I. ¦. liiiiiiwiliiliiiiliiiii;'! I
hliiiiiii, ..itia)iiiti,l;uiiiiii'i,>ii 1

It --%i .1, 'I'l'l ,ii , III i|i , I,
f^,M' " '^" • '"  ' '' '
jlii'l* ii;'„„i*iH','!;i|,;.,„,,,,H„

I J-

:i::iiiiiil

31,1, /..
iltt!!i!.i^ltjT

IP

I...

aii.»t;iiiiiiiii|l4iiWk...v;.iiVf 

iS^^^ 

CRITICAL HISTORY

RATIONALISM IN GERMANY.

CRITICAL HISTORY
OF
RATIONALISM IN GERMANY,
from its origin to the present time.
By AMAND SAINTES.
TBANSLATED FBOM THE SECOND EDITION OF THE FRENCH ORIGINAL.

EDITED BY THE AUTHOR OF
THE PEOPLE'S DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE."

" The last step of Reason is to know that there is an infinitude of things which surpass it.
If it cannot reach this point. Reason is very weak. We ought to know where to doubt, where
to be confident, where to submit. He who does not act thus, knows not the true character of
Reason." — Pensies de Pascal,

LONDON:
SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO.,
STATIONERS' HALL COURT.

M,DCCC,XLIX.

Sa2<o

LONDON :
I'RINTEH BY ItlCHARD KIBDEH,
GllBEW ARJlOUa COUnT. OLD HAILEl .

ADVERTISEMENT.

This History of German Rationalism, which has received
the sanction and honour of having been translated into the
language of the country to which it chiefly relates,* is pre
sented to the English reader, as the only systematic and
consecutive account there is of one of the greatest move
ments through which the human mind has passed The
work contains many views and statements in which the Editor
does not concur, but it has been selected for the sake, not of
its opinions, but its narratives. Some of those narratives stop
short of the present hour. Information of a later date is
occasionally supplied in notes. A brief Appendix gives some
account of popular movements — those of the LicMfreunde
{Friends of Light) and Ronge — which are among the more
marked results produced by Rationalism in the great mass
of society. Future historians will probably find reason to
state that to the combined influence of Rationalism and Pan
theistic Philosophy, which has gone far to blight and uproot
the positive religious convictions of France as well as Ger-
« Kriiische Geschichte des Rationalism in Deutschland herausgeg. von C. G. Fioker,
Leipzig, 1847,
VOL. II. b

¦Vl ADVERTISEMENT.
many, was in the main to be ascribed the socially and poli
tically destructive storm which has lately swept over the
Continent, and which to the Editor wears the appearance
of being the precursor of organic changes no less widely
spread than deep and lasting.

CONTENTS.

BOOK L
STATE OF THE CHUECH AND OF THB0L0G1 IN GEEMANY ANTEEIOK TO
RATIONALISM. CHAPTER I. PAGE
Rationalism described ...... 1
CHAPTER II.
The Principles of the Reformation in Germany . . .9
CHAPTER III.
Views of Luther and Melancthon as to the Power of Human Reason,
and its Employment in Religion . . . .18
CHAPTER IV.
Views of Luther and Melancthon on Revelation, and on the Inspi
ration ofthe Scriptures . . . . .24
CHAPTER V.
Formation of the Creeds — State of Theology, from the Death of the
Reformers to the Propagation of Pietism by Spener . . 29
CHAPTER VI.
The State of Theology in Germany, from the Death of Melancthon
to the Time of Spener . . . . . .43
CHAPTER VII.
Propagation of Pietism — Spener, his System — His Influence in Ger
many ........ 48
CHAPTER VIIL
Modern Philosophy; Descartes, Spinoza, Malebranche, Leibnitz,
Wolf— Their Influence on Theology . . . .56
CHAPTER IX.
State of Theology under the Reign of the Philosophy of Wolf . 64
CHAPTER X.
The Invasion of Germany by English Naturalism and French Deism
 Edelmann, Bahrdt, Basedow, &c. — Serious Naturalism . 73
b 3

PAGE

viii CONTENTS,
BOOK II.
ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OP RATIONALISM IN GERMANY.
CHAPTER I.
State of Public Religious Opinion in Germany on the appearance of
Rationalism . . • • • ¦ .89
CHAPTER II.
Empirical and Exegetical Rationalism — Ernesti, Semler . . 92
CHAPTER III.
Continuation of the preceding Chapter — Semler — His Religious
Opinions — Exegesis — History — Accommodation — His favourite
System ........ 99
CHAPTER IV.
Sacred Criticism — Its Object before the Time of Michaelis — Biblical
Theologians, Michaelis, Doderlein, Moms, Nbsselt, Reinhard,
Schott, Zimmermann, Klein, Planck, Bohme, Storr, and Steudel
— Supernaturalist Theology of Zbllig . . . .111
CHAPTER V.
Historico-critical Researches — Kant comes to the Aid of Theology —
His Religious System . . . . . .131
CHAPTER VI.
Kantist Theologians — Fichte, Schulze, Tieftrunk, Heydenreich,
Schmidt, Erhard, Joseph Schmidt, C. L Nitzsch, Staudlin,
Krug, and von Ammon — The Perfectibility of Christianity, ac
cording to the two last-named Theologians . . . 138
CHAPTER VII.
Modern Socinians — How distinguished from the Ancient — Rbhr,
Wegscheider, David Schulz, von Colin, Cramer, Lange — History
of Doctrines ....... 151
CHAPTER VIII.
Feeble Resistance encountered by Rationalism in Germany  KIop-
stock — Hamann — Claudius — Von Hippel — Gellert — Lavater 
Baron von Stark — Coxmt von StoUberg — Herder — Reinhard 
Rationalistic Literature — Zschokke — Campe — Dinter . .165
CHAPTER IX.
Reaction of strict Lutheranism at the Jubilee of the Reformation 
Theses of Harms — Controversy occasioned by them  More re
cent Reaction against Harms — the Philalethes , . 1 75

CONTENTS, ix
CHAPTER X. PAGE
Union of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches — Pi-evious Efforts in
France and Germany — Planck, Tzschinier, Schleiermacher,
Steudel, Tittmann, Scheibel, and von Ammon . . .184
CHAPTER XI.
Critical Labours in the Old Testament — Eichhorn, Herder, Gabler,
L. Bavier — Their followers, Buchholtz, Jiinisch, Liiders, Clau
dius — Tendency of Ewald, Hitzig, Bertheau — Vatke, of the
School of Hegel — Supernaturalist School, Hengstenberg, Hein-
rich Ranke, Havemick, M. Baumgarten . . .190
CHAPTER XII.
Critical Researches in the New Testament — Hypothesis of a Primi
tive Gospel — Hypothesis of Oral Tradition — Eichhorn, Herder,
and Gratz — Eckermann, De Wette, Neudecker, Weisse, Strauss 209
CHAPTER XIII.
New Attempts of Philosophy to Re-construct Doctrine — Fries, Fichte,
Schelling and his first disciples — Religious Philosophy of Hegel
and Jacobi — Ancillon . . . . . .217
CHAPTER XIV.
Speculative Theology founded upon Sentiment — Early career of
Schleiermacher — His Discourses on Religion, addressed to cul
tivated minds ....... 236
CHAPTER XV.
Schleiermacher's Doctrinal System — Digression respecting his Exe
getical Opinions — His Influence upon the prevailing Theology . 253
CHAPTER XVI.
Opposition to Schleiermacher's Doctrinal System — Consequences of
Speculative Theology founded upon Sentiment — De Wette,
Liicke, Twesten, Baumgarten-Crusius, C. I. Nitzch, Hase —
Position of August Neander in Theology . . . 265
CHAPTER XVII.
Gnostic Speculative Theology, or that founded solely on Knowledge
— Marheinecke — Strauss ..... 281
CHAPTER XVIII.
Followers of Dr. Strauss and the Young Hegelian School — Conradi,
Bruno Bauer, Feuerbach, Ruge — Last Attack on the Authen
ticity and Divinity of the Gospels — De Wette, Gfriirer, Wilcke,
Weisse, B. Bauer — Probabilia of Bretschneider, B. Bauer, Liit-
zelberger — Present Condition of Exegetical Labours in Ger
many relative to the New Testament .... 302

X CONTENTS,
CHAPTER XIX. PAGE
Consequences of Empirical, Speculative, and Gnostical Rationalism
in the domain of Christian Faith— Summary of Opinions enun
ciated by different Shades of Rationalism . • • 322
CHAPTER XX.
State of Catholic Theology in Germany in the Nineteenth Century —
Conversion to Catholicism of F. Schlegel, von StoUberg, Hamann,
Werner, von Haller — Scepticism of some Theologians — Plan of
Reform — Different directions given to Theology — Von Wessen-
berg, Werkmeister and his Followers — Bishop Sailer — F. Baader,
Giinther, Veith and Pabst, J. A. Mohler, Hirschel — Hermesian-
ism — Its Condemnation — Resistance of the Disciples of Hermes 334
CHAPTER XXI.
Position of Supernaturalism in Germany — Its probable triumph in a
Constitution uniting the Elements of Liberty and Authority —
Recent Disputes respecting the Confessions of Faith — The Bishop
and Preacher Draseke — Mediation of Bretschneider and of
Schelling, with the New Phase of his Philosophy — Conclusion . 348

APPENDIX
BY THE TRANSLATOR.
Popular Manifestations of Rationalism in Germany . . . 375

BOOK I.
STATE OF THE CHUECH AND OE THEOLOGY IN
GEEMANY ANTEEIOE TO EATIONALISM.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE I.
RATIONALISM DESCRIBED.
It is my intention to attempt to set forth the origin, development
and consequences of that phase of religious opinion which has arisen
in Germany under the name of Rationalism i and which, while it has
opposed a strong barrier to the progress of Prench Deism and English
Natui-alism, has nevertheless inflicted a blow on the Christian faith,
from which it wiU not soon recover. The name of Eationalists, adopted
by those members of the Christian community who have thrown off the
yoke of the ancient faith, may be easily misunderstood. I myself, at
first, imagined that it signified the wise and constant exercise of reason
on religious subjects ; but in studying the matter historically, I soon
found that it is the same with this word, as with many others, which,
having lost their original meaning, now express an idea directly con
trary to that which their etymology seems to indicate. It is indis
putably true that God, in granting reason to man, has not for
bidden its exercise. A.s religion, the queen of all minds, possesses
over them indestructible rights, so also human reason has rights which
cannot be disputed ; and as Kant has justly said, " The faith which
should oppose itself to reason could not long exist." Taking this
view, we form an idea of Eationalism similar to that conceived by the
great Leibnitz ; which, with our present ideas of truth, we cannot
regard as unreasonable. But this right of the human reason to exa
mine and discuss, diifers widely from its self-constitution as supreme
judge in subjects of religion, and the wish to submit to its own
tribunal, which it declares infallible, God and conscience. This,
however, has been the case in modern times, when philosophy has
openly avowed itself the enemy of Christianity, and when those who
were terrified by its rash demands have sought to confound them
by the devices of Eationalism, thus hastening the ruin of the edifice
which they aspired to restore. If there is a country in Europe where
VOL. II. B

2 HISTORY OE RATIONALISM.
thought is not inactive, and where the claims of human reason m
rebgion have been strongly m-ged, that country is doubtless Ger
many; where, without neglecting any of the sciences which have a
more immediate bearing on actual Hfe, the mind delights in launching
forth into the sphere of speculation, and in entertaining on all sub
jects the most audacious and extravagant opinions. This fact must
long prevent Germany from having d philosophy, I had almost said
a Christianity, of her own, since Christian creeds and systems must
contain something of the Christian spirit, though they do not wholly
constitute it. It is true that the Eationalism whose history I am
attempting to write, seems to have become the national religion of
this interesting country; since we find it everywhere and under all
forms ; and since its influence is felt even by those who appear to
be its most determined enemies ; but as it is without any fixed prin
ciples, and is as foreign to true Christianity as to true philosophy;
as, moreover, it has no banner, and cannot live in the midst of
a people who would repudiate it, did they thoroughly understand it ;
as, I say, it can only exist under the shadow of those altars which
it no longer venerates, it must foUow, that Eationalism can no more
than any other system of philosophy or religion, claim the right of
ruling in the land of Germany. But Eationalism may with justice
claim the glory of numbering among its advocates men of that genius
which party-spirit alone would venture to dispute ; writers who have
succeeded in raising theology and philosophy from the sort of obscu
rity (shall I say contempt ?) into which they had fallen in the lapse of
time ; who have enlarged their foundations, multiplied their ramifica
tions, and shown what rich and abundant fruits they might bear, did
those who cultivate them know how to fulfil the requirements of piety
and wisdom. These two sciences, indeed, are connected with the most
noble instincts of the mind and heart, and cannot develop themselves
in all their splendour before ignorance or vice. But Eationalism
vainly attempts to satisfy the moral wants of human society ; its error
lies in thinking that, in the domain of science, vast erudition can
supply the place of true genius ; in beHeving that in the domain of
religion, sentiment alone can effectually replace the pious confidence of
the Christian in the promises of the Gospel, However, Eational
ism, although it is not yet a century old in Germany, can claim a
great number of wi-iters who have adopted its principles and applied
them in all departments of theology. It will be difficult for me
to confine within strict and reasonable limits my account, however
concise, of the different phases through which this system of religion
has passed, from the time when its germ was first laid in the constitu-

HISTORY OE RATIONALISM. 3
tion of the church as established by Luther, up to its highest expres
sion in the words of the writer who has openly advised all the ministers
of reUgion who entertain the same opinions as himself, to close the
doors of the temple if they are not willing to enthrone philosophy
therein (Strauss, Leben Jesu). The materials for the history which
I am about to write are the more numerous, since Eationalism, far
from quitting Germany, as is 'sometimes asserted, when the hopes of
the heart or systematic illusions are mistaken for realities, and far
from being narrowed in its influence in that country, appears to have
become stUl more firmly established, and to be the ruling system in
reUgious affairs, though not yet possessing the supreme authority in
church government.
We should be strangely deceived, if we mistook the new expositions
of the EationaUstic system for an abandonment of it. Certainly it will
be readily admitted that the days of Doctor Paulus are passed, and
that the German youth who wish to study theology, seek no longer, as
they did thirty years ago, for the sources of Christianity in the scrip
tural commentaries of that hermit professor ; it must also be added,
that the stars of Gesenius, of Wegscheider, and of Ebhr, have lost
much of their lustre. Nevertheless the influence of these men is still
great in Germany.* To the same party belong Schultz, at Breslau ;
Gieseler, at Gottingen; Ullmann, at Heidelberg; Bretschneider, at
Gotha ; de Wette,t at Basle ; Hase, at Jena ; Wiener, at Leipzig ; and a
crowd of others : and notwithstanding some obscurity in the expres
sion of their opinions, such writers ought to have considerable weight
with us in forming an appreciation of their system. When I have re
corded the nature of their labours, I think it wiU be evident that the
church of Christ contains in its own bosom an adversary the more to
be dreaded, from the fact that, like a child who has been substituted
for the real heir of a famUy, it believes itself to be true Christianity,
and, as such, claims all its rights.
EationaUsm must not, therefore, be understood to signify tne use
which theologians have made of reason in matters of beUef. Did
the reader thus interpret it, he would greatly mistake our aim ; he
would be deceived in the natm-e of the labours which it is oiur wish to
describe, and which we respect, even in their errors, so long as we
beUeve them sincere ; he would, in fact, attribute to the author of this
history intentions which he could not entertain, and religious opinions
* Bbhr's Discmrse on the Reformatim {Reformationspredigt), considered in a
rationalistic light, delivered in 1839, met with almost unparalleled success. That
of Reinhard, in 1800, is the only one which can be compared to it,
+ De Wette has just died. — E.
^ b3

4 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
which his respect for human reason would compel him to disavow.
The apostles of the Gospel continuaUy appeal to the reason of their
hearers, Christ himself urges * the increasing exercise of the eye of
the soul, as he calls the conscience (Matt, vi. 33), in judging of the
truth which he announces, since a good conscience is always better
disposed to rise to the knowledge of the truth, while one heavy laden
and harrassed is exceedingly prone to receive dogmas without pro
perly understanding their import ; because it feels the truth of them
through the consolations which they offer. In no age of Christianity
has there arisen a serious discussion on this subject, though the ex
travagant pretensions of Eationalism have provoked in its adversaries
some exaggerations which can never prevail over the ancient Christian
system. That system by no means forbade the exercise of human
intelligence in religious matters, though, not considering it as paramount,
it employed, as a last means of judging of revelation, a superior and
only infallible reason ; the divine reason, the doctrinal expression of
which is found in the books which aU Christians have hitherto con
sidered divine ; and whose authenticity and truth cannot be disputed
without overturning that Christianity which has been professed during
eighteen centuries.
But modern EationaUsm has done more than assert the right of
exercising reason ; it has pretended that to this faculty alone belongs
the privilege of deciding on man's reUgious faith and his moral duty,
and that if from long custom any respect is stOl due to revelation, it
should only receive it when it is not opposed to the judgments of
reason. But if this reason were sufficient for manMnd, why should
divine revelation be in any case opposed to it ?
Eationalism, which, unlike NaturaUsm and Deism, declares itself the
friend of revelation, cannot answer this question consistently, and is in
reality obUged to deny revelation in explaining it in its own pecuUar
way, and in finding it only in the manifestations of God's will in nature
and in the providential progi-ess of history. Dr. Eohr in his work on
this subject, which has become classical, says, in speaking of Eeinhard,
that he had completely defined the two systems in his book entitled Con
fessions (Gestandnisse). Now Eeinhard says, that on subjects of reU
gious belief, the reason alone is to decide on the doctrines of faith and
that the Scriptures are to be considered only as a book of human orio-in.
• It would be useles,s to quote here those passages of Scripture which affirm
this indisputable fact. We may say that there is nothing more rational than the
language of Jesus in his parables and metaphors, or the dialectic exhortations of
the apostles, which appeal as much to the reason as to the conscience of the
hearers.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 5
SupematuraUsm or Orthodoxy, on the contrary, receives the revelation
made in the Scriptures as a dii-ect and immediate communication from
the Deity to man.* Hence we may see that Supernaturalism, as op
posed to EationaUsm, does not consist in the admission of aU the details
of a religious system which have been changed in the course of cen-
» Briefe iiher Rationalismus, p. 14-16. — The Examinatorium in Matters of
(pinion for the Evangelical Churches (Quedlinburg, 1830. p. 96, 97), says,
" By Supernaturalism must be understood that process of thought by which we
arrive at a belief in a supernatural and immediate revelation, which is superior to
reason, and to which reason should submit." It would, perhaps, have been more
exact had the author been content to designate revelation as the guide of reason.
However that may be, this Examinatorium, drawn up by a Rationalist, afterwards
defines Rationalism as that way of thinking which receives only a mediate revela
tion of which reason is the judge, and which cannot contain anything contrary
to reason, nor anything superior to it. (Here it passes the limits of simple, good
sense,) Hahn defines Rationalism as " that mode of thought by which the human
reason is considered as the only source and the only judge of all kinds of know
ledge. Consequently, all revelation is only supernatural in form ; it is in reality
natural, and if it have any pretensions to truth should be limited by reason or
natural religion." See Hahn, De Rationalismi indole, Leipzig, 1827. According to
Bretschneider, it is also that mode of thought by which there is no faith in an
inrunediate revelation, but only in the truth of a philosophical religion. See his
Systematic Development, &c. {Systematische Entwickelung), 3rd edition, p. 198 ;
and the 4th edition of his Dogmatik, vol. i. pp. 14, 71, 80. If the difference
between this system and serious Nat\u;alism be not yet sufficiently clear, let us
consult Wegscheider. He will answer in these words, — " Rationalistae a Na-
turalistis eo potissimum recedunt quod illi divinam aliquam revelationem vere ad-
raittunt, eique progressus mentis humanas in religione colenda lubenter acceptos
ferunt, vindicata quidem rationis facultate banc revelationem judicandi et ad
usum transferendi, &c." These two paragraphs, 11 and 12, of the chapter De
Religione, of Wegscheider (see Institutiones Theologica, 8th edit, Leipsiae, 1844.
p. 47; seq.), must be read in order thoroughly to convince us of the audacity of
Rationalism in exalting human reason and declaring it sufficient for all the
necessities of life. The last edition of this work, which I have before me (the
7th), printed at Halle in 1833, contains, moreover, a rich literature, bearing wit
ness in every respect to the definition of Rationalism which we have given. Since
the publication of this book, Dr. Paniel, a writer of indisputable talent, but who
has not always been strictly impartial, as is shown in his History of Christian
Eloquence {Pragmatische Geschichte der Christlichen Beredtsamkeit und der
Homiletik, Leipz, 1839-41), where he places so low the supernaturalist preachers,
while he shows such liberality towards those of the opposite party, has com
menced a monthly review {Bremisches Magazin fiir evangelische Wahrheit), de
signed ostensibly to oppose modem pietism, but in reality to substitute Rationalism
for tbe ancient reformed religion, which has always had zealous supporters in
Bremen. I make this remark only on account of Dr, Paniel's inconsistency: he
declares, in a very long introductory article, that his only wish is to modify the
too oreat severity of the ancient dogmas ; but after making many excellent ob
servations on human reason, which might be made by any supernaturalist
who had not altogether abandoned the exercise of his faculties, he defines Ra-

6 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
turies ; there are, on the contrary, many true Christians who are not
agi-eed on aU these details. But all, on pain of being considered
renegades from Christianity, unite in believing, — first, in the truth
of a divine revelation, such as has always been received prior to the
eighteenth century in all the churches of Christianity, and that this
revelation or expression of the Divine wiU is contained in the books of
the Old and New Testaments ; secondly, that it is not sufficient to
consider the Bible, as Eationalism does, merely as a book providentially
preserved, as God preserves in the world all the monuments which he
considers necessary for the good of the human race, nor as a work
where we find only that which conforms to the known laws of human
reason. Hence we see again that Eationalism is not a systematic in-
creduUty as to religious truths ; far fi-om being so, it makes among
other pretensions that of developing the religious feelings in the highest
degree, and there is in the writings of its most distinguished disciples
something which arouses even the most lethargic minds. But it is far
from attaining its end ; for although it constitutes itself the supreme
judge of Christianity, it does not in reaUty adopt one of the Uving doc
trines of that religion which alone have power over the moral natm-e of
man ; its influence, if we observe it closely, extends only over his feel
ings ; it fails to penetrate into the depths of his being ; and can we
forget that one of its essential characteristics is to wage deadly war
against the supernatural element which abounds in the Bible, and which
EationaUsm would wholly eradicate ? An enUghtened SupernaturaUst
wiU then very willingly confess that NaturaUsm may be professed with
a semblance of reason and in good faith, and he can even consider it as
a system of philosophy, wherein are to be found fewer philosophical
elements than in any other ; but simple good sense forbids him to
imagine it possible to profess modern Eationalism and at the same time
to retain the name of a Christian.
tionalism in such a manner as to destroy the effect of his preliminary remarks.
" Christianity," says he, " v/ou\i probably have lost its sanctifying power if God
had not protected the principal points of his teachings by the (material) preser
vation of the New Testament, which we ought to respect as the work of Divine
providence, of the mission of Christ and of his teachings (not a word of the in
spiration of the sacred books ! )— whence it follows that the fundamental principle
of Protestantism is that of Rationalism, viz,, that each has the right to seek out to
perfection the true sense of Scripture {den wahren Sinn der Schrift immer voll-
kommer erforschen). We shall presently see that those who begin with these
principles are conducted by them further than perhaps they at first intended to
go {Bremische Magazin, 254-55, 1st part). Is it a necessary consequence of
the unreasonable exaggeration of M. Krummacher that a, periodical should be
established from which evangelical Christianity alone will have to suffer ?

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 7
It will now be seen, that when I speak of the origin of Eationalism
in Germany I am not ignorant that true EationaUsts have appeared in
all times and in all reUgions. Then- task has been to subject to the
judgment of reason, things opposed to it, not things superior to it ;
and those things are superior to it which cannot be shown to be at
direct variance with its laws. If any one can be taxed with EationaUsm
before the eighteenth century, it is assuredly the grave, the pious, and
the wise Spinoza ; but as his theological influence did not produce im
mediate results, we ought to consider as the founder of this system,
him who consecrated his whole life to the propagation of its principles ;
and who saw a crowd of disciples, though not foUowing precisely in his
steps, yet pursuing the same direction, or only wandering from it to
enter on paths stUl more fatal.
Thus, before tracing the successive transformations of Eationalism, it
was necessary clearly to define its nature ; and we have seen that it is
the persuasion that man possesses in himself all the powers sufficient
to raise him to the understanding and practice of the Christian religion.
Eationalism treats the revelation which considers these powers insuf
ficient, as a mere vassal ; and in so doing, does it not assume hostility
towards it ?
If Eationalism should deny this charge, I wiU cast no suspicions on
its good faith ; but may I not be permitted to show its inconsistency
and false logic, from which we should wish to see it free ? It is true
that aU the opinions to which a more or less modified EationaUsm has
given rise during the last fifty years, are not based on the literal mean
ing of this definition, since the human faculties are regarded in a
different Ught by each of its authors ; but all the opinions unite in
changing the ancient ideas of revelation and inspiration, without which
doctrines have no authority, and in deifying human reason by making
it the supreme judge of reUgious faith and practice. If we do not
take care to estabUsh this radical and essential difference between the
two systems, we shall be easily mistaken as to their mutual bearing,
and we shaU be guilty of injustice in our judgments, even with the best
intentions. A proof of this is found in the narrow way of thinking of
some supernaturaUst theologians and men of the world, whose conduct
affords so shocking a contrast to the generous sentiments displayed by
many of the Eationalists, that our sympathies are wiUingly enUsted on
the side of the latter ; and we shall not perceive that in adopting their
opinions it is necessary to abandon those Christian principles which,
wisely understood and applied, are also an inexhaustible source of
generous thoughts, of noble sentiments, and, above aU, of peace for the
human mind.

8 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
It is by the development of the principles which the different parties
of EationaUsm have uttered and supported with warmth, that we shall
be better able to appreciate it. Setting out, therefore, from its first
essays, by Ernesti and Semler, I shall endeavour to describe the dif
ferent transformations which it has undergone before arriving at the state
in which we now see it, — a state of utter impotence for the realisation
of that which has ever been the object of its hopes. If, indeed,
Eationalism does prevail over the greater part of Germany, it is only
in a negative manner. AU who are opposed to the moral law of the
Gospel gladly borrow its cloak in order to obtain the right of choosing
amona- their duties that which is most in accordance vrith their wishes,
and of rejecting that which is at variance with their incUnatlons. But
the foundation of something useful, the indication of consolation to
suffering humanity, the arousing of the conscience and the work of
improvement in the vast domain of morality, — all these most important
questions seem altogether foreign to it. We might say that it can only
reveal its existence, and show the vast extent of its kingdom by its
numerous negations. There is no life in it, and can it communicate to
others what it does not itself possess ? But we wUl not anticipate
facts : we must, on the contrary, go back to the sixteenth century, and
there inquire into the principles of the religious reformation which that
age witnessed.*
* On the subject treated of in this chapter, and on the several topics of theology
and religion, the reader will find his account in consulting Systematische
Entwickelung alter in der Dogmatik vorkommenden Begriffe, nebs f der Literatur, von
C, G, Bretschneider, 4th edit, Leipzig, 1841, Historical and critical notices of
Rationalism may also be found in Tholuck's Vermischte Schriften, vol, i. Essay
1st ; in German Literature, by Wolfgang Menzel, translated by Gordon, vol, i.
p, 106, seq, ; and in German Protestantism, and the Right of Private Judgment,
by E, H. Dewar, M.A. Oxford, 1844. Some valuable additions may be found in
notes and excursus appended to the German translation of the work now before
the reader, by C, G. Ficker. Leipzig, 1847. — E.
For notes having an E. at the end, the Editor is answerable. The other notes
are by the author.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE II.
THE PKINCIPLES OF THE REFOEMATION IN GERMANY.
It has often been said that the principles of EationaUsm actuated
Luther and his feUow-labourers in the work of the Eeformation in
the sixteenth century, and enabled them to excite the reUgious world
of Germany against the authority of Eoman CathoUcism ; but though
it may be true, as a general statement, that the principles of Protes
tantism differ very Uttle from those of Eationalism, since free inquiry
is their common practical expression, we should stiU be guilty of great
injustice in attributing to these reformers, intentions which they never
entertained ; and it is not difficult to imagine that Luther, as well as
Melancthon himself, whose dogmatic Supernaturalism is so well known,
would be ten-ified by a supposition so contrary to their faith and their
method of arriving at that faith. If the impartial historian may with
some justice reproach them with inconsistency, with false logic, and
even with contradictions in the immense work which they undertook for
the preservation of Gospel truths, then covered by a thick layer of
superstition, he can neither blame them nor give them credit for
results which are in such direct opposition to their teachings. The
refoi-mers believed that the Christian reUgion does not profess to be
a philosophical science that can be exclusively derived from human
reason, but that it is to be received as a particular revelation, having !
for its foundation, first, the word of Jesus, which is without appeal,
Jesus being in their eyes God made manifest in the Jlesh ; secondly,
the diviue inspiration of the apostles; and finaUy, the authority of
the writings which contain the teachings of Jesus and his immediate
disciples. It was this last authority which they substituted for that
of the church from which they had separated, being persuaded that
it was nearer iufaUibUity, and therefore more worthy of respect. The
reformers were equally persuaded that Christianity contains nothing
opposed to the Ught of a healthy reason, but they did not deceive them
selves as to its authority both to enUghten our inteUigence and to move
our wiU. They also followed the example of the ancient doctors of
the church in commencing all their new articles with these words — JFe

10 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
helieve ; which rather express confidence in the word of a master than
the adhesion of the mind to a demonstrated truth. Their great aim
above all was to cleanse the Christian church from those abuses against
which pious minds had vainly exclaimed for many centuries, and to
restore those doctrines which they maintained to have been taught by
the apostles in place of those professed by the theologians of their times.
It was with these ideas that the Eeformation was accomplished in the
sixteenth century, when the circumstance of indulgences gave occasion
for its commencement.*
Another remark may be made on the Une of conduct pursued by the
old reformers, viz., that if their protestations were sometimes directed
against dogmas which they did not understand, — such, for example, as
the constant connexion of grace with the free will of man, or, in other
words, the incessant action of the Creator on his creatures ; and above
all, if they bore too often the character of folly and passion, — they were,
however, far from having only a negative side. The reformers were
not content with rejecting what they believed to be only the produc
tion of error and superstition ; they erected formulary against formu
lary, they opposed dogma to dogma, discipUne to discipUne ; in a word,
they sought to establish a church which should, Uke the ancient one,
possess a code of laws. But they did not agree on an essential point,
viz., the institution to be charged with the execution of these laws.
So that with this new establishment, each could appeal from the con
fessions of faith to the Bible, and from the Bible to other doctrinal
books, without any authority having the power of enlightening him as
to errors, or rescuing him from his doubts. When the time arrives to
* "To give an impulse to the Gospel was the ultimate aim ofthe Reformers."
(J. G, Kleuker, iiber den alt. und neuen Protestantismus, Altenb, 1823,) See also
the History of Germany at the Time of the Reformation {Geschichte Deutschlands
zur zeit der Reformation), by L. Ranke. 3 vols, Berlin.
It is to be presumed that those persons who have shown so much ardour in
France in traducing the History of tlie Popes of this writer, will not confer the
same honour on this work. Yet impartiality would seem to demand that they
should do so, since that would be the only means of making known all the opi
nions of Ranke on the Reformation and on the Papacy. The best work in French
with which we are acquainted on the Reformation in general, and on that of
Germany in particular, is, without doubt, that published in our own times by M.
Merle d'AubignS. Why should this skilful writer, with so many excellent
qualities, appear rather as the apologist of Luther than his historian ? I mean
bis apologist in his dogmatical views ; since in all which concerns tbe intentions
of the reformer, as well as his moral character, he speaks as an impartial historian,
who advances nothing without the support of testimony. After reading the
work of M. Merle, the pamphleteers by profession will not be permitted to con
tinue their puerile calumnies against Luther or Calvin.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 11
undertake again the work of the reformers, and reform their necessarUy
imperfect labom-s, the task must be commenced with the aim of esta
bUshing a church, if any permanent results are desired.*
The principal grounds on which the reformers reUed to impress on
their labom-s the seal of immortaUty, and to secure for them the regard
even of those who could not agree with them, were their respect for the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which they considered as
inspired by the spirit of God himself ; and their decided wish for the
prevalence of the authority of this holy book above aU other authority,
convinced as they were that the Bible reveals all the designs of God
with regard to man, and that the duty of the Christian, whether pro
fessed theologian or simple beUever, consists in receiving its contents
without discussion and with complete obedience. This was the prin
ciple which they placed in bold reUef in aU their writings, in their dis
putations, in their dialogues, and in the bosom of their assembled diets,
where they appealed only to the decisions of Holy Writ.f This is not
the place to discuss this principle in itself; my task, at present, is to
state what has been, and not to show what ought to have been. It is
sufficient for me to remark that the remote cause of Eationalism has
been this insufficiency of power iu the principles of the reformers to sup
plant the ancient church. Had Luther or his disciples thought proper to
* As this refers principally to the Lutheran church, whose doctrines have
always prevailed in Germany, it will be sufiScient to state that its doctrinal books
contain, besides the three creeds ofthe primitive church, the Confession of Faith
known as that of Augsburg, the Articles of Smalcalde, the two catechisms of
Luther, and the Form of Concord {Concordienformel). If to these symbolical
books, which have always had the same authority with the Lutherans as the
Council of Trent has had among the Catholics, are added Melancthon's Apology
for the Confession of Augsburg and his Loci Communes, we shall be able to
form a clear and precise idea of Lutheran Christianity. There have been pub
lished in our own days several works, rich in materials and well fitted to instruct
thoroughly in the principles of pure and true Lutheranism. Among these are
the Doctrines of the Lutheran Church {Symbolik der Luth. Kirche), by C. Kolner:
Hamburg, 1837,— the first volume of a collection which will contain the doctrinal
books of all Christian communities; and ^ General View of Christian Doctrine
{Die allgemeine ' Symbolik), by Guerike, Professor at Halle: Leipzig, 1839.
The impartial historian ought to mention also the Creed of Mohler, a Bavarian
priest, the best work which Catholicism has produced for a long time, 3rd edit.,
Mayence, 1838 ; as well as the original work of Gunther, an Austrian priest,
whom we shall have occasion to mention in the chapter devoted to Catholic
theology. His work is entitled Der letzte Symbolik. Vienna, 1834.
+ Seckendorf says expressly, " Duobus fundamentis omnia scripta Lutheri
dogmatica innituntur : affirmat ut certa et credenda, quiE ex sacra scriptura pro-
bari possunt ; negat articulos fidei esse, quas ex scriptura pro talibus non possunt
demonstra.ii."—{Commentarius de Lutheranismo, i., sect. 45, p, 163.)

