RELATIONS OF RATIONALISM AND SUPERNATURALISM.
1810-1835.
The task imposed upon the new state church taxed its powers to their
utmost tension. Much that had been achieved was now no longer useful,
for the stand-point of parties was totally changed. The Calvinist had
written against Rationalism with one eye upon heresy and the other upon
Lutheranism. The Lutheran had betrayed more spleen toward his Reformed
brethren than toward the disciples of Semler and Ernesti. But when the
union was effected there occurred the immediate necessity of new methods
of attack upon the enemies of orthodoxy, and a steadfast cultivation of
friendly feelings between newly-formed friends. As the adherents of the
two confessions were now united, why might not their conjoined strength
be wielded for the overthrow of skepticism? What was there, then, to
prevent these great branches of the church from coming forward in
perfect unison, and dealing strong blows against the system which had
well nigh been the ruin of them both?
The devotees of reason saw their danger, for the day of the union was an
evil one for them. But they did not become so alarmed as to take to
flight and give up the contest. On the other hand, they no sooner
perceived the awakening of the German people to a sense of patriotism
and independence, than they predicted a similar disposition to return to
the old faith; and being thus convinced of their danger, they wrote very
vigorously, and attempted to be fully prepared for the onset. We
therefore behold the anomaly of a system which had almost run its race
before arriving at a formal exposition.
Rationalism never attained to the dignity of a clear and cogent
elucidation until the publication of Röhr's _Letters on Rationalism_,
and of Wegscheider's _Institutes_. It had reached the acme of its
prosperity at the beginning of the century, yet the former work was not
written until 1813, and the latter not until 1817. There was power in
both these productions. The former was bold, popular, startling, and not
without a show of learning. It was intended for the masses. The latter
was a complement of the former; more heavy, but by virtue of its weight
adapted to that class of people, everywhere abundant, who suspect either
danger or puerility in every earnest sentence. The author held that it
was the province of Protestantism to develop Christianity and Christian
theology to a pure faith of reason. Issuing his work in the year of the
Reformation jubilee, he dedicated it to the shades of Luther. But Röhr
and Wegscheider, as far as their capacity to injure Christian faith was
concerned, stood at the wrong term of the history of Rationalism. Had
they written a half century earlier their works would have been much
more injurious to the Christian Church. But the system they would now
strengthen and propagate was beginning to decay, and it was beyond their
power to save it from ruin. They built a house for an occupant who was
too old to enjoy either the fascinating symmetry of its architecture or
the gorgeous splendor of its furniture.
It was at the time of which we speak that we first find frequent use of
the terms _Rationalism_ and _Supernaturalism_. The more zealous friends
of each school marshaled themselves for the final struggle. The conflict
became hand to hand, and quick and direct blows were dealt by both
combatants. One of the foremost among the champions of the old faith was
Reinhard, who declared that there was an irrepressible difference
between reason and revelation, Rationalism and Supernaturalism; that
there was no possible point of compromise; that they had nothing in
common; and that either the one or the other must exercise authority.
Reinhard avowed himself in favor of the undivided supremacy of faith,
and would have reason subordinate. The key-note of his active life and
inspiring writings is found in his own language--words which, had he
written nothing else, are sufficient to render him memorable. "While yet
a boy," said he, "when I read the Bible I considered it the word of God
to man, and never have I ceased to hold this view; so that now it is so
holy to me and its utterances so decisive that a single sentence which
would reproach its sanctity fills me with horror, just as an immoral
sentiment would rouse my conviction of virtue."
Tittmann entered the lists with a work directed at the very heart of
Rationalism. He charged it with being unimprovable, and merely temporary
and unsatisfactory. His book, entitled _Supernaturalism, Rationalism,
and Atheism_, went still further; for it aimed to show that if the
Rationalists believe what they say, they are nothing less than atheists.
Granting their premises, the conclusion must be that there is no God,
and that if God be not the author of revelation, there is also no God
of nature.
