an eighty-page historical introduction in which each theologian quoted by Heppe is briefly discussed in hi s hi stori cal-theological context. Bizer, in his new pre­ face, registered his growing disenchantment with Reformed orthodoxy, due to the influ­ ence of Hans-Emil Weber and his thesis that "predestinationism" was important in leasJing the way to the Enlightenment.5

Meanwhile, in I 950, an Engli sh translation of the 1935 edition was published by a Scottish Presbyterian, George Thomas Thomson ( 1887- 195 8), professor of C hristian Dogmatics at Edinburgh University ( 1936- 1952), an enthusiastic admirer of Barth, per­ haps best known as the translator of the first volume of Barth's Church Dogmatics in the middle I 930's. 6 The trai:islation of "Heppe" was made without the knowledge of either the ed it or (Bizer) or the publisher! Bizer alludes with good humor to this (he ca lls it "spoils of war") in the preface to his second edition.7 Not only is Heppe's German turned into Engli sh (including a shift from Gothic to modern type), but so are most of the quotations from the Latin in which a ll but one of the sources were written. Moreover, the biblical passages are quoted in Thomson's edition, not simply cited, as in Bizer's. The material within the chapters is rearranged so that the source quotations, which in Bizer's ed ition are grouped together at the end of each chapter fo ll owing Heppe's introductory theologi-

153 cal framework, are now inserted into Heppe's narrative seriatim; this eliminates the neces­ sity to flip pages constantly back and forth between the narrative and. the sources, but of course it makes the narrative a little harder to fo ll ow. Bizer's short index is adapted for use in the English edition; also included is a "List of the Most Important Sources Quoted." Unfortunately, Thomson's edition appeared too soon to incorporate the historical introduction added by Bizer to the 1958 German edition, and, to my knowledge, this translation has yet to be done. Thomson may perhaps be forgiven (although if he had checked with Bizer he might have waited to publish until Bizer could write the historical introduction), but Baker Book House should have commissioned someone to make Biz­ er's valuable essay avail able to the English-reading public. In a note at the end of the preface, Thomson rebukes Bizer- but not Barth!- for criticizing the orthodoxy set forth in Heppe's text; Bizer replies to this in his own preface of 195 8. Now, at last, the Bizer-Thomson "Heppe" has been issued in the new world- by an evangeli cal publisher. This latest ed ition is photographically reproduced from the 1950 edition-, but, unhappily, the print is somewhat reduced in size, presumably to keep the price down. Evangelica ls at the close of the I 970's, like Barth in 1924, were seeking their theological bearings in their various heritages; the "melting pot" id eal of evangelical ecumenicity may be yielding to the "pluralistic" model, as has been occurring in American national life, the "ecumenical movement," and elsewhere. Instead of trying to find a least common denominator "evangelicalism," many conservative Protestants are again becom­ ing conscious of their distinctive ecclesiastical and theological traditions, appreciating anew the many colors of the gospel's rays as refracted through the prism of the historical churches. Thus Reformed- and other-"evangeli~als" can greet the reprinting of "Heppe" as a sign of a new self-awareness- without, I hope, reverting to theologica l ghettos and pogroms. The present reissue of "Heppe" is a lso significant because Karl Barth is evi­ dently no longer persona non grata among many evangelicals, so that hi s imprimatur on this book is not necessarily the "kiss of death," a nd Baker Book House can publish the words of the great "neo-orthodox" church father without too much risk of commercial ruin- or did Barth's foreword slip by the censor once again, as in 1935?! How are we to assess "Heppe" in general and this edition in particular? Do Heppe, Bizer, and Thomson let the classical Reformed divines speak for themselves? On the whole, the answer is yes, especially in the case of Bizer. In spite of his upbraiding Bizer for negative prefatory comments about the theology of the fathers, Thomson actuall y sur­ passes Bizer in some of the distracting, deprecatory editorial comments he occasionally slips into the text itself in brackets, without ever indicating whether the comment comes from Heppe, Bizer, or himself! 8 Heppe himse lf has of course selected and interpreted his materials. He quotes almost exclusively from Swiss, German, and Dutch theologians- with something of a predilec­ tion for the covenant theologians (Cocceians) among these; English, French, and Scots' writers are pretty well ignored (except for Ames who, though English, lived and worked in the Dutch Republic), probably at least in part because of the limits of the Marburg University library (which, in turn suggests the blinkers often worn by German scholars).

