FRANCE: RATIONALISM IN THE PROTESTANT CHURCH--THE CRITICAL SCHOOL OF
THEOLOGY.
Some French clergymen, who were sojourning in Berlin in 1842, asked
Neander, "What ought to be done to arouse the Protestants of France to
thinking upon theological subjects?" "Give yourselves no trouble on that
score," replied the professor; "Theology will yet have its good day
among you. You have in France the soil in which true theology loves to
germinate and grow--I mean Christian life. This has brought you your
great theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and it is
sure to do the same thing in the nineteenth." The present century has
not yet run two-thirds of its course, and yet the prophecy has been
literally fulfilled.
The spectacle presented to-day in France is highly interesting. The
period of indifference has already terminated. The first step toward new
vitality has therefore been taken. French theology is displaying an
animation and seriousness which may well excite the notice of the whole
civilized world. The great minds are bestowing upon sacred subjects an
attention nowhere surpassed in vigor and acuteness. Important religious
questions are taking their place beside political themes, and the circle
of theological readers and thinkers is constantly enlarging. Each class
is deeply engaged in the discussion of all the new phases of opinion.
Every man chooses his party, cherishes his own convictions, and preaches
them boldly. The traveler who may make only a brief stay in Paris will
find the representatives of all the professions spending the whole
evening in the criticism of the last books from the Liberal Party, and
of the rejoinders of their orthodox opponents. Now, for the first time
since the seventeenth century, a state of general religious inquiry and
earnestness exists. It is not difficult to interpret this quickening of
national thought on theological questions. It means that France will
have no small share in the decision of the great points at issue between
evangelical believers and their critical, destructive antagonists.
A half century ago the Reformed and Lutheran churches were sunk in
skeptical formalism. They were divided into two parties, neither of
which possessed spirit enough to defend its position, or grace enough to
ask God for his blessing. One adhered to the cold Supernaturalism of the
eighteenth century, the other to a system of philosophical Deism. The
reduced state of piety was largely due to the oppression suffered at the
hand of the state. The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which deprived
Protestants of both religious and civil liberty, occurred in October,
1685, and it was not until 1808 that the law of the 18th Germinal once
more recognized their rights, and placed Catholicism and Protestantism
on an equal basis. The whole interval was marked by a stagnation of
fearful character. At the time of the Revocation, the Reformed church
had eight hundred edifices and six hundred and forty pastors, but when
the restoration occurred it had but one hundred and ninety churches and
the same number of pastors.
The apostasy of the Protestants went to a fearful extent. For example,
at the very time of the infamous worship of the Goddess of Reason, a
pastor and his elders carried their communion plate and the baptismal
vessels to the mayor, to have them melted down for the nation.
Improvement began about 1820. There were but three Protestant chapels in
Paris, and the services were dull and unattractive. To the late Frederic
Monod belongs the imperishable honor of commencing the renovation by
means of his little Sunday school. "Never will the traces of his labors
be effaced," says M. de Pressensé, "for he it is to whom we owe the
first furrows in the vast field which now we rejoice to see white unto
the harvest." A domestic evangelical spirit, embracing the most distant
provinces, began to be apparent in the ministrations of the clergy and
in the popular attendance at the services.
A foreign agency also contributed to the awakening. In 1785 a Wesleyan
mission was commenced in the Norman isle of Guernsey, and in the
following year Adam Clarke was sent to Jersey. It was designed to make
the Channel Islands the beginning of French missions. Wesley predicted
that they would be outposts for evangelizing efforts all over the
Continent. In a short time Jean de Quetteville and John Angel went over
into Normandy, and preached the gospel in many villages. Dr. Coke, the
superintendent of the Methodist missions, went with the former preacher
to Paris, where they organized a short-lived mission. But the labors of
Mahy, who had been ordained by Coke, were very successful. Large numbers
came to his ministry, and many were converted through his
instrumentality. When peace was declared after the battle of Waterloo,
three men, Toase, Robarts, and Frankland, sailed for Normandy. In 1817
Charles Cook joined them. He went from town to town, stirring up the
sluggish conscience of French Protestantism. He terminated his arduous
toils in 1858, leaving behind him a French branch of the Methodist
church, which embraces one hundred and fifty-two houses of worship, one
hundred ministers, lay and clerical, and fifteen hundred members. Merle
d'Aubigné has said of Dr. Cook that "the work which John Wesley did in
Great Britain Charles Cook has done, though on a smaller scale, on the
Continent." His death was lamented by all the leaders of French
Protestantism. Professor G. De Félice, of Montauban, has affirmed that,
of the instruments of the French awakening, "Dr. Charles Cook was not
the least influential."[99]
The new religious interest arising from the native and imported
influences was so fatal to the prevalent skepticism that Voltaire and
his school have now but few adherents. Skeptics of France consider that
type effete, and unworthy of their support. "The present disciples of
Voltaire," says Pastor Fisch, "are compelled to deny his language if
they would remain true to the spirit of their master. For, to deride
Jesus Christ would manifest an inexcusable want of respectability."
