HOLLAND CONTINUED: THE NEW THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS, AND THE GREAT
CONTROVERSY NOW PENDING BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND RATIONALISM.
The commencement of the new era in the religion and politics of Europe
was the restoration of peace after the battle of Waterloo. Wherever the
French bayonet had won territory to the sceptre of Napoleon, it opened a
new and unobstructed sway for the propagation of the skepticism taught
by the followers of Voltaire. But the same blow that repulsed the armies
of France produced an equally disastrous effect upon her infidelity. A
sincere desire began to animate many persons living in the subjugated
countries that, with the restoration of their nationality, there should
also be the return of the pure faith of their fathers.
Holland had passed through nineteen years of humiliating subjugation,
and she did not possess religious vitality enough to take full advantage
of the rare opportunity presented by the peace of 1814. The people
turned from France to Germany, and thought they found relief in the
Rationalism of Semler and Paulus.
Orthodoxy was inactive. The Mennonites had become so mystical that they
rather aided than arrested the incoming error. All the Socinian elements
gained strength. The discipline of the church was exercised with such
laxity that immorality was unrebuked. The Constitution of 1816, by its
reunion of church and state, threw a great weight in the balance with
Rationalism. William of Orange wielded a power over the church which he
dared not exercise upon any other corporation. The Synods and Classes
were driven back to forms, and allowed almost no freedom. Then came the
notorious Pastoral Declaration, established by the Synod of the Hague in
1816, which no longer required of candidates for the ministry an
unqualified subscription to the ancient Confessions. Their adherence to
them was to be "in so far as" these formularies of faith agree with the
word of God, not "because" they thus agree. That little
change--_quatenus_ substituted for _quia_--cast off all restrictions
from the future preaching of the Dutch clergy. The orthodox preachers
became very indignant at the official measure, and a bitter theological
controversy arose.
Previous to this outbreak, a rupture had occurred upon the introduction
of the new hymns, ordered by the Synod of North Holland in 1796. When
presented for approval in 1807, they were violently rejected by the
orthodox, who held that the version of Psalms which they had been
singing many years was all that was needed. Besides, there was a
perceptible Rationalism in many of the new hymns. They were foreign to
the Dutch heart. Such a one as
"Yonder will I praise the Friend,
Who here has shown me truth,"
was not likely to elicit a response from those who desired an improved
religious spirit. To fill up the cup of their misfortunes, the use of
the hymns was made obligatory. But they hoped that when the Prince of
Orange came back, he would restore the venerated Psalms. Yet on his
return he not only issued an official recognition of the new Hymn-Book,
but expressed his warm approval of it. The congregation had no choice
left but to refuse to sing altogether, or to use but one and the same
hymn from one Sabbath to another.
THE REVIVAL AND THE SECESSION. There was an under-current of deep
religious feeling among the masses which was unsupported by theological
education. The lectures in the universities were similar to those
delivered by the old school of German Supernaturalists. The prevalent
orthodoxy was moderate and equivocal at best. Not much hope of awakening
could be derived from it. The Bible was held to be the supreme
authority; the historical character of its accounts was confessed; and
the infallibility of its communications was maintained. Miracles, and
prophetical and apostolical inspiration were accepted. But there was a
neglect of the nature of this authority, together with a manifest
indifference to the paramount value of all the great doctrinal
possessions of the church. There was no scientific defense of the
pillars of faith, and no attempt to discuss the true ground of miracles,
and their inherent accordance with divine laws. Christian philosophy was
totally ignored. Such natural theology as had been produced by the
school of Leibnitz and Wolf, and more recently improved by the moral
arguments of Kant, was the chief object of study, and had been made
obligatory since the restoration of the Dutch universities in 1816.
There was a general compromise between revelation and the old
philosophy.[92] Supernaturalism was stagnant, and gave no promise of
future progress.
While the church of Holland was in this deplorable condition, God raised
up a few men to be the instruments of new life. They were endowed with
great talents, moral heroism, and a steady purpose to elevate every
department of ecclesiastical organization. The Holy Spirit accompanied
their labors. The leaders of the group were Bilderdyk, Da Costa, Dr.
Capadose, and subsequently Groen Van Prinsterer.
The first stood at the head of the modern school of Dutch poetry, and
was one of the greatest poets ever produced by Holland. His conceptions
were vivid, his style impassioned, his diction unequaled by any of his
predecessors, and his moral life irreproachable. Having a conservative
mind, he opposed each indication of revolution with every weapon at
command. He was profoundly learned in the classics, history, and
jurisprudence. Apart from all his efforts for the religious awakening of
the people, he was the representative of the old Holland nationality. An
ardent despiser of the French spirit, imparted by the fatal principles
of 1789, he was equally opposed to the Rationalism of Germany. He
believed that if new life were kindled in the Dutch heart, it could not
be derived from without, but by a return to the pure teachings of the
fathers of the Reformation in Holland.
Da Costa and Dr. Capadose were Jews. The former looked upon the
condition of the country from the Israelitish standpoint developed in
his _Israel and the Nations_. He believed in the millennium, and saw in
it the divine cheerfulness of history, and the relief from surrounding
evils. He is well described by one of his countrymen as "the Israelite
who raised himself above the church of the Gentiles; the Israelite who
testifies against this church; the Israelite who announces the glory of
this church." He was a popular and spirited poet, excelling even his
friend Bilderdyk in the lyrical character of his verses. He hated
Rationalism in every form, and resisted whatever would interpose any
authority between the conscience of man and the word of God. His
Israelitish view made him reject the secondary authority of the
confessions of faith, and did not permit him to attribute anything more
than a relative value to the church of the Gentiles, "the church before
the millennium."