12 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
put their own reason in opposition to the estabUshed doctrines, the people,
too often chosen the supreme judge in polemical matters, would have
treated them as daring spirits, and would at most have thought them
worthy of the fate then inflicted on the heretical and impious ; but per
suaded as they were that the reformers did nothing more than di-aw the
Ught of the Gospel from under the bushel, they hesitated not to range
themselves under the standard of the highest authority. It is true that
the reformers were subsequently compeUed to add something to the Bible,
— the confessions of faith, for example ; but they did so only to give an
account of their beUef to those who accused them of incredulity. In
their eyes, the confessions of faith were nothing more than the biblical
doctrine arranged in the order of subjects ; they were, so to say, only a
programme containing an analysis of primitive Christianity, although
by the fact they showed the intention of placing the new institutions
on somewhat durable foundations,*
Though it may be said with truth, therefore, that the principles of
Eationalism, logically speaking, are confounded with those of Protes
tantism, as founded in Germany, or at least that they derive their origin
thence, and that Eationalism is the inevitable consequence of the esta
blishment of the Eeformation in that country, yet when I find grave
authors, such as Paulus, Wegscheider, Ammon, Bretschneider, and
others, give Luther credit for the liberality of principles professed in
our times, while others accuse him of having introduced into the world
destructive principles which menace the very existence of our social
* In the Form of Concord itself are these words, which I quote in the original,
that the expressions may not be weakened by the translation I might be able to
give : — " Sacras litteras solas unicam et certissimam illam regulam esse credimus
ad quam omnia dogmata erigere et secundum quam de omnibus tum doctrinis
tum doctoribus judioare oporteat, Verbum Dei tanquam immotam veritatem
pro fundamento ponimus," — {Form. Concordia:, Littman's edition, pp. 547, 551.)
In the Articles of Smalcalde, art, 2, also, we read, " Regulam certam habemus,
ut videlicet verbum Dei condat articulos fidei, et prseterea nemo, ne Angelus
quidem." This nemo refers to things as well as to persons, and therefore dis
putes the decisive authority ofthe confessions of faith. Here, I repeat, is the
weak side of the Reformation, not to have the power of showing an authority
whence there can be no appeal. " The Protestant communion would, however,
be inconsistent, did it wish to render private opinions subordinate to the creeds
and confessions of faith," — (Ancillon, Thoughts on Man, &c. Berlin 1829.
Vol. i. p, 46.) How is this right of human liberty to be reconciled with the no
less real right ofthe authority of doctrine over the mind? All sincere minds of
every Christian community which hope for the time when there shall be but one
flock and one shepherd should labour to solve this question. As we shall see,
it is not sufficient to bring forth the light from under the bushel,— we must prevent
its extinction.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 13
institutions, I am tempted to say, with the poet, that the reformer
deserves neither so great an honour nor such a reproach.* AU the
merit of Luther, in the eyes of an enlightened man, to whatever
Christian body he may belong, consists in having restored to honour
that book which has been the support of the doctors of aU ages who
have wished that their instructions should faithfully reflect the pure
teachings of Chi-ist, and in having, by the extraordinary multiplicity
and energy of his writings, given a strong impulse to the human mind ;
in having aroused in the Christian community a spirit of study and
Uberty of thought, of which succeeding ages have reaped the fruits.
" "VMiatever may be the bias of our minds," says HaUam, with justice,
" as to the truth of Luther's doctrines, we should be careful, in con
sidering the Eeformation as a part of the history of mankind, not to be
misled by the superficial and ungi-ounded representations which we
sometimes iind in modern writers. Such is this, that Luther, struck
by the absurdity of the prevailing superstitions, was desirous of intro
ducing a more rational system of religion ; or that he contended for the
freedom of inquiry, and the boundless privileges of individual judg
ment ; or, what others have been pleased to suggest, that his zeal for
learning and ancient philosophy led him to attack the ignorance of the
monks and the crafty policy of the church which withstood aU liberal
studies. These notions are merely fallacious refinements, "f
But as to the work of the reformer in itself, however great it may
be, if we judge of it without prejudice and with the composure of a
writer who rises superior to the prepossession of birth and of sect, we
cannot but confess its too evident imperfections. Honour is due to
him for his resistance, with aU the energy inspired by a good cause, to
the numerous superstitions of his period. But posterity would have seen
him expire, protesting with his last breath, the Gospel in his hand, in
the prison or on the funeral pile, kindled by the jealous anger of his
enemies, rather than behold him annul the constitution of a chm-ch
* In one of his academic discourses, Dr. Paulus, in order to prove that Luther
was not only a biblical theologian but also a Rationalist, relates the following
anecdote: "The Elector of Brandenburg having asked the reformer if it were
true that he had said that he should not stop unless convinced from Scripture,
he replied, ' Yes, my lord, unless I am convinced by clear and evident reasons.' "
Necessarily, to the mind of Luther, these clear and evident reasons could only
come from men relying on the testimony of the Bible. Wegscheider, Institut.
Theolog., 7th edit. 1833. p. 74; Ammon, in t'he Magazin fUr Theol. Wissenschaften,
second part, of the year 1827 ; Bretschneider, in his pamphlet, Luther in our
Times {Luther zu unserer Zeit: Erfurt, 1817. p. 190) ;— show this wish to make
the principal reformer a Rationalist.
t Hallam's Literature of Europe, 3rd edit. p. 299.

14 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
which only could become the safeguard of evangeUcal doctrine when
finaUy accepted by the people ; for at some more or less remote period
the Eeformation must inevitably have been effected, and its success
would have been the more complete had the blood of Luther called
for vengeance on the corrupters of the Gospel. Then would this
Eeformation have been more extensive, nor would its continuance have
been repeatedly compromised by a neology which no authority can con
found or repress. If Eeason, which is not EationaUsm, could have
prevailed at this period, when aU great quaUties found such admii-able
representatives, the fine arts in Leo X,, the chivab-ic spirit in Francis I,,
the delirium of love in Henry YIIL, imperial authority in Charles V.,
the enthusiasm of faith in Luther, the union of hterature and reUgion
in Beza and Melancthon, the science of organisation in Calvin, no
bUity of character in Zwinglius, moderation and knowledge in Erasmus,
where however, stifled by self-love, they unhappily heard no voice,
Ustened to no opinions but their own, — if, I say, Eeason could have
prevailed at such a period, it would doubtless have found an organ in
that one of this Ulustrious company whom public opinion then pointed
out as the true representative of the reUgious ideas occupying the
middle station between two parties, by which they were at once praised
and calumniated ; ideas which, yielding to the just demands of the
reformers, would have prevented the entire overthrow of a church
that needed purification, not destruction. Erasmus was the man whom
aU parties sought to gain to their cause ; but whom the fooUsh of aU
parties repulsed when he would have shown them the boundaries which
they must not pass, if they wished to labour effectuaUy and to erect a
lasting edifice. It is true that he sometimes displayed a weakness
of character, inconsistent with a pure and Uvely faith in the truths
which alone we know have the power of regenerating mankind, and of
enabUng us to fulfil our immortal destinies. This weakness has been
characterised in a more severe manner by some who have confounded
it with an iU-wiU which, could it be clearly proved, would be inex
cusable, and even with a total want of the power to enact the noble
part of the reformer.* But who can say that Erasmus would not
have freed himself from it, had he seen his contemporaries prefer the
moderation of his language to the extravagance of party spirit, and
becoming bewildered in the void of their often furious declamations,
advance wisely in a path of reform which would have been more
lasting and more generally approved ! But when he saw himself left
far behind in his plans of reform, he who had been one of the first to
* Particularly Merle d'Aubigne, in the first volume (page 148-156) of his
otherwise so excellent Hisfoi-y of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 15
oppose the insolent pretensions of Rome, who had artfully satii-ised
gluttony, avarice, and the ignoble propensities of the monks, with
which he was too weU acquainted, who had in a thousand ways thrown
discredit on the superstitions of the people which prevented their
approach to God and to the Saviour, — when he saw, as he himself says,
that it was as dangerous to speak as to keep sUence, then he became
thoroughly disheartened : and if he did not entirely abandon the
struggle, if he launched against the reformers some of those epigrams
which had excited such derision of the monkish superstition, it must
be attributed to the feeUngs necessarily experienced by a great mind,
which finds itself prevented fi-om doing the good for which it has
so eamestly longed. It is scarcely possible to remain insensible before
the triumph of violence when we can foresee the immense results
which wUl ensue. And how could Erasmus faU to show himself a
man when the voice of his writings, which had untU that time excited
so many minds, was drowned in the warUke and political tumult,
and when he saw his lessons on the reform of human institutions so
greatly compromised, on one side by impetuosity, and on the other
by bad faith and injustice ? Erasmus showed, through the whole
course of his life, that he desired the thorough reform of the church,
and he laboured, according to his power, to obtain it, even before Ger
many was aroused by Luther and his companions. This fact has given
rise to the saying that Luther hatched the egg of the Eeformation
which Erasmus had laid ; but the sage of Eotterdam saw fm-ther than
the theologian of Wittemberg ; and he thought that the triumph of
reform ought not to be purchased by the destruction of all which
already existed ; when by the means of the new Ughts which had
just arisen, whose empire the recent discovery of printing was about to
extend so widely, aU which the world desu-ed might be obtained wOl-
ingly or unwillingly, but without the violence of a schism.
But it must not be thought that the man who contended for reform,
so long as it remained wdthin the Umits of moderation, did not be
Ueve in the evangeUcal doctrines, which were the very strength of
Luther among the people whom his ardent words excited. Erasmus
professed all their principles with sincerity ; and even if he had not
expressed them a thousand times in his struggles against the super
stition of the members of his community, his paraphrase of the New
Testament is too striking a monument of his eminently Christian faith,
for it to be necessary to undertake the proof of it here.* But it is,
• The edition which I have before me is that of Hanover (1568); and the
editor in his preface declares, with justice, that it is a pious, wise, useful and neces
sary work.

16 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
perhaps, necessary to state here, that he was as far removed from the
principles of EationaUsm as from the superstitions which he endea
voured to extu-pate from Christianity. The word of God, as declared
in the Bible which he gave to the world in his critical edition of the
New Testament (1516), in the Greek and Latin languages, thus doing
for the learned, what Luther afterwards did for the people, was to him
an indisputable authority ; and he did not beUeve that human reason,
having received this Word as its guide, could appeal from it to its own
tribunal, and force from it a sense agreeable to its own wishes.
It is by no means rare in our days to hear of the EationaUsm of
Erasmus ; but unless by this word we understand that union of reason
and faith which we have defined above, we could not commit a gi-eater
error than in comparing his rational belief to that religion of reason
which some endeavom- to confound with Protestantism. Against this
reUgion, he would have aimed all the arrows of his quiver with as much
ardom- as Luther himself would have done, had any one disputed with
him concerning that which he declared to be the essence of the Christian
reUgion, viz., the salvation of man by faith in Christ, the only mediator
between heaven and earth, — Luther, who, in a polemical work written
during the struggle of the two parties, showed that, at no very remote
period, the consequence of attempting to submit the truths of religion
to human reason would be the re-estabUshment of Paganism in the
midst of Christendom,*
* Responsio ad Epistolam apologeticam incerto Autore prodiiam. Frib. Brisg.
1530. Two writers of dissimilar merit, but whose testimony has great weight, have
spoken as follows ; one upon unity of doctrine, "We cannot deny that tbe reform
planned by Erasmus would have been more pure ; for the spread of truth by the
increase of enlightenment is in accordance with the true spirit of the Gospel ;
but he was wrong not to take part in the actual movement, and not to yield some
what of the purity of his ideas, since so long as pontifical authority remained as it
then was, the realization of his views was impossible.", — (Schleiermacher's Pos
thumous Works, vol, vi, p, 582, eleventh vol. of Complete Works.) Speaking of
the misunderstanding between Erasmus and Luther, Baumgarten-Crusius says,
" Their misunderstanding was endless ; but if Luther was right in denying the
power of Erasmus to rise to the profound and religious meaning of St. Augustin,
even in a philosophical sense, this important subject could not be treated as a
scholastic question. It should have been understood that Luther signified by
free will, the power remaining to fallen man, and his inclination towards God, if,
however, he retained any." — {Compendium der Christlichen Dogmengeschichte,
p. 239, Leipz, 1840,)
But how could Erasmus subscribe to a doctrine which he knew to be opposed
to the daily experience of every man ? Yes, there is no true liberty save in a
being delivered from sin by a regeneration of the mind, and it is this liberty alone
which God regards, but not the less does free will exist in every being gifted with
reason, since there is a great difference between the isolated acts of a will free

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 17
^ The question is not, then, whether a Eeformation was needed in the
sixteenth centm-y : not only have aU sincere CathoUcs allowed this,
which, indeed, they could not deirwpthout closing their eyes to the
indisputable evidence of history, MgTthe most positive confessions and
the most energetic accusation of the Eomish church came from those
who afterwards did nothing to assist in obtaining the Eeformation,
because they weU knew that in putting theii- hands to the work, thei^
own position would be compromised if the abuses were thoroughly ex-
tiipated.* The only question is, whether the Eeformation, such as it
was undertaken and executed, could produce happy results for religion
and for moraUty, In the pursuit and development of the principles
which it laid down, we have seen the preparation, the birth and the
progress of that system of EationaUsm so Uttle fitted to convince us
of their entire propriety.
but unmoved by the divine spirit, and those which are the ordinary result of a
state of mind arrived at by faith. Here lay the cause of the perseverance of
Erasmus in maintaining the semi-pelagian doctrine of which he has been
accused. * It cannot be unknown that the Councils of Pisa, of Florence, of Constance,
and of Basle, saw the evil which existed, and either could not or would not apply
the remedy. Nor should the sarcasms be unknown, which were directed against
the institutions of the Romish church by that frivolous maker of romances,
jEneas Sylvius, who nevertheless, when raised to the pontificate under the name
of Pius IL, lived by abuses, as did those whose dignities he had coveted. Let it
suffice for me to quote here the confession of Adrian VL, one of those rare
pontifis who sincerely wished to do good. He said to his envoy to the Diet of
Worms, "You will ingenuously avow that God has permitted this persecution
(the rupture of Germany with Rome) on account of the sins of men, especially of
the priests and bishops. We know that even in this holy chair of Rome, abomi
nations have been committed, abuses in spiritual things, excesses of authority,
and in fact all things have been corrupted." See the Catholic writer, who continued
the ecclesiastical history of Baronius (and whose work was printed at Rome and
Cologne, under the title Annales ecclesiast. ab anno quo, &c, ) to 1 522, No, 66 ; and
in the collection oi Luther's Works. Walch's edition, 15th part, p, 2534. Those
who would know thoroughly the deplorable state of the church in the sixteenth
century have only to read the works of the celebrated Gerson, whose knowledge
and piety are undisputed, and afterwards to compare them with those of the no
less truthful Erasmus, in order to be convinced that the Christian religion had
only a nominal existence upon the earth, and how laudable were those who ener
getically demanded the reformation of the whole church. The cause was holy,
the means employed were not always wise.

VOL. II.

18 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE III.
VIEWS OF LUTHER AND MELANCTHON AS TO THE POWER OF HUMAN
EEASON AND ITS EMPLOYMENT IN RELIGION.
It cannot enter into my plan, nor can it be my intention, to wage war
against the Eeformation of fhe sixteenth century, which was in itself a
holy cause ; but I cannot refrain, after having done justice to the in
tentions of the reformers, who are so often misunderstood, when
their opponents, instead of combatting the tendency of their principles,
where they are offensive, launch into extravagant and calumnious abuse
of the men themselves, — I cannot, I say, refrain from showing the weak
side of the principles advanced by Luther and the inconsistencies which
resulted from them.
There is, doubtless, something pleasing in this resolution of elevating
God alone in laying down his word as the sole and only rule of faith
and morals ; but when the fu-st impression has passed away, we per
ceive immediately that the edifice raised by the reformers on a base
apparently indestructible, and capable of defying aU attacks of the
human mind, is, however, only buUt in the air ; for, independently of
the question which presents itself, whether this Bible, which should
be judge without appeal, is really the word of God, it must also
be proved to the strict inquirer that the translation which you,
Luther, have made of it in the vulgar tongue, and which wUl be
a new and indisputable title to literary glory, is a faithful represen
tation of this divine word ; and here it is that Luther, notwithstand
ing aU his prejudices against phUosophy, arms himself with all the
powers of his reason to make an apology for his work. But stUI
he did not act as a EationaUst, because the arguments which he
employed were auxUiaries of the imposing evidence of the word to
which he refers every question, and because Eationalism does not con
sist in the employment of the reason in any discussion ; but in preten
sions to deny the truth of aU which this reason cannot comprehend.
But in doing so, he recognised the right of contradiction in others. It
is in vain that Luther grows angry, and that in order to come to a
conclusion with his adversaries, he takes the tone of infallibility, and
says, parodying a weU-known Latin verse,—" I, Martin Luther, so

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 19
wish it, so order it ; my wiU shaU take the place of reason." He then
committed not only a moral fault, but the greatest deviation from the
principles which he had laid down on the necessity of obeying God
alone in his word. However, I must say that his argument never at
tacked that authority which he declared to be above discussion, nor
in his numerous inconsistencies did he ever permit himself to oppose
knowledge to faith, reason to revelation, or philosophy to Christianity.
We must except one single case, in which he seemed wanting, even in
common sense, when, in opposition to a decree of the Sorbonne, he
attempted to show in what the different views of the same truth might
agree. Yes, though Luther did not always entertain of human reason in
general, whose weakness and whose false tendencies he deplored, nor of
philosophy, which he confounded with scholasticism, those reasonable
ideas which we must have, if we do not wish to abdicate human
dignity ; yet he forgot these, his own sentiments, when he was en
deavouring to confound an adversary. Then he spoke of human
reason as every man of good sense must speak. " Eeason," says he,
" is certain among aU the things of Ufe, and, what is stUl better, it is
even something divine. It is a sun, and at the same time a god,
placed as a ruler over the affairs of this Ufe. And God did not
deprive Adam of this magnificent faculty after his faU ; he rather gua
ranteed it." * If there is anything to blame in these words, it is
rather the boldness than the narrowness of the thought : but the
boldness, in reaUty, Ues only in the expression. He says again : —
" Though reason can neither comprehend nor attain to the Ught nor
the works of God, as in the affirmative it judges only in an uncertain
and superficial way ; yet in the negative, that is to say, in things which
are not, its judgment is certain : therefore, if it does not comprehend
what God is, it comprehends positively what God is not. What
ever then is contrary to reason is stiU more opposed to God ; for how
should not that be contrary to divine truth which is opposed to the
reason that is human truth ?"t This language of Luther is simUar to
that used by aU theologians who, without wishing to be Eationalists,
in the received sense of our times, have not thought it necessary
bUndly to accept or to reject doctrines on which their whole destiny
depended. But when Luther's opinions concerning the sacrament of
the Lord's Supper were attacked, his language was no longer so rea
sonable, and in his anathemas against human reason he ceased to
• Luther's Works. Walch's edition, voL xix. 1778.
f In his Treatise on Ecclesiastical Vows and on Convents. Walch's edition,
vol. xix. 1940.
C 3

20 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
distinguish the use of it from the abuse. He was not content with
affirming that a thing does not lose aU the characteristics of credi
bility, even when we are not able to comprehend it entu-ely ; but he
added, that should revelation lay before us irrational propositions, rea
son ought not to hesitate in assenting to them.*
It is not unknown that in his attacks on the theologians of Paris,
of which I have spoken, Luther maintained this principle, " that what
is true in theology is not always true in philosophy." f It wouldv
have been very reasonable had he said, in other terms, that phUosophy
cannot always demonstrate with the severity of mathematical reasoning
what revelation afiirms as certain. But I repeat it, that it was only ]
in the warmth of disputation that the most revolting paradoxes did not
startle him.
In his Introduction to the Ajiocalypse of St. John, he maintains that
before his time the Holy Scriptures had been corrupted in the Universi
ties by philosophy and reason. But reason had then, apparently, taken
the place of Scripture, and did not submit to its decisions. He says
again, in a curious discourse on the prevailing philosophy, " The bUnd
Aristotle alone governs in the Universities, and his empire is as exten
sive as that of Christ. If I had a piece of advice to offer, it would be
that the works of Aristotle should be entirely laid aside, as well those
which treat of physics, as those on metaphysics, on the mind and on
morals, which have hitherto been considered the best ; also those
which boast of natural things, in which, however, nothing is to be
learned either of natural or spiritual things. For God has taken care
to give us the sacred Scriptures, wherein we can learn aU things abun
dantly, and very much whereof Aristotle did not perceive the least odour"
(nicht den kleinsten Geruchje empfunden hal).X
* In the pamphlet of Bretschneider, already quoted, Luther in our Times
{Luther zu unserer Zeit), we find a great number of analogous quotations.
t A curious explanation of this paradox may be read in a Dissertation by
C. Crusius, Opuscula Philosophico-Theologiea, 1750, These are the words of
the reformer himself; — " Sorbona pessime dejinivit, idem esse verum in philosophia
et theologia, impieque damnavit eos qui contrarium docuerunt." And with a deplo
rable confusion of words, he adds ; — " Nam hac sententia abominabili docuit
captivare articulos fidei sub judicium rationis humanae, cum contra Paulus
doceat, captivandum esse omnem intellectum, baud dubie et philosophiam in
obsequium Christi," Melancthon wrote a vindication of Luther against these
theologians of the Sorbonne, the very title of which agrees with the habitual
character of Melancthon, — "Adversus furiosum Parisiensium theologastromm de-
cretum, Philippi Melanetonis pro Luthero Apologia." — {Corpus Reformatorum, ed.
Bretschneider, p,398,)
I Manual of the History of Christian Dogmas {Lehrbuch der Christlichen
Dogmengeschichte), by Neudecker, vol, iii, p, 144,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 21
In one of the writings collected by the care of De Wette, he affirms
that Aristotle spread so many absurdities that not even an ass could
keep sUence,*
Such were the prejudices of Luther against human reason and the
phUosophy to which it applies. As we see, he perceived the abuse
which might be made of it only in others, and in himself recognised
nothing more than its salutary employment, I would that I could say,
without reservation, that the wise Melancthon never partook of these
prejudices; but history is not of this opinion. It shows us this cele
brated assistant of Luther, endeavouring, in the fu-st years of his theo
logical labours, to exaggerate to his own mind the depravity of human
nature, for the furtherance of the new dogmas which he was estabUsh
ing, and destroying, one by one, the flowers of classical literature which
had adomed his youth.f
But here again it was the abuse of reason which Melancthon con
founded with its judicious use. Listen when he launches condemna
tion against the Pelagian error ; he censures it, not because the Breton
monk (Pelagius) considered man as perfectly independent of God, and
having no need of his powerful protection ; but because he destroyed
aU distinction between phUosophy and the Gospel. Now it was not in
that respect that Pelagius was reprehensible ; for if the Gospel is the
truth, it should, on that account alone, be considered as the expression
of the highest philosophy. And what occasion is there to preserve
this division of truths into two classes, those of the one being regarded
as phUosophical, those of the other as revealed or theological truths ?
Being, however, of a gentle, modest, conciliating character, and
more accustomed to meditation than Luther, Melancthon was not slow
to profess more rational principles concerning the power of human
reason, and he was again heard to discourse with the same charm as
before, on the phUosophical systems, being careful, however, to sepa
rate them from aU the subtUties of the schoolmen. As he was, above
aU, the friend of peace, there was nothing, save his conscience, which
he was not wilUng to sacrifice for the acquisition of this precious bless
ing ; and to this noble aim he consecrated aUhis powers and his talents,
when the parties which had grown up in the bosom of the Eeformation
persisted in disturbing it.
Luther said that he fought with the body of the army as with the
devU, and that he thus plucked out the thoms, whUe his companion
laboured calmly, contested poUtely ; and his writings are not the less an
* Letters and Miscellanies of Luther {Briefe, Sendschreiben und Andenken),
published by de Wette. Berlin, 1825-28, vol. i. p, 15,
f See his Loci communes rerum theologicarum, edit, of 1577, pp, 71, 105.

22 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
arsenal against the Eomish church because they contain only fine and
delicate weapons, which are perhaps more fitted to inflict mortal wounds.
Luther cried aloud that the word of God, able alone to destroy the
whole edifice of popery, was a warrior's sword ; Melancthon said that
this same word was a celestial ambrosia which fUled the mind with the
purest deUght ; and these two modes of expression show admirably
the different characters of the two reformers. On account of their
peculiar co-operation in the work of reform, they have been compared
to two miU-stones, each of which is necessary to grind the grain, since
the force of the one commences what the force of the other completes.
The variations which we meet with in the works of Melancthon,
and especially in the editions of his Loci Iheologici, the first of which
only is esteemed by strict Lutherans, do not show so much an incon
sistency in his opinions as a desire to unite the differing parties, by
making concessions in terms only, without changing the meaning.
These concessions or modifications could only wound his self-love as
an author or a theologian, but he was accustomed to sacrifice himself
on the altar of Christian charity. With so many admirable quaUties,
he could not long misunderstand the noble gift of human reason which
the Almighty has conferred on us aU, nor could he persist in his accvi-
sations of philosophy in general. When his mind returned to more
just ideas on the subject, especiaUy after the death of Luther, he saw
that it is only necessary to place this sublime faculty under the influ
ence of a superior power, to enable it to fulfil its original destiny, and
from the moment when his writings and his lessons in the University
of Wittemberg began to shine with this sacred Ught, he received the
approbation of many of the most iUustrious men of the time. But the
zealots of his party saw in this conduct a renunciation of that which
alone they considered as the truth, above aU, in respect to the question
of human Uberty, so intimately connected with the use of reason in
matters of religion; several even attacked him when they ought rather
to have honoured him for confirming the immortal aUiance which Luther
had wished to sever between reason and faith.*
Luther, however, held in great estimation this production {Loci
Theqloffici) of his friend, as we see from his correspondence ;-f- and theo
logians were for a long time guided by this important doctrinal work,
which, though not written, properly speaking, in a systematic manner,
may be considered, from the order which prevails throughout the whole,
as the first of that long series of theological books in which Protestant
• In the History of Protestant Doctrine, by Plank {Geschichte der Protestant.
Lehrbegriffe), vol, iv„ is to be found a detailed account of this controversy.
t Luther's Works, published at Hamburg, 1826 ; 5th pamphlet, 2*1.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 23
Germany is so proUfic, and which would furnish so many materials to
a modern Bossuet, if the argument of Variations now possessed any
weight, Schleiermacher * said of the Loci Communes, that they hold a
middle place between symboUcal and systematic faith ; and Hermann,
after remarking that the complexion of the doctrine contained in the
Loci is truly Pauline (acht Paulinisch), adds, that Melancthon estabUshed
the dogma of the weakness and the miseries of man, only by his ad
mission, with St. Paul, of justification by the merits of Christ.-f We
should, it seems to me, do more honour to the philosophical mind pf
the professor of Wittemberg, in saying that he admitted the doctrine of
justification, because, independently of what he found in the Scriptures,
he thought that doctrine fitted to calm the anguish of the guilty
human conscience which feels that it has broken the laws that it should
have kept.
The founders of the Eeformation in Germany were then supema-
turaUsts in the strictest sense of the term ; that is to say, they beUeved
in an immediate revelation from God contained in the Scriptures ;
that there was nothing to discuss in those writings, and that they
ought to be received with docUity and respect. I must now state what
were their views upon the revelation itself, and what they understood
by the inspiration of the sacred writers ; which they substituted for the
infalUbUity of the church from which they had separated.
• In his History of the Christian Church, p. 615 {Geschichte der Christlichen
Kirche). f 'H.eTmann's Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik, p. 13. Leipzig, 1842.
Besides the Corpus Reformatorum, which contains all the documents which throw
light on the life and doctrines of this able assistant of Luther, we may refer to a
characteristic essay published by Galle, under this title, " Versuch einer Charac-
teristik Melanethms als Theologen und einer Entwickelung seines Lehriegriffes."
Halle, 1840.

24 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,

CHAPTEE IV.
VIEWS OF LUTHER AND MELANCTHON ON REVELATION AND ON THE
INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES.
It was once sufficient merely to pronounce the word Eevelation, and
its meaning was immediately understood by every one ; but EationaUsm
and speculative theology have had the effect of confusing words and
giving to them new meanings. It is true that men have always known
how to distinguish in the Scripture that which is termed a revelation of
God in his works ; for example, as when the Apostle Paul declares
that since the creation of the world God ¦ has revealed himself to
heathen sages by his perfections, which are seen, so to say, by the eye
that considers his works ; they have known, I say, how to distinguish
this general revelation from another more particular kind, which these
words signify: " No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten
Son, "which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," and,
again, this declaration in the Epistle to the Hebrews : " God, who at
sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past unto our
fathers by the prophets, hath, in these last days, spoken unto us by
his Son." And to prevent the possibUity of being mistaken as to the
nature of this revelation, which is made to us by him who was in the
bbsom of the Heavenly Father, the Gospel declares that he who thus
initiates us into Christian truth existed before time with a living indi
vidual existence, such as we conceive of when we speak of om- own,
and that thus he was able to reveal to us what he knew of our con
dition before God, since he himself was with God. This kind of re
velation is attested by the historical monuments which form the basis of
the whole Christian faith, and which ought not to be passed over in
silence by the impartial historian. Nor ought I to neglect to say that
the writers who undertake to record the contents of this revelation
declare themselves to be inspired by God, and consequently sheltered
from the possU)iUty of error in relating to us what they have seen and
heard. It was with these ideas on the subjects of inspiration and
revelation — ideas adopted by every churoh which has existed since the
time of the apostles — that the reformers declared that they should be

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 25
satisfied with pruning from the tree of faith its useless branches, care
fuUy respecting the trunk, which always possessed sufficient vigour to
shoot forth new boughs, under whose shade should repose the coming
generations. Yes, aU the confessions of faith of the Protestants bear
witness to their adherence to these capital truths, and it is thus that
Luther speaks of them : " This is revelation, that which God speaks
with a living voice {milndlich redef), and his iUumination of the heart
by the clearness of hi^ light in a much more certain way than in
dreams and visions."* Here Luther contrasts the revelations made
to the ancient prophets and those of the divine founder of Christianity,
with the pretended ones of which the visionaries of his age boasted.
" God has spoken, and beUeve not that his are passing words, such as
we speak ; but know that they are eternal words which have been said
from aU etemity, and which wUl be repeated so long as there shaU
exist creatm-es to hear them."f These words energetically express
that a revelation being once given, the Scriptures which contain it
ought never to give place to other teachings. Melancthon, who was
gifted with a mildness of character, which made him always seek for
modified expressions, never, however, permitted himself to entertain on
the supernatural nature of revelation, views different from those of the
ancient church. But as he never had occasion to dispute with the ad
versaries of this doctriae, it is not surprising that we do not discover
special proofs of his beUef in it in his writings, though they all evi
dently take for granted these first truths.
The inteUigence of the reformers showed them, moreover, that if
their work were not to be destrnction, but simply purification, they
ought not to lay down any principles but those fitted to preserve instead
of corrupting the faith. It was this consideration which induced them
to add to the doctrine of a Divine revelation, supernatural and imme
diate, which we find in the Scriptures, that of the inspiration of the
contents of those Scriptures. They even considered this principle as
the bulwark of the new church. It is not easy to see, in fact, how
Protestantism could maintain its place as a religion, if it were to repu
diate this beUef in the inspiration of the books which form the basis
of its faith and morals. Take away this faith from amidst its churches,
and you deprive Protestantism of its religious character ; you make
it a scholastic system with more or less semblance of probabUity in the
exposition of its doctrines, but you never make it a religion, properly
so called, because you have taken away the august sanction which it
* Luther's Works, vol. i, 1405,
f Luther's Works, vol, iii. 46.

26 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
enjoyed ; you deUver it without defence, bound hand and foot, into the
power of the first logician who may wish to estabUsh in its place either
CathoUcism or Pantheism. There is no medium between these two
doctrines except a beUef in the word of God received into a simple
and faithful heart. There have been quoted certain opinions uttered
by Luther on some parts of Scripture, which might give reason for the
supposition that he had some doubts as to this fundamental question of
inspiration.* But, in so supposing, we should commit a double injustice in not
remarking that the observations of Luther relate only to those books
whose apostolic origin had been doubted before his time ; and in for
getting that he, himself, subsequently modified the too great severity
of his judgments, and sought to make amends for his too bold attack ;
referring the whole affair to the conscientious inquiries of the learned.f
It is also true that Luther advanced the doctrine that there was a dis
tinction to be made between the different parts of the New Testament;
but he never spoke of diverse degrees of inspiration, of which some
have wished to accuse him on the authority of these words : " As
Christ is the sun of the Holy Scriptures, we ought to take him as a
touchstone to discover which of these books preach Christ, and more
over incline men towards him." J
Such a criterion ought not to be judged with rigom-, since it is not
given with logical precision, but only modo oratorio ; and it cannot
contradict the whole of Luther's opinions, which are entirely contrary
to it. Indeed, we may read in very many parts of his works, com
posed at different periods of his life, and even at the time when he put
forth his first severe judgment on the Epistle of James, — we may, I say,
read passages which sufficiently prove that he never ceased to maintain
the divine inspiration of the whole of Scripture ; and, consequently
it is unjust to wish to attribute to liim rationalistic principles on this
* History of the Formation of, and the Changes Effected in, the Protestant Doctrines
{Geschichte der Entstehung, der Verdnderung und der Bildung unseres Prot.
Lehrbegriff, &c.). Leipzig, 1791-98, by Plank, vol, ii, 95-97.
f See an excellent dissertation on this subject in the Review for Lutheran
Theology {Zeitschrift fiir die gesammte Luther. Theologie und Kirche), published
by Rudelbach and Guerike, in the second part for 1840.
J See his Works, vol. v, p, 1700, in his commentary on Psalm cxvii. It is
still the custom to quote against Luther what he said in his preliminary discourse
on the New Testament in 1524: "The Gospel of John, the Epistles of Paul,
especially those to the Romans and the First of Peter, are the nerve and marrow
as compared with the other books." But if we judge these words calmly, and
apart frora all party spirit, we shall find in them only a preference for certain
books, without implying, in them, any superiority to the others.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 27
point. Thus he writes in his Captivity of Bahylon : " There is not a
single word of Paul which ought not to be preserved and universaUy
obeyed in the church." He afterwards endeavours to unite the prin
ciples of Scripture and of the faith, saying that " the CouncU of Nice
had not established or revived the ancient doctrine of the divinity
of Christ, which already existed iu the church, and, consequently, the
CouncU did nothing more than defend it against the heresy of Arius ;
for this doctrine had been revealed to the apostles by the Holy
Spirit, given pubUcly by heaven, whence the church had received it
before the CouncU, and the church transmitted it to the CouncU." *
It is then evident, that with Luther it was an essential article of
faith, which, above all others, marked his point of view as purely
objective, that the Holy Scriptures are the only Ught to guide us
on the way to heaven. " The doctrines of Scripture," says he him
self, " constitute our heaven, whUe ordinary Ufe is the earth : in this
Ufe are sin, error, impurity, fruitless labour, and troubles; but the
doctrines are entirely different ; they are holy, pure, clear, celestial,
and divine : it is not worth while to compare doctrine with life, for
there is more importance in one letter, yes, even in one clause of
Scripture, than in anything else in heaven or on earth." f
It is clear that he here speaks of the whole of Scripture as the
word of God :. and when we know with what a masterly hand he
could explain this principle, when he opposed the traditions which
were not supported by the word of God, we unhesitatingly recognise
in Luther the zealous defender of the divine origin and inspiration of
the Scriptures.
It is right to state these views of the two chief Lutheran reformers :
first, to show that it is vain to wish to give them credit for Eation
aUsm ; and that Uberty of thought, the acquisition of the eighteenth
century, which, being only the good side of Eationalism and not
EationaUsm itsetf, wiU indisputably add to the glory of religious prm
ciples which are more firmly fiixed than those of Luther, and which our
age is caUed on to consecrate ; secondly, and stUl more, to show that
it was quite foreign to the intentions of the refoi-mers that the prmci
ples laid down by them, that is to say, the substitution of the
authority of the sacred books, and the creeds, for the authority of the
tribunal' of the church, which was founded both on the Bible and on
tradition, should become the undoubted, although remote, cause of the
• Works, vol. xvi. 2672, in the Treatise on the Councils of the Church.
•( Works, vol. viii. 2660, in the detailed explanation of the Epistle to the
Galatians.