But while this war of books was going on with great bitterness on both
sides, there arose a powerful band of mediators, who believed that no
advantage could be gained for either combatant by continuing the strife,
and that some point of union would have to be adopted before there could
be peace and prosperity. Tzschirner differed from Reinhard in his view
of the antagonism between Rationalism and Supernaturalism. He contended
that there were features of sympathy between the two systems, and that
the work of harmonizing reason and revelation was not impossible. He
therefore attempted, in the present case, what Calixtus had formerly
tried in behalf of the Calvinists and Lutherans. But the syncretism of
Tzschirner was equally difficult of accomplishment. He conceded too much
to the Rationalists: for he would unite them and their enemies on the
ground that the aim of revelation is only to found a moral and religious
institution through the personal agency of a Divine Ambassador; to
strengthen the truths of the religion of reason; and to bring them so
near to the consciences of men that the authority of reason to prove the
origin and contents of revelation cannot be doubted.
But Tzschirner's influence did not consist so much in the particular
plan he would execute as in the tendency toward union which he was the
chief agent in creating. There were numbers who, having read his works
on this subject, were loud in their demand for the union of reason and
revelation on some basis that would compromise neither the value of the
former nor the sanctity of the latter. Many books appeared whose sole
theme was the possible harmonization of these elements, which
heretofore had been deemed utterly incongruous.[55] Schott's _Letters on
Religion and the Faith of the Christian Revelation_ was directed to the
same mark, and received great attention at the hands of both parties.
According to their author, there was no opposition between the religion
of reason and revelation, for Christianity is the mere expression of the
highest reason. Both are derived from the same fountain, which is Divine
reason. Nor is there any real difference between the purpose of
Christianity and that of the religion of reason. Each one aims at the
highest good.
But it soon became very evident that the Rationalists and
Supernaturalists were unable to harmonize. The points of difference were
so decided that it was vain to expect a union. Reinhard was correct in
his opinion that one or the other would have to yield. Just at the
crisis when these two systems were attracting greatest attention,
Schleiermacher published his _System of Doctrines_, 1821. In this work
he proved what had not been conceived by any writer save himself, that
there was another road to progress. As soon as it gained a hearing the
disputants saw that their arguments were no longer of value, that the
ground of the discussion was altogether changed, and that the cause of
faith must eventually triumph. The book was a complete surprise to all
parties. It was a stroke of genius, destined alike to recast existing
theology and to create a new public sentiment for the future.
The leading ideas developed in this master-piece of theology are Christ,
Religion, and the Church. The Rationalists had ever held that reason is
the criterion of truth, but Schleiermacher elevates Christian
consciousness to the throne. They had reduced religion to a mere formal
morality; yet he shows that religion and morality are very different,
and that the former consists neither in knowledge or action, but in the
sentiment or feeling of the heart. Thus he develops the opinion first
published in the _Discourses on Religion_. He uses the term "piety" to
designate religion. This piety should become the great spring of our
life and the inspiring power of faith. There is no real inconsistency
between knowledge and piety; they can harmonize beautifully when carried
to their loftiest extent. The religious feeling, which judges truth, is
characterized by absolute dependence. This is not degrading to man, but
his true dignity consists in it. We have different conceptions of God,
derived from the feeling of dependence, which is varied according to the
nature of outward circumstances. Christ must be judged by us not so much
according to the received accounts of his life as by his great relations
to us as Redeemer and Saviour. Our view of him must be deeper than his
mere incarnation. He was concerned in creation just so far as it was not
completed until redeemed. If we would have communion with God we can
enjoy it only through the medium of Christ. The peculiar value of
redemption lies in its applicability to our necessity for salvation. The
very sinlessness of Christ can be in a measure incorporated with our
humanity, and we should aim after the mind that was in Christ. We are
never fully united with Christ until we have a perfect spirit of
dependence. When this occurs, the soul is passing into the glorious
condition of the new birth. The church is the depository of that spirit
of Christ which every believer must enjoy in order to inherit eternal
life. The church, however, is not self-existent. Like the heavenly
bodies, whose motions are constantly maintained by infinite power, the
church is ever dependent upon Christ's agency for its very life. Christ
is the spirit moving in history and controlling all things for the
greatest good. The church is in some sense an organism of which Christ
is the head. This fact is the central point of theology, for without
Christ our faith is vain.[56]
Such teaching was what the times needed. The mind required to be
directed to Christ as the only remedy for skepticism. But we must
confess that, in the midst of some of the most evangelical expositions
of divine truth, Schleiermacher gave expression to serious doubts. He
disclaimed any great authority inherent in the Old Testament in the
following style: "The Old Testament Scriptures are indebted for their
place in our Bible partly to the appeals made to them by the New
Testament Scriptures, and partly to the historic connection of Christian
worship and the Jewish synagogue, without participating, on that
account, in the normal dignity, or inspiration, of those of the New
Testament."[57] As far as the inspiration of the Old Testament is
concerned, there must be a distinction observed between the law and the
prophets. The law cannot be inspired, for the spirit that could inspire
it would be in conflict with that which God sends into the heart by
virtue of our connection with Christ. Upon the law depend all the
subsequent historical books; and both are, therefore, uninspired,
according to the standard by which we judge the New Testament. The
prominent portions of the prophetic writings proceed principally from
the material spirit of the people, which is not the Christian spirit.