Groen Van Prinsterer appeared at a time when the revival had taken
definite shape, but he attached himself to its interests and contributed
more than any one else to its development. He is one of those decided
characters who are mentioned by friends and enemies with great
animation. Studiously rejecting the individuality taught him by the
school of Vinet, and reticent of his personal opinions, he has incurred
the animadversions of some of his warmest admirers. Being a man of
continual literary and political activity, he has taken part in all the
important movements of his times. He is the Guizot of Holland. Though
banished for a time from his seat in the States General by the
Catholics, Revolutionists, and Rationalists, he did not intermit his
labors to lead back the masses to evangelical piety. His powerful
influence has been in favor of home missions and similar agencies. He
has comprehended the revival, in all its scope, more clearly than any
one else. He says of it that "it was neither Calvinistic, nor Lutheran,
nor Mennonite, but Christian. It did not raise for its standard the
orthodoxy of Dort, but the flag of the Reformation, the word of God. And
though it found the doctrine of salvation admirably expressed in our
symbolical books, appreciated a rule of education so conformable to the
Holy Scriptures, and opposed the doctrines of the church and the duty of
her ministers to the usurpations of Rationalism, it never thought of
accepting and imposing the absurd and literal yoke of formularies with
an absurd and puerile anxiety. A spirit of Christian fraternity
predominated over the old desires."
The direct associated result of the revival was the Reunion of Christian
Friends. It was presided over by Groen Van Prinsterer, and held
semi-annual sessions in Amsterdam from 1845 to 1854. Its monthly
journal, _The Union, or Christian Voices_, was conducted by Pastor
Heldring, a warm-hearted man who has made himself illustrious in the
annals of beneficence by his labors for home missions, by his foundation
of an asylum for little neglected girls, and by similar charitable
works.
Other pastoral associations sprang up in consequence of the new life,
but some of them failed in a few years because of the want of a common
symbol of faith. Groen Van Prinsterer hailed with joy every indication
of Christian unity. He hoped that by this unity the church might be
built up in its holy faith. From 1850 to 1855 he edited _The
Netherlander_, a political and ecclesiastical review. It was in this
periodical that he eulogized the revivals of other countries, and ranked
the leaders of them among the greatest ornaments of history. The labors
of the French and Swiss theologians, MM. Bost, Malan, Merle d'Aubigné,
Gaussen, Grandpierre, and Monod find in him a most appreciative
admirer.[93]
The movement inaugurated by Bilderdyk, Da Costa, and Capadose led to an
important secession from the Church of Holland. There were men who saw
the necessity of revival on a large scale, but in their zeal for
Confessionalism, they went far ahead of their leaders. Their cry was,
"Let us leave Babel, and build up a new Church." De Cock and Scholte
were the first to sound the note of secession. They were joined by such
men as Brummelkamp, Van Reeh, Gezelle, and Van Velsen. This party
rallied around the old Calvinistic symbols, and De Cock stood in their
van. As early as 1829, when he became preacher in the little village of
Ulrum, he distinguished himself for his zealous ministry. People came
from a distance of eighteen miles to hear his sermons. He soon
indoctrinated them so thoroughly that they would no longer permit their
children to be baptized by "unbelievers." This brought him immediately
into conflict with the rules of the Church. Two pamphlets appeared
against him, which he answered in his _Defense of the True Reformed
Doctrine, and of the True Reformed; or, the Sheepcot of Christ attacked
by two Wolves_. Another pamphlet appeared with his approval, in which
the new hymns were called "_Siren's Songs_." The result was that he was
suspended, and in 1835 excommunicated. In the same year he published his
curious book, entitled "The so-called Evangelical Hymns, the Eyeball of
the misguided and deceived Multitude in the Synodical-Reformed Church:
Yes, of some Children of God, in their blindness, and while they have
become drunk by the wine of their whoredom, tested, weighed, and found
wanting: Yes, opposed to all our forms and doctrines, and the word of
God; by H. De Cock, under the Cross because of Christ."
The expulsion of De Cock attracted many new friends to his standard. At
the close of 1834 a Separation Act was devised at Ulrum, by which all
his adherents dissolved connection with the Church. They were said to
number eighty thousand, but it is probable that the estimate was an
exaggeration. By request of the Synod, the Separatists were prosecuted
by the government, who used as a pretext an article in the _Code
Napoléon_, which forbade the assembly of more than twenty persons for
worship without the consent of the civil authorities. They were defended
by many lawyers of the school of Bilderdyk. Foremost of the number was
Groen Van Prinsterer, "the conscience of the Legislative Assembly, the
right arm of religion in the State, and the defender of the principle of
religion in the school." They were assailed by mobs who called them the
"New Lights."
