DOCTRINES OF RATIONALISM IN THE DAY OF ITS STRENGTH.
The church now presented a most deplorable aspect. Philosophy had come,
with its high-sounding terminology, and invaded the hallowed precincts
of Scriptural truth. Literature, with its captivating notes, had
well-nigh destroyed what was left of the old Pietistic fervor. The songs
of the church were no longer images of beauty, but ghastly, repulsive
skeletons. The professor's chair was but little better than a heathen
tripod. The pulpit became the rostrum where the shepherdless masses were
entertained with vague essays on such general terms as righteousness,
human dignity, light, progress, truth, and right. The peasantry received
frequent and labored instructions on the raising of cattle, bees, and
fruit. The poets of the day were publicly recited in the temples where
the Reformers had preached. Wieland, Herder, Schiller, and Goethe became
more familiar to the popular congregations than Moses, David, Paul, or
even Christ. By this time we might reasonably expect the harvest from
Semler's favorite theories. There was no school as yet by which he
worked upon the public mind, but the greater portion of theologians
caught up scrap-thoughts from his opinions and now dealt them out in
magnified proportions to the masses who, like their Athenian
predecessors, were ever anxious to learn what was new. That so many
influences as we have seen in force should completely subdue orthodoxy
is not wonderful, when we consider first the minds that originated them,
and then the dull and frigid condition of the church.
But, as the fruit of these influences, there was no common system of
theology adopted by the Rationalists. The reason is obvious. Rationalism
was not an organism, and therefore it could have no acknowledged creed.
Its adherents were powerful and numerous scouting-parties, whose aim was
to harass the flanks of the enemy, and who were at liberty, when
occasion required, to divide, subdivide, take any road, or attack at any
point likely to contribute to the common victory. One writer came before
the public, and threw doubt on some portions of the Scriptures. He was
followed by another who, while conceding the orthodox view of those very
passages, would discard other parts, even whole books, as plainly
incredible. A third discussed the character and mission of Christ, and
imputed a certain class of motives to him. A fourth attributed to him
totally different, if not contradictory, impulses. There is no one book,
therefore, in which we find an undisputed Rationalistic system, for the
work that may represent one circle will give but a meagre and false view
of another. Besides, what the most of the Rationalists might agree upon
at one stage of the development of their skepticism, would be rejected
by others, living a few years after them. The only means, therefore, by
which we are enabled to arrive at some understanding concerning their
opinions is to fix upon the time of their meridian strength, and then to
hear what their representative men of that period say of the truths of
revelation.
Now it cannot be doubted that Rationalism was most powerful after the
decided impression made upon theology by the philosophical direction
commenced by Kant, and by that of literature inaugurated by Lessing and
followed by the Weimar poets. We are consequently under the necessity of
hearing the statements of acknowledged Rationalists who flourished
during this time, and, out of the chaos, arrive at the most probable and
general views entertained by the people.
We shall see that the scene of spiritual desolation was repulsive enough
to make every servant of Christ wish, with Wordsworth,--
"I'd rather be
A pagan, suckled in a creed outworn;
So might I standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn--
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea,
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn."
RELIGION. All religion was held by the Rationalists to be mere morality.
As to any such thing as conversion, they were agreed that it could be
only a work of the imagination. All the regeneration at which we may
reasonably expect to arrive is an inclination to obey the dictates of
reason. He who follows the teachings of his own intellect cannot go
astray, for this is the light that lighteth every man that cometh into
the world. The Scriptures give a high coloring to religion, and
represent it as necessary; but those writings are not as reliable as the
innate revelation which every son of Reason enjoys.