28 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
appearance of EationaUsm. This principle, based on an arbitrary
foundation, and in no way supported by institutions which might
make it respected, could not prevent the explanations and contra
dictions of the human mind from aiming their blows against a citadel
without defence.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 29

CHAPTEE V.
FORMATION OF THE CREEDS — STATE OF THEOLOGY FROM THE DEATH
OF THE REFORMERS TO THE PROPAGATION OF PIETISM BY SPENER.
As we have seen, the fundamental principle of the Protestant Eefor
mation was that the Holy Scriptures, considered by aU as divinely
inspired, ought to be the sole guide of the faith and morals of Chris
tians, and it was by successfuUy bringing forward those passages of
them which treat of the unity of God and of Jesus as the sole medi
ator, that the reformers threw down the columns of the new pan
theon which had been erected on the ruins of ancient paganism. But
the vagueness and elasticity of this principle soon became evident ;
and when the powerful Charles the Fifth demanded from the inno
vators that they should show him some more positive definition of
their opinions, they hastened to draw up creeds which enumerated the
articles of belief that they maintained they had found in the word
of God, and which they opposed to the most recent dogmas, whose
origin they pointed out in the decisions of the councils or the decrees
of the Pope. This had been the mode of proceeding against the
first heretics when was composed the creed bearing the name of
the Apostles' or those of Nice and Constantinople, for the purpose
of showing the general opimon of the church on the question at issue,
and of imposing silence on innovators. It was never considered suffi
cient, in order to tranquiUise any disturbance in the church, to refer
the disputants to the Bible, smce it was weU known that they would
have interpreted it, each according to his own opinions : but it was
said, you are in open opposition to our faith, which consists of the
beUef that there is one God the Father Almighty, &o.* 'V^Tien new
* In the three first centuries the creed which bears the name of the Apostles',
though it was drawn up by some one of their immediate successors, was the
only decisive authority in the church. Excepting the clause descended into hell,
which was inserted afterwards, (with what aim I know not,) we find it almost word
for word in Irenseus {Adversus Har., lib, i, c. 10 ; and in an abridged form in
lib, iii. 4) ; several times in TertuUian {De Virginibus Velandis, n. 1 ; Adversus
Praxeam, e. 2 ; De Pnescriptionibus Har., c. 13) ; in Origen (irepl ospx"", § 4) ; and,

30 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
commotions arose in the church, it was thought necessary to amplify
the Confession of Faith ; but instead of placing by the side of each
article of the creed some passages of Scripture, which would have
more clearly determined its meaning, and increased its force, the
chm-chmen had recourse to subtilties, and there appeared in succession
the Creed of Nice (in a.d. 325), that of Constantinople (381), that of
Ephesus (431), that of Calcedon (451), aU of which sought too much
to determine the doctrine of the Trinity, and that of the nature of
the Saviour ; and finally that which bears the name of Athanasius,
whose first word auicuMQUE vult salvus esse, is a flagrant heresy.*
The first reformers, however, notwithstanding their predUection for
the Apostles' Creed, made no objection to signing those confessions of
faith which, they well knew, had been honoured by the church before
the introduction of abuses ; and they would have been content to pro
pose them to their contemporaries, had not their disputes with the
supporters of popery rendered it necessary to collect them into one,
and support them by the testimony of such passages of Scripture as
might establish their validity.
Several years had elapsed since Luther had bumed, in the market
place of Wittemberg, the papal buU which condemned his doctrine,
when John of Saxony, who was about to appear before the Diet of
Augsburg, invited his theologians, viz., Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen,
and Melancthon, to draw up a document, stating the principal points
of dispute with Eome, and their most cogent arguments upon them.
This document was to be based on the seventeen articles already laid
before the Diet of Spire by the theologians of southern Germany,
which it was to develope more fuUy, and arrange in a more systematic
order.-]-
in fact, we find the substance of it in all the authors contemporaneous with those
above cited. We can hence see the reason of the importance attached to it in
modern times, when it has been frequently presented as a standard, around which
all sects might rally, but has been rejected by the greater number on account of
its too simple character.
* We are still ignorant of the name of the subtle author of tbe Athanasian
Creed. Some have attributed it to the Councils of tbe seventh century, others
to the doctors of the sixth, as Virgilius or Fortunatus of Poitiers, and even to
Hincmar of Rheims, in the 9th century. (B. de Montfaucon, Z)M<H6e in sy»K-
bolum quicumque, in Athanasii opera, vol, xi. 719-768. Tenzel, Judicia eruditorum
de .symb. Athanasiano, Gott. 1687.)
t We know that this Confession was read in German and in Latin, and that
Melancthon had written it in both languages. The Latin copy was carried
away to Brussels by Charles V., and though it has been diligently searched for, it
has never been found.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 31
This work was preceded by an address to the Emperor, informing him
that the princes who supported the cause of reform presented it to the
Diet of Augsburg, as being the expression of their faith, and of that of
aU who wished to withdraw from the pale of the Eomish church ; and
on this account it received the name of the Confession of Augsburg,
which it stiU retains.
It was in 1530, that the Confession was presented and pubUshed,
as it had been read before the Emperor ; but Melancthon was soon
employed in changing some of the expressions, and in developing some
statements which he thought too concise, and in the foUowing year he
issued an edition which is considered the most orthodox by the Lutherans
of the present day. It was not, however, tiU 1540 that he published
that edition for which he was so much reproached by the zealots of
his parly, and blamed by Guerike even in our times. In this he came
forward to endeavour to concUiate the two great parties which were
already beginning to tear the bosom of reform. It is under this mo
dified creed that the reformed party, and the Lutherans of the present
day, have united ; whUe the primitive Confession remains the property
of those who, behind the rest of the world in their opinions, believe
themselves the heu-s of the pure doctrines of reform.
If, then, we add to this Confession, as I have already had occasion
to say, the Ai-ticles of Smalcalde, which are of a more polemical nature,
but are the same in spirit, the two Catechisms of Luther, the large one
designed principaUy as a guide for preachers, the small one to be taught
in schools, and the Formula of Concord, in drawing up which such
distinguished theologians as Andrea, Chemnitz, Selneccer, Chitrseus,
Musculus, and Korner, assisted, and which professes fo contain the
whole of the Lutheran doctrine, as weU as to unite into one body the
scattered members of the evangelical church in Germany, we shaU have
aU the doctrinal books which, in 1577, were considered as forming the
standard of instruction in the churches and universities. But did these
books possess a legitimate authority ? Was this authority consistent,
above aU, with the spfrit of Protestant Christianity, which professes
to obey only the word of God, and in no way to substitute any human
authority for that of the Pope, from which its professors had with
drawn ?
In these two questions Ues the difficulty of modem times in attempt
ing to place the Protestant church on such a foundation that it may
be able to defy uidifference and incredulity, and keep pure and holy
the receptacle of that faith which is acknowledged to be contained in
the book which aU theologians, on different grounds, agree in naming
the Sacred Scriptures. It is certain that if we consider Christianity

32 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
not as a merely phUosophical system, but as a religion which affords
daUy nourishment to the mind, and if we remember that aU under
standings are not equaUy capable of distinguishing, in these sacred
books, that which is of aU times and of aU places, that which should
ever be the guide of the mind to duty, and should fortify the wiU in its
better resolutions, we shaU readUy confess that the Bible alone cannot
be generally useful, and if we add that confessions of faith, apart from
the Bible, but in accordance with its spirit, were in use before the
canon ofthe Scriptures, was formed, and that the churoh has continued
in a very fiourishing condition, we shaU further confess that if the dog
matical value of the creeds of a church may be disputed, none but the
enemies of the Gospel wUl exclaim against the principle of confessions
of faith, since this principle alone, when in harmony with the ti-uly
reUgious wants of the time, can form a barrier against dangerous inno
vations. It is true that the promulgation of creeds in Germany did
not prevent the numerous errors in the church, the phases of which we
are called on to describe. Two reasons may be assigned for this : the
successors of Luther and Melancthon were not equal to their vocation,
as we shall soon see, and it may be safely said that the creeds were too
numerous to serve as a standard around which all might raUy, and
that their many errors, never having been formally repudiated by
the churches, it is natural to reject writings which, on some subjects,
lay down a faith anti-bibUcal, and consequently irrational. Such
an argument, however, cannot be said to attack the principle of a
purely scriptural creed, with which all must sympathise who unite
an elevated understanding with Uvely piety.* Whatever solution of
this vital question may be given by the development of the principles
of the Eeformation in the com-se of time, it is certain that the For
mula of Concord, which cost so much trouble in drawing up, had
been provoked by numerous objections to many points of the Lutheran
doctrines, especiaUy to those on the free-wUl of man and the nature
of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper ; and that after it had been
pubUshed, certain minds remained no less iu a state of agitation. It
was asked if the doctrines concerning original sin, free-will, and divine
grace, had not been too hastUy decided on, and if Luther might not
have passed certain Umits fixed by reason and Scriptm-e ; if it would
not have been better had he confined himself to those more modified
* Since the publication of the first edition of this work, Bretschneider has
written a work on this subject, which I shall have occasion to mention. It is
enough here to remark on the error into which this wise theologian has fallen, in
rejecting all confessions of faith on account of the imperfections of the actual
creeds.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 33
expressions of his wise associate, which he seemed indirectly to sanction
by his silence.
If Luther, then, with his severe Augustinianism, not only refrained
fi-om attacking one who entertained more moderate opinions, but
even united himself with him in the strictest bond of friendship, why
should a Booi of Agreement be fixed upon, which would compel the
numerous partisans of Melancthon (for the greater number of theolo
gians had studied at Wittemberg), who adhered to the moderate doc
trines, to renounce their cherished convictions? AU this was said,
but a party had been formed, under the shield of fhe great name of
Luther, whose members were perfectly wiUing to exaggerate his prin
ciples, should that be necessary, in order to disturb the peace of Me
lancthon and his adherents. This party, which had at its head
Flacius, strong in his character as a strict Lutheran, made strange
exertions untU it obtained the consecration of aU Luther's most severe
doctrines ; and we have said that the Formula of Concord did not adopt
the different readings of Melancthon,* This triumph of the more
extravagant party naturaUy suggests the question, what could have
destroyed the influence of Melancthon's disciples ? But we shaU under
stand this fact, when we refiect that the professors of Wittemberg were
under the influence of strict Lutheranism, and that custom, no less than
their own talents, had made these men the advisers of the prince in
everything relating to the new religion. Deprived thus of aU access to
the seat of power, and consequently excluded from the chairs of theology,
naturaUy rather inactive, and aUowing themselves to be easily imposed
upon by the cutting dogmatism of those who had the talent of making
a great noise, it is not very surprising that the timidity of the moderate
yielded before audacity, and that the treaty of peace contained condi
tions entirely disadvantageous to them.
A grave historian refers to the want of address shown by the victo
rious party, especiaUy as to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in the
manner most fitted to convince us of the narrowness of mind which
directed them, whUe aU those who belonged to the side of moderation
professed, on this important question of Christian beUef, the doctrine of
the Confession of Augsburg, using even the same words. Then adver
saries cavUled with them about words ; and on the subject of ubiquity,
which is not a scriptural expression, they sowed seeds of disunion which
wiU prevent the church from becoming animated by charity, and wUl
throw obstacles in the way of the formation of a large confederation
* Vlirik., History of Protestant Theology, yo\. iii. pp. 269-690 {Geschichte der
Prot. Theologie).
VOL. II. D

34 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
of Protestant churches which would be so imposing to the common
enemy.* It is true that Luther, in some polemical writings, eraployed this
ubiquity, or universal presence of the body of Christ, as his gi-eat battle-
steed ; but besides having consented that his own expressions should not
be used in the Confession of Augsburg, it is said that in the latter part of
his Ufe he did not dwell so much on it, and seemed to wish to persuade
his friends that if he retained this opinion, it was from habit rather
than from well-founded conviction. Did he not declare, a hundred
times, that he would give the right hand of fellowship to any one who
would simply subscribe to the Confession of Augsburg ? Why, then,
have his disciples shown themselves less conciliating than their master ?
Thus it was, that instead of an union of all parties, on the ground of
essential and clearly-revealed truths, the different sects either cherished
Ul-will, in the hope of a speedy revenge, or, becoming more decided,
took refuge in another communion. This latter expedient was chosen
by a great number of Protestant towns, which preferred liberty with
the followers of Calvin, to a tyrannical agreement with the pretended
disciples of Luther. It has been remarked that at the time of the
publication of the Form of Concord, Bremen and Neustadt on the
Hardt were the only towns which had voluntarUy adopted the reformed
doctrine on the subject of the Lord's Supper ; but scarcely thirty years
had elapsed, ere nearly half of Protestant Germany was ranged under
the standard of good sense and scriptural beUef.f These crypto-
Calvinists, as they were caUed by their adversaries, were only strength
ened in then- opposition by the attempt which was made to place them
under the ban of the empire, by comparing them to the enemies of the
Eeformation. But the thirty years' war gave another direction to the
minds of the people, and the two parties were left to seek peaceablv,
the one in the pure and simple Confession of Augsbm-g, the other in
the Form of Concord, for support iu this dreadful trial.
If it be true to afiirm, from the pages of history, that the reformers
undertook their task with the intention, not of destroying, but of
changing and preserving, we cannot say that theii- immediate successors
entered heartily into their noble purpose. Luther and Melancthon
* Plank's Geschichte der Prot. Theol, already quoted, contains the details of the
dispute, which took the name of Synergism, as well as that on the nature of the
Lord's Supper : the first, vol. i, book iii, 553-690 ; the second, book vi. ch. i.-xii,,
book viii, c, i.-xii.
t See another work by Plank, On the History of Protestant Theology, from
the Form of Concord to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century. Getting 1831
pp, 9-20.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 35
were hai-dly in theii- graves before the theologians of their school set to
work, though indirectly, to destroy the fruits of their masters' labours.*
Seeing the reformed religion legally established in the country, and
no longer having anything to feai- from the thunderbolts of Eome, it
was against the doctrines which had been with so much difficulty de
duced from the Bible, to be placed in opposition to the CathoUc
dogmas, and, above aU, against the dissent fi-om the Confession of
Augsburg in the reformed camp, that the Lutheran theologians directed
their powers. Certainly they remained faithful to the fundamental
principles of Protestantism, of which the ancient ideas of inspu-ation
and revelation were the essential elements, but they entered into refine
ments on the connexion of grace with the free will of man ; on the
nature of election and predestination, and the restrictions to be imposed
on that doctrine ; on the ubiquity in the Lord's Supper, and the infi
delity of the reformed party in denying it. On these questions did the
theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries spend all their
talents and intelligence. When we add that the churches in general
resounded with the same discussions, we shall pity the people who
were thus placed under the yoke of caviUing ; but their pious disposition
had caused them to find a spiritual nourishment in reading the Bible,
which they prized above aU else, and the princes, notwithstanding the
avarice of which Luther so often and so bitterly complains, had granted
some of the riches of which the Eeformation had despoiled the ancient
church, for different establishments of public utUity, aud especially for
schools ; and the results of this to knowledge were of no Uttle import
ance. We wiU give some specimens of the skiU of these preachers, which
wUl enable our readers to judge how much edification could be derived
from homUies or discourses entirely destitute of moral or religious ten
dencies. One of the preachers divides the subject-matter of his sermon
into four parts : the first portion treats of the difference between
Lutheranism and Popery ; the second of that existing between the
church of Christ and the ZwingUans ; the third is devoted to a dispu
tation with the Schwenkfeldians ; and the fourth is directed against the
Anabaptists. * Luther was born in 1483, at Eisleben, where he died in 1546 ; Melancthon,
bom at Wittemberg in 1497, died there in 1560. A piece of paper, on which he
had been noting dovm his thoughts, was found on a table by the bedside of Melanc
thon after his death. On the right were these words : " Thou shalt come into
the light : thou shalt see the Son of God ; thou shalt leam to know what thou hast
not been able to comprehend in this life." On the left : " Thou shalt renounce
sin ; thou shalt be delivered from all troubles, and a rabie theologorum." See
Vita German- Philosophorum, by Adam, p. 934,
d2

36 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
How edifymg must aU this have been ! and yet the author was one
of the great Ughts of his church, one who took a prominent part in the
discussion of those problems, the solution of which was so eamestly
desired by governments for fhe sake of public tranquUlity ; he was that
Jacob Andrea, whose discourses were pubUshed towards the end of the
sixteenth centm-y, who was one of the authors of the famous Form of
Concord, and who drew up the correspondence carried on between the
theologians of Tiibingen, and Jeremy, patriarch of Constantinople, for
the purpose of effecting a union of the Greek and Lutheran churches.
One of his works, printed at Frankfort in 1595, is entitled Methodus
Concionandi, and it is said that the precepts it contains are much better
than the examples afforded by the conduct of the author.
Artomedes, another Lutheran preacher, commences in the following
manner a sermon on the Lord's Supper : " There are two furious
armies of devUs incarnate, disputing about the Lord's Supper ; on one
side the Papists, on the other the haughty and captious Calvinists.
Our miserable pagan, Ovid, is a better theologian than any of these
Calvinists,'' &c. &c. And stUl more offensive expressions follow, in a
style truly disg-usting,* The introductions to these sermons generally
consisted of a grammatical explanation of the text, foUowed by a noisy
discussion, which they had the hardihood to term a practical appUcation.
I shaU quote only one other example. It is a discom-se of the preacher
Hermann, a SUesian by birth, of which Zaccheus is the subject. The
text is, " Zaccheus was a little man," a subject, we see, of immense
interest, which he divides thus : " We consider, fii-st, the word he,
which acquaints us with the nature of the person ; secondly, the word
was, which wiU teach us the fraUty of life ; thirdly, the word little,
which teUs us of the personal appearance of Zaccheus," Now, let us
see the practical application to his audience made by the preacher.
"Zaccheus," says he, " ought to teach us in the first place what great
variety there is in the works of God, since he takes care of the little, whose
comforter he is." (He does not say whether he means only the Uttle in
body, or those of whom Jesus speaks when he declares that the kingdom
of heaven is for little chUdi-en, and such as resemble them,) " FinaUy,
the history of Zaccheus should teach us the necessity of compensating
for our personal defects by our virtues." If these people were pro
fessed Lutherans, they took good care not to study the art of preaching
in the sermons of then master, many of which, especiaUy those in his
Kirchen-Postillen, may serve as models for aU ages. When we see
these aberrations of the human mind, we naturaUy ask what were the
* The sermons of Artomedes were published at Konigsberg in 1590.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 37
opinions of these theologians on that noble power of thought and per
ception which they so miserably misused. Daniel Hoffmann, professor
in the University of Helmstadt, and his disciples, wiU reply, that it is
necessary to beware of employing reason on theological subjects. I
imagine that these writers, who were not deficient in abUity, were led to
this invective against human reason only by the eccentricities of con
temporaneous theologians, and not having among them a Melancthon
to guide them in the way which he so gloriously pursued, they failed
to arrive, as he did, at theological truth by means of a wise philosophy
which he had divested of its barren subtilties.
Hoffmann, whom his learned adversary, Hutter, acknowledges to have
possessed considerable erudition, begins his attack on the reasoning
powers by a dissertation in which he plainly declares that human reason is
the work of Satan and of the flesh, and he adds, that as theology ought to
have nothing in common with it, its use should be entirely forbidden in
the Universities,* This language was too crude not to wound some ears,
and the professors of philosophy in the same University of Helmstadt
exerted themselves successfully to compel Hoffmann, if not to retract, at
least to modify his language. Here was another abuse of reason, to pre
tend to convince an opponent by threatening him with the arm of the
civil law. It appears, however, that the iron chains in which their minds
were held by the symbolic books did not aUow the adversaries of
Hoffmann to oppose his doctrine with success ; though his theories were
attacked by the University of Wittemberg, history does not record the
triumph of that famous seat of leaming.f Hoffmann, on the contrary,
found adherents who warmly defended his principles, who showed much
sense in their works against the so-called human reason advocated by
the University of Wittemberg, and succeeded in awakening the interest
of all who wished to see revived in men's hearts, not the love of dis
putation, but divine charity. Of this number were SchelUng, whose
* De Deo et Christo, published 1598. He had published another treatise in 1581,
whose title proves its moderation — Qui sit vera ae sohria Philosophia in Theologia
usus. f A writer, whose opinions always have great weightwith all who respect know
ledge, joined to a noble character, viz.. Plank, thinks that Hoffinann's theory
may have resulted from his consideration of the famous sophism of Luther, that
what is true in philosophy may be false in theology. Hoffmann says, if philosophy
is the enemy of religion and piety, the more human reason follows the guidance
of philosophy, the more will it also become the enemy of theology. But I am
still inclined to think that the vain arguments of the theologians of his own day
had the most influence in driving him to excess. Compare The History of Pro
testant Theology, from the Form of Concord to the Present Time {Geschichte der
Prot. Theologie, von der Concordienformel). Gottingen, 1831, p, 9.

38 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
principal work has a title which alone is worth a dissertation,* and the
learned counsellor Angelius of Werdenhagen, who attacked the preten
sions of reason only to prove the predominance of a quaUty of the
heart, viz,, sentiment in phUosophy; but he was unconsciously carried
so far by his imagination, that instead of exercising a real influence
over reUgious minds, he is remembered only as an enthusiast, whom a
just appreciation of reason might have rendered iUustrious.
It was otherwise with the humble shoemaker of Gorlitz, who, deeply
grieved to see the church of Christ decaying under the influence of
those who pretended to be its vigilant supporters, gave utterance to the
feeUngs which oppressed his heart. Too truly pious to enter into dis
putation, and too deeply imbued with the Christian spirit not to respect
what the cold orthodoxy of his day regarded as essentially worthy of
respect, he prayed to him who opens the hearts and the minds of
mortals, to instruct him in the truth, and his prayer was answered in
his own heart. The different writings which he pubUshed show a high
development of the moral sense, as weU as a profound conception of
divine things in their author. They certainly manifest some want of
inteUectual culture, but in the eyes of the serious man this deficiency
is amply compensated by the richness of the thoughts and the origi
nality of the expressions. We see fi-om them that he was early
initiated into the mystical language of Paracelsus, Weigel, and Schwenk-
feld ; without adopting all then- fancies, he was content to draw out
from the Book of Eevelation the divine fire hidden under the dead
letter. Thus, for example, Bohme did not admit the doctrine of the
Trinity as preserved by the confessions of faith of his church, but it is
impossible not to feel warmed by his ideas of the Divinity, when we
find them thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the Scriptures, meditation
on which occupied all his leisure hom-s. Without departing from the
spirit of the Bible, all his efforts were du-ected towards the production,
according to his means, of some better aliment for minds eager for
truth ; and from the time when this extraordinary man began to write,
down to the present day, his name, notwithstanding the anathemas of
some consistories, has ever been venerated by those who, wilUng to
judge for themselves, have examined his works.f

• Ecclesia metaphysica visitatio  Ad unguem demonstrans, quo ejurata
impietatis vanitatisque deplorata metaphysici doctores delebuntur, ad metaphy-
sicas speculationes mysteria coelitus patefacfa violentissime detorquendo. 1616,
t " The unknown philosopher," as Claude de Saint- Martin called himself, has
translated into French the Rising Aurora and the Three Principles of B'ohme.
Those who wish to become better acquainted with the life of this wise German

HISTORY OP EATIONALISM, 39
Notwithstanding this general torpidity in the Christian church, there
were stUl some learned men, who, on account of their knowledge, de
serve to be honom-ably mentioned, and it is by no means with justice
that the Eationalists, to excuse then- ovvn bold flights, charge Germany
with having been a prey to barbarism from the death of Melancthon
tiU the appearance of Baumgarten and Semler. When such names as
Calow, Musaeus, Osiander, CaUxtus, and the two Carpzows, can be
mentioned, such an accusation must faU to the ground, since the works
of aU these writers are in the hands of those who wish to form an idea
of Lutheran orthodoxy. Nor must we forget to mention Chytreeus,
whose real name was Eochof, and whose first wish it was to prove that
Melancthon had, not without reason, distinguished him above his other
disciples ; Paul Gerard, whose hymns wiU bear a comparison with the
best of Luther's compositions of the same class ; Chemnitz, whose
Examen Concilii Tridentini is always read with benefit, and who
paved the way for modern Synopses by his Harmonia Quatuor Mvange-
listarum ; Flacius, famous for his Clavis Scripturee Sacrce, and for his
valuable edition of the Greek New Testament ; Brentz, whose seven
folio volumes show the abundance of matter offered by Scriptural Inter
pretation; and Flassius, the superintendent of Gotha, whose Sacred
Philology, though indeed revised by the editors, has been reprinted
even in the present day.* The field of history alone was in a state of
complete sterUity ; if we except Sleidan's History of the Reformation,
there is no work deserviug mention. The warmth of controversy pre
vented theologians from indulging in meditation, and when they did
employ themselves on works of history, it was only for the purpose of
agoression. For this aim were composed the writings of J. Gerhard,
the haughty antagonist of Cardinal Bellarmin. I have mentioned the
name only of CaUxtus ; but he ought to be more particularly noticed
on account of the aversion in which he was held by his coUeag-ues from
his Syncretism, which they did not understand. It was not founded,
like that which has subsequently prevaUed, on a sUence on the subject
of the difference of doctrines, but on a common faith in the funda
mental principles of Christianity, contained alike in the Confessions of
Faith of Eome, of Geneva, and of Wittemberg. The works of CaUxtus
ai-e not only worthy of the pubUc eulogium pronounced on them by
Bossuet, the strongest adversary of the Eeformation, but they show
also that their author might have become a skilful historian, had he
should read his Biography, by F. de Fouque ; and, for an account of his princi
ples, the Christian Gnosis, by Baur, pp, 557-611.
• The third edition was issued at Leipzig in 1818.

40 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
not been interrupted in his labours by a bUnd persecution.* We
ought, in fact, to consider history as a mirror, in which are reflected
the providential events of the times of which it treats, and not as a field
of battle for the contests of parties. He showed that the reason why
parties attacked each other with so much violence was, that they did
not yet understand the use of sound criticism on matters of explanation
and biblical exegesis. If he did not see the results of his labours, it
cannot be said that they were futUe. We may presume that his
vigorous attacks on the gloomy dogmatism of his adversaries prepared
the way for the movement of Spener and his disciples, who, going to
the opposite extreme, had not less influence in overthrowing some
strong piUars of the Lutheran edifice.
Some other theologians, however, such as Strigel, Selneccer, and,
Chemnitz, had pursued the path pointed out by Melancthon, when he
approached the opinions of Erasmus on the question of human liberty.
The fu-st of these was pecuUarly hated for his opinions on the Lord's
Supper, though they were similar to those which are professed by aU
Lutheran pastors of the present day, and in which they resemble the
reformers. Like Selneccer, he prefixed to his work an introduction, iu
* The son of this celebrated professor of Helmstadt observes in a preface to
the Epitome Theologia Moralis, that of all his father's opinions, the one which
attracted most animadversion was this, "That in the true church there might
be members whose faith was imperfect, who would however be saved, if they
united with this imperfect faith, pure morals and an innocent life." If it were
not so, why should Christians so often pray, as did the apostles, Domine adauge
nobis fidem ? And yet it was this opinion that exposed Calixtus to the most
atrocious calumnies of his enemies. I should be ashamed to report all that I
have read of this controversy between Synergism and Syncretism, but I must
give one example to show that the rabies theologorum of which Melancthon com
plained is the same in all ages, and that it delights in attacking those more
especially inclined to the cause of moderation, charity, and peace.
On the pretext that Calixtus had travelled in France and Italy, his pious ad
versaries accused him of having derived his spirit of conciliation from tbe taverns
and bad places which he there frequented. They added, that it was nothing for
him to be a heretic, that he was fallen lower than the devil {diabolo pejor), that
the term honesty conveyed no meaning to his mind, and that it was no wonder
he had renounced the Lutheran doctrine, since no Lutherans were to be found in
the dens of debauchery and drunkenness which he had frequented in Italy and
France, (Mirum non est quod in Gallorum et Italorum tabernis, vinariis atque
fornicibus invenire Lutheranos non potuit) See the work of a professor of
Wittemberg, named Strauch, against Calixtus, Vindicia Consensus Repetiti,
p. 373. It is true that the patience of Calixtus was exhausted, and he obtained
from the tribunals a condemnation of his antagonist as an infamous calumniator ;
but Strauch was supported by the Lutheran Universities of Leipzig, Wittemberg,
and Jena ! !

HISTORY OF rationalis:m, 41
which the questions of Scriptural Eevelation, and of Christian teach
ing, are methodically set forth.* It was the same impulse which
gave rise to the work of the learned disputant, Chemnitz, who, in his
controversy with Rome, seemed to wish only to develope in a spirit of
moderation the theological ideas of Melancthon; and also to the
treatise on Cliristian doctrine by Leyser, in which, for the fu-st time,
we find united the history of opinions with the opinions themselves.
We must not omit to mention Huther, who laboured so indefatigably
as much against the opponents of Lutheranism, as to establish the Con
fession of Augsbm-g on a firm foundation, though departing in the
strictest sense of Lutheranism from the direction which I have just
pointed out. His Concordia Concors was intended to vindicate the
honour of the Form of Concord against the Concordia Liscors of Eu-
dolph Hospinian,-)- and it succeeded for a time in so doing. We know
that his Compendium Locorum Theologicorum, written with the express
intention of throwing into the shade the moderate opinions of Melanc
thon and his school, was admitted into many of the Universities, and
there enjoyed unbounded authority during more than a century. But
the giant of the Protestant church was that J. Gerhard mentioned
above, first the superintendent at Coburg, and afterwards professor at
Jena. The title of his work weU expresses its object. { Indeed, he
was not satisfied with setting forth the doctrines and the moral system
of Christianity, His book contains also a lively controversy and a
history of doctrine. We may well say that it is a work of great
patience and learning, and a most useful book of reference on subjects
connected with religious literatm-e in that day.
Up to this time theologians had adopted the synthetical method in
the explanation and development of Christian doctrines ; that is to say,
they proceeded from the cause to the effect : and it is very remarkable
that from the time when this system was abandoned, in order to pursue
the analytical method, Lutheranism began to decline. Calixtus was
the author of this change, and he also set the example in his writings,
* Melancthon had said, " Concurrunt tres causae bonae actionis, verbum Dei,
Spiritus Sanctus ac humana voluntas assentiens nee repugnans verbo Dei."
Strigel repeated, in a semi-pelagian tone, " Tres sint causae efficientes conver-
sionis: Deus, verbum et voluntas hominis," Strigel's work, which is entitled
Loci Theologici, was published in four volumes by Pezel, 1581-85. The work of
Chemnitz was only a commentary on the Loci Communes of Melancthon.
t This Discordant Concord was published by Hospinian, at Zurich, in 1607,
and at Geneva, in 1678, fol,
¦•¦ Locorum Theolog. cum pro adstruenda veritate, tum pro destruenda quorumvis
contradicentiumfalsitate. Jena, 1610, 9 vols, ; and it was afterwards published in
20 vols, at Tiibingen, 1762-81.

42 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
of separating morals from doctrine, and treating of them apart. We
cannot, however, perceive that Calixtus in his moral essay has taken
one step in advance in this most important department of reUgious
knowledge. After his death, if morals were spoken of at aU, it was
only in a negative manner, by the authors of some writings against the
Jesuits, who were beginning to make their appearance in the world.
Though such writers as HoUaz,* Q,uenstedt,f Carpov,J and several
others who flourished in the seventeenth century, were not without the
talents necessary for the cultivation of this useful branch of theology ;
yet Schomer is the only one who can, by his Specimen theologia moralis,
advance any claims to notice in this field. But how could those who
violated charity, one of the fundamental principles of Christian morality,
be corapetent to write on the subject, and lay down its precepts for
others to follow ? Theologians did quite right, therefore, in neglecting
this subject ; especiaUy if we may believe what Budaeus says of his col
leagues. " There was so great a difference," wrote he, " between the
morality which they spoke of, and that which they practised, that it was
the general belief, that those who wrote on the subject did so from the
desire for fame or from the hope of gain."§

* We have by HoUaz, Examen Theolog. Acroam. 1707. The second edition,
with additions by Rom. Teller, is of 1750.
f Theologia didactico-polemica. The last edition was published at Leipzig in
1715. X Theologia revelata, &c. Frankfort, 1737-49, 3 vols.
§ Budaeus, Isagoge, p. 588.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 43

CHAPTEE YI.
THE STATE OP THEOLOGY IN GERMANY FROM THE DEATH OF
MELANCTHON TO THE TIME OF SPENER.
After having praised the works of some theologians, it is necessary to
show how the most influential of the time treated the question which is
the touchstone of EationaUsm. The learned labours of Eeuchlin on
the Old Testament, and those no less learned of Erasmus and Beza on
the New, are weU known. By them a strong impulse was given to the
study of the ancient languages, and to the philological explanation of
the Bible, when time, place, custom, and other cu-cumstances, call for
such explanations. It was necessary to pursue these studies, with a
view of extending and improving them, instead of labouring only for
the Confession of Augsburg, and thus displaying, though together with
great learning, much prejudice and utter ignorance of sound criticism.
But the theologians of that period could not understand this. Their
strict SupematuraUsm was only anti-Popery or anti-Calvinism, and
provided they found in the Scriptures a word to throw at the head of
a CathoUc, or of one of the reformed party, with the view of breaking it
for the glory of the God of the Lutherans, they troubled themselves
Uttle as to whether their system were approved by enUghtened reason.
They affirmed on the subject of inspiration, that every sentence, every
word, and even the punctuation, of the Bible was the work of the Holy
Spirit ; and they supported this rash declaration by the words of Jesus,
the meaning of which is so profoundly spiritual, that not one tittle of
the Scripture can perish. HoUaz fm-ther maintained that no one,
without being guilty of blasphemy, can doubt that the style in which
the Scriptures are wi-itten is worthy of the divine majesty, and, there
fore, that it is an insult to the divine majesty to seek in it for solecisms
and barbarisms.* Yet HoUaz could not have been ignorant of the
• He proves his theory thus : " The style of an omniscient God cannot be ac
cused of containing anything foolish or barbarous ; now the style of the Scrip
tures is the style of God, therefore," &c. It must be acknowledged that it re
quires great self-denial to present such weak arguments. This one has more
force  " The inspiration of the words was necessary in order that they might ex-

44 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
difficulties experienced by the Stephens's and by Erasmus in making
choice of a text worthy the confidence of the universal church ; and he
may also have been acquainted with some of the numerous diversities
of reading, the list of which has been so greatly increased in our
times by Griesbach and by Scholz. The same narrow spirit is to be
found in the aUegations of Gerard, Chemnitz, and even of Calow ; and
many go to such an extent that they weaken the force of historical
proofs in order to estabUsh the authenticity of the canon, thinking that
thus they can better deduce thence the intrinsic proofs of the divinity
of Scripture, We could have understood them had they been con
tent with saying that as God has given the Word only as food for
the heart of man, so the heart should also take a good part in its inter
pretation. But such was not their language, and therefore were their
pretensions absm-d. Perhaps they considered only the weak side of
some historical testimony, and did not see, or at least did not think,
enough of those points in which it cannot be assaUed, critical know
ledge having at that time made but little progress ; and it is possible
that they thought to prevent subsequent attacks by fortifying them
selves behind proofs which the conscience alone can appreciate.
Though the Christian may say with a French writer, " The majesty of
Scripture astonishes me, its holiness speaks to my heart," he must also
be able, if called upon, to give an account of his faith, and this he wUl
never be able to do if he allows himself to be ensnared by historical and
critical pretensions. Notwithstanding the multipUcity of his labours,
Luther had found time to point out to his successors a vast field for
cultivation, that of Explanation and Sacred Criticism, one which they
ought to have entered upon the more wiUingly, since the reformed
party, in the persons of Theodore, of Beza, and the Stephens's, had
already broken up the ground on the subjects connected with the history
of the text of Scripture.* But the Lutheran theologians, content with
seeing their favom-ite doctrines enthroned in the Universities, beheld
nothing but through their medium, and aU their expositions of Holy
Writ were founded on their polemical dogmatism.
As long as the Form of Concord held sovereig-n authority, with it
must exist that sort of interpretation and criticism which alone could
press the trae meaning of the Holy Spirit," All who know the difficulties of
making a good and true translation will confess that it would require, indeed, a
sort of divine intuition to give precisely the thought of another.
* Luther's writings on the subjects of Explanation and Sacred Criticism are in
the course of being published separately, under the title, Lutheri opera exegetica
Latina, curavit M, St, Th, Elsperger, The nine first volumes appeared at Er-
langen, 1842,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 45
maintain it. It was absolutely necessary to find in the Scriptm-es sup
port for the doctrine officiaUy recognised, and hence free inquiry was
forbidden by the very nature of things, the circle of studies having been
strangely contracted by that multitude of confessions which were op
posed to all research. The only ambition of these theologians was to
teach as, according to them, Luther must have taught, and they em
ployed aU their powers in inventing a new scholastic system which
should place theu- master's instructions beyond the reach of attack.
Explanation thus became, like chm-ch history, a demonstration of re
ceived doctrine, instead of serving to throw new light on the subject.
It was nothmg more than the tool of a party which laboured rather for
the interests of a system than for those of reUgion. EeUgion had
nothing to do with these lucubrations of the Lutheran theology, which
had thus faUen into such unskilful hands, and if the divine word,
drawn from under the bushel, had not acted as a preservative, aU these
subtilties would have had the effect of converting reform into an
instrument of demoraUsation.*
Nevertheless the principles advanced by the reformers in order to
place their doctrines on a base which they thought indestructible were
scrupulously respected by the Concordists, and the learned Mosheim
may be justly accused of error whenf he states that not only Luther
but also his immediate successors admitted the doctrine of inspu-ation
only in the matter and not in the language in which it is conveyed ;
since Mus»us, who had, in 1644, maintained a theory that the inspi
ration of the words was doubtful, and could not be proved, was obUged
to retract. Calow, however, was the first sensibly to modify this mode
of thinking.
A strict Lutheran, opposed to aU agreement with whatever differed
in the least from the Confession of Augsburg, Calow, a professor and su
perintendent at Wittemberg, had already signaUsed himself in the con
troversy against the syncretism of Calixtus, who was weakly defended by
the University of Helmstadt.^ But the work which relates more espe-
* The principal authors of Lutheran doctrinal works were, after Melanc
thon, Chemnitz, Hutter, Bechmann, Quenstedt, HoUaz, Budaeus, Gerhard,
Calixtus, Hulsenius, Calow, Konig, Auenstadt, Baier, Baumgarten, Carpow, and
Walch. After them came a series of doctrinal systems, which hold an inter
mediate place between the decided Rationalism that succeeded, and the narrow
Supernaturalism which preceded, them. The authors of these were, Morus, Do
derlein, Reinhard, Augusti, Ammon, Schott, Bretschneider, &c.
f Elementa Theologia Dogmatica, i, p. 120,
X Why must history be obliged to record of Calow, fits of passion which
ought to have been incompatible with the learning that he possessed ? Speaking
of the University of Helmstadt, which endeavoured to support Calixtus against

46 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
cially to our subject is his Doctrinal /System, in which is given a com
plete theory of revelation. According to this theologian, the word
revelation may be understood in three different senses : — Ist, In a
general manner, as signifying every act of God on man, in order to
lead him to the knowledge of religious and moral tmths, whether the
Deity does this by the means of natm-e, reason, or the Sacred Scrip
tures ; 3nd, In a pecuUar manner, as signifying an express mani
festation of the Divine WiU, which WUl is set forth in the Scriptures ;
3rd, In a stUl more peculiar manner, as expressing an immediate action
of God on the sacred writers by his Holy Spirit. Hence it foUows,
that all revelation comes necessarUy from God, whose aim always is
to instruct men in those things which concern their salvation, and to
each of his revelations a pecuUar inspiration is joined, which makes its
purpose clear. Hence it foUows also that all the teachings of every
revelation are true and certain; for it would be absurd to suppose
that God would reveal that which is false. Certainly, Calow, in this
amalgamation of different notions on the subject of revelation, did not
see the inferences which Eationalism might draw from it. God, said
he, never does any thing useless ; therefore, if one revelation suffices to
teach mau aU that it is necessary he should know, in order to accom
pUsh his destiny, why should we suppose others ? Yet Calow, whose
orthodoxy was unsuspected, insists upon the immediate as weU as the
mediate revelation, maintaining the last however, in so far as made
manifest by divine messengers, in the ancient acceptation of the word.
He dweUs also on the different characters of the vehicles through
which revelation is conveyed. Sometimes, says he, they may be
beyond the powers of reason and of nature, and it may sometimes
happen that they are in accordance wdth our own experience. In the
latter case man has the right of examining and judging them ; in the
former, he ought to receive them without examination.
As to inspiration, he considers it in its principle as an act of God
who reveals, and in its form as the revealed word. Inspiration is with
him a definite reaUty which the word of God has constituted such in
the most profound sense, which distinguishes it from anything purely
human ; it is the more necessary to maintain this position, as every
distinction of the word places, according to the subject, the human
reason in the highest rank, in presuming that the contents of revela-
his furious adversaries, be actually said that, in so acting, the colleagues of
Calixtus had spread abroad in the world the excretions of Satan {excrementa
Satana). In a programme of one of his courses of lectures this shameful expres
sion is found.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 4,7
tion are made known as a gift (p, 68). Calow speaks afterwards of
the connexion between revelation and inspiration, saying that the
latter expresses the most profound concentration of the idea of the
former.* Such were the men who, having received the inheritance of Luther
and Melancthon, far from repairing the defects which may have
existed in the principles laid down by those skUful, but not infallible
fomiders of German Protestantism, aUowed those principles, on the con
trary, to become weakened in theu- hands, by neglecting to apply them
to any useful purpose, but employing them to undermine the edifice
with the defence of which they were charged. Melancthon in the later
years of his life had raised the phUosophy of Aristotle from the con
tempt into which it had fallen through the sarcasms of Luther, only to
make it serve as a useful auxUiary to theology, and not to transform
it into a new scholastic system without taste and without character,
stUl less to confound it with a phUosophy too audacious in its preten
sions. Notwithstanding this example, subsequent theologians did not
rise to one great and luminous idea ; they received and imparted only
a narrow and timid education, together with irrational instructions,
placed, however, under the sanction of oaths and censures. Such a
state of things could only paralyse the human mind in the higher
classes of society, whUe its tendency must have been to weaken among
the people the feeUng of simple unaffected piety as weU as the moral
sentiment. Zeal grew cold, and Ufe became extinct in the bosom of the Lutheran
church; the letter indeed remained, but the spu-it was dead; and
though an attempt was made to revive it in the controversy of the
syncretists, it soon relapsed into its former lethargy from very weari
ness of dispute. We are now about to see what efforts were made by
some good men to prolong the life of this Lutheranism, abeady so much
diseased. • Vol. I. ch, iii. sec. 1, p, 280, seqq,, of the Systema locor. theologicorum sacra
potiss. scriptura et antiquitate, necnon advers, confession, doctrinam, praxin et
controv. fidei pertraetationem exhibens. Witt. 1655-77. 12 pp. Theologia positiva.
Witt, 1682.

