Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Lisa Reigel, and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was made using scans of
public domain works from the University of Michigan Digital
Libraries.)
[TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: Greek words in this text have been
transliterated and placed between +marks+. A complete list of changes
follows the text.]
HISTORY
OF
RATIONALISM
EMBRACING
A SURVEY OF THE PRESENT STATE OF PROTESTANT
THEOLOGY.
BY JOHN F. HURST, D. D.
With Appendix of Literature.
THIRD EDITION, REVISED.
New York:
PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PORTER,
200 MULBERRY-STREET.
1867.
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1865, by
CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO.,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the
Southern District of New York.
The Rationalists are like the spiders, they spin all out of
their own bowels. But give me a philosopher who, like the bee,
hath a middle faculty, gathering from abroad, but digesting
that which is gathered by its own virtue.--LORD BACON.
* * * * *
The Bible, I say the Bible only, is the religion of
Protestants.... There is no safe certaintie but of Scripture
only, for any considering man to build upon. This therefore,
and this only I have reason to beleeve; this I will professe;
according to this I will live, and for this I will not only
willingly, but even gladly loose my life, though I should be
sorry that Christians should take it from me. Propose me
anything out of this book, and require whether I believe it or
no, and secure it never so incomprehensible to humane reason,
I will subscribe it hand and heart, as knowing no
demonstration can be stronger than this, God hath said so,
therefore it is true. In other things I will take no man's
libertie of judgment from him; neither shall any man take mine
from me. I will think no man the worse man nor the worse
Christian. I will love no man the lesse for differing in
opinion with me. And what measure I meet to others I expect
from them againe. I am fully assured that God does not, and
therefore that men out not to require any more of any man,
than this: to believe the Scripture to be God's word, to
endeavor to finde the true sense of it, and to live according
to it.--CHILLINGWORTH.
* * * * *
Are those enthusiasts who profess to follow reason? Yes,
undoubtedly, if by reason they mean only conceits. Therefore
such persons are now commonly called _Reasonists_ or
_Rationalists_ to distinguish them from true reasoners or
rational inquirers.--WATERLAND.
PREFACE.
There were no prefatory remarks to the first and second editions of the
following work. It was thought, when the printer made his final call for
copy, that a preface might be written with more propriety if the public
should indicate sufficient interest in the book to make its improvement
and enlargement necessary. That interest, owing to the theme rather than
the treatment, has not been withheld. The investigation of the subject
was pursued in the midst of varied and pressing pastoral duties, with a
pleasure which no reader of the result of the labor can enjoy; for,
first, the author felt that Rationalism was soon to be the chief topic
of theological inquiry in the Anglo-Saxon lands; and, second, he
regarded the doubt, not less than the faith, of his fellow men as
entitled to far more respect and patient investigation than it had
usually received at the hands of orthodox inquirers.
The author would probably never have studied the genetic development of
Rationalism in Germany, and its varied forms in other countries, if he
had not been a personal witness to the ruin it had wrought in the land
of Luther, Spener, and Zinzendorf. In compliance with the instruction
of a trusted medical adviser, he sailed for Germany in the summer of
1856, as a final resort for relief from serious pulmonary disease. But,
through the mercy of God, he regained health so rapidly that he was
enabled to matriculate in the University of Halle in the following
autumn, and to be a daily attendant upon the lectures of such men as
Tholuck, Julius Müller, Jacobi, and Roediger. From some theologians he
heard Rationalism defended with an energy worthy of Wolff and Semler;
from others with a devotion worthy of the beloved Neander. In the
railroad car, the stage, the counting-room, the workshop, the parlor,
and the peasant-hut, Rationalism was found still lingering with a
strong, though relaxing grasp. The evangelical churches were attended by
only a few listless hearers. His prayer to God was, "May the American
Church never be reduced to this sad fate." The history of that movement,
resulting in such actual disaster to some lands and threatened ruin to
others, took a deep hold upon his mind; and if he has failed in any
respect to trace it with an impartial pen, his hope is that his failure
will not cause any bright color of the truth to be obscured for a
moment. For no man and no cause can ultimately triumph by giving an
undue prominence to favorite party or principles; it is only by justice
to all that the truth can win its unfading laurels.
Criticism was to have been expected, from the very nature of the topic
of investigation. But the author has endeavored, as a student at the
feet of his judges, to derive the largest possible benefit from
criticism. No word of censure, however wide of the mark, has been
unwelcome to him, whether from the sceptical or orthodox press. To all
questioned passages he has given a careful re-examination, in some
instances finding cause for alteration, but in others seeing his ground
more strongly sustained than was at first imagined. He has, for example,
been informed by many esteemed persons that his representation of
Coleridge was hardly just; and, in obedience to that suggestion, he has
given that author's works a more careful study than ever, having
previously resolved to completely reverse his judgment of that profound
thinker's faith, if he found his own utterances would justify him in
that course. The result was, as far as he can now recall, that he could
alter but one adjective in the entire section relating to Coleridge. Of
course, the author finds no fault with those who differ from him on
Coleridge, or on any other writer who has come under treatment; but he
must be granted by others what he concedes to them. For the criticism,
as a whole, which he has received both through the press and private
sources, he owes a debt of gratitude which he cannot hope to pay. It
gives him profound pleasure to know, that the highest theological
journals in the United States which wage open war against orthodoxy,
have conceded, with marked unanimity, the general correctness of his
statements, though they naturally take issue with his conclusions.
Every effort has been bestowed on the present edition to make it as free
from blemishes as possible. The appendix of literature has been slightly
enlarged, many typographical errors--occurring in consequence of the too
rapid passage of the work through the press, and the abundance of words
of different languages with which the printer was not always well
acquainted--have disappeared; and, in many cases, the narrative has been
brought down to the present time. In the prosecution of revision, a
large number of the stereotype plates have been cancelled; and no labor
has been wanting to make this edition worthy of the goodwill expressed
toward the two editions which have preceded it.
Through a strange providence the author is now about to commence a term
of theological instruction in Germany, where Rationalism first excited
his attention, and where his apprehensions were first raised that Great
Britain and the United States might be seriously invaded by it. His
presence at its old hearthstone leads him to indulge the hope that, in
some future though distant day, if life be spared, he may be able to
enlarge this history greatly, and thus to render it better adapted to
its purpose, more approximative to his first ideal, and more
commensurate with the present universal interest in religious and
theological themes.
BREMEN, GERMANY, _November 5, 1866_.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
PAGE
Systematic History of Infidelity, 2-3
Best Method of refuting Rationalism, 3-4
Rationalism not an unmixed Evil, 4-6
Definitions of Rationalism:
Wegscheider, 8
Stäudlin, 11
Hahn, 12
Rose, 13
Bretschneider, 14
McCaul, 16
Saintes, 19
Lecky, 22
Classes of Rationalists, 24-26
Causes of the success of Rationalism, 26-32
Four Considerations in Reference to Rationalism, 32-35
CHAPTER I.
CONTROVERSIAL PERIOD SUCCEEDING THE REFORMATION.
Causes of the Controversial Spirit, 38
The Controversies described, 39, 40
George Calixtus, 40-45
Jacob Boehme, 46-49
John Arndt, 49-51
John Gerhard, 51-53
John Valentine Andreä, 53-55
CHAPTER II.
RELIGIOUS CONDITION OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCH AT THE
PEACE OF WESTPHALIA.
Description of the Thirty Years' War, 56-59
Religious Decline of the Church, 59-61
Neglect of Children, 62-65
Defects of Theological Literature, 66-68
Low State of Theological Instruction, 68, 69
Imperfect Preaching of the Time, 69-73
Immorality of the Clergy and Theological Professors, 73-77
Religious Indifference of the Upper Classes, 77-80
CHAPTER III.
PIETISM AND ITS MISSION.
Philosophy of the Period, 82
Improvement dependent on Individuals, 84, 85
What Pietism proposed to do, 85-88
Principles of Pietism, 88, 89
Philip Jacob Spener, the Founder of Pietism, 89-93
University of Halle, 93
Augustus Hermann Francke, 93-95
The Orphan House at Halle, 95-97
Influence of the University of Halle, 97, 98
Arnold and Thomasius, 98, 99
New Generation of Professors in Halle, 99, 100
Cause of the Decline of Pietism, 102
CHAPTER IV.
THE POPULAR PHILOSOPHY OF WOLFF.--SKEPTICAL TENDENCIES
FROM ABROAD.
Leibnitz, Founder of the Wolffian Philosophy, 103, 104
Wolff and the Popular Philosophy, 104-111
The School of Wolff, 111
Töllner, 112
English Deism in Germany, 113-117
English Deism in France 117, 118
Voltaire and Frederic the Great, 119-123
Frederic's Regret at Skepticism in Prussia, 123, 124
CHAPTER V.
SEMLER AND THE DESTRUCTIVE SCHOOL.--1750-1810.
Influence of Foreign Skepticism on the German Church, 125, 126
Semler and the Accommodation-Theory, 126-131
Semler's Private Life, 135-137
Influence of Semler's destructive Criticism, 137, 138
Edelmann, 138, 139
Bahrdt,--his Writings, and depraved Character, 139-143
CHAPTER VI.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY.
Prevalence of Semler's Opinions, 144, 145
Mental Activity of the Times, 145
Adherents to the Accommodation-Theory, 147, 148
Literary Agencies:
Nicolai's Universal German Library, 147, 148
Rationalistic Spirit in Berlin, 148
Wolfenbüttel Fragments, 149-156
Philosophical Agencies:
Kant and his System, 156-162
Service rendered by Kant, 162
Jacobi, 162, 163
Fichte, 163
Schelling, 164
Hegel, 164, 165
Grouping of the Philosophical Schools, 165-167
CHAPTER VII.
THE REIGN OF THE WEIMAR CIRCLE.--REVOLUTION IN EDUCATION
AND HYMNOLOGY.
Harmony of the prevalent philosophical Systems, 169
Karl August of Weimar and his literary Circle, 169-171
John Gottfried Herder, 171-179
Schiller, 179-182
Goethe, 182, 183
Deleterious Change in Education, 184
Basedow, and his Philanthropium, 184-187
Campe and Salzmann, 187, 188
Rationalistic Elementary Books, 189-193
Alteration of the German Hymns, 194, 195
Decline of Church Music, 195
Inability of Orthodox Theologians to resist
Rationalism, 195, 196
CHAPTER VIII.
DOCTRINES OF RATIONALISM IN THE DAY OF ITS STRENGTH.
Desolate Condition of the Church, 197, 198
Rationalism without a Common System, 198, 199
Opinions of the Rationalists:
Religion, 199
Existence of God, 199, 200
Doctrine of Inspiration, 200-202
Credibility of the Scriptures, 203-206
Fall of Man, 206, 207
Miracles, 207-211
Prophecy, 211-214
Person of Christ, 214-218
CHAPTER IX.
RENOVATION INAUGURATED BY SCHLEIERMACHER.
Protestant Germany at the Commencement of the Nineteenth
Century, 220-222
Fichte, and his Popular Appeal, 222-224
Schleiermacher, 224-229
The Romantic School, 230
Ecclesiastical Reconstruction inaugurated by Frederic
William III., 230, 231
The Union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, 231, 232
Claus Harms--his 95 Theses, 232-236
CHAPTER X.
RELATIONS OF RATIONALISM AND SUPERNATURALISM.--1810-1835.
The Task before the New Church, 237
Rationalism strengthened by Röhr and Wegscheider, 238
The terms, Rationalism and Supernaturalism, 239
Tittmann, 239, 240
Tzschirner, 240
Schott, 241
Schleiermacher's _System of Doctrines_, 241-244
Effect of Schleiermacher's Teaching, 245, 246
De Wette, 246-249
Neander, 249-253
His personal Appearance, 253-254
CHAPTER XI.
THE REACTION PRODUCED BY STRAUSS' LIFE OF JESUS.--1835-1848.