It is plain that Schleiermacher's views concerning the Trinity were
defective. He despatches it thus: "The church doctrine of the Trinity
demands that we should think each of the three persons equal to the
Divine Being, and _vice versa_; and each of the three persons equal to
the others. We are unable to do either the one or the other, but can
only conceive the persons in a gradation; and in like manner the unity
of the substance either less than the persons, or the contrary." He
discourses eloquently of the Spirit; but, after all, he teaches that the
Holy Ghost is only the common spirit of the Christian church as a
corporate body striving after unity. The term "common spirit," which he
employs, he understands to be the same that is used in worldly polity;
that is, the common tendency in all, who form one moral person, toward
the welfare of the whole. This beneficial sentiment is, in each, the
peculiar love to every individual. The Holy Ghost is the union of the
Divine Being with human nature, in the form of the common spirit
animating the corporate life of the faithful. Schleiermacher did not
reject miracles altogether as historical facts, but cast doubt upon
their character by holding that, if they did occur, it was only in
conformity with a higher nature of which we know nothing. His opinion
concerning the doctrine of angels was not orthodox; for he rejected the
existence of the devil, and the supposition of the fall of angels from
heaven. Some of the most important events in connection with Christ were
discarded by him as unnecessary to saving faith, namely, the miraculous
conception, the resurrection, ascension, and return of Christ to
judgment. In his opinion sin was hurtfulness, not guilt.
It is astonishing that we find so much truth and error concentrated in
the same man. But Neander was nevertheless correct in the words in which
he announced Schleiermacher's death: "We have now lost a man from whom
will be dated henceforth a new era in the history of theology." In
reading closely some of his false positions, we soon meet with something
so deep and spiritually earnest that we are forgetful of the doubt,
being attracted by the greater glow of the living truth. As life
advanced he improved in his appreciation of doctrine, and his latest
works are hardly recognizable as written by the same hand. He published
several books, of which we have made no mention, but in all the fruits
of his pen he revealed an unfailing love of a personal Redeemer. His
sermons were the outflow of his genial nature, kindled by his stern view
of Christ's communion with his living disciples. Mr. Farrar eloquently
sums up his work, though it must be acknowledged that the present
generation stands too near the time of Schleiermacher's activity to
bestow an impartial estimate upon either the theological position of the
man or the influence resulting from him. "We have seen," says this
author, "how completely he caught the influences of his time, absorbed
them and transmitted them. If his teaching was defective in its
constructive side; if he did not attain the firm grasp of objective
verity which is implied in perfect doctrinal, not to say critical,
orthodoxy, he at least gave the death-blow to the old Rationalism, which
either from an empirical or a rational point of view, proposed to gain
such a philosophy of religion as reduced it to morality. He rekindled
spiritual apprehensions; he, above all, drew attention to the peculiar
character of Christianity, as something more than the republication of
natural religion, in the same manner that the Christian consciousness
offered something more than merely moral experience. He set forth,
however imperfectly, the idea of redemption, and the personality of the
Redeemer; and awakened religious aspirations, which led his successors
to a deeper appreciation of the truth as it is in Jesus. Much of his
theology and some part of his philosophy had only a temporary interest
relatively to the times; but his influence was perpetual. The faults
were those of his age; the excellencies were his own. Men caught his
deep love to a personal Christ without imbibing his doctrinal opinions.