48 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE VII.
PROPAGATION OP PIETISM — SPENER, HIS SYSTEM — HIS INFLUENCE
IN GERMANY.
There appeared, at this time, a man who, deeply afflicted by the state
of the Christian church in his native land, resolved to consecrate the
whole of his Ufe to its improvement. We may say that his infiuence
iu Germany was very great, if we take into account not only those
who readily acknowledged the benefits which they derived from his
zeal, but also those of his adversaries whom he compeUed to give a
better direction to their labours ; for when opposition does exist, fi-om
whatever side it comes, it never faUs to produce good fruits itself, and
to draw them forth from other quarters.
The nature of pietism is so often misunderstood, and it has been so
calumniated by its adversaries, that a somewhat detaUed account of
this opposition to the Lutheran theology made by men on whose good
faith suspicion is not aUowed to rest, cannot be considered superfluous
in this place.
Spener, born in Alsace, in 1635, studied at Strasburg and Basle.
In the first of these towns his master was the celebrated Dannhauer,
and in the second the learned orientalist Buxtorf. The dissertations
which he published, whether during his residence in Switzerland, or at
Tubingen, where he afterwards settled, or at Strasburg, where he at a
later period held the office of pastor, and at the same time gave theo
logical lessons to the academy of that town ; these dissertations, 1 say,
treating as they do of histoiy, geography, logic, and metaphysics, prove
the variety of his knowledge. It was not, therefore, from ignorance
of the antiquity of the plans pm-sued in the schools, that he after
wards contracted the circle of labom- to which he considered that the
theologian ought to confine himself, but because he thought that thus
he should be more Ukely to obtain the blessing of heaven upon his
work. It was soon seen, however, that he reserved his best powers for
the study of purely scriptural theology, the decUne of which struck
him as forcibly as did the diminution of Christian zeal in the mass of

HISTORY OP RATIONALISM. 49
believers, and we wUl show how he endeavoured to reaUze his project
after meditating on it for some time. Full of humiUty, and Uttle caring
for the celebrity generally belonging to the part of the reformer,* the
first measures which he took were grave and serious conversations with
persons of aU ranks and of aU professions, whom he thought he could
lead to entertain the ideas which he vrished to propagate, and after
wards the circulation in this little society of friends, of writings fitted
to confirm them in their resolutions. He began his pious efforts by
recommending the Postilla Evangelica of Arndt, in a Preface which
was afterwards printed separately under the title of Pia Besideria.
Arndt, a pious man, if ever there was one, had been persecuted by
his contemporaries and branded as a heretic, for having been, sorae
time previous, one of those rare preachers who preferred to lead the
members of their flocks to a Christian Ufe, to making them hearers of
polemical discussions.-j- Such was the fate of Spener also ; but as it
has been weU said by his friend and colleague Francke, the venerable
Vincent de Paul of Germany, experience teaches us that whenever
men employ themselves seriously in the name of reUgion, in the moral
improvement of their kind, they are soon taxed with fanaticism or hy
pocrisy, and none of those epithets are spared which may cast ridicule
on their labour s.f

» He himself says, on this subject, " I will not allow myself to entertain the
foolish idea that I can come forward as a reformer of the church ; for I remem
ber my weakness, and that I have received neither the powers nor the wisdom
necessary for such an undertaking. Let me enjoy only the power of uniting ray
feeble voice with those which encourage others to undertake a reformation which
the Lord will know how to excite." This sincere modesty merited the confi
dence of every honest heart and elevated mind, notwithstanding the defects pre
sented by his ideas on the subject of the religious sciences.
f Jean Arndt, bom at Ballenstadt, in 1555, filled the pastoral office, succes
sively, at that town, at Quedlinburg, Brunswick, and Eisleben, and died in 1631,
at Zell, as superintendent of the principality of Luneburg. In German families,
where piety still finds a home, his True Christianity is never wanting, and it is
continually reprinted. One of the heroes of Lutheranism of that time, viz.,
L. Osiander, declared in his Bedenken gegen das wahre Christenthum {Reflec
tions against True Christianity),— i\ie very title of the book is its condemna
tion,— that the writings of Arndt contained the remains of all heresies, and
the subtle preachers of Brunswick called them poison. Their declamations
have passed away, and the noble efforts of Arndt, who is sometimes called the
Fenelon of Germany, have not ceased to do good to devout hearts.
X See an excellent biograpjw of Francke, by Guerike, which appeared at
Halle, in 1827,' under this t«le, indicative of the circumstances which led
to its publication ; Aug, Herm. Francke : Eine Denkschrift, Sdcularfeier seines
Todes. VOL. II. ^

50 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
We know, indeed, that the name of Pietist given to Spener and those
whom he influenced, was invented by the theologians themselves, who
could find no better argument to refute him. However that may be,
the influence of Spener became stiU greater when he explained his
principles of exposition, which agreed with his ideas of practical Chris
tianity. This took place after he had resided a long time in the cities
of Prankfort-on-the-Maine, Berlin, and Dresden, and had there esta
bUshed those pious conferences known by the name of Collegia pietatis,
whence the -wqiA pietist is derived, and where there was no intention of
forming a separate church,* but only of obtaining edification which the
temples of the ruling church did not afford. He supported with aU
his credit the Colloquia philobiblica, which Paul Gerhard and Francke
had also endeavoured to estabUsh, for the purpose of leading back the
mind to the practical study of the Bible, and of drawing it away from
those idle questions which, placed indiscriminately under the sanction of
the Bible, were entu-ely foreign to it. This is not the place to record
the troubles into which Spener's projects of theological reform plunged
him ; it would withdraw me too far from my original design, which is
to give what may be considered a general view of his ideas on theology
and Christian Ufe.f
The principal point of discussion between Spener and his adversaries
was whether his doctrine were a new heresy arising, as did so many
others, from the liberty of inquiry secured by Protestantism. This
question was discussed in a great number of works, and the general con
clusion was, that the opinions of Spener on regeneration or new birth,
as weU as on conversion and sanctification, did not differ sensibly from
• It was some time after Spener that a man estimable for every good quality
endeavoured to form a community distinct from the established churches, and
succeeded beyond his hopes. I speak of the Count of Zinzendorf, a pupil of
Francke, who, seconded by the enlightened zeal of the Baron of Wattewille,
founded the Society of Moravians, among whom practical Christianity has always
been placed above the speculations of the intellect,
f A fuller account of Spener will be found in his life, written by one of his
friends, the Baron of Canstein : however small may be the wish of tbe reader to
become acquainted with the debates which his reforms excited, he will not con
sult without benefit either the History of Religious Controversies, by Walch, vol. i.
p. 540, or the work of W. Hossbach, entitled, " Spener and his Times." Berlin,
1828. He will also find it useful to read a biography of Spener, in the Journal of
' Edification, published at Paris, by M. le Pasteur Martin. I there find quoted these
words of Spener : " The Reformation commenced by Luther is far from being
completed, as far as it regards life and morality." And the journalist adds,—
" Words full of sense and truth, which show how clearly Spener saw into the
depths of things and of the minds of men at that time."— ie Disciple de Jestts
Christ {The Disciple of Jesus Christ, vol, ii, p. 53),

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 51
the orthodox dogmas, and that the plan which he pursued for the esta
blishment of his doctrines was much more to be feai-ed bythe Lutheran
church than the doctrines themselves. In his Pia Besideria, and
afterwards in his General Knowledge of God, he had already main
tained that divine tlungs ought to be discussed only by men embued
with the Spirit of God, also that the true theologian should be a rege
nerate man ; for unless he be such, theology is no more divine but
purely human wisdom. He fm-ther maintains that ui order to arrive
at truth, we must go only to the source of aU truth, and consequently
that we ought not to beUeve one article of the creeds, unless we know
that it is clearly taught in the Word of God ; that we should not inqune
whether Luther or any other theologian professed a doctrine, whether
the symboUcal books admit or reject it, but should regard the Bible
alone as being able to solve all reUgious and moral questions. As we
see, the fault of Spener's system was its too great simplicity ; it con
founded, moreover, two distinct things,— the knowledge of facts, other
wise caUed science, and the piety common to the theologian and the
layman ; things which should be closely united, but whose separate exist
ence we can conceive to be possible. It also confounded the internal
proofs of the divinity of the Scripture with the indisputable evidence
afforded in its favour by history and tradition. We are not therefore
surprised that men of merit joined with the often ill-judging crowd in
opposing with acrimony a system which attacked many of their con
victions. Perhaps the signal for the invective launched against Spener by
several theologians was given by his attacks on the confessors of
Lutheranism {Beichtvater) ; a ridiculous institution, the existence of
which was in many places known only by the tax gathered for it. Be
that as it may, we invite those who would stiU persist, notwithstanding
the indisputable evidence of history, in regarding Spener and his friends
as the enemies of science and philosophy, to read these words of one
whose testimony may weU be received on such a subject, — " . . . they
completely justified themselves, and they could not be convicted either
of this error or of the heresies which were imputed to them." It is
Leibnitz who speaks thus categoricaUy of the pietists,*
The weak points of the system which explain, if they do not excuse,
the accusations of indifference brought against its advocates, are the
distinction between the essential and non-essential in point of doctrine,
— a distinction which opens a wide gate to Uberty of thought, — and its
unfeigned contempt for confessions of faith in general, when it shoiild
have been content with showing which of these confessions is not in
* Essai de Theodicee, vol. i. p, 57, edit, of Berlin, 1840,
E 2

52 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
harmony with the true faith. How could a chm-ch exist without some
standard around which aU its members might raUy and recognise each
other ? The Bible alone is not a standai-d, unless we find that the
thousand and one colours with which it may be decked by the human
understanding may serve as marks of recognition. In principle, con
fessions are part of the essence of every reUgious community ; we must
only endeavour to purify them, and to make them conformable to the
eternal rights of reason and of faith. Thus the weak side of Spener
and his friends was the liberty inherent in Protestantism, by which, as
intelUgent and moral beings, they pretended to show that symboUcal
books were unnecessary. Their adversaries, on the contrary, afiirmed
that these books were nrrevocable, and if not immediately inspfred as the
sacred writings, were at least mediately so, and therefore indisputable.*
But Lutheranism, seeing a breach made in the edifice of its faith, could
not pardon it. It was, indeed, by this breach that a class of Eationalists
entered, to facUitate the invasion of the whole edifice by others. A
strict Lutheran of our time, who does not conceal his sympathy for the
character of Spener, remarks, however, that though his principles attacked
with justice the dead orthodoxy of his day, they would have been devoid
of meaning before a living orthodoxy.f But Spener questioned whether
the Lutheran organisation of the church coxUd ever produce that ortho
doxy full of Ufe which is the object of the wishes of the learned pro
fessor of Halle, Let us say, then, in praise of this good man, that
though several governments, misled by the denunciations of Lutheran
orthodoxy, committed the mistake of issuing edicts against what they
beUeved to be a pubUc pest, though such writers as Mayer, of Ham-
bm-g, who by his political intrigues proved still better than by his
writings, that he was a stranger to a peaceable and Christian Ufe,J and
* This is the opinion of Mylius, Hutter, and even of HoUaz. " It is dan
gerous," says the last, " to call the symbolical books human writings {humana
scripta appellare) without adding some explanatory word."
t Guerike, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, 3rd edit, Halle, 1838. p. 1072.
Another writer on church history, who is to Protestant Germany what the Abbe
Fleury is to Catholic France, viz., an exact historian, free from prejudice, some
what diffuse, and, above all, quoting largely from the authors of whom he speaks,
remarks also very justly, that even if Spener bad not distinctly expressed his
opinions against the symbolical books, yet all his principles tended that way.
Schrock, Kirchengeschichte, vol. viii. p. 192.
X Mayer published, in 1706, after leaving Hamburg to undertake the office of
superintendent in Pomerania, a Schwedischen theologischen Bericht von Pietisten,
where we find this answer to the question, What are pietists ? — " They are those
who, under the veil of piety, persecute the pure and true Lutheran religion, who
overturn its sacred foundation (the confession of the Lutheran faith) as well as
the doctrines which are derived from it, and which, being in conformity with the

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 53
Loscher, superintendent of Dresden, misunderstood the tendency of his
labours — yet Spener himself and his numerous friends, after his death in
1705, were able to see that his zeal had not been useless. The Uni
versity of Halle placed itself under his direction, and had, when that of
Leipzig was opposing Spener with aU its power, Breithaupt, Anton, and
Francke, as theological professors, the last of whom was the very soul
as weU as the founder of so many charitable institutions, which cause
his memoiy to be cherished. This University of Halle could count by
thousands the students who fi-equented it, vrithout reckoning the thou
sands of orphans who were maintained and educated in the Waisenhaus
(oi-phan-house). Many of these students became afterwards very dis
tinguished men : among them theology and the pulpit claim Dr. Eam-
bach, who was born at PsuUendorf in 1708, and died at Breslau in
1773, in the exercise of high ecclesiastical functions; his son and
grandson, both elders of the clergy of the republic of Hamburg, did not
disgrace the good instructions of the pupU of Breithaupt and Lange.
Another of these students was devoted to the fine arts ; the iUustrious
Handel, whose subUme harmony is a magnificent testimony to the
powers, in art, of genius imbued with piety.*
It is certain that an impulse being thus given, theological studies
again came into favour, and the evangeUcal spirit of Spener ex
tended its influence over a great part of Germany. The more the
word of God, are most necessary. They open the door of the church to all
heretics." This, then, is tbe great offence, that they did not say to men. Do you
believe in this or that confession of faith ? but, Do you believe in Christ, and do
you act upon his divine example ? He continues thus : — " They receive and defend
these heretics, grant to each the liberty of believing whatever he chooses (what
an atrocious calumny!), by their hypocrisy they bewitch poor souls to such an
extent, that notwithsianding their open lies and deceptions, these poor souls,
which are like the idols of the Pagans, having eyes but seeing not, having ears
but hearing not, follow exactly in the footsteps of their seducers, and go with
them to eternal' damnation." Tantane animis coelestibus ira I The historians of
Hamburg apply the word bewitch to the conduct of Mayer on his dismissal from
the office of pastor of St, James's, and his re-election, which, however, did no
thing for the interests of public tranquillity.
• Even in the lifetime of Spener, several works appeared which adopted his
principles in theology. We would raention Breithaupt's Institutiones Theologica,
lib. ii. Halle, 1695. The Foundations of Theology {Grundlegung der Theologie), of
J. Anastase Freylingshausen. Halle, 1703. And after the death of Spener ap
peared the learned work of Lange, entitled, CEconomia salutis evangelica, 1728.
Soon Maj us of Giessen, and the two theologians of Wurtemberg, Pfaff and
Weissman, modified a little the strictness of their system, the first in his Synopsis
theol. Christiana ex solis verbis Christi, relatis ab evangelistis, eruta atque monstrata.
Erfurt, 1708 : PfafF, in Institutiones theol. dogmatica et moralis. Tiibingen, 1720 ;
and Weissmann, in Institut. theologia exegetico dogmatica. Tiibingen, 1739.

54 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
edicts which were issued against pietism, from Sweden and Denmark
to the depths of SUesia, endeavom-ed to oppose the system, the more
was the good sense of the people moved by the weighty exhortations
of the students of Halle.* AU Germany would probably have been
roused by pietism, had not a circumstance, which, it seems, ought
rather to have done it honour, put a stop to its conquests. I mean
the reconcUiation demanded by the strictly orthodox schools, which
thought it their duty, not only to cease their attacks, but even to unite
with HaUe and its students to oppose what they considered a for
midable enemy of the Lutheran church. The enemy, however, was
only the phUosophy of Wolf, the appearance of which had on the old
practitioners of theology the effect which the head of Medusa would
have produced, and which, nevertheless, only filled up the measure of
the faults which should give the last blow to Lutheranism, by demand
ing the immediate appearance of its conqueror, Eationalism. This
union which the disciples of Spener could not reasonably object to,
since no renunciation of their principles was required from them, was
the cause of the labours of many theologians, whose writings stUl form
a great part of the matter of all modern doctrinal works, I shaU
mention particularly the labours of Wolf, the learned orientaUst and
critic; of Matthew Pfaff; of Bengel; of Mosheim; of Carpow, not
withstanding his iU-concealed, anti-pietistic resentments ; of the two
Walchs, father and son ; of Christian Augustus Crusius, who were all
known by their critical and historical researches, and who endeavoured
to render possible the union of a scientific with a pious Ufe in the
Lutheran churches, f But the blow was already struck, and when once
* This influence would have been of longer duration, and Lutheranism would
have experienced, by its means, a most happy transformation, if, to the faults
which we have already mentioned in Spener's system, he and his disciples had
not added a total neglect in their writings, of the science of morals. Regard
ing it as a consequence of doctrine, they did not take the trouble of explaining it.
and scientifically developing its obligations. Certainly, evangelical doctrine
offers very powerful motives for obedience of the law, but cannot destroy its
nature. We can understand, therefore, how the philosophy of duty was suc
cessful in the contest with theologians so little fortified against such serious
attacks. t Among these theologians, Bengel and Mosheim — the first of whom died in
Wurtemberg, his native country, in 1752; the second in 1755, at Gottingen, of
which city they were the ornament— deserve a special notice, on account of the
vast extent of their knowledge. See, for more details of these two men, to whom
sacred criticism and ecclesiastical history owe much, The Life and Actions of
Bengel, by Burk, 2nd edit, Stuttgard, 1832 ; and a Latin account of Mosheim
and his labours, published by Professor Lucke, in 1837, at Gottingen, on the
jubilee of the University,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 55
reason has seen clearly into a question by which it is attacked, sooner
or later it must triumph over all unfounded opposition. However, it is
necessary for me to show how this happy beginning was not followed
up zealously, and how instead of proceeding fi-om improvement to im
provement, theologians abandoned themselves to views which could only
hasten the entire faU of Lutheranism.

56 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE VIII.
MODERN PHILOSOPHY: DESCARTES, SPINOZA, MALEBRANCHE, LEIB
NITZ, WOLF. — THEIR INFLUENCE ON THEOLOGY.
The reader of history cannot faU to observe that, in aU times, the pre
vaUing systems of philosophy have exerted a great influence on, if they
have not entirely absorbed, reUgious opinions. It cannot be denied
that the Platonism of Alexandria had great influence over the Greek
and Latin doctors of the first centuries of the church, nor is it therefore
necessary to attribute to it the invention of a doctrine which existed
before, and independently of, it. In Uke manner did the scholastic or
AristoteUan philosophy in the middle ages take possession of aU the
avenues of theology, which it thus compelled to submit to its empire.
It was the same in modern times, when Descartes, throwing off the
swaddUng clothes of scholasticism, resolved to owe to himself alone the
acquisition of the truth which he so eamestly desired to possess. For
what else is the methodical doubt which he established as the starting
point in his phUosophy, than an energetic protest of the human mind
against aU external authority ? Having thus placed aU science on a
phUosophical basis, no matter what, he freed Philosophy herself from
her long serritude, and proclaimed her queen of the inteUect. Hence
every one who has wished to account to himself for his existence, every
one who has desired to know himself, to know nature, and to rise to
its author ; in a word, aU who have wished to make a wise use of their
inteUectual faculties, to apply them, net to hollow speculations which
border on nonentity, but to sensible and practical inquiries, have taken
and foUowed some direction from Descartes.
First came Spinoza, who aimed at nothing but Cartesianism, and
who laid the foimdations of a Pantheism as destructive to scholastic
philosophy as to aU revealed theology. Then foUowed Malebranche,
who, starting fi-om the same principles as Descartes, arrived in sub
stance and extent at the same conclusions as Spinoza. But wishing
to trace to spirituabsm what the ideas of Spinoza seemed to him
wrongly to conduct to pure materiaUsm, he drew back before the
exigencies of his logic, and troubUng himself Uttle about the objections

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 57
which might be raised as to the inutUity of his reflecting, yet inactive,
mind, he was content to clothe his system with theological forms which
would impose on the vulgar, while they aUowed him to go on philoso
phising to the end. And finally came Leibnitz, of whom Germany
ought ever to be proud, and who, though he combatted some of the
opinions of Descartes, was nevertheless inspired by the fu-e of his
genius.* If Descartes and Spinoza deserve the credit of being con
sidered the founders of modern phUosophy, the one for having laid
down principles which have been employed, with justice, in the forma
tion of aU other systems, and the other ifor removing aU restraints on
the human mind, when it wished to extend these principles into the
plains of infinity, we ought to regard Leibnitz as the founder of that
spiritual philosophy which first proclaimed principles, & priori, inde
pendently of aU experience, and the great aim of which has been to
make aU human knowledge serve to raise the moral dignity of man by
cherishing in his heart the feeling of his individual immortaUty. Leib
nitz has left no philosophical system properly so called : all his labours
tended towards the reconcUement of religious faith with reason, of
phUosophy with theology ; and if on some points he entertained pecu
Uar ideas which his fine genius admirably maintained, but which have
left Uttle trace in the scientific world, yet he never showed the least
hesitation in his defence of the first great truths, without which no
moral or reUgious principle could exist.f
The great acquu-ements of Leibnitz, his briUiant reputation, which
extended to all places, and drew upon him the attention of men such
as Bossuet in France, who could not agree in his reUgious opinions,
* As Socrates bequeathed his doctrine to two minds of very dissimilar, though
rich, characters, who therefore set about developing it in an almost opposite
direction, so did Descartes see numerous advocates of his opinions employ
them in the defence of doctrines which their propagators were far from con
sidering identical. Spinoza and Malebranche were the immediate followers of
Descartes ; yet see if these two great men think that they have the least sympathy
with Locke, the pupil of Bacon, and Descartes, and Leibnitz, the disciple of
Descartes, and Spinoza, They all deny the connexion, as if it were an injury to
their fame! Histoire de la Vie, &c. {History of the Life and Writings of Spinoza,
pp. 271-306, by the author). I do not know whether, after such examples, I
may be permitted further to mention, for the singularity of the fact, the Protestant
Wittich, who defends with as much warmth as the Catholic Arnaud what they
term the philosophy of Descartes, from which the one constructs his biblical
system of doctrine, after the manner of Calvin, and the other his traditional
system on the model of Jansenius.
t His first work, the La Theodicee, was principally directed against the scep
tical principles contained in the Dictionary of Bayle. His New Essays of the
Judgment develope still further his philosophical ideas.

58 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
his deeply moral and religious character, though somewhat incUned to
self-love, the claims of which he vainly endeavoured to stifle, — so many
and so admirable qualities excited hopes that Luther's work of reforma
tion would be remodelled by him, and that what was too injurious in it
to the ancient church, and what was too precarious for the modern,
would be abandoned. But his attempts at reconciUation between the
two communities are now only curious historical monuments, and his
influence on the church of his country, though indirect, became contrary
to his intention, even fatal to it.
Some have vrished to prove Leibnitz to have been a CathoUc in the
sense of the Eomish church ; but all his writings show that if he be
lieved in the divinity of Christianity, he beUeved in only the utUity of
the popedom. After reading his philosophical and theological writings,
no doubt can remain on the subject ; yet how many are there who know
Leibnitz only by name, and who go away repeating that the greatest
geniuses of modern times have died in the bosom of the Eomish church !
An impartial historian ought to grant, that if we consider the inward
ideas which guide men rather than the concessions which they think
themselves compeUed to make to their age, we shaU find few of any
worth, whose ambition has not been to die Christians, which does not
imply adherence to any particular communion. But to confine our
selves to the great Leibnitz : his opinions on the religious parties which
divide Christendom are contained in the foUowing significant sentence
bon-owed from his correspondence ; " Far fi-om thinking that the Lu
therans ought to be separated fi-om the reformed party, I do not even
find any matter for dispute between them ; but I think differently in the
case of Popery : in order to effect an union with it, it would be neces
sary that some of its decrees should be mitigated, that others should
be laid aside, and that several of its hui'tfiil practices should be
abolished."* Leibnitz had formed, properly speaking, no philosophical
system, but his ideas were scattered here and there throughout his
numerous works. We see, however, his desire to found a phUosophy,
d priori, general and necessary also for reUgion. Bayle had treated
sceptically the most important truths of the philosophical doctrine of
religion in order to prove them in some respects contrary to the Chris-
* Opera, tom, vi, 139. edit, of Dutens. These false ideas on the position of
Leibnitz in regard to the different Christian communions have been spread since
the publication by the Abbe Emery, of a philosophical system of this great man,
from a manuscript said by the editor to have been found in the library of Hanover ;
but the laudable desires of Leibnitz to see the re-union of the Protestant and
Catholic churches have been confounded with the inward sentiments ofthe philo
sopher. The words quoted above were addressed by Leibnitz to M, Ludolf.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 59
tian doctrines. Leibnitz sought to prove the conformity of reason with
a belief in revelation, on the principle that two truths cannot contradict
each other. He distinguished for that two kinds of rational tmths,
those which are of absolute necessity, the contrary of which is impossi
ble, and those of hypothetical necessity, or necessity depending on the
laws of nature, which were estabUshed by God, and which can also be
changed by him. There can, then, exist no contradiction between pure
and absolute reason and revelation and faith, but only between the
reason which attaches itself to certain conditions of nature and the re
velation which destroys those conditions. God, the author of the laws
of natm-e as weU as of our reason, can, by the effect of his wUl, under
certain circumstances, change the former, even when they would thus
pass the limits of our comprehension. Beginning fi-om this principle,
Leibnitz admitted positively, both in the physical and the moral world,
real miracles, and he did not imagine that any one could raise serious
objections to their possibiUty. All which has been urged against reason,
said he, applies only to a pretended reason, corrupted and abused by
false appearances ; so the simple ideas, the necessary truths, and the
demonstrative consequences of phUosophy, cannot be contrary to revela
tion.* There is often some confusion in the expressions of those who
place together philosophy and theology, or faith and reason ; they con
found the terms, " explain," " understand," " prove," and " maintain,"
The mysteries of religion may be explained so far as is necessary for
beUef in them, but we cannot understand them, nor make it understood
how they occur : in the same way as in physics, we explain to a certain
point several sensible quaUties, but in an imperfect manner, for we do
not comprehend them. AU that remains to us after giving faith to the
mysteries on the proofs of the truth of religion (which are termed
grounds of faith) is to be able to maintain them against objections.
Unless we have this power, our belief would not be well founded, since
aU that can be refuted in a solid and demonstrative manner cannot faU to
be false ; and the proofs of the truth of religion which can only give a
moral certainty, would be counterbalanced, and even surmounted, by
the objections which would give an absolute certainty if they were con
vincing and quite demonstrative.f The distinction which it is the
custom to make between that which is above the reason and that which
is against it, is not to be despised, and it is astonishing how men of
genius, such as Bayle, can have disputed it. A truth is above reason
when our mind, or even any created mind, cannot comprehend it ; and
such are the truths of the Holy Trinity and the Creation ; such is the
• Discourse, § 4, f Ib. § 5.

60 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
choice of the order of the universe, which depends on universal harmony
and the distinct knowledge of an infinity of things at one time. But a
truth cannot be contrary to reason ; and far from a doctrine being in
comprehensible which is disputed and disproved by reason, we may say
that nothing is more manifest or more easy to understand than its ab
surdity. For reason does not here signify the opinions or discom-ses of
men, nor even the habit which they have formed of judging of things
according to the ordinary course of nature ; but it means the inviolable
connexion of truths.* By these ideas on the conformity of reason and
faith, which are found developed in the discourse which precedes the
Thiodicie, as well as by his refutation of Bayle on the questions of
human liberty and the origin of evil which is contained in that work
itself, Leibnitz inspired with great courage the theologians whom the
scepticism of the phUosopher of Eotterdam had somewhat perplexed ;
and one of them, becoming thoroughly conversant with aU the doctrines
of Leibnitz, scattered throughout his writings,f yet not adopting them
untU after a severe examination, undertook the task of arranging and
amplifying them, and gave them to the learned world in a strictly regu
lar form, under the designation of a mathematicaUy demonstrative
phUosophy. Thus the disciple has had the honours of a founder of a
school which, to say the truth, were due to the inventor of the system.
Leibnitz suppUed the capital, says Eosenkrantz, and Wolf derived the
profits. J He reaped them at a time when another philosophy was at
tempting to penetrate into Germany, but which, having nothing of the
German character about it, could not remain there long. It was the
phUosophy of the EngUsh naturaUsts, foUowed soon by that of the French
encyclopsedists, for Germany has in vain gone through aU the modi
fications of EationaUsm ; but in doing so she has deceived herself into
the belief that she has always been christian and religious. We shaU
always, notwithstanding her errors, see her apply aU her inteUigence to
the service of the faith, all her genius to the maintenance of the holy
* Discourse, § 23.
t Principally in the Theodicee; The Neto Essays on the Understanding; Principia
Philosophia ; Principles of Nature ; and his correspondence with Clarke.
X History of the Kantian Philosophy, by C, Rosenkrantz : Leipzig, 1840. p. 41,
It has become the custom, in speaking of Wolf and his philosophy, to commence
by attacking it with the arms of disdain and sarcasm ; but dry forms and rigid
axioms cannot make us forget the spiritual depth which it was the sincere aim of
this philosophy to preserve. If the infiuence of Wolf on theology has been dis
astrous, we raust grant that his philosophy was a necessary transition step to that
of our day, which willprobably be obliged to refresh itself with the fundamental
ideas of Leibnitz, if it wishes to last any time, and to satisfy in ever so small a
degree man's reason and his conscience.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 61
law of duty. If, then, Germany does not always know how to put into
practice the truth, she is desirous of finding it, and shows herself inde
fatigable in her researches. She thought that she had made a great
step towards it in the phUosophy of Wolf : when that ei-ror was aban
doned, she cast herself into the arms of Kant, who seemed to touch the
deepest fibres of her conscience ; then she took an aerial fiight on the
wings of ScheUing, to contemplate the identity of the laws which govern
the world : and now, aU her iUusions vanished, we see her plunging
into the depths of the past, there to observe the development, by suc
cessive evolutions of that which her heart adores.
The German theologians, among others, yielded to the seduction of
phUosophical language, and from Leibnitz down to Hegel and Fries,
they have impregnated their labours with the principles of the ruUng
phUosophy. Let us first say that Wolf never entertained the least
idea of attacking Christianity, and when we know that on his death
bed he placed aU his confidence in the mercy of God through the blood
of Jesus Christ, we shaU readUy acknowledge that the propositions
which excited against him pubUc clamour, and especiaUy that of the
University of HaUe, where pietism prevaUed, are not of a nature to
trouble an enUghtened mind,* These were, first, his plan of reducing
into theorems and coroUaries aU the facts of science, aU that has its
root iu the reUgious sentiments, — a plan which alarmed those who had
had so much trouble in shaking off the inactirity of mind into which
the scholastic triviaUties had thrown them ; and, secondly, a discourse
deUvered on the occasion of an academical soleminty, in which, not
content with praising immoderately the moral system of Confucius, he
openly avowed himself its partisan. Hence arose his persecutions and
that series of triumphs and humUiations which marked the whole
course of his life, according to the success of his adversaries or of his
friends. Wolf was in the highest degree dogmatical. He laid it down as a
principle that the human inteUect is capable of knowing tmth. His
synthetical method was supported on the justice of its definitions, the
multiplicity and the mathematical rigour of its proofs. Hegel amuses
himself with quoting some examples of these proofs ;f but if a system
were to be judged of by its form, who would be more open to censure
than Hegel from his almost uninteUigible terminology? Wolf divides
* Born in 1679, he died in 1754, after having re-entered the University, whence
he had been banished by a supreme order of the king, at the instigation of the
military authority ofthe place, and, sad to tell, on the denunciations ofthe pious
and learned Lange.
¦f Hegel, Logik, t. iii, von der synthet. Methode.