Hyper-criticism of the Rationalists, 255, 256
Influence of Schleiermacher and Hegel, 256, 257
The threefold Division of the Hegelian School, 257, 258
David Frederic Strauss, and his _Life of Jesus_, 258-269
Replies to the _Life of Jesus_:
Harless, 271
Hoffman, 271
Neander, 272
Ullmann, 273
Schweizer, 273
Wilke, 273
Schaller, 273
Dorner, 273, 274
Literature occasioned by Strauss' _Life of Jesus_, 274, 275
Strauss' _New Life of Jesus for the People_, 275-278
The Tübingen School, conducted by Ferdinand Christian
Baur, 278-280
The Influence of the French Revolution, 280, 281
Strauss' _System of Doctrine_, 281, 282
Feuerbach, 282
The Halle Year-Books, 282, 283
The "Friends of Light," 283, 284
The "Free Congregations," 284, 285
Rationalistic Leaders of the Revolution of 1848, 285, 286
Their Failure, and its Cause, 286, 287
CHAPTER XII.
THE EVANGELICAL SCHOOL: ITS OPINIONS AND PRESENT PROSPECTS.
The Mediation Theologians, or Evangelical School, grouped:
Ullmann, 288, 289
Dorner, 289-292
Tholuck, 292-295
Lange, 295, 296
Twesten, 297
Nitzsch, 297-299
Rothe, 299-303
Schenkel--his recent Adoption of Rationalism, 303-305
Hengstenberg, 305-307
Theological Journals, 307
Improved Theological Instruction, 307-310
CHAPTER XIII.
PRACTICAL MOVEMENTS INDICATING NEW LIFE.
Charities of German Protestantism, 311
Relation of Philanthropy to Religious Life, 312
John Falk, 312-316
Theodore Fliedner, 316-318
Evangelical Church Diet, 318-323
Immanuel Wichern, 324-329
Louis Harms, 329, 330
The Gustavus Adolphus Union, 330, 331
CHAPTER XIV.
HOLLAND: THEOLOGY AND RELIGION FROM THE SYNOD OF DORT
TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRESENT CENTURY.
Former Political Influence of Holland, 332, 333
Rise of Rationalism in Holland, 333
Influence of the Synod of Dort, 334
Corruption of Ethics, 335
Low state of Homiletic Literature, 335, 336
Cocceius, 336-339
Voetius, 339, 340
Controversy between the Cocceians and Voetians, 340-343
Favorable Influence of the Huguenot Immigrants, 343, 344
Popular Acquaintance with Theology, 345, 346
Bekker, 347, 348
Roell, 348, 349
Van Os, 349
Influence of English Deism, 350-353
Influence of French Skepticism, 353, 354
Napoleon Bonaparte's domination, 354, 355
CHAPTER XV.
HOLLAND CONTINUED: THE NEW THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS, AND THE
GREAT CONTROVERSY NOW PENDING BETWEEN ORTHODOXY
AND RATIONALISM.
The Political Subjugation of Holland, 356
Inactivity of Orthodoxy, 356, 357
Rupture produced by the New Hymn-Book, 357, 358
The Revival and the Secession:
Bilderdyk, Da Costa, Capadose, Groen Van
Prinsterer, 359-361
De Cock, the Leader of the Secession 362, 363
Failure of the Secession, 363, 364
The Groningen School: 364
Its Characteristic, 364
Hofstede de Groot, and Pareau, 365, 366
Doctrines of the Groningens, 366, 367
The School of Leyden: 367
Scholten, 368-371
The School of Empirical-Modern Theology:
Opzoomer, 371
Pierson, 371-374
Doctrines of this School, 374, 375
The Ethical Irenical School: 375
Chantepie de la Saussaye, 375-377
Van Oosterzee, 377-379
The Present Crisis and its Causes, 381-383
Increase of Evangelizing Agencies, 383-385
CHAPTER XVI.
FRANCE: RATIONALISM IN THE PROTESTANT CHURCH--THE
CRITICAL SCHOOL.
Present Activity of Religious Thought in France, 386, 387
Coldness of Orthodoxy at the Commencement of the
Nineteenth Century, 387, 388
Influence of Wesleyan Missionaries, 388, 389
Cartesianism and the Positive Philosophy, 390
Light French Literature, 391
The Critical School of Theology: 391-394
Réville, 394-396
Scherer, 396-400
Larroque, 400
Rougemont, 400, 401
Colani 401, 402
Pecaut, 402, 403
Grotz, 403
Renan, and his _Life of Jesus_, 403-406
A. Coquerel, jr., 406-409
Influence of French Skepticism upon the Young, 409, 410
CHAPTER XVII.
FRANCE CONTINUED: EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY OPPOSING RATIONALISM.
Agencies Opposing Rationalism, 411
De Pressensé, 411-416
Guizot, 416-419
Success of the Evangelical School, 419-421
Improvement of the French Protestant Church, 422, 423
Charitable and Evangelizing Societies, 423, 424
CHAPTER XVIII.
SWITZERLAND: ORTHODOXY IN GENEVA, AND THE NEW SPECULATIVE
RATIONALISM IN ZÜRICH.
Prostration of the Swiss Church at the Commencement of
the Nineteenth Century, 425, 426
Neglect of Theological Instruction, 426, 427
The Theological Academy in Geneva, 428
The Evangelical Dissenting Church, 428
Gaussen, 428, 429
Vinet, 429
Present Religious Condition of Geneva, 429, 430
Lectures in the Genevan Theological Academy, 431, 432
Religious Declension of Zürich, 432
Zürich the Centre of Swiss Rationalism: 433-435
The Speculative Rationalism:
The Holy Scriptures, 435
Christ, 435-437
Sin, 438
Faith, 438, 439
German Switzerland influenced by German Theology, 439
CHAPTER XIX.
ENGLAND: THE SOIL PREPARED FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF
RATIONALISM.
English Deism and German Rationalism Contrasted, 440
Literature of England in the Eighteenth Century, 440, 441
The Writers of that Period, 441
Influence of the French Spirit, 441, 442
Bolingbroke, 442, 443
Hume, 444-447
Gibbon, 447, 448
The moral Prostration of the Church, 448-450
Influence of the Wesleyan Movement, 450-452
CHAPTER XX.
ENGLAND CONTINUED: PHILOSOPHICAL AND LITERARY RATIONALISM.--COLERIDGE
AND CARLYLE.
Compensations of History, 453
Rise of a Disposition in England to consult German Theology
and Philosophy, 453, 454
Philosophical Rationalism:
Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 455-462
Julius Charles Hare, 462-465
F. D. Maurice, 465-468
Charles Kingsley, 468-471
Literary Rationalism:
Influence of Philosophy on Literature, 472
Thomas Carlyle, 473-477
The _Westminster Review_, 477-480
Necessity of active Protestantism, 480
CHAPTER XXI.
ENGLAND CONTINUED: CRITICAL RATIONALISM--JOWETT, THE
ESSAYS AND REVIEWS, AND COLENSO.
Relation of the Bible to Christianity, 481
Critical Rationalism:
Professor Jowett, 481
The "Essays and Reviews," 482-497
Judicial Proceedings against the Writers of that
Work, 497-499
Criticism of Bishop Colenso, 499-503
Judicial Proceedings against Colenso, 503-505
CHAPTER XXII.
ENGLAND CONTINUED: SURVEY OF CHURCH PARTIES.
Unity of the Church of England, 507
The Evangelical and Sacramentalist Parties, 507
The Low Church:
Cambridge University, 508
Activity of the Founders of the Low Church, 508, 509
Missionary Zeal, 509, 510
Parties in the Low Church, 510
The High Church:
Rise of the Tractarian Movement, 511, 512
Doctrines of the High Church, 512-515
Service rendered by the High Church, 515
John H. Newman, 516, 517
Francis William Newman, 517-519
The First Broad Church:
Indefiniteness of Creed, 519, 520
Thomas Arnold, 520-523
Arthur P. Stanley, 523-529
Doctrines of the First Broad Church, 529, 530
The Second Broad Church:
Difference between the First and Second Broad
Churches, 530, 531
Classification of Church Parties, 531, 532
Skepticism in various Sects, 532, 533
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE UNITED STATES: THE UNITARIAN CHURCH.--THE UNIVERSALISTS.
Novelty in American History, 534
Separation of Church and State, 534-536
Relations between the Old World and the United States, 536, 537
The Unitarian Church:
The Venerable Stoddard, 537, 538
Jonathan Edwards, 538
The Half-Way Covenant, 538
James Freeman, 538, 539
Early Unitarian Publications, 539, 540
Unitarianism in Harvard University, 540
Andover Theological Seminary, 540, 541
Controversy between Channing and Worcester, 541
William Ellery Channing, 541-544
The Unitarian Creed, 544-553
The _Christian Examiner_, 553
The Young Men's Christian Union, 553-558
The Unitarian National Convention, 558-560
Present state of the Unitarian Church, 560
Universalism:
Rise in America, 560, 561
Doctrines of Universalism, 561, 562
Present state of Universalism, 562, 563
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE UNITED STATES CONTINUED: THEODORE PARKER AND HIS
SCHOOL.
Early Attachment of the Unitarians to the Doctrine of
Miracles, 564
Theodore Parker:
His Personal History, 564, 565
His Course toward Orthodoxy, 566
His Opinions, 566-571
Influence of American Skepticism, 571, 572
Frothingham's juvenile Work, 572, 573
"Liberal Christianity," 573-575
Duty of the American Church, 575, 576
CHAPTER XXV.
INDIRECT SERVICE OF SKEPTICISM--PRESENT OUTLOOK.
Great Success the Result of strong Opposition, 577-579
Biblical Study indirectly benefited by the Attacks of
Rationalism, 580, 581
Improvement of Church History, 581-583
Estimate of the Life of Christ, 583-586
The Evangelical Church:
Necessity of an impartial View of Science, 586, 587
The proper Way to combat Skepticism, 587, 588
Unity a Requisite of Success, 588, 589
APPENDIX.
Literature of Rationalism:
Germany, Holland, Switzerland, 590-595
Rationalistic Periodicals in Germany, 595
France, 595-598
Rationalistic Periodicals in France, 598
Great Britain and the United States, 599-606
Literature of Unitarianism and Universalism: 606-609
Unitarian Periodicals, 609
Universalist Periodicals, 609-610
INDEX, 611-623
HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
INTRODUCTION.
RATIONALISM DEFINED--ITS CHARACTER AS A SKEPTICAL DEVELOPMENT.
Rationalism is the most recent, but not the least violent and insidious,
of all the developments of skepticism. We purpose to show its historical
position, and to present, as faithfully as possible, its antagonism to
evangelical Christianity. The guardians of the interests of the church
cannot excuse themselves from effort toward the eradication of this
error by saying that it is one which will soon decay by the force of its
natural autumn. Posterity will not hesitate to charge us with gross
negligence if we fail to appreciate the magnitude of Rationalism, and
only deal with it as the growth of a day. We have half conquered an
enemy when we have gained a full knowledge of his strength.
There was a time when Rationalism was a theme of interest to the
Protestant church of Germany alone. But that day is now past. Having
well nigh run its race in the land of Luther, it has crossed the Rhine
into France and the Netherlands, invaded England, and now threatens the
integrity of the domain of Anglo-Saxon theology. Thus it has assumed an
importance which should not be overlooked by British and American
thinkers who love those dearly-bought treasures of truth that they have
received as a sacred legacy from the martyrs and reformers of the
English church. The recent writings of the exegetical Rationalists of
England are sufficient to induce us to gather up our armor and adjust it
for immediate defence. Delay will entail evil. The reason why skepticism
has wrought such fearful ravages at various stages during the career of
the church has been the tardiness of the church in watching the sure and
steady approach, and then in underrating the real strength of her
adversary. The present History will be written for the specific purpose
of awakening an interest in the danger that now threatens us. We have no
ambition to deal with the past, further than to enable it to minister to
the immediate demands of the present. We all belong to this generation;
it calls for our energies; it has its great wants; and we shall be held
justly responsible if we neglect to contribute our share toward the
progress of our contemporaries.
The three principles which have influenced us to undertake a discussion
of the present theme--and of the truth of which we are profoundly
convinced--are the following:
I. THAT INFIDELITY PRESENTS A SYSTEMATIC AND HARMONIOUS HISTORY. Our
customary view of error is, that its history is disjointed, rendered so
by the ardent, but unsteady, labors of the doubters of all periods since
the origin of Christianity. We have ignored the historical movement of
skepticism. Even the storms have their mysterious laws. The work of
Satan is never planless. He adapts his measures to the new dangers that
arise to threaten his dominion. The analogy between the Rationalism of
to-day and the infidelity of past ages is so striking that we can with
difficulty recognize the interval of centuries. We see the new faces,
but the foes are old. Rationalism has repeatedly varied its method of
attack; but if we follow the marches of its whole campaign we shall find
that the enemy which stands at our fortress-gate with the _Essays and
Reviews_ and _Notes on Pentateuch and Joshua_ in hand, is the same one
that assailed Protestant Germany with the Accommodation-theory and the
_Wolfenbüttel Fragments_.