But infidelity has only changed its position. Des Cartes, the apostle of
Rationalism in France, had taught that God was only a God-Idea, or human
thought continuing itself in divine thought and in infinity. He would
make no greater admission than that God had put the world in motion. The
principles of Des Cartes, clustering around this opinion, have never
lost their hold upon the French mind, and are now influencing it to a
remarkable degree.
Cartesianism gained new power by the agency of the Eclectic School,
whose champions were Royer-Collard, Maine de Biran, Cousin, and
Jouffroy. Their great achievement was the unification of the
philosophical systems of Germany and Scotland. But the Eclectics are now
in a state of dissolution.
Positivism, as a subordinate system, is the work of Comte alone. This,
too, is every year losing its hold upon the land of its birth. Its
fundamental principle is, that in virtue of an inner law of development
of the mind, the whole human race will gradually emancipate itself from
all religion and metaphysics, and substitute for the worship of God that
of love of humanity, or a mundane religion. The law of development
consists in the psychological experience that all the ideas and
cognitions of the human mind have necessarily to pass through the three
stages of theology, metaphysics, and positivism. It is only when it
arrives at the stand-point of absolutely positive, or mathematically
exact knowledge, that human thought attains its goal of perfection. The
religion of mankind is divided into three stages; fetichism, polytheism,
and monotheism. Its representatives are Judaism, Mohammedanism, and
Christianity. Catholicism is better suited than any other form of
religion to the perfect development of human society. The Christian
world is now in the transitory stage of metaphysics, which, by and by,
will lead to the golden age of Positivism. This is the absolute
religion, or the worship of humanity, which needs no God or revelation.
While Comte has so deeply impressed the thinking circles of France that
his opinions are still perceptible in the doctrines of the Liberal
Party, another great agent has been operating upon the young,
uneducated, and laboring classes. We refer to the light French novel, or
_feuilleton_ literature. Such writers as Sue, George Sand, and Dumas,
father and son, have published many volumes which were issued in cheap
style, and afterward scattered profusely over the land. These works have
been extensively read, not only in France, but in all parts of the
Continent, Great Britain, and the United States. A recent traveler has
averred that he found many persons perusing them in the reading-rooms of
Athens. But the public mind sometimes needs a path by which it can
effect a transition from a skeptical to an evangelical condition. May it
not be that, as far as France is concerned, the minds of the masses
have, by this agency, been deflected to such an extent from the
infidelity of Encyclopædism that popular evangelical literature will now
find a readier entrance than it could otherwise have effected? If a
taste for reading be once created, it may be won, under judicious
management and by the aid of God's Spirit, to a purer cause than that
which first excited it. The tendency of the works in question is
indisputably pernicious, but, if we may think they will serve as a
medium of passage for the French masses to the reading and adoption of
the great truths of the Gospel, let us not be too slow to accept the
consolation.
Such are some of the agencies which have been operating upon the French
mind. It now becomes necessary to take a survey of the present
theological movements, and to show in what relations the Rationalistic
and evangelical thinkers stand to each other.
The Critical School of Theology is beyond all comparison the greatest
foe of orthodoxy in France. The English Rationalists exhibit but little
scholarly depth, having borrowed their principal thoughts from Germany.
The Dutch are too speculative to be successful at present, and the
Germans have already grown weary of their long warfare. But the French
School, claiming such writers as Scherer, Colani, Pecaut, Réville,
Reuss, Coquerel, and Renan, is not to be disregarded, nor are its
arguments to be met with indifference. It is, however, most gratifying
to state that those ardent friends of the Gospel who resist the attacks
of this school manifest a zeal, learning, and skill, quite equal to
their ill-armed opponents.
By virtue of that principle of centralization which has long been in
force in France, the Critical School of Theology makes Paris the chief
seat of its influence. Availing itself of the advantage of the press, it
now publishes an organ adapted to every class of readers.[100] The
members of the Critical School are connected with the Protestant Church,
yet they claim to teach whatever views they may see proper to entertain.