62 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
his philosophy mto the theoretical and the practical. The first he sub
divides into logic, metaphysics, and physics ; the second into morals,
natural right, and politics. This division was generaUy adopted in
courses of philosophy, and Kant long remained faithful to it. His
reUgious opinions do not differ in the pruicipal points from the ortho
dox doctrine ;* he admits a revelation, and proves its possibility by
maintaining that God has the power of doing anything he may wish.
He shows afterwards that this immediate revelation made by God to
his creatures could not take place without mu-acles. But it is neces
sary that God should produce immediately in the mind the ideas of
the things which he reveals, the cause of which is found in the vigour
of the universe, where also is found the essence of the mind ; words or
other external signs must be employed for this purpose. If ideas
could arise naturally in the mind, then an immediate revelation would
not be necessary. A divine revelation, however, ought to have signs
in itself by which it may be known.
1st. It must centaiu something necessary for man to know, which he
cannot learn in any other way. 3nd. The things revealed must not be
opposed to the divine perfections, and they must not be self-contradic
tory : a thing is above reason and contrary to reason when opposed
to these principles. 3rd. A divine revelation can contain neither any
thing which contradicts reason and experience, nor anything which may
be learned from them ; for God is omniscient — he knows the general as
weU as the particular, and he cannot be deceived. Necessary tmths
are those the contrary of which is impossible ; accidental truths, those
of which the contrary is impossible only under certain conditions. Now,
revelation could not contradict necessary truths ; but it may appear to
contradict those which are accidental. Geometrical truths are neces
sary, and, therefore, revelation could not oppose them ; but as accidental
tmths refer to the changes of natm-al things, it follows that these may
be apparently contradicted by revelation; though, if we search minutely,
we shaU at last be able to Uft the veil from the contradictions. 4th.
Eevelation cannot command anything contrary to the laws of the
nature of existence and of the nature of the mind, for whatever is
opposed to the laws of natm-e is equally opposed to those of reason.
5th. When it can be proved that he who declares that he has received
a divine revelation has arrived at his knowledge by the natural use of
his mental powers, then his declaration cannot be considered true.
6th. Finally, in a revelation all ought to be expressed in such words or
by such signs, that he who is the object of it can clearly recognise the
* See his Theologia generalis, principally from § 448 to 496,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 63
divine action. For God knows all possible symbolical means of know
ledge, and does nothing without a pm-pose.*
Such is the substance of Wolf's theory on revelation, which was
greatly enlarged by the theologians who foUowed in his steps ; that is
to say, they wished to prove the absolute necessity of a supernatural
revelation in every condition of things, — au idle question if ever there
was one, which can only make those who like to plunge into such
abstractions talk nonsense. Thus arming themselves vrith theorems
and definitions remarkable principaUy for their number, their con
ciseness, their exactitude, and often for their puerUe explanations, they
thought to give more force to the Lutheran doctrines ; and in wishing
to demonstrate too much they became intolerable for absurdity. It is
an ancient axiom in phUosophy that he proves nothing who proves too
much ; and we have no hesitation in accusing these Wolfist theolo
gians of being far beneath the task which they undertook. Unable
to endure the violence of the sarcasms of the invading Naturalism,
they sank beneath the labour, leaving to Eationalism the care of better
defending the citadel, and in thus laying down their weapons, they
not only confessed -their own want of power, though many of them
were weU versed in all the knowledge of their day, but they also by
then desertion declared the instabiUty of Lutheranism, so badly organ
ised from its very birth.
* The works of Wolf are very numerous ; but his philosophical and religious
opinions are principally contained in the following : Theologia naturalis methodo
scientiflca pertractata, Leipz. 1736. 2 vols. Philosophia moralis, math, scient.
pertractata. Halle, 1750-63. Vemiinftige Gedanken von Gott. der Welt und der
Seele des Menschen, auch alien Dingen iiberhaupt. Frankfurt 1719.

64 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE IX.
state of THEOLOGY UNDER THE REIGN OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF
WOLF.
The phUosophy of Wolf was first carried into theology principaUy by
Carpow, Baumgarten, ToUner, and Eheinbeck. The signal, however,
was given by a theologian of the most constantly orthodox university
in Germany, that of Tiibingen. This was Cantz, a private tutor in the
theological seminary, who afterwards fUled the highest oifices in the
church, and died in 1753, as professor of theology in his native town.
Among the multitude of writings which we have" of this theologian,
we may mention first that which introduced him into the literary world,
and drew upon him some annoyances, viz., a phUosophical treatise on
Wolf's principles.* The opinions enunciated in this work were par
doned at Tiibingen only on condition that he should cut off the third
part, which sounded ill in the ears of the doctors of the University.
In the work which terminated his career, without showing himself a
slave to the method of Wolf, nor above aU to its spii-it, he neverthe
less made great use of it. The title alone of this work shows its aim
and contents,-)-
Eibov, professor of theology in tum at Helmstadt and at Gottingen,
pubUshed his Institutions ofBogmatical Theology, mathematicaUy demon
strated, as he himself says ;J but he took care to confine himself within
the Umits of natural theology. MeanwhUe, the bolder spirits, such as
Schubert and Daijes, undertook, the first to show the eternity of the
pains of heU; and the second to prove, also by a demonstration
mathematically severe, and derived from the light of reason alone, the

• Philosophia Leibnitiana et Wolfiana usus in theologia, Parts 1-4. Frankfort
and Leipzig, 1728-1739.
f Compendium theologia in quo definitionibus veritates theologica determinantur,
determinata demonstrantur, oracula vindicantur. Accedit singulis articulis doctrina
momentum, consensus cum libris confessorum, Sfc. Edit. 3, Heilbronnse 1761
X Gottingen, 1741, '

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 65
plurality of persons in the Godhead.* But above them aU was
distinguished Carpov, who died professor at Weimar, and who em
ployed the reigning philosophy in aU its severity on the most various
subjects of theology. Possessed of great learning, he made use of his
knowledge of law, which he had studied at the same time as theology,
to give more value to his principles ; but he only increased their cold
barrenness.f Eheinbeck, a writer who enjoyed great credit in his own
country, and whose influence was felt in aU which concerned reUgious
affairs in Prussia, wrote in the same way Philosophical Considerations
on the Confession of Augsburg, which were continued by Cantz and
Alwahrd, and may be consulted with advantage by those who wish to
become acquainted with the state of the philosophical and reUgious
sciences in Germany during the eighteenth century. The first labours
of Eheinbeck were in the field of sacred criticism. Having studied at
HaUe, and having had access to the different manuscripts of the Bible
in the oriental tongues, in the possession of the coUege of oriental
theology founded by Francke, he there pursued ' some interesting
studies under the direction of H. MichaeUs, and his comparison of the
various readings is not the only scientific result in the edition of the
Bible afterwards published by MichaeUs under his own name. Little
famUiar, in the midst of his labours, with the new language of the
phUosophy of Wolf, he at first held it in sUght estimation ; but after
some reseEirches, made with the object of studying phUosophy, he thought
that he recognised its high value ; and this disciple of pietism applied
himself to construct a philosophical system, as did Carpov. Especially
fi-om the pulpit did he endeavour to propagate its principles, believing
them at the same time to be fit subjects to excite Christian eloquence.
There are still to be found at Berlin ancient editions of several French
discourses which the churches of refuge chose to have translated for
their edification ; but how different is this cold logic from the mas
culine tones of eloquence of SuperviUe, of Bourdaloue, or of Saurin !
They also understood dialectics, but they knew better how to apply
their knowledge.
Another theologian, a follower of Wolf, was Eensch, who wrote with
equal wisdom on phUosophical and theological subjects. In this double
capacity of theologian and philosopher, he possessed the gift of show
ing with taste the relations existing between ancient and modern phUo-

» Introductio in theologiam revelatam. Jems, 1749. Institutiones theol. polem.
Jenee, 1756-58. Tractatus philosophicos in quo plures persona in Deitate, Sfc. Me
thodo mathematica demonstrantur. Jense, 1735.
f His principal work is Theologia revelata methodo scientiflca. Leipz. 1737.
VOL. II. F

66 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
sophy, and he would wUlingly have become a dialectician, if the spirit
of peace which governed him had not made him apprehensive of the
consequences. However that may be, he considered phUosophy and
phUology to be the only soUd bases of the theological sciences, and he
soberly put in practice the system of Wolf.*
A very remarkable theologian was ToUner, also, who possessed pro
found knowledge in many branches of science, and who distinguished
himself as a professor by the precision and clearness of the expositions of
his doctrines. In phUosophy he held the same opinions as Baumgarten,
whose logic he published, and of whom we shall presently speak; and in
theology it was his aim to keep at an equal distance from the opposite
parties. It was with these ideas of moderation, which do not, however,
show that he was a very clear-sighted man, for principles have a medium
only in their application, and not in their nature, that he published
works which have obtained for his name an honourable place in the
annals of science. By declaring his opinion why God has not sur
rounded revelation with more striking proofs, as well as by his instruc
tions on the Standard Confessions, he endeavoured to spread more
healthy views on that subject. But he gained his celebrity, above aU,
by the pubUcation, in 1760 and the foUowing years, of his didactic
writings on theology, in which the question of inspiration is already
singularly modified.f
The theologian who gave to this phUosophy the most value in the
reUgious sciences, on account of his personal character, which made
him generaUy esteemed, was Sigismund Jacob Baumgarten, who was
born at Magdeburg in 1706, and was educated principally in the orphan-
house at Halle, He was, at the age of 32, admitted as an assistant to
Francke, in his labours in the theological faculty, and his celebrity soon
surpassed that of his coUeagues. Philosophy and theology, sacred
criticism and exposition, the history of the church and of hterature, 
aU these he studied ; nothing seemed foreign to his mind, and in aU his
inquiries he faUed not to unite genuine piety with truly modest learning.
Though Uberal in his appreciation of historical facts, Baumgarten did
not, however, think it right to pass the Umits of Christian doctrine.
As he advanced in his historical researches, he gave an impulse, the
results of which he himself did not foresee. If he were surpassed in
anything, it was in interpi-etation, where Ernesti and MichaeUs gathered
almost aU the laurels ; but he deserved indisputable praise for the pre-
* His principal works are, Systema metaphysicum antiquorum atque recentiorum,
and Introductio in theologiam revelatam. Tubingen, 1744.
t Tollner, Plan of Dogmatical Theology {Grundriss der dogmatischen Theologie,
1760), and his Moral Theology {Moral Tlwologie, 1760).

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 67
cise and vigorous manner in which he treated of moraUty generally,
and especiaUy of that of the Gospel. Modern theology would give him
a brevet of EationaUsm for his freedom in speaking of history and cer-
tahi parts of interpretation, but it would not be difflcult to perceive
here and there in his works, and more especiaUy in their general ten
dency, a spirit diametricaUy opposite to what belongs to that system.
Eationalism can thank him only for having formed a disciple who may be
considered as its true founder in his native land.
But what did these theologians touching the fundamental principle
of reform, the inspiration of the sacred books ? If they were con
sistent, since they granted to human reason so much power in the
domain of religion, they ought equaUy to have employed it in the ex
amination of the foundations of reUgion. Finding it weak from the
manner in which the reformers had laid these foundations, and in which
their immediate successors had in vain sought to strengthen them, they
returned to the first principle, in order that after having stripped it of
its exaggerations, they might the better demonstrate! its wisdom and
truth. Ab-eady had Bayer endeavoured to make the theory of inspiration
appear more reasonable by granting that the Holy Spirit accommodated
itself to the styles of the sacred authors, and that consequently we ought
not to attribute to the Spirit of aU truth the ungrammatical expres
sions, the inaccuracies, the want of method, which we find in several
books of the Bible.* Carpov, going stUl further, said that we
must not expect to find strict truth in those passages of Scripture
which speak of the sciences ;f thus giving us to understand, what is
very true, that it could not be the intention of the Holy Spirit to teach
men astronomy or physics, but only what is necessary to their salva
tion. He here makes skilful concessions, though he does not show
himself to be a clever naturaUst, for the sciences in our days display
in their teachings, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary, more
and more harmony with bibUcal facts. Baumgarten and Tollner- ap
peared at first to join in this view of the matter, but they soon pro
ceeded to open the door stUl wider, by declaring that the Holy Spirit
had permitted each writer to compose according to the peculiar powers
of his mind, and to arrange the facts according to his own comprehen
sion of them. J But may not a different manner of relating a fact pro-
* " Constat spiritum se accommodasse in suggerefdis verbofum conceptibus ad
indolem et conditionem amanuensium." — {Compendium, No. 75.)
f Carpov, Dogmat., p. 166-168,
X Baumgarten, Dogmat., vol. iii. p. 35-37. Tollner, in his work devoted to
the subject. The Holy Inspiration of the Scriptures {Die heilige Eingebung der
f2

68 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
duce a difference in the doctrine deduced from that fact ? Eeinhard
and Doderlein enlarged the circle stiU more, by restricting inspiration to
the idea that the sacred writers were preserved from error, and by even
attributing to the purely human wisdom of the prophets and apostles,
all which does not proceed from faith, properly so called.* But who
shaU define the boundary-Une in the Bible between what proceeds from
faith and what belongs only to the domain of science, left by God to
our researches, and even to our vain disputes ? It results from these
principles, as has been weU remarked by C, Hase, a EationaUst of our
times, that we can no longer say that the Bible is the Eevelation, but
simply that the Eevelation is in the Bible. What Ught does this afford
to the simple people to whom you say, nevertheless, that this book should
always be for them the supreme guide of all they do and practise ?
We know that iu the Bible, aU is so joined together, so mingled, so
confounded; sacred history with profane, ordinary events with those
which appear to have extraordinary causes, civU Ufe is there painted in
colours so simUar to those in which the picture of reUgious life is repre
sented, that it will always be impossible for minds not much cultivated
to discriminate between them. The theologians, also, soon felt this in
consistency, and whUe maintaining that a revelation had been made,
they inquired whether aU the botfks of the Bible contained it ; whether
the authority of some of them were not inferior to that of others,
whether a distinction were not to be made between the immediate dis
ciples of Christ, who had Uved in intimacy with him, and those who
had known his apostles only, such as Mark, Luke, and again Paul,
whose intercourse with our Lord was of a mysterious nature. This
ascending progress of the human mind untU it sought to fathom that
which was offered to its veneration, was assuredly EationaUstic, yet it was
not quite EationaUsm, since the supernatural element hi the sacred books
was stUl beUeved in, and the idea of inspiration was not altogether
banished. heiligen Schrift. Linden, 1771), maintains that as to the Old Testament, Moses
was directed in the choice of his subjects, and that his memory was strengthened
in order that he might not be deceived as to the facts. The same was the case
with the prophets and the authors of the Psalms, As for the historical books, he
does not admit that their writers were in any way inspired. Nor cau he define the
inspiration of the New Testaraent; the want of harmony, however, which appears
to him to exist in the different parts of the second Gospel, leads him to suspect
thatthe compder was not inspired; but as this Book was approved by the apostles,
we must not refuse it some consideration,
* Reinhard, Lessons on Doctrine {Vorlesungen iiber die Dogmatik, 3rd edit.
p, 50-55) ; Doderlein, Institutiones theolog. Christ., vol. i. p, 80. Augusti went so far
as to confme this assistance to the fundamental principles of faith.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 69
We may, however, already see that the demonstrative philosophy,
applied to questions which relate as much to the opinions of man as to
his history, as much to the internal facts of his conscience as to the
external ones, which are the symbols or merely the expression of the
former, had done much in preparing the way for Eationalism, properly
so caUed ; that is to say, for the most incomplete system of Christianity
which man's imagination can create without making criticism ridiculous,
as does Naturalism. The philosophy of Wolf was founded in a peculiar
degree on human reason, while Christianity places science equally on
the bases of reason and feeUng, or rather on aU the united powers of
the human being ; for this reason an essential element of its phUosophy
is an iUumination of the spirit which may perhaps be disputed at the
first view, but which no man who believes in a God, the Father of
spirits, can have any difficulty in conceiving and receiving. History
seeks in vain for traces of the happy influence which this theological
phUosophy claimed to have exercised over Christian communities ; de
plorable consequences only are to be found. Before showing what
these consequences were, I ought, however, to say that some theologians,
few in number certainly, endeavoured to resist the torrent, and joined
then- voices to those of Lambert and of Platner, who withstood it on
purely phUosophical grounds. Among them is distinguished Ch. A.
Cmsius, who died at Leipzig in 1775, professor of theology and philo
sophy. He was so little satisfied with the phUosophy then prevalent,
that he endeavoured to invent a more profound system, which, though
fiiU of wisdom in its detaUs, is not fi-ee from obscurity when considered
as a whole. As a theologian, Cmsius was not without influence. A
party was formed, whose members took the name of Crusians, in oppo
sition to the Ernestians ; but they soon fell into obscurity. Schelling, in
his General View of Philosophical Literature, pubUshed in a journal,*
mentions them with contempt, and speaks of them as confused minds,
who remained behind their age. Cmsius, however, was especiaUy of
opinion that science ought to have no other aim than to lead us to God
by making us acquainted with ourselves, in order that by this double
knowledge we may appear pure before the Holy of HoUes. This aim
was in his opinion the nerve of science. To seek to arrive at know
ledge for the sake of knowledge only, was impious in the eyes of the
Crusians. In the case of a colUsion between faith and science, they
considered it right to place themselves entirely on the side of faith, and
to consider speculation as an uncertain human work, which sets itself in
opposition to the revealed word. Contrary to Wolf, who laid down as a
moral principle the happiness which results from perfection and from
* In the Fichte-Niethammersche Journal.

70 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
the consciousness of perfection, Crusius considered as the highest moral
principle the wiU of God, revealed by the moral precepts found in the
Bible, which are in perfect harmony with the voice of our conscience.
The works of Crusius, in which are developed these ideas, equaUy
phUosophical and religious, are numerous. We ought to mention,
among others, that which treats of the principles of reason, and his
practical Christianity, both of which reveal his inmost thoughts.* The
principal fault which we should be tempted to find with him is the
failing, so often imputed to his adversaries, of wishing to rationaUse
that which is above human conception. He took much trouble, in
particular, to make clear the incomprehensible doctrine of the Athana
sian Trinity, the solution of which he thought necessary, in order to
solve other problems. When an epidemic prevails in a country, even
the most robust cannot altogether escape its influence. It is not there
fore astonishing that Crusius, as weU as his opponent. Wolf, aided in
converting the science of theology into a sort of mathematical system,
which, when deprived of that warmth of soul which alone could
ennoble it and give it Ufe, is only an inteUectual quibble, fitted to
satisfy some few minds, but by no means capable of becoming a power
ful germ of morality for the multitude. Listen to the preachers of that
time, with their cold arguments and their minute definitions, and you
wiU soon be convinced of the uselessness of their efforts for the morals
of the people. They preserve, it is true, the positive doctrines of
theology, but enveloped in the letter which kUls, not penetrated by the
spirit which vivifies. I am even persuaded that the pastoral influence of
the preachers after the Eeformation was better than that which grew up
under the auspices of more enlightened men, because, after all, the
former lived in a time of lively and even enthusiastic though unenlight
ened faith, which had something real in it ; and the preachers, even
when they tastelessly heaped one on another the texts of the dirine
word, spoke to souls who felt all the authority of that word ; if polemical
disputes made the character of a sermon very grotesque, they did not
faU to please, because they were approved by public opinion, and the
people were glad to leam that the Eoman yoke was for ever broken.
The reasoning mind does not fix itself on objects which hold the first
place in the thoughts ; besides the capital fault of not choosing for
sij.bjects of instruction and pastoral exhortation the gi-eat truths of
'ReUgion, but, on the contrary, selecting those of minor importance, it
* The first is entitled, De summis rationis principiis. Leipzig, 1752 ; and the
second. Short Ideas on Christian Moral Theology {Kurzer Begriff der Christlichen
Moral- Theologie), 2nd part, Leipzig, 1772-1773 ; very short, certainly, for these
Ideas {Begriff) occupy only 1692 pages in octavo.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 71
was a great aim with the preachers to strike the minds of their hearers
by novelty of form, as weU as by depth of meaning. In the sixteenth
and first part of the seventeenth century, the sacred Scriptures always
held the first place as matter of proof or simple quotation ; under the
reign of Wolfianism, they were placed second, and became merely sup
plementary : reasons deduced from the affau-s of Ufe, or even argu
ments based solely on poor hypotheses, were given as the only guides in
spiritual Ufe. The preachers thought that they fulfilled their highest
duty, when, by considerations derived from the pictures of nature, they
excited the sensibUity of the heart, not refiecting that by so doing they
only glanced over the surface ; they did not know that in order to act
upon the soul, to force it to reform, it is necessary to find the way to
the conscience, to awaken it from its slumbers ; and can this be done
without announcing the judgments of God on the guUty, without com
pelling the conscience to utter cries for pardon ? It is hardly credible
that the abuse in the choice of subjects was carried to such an extent
that the proper manner of laughing could be seriously treated of by one
of these doctors.* Another, taking for his text the words of the
Gospel, " Jesus went up into a mountain," begins his discourse with all
the gravity of a coUege pedant, by saying, in a loud and inteUigible
voice, " a mountain is a place distinguished from a plain by its eleva
tion," &c. &c. ; and, apropos of another verse, in which it is said that
Jesus lifted up his hand, " the hand," cries he, " is that part of the
body which is used to," &c. &c,f Is it astonishing that when these
deplorable abuses prevaUed generaUy though not universaUy, there were
some who maintained that the people would be better instructed by the
reading of journals from the pulpit ? No ! Wolfianism, having thus
degraded religion, may weU have sunk into silence on the appearance

* Guerike answers for the authenticity of this monstrous aberration from the
ecclesiastical ministry in his Manual of the History of the Church {Handbuch der
Kirchengeschichte). ¦]- This mania for definitions, one of the fruits of the philosophy of Wolf, calls
to mind that passage of the Bible of Wertheim, in which, a propos of a passage of
Leviticus, where a woman is spoken of (Levit. xviii. 7), it is said (I quote the
German), "Eine Mutter ist eine Frau welche in Gesellschaft ihres Mannes Kinder
erzeugt." This, says Tholuck, is what was called philosophical clearness ; we
add, this is what was thought fit for instruction. This translation ofthe Bible,
printed at Wertheim, is not only remarkable for the singularity of the notes, but
still more so for the much too free manner in which it attempts to render the
thoughts of the Bible. I am astonished to read in the Review of Lewald {Lewald's
Europe), vol, iv. p. 461, that Mendelssohn, the grave, the judicious Mendelssohn,
held this Bible in high esteem. But Mendelssohn was Wolfian, and there is
nothing that bewilders the best intellects so much as party spirit.

72 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
of Naturalism, ignorant as was that declared enemy of Christianity, in
religious matters ; and being ashamed of its own weakness, no wonder
it entirely disappeared in giving place to Eationalism.*
* Baumgarten-Crusius says, in speaking of the infiuence of Wolf, that it was
of some importance, in regard to the philosophical spirit of the succeeding ages,
since it taught theology to imbue itself with that spirit of gravity which is, at the
same time, that of liberty. However, he adds, the result of all these labours was
the formation of a new scholastic dogmatism. — {Compendium der Christlichen
Dogmengeschichte, erste Abtheilung, p. 363. Leipz. 1840.)

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 73

CHAPTEE X.
the INVASION OF GERMANY BY ENGLISH NATURALISM AND PRENCH
DEISM. — EDELMANN, BAHRDT, BASEDOW, ETC. — SERIOUS NATU
RALISM.
We have seen the edifice erected with so much trouble by the reformers
graduaUy undermined by internal causes, thus showing how weak were
its foundations, which were attacked extemaUy by the arms of sentiment
and cold reason ; we are now about to view its faU under the petty
attacks of a frivoUty which vriU assume the innocent guise of an inter
preter of nature. Naturalism, at this period, sought to take root in
Germany, but the soU of that country did not long afford it nourish
ment. Minds weary of a state of spiritual somnolence from which the
heads of the church, who still pursued the beaten track of their prede
cessors, did not appear to wish to awaken them, might perhaps have
received with favour strong and pure spirits capable of uniting in them
selves what was holy in the past and the most reasonable promises of
the future, but in the absence of such, they lent an ear for some time
to the propositions of EngUsh NaturaUsm and French Deism. Curiosity
prompted them to read the productions of the disciples of these systems,
sanctioned as they were by names which appeared a recommendation to
their perusal. These were the works of Lord Herbert, of Cherbury, a
profound statesman, who wished to show that, independently of revela
tion, it is possible to acquire a true moraUty, the only necessary one,
since it fiourished in the very bosom of paganism ; of Hobbes, a man of
strong but bitter mind, who regarded reUgions in general, and parti
cularly revealed religions, only as a means of keeping the people in sub
jection ; of the Earl of Shaftesbury, whose acute raiUery displayed all
the venom of his refiections ; of Toland, the implacable adversary of
the priesthood, as weU as of revealed religion itself; of CoUins, who
vented on the prophecies of the Bible especiaUy, the hatred which he
bore to the Christian religion ; of Woolston, who contented himself
with denying the miracles of the Saviour ; of Tindal, who viewed the
church only as a Government institution, and Christianity as the teacher
of two or three truths of natural religion which have been known to men

74 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
in all ages ; of Lord BoUngbroke, who, unable to conceal the iU humour
of a gi-eat dignitary in disgrace, dipped his pen in the gaU vrith which
his heart was fiUed. These were the productions which the disordered
condition of reUgious ideas in England had called forth, in consequence
of the horrors committed during the civU wars which had religion for
their object ; and an attempt was made to circulate these works in
Germany about the middle of the eighteenth century, with a view to
induce the Lutherans to give up a church which did not promise to
produce the fruits which had been expected. But the naturaUy grave
and, to a certain degree, evangeUcal character of the Germans made
them unwUling to decide without preriously examining ; and it was
during the time of trial, when Christianity existed only in forms, that
some exceptional spirits declared in favour of NaturaUsm. But as it
always happens in such a case, the opposition which arose against the
prevaUing doctrines was, from the beginning, divided into two parties,
according to the individual chai-acter of those who took the lead. On
one side the chief disputants were, Edelmann, Bahrdt, and Basedow,
whose tone of mind resembled, I may say, French frivolity, or, rather,
that adventurous spirit which, thinking that it knows all, thinks also
that it has fathomed everything, and has a right to reject everything
with contempt. On the other side were, Mendelssohn, Eeimarus, and
Lessing, who showed more sympathy with the phlegmatic hostUities of
England.* This breach became wider in proportion as the encyclopaedic school
of France obtained more renown in Germany. Thanks to the protec
tion of a king who concealed his atheism as little as he did his contempt
for good manners, we know that Berlin became the place of refuge for
those who were then caUed Freethinkers, and they, as much by the
facility of their frivolous moraUty, as by the boldness of then- doc
trines, prepared the way, in a sing-ular degree, for the grossest Natu-
raUsm.f * An excellent history of English Deism, by Lechler, appeared at Stuttgard
and Tiibingen in 1841 ; one of French Deism, which will be equally interesting, is
yet to be written.
t The celebrated historian of Hobenstaufen took a curious method of excusing
the eccentricities of Frederic II. in religious matters. In a discourse delivered
before the Academy of Sciences at Berlin (January 26th, 1843), M. de Raumer
answers those who accuse Frederic of not holding the true faith, by saying that it
would have been very difficult for him to choose a faith in an age and a country
in which the theologians themselves did not know to what saint to pay their vows :
and after saying much that is excellent on the necessity for monarchs to be only
just towards their subjects, and never to disturb the conscience of any one,
M. de Raumer seems to us to have altered the question. We do not ask that a

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 75
If we desire a decisive testimony to the influence of French and
English Deism upon Germany, we have only to read what Laukhard
relates of his own impressions, and of what he saw at the same time
in his country. " I learned from Voltaire," says he, " only how to
scoff ; for other works, and particularly those of the English Tindal,
had ab-eady brought me into a proper state of mind to form a just
judgment on the doctrines of the church. It is true that I have
derived infinite enjoyment from reading the French poet, who with his
pleasantries, at the same time gross and deUcate, has done more to
injure the reUgion of the priests, than have aU the works of the other
French and English deists. WhUe in England and Germany an
author sets out from some declared principle, and seeks to convince
the reader by phUosophical arguments, Voltaire negligently throws
out some futUe reasonings, glances over the question as over a law
suit, afterwards rails at the whole as if he had completely demon
strated what he has advanced. This does not convince, but his nu
merous readers consider themselves convinced, and honour the philo
sopher with aU their suffrages. It is thus that Voltaire has been able
to make so many proselytes to unbeUef. He did not write for the
learned ; they, he thought, might seek elsewhere for the means of rec
tifying their ideas. He wrote for the unlearned ; for ladies, princes,
and merchants ; to them he addressed himself in order to make the
scales faU from their eyes, and it must be confessed that he took the
right way to do so. All the attacks of his adversaries, from Nonnotte to
Less, have been unable to weaken his credit. No one now reads Non
notte, and Less finds readers only among a smaU number of eccle
siastics. The works of Voltaire, on the contrary, are in all hands, and
are translated into aU languages. They vriU be read with pleasure
when the very existence of such adversaries shall have been long for
gotten."*
king should espouse party quarrels, but that he should elevate himself above
parties in undertaking the office of a powerful conciliator and pacificator, and ar
bitrary measures never tranquiUise. But it was to be expected from Frederic that
he should not openly show his irreligion and immorality, and that he should re
spect the first truths on which are founded the morals and religion of all people,
and which, if they once fall into contempt, become the signal for the corruption
and decline of the best constituted nations. Read the correspondence of Voltaire
with Frederic, and you will be convinced that the Atheisra of the latter sprang
from a source very different from that which you charitably assign to it.
* Life of Laukhard, Part I. pp. 203, 268. We must not think that the
works of Voltaire were the only French books at that time in fashion. I think,
ou the contrary, that the dictionary of Bayle was the arsenal in which the arms
of Naturalism were best forged. It was there especially that the German nobles

76 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
But Lessing could not become reconcUed to so unceremonious a
mode of treating such grave questions, — a mode which was in accord
ance, neither \rith his character and his love for serious studies, nor
with his ideas of religion and moraUty. On the contrary, it suited
exceedingly weU the Ught and unsteady characters of Edebnann and
Bahi-dt. These, then, were the theologians who undertook the task of
freeing their countiy from a reUgious institution which was repugnant
to theu: immoral instincts; and as they were not men who could
remodel advantageously the work of the Eeformation, they imagined
that it would be more easy for them to purge the German soU from
the Lutheran superstition if they aimed their blows at a higher
mark, and declared a more open war against the estabUshment of Chris
tianity itself. The best work of Edelmann, who died in 1767, is
doubtless, setting aside its foUies, that in which he deifies human rea
son ;* and where, after maintaining that as many of the heretics as
of the orthodox party have falsified the New Testament by the intro
duction of fables into it, he endeavours to prove that Christ represents
the reason or the wisdom of God, and that consequently God is every
where where there exists a particle of reason.f
Bahrdt, in his tum, pubUshed a gi-eat number of writings half
serious, half jocose, in which only the principles of a religion which he
called natural were extolled. He displayed the boldness of his views

acquired that half-knowledge of which they were so proud, and which would
have been so fatal to them if the political events in France had not distracted
their attention from light philosophy and hurried them into the career of arms.
(See Historisohe Taschenbuch, 1838, published by M. de Raumer.) Dr, Paniel
characterises this so-called period of light as deplorable, but at the same time
necessary as a period of transition. We can easily explain the origin of any
evil ; but I cannot see how its necessity, in a system which we call Christian,
can be explained {Bremisches Magazin, Part I. p. 109). " Since these devils of
Frenchmen have governed us," said a writer of that tirae, " life, manners and
customs are so changed that we may, with justice, call ourselves =•- new and
peculiar people, transformed into Frenchmen in dress, food, household furniture
{Franz'ositches HausgerUth), dancing, music, in fact everything," And Hagen-
bach, in quoting him, impertinently adds — even to French diseases. Yes, if by
these words we understand only the Deism of Voltaire and the Materialism of
d'Holbach, * The Divinity of Reason is in fact the title of bis work.
t On the appearance of the Life of Jesus, by Dr, Strauss, there were printed
at Clausthal (1839) some Recollections {Erinnerungen) of Edelmann, in which the
writer endeavoured to establish a comparison between the pantheistic views of
Edelmann and those of Strauss, The author of the Recollections is W. Elster.
Strauss, in his Dogmatik, answers that he is charmed to have become acquainted
with so interesting a writer as Edelmann.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 77
particularly in his JFishes of a Bumb Patriot (1767); but he had
scarcely begun to enjoy a philosophic celebrity when an affair in which
his moral reputation was compromised, obliged him to leave Leipzig,
where he fulfiUed the duties both of catechist of a church and pro
fessor of sacred phUology at the University. I shaU not follow him
through his wandering life, in the course of which his friends or pro
tectors procured for him many occupations, sometimes as an ecclesi
astic, sometimes as a professor, in the towns of Erfurt, Giessen, Mar-
schlins, (whither he went on the recommendation of Basedow, as di
rector of an educational estabUshment, founded by the Count de Sails,)
and of Diirkheim, where he obtained the situation of preacher and
general superintendent. StiU less shall I accompany him to the im
mense educational institution which he founded, and in which there
was a department for printing, bookseUing, manufactures of every de
scription ; in short, for everything save religion and moraUty. This
establishment drew upon him great odium ; so much so, indeed, that he
was deprived of all his offices by an order from his superior. I wiU
bring him at once to Halle, where he was permitted to eam a sub
sistence by giving private lessons in elocution, logic, metaphysics, and
morals. He afterwards left this town to become an innkeeper on a
neighbouring mountain, which he made a haunt of immorality, though
he did not faU, while there, to preach to the public, that he had formed
his system of morals according to nature. I wUl not foUow him to the
fortress of Magdeburg, where he was confined on account of his
parody on an edict of the King of Prussia, for those princes who some
times tolerate the most outrageous attacks on the most sacred laws of
religion and morality show no mercy when their own decrees are
assailed. I wUl, however, remark, that whenever a writer, however
unspiritual, appeals to the bad passions of mankind, he always finds a
certain class who applaud him more or less openly, and it is this fact
which explains how it was that, notwithstanding the indisputably reli
gious feeUngs which have always characterised the German nation,
Bahrdt, with so much fatuity and immorality, found many protectors.
It cannot be said that he was destitute of leaming. He was educated
at the school of Pforta, which has produced so many distinguished men,
and had received a suitable preparation for his studies from his father,
an ecclesiastic of some merit. He displayed, in his academical course,
as weU as in his writings, an amount of varied knowledge, which may
explain the success which he met with in his early Uterary labours, and
also the dignity of the doctor's degree, which he received from the Uni
versity of Erlangen, notwithstanding his already somewhat equivocal
reputation ; but it is easy to understand how, even with the happiest

78 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
disposition, his irregular conduct, the domestic griefs from which he is
said to have suffered, and his vagabond mode of life, left him neither
the leisure nor the repose of spirit necessary for the production of
works of indisputable merit. His celebrity became less in proportion
as he lost the power of feeding, with the same ardour, the curiosity of
the lovers of scandal.
We can form an exact idea of the emptiness of his religious beUef
by reading his Confession of Faith,* which he pubUshed during his last
residence at HaUe, But what confidence can be placed in the confes
sion of a deist, when it is not supported by the weight of a noble
character ? He succeeded, however, in seducing many of his contem
poraries, by the witticisms and specious arguments in which his nume
rous works abounded.f
It might, perhaps, be expected that we should place in the school of
Paulus the work of a foolish young man, who would now seem wUUng
to expiate in obscurity the fault which he might attribute to the inex
perience or the rashness of youth ; we know, however, that even at au

* Glaubensbekennfniss. Halle, 1779.
f Those of his writings which created the greatest sensation were, The Little
Bible {Kleine Bibel), printed at Berlin in 1780, 2 vols. System of Moral Religion
{System der Moral-Religion). Letters on the Bible in a Popular Style {Briefe
iiber die Bibel im Volkston). He published a weekly review for some time at
Halle, and afterwards at Berlin, from 1784-1793, under this novel title. Execution
of the Plan and of the Aims of Jesus Christ {AusfUhrung des Plans und des Zwecks
Jesus Christ's), explained in letters to readers who seek after truth. But he here
treats the history of Jesus as a romance, and tries to prove that he was only the
agent of a secret political society, which could not save bim from crucifixion.
It raay be easily conceived that many took up the pen to defend what Bahrdt
had so audaciously attacked. Bretschneider, who quotes their works in his
Systematic Development of the Ideas qf Doctrine, remarks, that with the exception
of that published by the worthy Seller, whose name is revered in both churches,
they are worth no more than the attacks of Bahrdt, (See Sytemat. Entwickelung,
&c,, 3rd edit. Leipzig, 1825. p. 280.) We read in a polemical pamphlet on
mixed marriages, some very erroneous assertions on the origin of Rationalism,
of which the author considers Bahrdt as the worthy founder. This arises from
the fact that many persons confound Naturalism, which openly avows itself
the enemy of revealed religion, with Rationalism, which admits revelation, and
which arrives, it is true, at the same results, but by the force of its principles
only, and contrary to its intentions. Rationalism, as we shall soon see, does
not insult Christianity, it only robs it of its dress ; and having clothed itself
therein, in order to conceal its nakedness, turns towards Christians, and says,
" Behold, I am Christianity." As the pamphlet in question was written against
Bretschneider's romance, the Baron of Sandau, the Superintendent of Gotha
answered it in regard to Bahrdt in the manner I have just pointed out, and did
so successfully.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 79
age when the gravest thoughts ought necessarily to arise in the mind
of a man in retirement, Venturini devotes the last days of a Ufe, use
less and fatal to the parish of which he is the pastor, to the coUection
of political anecdotes, which he forms into works without purpose.
I have, however, too much respect for the intentions of the EationaUsts
even in their greatest aberrations, to associate with their names that of
a man who commenced his history of the Great Prophet of Nazareth
by defiling the birth of Jesus with all the crudeness of expression of
which only a disciple of Bahrdt could be guilty, and who related his
adventures in the tone of a true buffoon.
In a supplement to this romantic history, which was foUowed some
years later by a History of the Establishment of Christianity, written in
the same spirit and in the same trifling form ; in this supplement, I
say, he relates more particularly the story of the resurrection of Jesus :
supposing that Christ was not dead when he was laid in the tomb, and
that the fresh air having restored his consciousness, he immediately re
paired to the society of the Essenes, who concealed him from the search
of his enemies. Thus, to evade the miracle of the resm-rection, Ven
turini wishes us to beUeve in one equaUy inexpUcable, viz., that a man
who had lost all his blood, should, after a fainting fit of hours', nay
days' dm-ation, suddenly recover his senses, elude the vigUance of his
guards, and hasten to join friends who no longer expected him. Not
withstanding the absurdity of such an explanation of the miracles of the
New Testament, we shall see a person who soon became one of the prin
cipal interpreters of Eationalism, Paulus of Heidelberg, amusing himself,
after the manner of Venturini, whose master he was in this respect, and
ti-ying to realise by explanation what the first had attempted by history.*
I have mentioned Basedow, in speaking of the protectors of the too fri
volous naturaUst writer, Bahrdt ; and it may therefore be thought that
he shared the reUgious opinions of that author, but he entertained them
under somewhat different fonns. Born at Hamburg in 1723, he first
devoted himself to the study of theology. He fUled the office of professor
at the gymnasium of Altona, where he published the greater part of his
heterodox works ;f but the anxieties which they occasioned him induced
* It is on account of^their similarity of species that Venturini is here placed
next to Bahrdt. Was it worth the trouble to prove by a -t- i, as my critics have
done, that he ought rather to be considered as a pupil of Paulus ? Yes, but the
learning and earnestness of Paulus were wanting in Venturini.
f Above all are distinguished his Theoretic System of Sound Reason. Altona, 1765;
and his Essay in favour of Christianity, a work the more treacherous since it pre
tends to defend Christian raorality, but in which scepticism cannot always be
concealed. We find in the New Theological Library of Ernesti, an exact expla
nation of his philosophical ideas (vol. v. pp. 56, 87).