II. A HISTORY OF A MISCHIEVOUS TENDENCY IS THE VERY BEST METHOD FOR ITS
REFUTATION AND EXTIRPATION. We can learn the full character of the good
or evil of any abstract principle only by seeing its practical workings.
The tree is known by its fruits. Rationalism may be of evil character,
but we must see the results it has produced,--the great overthrow of
faith it has effected, and its influence upon the pulpit and press of
the countries invaded by it, before we can comprehend the vastness of
our danger. An enumeration of the evil doings of a public enemy is the
best plan to forestall his future misdeeds. We are not to judge
Rationalism by its professions. The question is not, What does it wish?
At what does it aim? or, What is its creed? But the true way to measure,
understand, and judge it, is by answering the inquiry, _What has it
done?_ Its work must determine its character. This work has been most
injurious to the faith and life of the church, and its deeds must
therefore be its condemnation. There are those who say, "Tell us nothing
about skepticism; we know too much about it already." Would it be a
prudent request, if, before penetrating the jungles of Asia, we should
say, "Tell us nothing of the habits of the lion"; or, before visiting a
malarious region of Africa, we should beg of the physician not to inform
us of the prevalent fever and its appropriate remedy? Forewarned is
forearmed. We are surrounded by Rationalism in many phases; it comes to
us in the periodical and the closely-printed volume. Even children are
reading it in some shape or other. Shall we know its danger; then we
must know its deeds.
III. OF RATIONALISM IT MAY BE AFFIRMED, AS OF ALL THE PHASES OF
INFIDELITY, THAT IT IS NOT IN ITS RESULTS AN UNMIXED EVIL, SINCE GOD
OVERRULES ITS WORK FOR THE PURIFICATION AND PROGRESS OF HIS CHURCH. A
nation is never so pure as when emerging from the sevenfold-heated
furnace. It was not before Manasseh was caught among thorns, bound with
fetters, and carried to Babylon, that he "besought the Lord his God, and
humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers;" nor was it
before this humiliation that the Lord "brought him again to Jerusalem
into his kingdom." The whole history of religious error shows that the
church is cold, formal, and controversial before the visitation of
skepticism. When every power is in full exercise, infidelity stands
aloof. God has so provided for his people that he has even caused the
delusion by which they have suffered to contribute great benefits but
little anticipated by the deluded or the deluders themselves. The
intellectual labors of the German Rationalists have already shed an
incalculable degree of light on the sacred books, and upon almost every
branch of theology. But thus has God ever caused the wrath of man to
praise him.
Taking this view of the indirect benefits resulting from skepticism, we
cannot lament, without an admixture of solace, that the path of Truth
has always been rough. The Master, who declared himself "The Truth,"
premonished us by his own life that his doctrines were not destined to
pervade the mind and heart of our race without encountering violent
blows, and passing through whole winters of frost and storm. Many things
attending the origin and planting of Christianity gave omen of
antagonism to its claims in coming generations. Nor could it be expected
that the unsanctified reason of man would accept as the only worthy
guide of faith and life what Judaism, Paganism, and Philosophy had long
since decidedly rejected. But the spirit of Christianity is so totally
at variance with that of the world that it is vain to expect harmony
between them. Truth, however, will not suffer on that account; and when
the issues appear it will shine all the brighter for the fires through
which it has passed. The country where Rationalism has exerted its first
and chief influence is Germany, than which no nation of modern times has
been more prospered or passed through deeper affliction. At one time she
was the leader of religious liberty and truth, not only in Europe, but
throughout the world. She was thirty years fighting the battles of
Protestantism, but the end of the long conflict found her victorious.
Since that day, however, she has lost her prestige of adherence to
evangelical Christianity; and her representative theologians and
thinkers have distorted the Bible which she was the very first to
unseal. We rejoice that her condition is more hopeful to-day than it was
twenty-five years ago; but recovery is not easy from a century-night of
cold, repulsive Rationalism. As a large number of those stupendous
battles that have decided the political and territorial condition of
Europe have been fought on the narrow soil of Belgium, so has Germany
been for ages the contested field on which were determined the great
doctrinal and ecclesiastical questions of the European continent and of
the world. Happily, the result has generally been favorable; and let no
friend of evangelical truth fear that Rationalism will not meet its
merited fate.
We must not imagine that, because the term Rationalism has been
frequently employed within the last few years, it is of very recent
origin either as a word or skeptical type. The Aristotelian Humanists of
Helmstedt were called _Rationalists_ in the beginning of the seventeenth
century, and Comenius applied the same epithet to the Socinians in
1688.[1] It was a common word in England two hundred years ago. Nor was
it imported into the English language from the German, either in a
theological or a philosophical sense. There was a sect of Rationalists,
in the time of the Commonwealth, who called themselves such exactly on
the same grounds as their successors have done in recent years. Some one
writing the news from London under date of October 14, 1646, says:
"There is a new sect sprung up among them [the Presbyterians and
Independents], and these are the _Rationalists, and what their reason
dictates them in church or state stands for good until they be convinced
with better_."[2] But Rationalists, in fact if not in name, existed on
the Continent long anterior to this date. The Anti-Trinitarians, and
Bodin, and Pucci were rigid disciples of Reason; and their tenets
harmonize with those of a later day.[3]
In order to arrive at a proper definition of Rationalism we should
consult those authors who have given no little attention to this
department of theological inquiry. Nor would we be impartial if we
adduced the language of one class to the exclusion of the other. We
shall hear alike from the friends and adversaries of the whole movement,
and endeavor to draw a proper conclusion from their united testimony. It
was Selden's advice to the students of ecclesiastical history, "to study
the exaggerated statements of Baronius on the one side, and of the
Magdeburg Centuriators on the other, and be their own judges."
Fortunately enough for a proper understanding of Rationalism, there is
no such diversity of statement presented by our authorities. On the
contrary, we shall perceive an unexpected and gratifying harmony.
In Wegscheider's _Institutiones Dogmaticæ_, a work which for nearly half
a century has stood as an acknowledged and highly respected authority on
the systematic theology of the Rationalists, we read language to this
effect: "Since that doctrine (of supernaturalism) is encumbered with
various difficulties, every day made more manifest by the advances of
learning, especially historical, physical, and philosophical, there have
been amongst more recent theologians and philosophers not a few who, in
various ways, departing from it, thought it right to admit, even in the
investigation and explanation of divine things, not only that formal use
of human reason which regards only the method of expounding dogmas, but
also the material use, by which the subject-matter of the particular
doctrines is submitted to inquiry.
"Thus arose that of which the generic name is Rationalism, or that law
or rule of thinking, intimately united with the cultivation of talent
and mind, by which we think that as well in examining and judging of all
things presented to us in life and the range of universal learning, as
in those matters of most grave importance which relate to religion and
morals, we must follow strenuously the norm of reason rightly applied,
as of the highest faculty of the mind; which law of thinking and
perceiving, if it be applied to prove any positive religion (theological
Rationalism) lays it down as an axiom that religion is revealed to men
in no other manner than that which is agreeable both to the nature of
things and to reason, as the witness and interpreter of divine
providence; and teaches that the subject-matter of every supposed
supernatural revelation, is to be examined and judged according to the
ideas regarding religion and morality, which we have formed in the mind
by the help of reason.... Whosoever, therefore, despising that supremacy
of human reason, maintains that the authority of a revelation, said to
have been communicated to certain men in a supernatural manner, is such
that it must be obeyed by all means, without any doubt,--that man takes
away and overturns from the foundation the true nature and dignity of
man, at the same time cherishes the most pernicious laziness and sloth,
or stirs up the depraved errors of fanaticism.... As to that which is
said to be above reason, the truth of which can by no means be
understood, there is no possible way open to the human mind to
demonstrate or affirm it; wherefore to acknowledge or affirm that which
is thought to be above reason is rightly said to be against reason and
contrary to it.
"The persuasion concerning the supernatural and miraculous, and at the
same time immediate, revelation of God, cannot be reconciled with the
idea of God eternal, always consistent with himself, omnipotent,
omniscient, and most wise, by whose power, operative through all
eternity and exerted in perfect harmony with the highest wisdom, we
rightly teach that the whole nature of things exists and is
preserved.... This being so, it seems that the natural revelation or
manifestation of God, made by the works of nature, is the only one which
can be rightly defended, and this may be divided into universal or
common, and particular or singular. The universal indeed is affected by
the natural faculties of the mind, and other helps of the universal
nature of things, by which man is led to conceive and cultivate the
knowledge of divine things. That we call _particular_ and _mediate_, in
a sense different from the elder writers, which is contained in the
compass of things happening according to nature, by which, God being the
author, some men are excited above others to attain the principles of
true religion, and to impart with signal success those things,
accommodated indeed to the desires of their countrymen, and sanctioned
by some particular form of religious instruction. A revelation of this
kind consists as well in singular gifts of genius and mind, with which
the messenger, and, as it were, its interpreter, is perceived to be
furnished, as in illustrious proofs of divine providence, conspicuous in
his external life. But the more agreeably to the will of that same God
he uses these helps to be ascribed to God, and full of a certain divine
fervor, and excelling in zeal for virtue and piety, the more he scatters
the seeds of a doctrine truly divine, _i. e._, true in itself, and
worthy of God, and to be propagated by suitable institutions, the more
truly will he flourish amongst other men with the authority of a divine
teacher or ambassador. For as our mind partakes of the divine nature and
disposition (2 Peter i. 4), so without the favor and help of the Deity
it is not carried out to a more true species of religion.
"But whatever narrations especially accommodated to a certain age, and
relating miracles and mysteries, are united with the history and
subject-matter of revelation of this kind, these ought to be referred to
the natural sources and true nature of human knowledge. By how much the
more clearly the author of the Christian religion, not without the help
of Deity, exhibited to men the idea of reason imbued with true religion,
so as to represent as it were an _apaugasma_ of the divine reason, or
the divine spirit, by so much the more diligently ought man to strive to
approach as nearly as possible to form that archetype in the mind, and
to study to imitate it in life and manners to the utmost of his ability.
Behold here the intimate and eternal union and agreement of Christianity
with Rationalism."
Stäudlin, at first a Rationalist, but in later life more inclined to
supernaturalism, says: "I do not now look to the various meanings in
which the word Rationalism has been used. I understand by it here only
generally the opinion that mankind are led by their reason and
especially by the natural powers of their mind and soul, and by the
observation of nature which surrounds them, to a true knowledge of
divine and sensible things, and that reason has the highest authority
and right of decision in matters of faith and morality, so that an
edifice of faith and morals built on this foundation shall be called
Rationalism. It still remains undecided whether this system declares
that a supernatural revelation is impossible and ought to be rejected.
That notion rather lies in the word Naturalism, which however is
sometimes used as synonymous with Rationalism. It has been well said
that Naturalism is distinguished from Rationalism by rejecting all and
every revelation of God, especially any extraordinary one through
certain men. This, however, is not the case with many persons called
Naturalists both by themselves and others. Supernaturalism consists in
general in the conviction that God has revealed himself supernaturally
and immediately. What is revealed might perhaps be discovered by natural
methods, but either not at all or very late by those to whom it is
revealed. It may also be something which man could never have known by
natural methods; and then arises the question, whether man is capable of
such a revelation. The notion of a miracle cannot well be separated from
such a revelation, whether it happens out of, on, or in men. What is
revealed may belong to the order of nature, but an order higher and
unknown to us, which we could never have known without miracles, and
cannot bring under the law of nature."[4]
Professor Hahn, in speaking of the work just referred to, and of the
subject in general, makes the following remarks: "In very recent times,
during which Rationalism has excited so much attention, two persons
especially, Bretschneider and Stäudlin, have endeavored to point out the
historical use of the word, but both have failed. It is therefore worth
while to examine the matter afresh. With respect to the Rationalists,
they give out Rationalism as a very different matter from Naturalism.