The schism was not a success. What promised to be a great and honorable
Church, like the Free Church of Scotland, with which it now stands
connected, carried with it much of the prejudice and bigotry of the
land. It did not identify itself with scientific progress, and paid
little regard to education. Any man of piety and utterance could become
a preacher in one of its pulpits. It has at present a Seminary at
Kampen, with a small faculty of three professors. Its course of study
will compare favorably with that of any institution in the United
States. The young men of talent, who now grow up in its fold, are
prejudiced against its ultraism, and stand ready at any moment to unite
with some new movement which will combine the piety of their fathers and
the scientific demands of the present day. The radical defects of its
initial steps were narrow-mindedness and fanaticism. The Separatists
utterly ignored the elements of good in the mother-church. They could
have done infinitely better service by casting all their influence with
Bilderdyk and his followers in the Church, instead of arraying
themselves against it, and becoming an enemy from without. Some of the
leaders have organized colonies, which greatly weakened the power and
prestige of those who remained at home. The emigrants came to America
and settled, for the most part, in the Western States.
THE GRONINGEN SCHOOL. Each of the two tendencies prevalent in the Church
of Holland had its decided defects. While one was zealous for
theological training, it was nevertheless cold, indifferent and
Rationalistic. While the other was burning with religious fervor and a
practical evangelism, it was deficient in culture, scientific grasp, and
a capacity to meet the wants of the time. There was a call for a third
party, which would unite the best features of the two others, and
develop them into a new progressive power. Hence arose the Groningen
School. Its immediate origin was the attempt of Professor Van Heusde to
modernize Platonism and adapt it to the nineteenth century. Hofstede de
Groot, Pareau, and Muurling have been its leaders. Its organ is the
periodical entitled, _Truth in Love_.
The characteristic of this school is, that there is in human nature a
divine element which needs development in order to enable humanity to
reach its destination. This destination is conformity to God. All
religions have aimed and worked at the same problem, but Christianity
has solved it in the highest and purest manner. Still, there is only a
difference in degree between that and other religions. This is the germ
of what the Groningens call the "Evangelical Catholic Theology."
Conformity to God, they say, has been reached in Jesus Christ; but
Plato, Zoroaster, and Confucius strove to attain to it. They failed
because their task was too great for the means at command. God has
fulfilled the desire of man, whom he had prepared for salvation by
sending perfection embodied in Christ. We may not attach ourselves to
any system or effort as absolutely true or good, nor condemn any as
utterly false. All knowledge and arts are related to religion. They
refine man and aid him in his emancipation from whatever is sinful and
sensual.
The correspondence of ideas between Hofstede de Groot and Pareau was so
intimate that they published a joint work on dogmatic theology, which
contains a complete exposition of the principles of the Groningen
School. Jesus Christ constitutes the centre of religion. In him we see
what is God, what is man, the relations of one to the other, and how we
can be so delivered from sin and its power as to become God's children
by faith and love. In Christ's death we find love even for sinners, and
learn that suffering is not an evil. In his glorification we perceive
the aims and results of suffering. In him is the Theanthropos, not God
_and_ man, but God _in_ man. There is but one nature in Christ, the
divine-human. Jesus being the focal point of the interests of man, we
must know, _first_, what he is outside of us, objectively; _second_, how
he appears within us, subjectively. To know Christ we need the
exegetical study of that preparation of man for Christ, which is
furnished by the Old Testament. The New Testament is the fulfillment.
The latter contains the sayings of Jesus and the conclusions of the
Apostles. The writers of the Scriptures were not infallible, though they
did not often err. Revelation is continued in the history of the church,
which is the third principle of development. Augustine stood higher and
went further than Paul, Luther than Augustine. If our development be
partial and imperfect we must go back and begin anew.
The Groningen School is distinguished for its ethical system. How does
Christ live in us? This is the question it proposes to answer. There is
a distinction between the nature of man, which is divine, and his
condition, which is sinful. Sin is the point where man, misusing his
liberty, surrenders himself to his sensuous nature, which is not sinful
in itself. God educates man by Jesus Christ in three ways; _first_, by
revelation of truth; _second_, by manifestation of love; _third_, by
education of the church. The high aim of the Church is to lead man to a
consciousness of the unity of his origin and destiny, and to bring all
to a knowledge and love of Christ, and of God in Christ. Christ was
educated before his life on earth for the work designed for him, and he
established the church by leaving his glory and leading a life full of
love and truth. His death was the highest manifestation of his love and
truth, for by it he showed God to man, and man to himself. His
resurrection makes our hope of eternal life a certainty.
In the Groningen system there is no place for the doctrine of the
Trinity. The influence of the sacraments is merely external, while
Calvinism and the "blood-theology," are subjects of abhorrence. It would
be unjust to place the Groningens beside the German Rationalists, though
the influence of both has been similar. The former class, like the
latter, have one fatal defect; they consider sin a mere inconvenience.
They hold that man needs a Teacher but not a Redeemer, since all sinners
will be eventually holy and happy. The Groningen tendency, as related to
Dutch theology, is similar to that applied by Channing to the orthodoxy
of the American church. Human nature is declared worthy of our attention
and development. True humanity is pure piety. God can be found
everywhere, even in the heart of man. The philosophical theology of
Schleiermacher has stamped the Groningen system with its own signet.
They both proceed from the same starting-point,--not reason, but the
heart. Theirs is the religion of feeling.
The Groningens have done important service to the Dutch church. Their
elevation of ethics to a proper position in theological instruction has
been a national boon, while their unwavering zeal for the education of
the masses and of children will always remain a monument to their honor.
While they were the first to establish Sunday Schools in Holland, they
have given a new impulse to missions. They defend religion against
skepticism, and picture the latter in all its deformity.