EXISTENCE OF GOD. With this view of religion in general, all the other
vital doctrines of Christianity suffered an equal depreciation. The
existence of God is conceded, but the proof is impossible. His
personality cannot be affirmed; it is confounded with the soul of the
world. Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be accepted; for
reason sheds no light sufficiently clear to establish it. A high
dignitary of the church, Cannabich, wrote a book in positive denial of
the Trinity, original sin, justification, satisfaction of Christ,
baptism, and the Lord's Supper. As for the Trinity, the early Christians
had no such tenet, and it was never concocted until after the lapse of
several centuries of the Christian era. Both philosophy and nature are
as capable of establishing the evidence of God's existence as the
Scriptures themselves. The idea we have of God is due to prejudice and
education. The mass of the Rationalists said, with Lichtenberg, that
instead of God making man after his image, man had made God after his
human image.
DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION. The Rationalists were fond of reasoning by
analogy, and they used that method of argument freely in their
discussions on the inspiration of the Scriptures. God never pursues the
plan of operating immediately upon nature. His laws are the mediate
measures by which he communicates with man. Gravitation is an instrument
he employs for the control of the material world. Thus, in some way,
does God impress upon man's mind all that he wishes to reveal, without
any necessity of direct inspiration. The doctrine was, therefore,
rejected because there was no need of it, and from this step it was easy
to assume the position that there is no inspiration. This the
Rationalists did assume. "Grant inspiration," said they, "and you bind
us down to the belief that all the contents of the Scriptures are true.
You force us to believe what our reason does not comprehend. The
doctrine of inspiration opens the floodgate for the belief of a mass of
mythical stuff which we will no more grant to be historically true than
Niebuhr will admit the validity of the legends of early Rome." The poets
of every land have enjoyed a sort of rhapsody when in their highest
flights. This rhapsody or ecstasy is all that these idolaters of reason
will concede. Doederlein's views of inspiration were much more elevated
than those held by many of his _confrères_; but he too speaks of
poetical excitement, and draws a line of distinction between the
inspired and uninspired parts of Scripture. But Ammon represents this
subject better than Döderlein. It was his opinion that the idea of a
mediate divine instruction is applicable to all human knowledge. He
rejects the notion peculiar to revelation. Inspiration cannot for a
moment be accepted as an immediate divine impression, because it would
compromise the supremacy of reason, and destroy man's intellectual and
moral liberty. The diversity of style perceptible in the writers of the
Scriptures is a proof that they were not influenced by immediate
inspiration. "These writers themselves," say the Rationalists, "never
claimed such extraordinary functions as those with which orthodox
believers would now clothe them."
Töllner, a theological professor in Frankfort-on-the-Oder, wrote very
fully on inspiration, and his work was held in great repute by many of
the Rationalists who were inclined to supernaturalism. He held that the
will, the matter, the words, and the order of both the matter and the
words, might be objects of inspiration. But there are several degrees of
inspiration. Some books were written without inspiration of any kind,
and were only confirmed by God. In the Old Testament, Moses might have
been directed to a choice of subjects, and his memory might have been
strengthened. So of the Psalms and Prophecies. There is no such thing
as inspiration of the historical books. It cannot be determined what
degree was employed in the New Testament. In the Acts there was nothing
more than natural inspiration. Luke and Mark were approved by the
apostles, hence their writings may be received. Morus held that
inspiration was sometimes only the inducing to write; sometimes an
admonition to do so; sometimes revelation; and sometimes only a guarding
from error.[40] Granting the Rationalistic denial of inspiration, we
have no solid ground for any portion of the Bible. We find, therefore,
that after this view had become prevalent the popular mind attached no
importance to God's revealed will. Interpolations were imagined at every
point of difficulty. Schröckh gives a sketch of the deplorable state of
opinion on inspiration, when he says, "Inspiration was given
up--interpolations in Scripture were believed to exist. In the oldest
and partly in more recent history, instead of historical facts these
writers saw only allegories, myth, philosophical principles, and
national history. Where appearances of God and the angels, or their
immediate agency, are related, nothing was seen but Jewish images or
dreams. The explanation of all biblical books was pursued on new
principles. The _Song of Solomon_ was not mystical. The _Revelations_
contained no prophecy of the fortunes of the church."