Röhr, the author of the _Letters on Rationalism_, chooses to understand
by Naturalism only Materialism; and Wegscheider, only Pantheism. In this
way those persons who have been usually reckoned the heads of the
Naturalists; namely, Herbert, Tindal, and others; will be entirely
separated from them, for they were far removed from Pantheism or
Materialism. Bretschneider, who has set on foot the best inquiry on this
point, says that the word Rationalism has been confused with the word
Naturalism since the appearance of the Kantian philosophy, and that it
was introduced into theology by Reinhard and Gabler. An accurate
examination respecting these words gives the following results: The word
Naturalism arose first in the sixteenth century, and was spread in the
seventeenth. It was understood to include those who allowed no other
knowledge of religion except the natural, which man could shape out of
his own strength, and consequently excluded all supernatural revelation.
As to the different forms of Naturalism, theologians say there are
three; the first, which they call Pelagianism, and which considers human
dispositions and notions as perfectly pure and clear by themselves, and
the religious knowledge derived from them as sufficiently explicit. A
grosser kind denies all particular revelation; and the grossest of all
considers the world as God. As to Rationalism, this word was used in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by those who considered reason as
the source and norm of faith. Amos Comenius seems first to have used
this word in 1661, and it never had a good sense. In the eighteenth
century it was applied to those who were in earlier times called by the
name of Naturalist."[5]
Of all writers on the subject of Rationalism we give the palm of
excellence to the devout and learned Hugh James Rose, of Cambridge
University. As far as we know he was the first to expose to the
English-speaking world the sad state to which this form of skepticism
had reduced Germany. Having visited that country in 1824, he delivered
four discourses on the subject before the university, which were
afterward published under the title of _The State of Protestantism in
Germany_. Thus far, in spite of the new works which may have appeared,
this account of Rationalism has not been superseded. We shall have
occasion more than once to refer to its interesting pages. Of
Rationalism he says:
"The word has been used in Germany in various senses, and has been made
to embrace alike those who positively reject all revelation and those
who profess to receive it. I am inclined, however, to believe that the
distinction between Naturalists and Rationalists is not quite so wide,
either, as it would appear to be at first sight, or as one of them
assuredly wishes it to appear. For if I receive a system, be it of
religion, of morals, or of politics, only so far as it approve itself to
my reason, whatever be the authority that presents it to me, it is idle
to say that I receive the system out of any respect to that authority. I
receive it _only_ because my reason approves it, and I should of course
do so if an authority of far inferior value were to present the system
to me. This is what that division of Rationalists, which professes to
receive Christianity and at the same time to make reason the supreme
arbiter in matters of faith, has done. _Their_ system, in a word, is
this: they assume certain general principles, which they 'maintain to be
the necessary deductions of reason from an extended and unprejudiced
contemplation of the natural and moral order of things, and to be in
themselves immutable and universal. Consequently anything which, on
however good authority, may be advanced in apparent opposition to them
must either be rejected as unworthy of rational belief, or at least
explained away, till it is made to accord with the assumed
principles,--and the truth or falsehood of all doctrines proposed is to
be decided according to their agreement or disagreement with those
principles.' When Christianity, then, is presented to them, they inquire
what there is in it which agrees with their assumed principles, and
whatsoever does so agree, they receive as _true_. But whatever is _true_
comes from God, and consequently all of Christianity which they admit to
be true, they hold to be _divine_.
"'Those who are generally termed Rationalists,' says Dr. Bretschneider,
'admit universally, in Christianity, a divine, benevolent, and positive
appointment for the good of mankind, and Jesus as a Messenger of divine
Providence, believing that the true and everlasting word of God is
contained in the Holy Scripture, and that by the same the welfare of
mankind will be obtained and extended. But they deny therein a
supernatural and miraculous working of God, and consider the object of
Christianity to be that of introducing into the world such a religion as
reason can comprehend; and they distinguish the essential from the
unessential, and what is local and temporary from that which is
universal and permanent in Christianity.' There is, however, a third
class of divines, which in fact differs very little from this, though
very widely in profession. They affect to allow 'a revealing operation
of God,' but establish on internal proofs rather than on miracles the
divine nature of Christianity. They allow that revelation _may_ contain
much out of the power of reason to explain, but say that it should
assert nothing contrary to reason, but rather what may be proved by it.
This sounds better, but they who are acquainted with the writings of the
persons thus described, know that by establishing Christianity on
internal proofs, they only mean the accepting those doctrines which they
like, and which seem to them _reasonable_, and that though they allow in
theory that revelation may contain what are technically called much
above reason, yet in practice they reject the positive doctrines of
Christianity (I mean especially the doctrines of the Trinity, the
Atonement, the Mediation and Intercession of our Lord, Original Sin, and
Justification by Faith), because they allege that those doctrines are
contrary to reason. The difference between them and the others is
therefore simply this, that while the others set no limits at all to the
powers of reason in matters of faith, they set such a limit in theory
but not in practice, and consequently cannot justly demand to be
separated from the others."[6]
One of the ablest advocates of Supernaturalism among English divines is
the late Dr. A. McCaul, of London. He joins issue successfully with the
Rationalists. We quote a specimen of his method of argument. His
definition of Rationalism is beautifully lucid and logical. He says:
"This doctrine then plainly denies the existence and the possibility of
a supernatural and immediate revelation from the Almighty, and maintains
that to claim supreme authority for any supposed supernatural religion
is degrading to the dignity and the nature of man. It enters into direct
conflict with the statements of the Old Testament writers, who clearly
and unmistakably assert the existence of a divine communication which is
called 'The law of the Lord,' 'The law of his mouth,' 'The testimony of
God,' 'The saying of God,' 'The word of the Lord,' 'The word that goeth
forth out of his mouth,' 'The judgment of the Lord,' 'The commandment of
the Lord.'
"Now it is not intended to strain the allusion to the mouth or lips of
the Lord beyond that which the figure may fairly bear. But the
expression does certainly mean that there is some direct, immediate, and
therefore supernatural communication from the great Creator of all
things. The writers who used these expressions did not mean that as
reason is given by God, so whatever reason may excogitate is the word of
God. They would not have used these expressions concerning Truth that
may be found in heathen writers. They believed and recorded that God had
manifested himself audibly to the ears, and visibly to the eyes of men.
They did not therefore hold the doctrine that supernatural revelation
is impossible, or derogatory to reason or inconsistent with the nature
and attributes of Him who is eternal.
"It is almost needless to refer to instances. God spake with Adam, with
Cain, with Noah. In the latter case the communication led to such
actions, and was followed by such results, that without rejecting the
history altogether, there can be no doubt of a miraculous communication.
Noah knew of the coming flood--built an ark for himself and a multitude
of animals--prepared food--was saved with his family, while the world
perished--floated for months on the waters, and when he came out, had
again a manifestation of the Deity. So Abraham, so Moses, not now to
recount any more. Indeed the writer referred to does not deny this. He
admits that in Scripture the knowledge of divine things is referred
immediately to the Revelation of God, and that though the modes of this
Revelation are various, they appear often to overstep the laws and
course of nature. He enumerates as modes of revelation, Epiphanies of
God himself, of angels--heavenly voices--dreams--afflatus, or the Holy
Spirit.
"How then does he reconcile this with his denial of all supernatural
revelation, or show that these Epiphanies of God and angels, were mere
developments of reason? He does not try to reconcile them at all. He
simply rejects them as false. He comes directly into collision with the
credibility and veracity of the Scripture narratives, and therefore
leaves us no alternative but to disbelieve the Bible as fabulous, or to
reject Rationalism as inconsistent with our rule of faith. This system
not only generally denies the possibility of supernatural revelation,
but asserts that all the particular narratives of all such
communications from God are incredible; nothing better than ghost
stories or fairy tales; equally unworthy of God and man, the offspring
of an ignorant and unenlightened age and nation, and therefore rejected
by these men of reason and science. How this differs from the doctrine
of Deists and open opposers of Christianity, it is difficult to
conceive, except that it seems to be rather worse. Even Bolingbroke
admits supernatural Revelation to be possible. Tom Paine himself says,
'Revelation when applied to religion means something immediately
communicated from God to man. No one will deny or dispute the power of
the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases.' Spinoza
asserts that the 'Israelites heard a true voice at the delivery of the
ten commandments; that God spoke face to face with Moses; and generally,
that God can communicate immediately with men, and that though natural
science is divine, yet its propagators cannot be called prophets.' That
the Rationalist view of revelation is contrary to the popular belief of
Christians generally, and of Christian churches and divines
particularly, there can be no doubt. It is intended so to be....
"The Rationalist professes to believe that all the knowledge of truth at
which man arrives is owing to the original wisdom, will, and power of
the Almighty in giving man a certain intellectual constitution, to be
unfolded by the circumstances of human history and necessities--that
therefore moral and religious truth, such as the Rationalists
acknowledge, is still to be ascribed to the purposes and power and
efficacy of the Great Spirit, acting upon that which is material and
compound.
"Why, then, should it be impossible for the Creator to shorten the
process, to help man in his painful and often unsuccessful search after
truth, and to make known that which exists in the Divine mind and
purpose? To say that he cannot, is in fact to depose him from the throne
of omnipotence, and to bring us back either to two eternal independent
principles, incapable of all communication, or to drive us to Pantheism.
If there ever was a period in duration in which God could act upon
matter, or endue infinite intelligences with the means and capability of
knowledge, he can do so still."[7]
M. Saintes, who has investigated the history of this subject more
thoroughly than any other writer, says of the significations and limits
of Rationalism:
"I myself at first imagined that it signified the wise and constant
exercise of reason on religious subjects, but in studying the matter
historically I soon found that it is the same with this word as with
many others which, having lost their original meaning, now express an
idea directly contrary to that which their etymology seems to indicate.
It is indisputably true that God, in granting reason to man, has not
forbidden its exercise. As religion, the queen of all minds, possesses
indestructible rights over them, so has human reason also rights which
cannot be disputed. Kant has justly said, the faith which should oppose
itself to reason could not longer exist. With this view we form an idea
of Rationalism similar to that conceived by the great Leibnitz, which,
with our present ideas of truth, we cannot regard as unreasonable. But
this right of human reason to examine and discuss differs widely from
its self-constitution as supreme judge on religious matters, and from
the wish to submit God and conscience to its own tribunal, which it
declares to be infallible. This, however, has been the case in modern
times when Philosophy has openly avowed itself the enemy of
Christianity, and when those who were terrified by its rash demands have
sought to confound them by the devices of Rationalism--thus hastening to
ruin the edifice which they aspired to restore.... Rationalism must not,
therefore, be understood to signify the use which theologians have made
of reason in matters of faith. Did the reader thus interpret it he would
mistake our aim. He would be deceived as to the character of the labors
which it is our wish to describe. He would attribute to the author of
this history intentions which he could not entertain, and religious
opinions which his respect for human reason would compel him to disavow.
The apostles of the gospel continually appeal to the reason of their
hearers, and Christ himself argues the increasing exercise of the _eye
of the soul_, as he calls conscience, in judging of the truth which he
announces--Matt. vi. 23. For a good conscience is always better disposed
to rise to the knowledge of the truth; while one heavy laden and
harassed is exceedingly prone to receive dogmas without properly
understanding their import, because it feels their truth through the
consolations which they offer. In no age of Christianity has there
arisen a serious discussion on this subject, though the extravagant
pretensions of Rationalism have provoked some exaggerations which can
never prevail over the ancient Christian system. That system by no means
forbade the exercise of human intelligence in religious matters, though
it employed a superior and only infallible reason--the divine reason,
the doctrinal expression of which is found in the books which all
Christians have hitherto considered divine, and whose authenticity and
truth cannot be disputed without overturning that Christianity, which
has been professed during eighteen centuries. But modern Rationalism has
done more than assert the right of exercising reason; it has pretended
that to this faculty alone belongs the privilege of deciding on man's
religious belief and his moral duty; and that if, from long custom, any
respect is still due to revelation, it should only receive it when it is
not opposed to the judgments of reason. But if this reason were
sufficient for mankind, why should divine revelation be in any case
opposed to it?