But the Groningen system has almost totally failed of its object. It did
not unite the zeal of the fathers with the science of the present day.
Though opposed to Rationalism, it is more negative than positive, and is
less distinguished for its doctrines than for its absence of them. It
claims that the Church neither possesses nor needs doctrines. Therefore,
it destroys the line of demarcation between the various confessions and
that confessional Latitudinarianism, which is the direct offspring of
the destructive principles of the Rationalism and Liberalism of the
eighteenth century.
THE SCHOOL OF LEYDEN. In no theological system had any satisfaction been
afforded to the joint feeling of attachment to the old confessions and
of a desire to develop them in conformity with the requirements of the
age. Many rejected the Groningen school because it depreciated the
formularies of the church, and did not know how to value their scope or
to elaborate them for immediate usefulness. The Leyden school filled the
vacancy. Taking its origin in a disposition to establish a connection
between the faith of the Reformers and our own, its aim has been to
unite the old traditions with the new opinions.
The father and expounder of the School of Leyden is Professor Scholten,
formerly of Franeker, but now of Leyden. He is well known as the author
of historico-critical introductions, and of a _History of Philosophy_,
but his reputation has been acquired mainly by his _Doctrines of the
Reformed Church_, a work of great clearness, profound erudition, and
romantic interest. As the reader peruses its fascinating pages he is
bound by a spell which he cannot easily break. The remark of Dugald
Stewart, on reading Edwards _On the Will_, occurs to him with peculiar
appositeness, "There is a fallacy somewhere, but the devil only can find
it."
There is, according to Scholten, a distinction between the principles
and dogmas of a Church. The former are the norm and touch-stone of the
latter. The Reformers were not always logical in their reasonings, and
have left an unfinished task for the present day. Man arrives at a
knowledge of the truth by the Holy Scriptures, but they must not be
understood as containing the only revelation from God; He also reveals
himself to the world through the hearts of all believers. The Bible is
the source of the original religion. There is a difference between the
Scriptures and the word of God. The latter is what God reveals in the
human spirit concerning his will and himself. The writing down of the
communication is purely human; therefore, the Bible cannot be called a
revelation. We know, by the testimony of the Spirit, that God's word in
the Scriptures is truth. But Scriptural authority must not be
accepted,--a liberty which would apply to a Jewish but not to a
Christian age. Jesus and the apostles did not compel men to accept truth
by a proclamation of authority, but by an irresistible moral power. Even
in times when the liberty and individuality of faith have been lost in
the Church, there were men who did not answer the question, "Why do you
believe?" by saying, "Because the Church has spoken;" but by appealing
to their interior consciousness.
Historical criticism must be called in, Scholten further holds, to prove
the certainty of the facts of revelation. But the truth of the Christian
religion cannot be established on this plan. With Rousseau, Lessing, and
others, he opposes any attempt to make the best historical grounds the
basis of a religious conviction. The truth of Scripture is testified by
human nature itself, which, educated by Christianity, recognizes freely
and personally the truth of the gospel. The natural faculty that
performs this high office is reason, not feeling. Scripture is the
touchstone of the Christianity of a conviction, but not of its truth.
The Reformers very properly distinguished between a first and secondary
authority, and allowed themselves complete liberty in their search after
the origin of the books of Scripture. This was not a dangerous
experiment, for he who has once come to know Christianity as the highest
form of religion, can never fall into a negative criticism. If the
religious contents of the Bible find their justification in the interior
consciousness of man, then the question arises, "Can human reason attain
to the supersensual, or is it limited to the sensuous experience?" The
organ of all natural knowledge of God is reason; while its fountain is
the physical, intellectual, and moral world. The first Adam did not
possess that knowledge of God which was thoroughly enjoyed by the
second. But can man attain to the knowledge of God while in a sinful
condition, and while the light of his reason is darkened? Assuredly he
may, for sin does not belong to the essence, but to the condition of
man. The Reformed theologians built on the acknowledgment that Religion
has her seat in the being of man, and sees in the Christian the
expression of the reasonable religion. The material principle of the
Reformed church is the doctrine of God's sovereignty and free grace. The
weakness of the Reformation lay in its inconsistency, for it substituted
the authority of the letter for that of the Church.
Scholten's abhorrence of authority has led him to a denial of miracles.
From this point of view he can freely join hands with the Rationalists.
In his latest work, the _Gospel of John_, he takes occasion to retract
the favorable opinions formerly expressed concerning that portion of the
New Testament. He has been fearlessly assailed by Oosterzee, La
Saussaye, Da Costa, and other leading theologians. Unfortunately, he
exerts more influence over the young theologians of Holland than any
other Dutch theologian. He is ardently supported by Knenen, the exegete,
his colleague at Leyden; and by Rauenhoff, the ecclesiastical historian.
We close our estimate of Scholten with a word on his opinions of
Christianity in general. It is neither superhuman nor supernatural. It
is the highest point of the development of human nature itself, and, in
this sense, it is natural and human in the highest acceptation of those
terms. It is the mission of science to put man in a condition to
comprehend the divine volume presented by Christianity.[94]
THE SCHOOL OF EMPIRICAL-MODERN THEOLOGY. The two leading representatives
of this important branch of contemporary Dutch theology are Opzoomer and
Pierson. The former, a professor in the University of Utrecht, left the
sphere of theological instruction for a time, and took a prominent part
in political debates in order to combat the claims of the
anti-revolutionary party. He exerted little influence during the first
years of his professorship in Utrecht, but since his publication of a
manual of logic, _The Road of Science_, he has had a large share in
founding the school with which he is now identified. In this work he
maintains that observation is the only means of arriving at certainty,
and that everything which cannot be proved by experience is uncertain,
and has no right within the domain of science. This is the central
thought of his whole system.