Bitter indeed must have been the emotions of the devout Christian on
seeing the departure of inspiration from the opinions of the theological
leaders of that day. Infinitely more exquisite must have been his pain
than was that of the poet, who, sighing for the haunted and credulous
days of olden time, said:
"The intelligible forms of ancient poets,
The fair humanities of old religions,
The power, the beauty, and the majesty,
That had their haunts in dale or piny mountain,
Or forest, by slow stream, or pebbly spring,
Or chasms and watery depths: all these have vanished."
CREDIBILITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. Schenkel affirms that Rationalism
consists in giving up all the historical characteristics of Christianity
and of Christian truths, and in the reduction of religion to the
universal conclusions of reason and morality. The accuracy of this
definition is very perceptible when we consider the wantonness of the
assaults of the Rationalists upon the Scriptures as the canon of faith
and practice. This period was marked by desperate attempts to overthrow
the early history of all countries, and to convict historians of stating
as fact what was only vague tradition. As the Bible was alleged by the
supernaturalists to be the oldest historic record, great pains were
taken to dissipate the mist from its accounts of supposed verities. The
writers of the Scriptures, the friends of Rationalism held, were only
men like ourselves. They had our prejudices and as great infirmities as
we have. They were as subject to deception and trickery, and as full of
political and sectarian rancor as partisans in these times. All through
the Old Testament we find traces of biased judgment, Jewish national
pride, sectional enmity, sectarian superstition, and rabbinical
ignorance. It is but little better in the New Testament, for the
disciples of Christ and the writers of the gospels were as susceptible
of error and bigotry as their predecessors.[41]
The writers of the Scriptures were utterly destitute of any such great
designs as the orthodox attribute to them. They had no intention of
writing for posterity, and were the mere chroniclers of what they had
heard from others and seen for themselves. The Bible is, like the essays
of Seneca, an excellent book for elevating the people by its moral tone.
As a revelation of God's will it only takes its place beside others
which God had previously made, and has been making in a natural way,
ever since.[42] All ages and nations have their communications of
knowledge, and the setting forth of any truth in a clearer light is a
revelation.[43] There are many steps necessary for the education of the
race and for its intellectual and moral development. The Scriptures are
a very good aid to such a great consummation.[44] But they are full of
errors, which we must leave for the supremacy of pure Reason to
dissipate forever.[45]
We cannot forbear to give Wegscheider's testimony on the scanty measure
of Scriptural credibility and authority in his own words. "But whatever
narrations," he says, "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 ideas of reason imbued with true
religion, so as to represent, as it were, a reflection 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.... The various modes of supernatural
revelation mentioned in many places of the sacred books, are to be
referred altogether to the notions and mythical narrations of every
civilized people; and this following the suggestion of the Holy
Scripture itself, and therefore to be attributed, as any events in the
nature of things, to the laws of nature known to us. As to theophanies,
the sight of the infinite Deity is expressly denied: John i. 18--1 John
iv. 12--1 Tim. vi. 16. Angelophanies, which the Jews of a later date
substituted for the appearances of God himself, like the narrations of
the appearances of demons found amongst many nations, are plainly
destitute of certain historic proofs; and the names, species, and
commissions attributed to angels in the sacred books, plainly betray
their Jewish origin. The business transacted by angels on earth is
little worthy of such ministers.... The persuasion concerning the truth
of that supernatural revelation, which rests on the testimony of the
sacred volume of the Old and New Testaments, like every opinion of the
kind, labors under what is commonly called a _petitio principii_."
The Bible is, in fact, of no more authority and entitled to no further
credence than any other book. It is not worth more, as an historical
record, than an old chronicle of Indian, Greek, or Roman legends.[46]
The evangelists did not get their accounts of the doings of Christ from
observation, but from a primitive document written in the Aramaic
language. The gospels were not intentional deceptions; but that they are
as well the work of error as of wisdom, no candid interpreter can deny.