They profess deep attachment to the Church, and in their journals advise
every one to unite himself with the fold of Christ. If the Reformed
Church, in which the most of the Rationalists are found, were not bound
to the State by the Concordat and Budget it is probable that it would be
divided. One branch would be the Reformed Church of France, founded in
1559, with a clearly determined creed, which none but a General Synod
would have power to modify. The other would be the Church of the Future,
which would proclaim the admission of no dogmas, no liturgy, and no
discipline, and would give power to every one to preach contradictory
and negative doctrines in its pulpits.[101]
The association of Rationalists in Paris is called the Liberal
Protestant Union. It claims that Protestantism, as represented by the
churches, has ceased to be progressive and civilizing. According to its
platform, there is no religious authority but free examination; while
hostility to all common symbols, and to all profession of faith, is a
duty. The Union was immediately opposed. Among other indications of the
ill-favor with which it was received was a Remonstrance, signed by some
of the most distinguished laymen of Paris. Their language in defense of
the Bible as authority for faith was unequivocal. "We do not believe,"
they said, "that righteousness is indifference; nor do we believe that
there is, or can be, a church without a doctrine, a religious doctrine,
which unites believers and forms the bond of the Church."
The opinions of the French Critical School of Theology, at which the
Remonstrance was aimed, may be briefly stated.
No system is adopted. It professes none, and studiously avoids the
embarrassment consequent upon any obligation. Colani says, "We do not
present to our readers any fixed system; we have none; we are _asking
for_ one conscientiously, patiently; with all our contemporaries, we are
in the midst of an epoch of transition. We call around us those who,
dissatisfied with the forms of an antiquated system of dogma, and fully
admitting salvation by Christ alone, desire to labor in raising the new
edifice which is to be built on the solid basis of Him who is at once
the son of man and the Son of God.... Not a school, not a system, but a
tendency is that which we represent. The device on our banner is 'The
True Development of Christian Thought.'"[102] It is difficult to arrive
at a knowledge of what this leader is so modest as to call only a
"tendency." It claims to have the right of judgment concerning all the
truths of the Bible; holds that the _Rochelle Confession_ is a very good
monument of the faith of the fathers, but should not now be imposed;
that the Bible has no more authority than the books of Plato or
Aristotle; that each man has a revelation in himself, free from the
imperfections of the Mosaic and Christian revelations; that science,
criticism, and examination open the only path to truth; that miracles
should be discarded; that Protestantism has lost sight of its mission;
and that a second Reformation, embodied in the Church of the Future, is
needed to complete the first.[103]
An acknowledged leader of the liberal party has made some statements
which more nearly approach the enunciation of a system than we have been
able to find in any other authority of French Rationalism.
M. Réville says, "The modern Protestant theology [Rationalism] aspires
not to deny the doctrines of the Reformation absolutely, but to preserve
the truth that is in them by filtering them through a medium more
conformed to our science and our reason. The dogmas of original sin, the
trinity, the incarnation, justification by faith, future rewards, and
the inspiration of the sacred writings, may serve as examples. On the
first of these dogmas, renouncing the idea of an original perfection,
the reality of which is contrary to reason, and to all our historical
analogies, modern theology would insist on the evil influence which
determines to evil an individual plunged in society where sin reigns,
on the necessary passage from a state of innocence to a state of moral
consciousness and struggle, on the fall which man endures when he sinks
from his higher nature to his lower, and renounces God's will to serve
his own. As to the trinity, avoiding the scholastic and contradictory
tritheism of the old creeds, intent on vigorously preserving God's
essential unity, and at the same time his conscious or personal life,
this theology attaches itself to the grand idea of the Divine Word
pervading the world, as the uttered thought, the objective revelation of
God, conceived as manifesting himself to himself in his works. In
humanity this eternal word becomes the Holy Spirit, the light which
lightens every man coming into the world, but which shines in all its
splendor in Jesus Christ. In this series of ideas the incarnation loses
that stamp of absolute contradiction which it takes from the orthodox
idea of one and the same person, who is at the same time God and man,
finite and infinite, localized and omnipresent, praying and prayed to,
knowing and not knowing all things, and impeccable, yet tempted. The
pure and real humanity of Christ is the basis of the system, and the
system may be summed up in these words: The Son of Man is the Son of
God. Man is justified by faith, not as the old orthodoxy taught, that
is, because he believes that satisfaction was given to God in his place
and on his behalf, but because he has confidence in the eternal love of
God, and in his own destination for good, as evidenced by Christ in his
life and in his death.