Pierson stands related to Opzoomer as Mansel does to Sir William
Hamilton. The son of religious parents, he was at first rigidly
orthodox. He is now pastor of the Walloon Church at Rotterdam. His early
writings were touchingly beautiful and attractive, for it was in them
that he laid open his inner life. But in his later works he assumes the
air of the censor and scoffer. He was long the personal friend of La
Saussaye, but, owing to doctrinal differences, they have parted and now
pursue different paths. He is an orator of the American type. His
opinions are elaborated in his two works, _The Origin of the Modern
Tendency_, and the _Tendency and Life._ In the latter treatise we learn
not merely the personal views of Pierson, but the creed advocated by all
the adherents of the empirical-modern theology.
The New Theology, he holds, has an indisputable right to assume the
epithet "modern," in distinction from "liberal." The latter term is
borne by the Groningen school, which always opposes the church-creed.
The principle of reform has not been fully carried out by the
Protestants. The Protestant builds his faith on the Bible, but on what
does he build his faith in the Bible? Is it not the testimony of the
Holy Spirit? He has this support only through the Bible. Certain liberal
theologians, like the orthodox, are extremely illogical in their
conclusions concerning the word of God. The former will not accept of
verbal inspiration, yet they call the Bible a divine book, which,
fortunately, could be no better. Though they laugh at the story of Jonah
and the whale, they accept every word of Christ, who quotes the story.
They will not hear of present miraculous interpositions of providence,
but accept some of the miracles of the Bible. There are Catholic priests
who are affability itself, while there are orthodox Protestants
possessed of ultra views. In contrast with all these classes stand the
heroes of the _Modern Theology_, who possess the "passion for reality,"
and are endowed with the new cosmology of Galileo.
All true knowledge, argues Pierson, is self-knowledge. Reality comes to
us in the impressions we receive of it. I see, I hear; and whether there
is a reality outside corresponding to the impression, is a question
never asked by a reasonable man. One who has a fever on a July day
complains of cold. The bystanders deny his right to say it is cold. Now
do they obtain their right from a comparison of their impressions with
something objective? No. His knowledge is subjective in this sense; that
it arises from sources which are in him alone, while theirs is
objective, because they compare their impressions. Error is not in the
impression but in the explanation. Man has more than sensual
impressions. We have a faculty which brings us into contact with a
spiritual world. The religious man is by necessity an anthropomorphist.
He claims a personal God, a Father, a Redeemer, an Ideal. We need a
sharp analysis to see the reflections of the contents of our religious
feeling. Our mind seeks a conception of God, the basis of which must be
the idea of the Absolute, Infinite Being. The Scriptures must be
criticised by our reason. The first three gospels, which tell us what
Christ said and did, are not authority for us. Their writers are
unknown, in the main, and by no means original. But exact criticism may
succeed in giving us a portrait of the Prophet of Galilee. He lived a
life according to the spirit, and proclaimed a religion such as no one
before or after him has been able to do. Is it not enough that he has
glorified humanity, and made himself adored as king of humanity, even
with a crown of thorns upon his brow? The hearts of men have been
disclosed to him, and he has caused to well up therefrom streams of
love, which none can turn aside. Is his name not glorious when we think
that the penitence of a Magdalene, and the sorrow of a Peter, are
flowers which have permanently sprung up from earth only after that
earth had been drenched by his blood and tears? But the Church has made
a mythological character of Christ. It has contemned the real Jesus who
stood in opposition to authority and tradition. In his name the Church
has enthroned and glorified this authority. It was not from a system
but from a principle that he expected the regeneration of man. We have a
safe revelation in the world about us. It is God's work in and around
ourselves. Explore it; study yourself and man; but do it with such a
spirit and purpose as Christ possessed.
As a specimen of Pierson's style, we give his portrait of a good
preacher: "All elements are concentrated in him in such a way that men
will, can, and must listen, for attention is as much a state as love.
You cannot command, but you may deserve it. Paint for humanity, which,
though despised by the formalists, terrified by the moralists, and
condemned by the Pharisees, is yet the image of him who spoke not of its
guilt, but of its sickness and sorrow; not of a judgment-seat, but of
the open arms of the Father; not of damnation, but of regeneration. A
Holland painter came from a foreign land, and painted a Dutch landscape.
But everybody who saw it, said: 'He has been in Italy.' So let it be
said of every Christian minister, 'He has been in Galilee, it is the
color of Jesus.'"