The life of Christ which they contain is but an innocent supplement to
the _Metamorphoses_ of Ovid.[47] Tittmann went so far as to affirm that
the Scripture writers were so ignorant that they could not represent
things as they really happened. Of course he excludes their capacity for
inspiration.
DOCTRINE OF THE FALL OF MAN. While some Rationalistic writers conceded
that Moses was the author of the whole or parts of the Pentateuch, his
version of the origin of sin was universally rejected. The temptation by
the serpent was, with them, one of the most improbable myths ever drawn
up from the earliest traditions of nations. Whether Moses wrote much or
little of the books attributed to him, his sources of knowledge were
monuments and tales which he saw and heard about him. It is likely that
he derived his idea of the fall of man from some hieroglyphic
representation which he happened somewhere to see. As for the entrance
of the serpent into Paradise, it is just as improbable as the rabbinical
notion that the serpent of Eden had many feet. In the opinion of some,
the whole narrative is only an allegory, or "a poetical description of
the transition of man from a more brutish creature into humanity, from
the baby-wagon of instinct into the government of reason, from the
guardianship of nature into the condition of freedom."[48] Kindred to
this theory is Ammon's; that at first man obeyed instinct only, and that
his desire to eat the forbidden fruit was the longing of his mind to
understand truth. But the great injury which these men thought they had
visited on this doctrine was their assumption that man had not fallen,
and that instead of being worse than he once was, he is every year
growing purer and holier than at any previous stage of his history.
This was flattering to their inflated pride, and their wish became
father to their creed. With Eichhorn, the narrative of the fall was only
a description of Adam's thoughts.
MIRACLES. It was no surprise to the wise disciples of Reason that there
should be found numerous records of miracles in the Bible. It was just
what might be expected from such writers in that gray morning of
antiquity. The first chroniclers seized upon tradition; and their
successors, seeing how well their fathers had succeeded, merely imitated
them by catching up new ones, or enlarging upon the old account. By a
sort of infection, therefore, we find what purports to be a revelation.
Whatever harmony there is, was the result of an aim which was not lost
sight of for a moment. Nature was the first teacher; and though she was
competent, we have been poor disciples. She is instructing us all the
time, though we have listened less to her than to the other auditors who
sit about us. Lichtenberg says in poetical language, that "When man
considers Nature the teacher, and poor men the pupils, we listen to a
lecture and we have the principles and the knowledge to understand it.
But we listen far more to the applause of our fellow-students than to
the discourse of the teacher. We interlard the lecture by speeches to
the one who sits next us; we supply what has been poorly heard by us;
and enlarge it by our own mistakes of orthography and sentiment."
No branch of Scriptural faith attracted more of the wrath and irony of
the Rationalists than miracles. They saw how important their service was
to the authority of the Bible, and therefore bent all their energies for
their overthrow. They denied their possibility in the strongest terms,
averring that they degrade the character of God, and violate that noble
nature of the human mind, which is necessarily bound to the most certain
laws of experience, and can discern no positive marks of supernatural
agency.[49] The miracles of the New Testament receive no better
treatment than those of the Old. In every case they have no foundation
in history. Various reasons are assigned for their presence in the
Bible; in some cases they are only legends of mythologic days; in
others, the pure fancy of the writer; and in others, hyperbolical
descriptions of natural occurrences. Thus, while there was a diversity
of opinion concerning the narratives, there was perfect union as to the
purely natural character of the events.