"Rationalism is not a systematic incredulity as to religious truths. Far
from being so, it makes pretensions of developing the religious feelings
to the highest degree; and there is in the writings of its most
distinguished disciples something which arouses even the most lethargic
minds. But it is far from attaining its end; for although it constitutes
itself the supreme judge of Christianity, it does not really adopt one
of the leading doctrines of that religion which alone has power over the
moral nature of man. Its influence, if we observe it closely, extends
only over his feelings; it fails to penetrate into the depths of his
being; and can we forget that one of its essential characteristics is to
wage deadly war against the supernatural element which abounds in the
Bible, and which Rationalism would wholly eradicate? An enlightened
Supernaturalist will then very willingly confess that Naturalism may be
professed with a semblance of reason and in good faith, and he can even
consider it as a system of philosophy wherein are to be found fewer
philosophical elements than in any other. But simple good sense forbids
him to imagine it possible to profess Rationalism and at the same time
to retain the name of Christian."[8]
The most recent defence of Rationalism is by Mr. Lecky.[9] He has
written in great calmness, taken great pains to generalize his
investigations, and followed closely in the steps of the late Mr.
Buckle, in his fragment of the _History of Civilization_. But his
argument is false. According to Mr. Lecky, human reason is the only
factor of history. The agency of the Holy Spirit is ignored. Elaborate
creeds and liturgical services are a barrier to the mind's progress,
because they shackle the intellect by impure traditions. Rationalism is
the only relief of these later times. "Its central conception," says our
author, "is the elevation of conscience into a position of supreme
authority as the religious organ, a verifying faculty discriminating
between truth and error. It regards Christianity as designed to preside
over the moral development of mankind, as a conception which was to
become more and more sublimated and spiritualized as the human mind
passed into new phases, and was able to bear the splendor of a more
unclouded light. Religion it believes to be no exception to the general
law of progress, but rather the highest form of its manifestation, and
its earlier systems but the necessary steps of an imperfect development.
In its eyes the moral element of Christianity is as the sun in heaven,
and dogmatic systems are as the clouds that intercept and temper the
exceeding brightness of its rays. The insect, whose existence is but for
a moment, might well imagine that these were indeed eternal, that their
majestic columns could never fail, and that their luminous folds were
the very source and centre of light. And yet they shift and vary with
each changing breeze; they blend and separate; they assume new forms and
exhibit new dimensions; as the sun that is above them waxes more
glorious in its power, they are permeated and at last absorbed by its
increasing splendor; they recede, and wither, and disappear, and the eye
ranges far beyond the sphere they had occupied into the infinity of
glory that is before them.... Rationalism is a system which would unite
in one sublime synthesis all the past forms of human belief, which
accepts with triumphant alacrity each new development of science, having
no stereotyped standard to defend, and which represents the human mind
as pursuing on the highest subjects a path of continual progress toward
the fullest and most transcendent knowledge of the Deity.... It clusters
around a series of essentially Christian conceptions--equality,
fraternity, the suppression of war, the elevation of the poor, the love
of truth, and the diffusion of liberty. _It revolves around the ideal of
Christianity, and represents its spirit without its dogmatic system and
its supernatural narratives. From both of these it unhesitatingly
recoils, while deriving all its strength and nourishment from Christian
ethics._"[10]
The present age, if we hearken to Mr. Lecky, is purely Rationalistic,
because purely progressive. The world has emerged from its blindness and
ignorance by the innate force of the mind. Reason, the great magician,
has uplifted its wand; and lo, the creatures of night disappear! It has
dispelled the foolish old notions of magic, witchcraft, and miracles. It
has overcome the spirit of persecution, the childish conception of
original sin, and the doctrine of eternal punishment. It has put an end
to bull-baiting, cock-fighting, and all the lower forms of vicious
pleasure. It has secularized politics, overthrown the notion of the
divine right of kings, and now creates and fosters all the industrial
developments of the age. Protestantism is excellent when allied to
Rationalism; but when opposed to it, it is no better than any other
conglomeration of creeds and liturgies. There is no such thing as a
fixed notion of God and Providence. The conceptions of man on these
subjects will change with the progress of the race. Human reason,
therefore, and not revelation, is the sole arbiter of truth.
Thus Mr. Lecky places himself beside his predecessors in ignoring the
agency of the Holy Spirit, either in giving inspired truth to the world,
or in educating the church.
From the foregoing authorities it is very apparent that the Rationalists
do not deny the special features of skepticism with which their
opponents charge them. They admit frankly that they give the precedence
to Reason, when the alternative is Reason or Revelation, instead of
adopting a positive creed from the principle, that, if we would
ascertain the character of Revelation, we must begin our inquiry by
examining the doctrines it contains, and then by comparing them with our
notions of what a Revelation ought to be. Thus the capricious dictates
of reason are made to decide the quality of revealed truth. Besides,
wherever a mysterious account is contained in a book which in the main
is accepted, such mystery is cast out as altogether unlikely, probably
the poetic version of some early legend. A miracle is recounted; one of
the best attested of all. "It could never have happened," the
Rationalists say, "for Nature has made it impossible."
There have been several classes of Rationalists. Some were men of very
worthy character; and, save in their opinions, were entitled to the
high respect of their generation. Semler lived a beautiful life; and his
glowing utterance on his daughter's death exhibited not only a father's
love, but a Christian's faith. Bretschneider, himself a Rationalist,
gives the following classification of his confreres:
The _first_ class consider Revelation a superstition, and Jesus either
an enthusiast or a deceiver. To this class belong Wünsch and Paalzow,
but no divine. The second class do not allow that there was any divine
operation in Christianity in any way, and refer the origin of
Christianity to mere natural causes. They make the life of Christ a mere
romance, and himself a member of secret associations; and consider the
Scriptures as only human writings in which the word of God is not to be
found. To this class belong Bahrdt, Reimarus, and Venturini (the last
two not divines), and Brennecke. The third class comprise the persons
usually called Rationalists. They acknowledge in Christianity an
institution divine, beneficent, and for the good of the world; and Jesus
as a messenger of God; and they think that in Scripture is found a true
and eternal word of God,--only they deny _any supernatural and
miraculous_ working of God, and make the object of Christianity to be
the introduction of religion into the world, its preservation, and
extension. They distinguish between what is essential and non-essential
in Christianity, between what is local and temporal, and what is
universal. That is to say, they allow that there is good in
Christianity--that all that is good comes from God; but miracles,
inspiration, everything _immediately_ coming from God, they wholly
disbelieve. Among this class are Kant, Steinbart, Krug, as philosophers;
and, as divines, W. A. Teller, Löffler, Thiess, Henke, J. E. C.
Schmidt, De Wette, Paulus, Wegscheider, and Röhr. The _fourth_ class go
a little higher. They consider the Bible and Christianity as a divine
revelation in a higher sense than the Rationalists. They assume a
revealing operation of God distinguishable from his common providence;
carefully distinguish the periods of this divine direction; found the
divinity of Christianity more on its internal evidence than on miracles;
but especially separate church belief from the doctrines of Scripture;
reform it according to the sentiments of the Divine Word; and require
that Reason should try Revelation, and that Revelation should contain
nothing against, though it may well have much above, Reason. Döderlein,
Morus, Reinhard, Ammon, Schott, Niemeyer, Bretschneider, and others,
belong to this class.
The only objection to this classification is the one urged by Rose;
namely, that only a few of the theological writers would appear to have
been violent Rationalists, while the larger class would seem to have
held the moderate opinions which Bretschneider himself professes to
adopt. The contrary is the fact, as any one at all acquainted with the
number of theological writers of the period in question can determine.
The spirit of the Rationalistic literature of the time was decidedly
violent and destructive.
In glancing at some of the general causes which have made Rationalism so
successful in its hold upon the popular mind, we find that it has
possessed many advantages over almost any other form of skepticism that
has appeared during the history of the church.
Prominent among these causes were its multiplied affiliations with the
church. It had thus a fine vantage-ground on which to wage deadly war
against the text and doctrines of the Bible. The first antagonists of
Christianity came from without; and they dealt their heaviest blows with
a deep and thorough conviction that the whole system they were combating
was absolutely false, absurd, and base. And, in fact, many later enemies
of Revelation have come from without the pale of Christianity. But the
great Coryphæi of Rationalism have sprung from the very bosom of the
church, were educated under her maternal care; and, at the same time
that they were endeavoring to demolish the superstructure of divine
inspiration, they were, in the eyes of the people, its strongest
pillars, the accredited spiritual guides of the land, teaching in the
most famed universities of the Continent, and preaching in churches
which had been hallowed by the struggles and triumphs of the
Reformation.
German Protestantism cannot complain that Rationalism was the work of
acknowledged foes; but is bound to confess, with confusion of face, that
it has been produced by her own sons; and that English Deism and French
Atheism were welcomed, and transmuted into far more insidious and
destructive agencies than they had ever been at home. The Rationalists
did not discard the Bible, but professed the strongest attachment to it.
They ever boasted that their sole object was the defence and elevation
of it. "Because we love it," they said, "we are putting ourselves to all
this trouble of elucidating it. It grieves us beyond measure to see how
it has been suffering from the vagaries of weak minds. We are going to
place it in the hands of impartial Reason; so that, for once at least,
it may become plain to the masses. We will call in all the languages and
sciences to aid us in exhuming its long-buried treasures, in order that
the wayfaring man, though a fool, may appropriate them. And as to the
church, who would say aught against our venerable mother? We love her
dearly. We confess, indeed, that we love the green fields and gray
mountain-rocks better than her Sabbath services; nor do we have much
respect for her Sabbath at all. But we cherish her memories, and are
proud of her glory. Yet the people do not understand her mysteries well
enough. They do not love her as much as we do. Therefore we will stir
them up to the performance of long-neglected duties. They ignorantly
cling too proudly to her forms and confessions. But we will aid them to
behold her in a better light. We know the true path of her prosperity,
for do you not see that we have been born and bred within her dear fold?
Let everybody follow us. We will bring you into light." Had outspoken
enemies of the church and inspiration, though doubly gifted and
multiplied in number, set themselves to the same destructive work that
engaged the labors of these so-called friends, they could not have
inflicted half the injury. They had razed to the ground tower after
tower of the popular faith before their designs were discovered. And yet
we must do them the credit to say that they did not intend to do the
harm that they eventually accomplished. But human agencies achieve their
legitimate results without regard to the motives that give them impulse.
No doubt, many a Rationalist, as he looked back from his death-bed on
the ruin to which he had contributed, trembled with astonishment at the
poisonous fruit of his labors. Christ beheld a broader field than we can
see, when he said, "A man's foes shall be they of his own household."
This religious exterior has been a powerful auxiliary to the growth of
Rationalism. In the earlier stages of its history, every utterance
regarding the authenticity of any books of Scripture was carefully
guarded. The boldest stroke that this species of skepticism has made has
been a recent one, Strauss' _Life of Jesus_; but that work was only the
outgrowth of long doubt, and the honest, frank expression of what a
certain class of Rationalists had been burning to say for a century.
Parents who sent their sons to the university to listen to such men as
Semler, Thomasius, and Paulus, had not the remotest idea that
institutions of such renown for learning and religion were at that very
time the hotbeds of rank infidelity. Even the State cabinets that
controlled the professorial chairs could not believe for a long time
that men who had been chosen to teach theology were spending all their
power in corrupting the religious sentiment of the land. Large
congregations were sometimes startled with strange announcements from
their pastors, to the effect that the supposed miraculous dividing of
the Red Sea was only occasioned by certain natural forces of wind and
tide; that all the rest of the Old Testament miracles were pure myths;
and that many parts of the New Testament were written at a later time
and by other authors than those whose names are usually associated with
them. "Heterodoxy," was whispered. But the reply was, "Better have
heterodoxy than these miserable disputes on Election and the Lord's
Supper, to which we have been compelled to listen almost ever since
Luther laid his body down to die." Fledgling theologians would come home
from the university, and read aloud to the family-group the notes of
lectures which they had heard during the last semester. The aged pair,
looking up in wonder, would say, "The good and great doctors of our
Reformation never taught such things as these." But their sons would
answer, "Oh, the world has grown much wiser since their day. New
discoveries in philosophy and science have opened new avenues of truth,
and our eyes are blessed that we see, and our ears that we hear. Just
wait until we get into the pulpit, and we will set the people to
thinking in a new way." Thus the enemy was sowing tares while the church
was dreaming of a plenteous harvest.