The opinions entertained by the defenders of the Empirical-Modern
Theology have few points of sympathy with evangelical Christianity. They
stand above Rationalism, but not opposed to it. The system attempts a
purification-process of Christian faith. It does not break with
tradition and doctrine, but claiming the privilege of using its own
eyes, it rejects the authority of both. It does not admit a supernatural
origin of the Scriptures, but looks with suspicion upon many of the
accounts contained therein. Taught by the philosophy of experience that
everything has a natural source, even in the world of mind, it finds no
room for free will. It cherishes a high regard for the individuality of
man, and esteems it wrong to let the particular be lost in the
universal. It discards any system of morals which does not do justice to
this individuality. Its ethics are deterministic, but not fatalistic. It
holds that the mysteries of orthodoxy are mystifications which insult
the thinking man. It claims that its doubts are not sinful, for it says:
"I have not doubted from a wish to doubt." But it furnishes nothing to
take the place of that which it destroys by its negative criticism. This
is its fatal weakness. With its principle, "no authority," it attacks
the Bible, and finds it written neither by the supposed authors nor at
the alleged dates. It destroys the sanctity of that which has become
hallowed by our inner experience. It takes away Christ, in all his
essential attributes, from the believer.
THE ETHICAL-IRENICAL SCHOOL. We have thus far seen, in the present state
of theology in Holland, few indications of the vigorous progress of
evangelical truth. But the Ethical-Irenical School, combining the
principal orthodox minds, stands in manly and prosperous opposition to
all parties which possess Rationalistic affinities. Chantepie de la
Saussaye and Professor Van Oosterzee are its leaders. These men differ
on minor points, but, in general, they are harmonious co-workers against
skepticism in every form. They stand in the front rank of Dutch
theologians, the former having no superior as a thinker, and the latter
none as an orator.
La Saussaye is not a popular writer. His style is compact and his
arguments intricate. He is sometimes eloquent, however, and a close
thinker takes pleasure in reading his pages. He does not like the term
"orthodoxy," for he thinks it too loud a profession. He has been
charged with Hegelianism because of some expressions in his _Commentary
on the Hebrews_. But the allegation is false, for he only applauded
Hegel and Schelling as thinkers, without giving any sanction to their
opinions. His views are as yet but little known to the people, only a
few being willing to study his weighty thoughts. He is thoroughly
imbuing his congregation in Rotterdam with his own spirit, and has now
many followers, who are giving his ideas to the public in an attractive
form. In 1851 he had a long and serious illness, after which he deemed
it his duty to limit himself no longer to the functions of the pastoral
office, but to raise his voice in ecclesiastical debates. In 1852 he
took part in the formation of a society called "Seriousness and Peace"
and was associated with Beets and Doedes in the editorship of their
organ bearing the same name. The principle of the new organization
consisted in the prominence given to science and its service in
theology, in opposition to the school of Bilderdyk. It held that the
Scriptures are of divine authority; that they are properly expressed in
the confessions of the Reformed church of Holland; and that science must
be subsidized for their explanation.[95]
Soon after the appearance of Renan's _Life of Jesus_, the Dutch
theologians were surprised by a pamphlet entitled _History or Romance_,
which, besides giving an admirable criticism on the new work, defined
very clearly the points at issue, and lifted out of its poetic frame the
picture deserving more serious study. The style was recognized as that
of Professor Van Oosterzee. Like everything coming from his pen, it was
easily read and as easily digested. It sounded the alarm, and warned
the public mind against accepting Renan's romance as history. A few
sentences in Professor Van Oosterzee's little work reveal his position
in the present conflict with Rationalism. "Modern Naturalism," says he,
"can be conquered only by a Christian philosophic belief in revelation,
and by a powerful development of modern supernaturalism.... To some,
nothing is easier than to lay all supernaturalism under condemnation,
especially when it is opposed only in that form in which it appeared
against the worn-out Rationalism of the past century, without attending
to its further development, or taking the trouble to add to Renan's
critical anathema a clear and intelligible exposition of his own point
of view. Renan's _Life of Jesus_ shows us what becomes of Christianity
when we regard only the ethical-religious side of revelation, and not
its supernatural character. You can hope for no victory as long as you
know none but a subjective ground of faith, and do not meet Satan,
coming as an angel of light, with a perspicuous and powerful, 'Thus it
is Written.'"
Professor Van Oosterzee was called four years ago to the chair of
Scriptural Interpretation in the University of Utrecht, now the centre
of evangelical theology in Holland. He had been pastor of a church in
Rotterdam, and his new appointment, made at the instance of the King and
his ministers, was a great triumph of the orthodox party. He had already
distinguished himself by his _Life of Christ and Christology_, in six
volumes, and by his exegetical labors in connection with Lange's _Bible
Work_. But the oration he delivered on his assumption of office in the
University added largely to his reputation, and obliterated any doubt
which may have existed concerning his firm attachment to the faith of
the fathers. Bearing the title, _The Skepticism which is anxiously to
be avoided by the Theologians of our Day_,[96] it discusses the
character, origin, rights, fruits, and remedy of the infidelity of the
present time. The cardinal characteristic of this skepticism is,
according to Professor Van Oosterzee, a denial of the great revelation
of grace and truth in Jesus Christ, as the Son of God and of man, by
whom salvation is made possible to us and to all the world. There are
three fountains of the modern infidelity; a scholastic dogmatism, which
has laid more stress on the formularies of the church than on the Gospel
itself; a wild, revolutionary spirit in politics, not of native growth,
but imported from abroad, which only satisfied itself by the overthrow
of thrones, by the transgression of all established limits, and by its
declaration of the supreme rights of reason and will; and a false
philosophy, with its unholy brood of Empiricism, Idealism, Materialism,
Rationalism, and Naturalism. The skepticism of the present day asserts
rights to which it has no claim whatever, for it holds that the
so-called mysteries of Christianity have no divine basis, and that there
can be nothing supernatural in revelation. Neither can the labors of the
skeptics produce substantial and permanent good in any department of
theology. The only way to combat them is not by reviewing the opinions
of departed thinkers and teachers, so much as by going directly back to
the Bible itself, and looking at it with the aid of every new step in
science. Such a weapon is a sound system. It may be termed the
_Evangelical-Biblical, historical-philosophical, Irenical-practical
theology_. If it be developed, all the shafts of infidelity will fall
harmless at its feet.