80 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
him to turn his attention to other studies, and from that time tiU his
death, he continued to exercise a great influence on educational science.
On this subject he wrote much and composed many essays, which, not
vrithstanding the infatuation of several princes, and many others who
gave him assistance, disappointed his wishes. We are assured, in some
biographical works on Basedow, that if the EmUe of J. J. Eousseau, put
into practice in the Philanthropinon, which he established, became only
a kind of bad boy of which parents had much reason to complain, it was
to be attributed rather to the gross and nevertheless domineering cha
racter of the head of the estabUshment, than to the method he pursued
in his institution at Dessau. But is it not true that aU education which
is not supported by an imperative morality is therefore destitute of a
foundation ? and can we expect to find a moraUty, the duties of which
are clear, positive and obligatory, where, in the very commencement, we
see passed by in sUence its only sanction, which is an equally positive
religion, or doubts cast upon aU the tmths connected with it? We
cannot deny that Basedow did great serrice to education in an indirect
manner ; that is to say, by showing with much sagacity the swaddling
clothes of which it was necessary to disencumber it, and by giving at
tention to the body which had before his time been too much neglected.
But man is not body only. He has also a soul, by which his moral
character is revealed, and he therefore has pecuUar wants, which must be
satisfied, unless we wish him soon to become the victim of his senses.
Among the ecclesiastical writers who aided this movement, I ought
also to mention Steinbahrt, the disciple of Baumgarten, whose principal
aim in his works was to separate pure speculation from practice, not
remembering that what can be distinguished by a metaphysical defini
tion cannot always be so in the world of realities. Steinbahrt wished
also to take away from moraUty that apparent severity which does not
repel those who love, for love facilitates and even makes sweet the ac-
compUshment of aU duties. The principal work containing the sub
stance of aU his opinions is a System of Pure Philosophy, or Instructions
in Happiness by Christianity.* His influence would have been confined
to a smaU circle, smce Germany was becoming accustomed to these
new doctrines and began to appreciate them at their proper value; but as
he wrote also on educational subjects, his principles did not faU to give
a false direction to the moral instruction of youth. However after
commencing his career almost in fhe spirit of Voltaire, he adopted more
reasonable opinions on studying the phUosophy of Locke and Wolf, and
the relation of that phUosophy to the views of ToUner. Bahrdt says
• The fourth edition is that of 1794, System der reinen Philosophie oder Gliickse-
ligkeitslehre des Christenthums.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 81
of him, — " Few German theologians have said what he has said, have
shown so much noble frankness, and have overturned and broken, as he
has done, the idols of the ecclesiastical system. His predecessors were
always content with attacking isolated errors, and in doing so they
were so cautious that they never entu-ely developed their own system.
This man has not only destroyed the old building, but he has also
erected in its stead a new palace."
These theological opinions found another advocate in Teller, who died
in 1750. He was professor of theology at Leipzig, and enjoyed a cer
tain reputation among his contemporaries as a sacred orator. He pos
sessed also an uncommon degree of leaming in the various branches of
theology. Ammon speaks of him as an estimable writer, but says it is
impossible to recommend him as a theologian,* He published a Manual
ofthe Christian Eaith,\ in which he endeavom-ed to prove that the doc
trines of the ancient creed were as contrary to reason as to Scrip
ture, f
But by the side of this NaturaUsm, which had no root in human
nature, and of which Bahrdt and Edelmann were the chief propagators,
it is more agreeable to observe another kind of NaturaUsm, which I call
serious, because it had sincere professors, and united insti-uction with
good faith ; and for this reason it aimed more efiectual blows at the
edifice which it also desired to destroy. We must not be astonished to
find among these honest opponents of the faith, a writer whose character
we are pleased to revere, and who, from his Israelitish origin, found his
natural place in the ranks of the party opposed to Christianity. Men
delssohn, whose peaceable and regular life is so full of interest, and
who was devoted to phUosophy without renouncing the Jewish faith,
did more than any one else to propagate that vague reUgious feeUng
which no one can speak Ul of, but which, nevertheless, reason itself con
fesses to be only a bait of the imagination. His Phado, translated into
French, ought to have proved that the immortality of the soul seemed
to him an indisputable fact ; but his Morning Hours, and his Lectures
on the Existence of God, § appear to have given the signal for an im
mense number of works fuU of a religion which has no foundation even
in opinion, the near neighbour of conscience, but is based only on the
pure sensibUity of the human soul : this religion has certainly done
* Ammon'sMagoaiM, &c., vol. vi. part 2,
\ Staudlin, Geschichte des Supernaturalismus. We are assured that he answered
publicly to some Jewish families in Berlin, for tbeir reception to the communion
of the church, if they would make profession of the deistical faith.
X Handbuch des Christlichen Glaubens.
§ Morgenstunden. Vorlesungen Uber das Dasein Gottes.
VOL. II. G

82 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
more hai-m to the principles of the Gospel than did NaturaUsm with its
deceitful crudeness.
Lavater, who did not doubt that he saw in Mendelssohn that IsraeUte
of whom our Lord has spoken, in whose heart there was no guUe,
vrished to induce him to become a professor of Christianity ; and with
this view, he dedicated to him his German translation of a work by
Bonnet, La Palinginisie, and begged him to refute it pubUcly if the
arguments there brought forward in favour of Christianity should ap
pear to him to be unfounded ; or, if he found them unanswerable, to
foUow what in such a case would be the course pointed out by prudence,
the love of truth and probity ; in a word, to do as Socrates would have
done, if, on reading this work, he had found it convincing. Mendelssohn
decUned the chaUenge, and, in an answer fuU of calmness and dignity,
declared himself to be a faithful disciple of the reUgion of his fathers,
though he took care to confess that the Mosaic system, in his opinion,
contained many things which obscured its original splendour, but that
he adhered to its essence, and should do so unless his mind became
completely changed in its nature. This is a frank confession of the
reUgious Deisra which constitutes the fair side of Naturalism.*
Lessing was born at Kamenz in Saxony in 1739, in a small parish
of which his father was the pastor. It is probable that the too coldly
orthodox education which he received from his father, according to the
accounts which we have of him, had a great influence on the mind of
the young man, and inspired him \rith more lively sentiments than
those of disgust for a church which seemed to demand the sacrifice of
his reason and inteUigence. When his parents, who had sent him to
Leipzig in order to study theology, learned that he devoted much more
attention to the laws of Uterature than to the confessions of the Eefor
mation, they neglected no means of dissuading him fi-om a project which
appeared to them an inspiration of the evU spirit. Lessing, hbwever,
persisted in his resolution of pursuing a literary career ; and though
most of the works which he pubUshed on a great variety of literary and
scientific subjects no longer possess that interest which they may have
had for his contemporaries, we may yet afflrm that he effected a great
revolution in the fields of criticism, speculation, and poetry. Gifted
with an immense power of refiection and an astonishing command of
language, he wi-ote on aU subjects with equal facUity. We may say
that, not excepting even Wieland, he would have been the most proUfic,
* See in the Germanic Review {Deutsche Zeitschrift), No. I. of 1829, an interest
ing notice of Mendelssohn, extracted from the Erinnerungen an Mendelssohn, by
Dr. Salomon.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 83
the most ingenious, in short the writer most honourable to his country,
that Germany produced in the eighteenth century, had not his preju
dices, which arose for the most part from the disastrous influences of
the times in which he lived, given to his historical labours a direction
hostUe to the reUgion in which he had been instructed in his chUdhood.
It does not form part of my plan to give an analysis of the works of
Lessing, which are as numerous as they are various ; for there are few
subjects of erudition which he did. not touch upon. It wUl be sufficient
for me to mention those which relate to phUosophy and theology.
After residing in many different towns of Germany, whither his love of
letters and of the arts had called him, he at last settled at Wolfenbiittel,
a charming Uttle town about a mile fi-om Brunswick. Here he became
the librarian of a most rich and voluminous collection of rare manu
scripts and precigus works of aU kinds. Placed thus at the head of a
Ubrary, and an object of envy to many learned men, who vrished to ex
plore its teeming recesses, Lessing was not slow to profit by a position
so weU suited to his tastes. The fu-st fruit of his researches was the
discovery of a manuscript of Berenger, of Tours, who had been con
demned in a councU held at Eome iu 1069, for entertaining heterodox
opinions on the sacrament of the Eucharist. It was the defence made
by Berenger after his release, as much for the purpose of refuting Lan-
franc. Archbishop of Canterbury, who had declared against him, as to
define his opinions more clearly ; it was this manuscript, I say, which
was discovered and soon afterwards made pubUc by Lessing. The
refiections which accompanied this pubUcation entitled him to a dis
tinguished position among historical critics. But not content with
pubUshing the fruits of his historical and Uterary researches in the
Ubrary of Wolfenbiittel, which he was aUowed to print without censure,
he put forth, under cover of this privilege, his own pecuUar opinions, or
those of such of his friends as agi-eed with him. In this way appeared,
under the title of " Pragments of an Anonymous 'Writer"* some dis
sertations on bibUcal facts which he declared to have been drawn from
the same Ubrary, and which cast doubts on the authenticity of those
facts, or on the veracity of the narrators. Lessing, foreseeing the
excitement which the publication of this work would cause, not
only among theologians, but in aU places where faith in the revealed
wi-itings stUl remained pure and entire, had added to it notes express
ing the opinions of theologians in support of those facts, and he executed
this task with candour, frankness, and sincerity. But this could not
prevent the whole of the theological faculty in Germany from rising
* Wolfenbiittelsche Fragmente eines Ungenannten.
g3

84 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
against what they terraed his audacity. Many who had neglected to
reply to the sarcasms of Bahrdt, recognised in Lessing a stronger and
more serious adversary, one who presented himself armed vrith the most
vast erudition, and the closest, though most dispassionate, logic. And
it must have been seen how, on logical grounds, he had overthrown all
the arguments which the Wolfist theologians had brought forward to
repair the wide breaches which they had made in the waUs of the temple
of faith. The public mind had so little sympathy with them, that the
most enlightened of the disputants laid aside their arms ; others, fearing
for the trunk of the tree which they so deeply venerated, hesitated not
to strip it of all its branches indiscriminately, in order to shelter the
then shapeless object from the terrible blasts of opposition, not thinkinsr
that it would be sufficient to disencumber it of the dead and useless
boughs. Eationalism, then, owes its birth to the terror felt by these
theologians at the sound of the tempest raised by Lessing. Yes, such
was the Une of conduct which seemed right to men of learning and of a
certain degree of piety ; they imagined that they should save the vessel
by throwing overboard the mast, sails, cordage, aud even the cargo.
These men are known in history by the names of Ernesti, Semler, and
Henke.* I ought not to forget to mention a remarkable peculiarity of these
Fragments of Lessing ; it is the part taken in them by Eeimarus, of
Hamburg, a wise philologer, as is proved by his edition of Bio Cassius,
but also a warm partisan of Naturalism. His Treatise on Natural Re-
ligionf is considered the best on that subject ; and it owes its merit to
the gi-eat knowledge which Eeimarus possessed of the systems of phUo
sophy as weU as of the positive theology, with the weak points of which
he was weU acquainted. It was thought untU 1827 that Lessing was
the sole author of the Fragments. But in that year professor Gurlitt,
then also professor at Hamburg, gave the strongest proofs that Eeimarus
had sent these Fragments to Lessing to form a continuation of his own.
Eosenkrantz, aUuding, doubtless, to the acrimonious zeal of the pastor
* Lessing was wrong in not openly avowing the aim of his attacks. No one
can doubt that the conduct of Giitze towards him was ridiculous ; but it would
be an insult to coramon sense to suppose thatthe pastor Gotze, though interested
in the question, did not comprehend how much evil the attacks of Lessing boded
to the future of the Established Church, The very witty apologue, therefore,
published by Lessing in his periodical, the Anti-G'otze, though charming in its
form, is wanting in veracity ; for the sentinel who cried " fire" because he saw
fhe palace of the prince in flames, had not in his terror mistaken "the Aurora
Borealis for a conflagration," And in proof of this we may search Germany in
vain for a single Lutheran church which shows signs of life as such.
t Die vornehmsten Wahrheiten der naturlichen Religion.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 85
Gotze, of Hamburg, who, in his close contests with Lessing, did not
always show learning worthy of his cause, or a dignity suitable for this
kind of discussion, — Eosenki-antz declares that, generaUy speaking, the
compositions of Eeimarus could not have been produced in any other
city;* meaning by this to say that extremes always caU forth opposite
extremes.! Since this discovery by Gurlitt, it is agreed on in the
Uteraiy world to speak of the Fragments of Eeimarus, and it must be
said that they are worthy pendants to his works, avowed and published
during his lifetime, in which human reason is always considered as the
arbiter of all questions which most nearly concern us, viz., our connexion
with the Deity. Since 1839, a work has appeared, which attributes
Lessing's Education of the Human BaceX ^^^o 1° another writer named
Thaer. This Albert Thaer, whose Ufe, as a physician and an economist, has
been pubUshed, § was born, as he himself tells us, at Celle, in Hanover,
in 1753. He early derived from the lessons of one Ferry, a language-
master, whom he caUs his bosom friend, the first prmciples of incredulity
in religion. To read the works of Voltaire, says he, was my only
recreation when I was tired of my araours. Ferry made me read,
besides Voltau-e, nearly all the other French wi'iters ; and when I had,
at a later period, learned their language, I read the works of aU the
EngUsh free-thinkers. It was thus, he adds, that he prepared for his
first communion, abeady fully convinced that Christianity was foUy.
He afterwards teUs us that at Gottingen he became associated with a
party of friends, " a band of scoffers at aU reUgion, theoretical and
practical ;" that in the intervals between his studies and his orgies he
committed to paper the thoughts awakened by the perusal of some
apologies for reUgion, which a lady had induced him to read, and that
he sent these thoughts anonymously to Lessing, - who revised and
pubUshed them under the title of The Education ofthe Human iJace. ||
However this may be, these discoveries do not rob Lessing of any
of his Uterary honours, since the Education, the thoughts of which

* History of the Philosophy of Kant {Geschichte der Kant' sehen Philosophie).
Leipzig, 1840. p, 82.
\ " Reiraarus," says Strauss, "was aWolflst; but he was raore consistent
and professedmore profound penetration than Carpov and Rheinbeck." — {Christ
liche Dogmatik, i, 61.)
X Wilhelm Korte compiled it, as he said, from Thaer's own manuscripts. It
appeared in Leipzig in 1839.
§ Die Erziehung des menschlichen Geschlechts.
f] I have taken these details from the Review for Historical Theology {Zeitschrift
fiir die historische Theologie), 1839, P. IV. p. 98.

86 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
harmonise Uttle with the rest of his vsritings, is thought to have hem-
revised by bun. The changes which are remarked have been attributed
to his more mature refiections, when, tfred of polemics, he questioned
himself silently and for his own instmction concerning the laws which
govern the moral world. He repUed, in making them his own by those
thoughts on the proridential laws to which humanity is subject. Do
we not, in this work, one of the most coraplete ever written on the sub
jects of reUgious phUosophy, catch a gUmpse of a system which Lessing
did not dare to confess openly ? He had allowed it to appear in the
intimacy of conversation with Jacobi, and it was not the cold frozen
Naturalism which had before occupied his mind, but the strongly con
ceived system of Spinoza so unhappUy explained before the present
day.* Such, then, were the men who, by different means, desolated the
Protestant church, and aided in estranging so many hearts from it.
Their success was the more complete, because they placed themselves
before the people as Ughts that would at last guide them in aU their
ways ; and they designated by the injurious epithet of friends of darkness,
those who refused to foUow in this anti-christian direction ; as if the
disciples of him who alone is the light of the world ought not especiaUy
to be friends of the intellectual enUghtenment and the moral liberty to
which their master came to caU them ! As if Ught and Uberty could
be found elsewhere than in the feeUng of our union with God, through
the mediation of him who is their image and glory ! Such, in the
hands of these men, were the different instruments, frequently words of
lofty sound, but unmeamng when applied to Christianity, by means of
which the work of Luther in Germany was destroyed. Some would say,
perhaps, that the intention was to complete that work ; but we shall see
in the second part of this volume that the Eeformation now exists in
name only where EationaUsm rules, and that consequently every essen-
tiaUy Christian element preserved by the reformers has perished in the
common shipwreck.
* On the Teachings of Spinoza, in letters to Moses Mendelssohn, 9th edit.
Breslau, 1789. p, 19-58, — See in my History of Spinoza, the conversation of
Jacobi and Lessing on his system, pp, 236-46.

BOOK II.
OEIGIN AND PEOGEESS OF EATIONALISM IN GEEMANY.

CHAPTEE I.
STATE OP PUBLIC RELIGIOUS OPINION IN GERMANY ON THE APPEAR
ANCE OF RATIONALISM.
The conscientious but incomplete inquiries of Lessing into the ancient
monuments of the Christian faith and the pretended rational proofs of
the impossibUity of the miracles recorded in the New Testament, for
example, of the resurrection of Jesus, had seduced a great number of
persons who had never examined into their faith ; and who, without
approving of the extremes to which bolder spu-its dared to go, feared,
from a feeUng of false shame, to avow the doubts which pei-plexed them.
These hesitating minds generaUy form the majority at the critical
moments of society ; and when the clouds have cleared away, or when
after the tempest, frequently necessary to restore ti-ue serenity, they re
member their weakness, they ought, at least for the instruction of
future generations, to confess it openly.
This was not the case in Germany. Though we have no proof that
NaturaUsm had become established among the great mass of the people,
yet there is no doubt that the higher classes were beginning to grow
familiar with this strange guest, when Eationalism appeared to hold
them back on the slippery descent down which they were sUding.
Hence it is owing to Eationalism that Materialism has never taken root
in the Gerraan soU. Is this a good or an eril ? Some would say that
it is more easy to make a man feel his misfortune, and so induce hira to
seek for a cure when he is attacked by an open malady, than to bring
him to confess a hidden sound. However this may be, we cannot
sufficiently deplore the ravages made by Naturalism during these
lamentable moments of mental hesitation. Societies were already be-
ghining to be organised, the avowed purpose of which was to under
mine the foundations of what they termed superstition, and to enthrone
human reason as the supreme arbiter of human events, to confide to it
unreservedly the direction of all within the domain of knowledge : in
fact, to grant no influence to any judgments or authority which it did
not approve.* And was not the work of a numerous society done by
* See the Literary Announcements {Literarische Araeige) of Tholuck, No. 8 of
1830; and also his Vermischte Schriften, vol, ii, p. 115. Hamburg, 1839.

90 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
that Nicolai, who, a bookseUer and man of letters, consecrated aU his
energy and inteUigence to the cuculation, by means of his library
throughout aU the countries where the German language is spoken, of
the principles of the gi-ossest NaturaUsm of which Lessing and Men
delssohn would never have approved? WUliam IL, deeply grieved to
see that Christianity, at which his predecessor himself had so much
raUed, had sunk into a mere object of pubUc derision in his dominions,
issued an edict (June 9, 1788), in order to repair, as far as lay in his
power, the evU which became every day more serious. His good inten
tions were misunderstood;* and then, as if despairing of their cause, a
party of the clergy thought it their duty to make to the prevaUmg spu-it
those concessions which they deemed necessary to appease it, and after
wards to lead back to Christianity those who had abandoned it only
on account of its abuses.
Liberty generaUy arises from too great oppression ; Lutheranism
must therefore have become very obnoxious ere it thus drove minds
beyond the Umits of wise discussion. Semler and Ernesti thought
that they could not do better, in order to remedy the eril which grew
every day worse, than to proclaim Uberty of thought in reUgion, as a
want of the human mind of which no power can deprive it without in
justice. It was, then, on the ground of liberty that the first rationalists
bravely accepted the challenge of those who no longer confined their
attacks to the external establishment of the church, but assaUed the
entire religion, the attesting documents of which are in the possession
of that church. We see that Semler himself, after doing more than
any other for liberty of thought in reUgion, and preaching on the sub
ject, both by example and precept attacked both Bahrdt, whose right
of fUling a chair in a Christian University he disputed, since he con
sidered Christianity as a purely human institution, and Lessing, the
value of whose historical inquu-ies into the facts of the New Testament
he questioned.
We may therefore date the origin of Eationalism in Germany from
this period of decline in the Christian opinions generaUy prevalent in
Europe during the second half of the eighteenth centm-y, when the
essentially negative philosophy which then reigned, compeUed theolo-
* William II, said, in private, to his subjects, that when they had to complain
of any obstacle to their worship, or to the manifestation of their Christian faith,
they ought to address themselves to him in person ! As we see, Christianity
enjoyed more liberty under the contemporaries of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius
than under the reign of the bookseller Nicolai. Alas ! we could even now men
tion Lutheran towns in which the perusal of biblical works exposes men to the same
vexations as in the times of which we are speaking.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 91
gians to give a better reason of their belief, if they did not wish to see
the complete disunion of science and Christianity. Some of them
undertook this task, and wishing to offer to this idol of science a pledge
of their good-wiU, as weU as to show their desire of concUiating its good
graces, they were not content with laying down as a first principle that
no part of Christianity is hostile to human reason, but they also con
sented to strip the ancient faith of all on which reason pronounced an
arbitrary decision. It is easy to understand how, after the adoption of
phraseology so consonant wdth rational philosophy, NaturaUsm, which
had never found an echo among the masses, least of aU araong the rural
populations, must have seen its influence decUne. But serious phi
losophy did not discontinue its critical researches. It considered itself
the better entitled to pm-sue them, since upon its ground were now
debated questions which it had not long before been considered incapable
of solving unless it chose to accept conclusions already drawn. Thus
while the defenders of the ancient system were unwiUing to make any
concession of the principles which they justly considered the consti
tuents of the evangeUcal faith, or of those relating to the revelation
and inspiration of the sacred writings, others, more bold, tried a
new path, renouncing the ancient ideas of revelation and inspira
tion, and atterapting thus to effect not merely the reconciUation of
philosophy with reUgion, which the disciples of Wolf had desired,
but also the transformation of theology into a system of religious and
critical phUosophy, And from this time was di'awn between theologians
a Une of demarcation wbich became more and more clearly defined,
until it at last entirely separated the supernaturalists ; that is, those who,
without rejecting the enlightenment of time and experience, wUl stiU
continue to lay down the revelation and inspiration of the Scriptm-es as
a starting point of discussion ; from the innovators who, without
troubUng themselves about these principles, are wiUing to arrive at the
profession of reUgious truth only after making the ideas and historical
monuments which contain it, pass through the purifying but corrosive
crucible of the criticism of human reason.

92 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE II.
EMPIRICAL AND EXEGETICAL RATIONALISM — ERNESTI — SEMLER.
In our first glance at EationaUsm, we see its purely empirical character,
and it could not be otherwise. Before an enemy whose aim was to
overturn everything, it was necessary, in order to obtain its favom-, to
strike with it all the parts of the buUding which were condemned to
fall, and to seek afterwards to assign motives for such conduct by
scholastic arguments and considerations drawn from history. It was not
yet possible to systematise a doctrine which was to be offered in place of
Christianity, when it was weU known to be the production of mere phi
losophical speculation ; and even if they had wished to do so, Ernesti
and Semler would not have been capable of undertaking such a task.
The nature of their minds had no philosophical tendency in the trae
sense of the word, and for this reason, in their mode of treating of re
ligious truths, the rationalistic element was not entirely disengaged
from aU vestiges of the spirit of the old school. Then exegesis pre
sented itself, which, timid and hesitating in its origin, became graduaUy
more bold in its invasions.
Before the Eeformation, it was customary to estabUsh rules to assist
in the explanation and interpretation of Scripture, And, fii-st of all,
it was not proper to forget the rule of faith, that is to say, the uni
versally-received doctrine, the ordinary practice of the church, the
manner in which the most distinguished doctors had rendered the
sense of a passage to be explained, and finally, the decisions which
had been given by the assembUes of the heads of the church, and which
had the force of law. We cannot consider the principle absurd, that, in
order to discover the raeaning of ancient books, we ought to have regard
to the manner in which they wei-e understood by the writers and learned
men who received thera immediately from the hands of then authors ;
but we can easily conceive how a reformation effected in opposition to
existing authority should have rejected too exclusive rules, the appUca
tion of which would have been destructive to it.* The reformers accord-
* I refer my German opponents to these words of Neander : " Ich bin uberzeugt,
dass die unbefangene Kritik in ihrer Anwendung auf alles, was in der Form

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 93
ingly declared that it was necessary to adhere to the literal interpretation,
without troubling themselves whether the conclusions thus arrived at
were in conformity with the ancient explanation, and they were per
suaded that the results would always harmonise with their own doctrine.
They established, moreover, this exegetical principle, that the Bible can
have no better interpreter than itself, and that the clear passages throw
Ught on those that are more obscm-e. But is not this an arbitrary prin
ciple, and one which has no foundation in history, since the books of the
Bible were written neither all at the same time nor by the same persons,
stiU less had then- authors any intention of explaining the writings of
their predecessors ? This principle is only true so far as it is deduced
fi-om the inspiration, by which the Holy Spirit that inspired the con
tents of these books, has necessarUy impressed on them the seal of
unity. But may we not say that this unity concerns rather the things
than the words ? Thus we may say in a general way, that in order to
obtain a good explanation of a passage in the Bible, it is weU to con
sult corresponding passages which are more clearly expressed or further
developed; and from the unity of which I have spoken, some Ught must
proceed to iUuminate the minds of believers. But this is neither an
absolute nor a scientific plan. In treating of works which bear evi
dent signs of the localities in which they were produced, it is necessary
to know how to employ other instruments— sometimes archfeology,
sometimes phUology ; and if it is true that the Catholic principle did
not allow suflScient phUosophical fi-eedom, yet that of the reformers was
stUl more severe, for it deprived thought of its wings.* In vain did some
of their immediate successors, such as Flacius and Karlstadt, attempt
gescbichtlicber Ueberlieferung in schriftlichen Urkunden uns mitgetheiltwerden,
mit dem kindlichen Glauben ohne den .allerdings kein Christenthum und keine
christliche Theologie m'oglich ist, nicht in Widerspruch stebt : vielmehr durch den
selben erst, wie die rechte Weihe des heiligen Sinnes ohne welche nichts in der
Theologie gediehen kann, so die rechte Soh'arfe mit dem in die Tiefe eindringen
den Blick erhalteu kann." — {Das Leben Christi in seinem geschichflicken zusam^
menhang und seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung, von Dr. August. Neander,
3 Aufl. 1839, Vorrede xiii.)
* Luther had said, " It is a peculiarity of all Scripture, that it explains itself
everywhere by the connexion of its passages, and that it can only be compre
hended by tbe rules of faith." — {Works, vol. iii. p, 2042,) And elsewhere, " Pay
attention to what Peter says, and you will never think that you can interpret
Scripture by your reason and wisdom. For this reason we lay aside all explana
tions of the ancient doctors ; and it is forbidden to build on their labours. If
Jerome or Augustin allowed theraselves to interpret, we will not follow their
example. Peter (in the passage indicated) has forbidden it; thou must not in
terpret for thyself, the Holy Spirit will do it for thee : if it does not, rather let us
leave the passages unexplained," — {Works,wo\. ix, p, 85,)

94 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
some flights. Not only were their trials feeble, but they produced no
resuUs beneficial to science, since, instead of being encouraged, they
were violently repressed by polemical discussion. But if the plan of
the reformers was too exclusive, that of Ernesti, as we shaU soon see,
was too incomplete. He made it known in 1761, by his work on the
Laws of a Wise Interpretation ; and since that time, this founder of
modem exegetical science has been the guide of aU rationaUstic inter
preters. His principle was, that we must apply to the explanation of
the Bible the same rules that we employ for profane authors ; that is
to say, we must make use of history and phUology, of the views of the
period at which the book was written, and must seek to discover the
connexion of each passage to be explained with that which may relate
to it,*
This method appears at the first glance to partake both of the
CathoUc system and of that introduced by Luther. But if Ernesti
asks us to regard history and the meaning given by antiquity to the
words of the Bible, he in reality wishes only to inquire into the manners
and customs of civU life, and by no raeans into the thoughts entertained
by the writer at the time when he borrowed the terras of actual life to
express his ideas ; and when he seems to recommend the system of
Luther, he by no means keeps in riew that unity in variety which the
Spirit of God must have spread over these works. As Ernesti was a
learned philologer, and, as such, the oracle of the University of Leip
zig, where his chair was always sm-rounded by many disciples, we can
easUy understand how, with his habit of seeking for the grammatical
meaning only in the .works of Cicero and Homer, he should entertain
the idea of pursuing fhe same method in his explanation of the Bible.
So learned a man ought not, however, to have been ignorant, that as
many persons, though famiUar with the classical languages of an
tiquity, do not perceive the subUme beauties scattered throughout the
works of Virgil or Euripides, as many also remain cold aud unmoved
by the choicest passages of eloquence or poetry, or are unable to rise
to the moral sense of an idea proceeding from the mind of a great
writer, — so in the sacred Scriptures there must be something hidden from
the common horde of readers and commentators, a spu-itual meaning to be
comprehended only by the spiritual or moral part of man, and which he
alone can flatter himself that he understands who knows how to place
himself in connexion with the source of pure and great ideas, with the

* Insiitutio interpretis N. Testamenti. The last edition is of 1792, and is aug
mented by the observations of Ammon, This work by Ernesti is generally fol
lowed by that of Morus on Hermeneutics. 2 vols. Leipzig.

HISTORY OF Rj\.TIONALISM. 95
type of aU trath; in a word, with the spirit of God himself. That such a
principle may be rejected, who can doubt ? but it cannot be seriously dis
puted by any man who believes that a revelation of any kind is contained
in the Bible. Let us, then, leave to Ernesti the honour of having restored
the good and solid studies of classical Uterature. It will always be the
incontestable glory of German theology, that it can show at all periods
of the national history, theologians who have exercised the greatest in
fluence on scientiS.c progress. Let us also say that not only by his
precepts, but also by his example, he showed how the preachers of the
school of Wolf might depart from the cold and frozen track which they
had so long pursued, for he enjoyed equal celebrity as a preacher and
as a professor. It must be said, however, that in the exegetical rule of
Ernesti there is a great void which neither science nor erudition can fill
up. However good in itself, (and no enlightened man of any Christian
community vriU deny that it is good,) it will be necessary to com
plete it by that of Spener, if any result is to be produced save
the sad havoc which it has made in the field of sacred criticism.*
Notwithstanding this incomplete and therefore fatal principle in exe
gesis, he who has been named the German Cicero on account of his
• Let us take, for exaraple, the word logos, which plays so prominent a part in
the fourth Gospel and in general doctrine. If we consult the ancient writers, we
find this word frequently used by them, and always in a different sense. Some
times it expresses discourse, reason, wisdom, cause, subject of a discourse, and I
know not what besides. We see hence, the Christian revelation being once esta
blished, and by this every coraraentator ought to coraraence his work, since doubt
or incredulity on this first principle would take away from hira every right
seriously to explain tbe contents of the sacred books ; the revelation being
once established, we can conceive that the apostle, not finding in the language in
which be is writing, a word fitted to express his ideas, should necessarily have
made use of that which approached it most nearly, thus attaching to that word a
sense somewhat different from that in which it was employed by other writers,
such as Plato, Xenophon, or Herodotus, or the Alexandrians, and expressing by
this word logos, the manifested thought of God, his only son, the splendour of
his glory, the image of his person. It is the same with pisteis, which is neither
fidelity to, nor belief in, the gods of paganism, but an union of fidelity, confi
dence, and love, and is used in the Gospel to express faith in Christ. Nothing
can be more pitiable than what is said on this subject by Tittmann : — "At last
was established this principle, which aroused the discontent of all allegorists
and raysticists, namely, that each passage of Scripture can have only one mean
ing ; because, when a man is speaking he can entertain but one idea, and so it
was with the apostles." — {Pragmatische Geschichte, p. 135,) A child, well versed
in bis catechism, might say to this rationalistic writer, you do not understand the
question, doctor. Revelation once established, and he who is not convinced of
it is incapable of religiously explaining the Bible : we cannot say to the Holy
Spirit, you ought to speak only after the manner of men.

96 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
pure and brilliant latinity, confined himself, on subjects of reUgious be
lief, within the limits of the Lutheran doctrine.*
All his writings, especiaUy his sermons, prove that he believed in the
doctrine of expiation, which holds so important a place in Christianity,
and Jesus was, in his eyes, the eternal Son of the Father of Spirits, and
of a nature superior to that of the children of adoption. Ernesti,
however, shows a certain hesitation in his belief, and this very hesita
tion proves that he had not risen to the ideaUsm which appeared at a
later period, and which would have induced him to maintain with
warmth speculative truths that, as he knew, did not derive their origin
from Scripture. Ernesti may be further reproached with having at
tacked the canon of Scripture at all points of which his phUological
learning showed him the weakness, and afterwards leaving his readers
in uncertainty as to the authenticity of the books contained in that
canon. He has even been heard to terminate a serious discussion by
a piece of wit, which decided nothing, and might trouble the most cir
cumspect minds. Thus, for example, he said that he did not wish to
reject the Eevelation of St. John, adding that he should consider that
man a great theologian who should confess that he understood nothing
of it. He beUeved in a certain sort of inspu-ation to the end of his
life, as far as regards the New Testament. As to the Old, he regarded
it, as did Schleiermacher at a later period, as having been written for
the Jews alone, and so of no importance to Christians. This did not,
however, prevent him from evoking inspired oracles before his exegetical
tribunal, and teaching them the mode of expression which they should
have employed in order to be better understood.f
In this equivocal position, as Christian pastor and professor, it is
only just to make known what were Emesti's opinions on the Naturalism
which opened the door of the German church to foreign Deists. " The
ChanceUor Pfaff," says he, "regrets that the Deistical works have
been translated into German. He has many reasons for doing so.
But he consoles hiraself by the reflection, apologetic writings also have
been translated. This consolation is not always sufficient. We have
* Kant, nevertheless, was never able to confess tbe latinity of Ernesti to be
purely Ciceronian, as his contemporaries were pleased to designate it, (Barowski,
Darstellung des Leb. und Charak. J.Kant's, p. 171.)
t It was, doubtless, this apparently equivocal position which caused a ration
alist of our day. Professor Richard, of Strasburg, to say, in an article on the
movement of religious ideas in Germany, full of talent, but of a tendency to Natu
ralism astonishing in a theological professor ofthe nineteenth century— "Er
nesti, preaching before his parish of Leipzig, acts an orthodoxy of which no
traces are to be found in the exegetical course delivered to the students on the
morrow," See Nouvelle Revue german, 1835 {Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1835).