Rationalism was very adroit in its initial steps. Its method of betrayal
was, Judas-like, to sit in friendly intercourse beside its victim, and
afterwards, when the fulness of malevolent inspiration had come, to give
the fatal kiss in the presence of enemies. The people did not know the
ills they were about to suffer until deliverance was well-nigh hopeless.
Had Rationalism begun by laying down its platform and planning the work
of proof, the forces of the opposition might have been organized. But it
commenced without a platform, and worked long without one. The
systematic theology of Bretschneider would by no means be accepted by
the entire class of Rationalistic divines. To get a fair conception of
what has been the aggregate sentiment of the whole class, one must
wander through hundreds of volumes of exegesis, history, philosophy, and
romance; and these covering a space of many years. Even when you hold up
your treasure, and cry "Eureka!" your shrewd opponent will coolly say
that you have given a false interpretation, and have drawn wrong
conclusions,--that his masters never claimed such an absurdity.
Rationalism looked upon Revelation as a tottering edifice, and set
itself busily at work to destroy the entire superstructure. But
sometimes it is the surrounding vines and trees that shake in the autumn
storm, and not the building itself; and often beneath the worm-eaten
bark there is a great oaken heart, which no arm is strong enough and no
axe sufficiently keen to cleave.
Rationalism has been striving to destroy a house which was built upon a
rock; and if it fell not, the fault lay not in the absence of ingenuity
and strength of attack, but in the undecayed material and
deeply-grounded solidity of the structure.
We are not blind to the extenuating circumstances that are adduced for
Rationalism. The motives of its founders seemed pure enough, for these
men held their life-task to be the purification of faith from the
misconceptions of inspiration, and the deliverance of the church from
the thraldom of stiff formularies. Some of their successors held that
their labors were only philosophical, and hence could not affect
theology. They all claimed relationship with the Reformers, and with the
good and great of all ages. Bretschneider says that Luther talked of
miracles as only fit for the ignorant and vulgar, as apples and pears
are for children.
Paulus tries to prove the great Saxon a Rationalist by the following
circumstance. The Elector of Brandenburg having asked Luther if it were
true that he had said he should not stop unless convinced from
Scripture, received this reply: "Yes, my lord, unless I am convinced by
clear and evident reasons!" It was a favorite view of the Rationalists
that the Reformation had been produced by Reason asserting her rights;
and it was then an easy step to take, when they claimed as much right to
use Reason within the domain of Protestantism as their fathers possessed
when within the pale of Catholicism.
But there were wide points of difference between the Reformers and
Rationalists. The former would return to the spirit and letter of the
Word of God, while the latter did not hesitate to depart from both. The
former accepted the Bible as it is, making Faith its interpreter; the
latter would only construe its utterances as Reason would dictate.
With the Reformers there was a conflict between the Bible and the Roman
church, but harmony between Reason and the Bible; hence these two
homogeneous elements should be united and the rebellious one forever
discarded. But with the Rationalists there was an irreconcilable
difference between Reason and Revelation, and the latter must be moulded
into whatever shape the former chose to mark out. The Reformers
celebrated the reunion of both; but the Rationalists never rested as
long as there was any hope of putting asunder those whom they believed
God had never joined together. But the later Rationalists, least of all,
could claim consanguinity with the Reformers. How could they who
banished miracles from the Scriptures and reduced Christ to a much lower
personality than even the Ebionites declared him to be, dare to range
themselves in the circle of the honored ones who had unsealed the
long-locked treasures of inspiration, and declared that Christ, instead
of being an inferior Socrates, was divine, and the only worthy mediator
between God and man? After we accept every reasonable apology for this
destructive skepticism there will still be found a large balance against
it. There are four considerations which must always be borne in mind
when we would decide on the character of any development of religious
doubt and innovation. 1. _The necessity for its origin and development_;
2. _Its point of attack_; 3. _The spirit with which it conducts its
warfare_; and 4. _The success which it achieves_.
Let us see how Rationalism stands the test of these criteria. It must
be confessed that the German Protestant church, both the Lutheran and
Reformed, called loudly for reinvigoration. But it was Faith, not
Reason, that could furnish the remedy. The Pietistic influence was
gaining ground and fast achieving a good work; but it was reprobated by
the idolaters of Reason, and the tender plant was touched by the fatal
frost. Had Pietism, with all its extravagances, been fostered by the
intellect of the pulpits and universities it would have accomplished the
same work for Germany in the seventeenth that the Wesleys and Whitefield
wrought in England in the eighteenth century. There was no call for
Rationalism, though its literary contributions to the church and the
times will eventually be highly useful; but they were ill-timed in that
season of remarkable religious doubt. It was the warmth of the heart,
and not the cold logic of the intellect that could rejuvenate the
church.
Nor do we find the position of Rationalism to be any better when we call
to mind that it really acknowledges no hallowed ground. It attacked the
most endeared doctrines of our faith, and applied its enginery to those
very parts of our citadel which we would be most likely to defend the
longest. Had it contented itself with the mere discussion of minor
points, with here and there a quibble about a miracle or a prophecy, we
could excuse many of its vagaries on the score of enthusiasm. But its
premiss was, "We will accept nothing between the two lids of this Book
if our Reason cannot fathom it." Hence, all truth, every book of the
Bible, even the sacraments of the church, came in for their share of
discussion and pruning. In this respect Rationalism takes rank as one of
the most corrupt tendencies of infidelity which appears anywhere upon
the page of ecclesiastical history. But do we find its spirit mild and
amiable? Some of the Rationalists were naturally men of admirable
temperament, but this was no effect of their faith. The most lamentable
feature of this whole system was the ruthless character of its warfare.
The professions of love for the Scriptures and the church, which we so
often meet with in the writings of the early Rationalistic divines, were
soon laid aside. The demon of destruction presided over the storm. And
the work of ruin was rapid, by forced marches and through devious
paths,--in the true military style. When the hour of fight came there
was no swerving. Men full of the spirit of a bad cause will sometimes
fight as valiantly as others for a good one; but it is then that God
determines the victor. The evangelical Christians of Protestant Germany
saw their banner captured by their foes. And it was their foes who gave
the first fire; but they will not be so fortunate in the last encounter.
We challenge Deism and even Atheism itself, to furnish proof of a more
malignant antipathy to some of the cardinal doctrines of the common
faith of Christendom than Rationalism has produced in certain ones of
its exponents, and which we shall strive to expose in future pages of
this work. Some of the Rationalists were John-like in all they did, save
when they discussed the holy truths of inspiration. Then they were
possessed by the evil spirit. Nowhere can we find a more deplorable
example of the disastrous effects of a false creed on the human
character. It is an infallible law of our nature that the mind, not less
than the body, becomes depraved by an impure diet. Many persons have
been permanently injured by reading the _Briefe über den Rationalismus_,
and other works which Rationalism has published against the doctrines
of Revelation.
As far as the completeness and speed of the work of Rationalism are
concerned we shall find that it ranks with the most rapid and
destructive errors that have ever risen in conflict with the church.
Instead of striving to build up a land that had so long been cursed with
the blight of Papacy, and had not yet been redeemed a full century, this
evil brought its quota of poison into the university, the pulpit, and
the household circle. Nor did it cease, as we shall see, until it
corrupted nearly all the land for several generations. To-day the
humblest peasant who steps on our shore at Castle Garden will stare in
wonder as you speak of the final judgment, the immortality of the soul,
and the authenticity of the Scriptures. Naturalism could not live thus
long in Italy, nor Deism in England, nor the blind Atheism of the
Encyclopædists in France; neither in either land was the work of
destruction so complete.
But the church has proved herself able to depose many _corruptions of
her faith_; yet this _attack upon her faith_ she has still to vanquish
thoroughly. It is not works on the evidences of Christianity that she
needs for the consummation of her great aim; and we trust that, by the
divine blessing, the inquiry into the vagaries of Reason upon which we
are now entering will not be without its effect upon the young mind of
America. Our task is simply to lift the finger of warning against the
increasing influx of Rationalistic tendencies from France and England;
which lands had first received them from Germany. One of our great
dangers lies in permitting Reason to take our premises and build her own
conclusions upon them. There is an intimate union between theology and
philosophy; and anything less than the pursuit and cultivation of a
sound philosophy will endanger our theology. Tennyson gives a beautiful
word of advice when he says:
"Hold thou the good: define it well:
For fear divine Philosophy
Should push beyond her mark, and be
Procuress to the Lords of Hell."
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Tholuck, Herzog's _Real-Encyclopædie_. Art. _Rationalismus_.
[2] Trench, _Study of Words_, p. 147.
[3] As a fair specimen of the extent to which philological criticism is
often carried by some of our German friends, when advocating a doubtful
cause, we quote a paragraph in point from Dr. Rückert's work, _Der
Rationalismus_, one of the latest and feeblest apologies for neological
thought:
"What is Rationalism? We must try to get the meaning from the term
itself. And what sort of a term is it? Barbarous enough! Its root is
_ratio_, but it is directly from _rationalis_ that the word in question
is derived. Now this word is good enough in itself, for it signifies
_what is conformable to reason, that which possesses the attributes and
methods of reason_. Man is a _rational_ animal, and it is his
rationality that distinguishes him from all other animals. So much for
this part of the word Rationalism. Now for the barbarous part of it, the
-ism. This termination belongs to another language, the Greek +-ismos+,
and is derived from a verbal ending which cannot be expressed in Latin,
namely--+izein+. Now if we examine certain intransitive verbs, such as
+mêdizein+, +lakônizein+, +rhômaizein+, +attikizein+, we shall find
their common peculiarity is that the persons meant are not the real
persons which the words seem to signify, but only act in their capacity.
Not a real Mede +mêdizei+; no true Spartan +lakônizei+; and so of all
the rest. But those Greeks who would rather belong to the Medes than be
freemen, _act like Medes, would prefer to be under Median
rule_--+mêdizousin+. This +-ismos+ is a termination from this class of
verbs, and is employed in reproach and not in praise. Hence
_Rationalist_ is a term of contempt, and means _not one who is really
reasonable, but would like to pass for such_." Of course the Doctor
concludes that the word is a most flagrant and unrighteous misnomer; but
we accept his philology and return him our thanks for his etymological
_study_.
[4] _Geschichte des Rationalismus und Supernaturalismus_, pp. 3-4.
[5] _De Rationalismi_: A Disputation at Leipzig.
[6] _State of Protestantism in Germany._ pp. XXII-XXVI.
[7] _Thoughts on Rationalism._ pp. 23-32.
[8] _Histoire du Rationalisme._ pp. 1-6.
[9] _History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in
Europe._ By W. E. H. Lecky, M. A. 2 vols. Longmans, London, 1865.
[10] _History of the Rise and Spirit of Rationalism in Europe_, vol. I.,
pp. 183-185.
CHAPTER I.
CONTROVERSIAL PERIOD SUCCEEDING THE REFORMATION.
A work of such magnitude as the Reformation could not easily be
consummated in one generation. The real severance from the Roman
Catholic church was effected by Luther and Melanchthon; but these men
did not live long enough to give the symmetry and polish to their work
which it really needed. Unfortunately, their successors failed to
perform the necessary task. But lofty as our ideas of the Reformation
should be, we must not be blind to the fact that German Protestantism
bears sad evidences of early mismanagement. To-day, the Sabbath in
Prussia, Baden, and all the Protestant nationalities is hardly
distinguishable from that of Bavaria, Austria, Belgium, or France. But a
few bold words from Martin Luther on the sanctity of that day, as the
Scriptures declare it, would have made it as holy in Germany as it now
is in England and the United States. Another error, not so great in
itself as in the evils it induced, was the concessions which
Protestantism granted to the civil magistrate. The friendly and heroic
part which the Elector of Saxony took in the labors of the Reformers,
made it a matter of deference to vest much ecclesiastical authority in
the civil head. But when, in later years, this confidence was abused, it
was not so easy to alter the conditions of power. We see in this very
fact one of the underlying causes of the great Rationalistic defection.