His own views became more evangelical as his life went on, and the views
of his disciples more deeply Scriptural than those of their master. Thus
the light kindled by him waxed purer and purer. The mantle remained
after the prophet's spirit had ascended to the God that gave it."[58]
De Wette was, like Schleiermacher his friend and colleague at Berlin, a
man in whom can be seen all the marks of a transition-character. There
are two sides to his theological views, one bearing upon the old
Rationalism and in sympathy with it, the other directly tending to
revive faith and religion. Even before Schleiermacher became generally
known, De Wette had openly declared that religion can be based upon
feeling alone, and that a personal Saviour is the necessary centre of
Christian faith. The entire theology of De Wette was the outgrowth of
the cold, critical philosophy of Kant and the more earnest and living
system of Fries. He was, therefore, a two-fold personage, and it is not
an easy task to harmonize his theories. One set of his opinions was
based upon truth, the other on beauty. Religion has two elements, faith
and feeling; doctrines and æsthetics. Religion may exist æsthetically,
but it can only become vital in the feeling, or self-consciousness.
Religious feeling embraces three shades: enthusiasm or inspiration,
resignation, and devotion. Every history is, in a certain sense,
symbolical. It is the mere reflection or copy of the human mind in its
activity. So are the appearance of Christ, his life, and death, in some
degree symbolical. In this symbolism consists the character of the
Christian revelation. Here have appeared the eternal ideas of reason in
their greatest purity and fullness; and Rationalism is nothing more than
a philosophical view of the Christian revelation of faith, or the
knowledge of the relations in which idea and symbol stand to each other
in Christianity. Therefore, we must judge the miraculous accounts of the
evangelists as symbols of the ideas existing in the early history of
Christianity.
De Wette reflects somewhat on the moral character of John, perhaps
without intention, when he supposes him to have written late in life--a
time when his faith would naturally predominate over his love of facts.
Strauss couples De Wette with Vater, as having placed upon a solid
foundation the mythical explication of the history of the Bible.[59]
According to De Wette, the narrator may intend to write history, but he
obviously does it in a poetic way. The first three evangelists betray a
legendary and even a mythical character. This explains the discrepancies
in their histories, and also in the discourses and doctrines of Jesus.
The miracle that took place at the baptism of Christ was a pure myth;
and the resurrection and reappearance of Christ have their existence
more in the mind than in history. With this view of the New Testament,
it is not surprising that the Old should receive even more rigorous
usage. The larger part of the Pentateuch was supposed to be taken from
two old documents, the Elohistic and Jehovistic, and was compiled
somewhere near the close of the legal period. The five books, purporting
to have been written by Moses, are the Hebrew epic, and contain no more
truth than the great epic of the Greeks. As the Iliad and Odyssey are
the production of the rhapsodists, so is the Pentateuch, with the
exception of the Decalogue, the continuous and anonymous work of the
priesthood. Abraham and Isaac are equally fabulous with Ulysses and
Agamemnon. A Canaanitish Homer could have invented nothing better than
the journeys of Jacob and the marriage of Rebecca. The departure from
Egypt, the forty years in the wilderness, the seventy elders at the head
of the tribes, and the complaints of Aaron are each an independent myth.
The character of myths is varied in different books; poetic in Genesis,
juridical in Exodus, priestly in Leviticus, political in Numbers,
etymological, diplomatical, and genealogical, but seldom historical, in
Deuteronomy.
De Wette's theological novel, _Theodore, or the Doubter's Consecration_,
1822, was designed to banish the doubts of the skeptic by seeking refuge
in the theology of feeling. Tholuck replied to it in his _Guido and
Julius_, in which he proves that a deep appreciation and acceptance of
Christ by the soul is the only remedy for infidelity. "We perceive in De
Wette a continual conflict between the longings of his heart and the
theological creed to which he attached himself. The lines written by
him just before his death touchingly declare the great failure of his
life:
"I lived in times of doubt and strife,
When child-like faith was forced to yield:
I struggled to the end of life,
Alas! I did not gain the field."
With the name of the lamented Neander we hail the morning light of
reviving faith. He was one of the purest characters in the history of
the modern church. His influence was so great as to lead very many of
the young men of Germany to embrace the vital doctrines of Christianity.