HISTORY OF EATIONALISM, 97
remarked, that in these apologies there is not much which can refute
the Deistical tenets, and this we wUl now proceed to prove by the tes
timony of one of these works, which has nevertheless some celebrity.
John Taylor, in the preface which we have before mentioned, speaks of
the reign of God under the Gospel, and wishes to show that it is very
different, and even far superior, to simple natm-al reUgion. But when
he attempts to show wherein Ues the difference, and especially in what
the superiority of the Gospel consists, he presents only this very natural
religion, placed in a brighter Ught, and with clearer discoveries of its
rights, motives, and hopes, thus better known than they were to the
wisest phUosophers. This apology, therefore, contains only natural
religion revealed immediately by God ; and is not this the general plan
of those English Socinian authors who have been so mucb praised ?
The Deists do not understand their own interests, when they grow angry
about such books, for they agree with them on the principal points ; and
what more woidd they have ?" *
Let us compare this attack of Ernesti on Deism and Socinianism
with the eulogiums which he bestows on the otherwise celebrated
writer, Taylor, and we shaU be enabled to form a just idea of the incon
sistency of the learned professor of Leipzig. The iUustrious Locke, not
content with having thrown a Ught on the human understanding,
which, however, seems to be considered doubtful by some, wished
to exercise his powers in the domain of theology, and especiaUy in its
didactic part, Rational Christianity, but he obtained no lasting renown.
Yet it is as a theologian that Ernesti, whose severe words against the
bad apologists of religion faU with fuU force on the EngUsh phUosopher
— it is, I say, as a theologian that he recommends him to the numerous
readers of his library. In fact, MichaeUs became the editor of Locke's
Paraphrase of the Epistles of St. Paul, a paraphrase which totally dis
figures the ideas of the apostle. Ernesti, it is true, removed from the
work some faults and even doctrinal errors, but he confesses that he
learned from Locke " the true method of a good interpretation of the
Epistles of St. John."t If confusion and chaos do not exist in these
ideas of Ernesti, we know not what name to give to these inconsistent
opinions of fhe same author. Thus it is, that having once entered on
the paths of EationaUsm, even when only at the very commencement,
as was Ernesti, we have no longer the right to condemn the views of
others without incurring the accusation of inconsistency or of arbitrary
conduct ; and hence the position of an honest EationaUst is at once
* New Theological Library, published by Ernesti, vol, i. p. 115.
t Ibid, vol, X, p. 883.
VOL. II. H

98 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
dubious and painful; one, in fact, which no good logician would accept.
We shaU certainly never dispute the services rendered by this critical
science to a severe interpretation of the Bible; and to Ernesti especiaUy,
who gave the impulse, a great portion of this honour is due. But the
results being considered, can it be said that the principles deduced
from this science possess an absolute value? Teller, however, thought
so, when he wrote upon Ernesti a pamphlet, interesting though not
strictly impartial.* EationaUsm had need, then, of a writer less timid
and more capable of remorselessly abandoning Christianity to phUosophy;
and this it found in Semler, who, during the thu-ty years of his pro
fessorship at HaUe, made use of his chair and his pen to undermine
the very foundations of the Christian edifice.
* /. A. Emesti's Verdienste um die Theologie und Religion. Berlin, 1782,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 99

CHAPTEE III.
CONTINUATION OF THE PRECEDING CHAPTER — SEMLER — HIS RELI
GIOUS OPINIONS — EXEGESIS — HISTORY — ACCOMMODATION —
HIS FAVOURITE SYSTEM.
Educated in the orphan-school at HaUe, Semler preserved throughout
his Ufe somewhat of that practical piety which he there learned, and to
his pleasant recollections of his youth is perhaps owing his respect for
sorae articles of the Christian faith to which lus writings were in general
so hostUe. The rationaUstic direction which he pursued in his labours
dates from his first interview with Baumgarten, who taught him to
recognise no impediments in the domain of historical and exegetical
criticism. They first became fellow-labourers in the Neuigleeiten der
Beutschen Bibliothek, and in the translation of the English Universal
History, by Guthrie and Grey, and they were subsequently coUeagues
at the University, where Semler commenced that series of works which
caused him to be decidedly recognised as the father of modem Eational
ism. But while we do justice to the activity of Semler, to his judicious
observations on many points of church history, we must, from an exa
mination of his writings, agree with contemporaries in saying that he
was deficient in two powers necessary for the founder of a school, viz,,
that of elocution, and perhaps stiU more that of skilful exposition.
The same disorder which reigned in his lectm-es, prevailed also in
his writings, and his success can be explained only by the novelty and
boldness of his opinions. He was accustomed to maintain, in the op
posite extreme to Spener, that piety has nothing in common with the
theological sciences, a principle which Wolf had already brought into
esteem. This principle must be condemned by good sense ; for is there
not an intimacy, a secret though real bond, between holiness and
wisdom, between knowledge and obedience ? Another of his principles
is the distinction which he deems it necessary to estabUsh between the
essence of Christianity and what is only accessory to it ; or, as it has
been said in France, between the fundamental principles of reUgion and
those which are not so : and as he took upon himself to trace a line of
separation, he pointed out the apostles' creed, as containing a faithful
h3

100 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
summary of aU which a Christian ought to believe. On this somewhat
arbitrary foundation, which he, however, considers impregnable, he
attacked the Fragments of Lessing, who denied one of the articles of
that creed, viz., the resurrection of Christ. But it might be asked, who
gave to Semler this right of placing his line of demarcation between
the essential and the non-essential ; for if it was repugnant to the in
dividual reason of Lessing to admit the resurrection of one buried as
dead, we cannot understand how the reason of Semler should surpass
in sagacity that of the librarian of Wolfenbiittel.
In exegesis, Semler wished, as did Ernesti, that if should be confined
to the grammatical meaning, and he declai-ed this method to be suf
ficient to lead us to an understanding of the sacred writings. It was in
consequence of this mode of proceeding, that from the very commence
ment of his career he considered the demoniacs merely as madmen,
whom it was necessary simply to bind in order to prevent them from
doing mischief, " Confounding thus," says Hase, " our times, when the
power of demons has been destroyed by Christianity, with those of
Jesus, thus also impugning the historical fideUty of the New Testa
ment, and, by a necessary consequence, casting suspicions on the in
faUible veracity of Jesus, who cast out the demons as demons."* We
can easily conceive, that with this mode of intei-preting the sacred
books, there could be no question concerning the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit. When caUed on to explain his riews on this point, which
alone can maintain Protestantism as a reUgion, he defines it as a state
of holy contemplation of the mind {andachtige Gemiithsverfassung).
What authority can those words possess which, being no longer the
formal expression of the wiU of the Most High, are only the inspira
tion of the pious sentiments of a writer who could so easUy become
the victim of his own iUusions ?
Thus sacred criticism was Semler's first battle-field. " The field of
criticism," says he in many passages of his writnigs, "was at the
period of my first essays stiU uncultivated." " I have termed criticism,"
he says elsewhere, " a science newly bom, at least among German
theologians."! For it is weU known that it was a Frenchman, Father
Eichard Simon, de I'Oratoire, who was the real founder of sacred
criticism. His works were placed in the Ubrary of Semler, as they
were in those of all theological professors ; and if to him we join
Spinoza, who showed not that he was a Christian, but only a phUo
sopher, by the pubUcation of his theologico-poUtical treatise,— Spmoza,
* C, Hase, in his Hutterus redivivus, 4th edit. Leipzig, 1839, p, 184.
¦f Semler's Erkldriing Uber einige neue theologischen Censuren, 1777.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 101
¦who, with less erudition, but with more boldness than Eichard Simon,
expressed his doubts concerning the formation of the canon and the
authenticity of a great part of the Bible, — Spinoza, who, for a Jew,
showed great good-wiU towards Christianity, though he stripped it of
its supernatural chai-acter ; — we shall then be convinced that if Semler
did lay the foundations of sacred criticism, as he seems to boast, it was
only in his own country, and Spinoza ought always to be regarded as
the earliest founder of modern Eationalism,*
Besides this, it raay be said that the criticism which Semler founded
is much too negative, that it bears an exclusively destructive character,
and that in this he, like Emesti, far exceeded his own doctrinal views,
and in so doing gave no proof of genius. Genius has more unity ; far
fi-om proceeding step by step, as does empirical science, it places itself
at a great height, whence it discerns objects better, and takes a more
comprehensive view of them. Semler shows this inchnation for de
struction principally in his labours upon the formation of the Canons,
especiaUy that of the Old Testament. " We wUl suppose," says he,
" that a traveller, desu-ous of information, addresses himself with sin
cere feelings to the greater part of the Jews resident in Palestine, they
wUl speak to him of the twenty-four books contained in the Bible ; let
him turn to the Samaritans, they will send him to the five books of Moses ;
should he come to Alexandria, there he wUl hear more than twenty-four
named. It is certain, then, that from this pm-ely historical testimony
we can decide nothing respecting the divinity of these books."f And
how does Semler come to a decision on this point ? " The true proof,"
says he, " of the dirinity of a book is the internal conriction of the
truth of its contents. This is properly fides divina, and it is customary
to define it in bibUcal style, but very clearly as the testimony of the
Holy Spu-it in the raind of the reader."^ And in virtue of this prin-
* One of the best pieces provoked by Strauss's Life of Jesus is indisputably
that of the French author and poet, Edgar Quinet, a translation of which has
appeared in Germany, and which has been reproduced, either wholly or in part,
in many of the theological reviews of that country. This is what he says with a
perfect knowledge of the subject : " If we re-peruse his Tractatus, and his re
markable Briefe an Oldenburg, we shall there find the germ of all the proposi^^
tions lately maintained in German exegesis." I find M. Quinet's work in the
Zeitschriften, published at Brussels, 1828, p. 468. But I believe that I have
quoted its testimony in my Histoire de la vie et des ouvrages de Spinosa.
[See "Review of Strauss's Life of Jesus, from the French of Professor Quinet," in
The Voices of the Church, in Reply to Dr. D. F. Strauss. By Dr. Beard. London :
Simpkin, Marshall, & Co., 1845.— E,]
f Freie Untersuchung des Canotis, Part I, p. 28.
+ Ibid. p. 39.

103 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
ciple he pitUessly ejects from the Canon Solomon's Song, the Book of
Euth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and the Chi-onicles, whUe in his opinion
the Books of Samuel, Joshua, Judges, Kings, and Daniel, are only
doubtful. As to the book of Eeclesiastes, he thinks it very possible
that it may be the work of several writers, and respecting the Penta
teuch, or five books pf Moses, he wUUngly refers to what has been
written on the subject by Astruc, Eichard Simon, and Vitringa. These
authors have endeavoured to show that the Pentateuch, and especiaUy
the book of Genesis, was composed of different fragments, whose date
cannot be precisely determined, since the copies of the Pentateuch,
together with those of the other parts of the Bible, were destroyed
during the plundering of the country, and were afterwards re-compUed
by Ezra, This fact would account for the different readings, since
Ezra's authority was not acknowledged by fhe Samaritans, and would
also explain the preference shown by Christians for the Greek translation
rather than the Hebrew original.* As the rejection of the Canon, or of
the great part of the books of which it consists, did not proceed from
a scientific examination of historical testimony, but simply from a per
sonal repugnance, which had its origin in religious ideas, directly op
posed to those found in the Bible, it is not astonishing that these same
feelings induced Semler to reject many things in the New Testament
which did not accord with his pre-conceived opinions.
We see already, that though Semler rendered real service to the
science of sacred criticism, if only by compelUng the supernaturaUsts
to enter on studies highly honourable to those who never separate
knowledge from faith, inteUigence from piety, we cannot the less de
plore the too bold tone of his conjectures, and that imperturbable as
surance of a writer who has more confidence in his own feelings than
in the testimony of many persons whose sentiments might very pos
sibly be quite as pure and sincere as his own. Thus, to borrow a
scholastic expression, it was always Semler's custom to decide d, priori,
as a last resource, of facts which can be well judged of only with the
instances before us.
And does not his mode of understanding Christianity present a new
error in that system of accommodation which he so much extended,
and which has been so much abused by his successors, in consequence
of the diflaculty, inherent in its nature, of assigning Umits to it ? We
find the first traces of this system of accommodation in Semler's preface
to his Paraphrase of the Epistle to the Romans, and he afterwards
» Versuch einer freie in Lehrart, p, 96.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 103
developed it in many of his writings.* At the first glance this system
presents a somewhat specious appearance, and had it been appUed with
moderation, it could not have been altogether blamed by reason and
conscience ; for accommodation might be understood as a condescension,
which Jesus and his apostles would have extended to the ignorance of
those whom they instructed : but this condescension would never have
been carried so far as to tolerate errors, stiU less so far as to suppose errors
truths. It would have been confined to some practices unimportant in
themselves, to the adoption, for example, of their customary mode of
teaching in parables, to the use of circumspection in employing the axe
of reform against the ceremonial law ; in a word, to acting in such a
way as to avoid wounding certain prejudices which were not hurtful to
the true idea of religion and moraUty. The Apostle Paul defines this
mode of action as being " aU things to aU men," in order to gain many.
But there is another sort of accoramodation which could never have
been practised by Jesus nor by the apostles, since it bears too close a
resemblance to hypocrisy, and the moral character of Christ and his
disciples would have been stained by it. Men may be accused of dis
simulation when they pass over in sUence that which they dare not openly
condemn ; or of hypocrisy or actual deception when by their words
they give us to understand that they consider as true that which they
know to be only the offspring of error or superstition. And undoubtedly
Semler, and the ratiouaUsts after him, accuse Jesus of these sins, when
they say that, speaking of angels, of the expectation of the Messiah, of the
last judgment, of demons, of the resm-rection of the dead, and, finally,
of the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures, he did so only to accommo
date himself to the notions of his day, in order that by not contradict
ing them he might the more easUy succeed in overturning the Mosaic
reUgion. The very enunciation of such a system must deeply gi-ieve
that man who entertains any feeling of the raoral character of Christ ;
and yet pure rationaUsts, I should say more consistent than some
others, have not failed to attempt to defend it, and even to maintain its
moraUty.f The celebrated historian of the church, Henke ; NachtigaU,
Teller, Eckermann, Vogel, and others, have made vain efforts to do so ;
writers of more acknowledged moral authority have successfully opposed
them. Among these, we should include Storr in his Bogmatik, Gess
ni his Briefen uber einige theologische Fragen des Zeitalters, and espe-
* Particularly in that entitled, Vorbereitung zur Theologie Hermeneutik. Halle,
1762 ; and in Apparatus ad liberaliorem N. Testamenti interpretationem. Halle,
1767. ¦f In the Neta Magazine of Henke the morality of this system was maintained
with uncommon temerity. — {Neues Magazin, vol, ii. p. 2.)

lOJi HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
cially Mosheim, Eeinhard, and Suskind — three men whose words pos
sess a force to which every rationaUst must grant serious consideration.
The last-mentioned theologian undertook, particularly, to combat this
system, by showing that it was to the honour of human reason to
reject a theory which degi-aded it so strangely.* Bretschneider, whose
rationaUstic instincts incline towards the doctrines of Semler and his
adherents, but who, with the avowed sentiments of Kantian morality,
should profess with the strictest rigour the law of duty, extricates hira
self from the diflaculty by saying that the question should undergo a
new examination.!
Another idea pecuUar to Semler, concerning exegesis, is the distinc
tion which he said should be drawn between those things contained in
the Bible which are only local and temporaiy, and those which are of
aU times and all places. This is the fundamental idea to which he
always gave a prominent position in exegetical studies. Ernesti had
not yet entered on this path, and Semler took care to anticipate him.
Doderlein shows, in an article on the paraphrase of the Epistle of James
by Semler, that this locaUsing system already enjoyed a certain degree
of credit. " Thus," says this theologian, " many able interpreters of
the Bible sailed on this troubled ocean of dogmatical and ascetical exe
gesis, and sank into the abyss whUe trying to purify and throw Ught on
its surface. Much stUl remained incomprehensible, and will remain so
until Ught be shed on history itself, and in that Ught we may see the
persons of whom the apostles speak in their Epistles, where, assuredly,
many local things are to be found. With this torch of ancient history
in his hand. Dr. Semler, who, wherever he has appeared, has thrown
new Ught on science, penetrates into the views and spirit of the catholic
Epistles in general, and particularly of that of St, James. He seeks and
finds new tmths, though we may foresee that, on one side, some will
not be able to bear so much light, since they are better content when
they can seize some dogmas in fhe raidst of clouds than when they can
see the truth in broad day ; and, on the other side, that there are stUl
many things in a state of twUight, and that here and there a false light
may shine," |
In this question, as in the preceding, sacred criticism may derive
* Mosheim's Sittenlelire, Part I, p, 445. Reinhard's Christliche Moral, Part III.
§ 297. Suskind, an article in the Magazine of Flatt, of which he became the
editor. No. xiii. p, 1-16,
t Bretschneider's Handbuch der Luther. Kirche, vol, i, p, 1 19, of tbe 4th edit.
published 1818.
+ Theologik Bibliothek, vol, ii, p, 263. Tholuck, in his Vermischten Schriften,
vol. ii. p. 61 and 62, quotes many curious examples of this systematic mania of
Semler, in wishing to localise all which he sees in the New Testament,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 105
advantage from these views of Semler ; but if no limit be fixed to this
spirit of locaUsing, (and I know not that any has yet been drawn,) whither
will such ideas lead ? Men of inexorable consistency will find that the
doctrines, and consequently aU in the domain of dogmatism and mo
raUty, are taught only for the tirae, or they wUl adopt some maxims of
them for each of the epochs of history to which they may please to
apply them. Every rash man wUl with such principles undertake to
separate the chaff from the grain ; that is to say, that which Jesus aud
his apostles taught only for the men of their time, from that which
they designed for the instruction of aU generations. How can we
blame them for waging war against what Semler considered as essential
and indestructible ? The spirit of the times, they wUl say, is changed ;
but I would ask whether, supposing that the truth is contained in the
Scriptures, they should be made to yield to all the exigencies of time,
and to accommodate themselves to the spirit of the age, or whether it
is not rather for all men of all periods to regulate then- conduct by the
prescriptions of this eternal truth. It is a matter of regret that the
philosophy of Kant, otherwise imbued with so much morality, should
not have thrown off this idea of Semler, but should, on the contrary,
have employed its aid in the aUegorical interpretation of Scripture,
which it has carried to its greatest extreme.* It may be easily iraa
gined what a destructive influence such principles had upon the doc
trinal system of Semler. An exegesis, which found in all parts of the
New Testament ideas only relatively tme, and for that very reason tran
sitory, took away aU the positions of doctrine : thus we may say that
Semler, if consistent, aUowed no value to doctrine in general. It is for
this reason that he insists so much on the difference between reUgion
and theology. But can such a difference exist, except in words, in the
mind of him who understands their trae signification, unless, indeed, he
means to say that theology only systematises that which belongs to the
province of religion ? StUl, in that case, theology would be only the
form in which reUgious ideas are clothed, not a regularly arranged sys
tem related to reUgion. This, however, our theologian considered it to
be when he established his new distinction between pubUc and private
religion. PubUc reUgion, he said, ought to be always beyond the reach
of attack, that the pubUc peace may be preserved ; but private reUgion
may vary at the pleasure of individual consciences. The accusations of
indifference brought against Spener would have been more applicable to
* These rash men, however, cannot go much further than did Semler himself,
when he said, in speaking of the work of an English Deist, " The Christian reli
gion, having been a local religion, cannot become the universal religion." See
Zusdtze zu Lord Barrington' s Versuch iiber Christ, und den Deismus.

106 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
Semler, and yet his singular opinions were only the consequence of a
false mode of thinking, and not of indifference, for they were so firmly
iraplanted in his mind that he spoke of thera with warmth and with
unequivocal marks of conviction to his fi-iend Nieraeyer only a lew days
before his death.* "People keep too much to the external," said he;
" always too much to the letter, and too little to the spirit, of Chris
tianity. You maintain, very justly, that the first Christians knew much
less of extemal history than we imagine ourselves to know." After
speaking of several things contained in his writings, and particularly of
the Canon and the inspiration ofthe Scriptures, "There is nothing but
ignorance in history," added he ; " and this it is that causes the Chris
tian religion to be confounded with the Bible, as if there were no Chris
tians before there was such a book as the Bible — as if there could not be
a more or less good Christian who knew only one of the four Gospels, or
only one of the number of Epistles which we possess." "Before the fourth
century," said he again, " there was no complete New Testament, and
yet there have always been true disciples of Christ, stronger or weaker
in proportion to their ability to thi-ow off the ancient spu-it of Judaism."
What would these arguments prove, were they aU weU founded, if not
the fact that the reformers, in destroying the idea of an instructing
church, have made the greatest ravages in the kingdom of Christ, and
that this system would assist in the work of its reconstruction ? This
is not the only argument which Eationalism has furnished, not to
Popery, but to true Catholicism.f
It is customary to say that the field in which Semler has gathered
most laurels is that of church history. I do not vrish violently to strip
him of them, nor to blame Baumgarten-Crusius, who holds him in such
high estimation on this point ; but, as it has been justly said, it is by
* How could Semler arrange a system of Christian doctrine, when he pretended
that all the dogmatical points of Scripture are only accommodations to the pre
judices of the Jews, and, as he himself somewhere calls them, small local ideas
(Kleine Local-ideen)? Thus, though he sometimes employed the terms Mediator,
Son of God, Redemption, and others, he attached to them no idea peculiar to the
Christian doctrine. The rationalists who have most closely followed his foot
steps, such as Henke, Eckermann, Wegscheider, and even Bretschneider, have
been equally unable to present more than the negative side of his doctrine, when
they have attempted the task, and the history of doctrine, which should form
only a part of their works, occupies nearly the whole of them. The principal
works, by means of which Semler propagated his religious opinions, are his
Introduction to Baumgarten' s Dogmatik, his Essay already quoted ( Versuch einer,
&c,), and his Institutiones ad doctr. clirist. liberaliter docendam. Halle, 1774,
f See for more details the work of Nienieyer : Semler's Letzte Aeusserungen
iiber religi'ose Gegetistande, zwei Tage vor seiiiem Tode.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 107
the effects which they have produced that we should judge of the merit
of his researches, and we know that these effects have been purely ne
gative. We may form an idea of the manner in whieh he treats his
tory by the foUowing passage in one of his most esteemed works : —
" The som-ces whence the best writers of the first and second centuries
have derived their information are not authentic. They consulted only
the Greek translations which came from Alexandria, many rhapsodical
works fiUed with reveries and fanatical narratives. It is to be regretted
that we no longer possess the writings of these self-caUed heretics of
that period. The little which remains of them proves that they would
have transmitted to us something better than the miserable composi
tions of the cathoUc party who have survived them." * We see here,
by a single stroke of the pen, discredit thrown on the whole church of
the early centuries, catholic as it then was in the tme sense of the term ;
and a preference given to the gnostics or other heretics of the time
whom the universal verdict of Christians rejected from the bosom of the
church. We are therefore not surprised, when we know the predUec-
tions of Semler, to find him criticising with bitterness those fathers of
the church for whom we are taught so much veneration by Neander in
works that have the same object as those of Semler.
I wUl conclude my observations upon Semler by giving a short expo
sition of the reUgious theory which he cherished above everything, and
of which he loved to speak. There existed, according to this theolo
gian, in the bosom of the primitive church, when yet in its cradle, two
parties, one of which desu-ed to unite philosophical beUef to the religious
system of the Jews, whUe the other declared its independence of aU
influence. Christ appeared to concUiate them. Thus we see, that
when he spoke with the Jewish party, he was eager to do homage to
Moses ; and when, on the contrary, he addressed himself to the gnostic
party, he spoke strongly against the prejudices of his nation. After
the death of Jesus, his disciple Peter placed hiraself at the head of the
Jewish party, and for this reason he confined the sphere of his activity
to Judea. Paul declared himself for the gnostic party, and therefore
are his views so Uberal and his ideas more appUcable to human kind.
It was an inevitable consequence, after the death of the apostles, that
these two parties should be divided into an infinity of smaller ones.
The Christian churches felt the inconveniences of this, and the project
of an universal or catholic church was formed. The bishops, therefore,
met in councU, and united the views of Peter and of Paul. Hence the
church as it was at the period of the Eeformation.
* Auszug der Kirchengeschichte, t. i. p. 40,

108 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
In all these ai-rangements, all these combinations, do we see the least
glimpse of the Spirit of God ? Is not aU considered as the work of
man, the work of that wisdom soraetiraes caUed foUy by Scripture?
And what a part is Jesus made to play in this coUision of parties I
This, however, is nof aU. The four Gospels which we possess, pursues
Semler, form a part of the exclusively Jewish system, and those which
contain the conversations of Jesus with the gnostic party are lost, with
the exception of that of St. Mark. As to the Epistles of St. Paul, they,
it is true, belong to the latter class ; but the catholic Epistles of James
and Peter were written only for the purpose of cflFecting the so much
desired fusion of the two parties. This is, certainly, a system which
shows ingenuity, but has it not its only source in the imagination of
Semler ? Suppositions, and always suppositions : this was the mode of
proceeding of this author ; and if he found any obstacle in his path (as,
for example, Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, whose authenticity was not
yet denied, and which bears so deep an impress of what Semler would
have caUed the Jevrish party), then, without troubUng himself concern
ing history or other testimony as authoritative, he called imagination to
his aid, and said that the apostle composed it only to please the Jews,
and at a period of his life when he stUl hoped to reconcUe them to his
gnostical ideas. Semler added, moreover, that the epistles were not
addressed to the churches, as generally believed, but to theii- spiritual
conductors ; and when he was opposed by the unanimous testimony of
antiquity, he answered that no confidence should be placed in the eri
dence of the ancient doctors, since they were unlearned men. Yet no
transcendent learning is here impUed, such as all minds are not capable
of, but simple historical testimony, for which it is necessary only to
have eyes to see and ears to hear. The ancient doctors were in a posi
tion much more favourable for giving evidence concerning a fact, than
was a man of the eighteenth century, shut up in his closet, who never
theless pretends to give his assertions as indisputable proofs.*
Such were the principal opinions which Semler endeavoured to spread
during a long career spent in instruction, and we are assured that the
zeal of his disciples went so far that he frequently showed his dissatis
faction on that account.
Such was the course pursued by a mau of learning, but blind teme
rity, in order to drive out from his native land the sensuous sophistry
which, under the name of Natm-alism, had attempted to invade it, and
to restore what he falsely beUeved to be Christianity — the serious but
openly anti-Christian philosophy of his day. If Naturalism, as such,
* See The Life of Semler, by Eichhorn, in his Allgemeine Bibliothek, &c.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 109
was compelled to keep sUence, the impartial observer must say that
in making concession after concession, Eationalism has transformed
itself into Naturalism ; and as it nevertheless pretends to be the expres
sion of the pm-est Christianity, we cannot wonder that not only the true
Christian, but even the simple historian who judges impartiaUy, should
logically dispute the right of its professor to declare hiraself a real
member of the chm-ch of Christ. Many rationalists, who beUeve them
selves to be more near the truth, because they keep at a respectful dis
tance from the naturalists of the last centm-y, seek to exculpate Semler
from all participation in such excesses, and say that he was the first to
lament them. In that case, the professor of Halle should have ab
stained from laying down principles the results of which he ought to
have foreseen.
We ought not to be surprised at any conclusions which the human
mind may draw fi-om a principle which is said to be founded in truth.
The only reason for astonishment is, that we see so many estimable men
as the camp of Eationalism can number, professing these very principles,
and at the same time endeavouring with one hand to arrest the progress
of the chariot which they are impelling with the other. The assertions
concerning the impiety and religious increduUty of Semler can be con
sidered only as the gratuitous ebullitions of passion. We should
remember that certain naturalists of his day, seeing his great tenacity
in retaining the fragments of the ancient faith which he wished to keep,
designated him by the name of Pietist, which had ab-eady in the mouth
of the frivolous become an injurious epithet. To pretend that he laid
himself open to the accusations of seoflB.ng, of gaiety of heart, and of
mental hypocrisy, is to show strange ignorance of human nature. It
grieves rae to find Tholuck, in his Vermischten Schriften, casting on the
morality of Semler insinuations which so able a writer should never
employ against an adversary. Who does not know now that in all
ranks of society may be found noble characters who, in politics as in
religion and philosophy, grow warm in the cause of that which they
believe to be truth. Semler was assm-edly deceived, first, in considering
as the sole essential in religion that which the tradition of eighteen cen
turies had not regarded as such, and, above aU, in supposing that there
could exist a medium between the rigour of logic and the authority of
a reUgious truth which the huraan mind cau know only by an imme
diate revelation from the Deity. But as no one is responsible for more
than his own works, we should not misunderstand a certain nobleness
of intention in Semler, since he sought, by rationaUsing Christianity in
his own way, only more effectuaUy to confound its enemies. We can
only deplore that such great learning was not employed to fortify that

110 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
which it destroyed. A more skilful judge than myself confesses that
the qualities peculiar to Ernesti and Semler were more exegetical and
historical than dialectical, more critical than dogmatical, and that it was
with great trouble that they cleared the ground covered by the remains
of ruined palaces. But as their resources were exhausted, they left to
each one the care of buUding for himself a Uttle house, if the ground
appeared to him stUl safe and the materials fit for use. Many others
took upon themselves the task of buUding, but theirs was only a provi
sional edifice, which was soon to faU to the ground.*
• Twesten in his Vorlesungen iiber Dogmatik, vol. i, p. 224.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. Ill

CHAPTEE IV.
SACRED CRITICISM — ITS OBJECT BEFORE THE TIME OF MICHAELIS
 BIBLICAL THEOLOGIANS, MICHAELIS, DODERLEIN, MORUS,
NOSSELT, REINHARD, SCHOTT, ZIMMERMANN, KLEIN, PLANK,
BOHME, STORR, AND STEUDEL — SUPERNATURALIST THEOLOGY
OF ZOLLIG.
We know that the autographs of the apostles (there can be no ques
tion concerning those of the prophets of the ancient law) were lost at
an early period, a fact which may be accounted for by the great use
made of them in the churches. The copies made, perished in their
turn, and for similar reasons. Yet, the more the conquests of the
Gospel were extended, the more necessary became these copies, and
the more they were multiplied. Hence arose that multitude of manu
scripts in aU the ancient languages, and also, as a natural consequence,
the great number of alterations involuntarily made by inattentive or
unskilful transcribers. It rests with us, therefore, to compare those
manuscripts which remain to us, to learn to distinguish between a more
pure text and one which is less so, to show with clearness, precision,
and impartiaUty, the difference of the versions and the nature of the
variations ; and aU this can be done without the inquiry being hostUe
to the word of God itself. But Eationalism has confounded two very
dissimilar things, and has created this confusion for the promotion of
its own opinions. We can very weU conceive of labours having for
their object the history and criticism of the original text of Scriptm-e,
which would by no means depreciate their origin and intrinsic value.
The criticism of these variations itself ought neither to shake the faith
of the conscientious inquirer, nor to alarm his piety, since they are an
authentic testimony to the integrity of the text ; as in reality, and ac
cording to the most severe critics, it is now generaUy beUeved that
they concern only things of very secondary importance. Thus the
history of criticism may be considered as independent of doctrine ;
but so many questions depend on this history, that, for exaraple, of the
degree of credibility due to the evidence of the authors of this text,
when the idea of mspiration is abandoned, that of the time wh'en they
are thought to have written, their object in writing, whether they are to

112 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
be understood in a natural, literal or figurative sense, — so many ques
tions, I say, depend on the history of this text, that it is not astonish
ing that Eationalism should have employed sacred criticism to invaUdate
the authority of the books which conderaned its reUgious views. There
have always been, in the different ages of Christianity, some laborious
men who have undertaken the task of ascertaining the pure text of the
sacred books ; but as they did not possess the scientific resources of
our day, it is not surprising that they have left much yet to be desired.
Some progress had, however, been made by the Protestants of the
reformed communion. We see how, aided by the labours of Eeuchlin
and Erasmus, Calvin, Theodore de Beza, the Stephens's, Buxtorf,
Le Clerc, Grotius, and Wetstein, threw on the history of the text and
of antiquity the light of a sound criticism, and how, far from shaking
the authority of any of the canonical books, they, on the contrary,
strengthened the foundations on which they rest.*
But it was not the same in Germany, when the works of these
reformed theologians became known there, and when the no less re
markable kbours of the English Protestants, which appear to have
equally contributed to form a foundation for further undertakings, were
added to them. When the difficult field of criticism was entered upon
in Germany, the first essays, it is true, were modest ; and who would
not appreciate the efforts of the learned Bengel to give to criticism a
reasonable du-ection ? But soon aU Umits were disregarded, and, de
stroying one thing after another, the mind arrived at the complete
annihilation both of the supernatural and historical elements of aU the
contents of the Bible, and especiaUy of the Testament of the New
Covenant. Nevertheless, in what relates to the history of the text,
without regard to its authenticity or interpretation, it is impossible not
to acknowledge the eminent services rendered by Professor Griesbach.
Eesuming the labours of Bengel and of Semler on the different read
ings, he completed them by his ingenious system of recensions, of
which the Alexandrian held the highest place ui his estimation. This
system, it is true, has been invaUdated by later labours, which, how
ever, it wUl always be an honour to Griesbach to have called forth.f
In fact, during the years 1783-88, there appeared atEiga, a Greek and
* Calvin's Commentaries on the New Testament were reprinted in 1831, under
the care of Tholuck. The last edition of the Greek New Testament, revised by
Theodore de Beza, is that of 1598. It is more valuable than the first.
t See Proleg. in edit. 2, N. T.—Cura in historiam tej:tus Graci epp. Paul, S. Mele-
temata de vetustis textus N. T. recensionibus, printed in his Commentarius criticus in
textumGr^NT Jena, 1798. 1811,2vols. He had already published, in 1785 and
1793, at Halle, Symbola Critica, ad supplendas et corrigendas varr. N. T. lectionum
collectiones, 2 vols.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 113
Latin edition of the New Testament, in twelve volumes, the author of
which, Matthai, of Moscow, carried on the most active warfare against
Griesbach, whose recensions by no means agreed with a great number
of Eussian and other manuscripts, which had been carefully coUated by
Matthai. At the same time, besides the edition of F. S. Alter, of
Vienna, published with the readings of different Sclavonic, Coptic and
Latin manuscripts, there appeared that of the Dane, Andreas Birch,
for which he, in company with J. G. C. Adler and G. Moldenhauer,
had undertaken a long journey to visit the libraries of Italy and Spain,
and to corapare the manuscripts which they found there, principaUy
Syriac ones. A detestable poUey, in the burning of Copenhagen, in
1795, destroyed a great part of their laborious researches.* Frora this
period, all further research seemed impossible, and the text of Gries
bach, notwithstanding much opposition, was at the height of its re
nown, when Hug and Scholtz, Catholic professors, the former at
Freiburg and the latter at Bonn, published, the former a learned
Introduction to the New Testament, and the latter an edition of the
Greek text, which increased by one third the extemal accompaniment
of the text, and gave a new and more complete recension of it. Thus
they contradicted, on the authority of new discoveries, the almost fixed
system of Griesbach. This has not prevented Protestants, though
paying a due regard to the wise observations of Hug and Scholtz, which,
however, were not aU equally well founded, fi-om receiving with the
same favour the text of their fellow-believer. That this is the case is
proved by the frequent reprints which have been made, as weU as the
sj-noptical harmonies, drawn up by De Wette and Eodiger, which are
in the hands of all students.-|-
* Tlie N. Testam. of Matthai had appeared at Riga, in 12 volumes octavo, but
he published a less voluminous edition in 1803-6, at Wittemberg, in 3 volumes,
in which was only the Greek text, with the most iraportant reraarks. Birch and
Moldenhauer, published their Gospels in 17S8, with the principal readings
from the codes of the Vatican, and in 1801 they were followed by the Critical
Remarks. f See Scholtz Cura critica in histor. textus evangeliorum ; in bis Biblische kritische
Reise in Frankreich, den Sehweiz, Italien, Palestina und im Archipelagus, in den
Jahren 1%1&-21. Leipz. 1823; Ms Critical edition ofthe H. Testament. Leipz.
1830-36. 2 vols. 4to. There seems to be arising, in our day, a new authority,
which seeks to dethrone that of Griesbach as quietly as possible. It is that of
Lachmann, professor at Berlin, long known as a distinguished philologer, and
who, by the publication of his N. Testam., first in 1831, and now by a more beau
tiful edition, has, in the opinion of many, marked the comraenceraent of a new
era in the history of the sacred text,
[For further labours, especially those of Tischendorf, on the text of the New
Testament, see The People's Dictionary of the Bible, vol, ii. p, 7, — E.]
^VOL. II. I