The individual conscience was allowed almost no freedom at certain
periods. The slightest deviation from the mere expression of doctrine
was visited with severe penalty. Strigel was imprisoned; Hardenberg was
deposed and banished; Peucer doomed to ten years' imprisonment; Cracau
put to death on the slightest pretenses; and Huber was deposed and
expatriated for a mere variation in stating the Lutheran doctrine that
none are excluded from salvation.[11]
There were several causes which contributed to the intemperate
controversies that sprang up immediately after the Reformation. The
Reformers were involved in serious disputes among themselves. Had Luther
and Zwinglius never uttered the word _Consubstantiation_ they would have
gained multitudes to the cause they both loved so dearly. Many other
questions, which unfortunately occupied so much public attention, caused
minute divisions among those who should have stood firm and united in
that plastic period of the great movement. But it is to the numerous
confessions of faith that we must attribute most of these controversies.
Perhaps the grave character of the master-points at issue with Romanism
demanded these closely-succeeding expressions of doctrinal opinion; but
we question if the advantage was not much less than the outlay. First of
all came Melanchthon's celebrated _Augsburg Confession_, in 1530. The
Roman Catholics replied by their _Confutation_, which, in turn, was
answered by Melanchthon in the _Apology of the Confession_. Luther
followed in 1536-'37 with his _Articles of Smalcald_, and still later by
his two _Catechisms_. In 1577 came the _Formula Concordiæ_, and in 1580
the symbolical canon entitled _Liber Concordiæ_.
Amid this mass of doctrinal opinion in which many conflicting points
were easy enough to find, it was no small task to know what to accept.
The air was filled with the sounds of strife. Those who had fought so
steadfastly against Papacy were now turning their weapons in deadly
strife against each other.
The very names by which Church History has recorded the memory of these
strifes indicate the real littleness of many of the points in question.
The _Antinomian Controversy_ originated with John Agricola during
Luther's life-time. Agricola, in many severe expressions, contended
against the utility of the Law; though Mosheim thinks he intended to say
nothing more than that the ten laws of Moses were intended chiefly for
the Jews, and that Christians are warranted in laying them aside. The
_Adiaphoristic Controversy_ was caused by the difference between the
moderate views of Melanchthon and the more rigid doctrines of the
orthodox Lutherans. We have next the controversy between George Major
and Nicolas Amsdorf, as to whether good works are necessary to
salvation, or whether they possess a dangerous tendency. The
_Synergistic Controversy_ considered the relations of divine grace and
human liberty. The dispute between Victorin Strigel and Matthias Flacius
was on the nature of Original Sin. Then we have the _Osiandric
Controversy_, on the relation of justification to sanctification; and
the _Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy_, concerning the Lord's Supper,
which extended through the Palatinate to Bremen and through Saxony. The
_Formula Concordiæ_ thus sums up the Lutheran controversies: 1. Against
the Antinomians insisting on the preaching of the law. 2. Justification
as a declarative act, against Osiander; good works are its fruits. 3.
Synergism is disavowed, but the difficulty left indefinite. 4. Adiaphora
are admitted, but in times of trial declared to be important. 5.
Consubstantiation, and ubiquity of Christ's body.
The Reformed or Calvinistic church was likewise engaged in doctrinal
disputation, but there was more internal unity. Hence, while Calvinism
was rooting itself in England, Scotland, and Holland, Lutheranism was
spending itself in internal strife.
The _Syncretistic Controversy_ was remarkable on account of the great
men who engaged in it and the noble purpose which caused it. It arose
from an attempt to reconcile all the disputants under the Apostles'
Creed.
George Calixtus was the chief actor in the movement. He was a most
cultivated theologian. But, like so many of his fellow countrymen, whose
merits have not yet been appreciated by the English-speaking people, he
is little known to our readers of ecclesiastical history. He applied
himself first to the study of the Church Fathers, poring over their
voluminous productions with all the zeal of an enthusiast. He was eager
to gain an insight into contemporaneous theology as it was believed and
practised by all the sects. He concluded that he could gain his object
only by travel and personal observation. Consequently, he commenced a
tour through Belgium, England, France, and various parts of Germany. Nor
did he hasten from one place to another, but continued a length of time,
in order to become imbued with the local spirit, make the acquaintance
of the most illustrious men, hold conversations with them, and commit
his thoughts to writing. On his return he commenced the labors of a
professor of theology at Helmstedt. Thus, few men ever brought to their
aid more extensive acquirements than Calixtus. Besides the advantages he
derived from his travels, he was possessed of strong and brilliant
natural talents. He was bold and striking in his style; had great
originality of conception, and remarkable logical acuteness. Yet he
received but little justice from his generation; for almost everything
he wrote was made the theme of mad disputes and violent abuse.
The controversies of the period made a profound impression on the mind
of Calixtus. The anger and personality with which they were conducted
were sufficient proof to him of the little service they were able to
contribute to either the improvement of theology or the religious growth
of the people. To reconcile the various sects was the dream of his whole
life. Referring to his early desires in this direction, he thus wrote in
later years: "I was cogitating methods, even at that early age, for
mitigating the feuds and dissensions of Christians.... One thing,
however, is clear, that if men's minds were not bound by prejudices,
they would remit a great deal of rigor."[12] Those were sincere words,
too, which he said on beholding the rancor of sectarianism: "If I may
but help towards the healing of our schisms, I will shrink from no cares
and no night-watchings; no effort and no dangers; ... nay, I will never
spare either my life or my blood, if so be I may purchase the peace of
the church. For nothing can ever be laid upon me so heavy but that I
would undertake it, not only with readiness, but also with gladness."
The abuses of preaching, then prevalent, were also a theme of intense
sorrow to him. What some of them were may be easily gathered from a
passage in his course of lectures on the Four Evangelists to the
students of Helmstedt. "It is evident," he says, "that in every
interpretation the chief heed is to be given to the _literal sense_. In
every address to the people this must be made the principal point--so to
explain the text of Scripture that men may understand what the Holy
Spirit chiefly and primarily intends to teach by it. Inasmuch, too, as
the language is addressed to the people, it is the part of prudence to
decide what words may suit their capacity. We should strive to state the
fact on the doctrine itself in words as fitting and simple as possible,
and (omitting all controversial subtleties) to prove the truth as far as
it is necessary for salvation to be known, by a few words of
Scripture:--few, that they may not escape the memory of the hearers;
evident and convincing, lest the proofs seem doubtful, and the minds of
the more intelligent be left in suspense and be disturbed to their very
exceeding harm. The words of the Fathers (if used by way of evidence)
should be used sparingly and with caution; lest the ignorant should
confound the Apostles and Prophets with the Fathers, and persuade
themselves that all have equal authority. For it is to be borne in mind
that sermons are preached not so much for the benefit of the learned as
for the sake of the people generally; that they may be rightly
instructed in the doctrine of salvation and of Christian morals. In the
meantime we must do our best to satisfy _all_; that the simple be not
left without needful teaching; the more acute find no want of force and
argument; nor the learned charge the preacher with a pride of knowledge
foreign to the occasion and not always thorough."[13]
In his first controversial work, _Chief Points of the Christian
Religion_, Calixtus gave expression to many solid thoughts, which
subsequently produced an abundant harvest. His _Theological Apparatus_
was written for young ministers, and designed to meet the immediate
necessities of the times. But it is to his great work, the _Desire and
Effort for Ecclesiastical Concord_, that we must turn to find the true
man spending his greatest power toward the unification of Christians. In
terms of communion, he contends, we must distinguish between what is,
and what is not, essential to salvation. In all that relates to the
Christian mysteries we must content ourselves with the _quod_ and not
dispute about the _quo modo_. In stating these mysteries we should use
the simplest language. There is a natural brotherhood of men, and this
should bind them together in matters of religion. We must love all men,
even idolaters, in order to save them. The Jews and Mohammedans stand
nearer to us than they, and we should cherish affection also for them.
Those who are most closely united to us are all who believe that they
can be saved only by the merits of Christ. All who thus recognize the
saving power of Christ are members of his body, brothers and sisters
with him. We should live, therefore, as members of one family, though
adhering to different sects.
But we must not be neutral. Every one should join the church to which
his own conscientious convictions would lead him. Yet when we do this,
we must love all who think differently. Those who have been martyrs for
the Christian faith were in the right path; we cannot do better than to
follow them in love and doctrine. The outpouring of the Spirit would be
meagre indeed if the church existed for the stringent Lutherans
alone.[14]
But the intense desire of Calixtus to unite the various Christian bodies
was poorly rewarded by the sympathy of his contemporaries. He was
charged with religious indifference because he looked with mildness on
those who differed from him. Though a strict Lutheran, he was accused of
secretly favoring the Reformed church; and Arianism and Judaism were
imputed to him, because he thought that the doctrine of the Trinity was
not revealed with equal clearness in the Old and New Testaments! When he
affirmed that the epithets Lutheran, Reformed, and Romanist should not
destroy the idea of Christian in each, he was foully vilified for
opening the gate of heaven to the abandoned of all the earth. A friendly
man said that he was "a good and venerable theologian," and for this
utterance the offender was subjected to a heavy fine. The friends of
Calixtus were termed by one individual "bloodhounds and perjurers."
Another declared that "he tuned his lyre to Judaizers and Arianizers and
Romanizers and Calvinizers, and that he showed a spirit so coarse and
shameless that never the like had been before." Still another compared
him to Julian the Apostate.
But previous controversies and the ever-increasing points of divergence
had so estranged the different churches that the labors of Calixtus to
unite them proved unavailing. His influence was lessened because of the
disputes into which his bold undertaking led him. But he quickened
national thought, turned theologians to looking deeper into the
Scriptures than had been the practice since the Reformation, and
established the difference between the essential and non-essential in
matters of faith. The cause of his failure to unite the discordant
church was his fearless attack on popular error. But his disappointment
detracts nothing from the grandeur of his work; and his name is one
which will not be denied its meed of praise when theological peace is
once more restored to Germany. No generation can duly value a character
whose life is not in consonance with the prevailing spirit of that
generation. As the military hero must not expect his greenest laurels in
time of peace, and as the sage must not dream of praise in an
uncultivated period, so must such men as George Calixtus wait for a
coming day whose untainted atmosphere will be in harmony with their own
pure life and thoughts.
The spirituality of the German church having suffered materially from
the controversies of which we have spoken, the beneficial results of the
Reformation were greatly endangered by them. The German version of the
Bible had been an incalculable blessing to the masses; and the
commentaries written by the Reformers and their immediate successors
gave promise of a wide-spread Scriptural knowledge. But the religious
disputes distracted the mind from this necessary department of thought,
and neutralized much of the good which would otherwise have been
lasting. The danger in which the Protestant church now stood was great.
Sectarian strife, formalism, neglect of the high functions of the
pastorate, and other flagrant evils of the day, made the devout and
far-seeing tremble for the cause which had engaged the great minds of
the Reformation era. What could be done? A steady and gigantic effort
was necessary to be made or the great Reformation would die by its own
hand. Happily there were men, though somewhat removed at first from
public observation, whom God was intending to employ as conservative
agents. Often in the history of the church, when there has been no
prospect of success and progress, and when the votaries of error seemed
everywhere triumphant, God was secretly preparing the instrumentality
which, Joseph-like, would in due time perform the work of preservation
and restoration. There have been pessimists who were ever ready to cry:
"Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and
I am left alone, and they seek my life." But when the hour of crisis
came, God's answer was heard: "I have reserved to myself seven thousand
men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." This was true at the present
period, for there were a few men whose services were destined to be of
great value to the Protestantism of Europe.
We mention first of all the prince of mystics, Jacob Boehme, shoemaker
of Gorlitz. Gieseler chooses to stigmatize him with "contempt of all
Christianity of the letter and of all scientific theology;" but men can
only be measured by the standard of their age. Did they serve their
generation well? If so, we grant them all honor for their work. Let
Boehme be tested by this method, and we do not fear the result. We are
not unmindful of many of his absurd notions, of the fanaticism of his
followers--for which he is not in the least chargeable--and of the many
extravagances scattered through his twenty-eight treatises. But that he
intended well, served his church and his Master, led thousands to
self-examination, taught his nation that controversy was not the path to
success or immortality, his whole career proves beyond confutation.