Immediately after the appearance of Professor Van Oosterzee's reply to
Renan, La Saussaye published his work entitled, _How must Modern
Naturalism be attacked?_ While he opposes Naturalism, he also takes
exception to the usual orthodox method of assailing it. In this work,
together with other treatises by the same vigorous writer, we find the
Ethical-Irenical theology stated and defended.
The term _Ethical_ is not, according to La Saussaye, the same as
_moral_,--for morality, conscience, duty, and virtue are terms which
find their home in the Kantian philosophy, and are now appropriated by
the Groningen School. _Ethical_ has application to the
receptivities,--the inner wants, and states of the heart. It differs
from _religion_ just as want differs from supply. The Christian knows
that religious truth, life, and action, are not the fruits of his
subjective state of feeling, but of revelation, and of the communication
of God to his spirit. The _ethical_ is the natural, and the _religious_
is the supernatural state of the heart. The Ethical theologians differ
from the Supernaturalists on the following psychological ground: the
former believe that the supernatural is communicated with human nature,
and is so inseparable from it that a denial of it is a rejection of all
that is most human in man. The latter hold that the supernatural, since
it is an essential part of religion, is not necessary merely to accredit
revelation, but to establish it.
While La Saussaye agrees with Van Oosterzee in application of the term
_ethical_, he does not hold with him that the "_Thus it is written_" is
an adequate reply to the Rationalist. Neither will his view of miracles
harmonize with that of the professor, or with Vinet and De Pressensé, of
whom he forcibly reminds us in many of his opinions. The
supernaturalistic theory, La Saussaye contends, is incorrect. The
Church has paid too much attention to the exterior features of miracles,
but far too little to their ethical import, and to the connection
between nature and spirit. Miracles can be defended only on the ground
that the power to work them is still in the church over which Christ
presides and to which he communicates his energy. The Naturalist who
opposes the present power of miracles can be convicted by an appeal to
his own personality; for he is not merely _nature_, but also
supernatural, free, spiritual. He feels himself responsible; he has a
conscience. Renan, in his picture of Christ and his apostles, places
salvation on an equality with deliverance from sickness, and makes it
mere socialism. If we would rebuke the skepticism of the present day we
must return to first principles; not to the doctrines, but to the facts
on which they rest. Revelation presupposes the ideas of God, law,
responsibility, sin and judgment. We must recognize Israel's law, though
national in form, as written on the hearts of all men. When you prove
the ethical idea in religion you show at once its necessary factor. The
life of the Church is a spiritual, supernatural, and therefore wonderful
life. It is the great standing miracle which proves the truth of God.
The first and all-important thing to be done by us is not to fight the
naturalism outside of us, but that which is in us. Above all, let the
church feel and show the power of the resurrection. The true method of
gaining "the world" is by the awakening of the Church to a consciousness
of those elements of truth in her possession. The enemy we fight is not
men but a spirit,--the spirit of negation, destruction, and Satan. Let
us believe in that Saviour who makes the soul at peace with God,
reconciles man to the Infinite, and leads and encourages us to attempt
to appropriate by our thoughts the undeveloped in our souls.
On what then depends the future of the Church? We hear La Saussaye
describe in eloquent words the conditions of her success: "I do not
hesitate to declare," he says, "that the future of a nation depends on a
revival, in the very bosom of the Protestant Church, of a profound and
enlightened piety, of an alliance of faith with science, an alliance
which constituted the strength of our illustrious wise men, and to which
we ought to devote whatever greatness there is yet left us. It is only
by the payment of this price that the Netherland Church can reconquer
that place which she once occupied among Christian people. But since she
does not fill this position, since we are afraid of majestic science,
and only employ our resources to treat of questions in detail, since the
stream of our piety runs through a narrow channel, and since science
only moves in the direction of a foolish liberalism, European
Protestantism must suffer from the unhappy vacancy that is now left in
the ranks of the Church of the Netherlands."[97]
The Church of Holland is now passing through the most important crisis
in its history since the Arminian controversy. The orthodox party is
vigorous, and many strong men are attaching themselves to it. But their
foes are vigilant and bold, and the result cannot yet be seen. The
crisis is a necessity created by the evil elements of the eighteenth
century. When the mineral was in a state of fusion in the bowels of the
earth, it became mixed with foreign and gross elements. But we cannot
now disengage the impure accessory by breaking the mass with a hammer.
If it be put into the crucible just as it is, the elements will separate
of themselves. The theology of Holland, like that of every other
Protestant country, is now in the crucible. The heat is intense, but
the intensity guarantees the destruction of the dross which has gathered
about the truth. There are many good men in the Church who cannot see
the connection and bearing of the gigantic efforts now making for the
overthrow of faith in Holland. Looking upon them as abnormal, they
become discouraged. Therefore they have cherished a warm attachment to
the doctrine of the speedy coming of Christ. It is now a more common
expression than ever before in that country, "Christ cometh!"