We may particularize, in order to present more clearly the Rationalistic
method of interpreting miracles. When Korah, Dathan and Abiram, with
their fellow-unfortunates, were swallowed up, they only suffered what
many others have done since,--destruction by a natural earthquake. This
was the opinion of Michaelis. Others, more ingenious, thought that Moses
had taken care to undermine privately the whole of the ground on which
the tents of the sinners were; and, therefore, it was not surprising,
either that they fell into the cavity, or that Moses should know this
would be their fate. Eichhorn held that the three offenders, with their
property, were burned by the order of Moses. Dinter explained Jacob's
struggle with an angel by relating a recent dream. His brother having
lately died, Dinter dreamed soon after that a man, with a little
peep-show, presented to his view all sorts of pictures, and at length
showed him his dead brother. The vision said, "To show you that I am
really your brother, I will print a blue mark on your finger." The
dreamer awoke and found not a blue mark but a pain which lasted some
days. This profound exegete then asks, "Could not something similar have
happened in Jacob's case? Even the less lively occidentalist sometimes
relates as real what only happened in his mind. Why should we be
surprised at a similar occurrence in the warmer fancy of the Eastern
man?"
But of all the critics of miracles we must give the palm to Paulus. Let
us hear how he accounts for the tribute-money in the mouth of the fish.
"What sort of a miracle," he asks, "is that we find here? I will not say
a miracle of about sixteen or twenty groschen, for the greatness of the
value does not make the greatness of the miracle. But it may be
observed, that, as Jesus generally received support from many persons,
in the same way as the Rabbis frequently lived from such donations; as
so many pious women provided for the wants of Jesus; and as the claim
did not occur at any remote place, but at Capernaum, where Christ had
friends; a miracle for about a thaler would certainly have been
superfluous. But it would not only have been superfluous and paltry,--it
would have taught this principle; that Peter, even when he could have
remedied his necessities easily in other ways, might and ought to reckon
on a miraculous interference of the Deity,--a notion which would
entirely contradict the fundamental principle of Jesus, or the
interference of the Deity. There is nothing of a miraculous appearance
in this narrative, nor was there to Peter himself. Had there been, the
fiery Peter would not have been cold-blooded at such a miracle, but
would have expressed himself as in Luke v. 8. There is nothing more
meant here, than that Christ designed to give a moral lesson; namely,
that we should not give offence to our brethren, if we can avoid it by
trifling circumstances. Hence, Christ said to him in substance, 'Though
there is no real occasion for us to pay the tribute, yet as we may be
reckoned enemies of the temple, and may not be attended to when we wish
to teach what is good, why should not you, who are a fisherman, and can
easily do it, go and get enough to pay the demand? Go then to the sea,
cast your hook and take up the first and best fish. Peter must,
therefore, have caught either so many fish as would be worth a _stater_
at Capernaum, or one large and fine enough to have been valued at that
sum. The opening of the fish's mouth might have different objects, which
must be fixed by the context. Certainly, if it hang long, it will be
less salable. Therefore the sooner it is taken to market, the more
probable will be a good price for it."
Paulus and Ammon coincide in the following interpretation of one of the
miracles of the loaves and fishes. There were always large caravans
traveling near the time of the feasts, and they carried a plenty of meat
and drinks on camels and in baskets. Now it is not according to Eastern
hospitality to see your friends near you when you are eating, without
asking them to join you. All that Jesus meant by saying they were
without food was, that they had not a regular meal; and that therefore
he collected them, arranged them in parties, and set those who had food
the example of giving to those who had none, by doing so himself, with
the small portion which he had. As long as eating was going on, Christ
made the twelve go about with their baskets and give what they had to
all who wished it. The baskets were not entirely emptied, nor was any
one left hungry; otherwise the needy would have applied to the stock of
the Apostles. Jesus, pleased to have done so much with so little,
desired them to collect what there was in the different baskets into
one.
Our wise critic, the daring Paulus, finds as little difficulty in
explaining away the miracle of Christ walking on the sea. When Christ
saw that the wind was contrary, he did not wish to sustain the
inconvenience of such a voyage; but walked along the shore and resolved
to pass the disciples, as the wind was against them. From the state of
the weather they coasted slowly along, and when they saw him walking on
the land they were frightened. On their calling out, Christ desired
Peter, who was a good swimmer, to swim to the shore and ascertain that
it was he. Peter ran around to the proper side of the ship and jumped
into the sea. When he was frightened by the violence of the waves,
Christ who was standing on the shore, put out his hand and caught him.