His father was a Jewish peddler, Emanuel Mendel, and the boy was named
David at circumcision. Various forces co-operated in directing his mind
toward the Christian religion; of which we might mention the philosophy
of Plato, the Romantic School, and above all, Schleiermacher's
_Discourses on Religion_. When seventeen years of age he was baptized
and received the combined name of his sponsors, John Augustus William
Neander. In 1810 he began to lecture in the University of Heidelberg,
and in 1813, owing to the publication of his _Julian the Apostate_, he
received a call to Berlin. He was there brought into the society of
Schleiermacher, Marheineke, De Wette, Fichte, Hegel, Ritter, Ranke and
other celebrated men. It was very significant of the new life now
beginning to be felt, that his lectures were numerously attended. Even
Schleiermacher, his co-laborer for twenty years in the theological
faculty, had a limited circle of auditors compared with the throngs who
went to hear Neander.
His theological views were more positive and evangelical than those
entertained by any of his associates. He shared, with the most orthodox
of them, the opinion that religion is based upon feeling. The Christian
consciousness was the sum of his theology. "By this term," said he, "is
designated the power of the Christian faith in the subjective life of
the single individual, in the congregation, and in the church generally;
a power independent and ruling according to its own law,--that which,
according to the word of our Lord, must first form the leaven of every
other historical development of mankind." Neander was not a man of very
strong prejudices; yet his disapprobation of the destructive nature of
Rationalism was very decided. The reduction of religion to
intellectualism received severe rebukes at his hand on more than one
occasion. "I shall never cease," he declared, "to protest against the
one-sided intellectualism, that fanaticism of the understanding, which
is spreading more and more, and which threatens to change man into an
intelligent, over-wise beast. But at the same time I must protest
against that tendency which would put a stop to the process of
development of theology; which, in impatient haste, would anticipate its
aim and goal, although with an enthusiasm for that which is raised above
the change of the days,--an enthusiasm which commands all respect, and
in which the hackneyed newspaper categories of Progress and
Retrogression are out of the question."
Neander's motto, "Pectus est, quod theologum facit," unfolds his whole
theological system and life-career. The Germans call his creed
"Pectoralism," in view of the inner basis of his faith. With him,
religion amounts to nothing without Christ. Nor must Christ be the mere
subject of study; the soul and its manifold affections must embrace him.
The barrenness of Judaism is done away in him, and the emptiness of
Rationalistic criticism is successfully met by the fullness found in
Christianity. Sin is not merely hurtful and prejudicial, but it induces
guilt and danger. It can be pardoned only through the death and
mediation of Christ. The illustrations of devout service to be found in
the history of the church should serve as examples for succeeding times.
Neander spent much of the careful labor of his life in portraying
prominent characters; for it was his opinion that individuals sometimes
combine the features of their times, the virtues or the vices prevalent;
and that if these individualities be clearly defined the church is
furnished with valuable lessons for centuries. The work published when
but twenty-two years of age, _Julian the Apostate_, was the beginning of
a series of similar monographs designed to show the importance of the
individual in history, and to point out great crises in the religious
life of man. He subsequently produced works entitled _St. Bernard_,
_Gnosticism_, _St. Chrysostom_, _Tertullian_, _History of the Apostolic
Age_, _Life of Christ_, and _Memorials of Christian Life_. To these may
be added a few practical commentaries, essays, and a _History of
Doctrines_.
But the great achievement of Neander was his _General History of the
Christian Religion and Church_, embracing the period from the close of
the apostolic age to the Council of Basle in 1430. Christianity is, in
his conception, not simply a growth or development of man; it is a new
power, a creation of God, a divine gift to the world. Therefore the
history of the Church of Christ is the clear exhibition of the divine
strength of Christianity; it is a school of Christian experience, a
voice of warning and instruction for all who will hear it as it echoes
down through the grand march of centuries.[60] The history of the
church, far from being the scholar's theme alone, furnishes nutritious
food for the practical life of all the disciples of the Lord. If its
history be permitted to exert its due influence upon the world, we shall
behold a gratifying and widespread improvement in all things that
increase happiness and lead heavenward.
It is quite too late to answer the charge against Neander's profundity.