"The eternity of future sufferings gives place to an idea more in
conformity with sound philosophy, and the revelation of infinite love,
according to which, pain resulting from sin, can have for its object
only the amelioration of the sinner, and special stress is laid on the
spiritual truth that heaven and hell are much less different places than
different states of the soul. The inspiration of the Scriptures, that
dogma the truth of which consisted in the scriptural value of the
Biblical books, as giving a sure basis for faith, as supplying aliment
to piety, and elevating the heart, more and more loses its miraculous
character to approach analogous phenomena drawn from religions in
general, or from other fields where the mind of man reveals itself as
inspired. The change of views, however, does not take from the Bible its
character as a truly divine book; still does it remain in religion the
Book of Books."[104]
It is unsafe to adduce the testimony of any member of this school as an
absolute standard of the theological position of all the rest. There is
a wide diversity of opinion among them, as any one will perceive who has
attempted the comparison. But after examining the individual opinions of
some of these men, it will not be difficult to form a correct judgment
of their intellectual position as a whole.
One of the most laborious of the number is Edmond Scherer, formerly
Professor of Theology in the University of Geneva. His first point of
departure from orthodoxy was on the inspiration and authority of the
Bible. He became absorbed in German Rationalistic criticism, and adopted
its leading principles. His skeptical views caused such offense that he
was led to resign his position, when he soon commenced the publication
of his views in the new _Revue de Théologie_ at Strasburg. He has
subsequently kept aloof from all participation in the State Church and
confined himself mostly to writing essays. Some of them have recently
been collected into a volume, entitled _Miscellanies of Religious
Criticism_.[105]
Protestantism, according to Scherer, has a right to free inquiry. Once
give it the Bible as authority, and you drive it back to Catholicism.
This is what has already been done by Protestants, whose religion has
numbered its days. Authority has been its ruin, and now it has no
liberty. The Evangelists contradict each other in many instances. The
Apostles failed to quote the Old Testament correctly. Their gross errors
are sufficient of themselves to overthrow all the claims of Scripture to
authority. It is not certain that the Gospel of John is authentic; that
the discourses of Jesus are correctly reported; that Jesus taught his
consubstantiality with the Father; that the divinity of Christ involves
his omniscience; that Christ had any intention to decide questions of
criticism and canonicity; that he believed in the inspiration of the Old
Testament; that he acknowledged the divinity of the Canticles and
Ecclesiastes; or that, if he sanctioned the inspiration of the Old
Testament, he did the same thing concerning the New.
The New Testament, says Scherer, is full of errata. It contains
different records of the same facts. Take as an example the conversion
of Saul, of which there are three accounts in the Acts. The discourses
of Christ are described in different contexts; the same discourses are
not related in similar words; and there is no exactness in the
narratives. There are differences in the Gospels, affecting the ideas
and actions of Jesus, which sometimes amount to positive contradictions.
They exist also between the first three Gospels and that of John. The
last Evangelist gives a very different account of many points in the
history of the passion and resurrection of Christ, especially in respect
to the last Supper and the chronology of the whole passion-week. Christ
announced his second coming as near at hand. Hence he, or the
Evangelists in reporting him, were grossly in error. There are, in a
word, serious objections to accepting the New Testament as
authoritative; because we find in it the use of the Septuagint;
quotations from the Old Testament in a sense not intended in the
original; influence of Jewish traditions; Rabbinical arguments;
uncertainty in reports of the discourses of Christ; contradictions
between different accounts of the same facts; errors in chronology and
history; and Messianic hopes and expectations not in accordance with
external events. What right have we, therefore, to accept as infallible
that in which we find such an admixture of error? It is the duty of
religious science to reconcile revelation with the growing requirements
of human thought, and to smooth over the transition from the dogma of
the past to that of the future. Dogmatic exegesis does this by
separating the substance from the form, faith from formulas, and by
distinguishing and pointing out the religious element under the
temporary expression which reveals it.