The boat put to land and they both got in!
Such was the common method of explaining miracles. The Rationalists were
so opposed to the idea of the supernatural, that each was accounted for
in some other than the Scriptural way. Many volumes were written on this
subject alone, until the people became thoroughly imbued with the
opinion that the Scriptures are nothing more than a well-intended and
exhaustive Jewish mythology. It became a mark of superstition to credit
a miraculous event, and the few who still adhered to this pillar of the
Christian faith found themselves pitied by the learned and derided by
their equals.
PROPHECY. The adventurous men who could deal thus with miracles would
not be supposed to be more lenient to the prophecies of the Scriptures.
We, therefore, observe the same skeptical rejection of the prophets. We
have not dwelt at length upon the particular books which received their
thrusts, for this would be quite too lengthy a task for the present
volume. It is probable, however, that there is not a book of Scripture,
or even a chapter, which these men would have remain just as we find it
in the canon. "Something must be done with it," they argued, "no matter
what it is. It is older or later than we have been accustomed to think.
It was, of course, written by some one else than the accredited author."
A large share of these criticisms centered on the works of the prophets,
for it was one of the most persistent efforts of Rationalism to destroy
popular faith in them. Ammon discoursed boldly against them and
attempted to convert every prophetic expression into a natural remark.
He held that Christ himself directly renounced the power to prophesy,
Mat. xxiv. 36; Acts i. 7; and that there are no prophecies of his in the
New Testament. Prophecies are recorded in the Bible as uttered by men of
doubtful character. Many of them are obscure, and were never fulfilled.
Others were made after the events, and all were reckoned imperfect by
the Apostles. These accusations apply to all the prophecies of the Old
and New Testaments. The argument for them needs whatever excuse it can
find, in the delirium of the prophets who were transported out of their
sobriety, in the double sense in which they are quoted in the New
Testament, or in the remarkable variety of interpretation. In fact,
there is a moral objection to them, to say nothing of their historical
character. They would favor fatalism, take away human freedom, and be
irreconcilable with the Divine perfection. What Christ said concerning
the destruction of Jerusalem is not a prophecy, because not stated with
sufficient clearness. Jesus followed the style of interpretation found
in the Talmudic and Rabbinical writings, and transferred to himself many
things in the Old Testament, which really referred to future changes in
the state of the Jews. He used the Jewish ideas of a Messiah to further
his own notions of founding a spiritual kingdom. The prophecies in the
Old Testament merely give a poetical dress to affairs occurring in the
prophet's or the poet's life time.[50] Even the prophets made but little
if any claim to the great gift ascribed to them. They were good
politicians who had made a study of their subject; and, from the mere
force of natural shrewdness and long experience, could see coming
events. Paulus argued at length against Christ's prophecy of his own
resurrection. His first proof is that the apostles did not so understand
him, as is clear from the women seeking to embalm him; and from the
apostles not believing at first the story of his resurrection. Then
Christ had no notion of returning shortly. He would not have thought it
necessary to cheer his disciples as he did before his death if he could
have prophesied that in three days he should join them again. All the
promises of meeting again refer to his joining them in a future life.
Wegscheider adds that Christ, though he reproaches his disciples with
their want of faith, does not allude to their distrust of any prophecy
of his; and that the phrase _three days_ is often used of what will soon
happen. Scherer, a clergyman of Hesse-Darmstadt, represented the
prophets of the Old Testament as so many Indian jugglers, who made use
of the pretended inspiration of Moses and of the revelations of the
prophets to deceive the people. He treated those who still have any
regard for the prophecies of the New Testament as enthusiasts and
simpletons; called all the predictions respecting the person of the
Messiah, nonsense; accused the prophets of being cunning deceivers; and
said that the belief of those prophets has preserved incredulity on the
earth.