154 Thus, as Bizer observes, such "name" theologians as Franciscus Junius, Franciscus Goma­ rus, Johannes Maccovius, Christoph Wittich, Johann Christoph Clauberg, William Per­ kins, and William Twiss are conspicuously absent, and other names might be added to this list. 9 Heppe's arrangement of topics puts the doctrines of the decrees and predestination just after the doctrine of God (although he is ipfralapsarian); providence is separated by creation from the decrees and predestination; the covenant of works appears in full regalia (Johannes Cocceius and J. H. Heidegger are most often quoted here), along with the covenant of grace; an ordo salutis is evidently taught (beginning with union with Christ as its basis, then moving through calling, regeneration, conversion and faith, assurance of salvation, justification and adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and glorification); the sacraments precede rather than follow the locus on the church. Much of this reflects the later Reformed orthodox arrangement (e.g., the Westminster Confession) rather than the earlier, less "scholastic" order (e.g., the Belgic Confession), even though some of the theologians quoted by Heppe structured their theology in the earlier ways. Heppe's theological biases appear more clearly in such matters as his "Schleiermach­ erian" approach to "religion" (chapter I); in his fairly numerous references to Melanch­ thon; 10 in his frequent singling out "the German Reformed" for special, usually positive, notice; in his expressed preference for the early rather than the scholastic Reformed view of Scripture; in his giving Calvin no special eminence; and in his making the covenant idea absolutely central, without hinting that Calvin, for one, could not properly be called a "covenant theologian," at least not in the common meaning of the appellation. On the other hand, as mentioned above, in his textbook Heppe kept to himself most of his reservations about the theology of the Reformed fathers. Most of the time he sounds as though he agrees with them. One major criticism may be, and has been, made of Heppe's book. While he rather often points out developments between earlier and later Reformed theologians, he gives no adequate indication of the divergence of the various Reformed schools of thought; rather, his presentation suggests an almost wholly steady, unified development, unfolding with the years, with the scholastic covenant theology as the inevitable culmination of Reformed theology. In this regard, Bizer remarks that Heppe ignores the differences between Zwingli and Calvin, and that he glosses over the dissimilarities between Calvin and the Calvinists 11 (I think however, that the "neo-Reformation" scholars have tended to exaggerate the latter). As Barth, in his foreword, puts it: according to Heppe, "wonderful to relate, not Calvin but the later Melanchthon must have been the Father of Reformed theology." 12 Criticism might also be extended to the much maligned Reformed orthodoxy itself, as has frequently been done by liberals, Barthians, some "neo-evangelicals," and others. The usual complaints are that it is theologically muscle-bound and ossified, with endless definitions and distinctions, polemic tone, and Aristotelian sc holastic garb. Calvinism's doctrines of Scripture, double predestination, providence, and double covenant, coupled with its preoccupation with assurance of salvation and supposedly oppressive legalism, have all come under repeated attack. There may be a good deal of truth to at least some

155 of these objections (which are often overstated), but I, for one, prefer Hcppe's treasury of tough-minded theological heavyweights from the "golden age" of Protestant scholasticism to the less rigorous orthodoxy of some of the more recent bearers of the Calvinist label. Of course, twentieth-century theologians are working in a seemingly very different world than their forebears. But it is, in any case, odd that until now American "Calvinists" have done so l it~le to cultivate interest in the Reformed fathers, in comparison with what such (albeit mild) critics of orthodoxy as Heppe, Barth, and Bizer have done! What does Heppe's volume- "warts and all"- have to offer in the l 980's to the teachers, pastors, and interested laity of the Reformed Church in America (and similar denominations)? Should every elder and deacon own a copy? Hardly! But I am convinced that as the theologically-concerned minority creatively interact with some of the fine theo­ logical minds of our own heritage, we shall all benefit. After all, the study of Scripture did not begin with us! These old-time divines are good- if not always easy or comfortable­ company. They will compel us to think about the perennially important (and a few not so important) questions for Christ's church, catholic and reformed. They will help us to explore the implications of the biblical revelation ·more assiduously than before- to probe the depths and heights- to ask the limits- to seek to see the interrelationships of biblical truths with each other and with "secular" knowledge--,.to make us more consistent Chris­ tian thinkers- to make us aware of some areas of Christian truth which we may have neglected- and, in the end, to make us grateful for communion with such saints as these. We can profit from their mistakes, and they in turn may expose some of our erroi'!;, as we study the Bible together with them, seeking the Spirit's illumination. They cannot speak for us, but they ought to be given the chance to speak to us, as many of us have lately been made aware of the poverty of a Christianity ..yith little or n

156 FOOTNOTES I. Wilhelm Falckenhciner, " Heppe, Heinrich," Al/gemeine Deutsc h e Biographie (Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & - Humblot, 1882) XV I, 785-789. A Kuhnert, " Heppe, Hei nrich,'' Realencyklop{1die Jiir protesta111ische Theologie w1d Kirche, fo unded by J . J . Herzog, 3rd ed., edited by Albert Hauck (Leipzig: J .C. Hinrichs'schc Buchha nd­ lung, 1899), VII , 687-692. A shorter, English versio n of this article is in The Nell' Schaj{- Herzog Enqclopedia of Religious Kno1rledge, edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson (New York: Funk a nd Wagnalls Company, 1909), V, 230-231 . Wi lh elm Maurer, "Das Bi ld der Reformationsgeschichte hei August Vilmar und Heinrich Heppe," Jahrbuch der lfessischen Kirchengeschichtlichen Vereinigung, II (1950-1951), 51-82. Ernst Bizcr, " Hei n­ rich Heppe," in Lebembilder aus Kurhessen w1d Waldeck IBJ0- 1930, edited by Ingeborg Schn ack (Marburg: N. G. Elwe rt Verlag, 1958), VI, 11 2- 127; photograph of Heppe betwee n pp. 11 2 a nd 11 3. H. J a hr, " Heppe, Heinrich Ludwig Julius," Evangelisches Kirchen Lexikon, (Gottingen: Vandcnh oeck & Ruprecht, 1958). II , 111 - 11 2. Ernst Bi zer, "Heppe, Heinrich,'' Die Religion in Geschichte und Geg<'nll-art .. . (Tiibinge n: J. C. B. Mo hr, 1959), Ill, 226-227. 2. Karl Barth, foreword to Heinrich He ppe, Rt'.formed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), vi-v ii . 3. Woll cbius' work a ppears in it s entirety in English, based on Bi zc r's edition in John W. Bea rdslee, 111 , editor and tra nslator, R~formed Dogmatics: J. Wol/ebius. G. Vuetius, F. Turretin, in A Library of Protestant Thou!(ht (New York: Oxfo rd Uni ve rsity Press, 1965 reprinted Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), pp. 29-262. Bi zc r provided Beardslee wit h a gi ft copy of his 1935 editio n of Wo ll ebius' work; ibid., p. 24. 4. J oachi m Mchlhausen, "In Memoriam Ernst Bi zer, 29 / 4/1904- 1/ 2/ 1975," Evangeh

157