What then is the Bible which Scherer's exegesis presents to us? Faith in
it rests on two bases; _first_, the inspiration and canon of Scripture;
and _second_, the subjects or organs of inspiration. The first is
untenable and false, for the stand-point of authority has already
spoiled everything in our theology. Authority determines beforehand what
we must believe, whereas reason alone should perform that office. There
is a communicated revelation to our own minds which should claim the
high office of authority. The Bible, in an objective sense, is a divine
book, because it contains the remembrance of the most important events
in the religious history of the world. Judaism and Christianity are
there in their completeness. The Bible is therefore more than a book; it
presents us with the living personality of those who founded Christ's
Kingdom on earth. Inspiration, such as we find in the Scriptures, is not
confined to them, for it is immanent wherever there is intelligence. The
spirit of the Bible is the eternal spirit of God; but it is the same
spirit which has inspired all good men in past Scriptural periods,--the
Augustines, St. Bernards, Arndts, and Vinets. It is a falsehood of
theology against faith to deny these men the same kind of inspiration
which we find in the Scriptures. Biblical inspiration differs in
different writers. They wrote from diverse stand-points. The chroniclers
of Scripture told all they knew, but not much could be expected of them.
Who would dare to speak of the inspiration of the books of Samuel, Ruth,
Kings, and Chronicles?
But let us hear what Scherer says of the miracles of Christ. No
evangelical facts should be taken as points of departure in testing
Christianity. It is absurd to speak of Christ's miracles as being
designed for manifestations of his divinity. Conceding them to be
prodigies, they are far below those of Moses and Elijah. Christ did not
work miracles in attestation of his power. He performed them in
connection with his own words or expressions of other persons. When he
gave miraculous power to his disciples, he simply did it as a means of
beneficence. Miracles, in their true sense, are opposed to both the
Jewish and Christian notions of them. Those of Christ are not the
attestation and recommendation of his ministry; they are acts of that
ministry; acts which have not their value exterior to themselves; whose
value is not in their argumentative character, but in their own
intrinsic nature. They constitute an integral part of the gospel, but
nothing more. Christ's cures are not solely the symbol, they are the
counterpart of the spiritual redemption brought by him unto the world.
The authenticity of miracles is another question, and belongs altogether
to exegesis.[106] Taking the Scripture narrative as a whole, we greatly
err in attaching any authority to it. Mohammed and the false prophets
should be placed side by side with Moses and Jesus Christ; for the
religion of Christ is a purely human one, like that of Buddha and the
Arabian prophet. The Mosaic account of creation is evidently absurd; for
man was at first a monkey.
M. Larroque contends that the time has now come for a total departure
from the last pagan tradition. Christianity has passed its allotted
time, and is now in its death-pangs. Material interests claim minute
attention. All we want is the assertion of a pure, rational religion. It
was a great misfortune that Marcus Aurelius did not popularize the
theism which he expressed in his writings. It would not then have been
possible for Constantine to establish the Christian religion, and the
world would have been spared the irruption of the barbarians, and the
many subsequent periods of darkness.[107]
M. Rougemont adheres to the accommodation-theory. It is the only method
of relief in this day of darkness. God, in revelation, has only
addressed himself to the physical man. He communicated his spirit--not
the Holy Spirit--to the prophets. But that was exterior action. The
sacred volume is the historic witness of revelation, and is merely a
relative necessity. The Church has existed before the Scriptures, and
could still live if they were extinguished.[108]
M. Colani is prominent both as preacher and writer. A pastor of
Strasburg being sick, he was urged to supply the pulpit for a few
Sabbaths. Though he accepted with great reluctance, he was successful in
pleasing the congregation. He was chosen permanent pastor, and has
continued the functions of his office, together with the chief
editorship of the _Revue de Théologie_. His opinions are to be found in
that periodical, and in several successful volumes of sermons. He
professes to be neither satisfied with Rationalism in its destructive
sense, nor with orthodoxy. He is confessedly one of the champions of the
Critical School. Skepticism, he contends, is perfectly legitimate. We
are authorized to doubt; our opinions are fallible; we must be prepared
to change them whenever we think we can find better ones. The Bible is
intended to reveal to us a life, not a dogma. We find in it no effort to
describe dogmas; no theological criticisms; no system of morality.[109]
Religious inspiration is nothing but an extraordinary kindling of the
divine spirit inherent in human nature. The Scripture writers are
imperfect and limited by their own intelligence. The only way to
reconcile religion and science is by history. We must study man not as
an individual or nation, but as to his human nature. By doing this we
will not take a characteristic for the man himself. Man is, by the
testimony of history, a religious being, and history reveals his
destiny.