THE PERSON OF CHRIST. The historical method of interpretation was
applied by the disciples of Reason to the Gospel narratives of the
character and atonement of Christ. The various circumstances surrounding
the writers, the prejudices probably actuating them, the customs they
witnessed, and their ignorance and consequent impressibility by a
stronger mind, were all taken into the account. The Rationalists,
therefore, place Christ before us as we would naturally expect him to
appear after taking everything into consideration. They do not show him
to us as he is, but as the nature of the case would lead us to expect
him to be. There were many who charged him with unworthy motives and
national prejudices. Reimarus accused him of rebellious, ambitious, and
political views. "Afterward," says Stäudlin, "came out writings enough
in Germany in which Christ was said to have performed his miracles by
secret arts or by delusions. All proofs of the truth and divinity of his
religion were taken away. He was exhibited either as a deceiver or
self-deceiving enthusiast; and every possible objection to Christian
morality as well as to the form of Christian worship was violently
urged. Among the writers of these works were even theologians and
preachers! What could be the consequence, except that they who still
held somewhat to Christianity should set it forth as pure Rationalism,
and that others should endeavor to extinguish it, and to introduce a
pure religion of reason quite independent of Christianity and separated
from it."
An anonymous publication appeared in 1825, entitled _Vindiciæ Sacræ
Novi Testamenti Scriptuarum_, in which Christ was declared to have
deceived himself! Thereupon the Christians were obliged to elevate their
founder's mean condition by wonderful stories. The first myth is
concerning John the Baptist. Then follow the wonderful stories of
Christ's birth, the advent of the wise men, the baptism, temptation,
death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. There are doubts and
difficulties connected with the resurrection, and though the apostles
constantly assert its truth, the probable story is that the followers of
Jesus, enraged at his death, gave it out that, being taken from the
power of the wicked, he lived with God and enjoyed the reward of his
virtue. They represented the life of their master to themselves and
others in the most glowing colors, and so by degrees, said that he was
still living, raised from the dead, and rewarded. Then all these things
were told and believed, and it was not easy to contradict them or even
examine their value.
Paulus affirmed that Christ did not really die but suffered a fainting
fit. Bahrdt conjectured that he retreated after his supposed death to
some place known only to his disciples. According to Henke, Christ was a
remarkable teacher, distinguished and instructed by God. Inspiration was
what Cicero ascribes to the poets; the doctrine of the Trinity came from
Platonism; the name "Son of God" is metaphorical, and describes not the
nature but the qualities of Christ; and personality is ascribed to the
Holy Ghost through a prosopopoeia not uncommon in the New Testament.
The chief service of Christ was his doctrine. As a Divine Messenger it
was his business to bring forward new and pure religion adapted to the
wants of all mankind, and to give an example of it. His death was
necessary to prove his confidence in his own doctrines, and to present
an illustration of perfected virtue. Wegscheider took the position that
Christ was one of those characters raised up by God at various periods
of history to repress vice and encourage virtue. All notions of his
glorification, however, are groundless, and the atonement is a mere
speculation of the orthodox.
One of the most popular and direct of all the writers on the opinions of
the Rationalists was Röhr, the author of the _Briefe über den
Rationalismus_. He dwells at length upon nearly all the opinions we have
mentioned, but his portrait of Christ demands more than a passing
notice. He assumes a position, not very lofty, it is true, but yet much
more favorable than some of the authorities to which we have referred.
Christ had a great mission, and he felt that a heavy burden was upon
him. Still he was only a great genius, the blossom of his age and
generation, and unsurpassed in wisdom by any one before or after him.