Next to the philosophical and religious causes of the present momentous
crisis, stands the absence of popular thought and of Christian work.
There had been a reliance on the symbols without proper meditation upon
them, or a disposition to trace them back to their Biblical fountain.
Men believed what their fathers had told them, or, as the French say,
"_Parceque tout le monde le disait._" The teachers of the young thought
in the old routine. But the Rationalistic theologians are driving every
friend of the Church and every firm believer in Scripture to reason for
himself, with the Bible for his basis; and in no country is religion
more rapidly christianizing science than in Holland. Young theologians
preach more earnestly than their predecessors had done for a century. La
Saussaye is an illustration of how an individual is influencing the
tendency of the theological mind. He has never published a complete
system, though his friends are anxiously awaiting the appearance of his
_Psychology_. It is the man himself who has done so much for
emancipating the individual, and placing him upon the immovable truth of
the Bible.
Very recently the Church of Holland has applied herself to earnest,
practical work. Her evangelizing efforts will now compare favorably
with those of French Protestantism. In no country have the congregations
been more attached to the clergy than in Holland. But the intimacy has
diminished the development of individual labor and responsibility.
Everything was left to the pastor. Religion consisted in being preached
to and edified. Prayer meetings, and humanitarian and evangelizing
associations were unknown. But, of late, many Sunday Schools have been
organized; religious societies have been established; and missions have
attracted profound attention.
The first missionary society ever formed in Holland was the Moravian
Mission to Zeist, in 1732. Sixty-five years elapsed before a second one
came into being. Not one was instituted from 1797 to 1851. Since that
date twelve foreign missionary organizations have been established, and
the religious people of the country are devoting a large portion of
their means and labor to their prosecution. So great is the popular
interest in missions that an Evangelical National Missionary Festival,
held in the open air in July, 1864, attracted many from the surrounding
country to take part in the exercises. It was a Christian Feast of
Tabernacles. The assembly met in a large pine wood. Carriages, horses,
and the rude vehicles of the peasantry lined all the roads leading
thither. The singing of the old Dutch Psalms could be heard at a great
distance. The assembly, numbering from ten to twelve thousand, gathered
around the pulpits erected in various places, where returned
missionaries and celebrated preachers from different cities were
speaking on topics adapted to the occasion. The scene was deeply solemn,
and highly calculated to awaken and quicken the conscience of every
hearer.
Two Home Missions are contributing important service to the religious
and physical improvement of the poor and neglected. One is the Society
for National Christian Education, founded five years ago, and now under
the presidency of that tireless Christian statesman, Groen van
Prinsterer. Its centre is the Hague, but it has agents scattered
throughout the country to seek out any locality that may need a school.
It has normal schools in Rotterdam, Utrecht, Groningen, and Nymegen. It
is educating many thousands of children who would otherwise go through
life without any religious instruction. The other Home Mission, the
Society for the Propagation of Christian Truth in Amsterdam, is more
local in its character. Though very young, it has founded sixteen Sunday
Schools, attended by two thousand children; a Christian lodging or
boarding-house at the cheapest rate for homeless females; a room where
the members of the society can regularly meet to attend Bible lectures,
or to hear reports about home or foreign missions; an infant school; a
drawing-school for boys; and knitting and sewing-schools for girls. A
large popular religious library has been formed, which is constantly
increased by the current useful literature. All of these institutions
are under careful Christian direction.[98]
The leaven of Christian faith is at work. The masses are beginning to
feel its permeating and purifying power. La Saussaye has despondingly
said that "what the church of Holland is now wanting is faith in itself,
in the genius which has distinguished it, in the mission which is
confided to it,--faith in its future." She must have faith in God before
she can have faith in herself. The one leads to the other. God's
strength is never perfected except in weakness. It is from without that
we receive new power. The disciples who met in the upper room of the
temple were visited by an energy to which they had been total strangers.
The Spirit came not from their own hearts, but descended from heaven.
Yet their hearts were immediately illuminated, and they felt the force
of the promise, "Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is
come upon you." Real strength is not self-development alone, but
reliance on that Love and Power which, now, as long ago, can save the
burning bush from destruction.
FOOTNOTES:
[92] D. Chantepie de la Saussaye. _La Crise Religieuse en Hollande,
Souvenirs et Impressions_, pp. 24-29.
[93] Da Costa, in his biography of Bilderdyk, enumerates other
participants in the revival in the Dutch Church; among whom were the two
brothers Van Hogendorp, Nicolaas Carbasius, J. T. Bodel, Nyenhuis,
Brugmans, Elout, Ran Van Gameren, Baron Van Wassanaer, Willem de Clercq,
the poet, and author of a work on the _Influence of Southern Literature
on that of Holland_; Van der Kemp, author of an admirable _Biography of
Maurice of Nassau_; and Koenen, author of an historical work on the
_Refugees in Holland_.
[94] An article by Scholten on _Modern Materialism and its Causes_, may
be found in the _Progress of Religious Thought in the Protestant Church
of France_. London: 1861, pp. 10-48.
[95] _La Crise Religieuse en Hollande_, pp. 12-107.
[96] _Oratio de Scepticismo, Hodiernis Theologis Caute Vitando_, quam
habuit Johannes Jacobus Van Oosterzee Theologis Doctor: Roterodami,
1863.
[97] _La Crise Religieuse en Hollande_, p. 200.
[98] _Christian Work_, Sept. 1863, and July and August, 1864.