Immortality is accepted. We have a personal life going into the
infinite. Humanity develops itself by the action of the individual
genius, and the individual only successfully unfolds himself by not
breaking the bond which unites him to the general development of his
species. We must consider the Bible as a collection of documents, over
which criticism has absolute rights. We must distinguish between the
thought of Christ and that of his historians. They insisted on what
seemed to them miracles. Christ is in open conflict with the principle
which would make miracles the necessary sign of a true revelation. He
has taught the world to recognize God in the regular operation of
natural laws. He never lays down any dogmatic conditions, and does not
make religious character dependent on the reception of any class of
doctrines. We must have faith in him alone, and not in his words. To be
a Christian is to participate in the general life of the Christian
church, and to take part with others in the labor of the Christian
mind.[110]
M. Pecaut affirms that the present position of the French Protestant
church is no longer tenable, for its principle of doctrinal faith
restrains free examination. It is, however, in a transition-period, and
there is an indication of progress in the present interest in great
questions of theology. For the doctrines of Protestantism we should
substitute a pure, simple Deism; we should substitute philanthropism for
morality. The Bible is not entitled to authority, for it has no trace of
inspiration. There is no such thing as mediation. We must not attach too
much importance to the Messianic idea, for this would imply a special
revelation. The Gospels rest on a very insecure basis. The theses of
Paul betray a continued oscillation between the mystic and Jewish
conceptions. As a whole, the Bible is not divine, and we should at once
discard faith in its authoritative character. The only way by which
Christ now acts upon persons is by the force of his example and ideas,
just as Moses, Mohammed, and Socrates now influence men. Religious faith
is not necessarily faith in Christ. He was not free from sin in a moral
sense; he had a natural sinfulness by virtue of his humanity.[111]
M. Grotz, pastor at Nismes, was once under the influence of A. Monod,
but owing to the withdrawal of Scherer from orthodoxy, he joined the
Rationalists. He holds that revelation is not peculiar to the
Scriptures. There are many kinds of revelation, and we find them
continually in history. Every manifestation of God is a revelation. We
must always examine freely and critically; nowhere does Christ enjoin
the contrary. We need to use our intellectual faculties and conscience.
The greatest revelation is Christ,--not his doctrines, but himself. We
should always keep prophecy and miracles in the background, for they are
minor questions and should occupy an humble position.[112]
Of all the members of the Critical School, Renan is the best known to
the English and American public. He has written a number of works on
various topics,[113] but it is by his _Life of Jesus_ that he has gained
greatest celebrity. God, Providence, and immortality are, with him, dull
words about which philosophy has long played and finally interpreted in
the most refined sense.
There is no reason why a pappoose should be immortal. Religion is a
part of man's nature, and, in return, he is benefited and elevated by
it. God's revelation is in man's innate consciousness. There is no
necessity for miracles; all that we need in this life is the mere result
of the operation of natural forces. The present age is one in which we
should freely criticise whatever comes up for acceptance; but it is
wrong to assume the propagandist. Let men have their own views; we have
no right to force others upon them. Man is very much attached to the
theories contained in the world's first religion. He has given it
symbolical expression, for it is thus that religion will always embody
itself. Man wants some way by which to tell how and what he thinks of
God.[114]
The Gospels were all written, Renan contends, in the first century. The
Jews were anticipating somebody who would prove a means of their
improvement. Christ fitted the ideal, and the way was smoothed for his
success by their visions, dreams, and hopes. The beautiful scenery of
lake, valley, mountain, and river developed his poetic temperament. Then
the Old Testament made a deep impression on him, for he imagined it was
full of voices pointing him out as the great future reformer. He was
unacquainted with Hellenic culture, and hence it was his misfortune not
to know that miracles had been wisely rejected by the schools which had
received the Greek wisdom. In course of time a period of intoxication
came upon him. He imagined that he was to bring about a new church which
he everywhere calls the Kingdom of God. His views were Utopian; he lived
in a dream life, and his idealism elevated him above all other
agitators. He founded a sect, and his disciples became intoxicated with
his own dreams. But he did not sanction all their excesses: for
instance, he did not believe the inexact and contradictory genealogies
which we find in his historians.
Yet he was a thorough thaumaturgist and sometimes indulged a gloomy
feeling of resentment. His miracles are greatly exaggerated. He probably
did some things which, to ignorant minds, appeared prodigies, but they
were very few in number. He never rose from the dead; he had never
raised Lazarus. By and by, the love of his disciples created him into a
divinity, clothed him with wonderful powers, made him greater than he
had ever pretended to be. Hence Christianity arose. It was love like
that of Mary Magdalene, "a hallucinated woman, whose passion gave to the
world a resurrected God."[115] Renan's position will explain all that he
says of Christ. He looks at him from the stand-point of naturalism.