His life, from beginning to end, is a marvel. He was born of poor
peasant parentage in 1575; and, after being taught to read and write,
was apprenticed to a shoemaker. His time was divided between reading his
Bible, going to church, making shoes, and taking care of the cow. But in
that boy's heart there were as deep a conscientiousness, imperturbable
patience, purity of soul, and love of God as can be found in a like
period of spiritual dearth. Having reproved his master one day, he was
dispatched on his apprentice-pilgrimage somewhat sooner than he had
anticipated. It has been truthfully said of him that his characteristic
lay in his pneumatic realism. His was ecstacy of the loftiest type; but
with him it was something almost tangible, real, and akin to actual
life. A late author, the lamented Vaughan, thus fancies him: "Behold him
early in his study, with bolted door. The boy must see to the shop
to-day, no sublunary care of awl or leather, customers and groschen,
must check the rushing flood of thought. The sunshine streams in emblem,
to his high-raised phantasy, of a more glorious light. As he writes, the
thin cheeks are flushed, the gray eye kindles, the whole frame is damp,
and trembling with excitement. Sheet after sheet is covered. The
headlong pen, too precipitate for calligraphy, for punctuation, for
spelling, for syntax, dashes on. The lines which darken down the waiting
page are, to the writer, furrows, into which heaven is raining a driven
shower of celestial seed. On the chapters thus fiercely written the eye
of the modern student rests, cool and critical, wearily scanning
paragraphs, digressive as Juliet's nurse, and protesting, with
contracting eyebrow, that this easy writing is abominably hard to
read."[15]
He was four times in ecstacy. He writes of himself: "I have never
desired to know anything of divine mystery; much less have I wished to
seek or find it. I sought only the heart of Jesus Christ, that there I
might hide myself from the anger of God and the grasp of the devil. And
I have besought God to grant me his grace and Holy Spirit, that he would
lead me and take from me everything that would tend to alienate me from
him; that I might lose my own will in his, and that I might be his child
in his son Jesus Christ. While in this earnest seeking and longing, the
door has opened before me, so that I have seen and learned more in a
quarter of an hour than I could have gained in many years at great
schools.... When I think why it is that I write as I do, I learn that my
spirit is set on fire of this spirit about which I write. If I would set
down other things, I cannot do it: a living fire seems to be kindled up
within me. I have prayed God many hundreds of times, weeping, that if my
knowledge did not contribute to his honor and the improvement of my
brethren, he would take it away from me, and hold me only in his love.
But I found that my weeping only made the inner fire burn all the more;
and it has been in such ecstacy and knowledge that I have composed my
works."
The _Aurora_ was his greatest production. His extreme modesty forbade
the publication of it; and it was first discovered accidentally in
manuscript by a nobleman who was visiting him. Of the literary character
of his works Schlegel says: "If we consider him merely as a poet, and in
comparison with other Christian poets who have attempted the same
supernatural themes--such as Klopstock, Milton, or even Dante,--we shall
find that in fulness of emotion and depth of imagination he almost
surpasses them. And in poetic expression and single beauties he does
not stand a whit behind them. The great intellectual wealth of the
German language has rarely been revealed to such an extent in any age as
in this writer. His power of imagery flowed from an inexhaustible
fountain." His last words declared the inward life of the man, "O Lord
of Sabaoth save me according to thy pleasure! O thou crucified Lord
Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, and take me to thy kingdom! Now I am
going into Paradise!"
John Arndt was not the subtle mystic that Boehme was, and his writings
are subjected to fewer misapprehensions. The service he rendered the
church and the cause of truth was important; and his influence is still
felt upon the practical life of the German people. While yet young he no
sooner became awakened to his spiritual condition then he saw the great
religious defects of his day. He first yielded to the prevalent passion
for the study of chemistry and medicine; but, through a severe illness,
he was subsequently led to give himself to the service of God. But few
works have obtained the celebrity which his _True Christianity_ has
enjoyed, not only while its author lived, but at every period since that
time. He was induced to write it on account of the controversial and
formal spirit which petrified the church. In a letter to Duke Augustus,
in 1621, he thus explained his motives: "I have first endeavored to
withdraw the minds of students and preachers from this disputation and
contentious theology which threatens to bring upon us once more the evil
of a scholastic theology. Another reason that has impelled me to this
course is my strong desire to incline dead Christians to become
fruitful. A third one is to lead people from the study of human theory
and science to the real exercise of faith and devotion. A fourth reason
is to show what that true Christian life is which harmonizes with vital
faith--and what that is which Paul meant when he said, 'I live; yet not
I, but Christ liveth in me.'"
Immediately after the publication of the _True Christianity_ it found a
hearty welcome. The learned and ignorant took equal pleasure in its
living thoughts. Next to the Bible and Kempis' _Imitation of Christ_, it
has been circulated more widely on the Continent than any other book. It
was translated into all the European languages, and missionaries
rendered it into heathen tongues. The Roman Catholics received it, and
claimed it as one of their treasures. When Professor Anton visited the
Jesuit Library at Madrid, in 1687, he inquired for the best ascetical
writer. The librarian produced a copy of Arndt's _True Christianity_,
which, though without preface or introduction, had this simple
expression on the first page: "_This book is more edifying than all
others._"
The spirit with which Arndt wrote all his works was calm and heavenly.
He possessed that beautiful Moravian type of character which defied
persecution by its submission, love, tenderness, and energy. In
referring to his many enemies he wrote on one occasion, "I am delighted
to suffer, and I would endure a thousand times more, sooner than bury my
talent." He was somewhat ascetical in temperament, but he differed from
all that class of thinkers by the clearness of his appreciation of the
wants of his time and his unwearied efforts to meet them successfully.
He did not escape the censure of mysticism; for that was more than any
devout spirit in that age could expect. Some of the most learned took
umbrage at his ardent sentiments and bitter complaint at the impiety of
his times. The opposition to him was well organized, and continued long
after his death. Even at the end of the seventeenth century we find
various writers replying to his celebrated work. But all the blows of
his adversaries have only tended to deepen the love of the people for
his name and writings. It is not an unfrequent occurrence for minds in
Germany, even at the present day, to be led to accept the truths of the
Gospel by the reading of the _True Christianity_. What Thomas à Kempis
was to the pre-Reformation age, Fenelon to France, and Jeremy Taylor to
England, John Arndt has been to the Protestant countries of the
Continent for the last three centuries. Superintendent Wagner only gave
expression to the world's real conviction when he wrote of him: "_Vir
placidus, candidus, pius et doctus._"
A personal friend and spiritual son of Arndt, John Gerhard, followed
closely in his footsteps. He was possessed of the same general
characteristics which we have traced in connection with the two
preceding names. His love was boundless, his spirit unruffled, his piety
deep and lasting. He was more serviceable in some respects to the
interests of the orthodox church than any other theologian of that time.
Like Arndt he had been inclined to the study of medicine, but a
dangerous sickness turned his mind to religious contemplation and to the
study of theology. His mental capacities had been cast in a great mould.
He grasped whatever he undertook with gigantic comprehension. His
attainments were so rapid that at the age of twenty-four he received the
degree of doctor of divinity; and, somewhat later, was the most famous
and admired of all the professors of the university of Jena. His
influence was such that princes placed themselves before him for his
counsel, and the highest ecclesiastical tribunals deemed themselves
honored in receiving a share of his attention. His works embrace the
departments of exegesis, doctrine, and practical religion.
But it was chiefly the two former branches of theology that engaged his
attention. In his _Exegetical Explication of Particular Passages_ he
accomplished an important service for the church. He introduced all the
leading doctrines of inspiration into this work, and discussed the
merits of contemporary controversy in connection with them. He explained
those almost indefinable terms which had been so variously employed by
the schoolmen, and summed up the literature on the points in question.
His style was prolix but his conclusions carried great weight with them.
As a specimen of his tedious method, he begins his discussion of
original sin with the questions, "Is there such a thing as original sin?
Then, what is it? What is its subject? How is it continued?" Many other
inquiries are made in the same manner, but it is only after a hundred
pages have been passed over that he gives his own definition of it. But
we should not smile at such latitude of style when we remember the
literary standard of those times. The German language was then in its
plastic state; and by far the greater portion of writers had been much
more interested in gaining points than rounding periods. It is almost a
hopeless task to wade through the ridiculously lengthy terms of the
seventeenth century. But it may be said, in their defence, that the
method of verbose composition was not without some appearance of
utility. The intelligence of the reader could not be relied upon to such
an extent as now, and the eager eyes of so many opponents made it
necessary to guard every word of importance with a wall of sentences.
We have now to mention a fourth actor in the great drama of these
dangerous times, John Valentine Andreä. His mind was not of the serious
tone that marked the other writers of whom we have spoken. That he
looked deeply, calmly, and wisely into the surrounding evils no one can
doubt. Every work he wrote established this fact. But the method which
he adopted to cure them was of a totally different order from that
employed by others. His personal history bears all the evidences of
romance. He was the son of a poor widow, who, having spent all her
property to give him an education, found her boy at the conclusion of
his studies desirous of making the usual academic tour. She has but a
pittance left, so she puts into his hand twelve kreutzer, and a rusty
old coin, as a pocketpiece. Her eyes follow him until they are blinded
in a flood of tears. Years pass on and Valentine comes home, having
travelled, by dint of self-denial and perseverance, over the most
interesting portions of the Continent. He returns to the fatherland and
settles quietly down as an orthodox Lutheran pastor.
It is now that the evils of his generation loom up before him in
terrible blackness. He attacks them by satire. He sits down and writes a
little book, dedicated to all the great men of Europe, and entitled,
_The Discovery of the Brotherhood of the Honorable Order of the Holy
Cross_. This work aims to show that there had once lived a certain
Christian Rosenkranz. He was a man of remarkable learning, and
communicated his knowledge to eight disciples, who lived with him, in a
house called the Temple of the Holy Ghost. This building has come to
light, and behold the uncorrupted body of Rosenkranz, who has been dead
a hundred and twenty years! The various disciples whom he left, and who
are scattered throughout Germany, claim to be true Protestants, and call
upon all men to help them in their efforts to promote learning and
religion. They possess great secrets and the world ought to know them.
They are perfectly at home in bottling the elixir of life, and have been
in possession of the philosopher's stone a long time. Their great object
is to benefit their fellow creatures. Who will follow them?
Such was the burden of Andreä's little book. The consequence was, it set
all Germany on fire. People never dreamed for a moment that it was a
burlesque on the times. Thousands left their labor to follow the advice
of the earnest disciples of Rosenkranz. On seeing that he had caused
some mischief, Andreä wrote book after book affirming that his previous
one on Christian Rosenkranz was a pure fiction intended to teach a
useful lesson. But nobody believed him; the people were sure that they
could not be so sadly deceived. His first work was the only one that was
heartily received; and multitudes ran mad after the fabulous knowledge
of the famous master and his imaginary disciples. But when the land
awoke to the real idea of Andreä, the reaction was tremendous. Perhaps
no satire, not even the _Laus Stultitiæ_ of Erasmus, created such a fury
of excitement as this; seldom has one been followed with more astounding
and beneficial results. We say _beneficial_ from purpose; for _Andreä
succeeded in attracting the popular mind from its old habits of
controversy_. This was his great service. As a man he was of
unexceptionable life and ardent sympathies. He passed peacefully to his
rest after uttering the words, "It is our joy that our names are written
in the Book of Life."
Thus were these devoted men performing their great mission of improving
the life of the Church. We shall soon see how low the current of that
life was, and how great the burden placed upon them. Each one had his
special endowment, and was eminently qualified to contribute to a more
healthy religious tone throughout the Protestant lands. But, after all,
their work was only preparative. The culmination of their labors was, in
later years, the great Pietistic Reform; and they marked out the path
along which Spener subsequently passed. Theirs was a great part in the
drama of providence; but their achievements would have accomplished no
permanent advantage had they not been succeeded by the triumphs of the
Father of Pietism. It has sometimes been a noticeable part of the divine
plan in our great struggles with the powers of darkness, that, when the
heroes of truth fall at their post, the contest does not need to rage
long before others, with hearts of equal fervor and weapons more
brightly polished, take their places in the advancing lines. What
wonder, then, that, by and by, the mountains echo back the shouts of
victory!
FOOTNOTES:
[11] Pusey, _Historical Inquiry_, pp. 16, 17.
[12] _Responsum Moguntinis Theologis_, p. 129.
[13] _Conc. Evang._, in Henke, vol. I. p. 274, note.
[14] Dowding, _Life and Correspondence of Calixtus_, pp. 313-315.
[15] _Hours with the Mystics_, vol. 2, p. 67.