His origin, culture, deeds and experience, are yet veiled, and the
accounts we have of him are so distorted by rhapsody that we cannot
reach a clear conception of him. He had a rare acquaintance with
mankind, and studied the Old Testament carefully. He possessed a large
measure of tact, imagination, judgment, wisdom, and power. His wisdom
was the product of unbiased reason, a sound heart, and freedom from
scholastic prejudices. He knew how to seize upon the best means for the
attainment of his human purposes. He embraced in his plan a universal
religion, and to this he made all things minister. All his doctrines
were borrowed from the Old Testament; and the most admirable can be
found as far back as the time of Moses. He performed no miracles; but
they seemed miracles to the eye-witnesses. He uttered no real
prophecies, but his mind was so full of the future that some of his
predictions came to pass because of the natural foresight possessed by
him. His cures are all attributable to his skill as a physician, for
every Jew of that day had some medical knowledge. His apostles
propagated Christianity because of the influence wrought upon them by
their master. Fortunately for his fame, Paul published him far and wide.
Had it not been for that apostle, Christianity would never have gone
further than Palestine. There is nothing more remarkable in the spread
of this religion than in that of Mohammedanism, which has made such
great inroads upon Arabia, Egypt, Northern Africa, and Spain. Röhr,
however, reaches the climax of skeptical praise when he says of Christ
that he was a "Rationalist of pure, clear, sound reason; free from
prejudice, of ready perceptions, great love of truth, and warm
sympathies,--an exalted picture of intellectual and moral greatness. Who
would not bow before thee?"
The Rationalists made each act of Christ the subject of extended remark.
Whenever they came to a serious difficulty they boldly attempted its
solution by a few dashes of their unscrupulous pen. We may take the
temptation in the wilderness as an example. One writer says that Christ,
after his baptism, went into the wilderness full of the conviction that
he had been called to a great work. He was hungry; and the thought came
to him whether or not he was able to change the stones into bread. Then
the conviction arose that his authority was not great enough to enchain
the affections of the people. He wondered if God would not support him
if he fell; but Reason answered, "God will not sustain you if you
disobey the laws of nature." Then, standing on the top of a mountain,
he conceived the idea of possessing the surrounding lands, and of
placing himself at the head of the people to overthrow the Roman power.
The whole affair was a mere individual conflict.
From what we have now said, the opinions of the Rationalists on all
points of Christian doctrine become apparent. The sacraments are only
symbols of an invisible truth. Baptism is merely a sign of the purity
with which a Christian ought to live. The Lord's Supper is but a
memorial of the death of Jesus, and unites us with him only morally. The
church is a human institution, whose teachings may be very distinct from
the will of God. It gives therefore only relative aid. The future
judgment is only a Rabbinical vision. Every one receives retribution for
his faults in this life; and there is no eternity save that of God, in
whom all beings are absorbed.[51]
By this barren creed all foundation for a holy life was taken away. The
people, believing such absurdities, were transported from a period which
is declared by the word of God to be blessed by the "dispensation of the
Spirit" to a cold age in which the excellence of the intellect was
measured by the ingenuity of its thrusts at the Scriptures, and in which
the highest piety was the strictest obedience to the dictates of natural
reason. The inspired advice given to the seekers of wisdom was
travestied and made to read, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of
_Reason_ that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it
shall be given him." The Christian of that day had but little to
minister to his spiritual growth. All the endeared institutions of his
church were palsied by the strong arm of the Rationalists, who had
nothing to put in their place. Their time was spent in destruction. They
would pull all things down and erect nothing positive and useful. The
doctrines which they professed to believe were mere negatives,--the
sheer denial of some thing already in existence.
FOOTNOTES:
[40] Rose, _State of Protestantism in Germany_. Notes on Ch. iv.
[41] Von Ammon: _Biblische Theologie_.
[42] Daub.
[43] Herder.
[44] Lessing: _Menschengeschlect_. Rosenmüller: _Stufenfolge der
Göttlichen Offenbarungen_.
[45] Wegscheider: _Institutiones Dogmaticæ_.
[46] Eichhorn: _Einleitung_.
[47] Paulus: _Kritische Commentar über das Neue Testament_.
[48] Kant.
[49] Wegscheider: _Institutiones Dogmaticæ_.
[50] Eichhorn: _Die Hebräischen Propheten_.
[51] Von Ammon. Quoted from his _Magazine_ in Saintes' _Histoire du
Rationalisme_.