Christ is no mediator. As an American writer has well said: "From this
life of Christ no one would ever infer that there was sin in the world
and that Christ came to save sinners."
The reception of the _Life of Jesus_ was most hearty throughout France.
Criticism from every side was employed upon it. Over a hundred thousand
copies were soon sold, and translations were made into all the European
tongues. Its greatest success was in Roman Catholic countries. In
France, Italy, Austria, Belgium, and Spain it has found a warm
reception, but in the north of Europe, Protestant Germany, and England,
it has had less success. As to the ultimate effect of the work, we have
every reason to value the opinion of M. de Pressensé, who has surveyed
the whole ground, and also written the best criticism upon Renan that
has appeared in any country. He says: "I am persuaded that the results
accomplished by it will be, in the main, good; that it will not shake
the faith of any true believer; that it will produce, with many of those
who were wavering, a good reaction, which will bring them back to a
positive faith; and that the common sense of the people will not fail to
see that it is not thus that history is written, and that the problem of
the origin of Christianity still remains unexplained in its grandeur."
It is likely that an advantage will accrue to Renan from the recent
action of the Government. He occupied the chair of Oriental Languages in
the College of France, but was deposed by the Minister of Public
Instruction. Boasting that he would still retain his title, he continued
to teach in his private house. He lost his salary, but claimed the
martyr-crown. When last heard from, he was traveling in the countries
described in the New Testament as the scene of the labors of the
apostles. His avowed purpose is to publish an attack upon the apostolic
history.
Athanase Coquerel, jr., editor of the _Lien_, and a celebrated preacher,
justly takes rank among the leaders of the Critical School. He has
recently been the subject of an excitement of little less absorbing
interest than the sensation occasioned by Renan. Fourteen years ago,
Martin Paschoud, one of the Rationalistic Reformed pastors of Paris,
selected him as his suffragan or assistant. The Consistory ratified the
appointment.
In the Reformed church the assistant pastors do not hold their office by
the same title as the titular or regular pastors. The continuance of the
former is subject to renewal every two or three years by the
Presbyterial Council. But the regular pastors, when first nominated by
the Consistory, are afterwards confirmed by the Government. They cannot
be removed except by the action of the state. This is the reason why so
many Rationalistic pastors are now in full possession of prominent
Protestant pulpits in France. No synod, consistory, or presbytery has
power to try them for heresy. In fact, there is no standard of doctrine
by which heresy can be tested. There being no General Assembly, with
power either to establish new standards of doctrine or to give vitality
to the old ones, the pulpits of the Reformed church are open to every
form of teaching that may profess to be Christian.[116]
Coquerel's last renewal expired about the end of 1863, when his
re-appointment became necessary. But his decline into Rationalism had
been so rapid that the Presbyterial Council refused to renew the
mandate, and he lost his position as suffragan by a vote of twelve
against three. He subsequently published a confession of his faith,
addressed to his former catechumens, in which the only point of real
defense which he substantiates is the charge of Pantheism. He strongly
affirms his belief in the personality of God. From M. Coquerel's essays
we can derive a correct view of his Rationalistic principles. He affirms
that his opinions on the trinity, original sin, the atonement,
inspiration of the Scriptures, and other doctrines, called fundamental,
are not a little, but _altogether_ different from the orthodox views. He
does not consider the Bible inspired, and has therefore written a work
in defense of Renan, his "dear and learned friend." As for the Gospels,
he finds in them the sublimest of all histories on the one hand, and
traces of legends on the other; doctrines and precepts of eternal
validity in one place, and stains of the errors of the age in which the
books were written, in another. Reason has the right of judging all the
truths of revelation. The Confession of Faith of the sixteenth century
is a very good monument of the faith of our fathers, but should not now
be imposed. The Apostles and Evangelists never made any claim to
infallibility. There are two groups of views concerning Christ in the
New Testament: _First_, that contained in Paul's epistles, especially in
Hebrews. Paul did not identify Christ with God, nor did he misconceive
the humanity of Christ, and attribute preëxistence to him. _Second._ All
the second group, consisting of the epistles of James and Peter, the
Acts, and the Apocalypse, rest on a purely historical view. To the
writers of the latter, Jesus seemed the Messiah; hence we have from them
all that is extraordinary in his history. Christ meant in Matt. xi. 27,
that he had received his knowledge from God. He did not refer to his own
essence. Literal interpretation of Scripture does not bring us to a
knowledge of Christ. His humanity, being all that is valuable in his
character, contains the mystery that belongs more or less to every
individual. His commission from God does not differ from that of other
men. That which distinguishes him from his species was his knowledge of
humanity and of the future. He had not omniscience, nor infallibility;
nothing but superior knowledge. He had his gross defects; for example,
his belief in the power of evil spirits. Yet Christ was not a real
sinner, and he represented and realized progress without any arrest.