His achievements are his best defense, and the pen of censure is fast
beginning to lose its bitterness. It is not time for him to be fully
appreciated at home; for, as the beauty of the landscape is dependent on
the sun to make it apparent, so Neander's character and labors must wait
for an honorable and universal recognition until new evangelical light
shall have overspread the land. A century hence he will be loved as
dearly by the German people as he was by those weeping students who
gathered around his grave to see his face for the last time. What
Krummacher said on the occasion of his burial will yet be the testimony
of the church, whose history was Neander's earthly Eden: "One of the
noblest of the noble in the Kingdom of God, a prince in Zion, the
youngest of the church Fathers, has departed from us."
Neander's relation to his times was most important. The various
influences hitherto employed against Rationalism had proceeded as far
toward its extinction as it was possible for them to go. Philosophy and
doctrinal theology had spent their efforts. The history of the church
having always been treated mechanically, it was now necessary that the
continued presence and agency of Christ with his people should be
carefully portrayed. The progress of his church needed to be represented
as more than growth from natural causes, such as the force of
civilization and education. It was necessary to show that a high
superintending Wisdom is directing its path, overcoming its
difficulties, and leading it through persecution and blood to ultimate
triumph. Neander rendered this important service. He directed the vision
of the theologian to a new field, and became the father of the best
church historians of the nineteenth century. The child-like simplicity
of his character was beautiful. Everything like vanity and pretense was
as foreign to him as if he dwelt on a different planet. A recent German
writer calls him a "Protestant monk or saint, whose world was the
cloister of the inner man, out of which he worked and taught for the
good of the church."
Of his remarkable personal appearance, Dr. Schaff, who enjoyed his
friendship, says: "In his outward appearance Neander was a real
curiosity, especially in the lecture-room. Think of a man of middle
size, slender frame, homely but interesting and benevolent face, dark
and strongly Jewish complexion, deep-seated, sparkling eyes,
overshadowed by an unusually strong, bushy pair of eyebrows, black hair
flowing in uncombed profusion over the forehead, an old-fashioned coat,
a white cravat carelessly tied, as often behind or on one side of the
neck as in front, a shabby hat set aslant, jack-boots reaching above the
knee; think of him thus either as sitting at home, surrounded by books
on the shelves, on the table, on the few chairs, and all over the floor;
or as walking _unter den Linden_, and in the Thiergarten of Berlin,
leaning on the arm of his sister Hannchen, or a faithful student, his
eyes shut or looking up to heaven, talking theology in the midst of the
noise and fashion of the city, and presenting altogether a most singular
contrast to the teeming life around him, stared at, smiled at, wondered
at, yet respectfully greeted by all who knew him; or as finally standing
on the rostrum, playing with a goose-quill which his amanuensis had
always to provide; constantly crossing and recrossing his feet, bent
forward, frequently sinking his head to discharge a morbid flow of
spittle, and then again suddenly throwing it on high, especially when
aroused to polemic zeal against pantheism and dead formalism; at times
fairly threatening to overturn the desk, and yet all the while pouring
forth with the greatest earnestness and enthusiasm, without any other
help than that of some illegible notes, an uninterrupted flow of
learning and thought from the deep and pure fountain of the inner life;
and thus with all the oddity of the outside, at once commanding the
veneration and confidence of every hearer; imagine all this, and you
have a picture of Neander, the most original phenomenon in the literary
world of this nineteenth century."[61]
FOOTNOTES:
[55] Baur, _Kirchengeschichte d. 19 Jahrhunderts_, pp. 180-181.
[56] For summaries of Schleiermacher's views, see Herzog,
_Encyclopædie_; Baur, _Kirchengeschichte, des 19 Jahrhunderts_; Vaughan,
_Essays and Remains_; Gieseler, _Kirchengeschichte_, vol. vi.; Kurtz,
_Church History_, vol. ii.; Saintes, _Histoire du Rationalisme_; Farrar,
_History of Free Thought_; and Auberlen, _Göttliche Offenbarung_, vol.
i.
[57] _Die Glaubenslehre._
[58] _Critical History of Free Thought_, p. 249.
[59] _Life of Jesus--Introduction._
[60] _History of the Christian Religion and Church._ _Preface to First
Edition._
[61] _Germany--Its Universities, Theology, and Religion_, pp. 269-270.