Thus he is the ideal and model of humanity.
That which distinguishes Coquerel's views from Socinianism is his
Christology. Contending for the moral purity of Christ, he holds that he
was the second Adam. But Christ was not the Son of God. He was so
denominated just as we term a hero the Son of Mars. We must look at the
Scriptures in the light of reason; then we shall behold the fabulous
element. Many parts differ in quality, while some are not authentic. The
Second Epistle of Peter, for example, was neither written by that
apostle nor was it a product of his age. But authority does not rest in
the letter, or in the leaves of Scripture. The divine spirit acts in the
soul freely and independently of the letter. It is high time that we
renounce the puerile, disrespectful, and contradictory worship of the
letter. The letter killeth.
The French Critical School numbers among its adherents many young and
talented theologians, some of whom are already distinguished for
profound learning and literary activity. But the history of Skepticism
discloses the fact that religious error has always attracted the young
to its embrace. One half of the triumphs of infidelity are attributable
to the flattering promises which it makes to those who have not lived
long enough to know that infidelity is nothing but a colossal structure
of egotism. The deluding voice says to the young man, "You live in a
progressive age, and why are you not progressive yourself? Your fathers
believed the old Confessions, imagined Christ to be divine, and the
Scriptures inspired. We do not blame them much, for they knew no better.
But, if you follow in their footsteps, the world will never give you any
credit for originality; your slow chariot will move on in the old rut;
you will never accomplish anything; your generation will be in advance
of you. Be a man! The field of usefulness, prominence, and honor, opens
before you. Think for yourself! The Bible is a book of the past, and you
should have more manliness and independence than to be guided by its
declarations."
It is not surprising that the temptation to fall into this snare is, for
many, too great to be resisted. This is true not only of many young
Frenchmen, but also of large numbers of Englishmen and Americans, who
are casting about for a permanent creed. When they yield, they little
dream of the unhappiness in store for them. They never have the
consolation derived from settled opinions; life passes without a fixed
faith; old age becomes miserable; and death, however much it may appear
to be a relief, is a step into darkness and uncertainty.
FOOTNOTES:
[99] Stevens, _History of Methodism_, Vol. 2, pp. 331-339.
[100] For thinking circles, it issues the _Revue de Théologie et de
Philosophie Chrétienne_, founded fifteen years ago by Scherer and
Colani. It influences the general public by the daily political paper,
_Le Temps_, and the _Revue Germanique_. The Strasburg _Revue_ and Paris
_Lien_, are for the special benefit of Protestants in general; while the
_Disciple de Jesus Christ_ and _Piété-Charité_ are designed for children
and uneducated persons.
[101] M. De Coninck, _Christian Work_, April, 1863.
[102] _Progress of Religious Thought in the Protestant Church of
France_, pp. 8-9.
[103] _L'Église Réformée de France et la Théologie Nouvelle_, pp. 5-7.
[104] _Progress of Religious Thought in the Protestant Church of
France_, pp. 89-90.
[105] _Progress of Religious Thought in the Protestant Church of
France._ _Biographical Notices_, pp. iii.-iv.
[106] Essays: _Theological Conversations_; _Errata of the New
Testament_; _What the Bible is_; _The Miracles of Christ_.
[107] _Examen Critique des Doctrines de la Religion Chrétienne_;
_Renovation Religieuse_.
[108] _Christ et ses Témoins._
[109] _Revue de Théologie._ Oct. 1853.
[110] Essay: _Views and Aim_. Sermons: _What there is in the Bible_;
_The Simplicity of the Gospel_.
[111] _Le Christ et la Conscience._
[112] Essay: _What is Revelation?_
[113] _Studies of Religious History_; _On the Origin of Language_;
_Averroes and Averroism_; _History and comparative System of the Semitic
Languages_; _Book of Job_; _Essays on Morals and Criticism_; _Solomon's
Song_.
[114] _Miscellanies._
[115] _Life of Jesus._ American Edition.
[116] McClintock, Letter of March, 1864, in _New York Methodist_.