114 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
While Lutheranism reraained firm to the principle of the inspira
tion of the Scriptures, it might have been expected that criticism would
confine itself within Umits, or at least that it would submit as much to
the guidance of faith as to that of intelUgence. But from the moment
when Semler laid aside this principle, and Ernesti suspended its au
thority, seeing in the sacred books only philological questions, the
edifice raised by the reformers began graduaUy, though at certain in
tervals, to faU. There are now communities caUed, from custom,
Lutheran, but neither Luther nor Melancthon would be able to recog
nise their members as brothers in the faith. It would be infinitely
better that Christ should recognise them as his disciples. As it is
impossible for us to pronounce judgment on the masses, we can only
affirm that those cannot be recognised by Christ, who labour to found
a Christianity without him, whether in treating his work only as a last
resource, or in placing under his august sanction the di-eams of what
they call then reason.
Freed from the obstacles opposed to theologians by the ancient doctrine,
the adherents of Semler's system undertook the task of accomplishing,
by means of science, a reconcUiation of theology and philosophy, and of
strengthening rationaUy in the minds of men what they termed the
Christian sentiment. Their labours were admirable, if we look only at
the material results ; for they show an indefatigable activity of mind,
and an uncomraon extent of knowledge. They first continued to sub
mit to criticism the formation of the canon ; the history of the text
afterwards became the object of the most scrupulous researches ; and,
finaUy, the sources of the sacred monuments were always explored with
great sagacity, exempt from prejudice; although they had said that
notwithstanding the silence of the symboUcal books respecting the
canon in itself, those who compUed them not only admitted it entu-ely,
but gi-anted also to certain books, afterwards considered as apocryphal
in the Protestant church, an authority equal to that of those books the
authority of which has never been proved.* It was not untU after
their controversy with the Eomish church that the Protestants felt the
necessity of forming the canon of the Old Testaraent in the same man
ner as it had been done by the Jews. It was generaUy thought that
the Alexandi-ians, universally confessed to be an enUghtened people,
and whose testimony ought to have great weight, did not admit those
books which are excluded from Protestant Bibles. Semler was of a
contrary opinion, and pretended that the Alexandrians finaUy incorpo-
* In the Apology for the Confession of Augsburg, the book of Tobias is actually
quoted as evidence.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 115
rated them with the canon. This error of the father of Eationalism
was refuted by Eichhorn himself,* with his usual talent, but he does
not sufficiently show that the errors of Sejnler had their source princi
paUy in the syneretistic spu-it by which he was governed. But it was
of little use to fix the canon, when the authority of every book contained
in it was afterwards to be disputed. One of those who exercised most
talent on this subject was a man remarkable for all the qualities which
form a writer of high merit. I speak of Michaelis (Johann David),
who was born in 1717, and who, in 1739, had already obtained the title
pf doctor of phUosophy by a learned dissertation on the antiquity of the
Hebrew points. He soon became celebrated in classical and oriental
literature, and in 1751 filled the office of Professor at the University
and Secretary of the Academy of Sciences recently founded at Gottingen.
His scientific reputation, principaUy for knowledge of the oriental
languages, was so widely spread, that during the seven years' war the
French troops acted towards him as those ofthe empire had acted towards
Fenelon during the war in Flanders, and the Academy of Inscriptions
at Pai-is were pleased to admit him to the number of their correspond
ing members. MichaeUs owed this reputation, not only to his talents
as a professor, in which capacity he was admired for the richness of his
ideas on aU subjects, but stiU more to the great number of his works,
all of which tended to throw Ught, by means of phUology and history,
on a great number of questions referring to all departments of oriental
literature. Thus while in France the most Ul-timed jokes were made
upon the Bible, Michaelis made it the object of his briUiant labours,
and compeUed the admiration even of those who did not understand
him. We should consider as among the most important of his works,
his Mosdisches RecM,\ a book displaying laborious research, and fitted
* Historische Untersuchungen, &e. In the Repertory of Oriental Literature,
v. 217.f Professor Cellerier, of Geneva, has made known and improved this .excellent
work of Michaelis,
[The Mosdisches Recht may be found in an English version, by Alexander
Smith, D.D. 4 vols. 8vo. London, 1814. The more recent literature of the sub
ject may be found in the Select List of Theological and Religious Works, appended
to the second volume of The People's Dictionnry of the Bible, to which, for works
on many other departments of theology, spoken of by Mon, Saintes, we refer,
rather than increase the bulk of our volume by accumulated references. Two
valuable publications, however, as being recently published, may here he men
tioned, namely, Das Mosdische Recht, von Dr. J. L. Saalschiitz. 2 vols. 8vo.
Berlin, 1848 ; and Zur Bibel Naturhistorische Anthropohgische uifd Medicinische
Fragmente, von J. B. Friedrich. 2 Theile. Niirnberg, 1 848. A valuable introduction
to the whole of the Bible, by Professor Scholtz, in which good use is made ofthe
i3

116 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
to take frora the hands of the detractor of the Pentateuch the pen with
which he was about to soU its pages. But it was not the wiU of
heaven that Voltaire should know the Gerraan literature of his period;
and hence the inheritance which he left to France was only the poor
ideas of English Deism, accompanied by the jingUng of the beUs of
folly. We may next mention MichaeUs's Einleitung ins Neue Testament,
so rich in materials, but, at the same time, so suitable to make stUl
wider the path already opened by Semler and Ernesti, ui treating of
the authority to be granted to the sacred books ; for its author made of
profane history the same use as Ernesti had made of profane philology.
In this Introduction, indeed, he frankly adopts the colours of Eation
aUsm, in depriving, on his own authority, two Evangelists of their claim
to inspiration, whUe he acknowledges that of the other two. It is true
that MichaeUs thought that he should better estabUsh the veracity of
Matthew and John by denying that of Mark and Luke, whose nai-ra-
tives appeared to him to contradict those of the others. Had he exa
rained them more attentively he would have found out how trifling
these contradictions are, and that they concern only the detaUs of a
fact, and never the fact itself; thus his arbitrarily circumscribed theory
of inspiration would have fallen to the ground. It is a singular thing,
that the most distinguished writers on criticism seem almost always to
have made up their minds to reject one of the fundamental principles
of faith, not from historical testimony, but in consequence of systematic
prejudices, as in the case of Semler, and only in order to escape a diffi
culty of discussion or exaraination. Michaelis, to render his views
soraewhat more plausible, takes a great deal of trouble to weaken
the testimony of antiquity. But who could decide better than the
members of the primitive chm-ch on the degree of authority to be
granted to the works of two disciples of the apostles ? And who wUl
ever beUeve that the whole of Christian antiquity was deceived con
cerning the value of the books contained in the New Testament ?
The supposition of Michaelis is, however, so little likely to raise diffi
culties on the subject of contradictions, that one contradiction relating
to a fact is sufficient to make him enlarge his theory, and deprive his
materials of late years supplied for the illustration of the Scriptures by History,
Philology, and Archaeology, is to appear in an English translation, as one of the
works in The Library of Christian Literature, edited by the author of The Voices
of the Church in Reply to Strauss. London : Simpkin, Marshall, and Co. Refer
ences of great value on this, and on most topics of religion and theology, may also
be found in a work which no biblical student, reading German, should be without,
namely, Biblisches Realw'orterbuch, von Dr, G, B. Winer. 2 vols. 8vo. 3rd edit,
Leipzig, 1847,— E,]

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 117
two favourite evangelists, by a stroke of his pen, of a part of the privi
leges which he had so gi-aciously accorded to them. Thus he disputes
their freedom from error when relating historical facts, though he grants
the truth of their inspiration when they treat of matters of doctrine.*
Here, then, we find two important books of the New Testament, which
have always been venerated by the church equaUy with fhe others, re
jected from the canon, for the sole reason that we cannot resolve acces
sory and apparent difficulties, while the theory of inspiration is strangely
circumscribed for a reason as little satisfactory. Of what use are talents
and learning, if, notwithstanding their assistance, their possessors are
content to cut away difficulties instead of solving them ?
In his dogmatical works, Michaelis seems himself almost terrified by
the boldness of his criticism, and we find him eraployed in reconstruct
ing, as weU as he can without too evident inconsistency, the doctrines
founded on the facts which his criticism would disprove. And this,
apparently, is the reason why Hase said that Michaelis was not made
for dogmatism.-|- It is true that he makes no difficulty about differing
from the symbolical books, but the supernaturaUst principle is never
attacked even with his semi-pelagian prejudices. The most distin
guishing characteristics of his Compendium'^, are its order and clearness,
and especially the choice of proofs, of which this wise theologian is
never prodigal — unlike many of his predecessors, who, by a fooUsh con
fusion of demonstrations, arrived at a very different end from that
which they had proposed to themselves.
Into this dogmatical field, where the elements of Supernaturalism and
Eationalism contest the ascendancy, he was foUowed by many theolo
gians of a reputation equal to his own ; but in exegesis he was soon
surpassed by one of his own disciples, who was more bold in his re-
* Die Einleitung ins Neue Testament is known in France by tbe good transla
tion made of it by Professor CheneviSre, 4 vols. Geneva and Paris, 1 822.
[The work was translated into English, with valuable annotations, by Bishop
Marsh. The third edition, which is before us, bears date, London, 1819. Hug's
Introduction, before mentioned, appeared (London, 1827) in 2 vols, 8vo, trans
lated by Dr. Wait, Since this translation, the learned author has published a
fourth edition of his work, in 2 vols, Svo. Stuttgart, 1847, Araong other intro
ductions to the New Testament of recent origin, that of Professor Guerike de
serves mention, Historische- Kriiische Einleitung in das N. T., 1 vol. Svo. Leipzig,
1843. Two recent English works of more than ordinary merit may here be
referred to, namely. Principles of Textual Criticism, by J. Scott Porter. Svo.
Simms and M'Intyre, 1848 ; and An Introduction to the New Testament, by Dr.
Davidson. Svo. Bagster and Sons. London, 1848. — E.]
f Hutterus redivivus, 4th edit,, p, 46,
X Compendium theologia dogmatica. Gottingen, 1760.

118 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
seai-ches thau his master ; I mean Eichhorn. But, before we proceed
to speak of the labom-s of this briUiant disciple of MichaeUs, we must
recal the dogmatical tendencies of those who leved to confine them
selves to his feeble SupernaturaUsto, and wished to pass for biblical
theologians — a title which wiU be desired by many after them, but
which wiU never be so weU deserved. These were, first, Carpzov* and
Walch,t who deviated little from the ancient system, but who are, we
see, less careful to support the doctrines on the authority of the formu
laries ,-*and, next, Doderlein and Morus, who show more sympathy with
the results of the recent exegesis. In vain does the first attempt to
keep a just medium between the ancient system of doctrine and that
demanded by the severity of criticism. He aUows himself to incline
too much to the side towards which he is led by his affections.
His Institutio Theologia Christiana is, however, read by aU parties,
on account of its Uterature and the diversity of opinions contained in
it,t The Epitome Theologia Christiana, pubUshed by Moms, is re
markable for the elegance of its style and the moderation of its deci
sions against its adversaries, and for the skiU displayed in satisfying the
demands of the innovators without shocking too much the principles of
the ancient church. Its great principle is, that it is necessary, in reU
gion, to confine ourselves principaUy to that whieh has a truly practical
litUity. We may judge of the mildness of his orthodoxy by the fol
lowing definitions taken from his Epitome : — " Eevelation consists only
of new instructions given on objects which the human reason could
neither discover nor demonstrate. The inspu-ation of Scriptm-e is not
the same in all the books of the Bible, and where it does exist it is
merely a preservation from error," It seeras to be his reason which
makes him consider as the result of an actual poisoning by the fruit of
a tree, the fall of man, related in Genesis ; and it is his reason also
which aUows him to speak boldly respecting the moral powers remain
ing to raan after his sin.§ Nosselt had a much less supernatural ten
dency, and so weak does he seem to be after the general considerations
of his apologetic work, that he is disposed to yield to the first opponent
* Liber doctrinalis theologia purioris. Brunswick, 1768.
f Breviarium theologia dogmatica. Gottingen, 1775,
X Professor of theology at Jena, Doderlein devoted himself alternately to
exegesis and to dogmatical and moral theology, in which he had equal success ;
but the wort which does him most honour is his Institutio Theologia Christiana,
which has passed through six editions. He forms, with the doctrines of Reinhard,
the transition-point from the ancient to the modern supernaturalist doctrine, which
most nearly resembles that of the innovators,
§ Epitome Theologia Christiana. Leipz, 1789, Proleg., sect, 2, § 1 ; sect. 4,
§ 25. Part III, § 6, 10.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 119
who may come forward. Eeinhard, in many of his works, was more
decidedly bibUcal and more like Doderlein, though we have already seen
that he deprived the sacred books of a portion of their authority, and
thus seemed to hesitate unwiUingly between the established formularies
of faith, whose support he disdained, and the authority of the Bible,
which was shaken by the criticism of his contemporaries. He has been
justly blamed for not taking as decided a tone in his doctrinal works as
in his sermons, especially in the latter part of his life, when he attacked
with energy and a certain degree of eloquence the Neologism which was
appearing on all sides. He then, in opposition to his eai-Uer opinions,
considered Eationalism not as an effort for the better interpretation of
Scripture, which true and pure Supernaturalism reaUy is, but in its true
light as an usurpation of the rights of that Gospel which alone deserves to
be Ustened to without appeal when it addresses itself to our conscience.
He showe(^ that the principles of the two systems cannot exist together,
and he thus contradicted, by an indirect confession, what he had written
on the power of the human reason to arrive at the truth.* Schott
also was one of those biblical theologians who laboured with sincerity
to strengthen the waUs of the teraple, without thinking of recalling
God, who had already been banished thence by more daring men. For,
after aU, of what use is it that Schott acknowledges, as he says,f a reve
lation, if he attributes to it no special object ? . A good judge in this
matter, Hase, goes even so far as to say that the SupematuraUsm intro
duced into Schott's doctrine is so feeble that he might offer it as a pro
position of accommodation, not to true Supernaturalism, but to aU
moderate rationalists. Par different was that theologian who entered
the lists against Eationalism, and who proved that, to merit the title of
a biblical theologian, it is not sufficient to beUeve in some of the doc
trines of the Sacred Book, but that it is necessary to acknowledge un
reservedly the fundamental principle on which its authority rests,
namely, its absolute inspu-ation in matters of doctrine. Hahn proved,
by the publication of his doctrinal work, J that he wished to banish
EationaUsm frora Christian pulpits, not on account of its heterodoxy
on minute points, but because its very first principles are in direct op
position to the faith of the Gospel, and, consequently, the two systems
can never meet on the only road which leads to life eternal. But
though a supernaturaUst in the true sense of the term, he aUows hira-
* See his work entitled, Gestandnisse, seine Pred'igten und seine Bildung xum
Prediger betreffend, in Briefen. Sulzbach, 1810.
f Epitome Theologia Christiana Dogmatica. Leipz. 1822. We shall hereafter
speak raore favourably of a work of Schott on sacred criticism.
X Lehrbuch des Christlichen Glaubens. Leipzig, 1828.

120 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
self to take many Ubertles in the field of doctrine. Thus he accuses
the Trinitarians of worshipping thi-ee Gods, and he distinguishes be
tween the sm of our first parents, for wbich they alone are responsible,
and the sins which we ourselves commit in consequence of the weakness
bequeathed ns by them. The weakness is hereditary, but not the re
sponsibility of the first sin. Each man is responsible for his own deeds
only. An unjust comparison is frequently drawn between the views of
Hahn and those of Augusti, which, though sufficiently vague on the
fundamental question of SupematuraUsm, in other points go to the ex
treme of the old theology.* In the class of bibUcal theologians must
be placed two men of great talents and of the most honourable charac
ters, who, if they did not hold entirely pure evangeUcal doctrines, yet
did great service to Protestantism by their struggles with the common
enemy. I speak of Tzschirner and Zimraermaim. The fu-st beUeved
that he had discovered a point of contact between the two opposite
systems, and that he could thus unite them under one standard.
Tzschirner, indeed, brought the two systems together, and with inge
nious forced arrangements, which display a very friendly bias, he pre
tended to recognise in them the same ideas expressed by different words,
or, at least, to see in them the same tendency, and consequently the
same moraUty.f This good wish of Tzschirner must, however, be
classed with those Utopian systems which show more goodness of heart
* J. Chr. Wilh. Augusti' s System der Christlichen Dogmatik nach den Lehrbe-
griffen der evang. Kirche, im Grundrisse dargestellt. Leipz, 1825.. Hermann says,
with a degree of contempt, for which I myself should not, perhaps, have been
forgiven — " On account of their scientific insignificance, the Manuals of Hahn
and of Augusti deserved to be passed over in silence ; but they are the representa
tives of Supernaturalism in its powerlessness and inconsistencies." — {Geschichte
der Prot. Dogm. 73,)
f Briefe veranlasst durch Reinhard' s Gestandnisse. Leipz, 1811. The leading
idea in this book is erroneous : the revelation which he wishes to be accepted in
the first place by tbe two parties, is the re-establishment ofthe religion of reason
{Bestdtigung der Vernunftreligion) by means of a divine messenger. The gift of
the Gospel is of a different nature to this. See also his Vorlesungen iiber die
Christlichen Glaubenslehren, published by Hase, after the death of the author.
Leipzig, 1819, Dr, Rohr accuses him, with justice, of having singularly modi-
iied the notion of Rationalism in his wish to bring it nearer to Supernaturalism.
{Briefe iiber, &c, 1st Letter,) Many pamphlets were published for and against
what was termed the inconsistent syncretism of Tzschirner ; and as to his narae
was joined that of Reinhard, the title of Rationalist of revelation {offenbarungs-
glaubiger Rationalist) was bestowed on the latter.
[An exact and learned treatise by Tzschirner, entitled. The Fall of Paganism
(referred to in the next note), is announced in the series of publications designed
to illustrate and confirm the evidences of Christianity, namely, The Library of
Christian Literature. — E.}

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 121
than genius in then authors. But it is only just to acknowledge that
the superintendent of Leipzig had very great talent ; and the active part
which he took in aU the great questions which agitated the period in
which he lived, shows that he understood his age, and that he wanted
only a good knowledge of human nature to enable him to seek from the
proper source the remedies which it needs. What advantages we should
have reaped from his zeal, if, less pre-occupied by the chimerical dan
gers of the Protestant Church, he had not always made it the aim of
his labours to ward off those dangers ; if he had rather consecrated the
rich gifts which he had received from Providence, to the sole propaga
tion of the principles which are the best pledges of every political revo
lution 1 A skUful theologian, an eloquent preacher, and, when necessary,
a distinguished legal writer, the Gospel might have found in him a re
markable apostle ; but negative protestantism and Uterature claim his
services.* On this transition ground between the two systems, we find also
Dr. Klein, who pretended that reUgious opinions, whatever they might
be, provided that they possessed a profoundly reUgious character, might
become the bond of union between EationaUsm and Supernaturalism.
The new edition of his doctrinal work lately published by Lange
(Lobegott) is not changed iu character, though the editor claims,
not only to have augmented, but also to have improved it,f It is
a foolish mixture of some feeble supernaturaUst principles with a
much stronger dose of empirical EationaUsm, which attacks aU that
does not move in the track marked out by Semler, and which Weg
scheider would seem to have carried to its height. Certainly, if,
in the midst of the polemical confusion which prevailed throughout
Germany, on the subject of Eationalism and Orthodoxy, a voice could
have raade itself heard, and have effected that union which was de
manded by Tzschirner and Klein, in common with all true friends of
religion and Christian life, it was undoubtedly that of the venerable
Planck. During the half century through which his literary career
lasted, he never ceased to utter words of conciliation, accompanied by
the most convincing evidence which he drew from the history of the
church, and which showed his great wisdom ; for in the venerable
* We know Tzchirner in France by means of translations ; his Considera
tions on Catholicism and Protestantism, and his Letters on Religion and Politics,
addressed to different French writers. But I am not aware that his learned His
tory of Paganism, and his Lectures on Doctrine, have found a translator.
¦f Dr. F. A. Klein's Darstellung des dogmatischen Systems der evangel, prot.
Kirche, Dritte Bearbeitung. Als Hiilfsbuch fiir Studirende verm, und verb., von
Dr, Lobegott Lange. Jena, 1840. The first edition was of 1822.

122 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
professor of Gottingen, moderation was united to consummate leai-ning.
But it was not given to wisdom to prevail, and all his laboui-s, under
taken more or less directly for this noble end, not being able to disarm
contending parties, did nothing more than gain for him the esteem and
respect which his virtues and knowledge deserved, from that smaU
number of men who are to be found in all Christian communities, be
cause they espouse no party, and who render sincere homage to the
writer who has, with the torch of history, thrown light on the questions
in dispute, even when he has not been able to solve them.
Planck was born in 1751, at Niirtingen, a smaU town of Wurtem
burg, He studied theology at Tiibingen. In 1774, we find him, in a
Latin dissertation, forming a very just appreciation of TeUer's Dictionary,
which we have mentioned before, and which, though the production of
a man conscientious in his naturalist opinions, which he wished to
make pass for Christian, was nevertheless the summary of all the pre
sumptions, in which the innovators indulged themselves against the
reUgion of Christ. The pubUcation of the first volume of The His
tory of Protestant Boctrine soon drew upon him the attention of aU
friends of serious studies. On the death of Walch, the historian,
Spittler decUned to succeed him in a situation which was not agreeable
to any of his tastes, but he endeavoured to secure the appointment of
Ms friend, Planck, as his coUeague in the University of Gottingen.
After his installation in the academic chair, notwithstanding the regu
larity of his lectures on the different branches of theology, Planck
found himself involved in aU the important questions of his period,
and he always accounted it a duty to bring to their consideration the
aid of his enUghtenment and experience, without ever yielding to
the philosophical EationaUsm of the time, in matters concerning the
rights of revelation. He had, in this important respect, the rare talent
of keeping at an equal distance from the two extremes ; and if he did
not obtain the satisfaction of pleasing the zealots of the different pai--
ties, he acquired the esteem of enUghtened men of aU Christian com
munities, of which he more than once received the most fiattering tes
timonials. The ground to which Planck caUed the theologians of the
different parties was that of history ; because he thought that Chris
tianity being a fact, the place of which is marked in the annals of his
tory, it is not by conjectures, more or less ingenious, that we shaU
arrive at a proper understanding of it, but by estabUshing the facts re
lative to it on a fii-m basis. That Planck was right in this must be ac
knowledged by aU who would not favour the cause of idealism, which
undervalues history. Is it not true that Christian ideas in general,
whether their number be restricted or enlarged, are derived from facts

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 123
related in the Old or New Testament ? If Christianity, indeed, gives
more exalted notions of the Deity, it is, says the Gospel, because he
who taught it to us was in the bosom of God ; if Christianity assures
man, better than any other reUgion, of Ufe and immortaUty, it is, says
the Apostle Paul, because Jesus bol-e testimony of them by his resur
rection. It is the same with the divine authority of Jesus, which rests on his
supernatural character, and which it is necessary to grant. We might
say the same of the characteristic doctrine of Christianity, known by
the name of redemption, and which springs from the manner of life
and death pecuUar to Jesus. Imbued with these ideas, Planck, inde
pendently of some writings called forth by circumstances, of which the
most remarkable is that published a short time before the celebration
of the third jubUee of the Eeformation,* in which he deplores the
indifference and scepticism of his tirae, as much as the false tendencies
of EationaUsm and of the revived Pietism, — imbued with these ideas,
I say, he devoted himself more especiaUy to the study and teaching
of history, whose light he thought peculiarly well adapted to clear up
the misunderstandings of theologians. He wrote several works of
this nature. We may mention, fkst, his History of Protestant Boctrine,
the principal aim of which is to explain the tme nature of that doc
trine, by disengaging it from some heterogeneous elements, and by
showing what human reason ought to respect as the pure expression of
the divine word ; and, next, his History of Christianity at the time of
its Establishment by Jesus and his Apostles, a work which may be re
garded as the portico of a vast monument which, conceived by his en
lightened but incomplete Supernaturalism, Planck wished to erect to
the glory of the Gospel. He proposed to lead, by this historical de
monstration, aU religious parties to a reconciliation. The task which
the writer here undertook was noble and beautiful, it was immense, and
the vast knowledge displayed in his writings proves that he would not
have been unequal to it. Why, then, did he renounce an undertaking
which would have struck such a blow at phUosophical EationaUsm,
by proving its entire absence from the history of Christian piety ?
Perhaps it was on account of his advanced age, perhaps also in conse
quence of tbe cold reception given to his best works by the organs of
the different reUgious parties, and especiaUy by those of EationaUsm.
The language of Planck, however, is far from being that of a friend of
darkness ; it is eminently that of a friend of knowledge : and if he
repeatedly insists on anything, it is on the necessity of uniting know-
• Veber den gegenwdrtigen Zustand und die Bediirfnisse, S[c. Erfurt, 1817.

124 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
ledge and faith. We may even say that he sometimes assigns a too
prominent position to the former ; and we should be astonished at the
want of success of his writings with the advocates of Eationalism, did
we not know that posterity alone does justice to moderate authors.*
We raust also number among the bibUcal theologians whose remark
able spirit of conciUation has not always been shared by the fellow-
labourers of Tzschirner, the celebrated Zimmermann, who founded, at
Darmstadt, the Allgemeine Kirchenzeitung, which continues to spread
throughout all parts of Germany the EationaUsm, in a modified form,
of Eohr and Wegscheider, and often defends it with a violence of ex-.
pression which forras a contrast to the tone and habits of its learned
and eloquent founder. Zimmermann wished to oppose to reUgious
indifference, and what he called the exaggeration of parties, a compact
force of frank and pious theologians, who should silence disputation, and
join in what they admit in coramon, to crush the enemy of faith and of
piety. To attain this end, he asked only one thing from the theolo
gians of the different parties, namely, the recognition of the rights of
religious liberty and of individual conscience. Where we seek some
thing definite, said he with perfect good faith, there also is the King
dom of God, however different may be the ways of entrance to it.
These are brUUant reveries, which, however, could never be realised.
We cannot grant to discussion a place iu the domain of science, in
virtue of free inquiry, the vital principle of Protestantism, and have at
the same time peace in the sanctuary. Can we imagine the court
preacher of Darmstadt himself presenting his hand in a truly fraternal
manner to a man whose inj-jrious opinions he had, in his character as a
journalist, been combattuig just before ? Could he say, I have proved
it is true that you are an enemy to enUghtenment, and I have pointed
you out to my country as a man dangerous to reUgion and moraUty
from your doctrines of redemption and justification by faith ; but I am
not the less wUling to communicate at the same table with you,
although the communion is the most touching sign of the union of
hearts and sentiments ? This will suffice to show the impracticabUity
of such intentions. f
* Ammon reproaches him, with some justice, for having passed over in silence,
in his writings, doctrines and facts which divide the parties, and on which Planck
ought to have explained himself with frankness. See Magazin fiir Christliche
Prediger, vol. iii. part ii, p, 22. But this is no reason why the Archives du
Cliristianisme, published at Paris, should speak of " the haughty and intolerant
criticism of Planck, Rohr, and Wegscheider" ! !
t We find, in Religion et Christianisme, of M, Vincent de Nimes, vol. ii.
p. 21-26, some considerations of Zimmermann on the subject in question.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 125
And finaUy, we must rank in this class of rationalists a writer who
has endeavoured to describe true Eationalism, of which he makes Jesus
the author, and true Supernaturalism, which he attributes to the inven
tion of the apostles. We can imagine such a conclusion in a geome
trical or even a political question ; but on one relating to interests so
sacred as those of the soul, to take no part is to doubt, and then we
should either confess it frankly or keep silence. This duty is the more
imperative stUl when it is a man of honom-able character who thus
throws minds into uncertainty.
It is an undisputed fact that Bohme, in order to give some degree
of credit to his distinction between the reUgion of Jesus and that of the
apostles, declares the first to be represented by the three first Gospels
only, and the second by the Epistles pf St. Paul, which comprise, accord
ing to him, the period of transformation of the teachings of Jesus. But
if this arrangement is agreeable to the ideas of the author, it by no
means foUows that it also agrees either with history, which estabUshes
the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, and assigns to it the same rank
as to the synoptical ones, or with our knowledge of religion as a whole,
in which we find no disparity between the ideas contained in the Gos
pels and those of the apostolic epistles,*
We wUl terminate this list of biblical theologians, who occupy more
or less all the neutral ground which separates the two camps, by men
tioning a work of gr«at importance, both from its tendency and from
its scientific form. This is the work of the consistorial counsellor
Bbhmer, in which the author imagines that he remains on the ground
of Supernaturalism, whUe he endeavours to weaken considerably the
idea of a primitive degeneration of humanity, without which evangelical
Christianity would lose its significance. But a good judgraent of his
workf can be formed only after reading the second part, which is to
contain the essence of his doctrine, and which the author has not yet
thought fit to publish. But, at any rate, attention is due to a system
which seems to claim a certain degree of kindred with the ideas of
Schleiermacher and the form of Twesten, and the only aim of which is,
like that of August. Neander, the elevation of free Christian science
{Jrde christliche Wissenschaft).
Two theologians alone remained frank and consistent Supernatu
ralists, because they were truly biblical. They made no concession to
* Die Religion J. C, aus den Urkunden. Halle, 1825. See also Die Religion d.
Apost. aus den Urk. Halle, 1829.
f Die christliche Dogmatik oder Glaubenswissenschaft, dargestellt von W. Bohmer,
Doct. der Theol. und zeit. Decan der evangel, theolog. Faoultat zu Breslau.
ErsterBand. Breslau, 1840.

126 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
the innovators, nor did they attempt to silence them, save by the expo
sition of truths clearly revealed in Scripture. These were Storr and
Steudel, who, after Bengel, were the most brilUant stars of the evan
gelical school of Tubingen. That University is now making a new effort
to re-estabUsh the reUgion which is no longer attacked under the form
of Lutheranism only, but under whatever denomination it presents
itself. Versed in aU knowledge necessary for a good theologian, as skUful
in interpretation as in philology and dogmatism, StoiT was also an able
logician ; and Kant, who was conversant with human nature, and who
so often despised the objections of his adversaries, not only took a
pleasure in reading the works of Storr, but alraost acknowledged himself
to be defeated, when he admitted the importance of his opponent's
objections to the results of his critical philosophy, and aUeged his
advanced age as a reason for not answering him, as he had intended to
do. We may then consider Storr, notwithstanding the merit of his
young friends, Siiskind and Flatt, who followed in his footsteps, as
one of the pure representatives of a SupematuraUsm fuU of faith and of
knowledge. If the infiuence of the new systems of sacred criticism was
not perceptible in his doctrine, it was not because he was ignorant of
thera. He had examined them, and had considered the strong and the
weak side of the objections. He was a friend of Griesbach, whom he
accompanied on his journey into France, and in whose society he ex
plored the libraries of Paris. He appreciated aU the labours of that
theologian, but he nevertheless took a different direction in his critical
investigations. His dogmatical system, which he withdi-ew from the
yoke of aU existing confessions of faith, was the expression of a bibUcal
doctrine which the orthodox consider as the best of its kind. Some
prefer Steudel, as being better versed in the phUosophical sciences, and
because, being possessed of a fine talent for writing, he softens by a
happy choice of expressions what, with Storr, he finds himself compeUed
to admit as Scripture truth.*
The rationaUsts owe hira their thanks for having combatted, as uot
biblical, some of the doctrines which the symboUcal books admit as such.
They also consider him as a speculative phUosopher, because he wil-
Ungly subjects biblical doctrme to the crucible of the human mind.
But that is. precisely the task of the true bibUcal theologian, that is to
say, of the supernaturaUst, because if the Bible contains truth only, and
trath is made for man, every bibUcal doctrine should have its root in
* Die Glaubenslehre der evang.-protest. Kirche nach ihrer guten Regriindung,
mit Riicksicht auf das Bediirfniss der Zeit. Tiibingen, 1834.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 127
our nature. That theology wUl be trae, that is to say eminently bib
lical, which is founded on the instincts and wants of which we are
conscious. The attempt at conciliation however, proposed by Tzschirner, had
found an echo among the theologians of the two parties who pretended
to be bibUcal, and there appeared a succession of pamphlets, approving
or refuting the principles on which the agreement was to be founded.
Those published by Sachse, Kohler, Klein, KeUe, did not long outlive
the circumstances which caUed them forth ; but the letters addressed
on this iraportant subject to a young theologian, by C. F. ZoUich, de
serve to be mentioned on account of their Christian and phUosophical
spirit, although, indeed, the author opposed the projected reconciUation
as contrary to all the ideas which we ought to entertain of the two sys
tems.* According to ZoUich, the religious faith of all the nations of
the earth was founded on facts which attested the relations of man to
God. Deism, on the contrary, presents itself only as an individual
reUgiou ; it is not a popular reUgion. Eationalism takes possession of
this individual religion, and clothes it with biblical expressions ; but as
it addresses itself only to the intellect, and leaves the heart unmoved,
it is without power, without influence to discipUne the people, without
unction to aUeviate the troubles of life, without the necessary charac
teristics of a popular religion. Having no faith in the fact of a divine
revelation made to humanity, it is deprived of a powerful means of
awakening slumbering consciences. The supernaturalist, on the con
trary, can speak with authority, supported as he is by a revelation which
he can justify at the tribunal of impartial reason. This justification is
easy to him, when he recoUects that the final aim of revelation is to
give, not only a purer knowledge of religion, but stUl more the living
faith which is produced by this knowledge.
The inteUectual and moral dispositions of human nature are the
subjective conditions of religious faith. Eeason, the moral wUl, and
the conscience, concur to awaken in us the desire and the want of
faith. These quaUties of human natm-e cannot manifest themselves,
nor can we imagine them in their activity without the real idea of a
Supreme Being, the legislator and sovereign judge of the beings whom
he has created.
The empirical element at first takes possession of the sensuous nature
of man, and of his inferior faculty of knowledge, of his sensitive per
ception, of his memory and imagination ; it is true that the under-
* Briefe iiber den Supernaturalismus, ein Gegens'tiick zur den Briefen iiber den
Rationalismus. Sondershausen, 1821.

128 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
standing, judgment, and reason, act in us at the same time with more
or less power. Our sensuous nature is such, that when in a state of
activity, it leads inevitably to religious faith. Not only do we, by
means of reason, discriminate between good and evil, but we feel our
selves penetrated and governed by one or other of these two powers ;
we approve it or we reject it, but we do not reraain neutral, and this is
ordained by our moral sentiment. This sentiment is the first source of
religious faith, EeUgion is then primitively an affair of human feeUng,
not of the understanding or the reason. Morality and sensuousness
are the general and primitive quaUties of the human sensations. They
exist in close union and exercise a reciprocal influence. There is, then,
an innate moral sense, or, to speak otherwise, a natural moral senti
ment. Sensuousness, or the inchnation of raan to weU-being, does not
show itself as an aniraal instinct ; but there are connected with it feel
ings of a desire of what is right, which we cannot consider as a secret
act of reason, but as the effect of the moral sentiment, which compre
hends, at the same time, the feeling of our rights and of our duties.
By this moral sense man feels himself to be a citizen and member of a
society, the fundaraental law of which is justice, and the government of
which tends to realize a perfect harmony between vii-tue and feUcity.
It is thus that we are directed towards religious feeUng and faith.
This explains why, among the nations of antiquity who exercised their
reason in raatters of faith less than we do, that faith depended more on
the sensible part of man, or at least on his inferior power of knowledge
and perception. It foUows that the true principle of religion ought
not to be sought in the reason only, but du-ectly in that which consti
tutes the sensible part of man, the moral sentiment and the conscience.
Eevelation soon harmonises the interests of reason and those of the
sensations, the cause of truth and that of faith, by presenting the idea
of pure reason, viz,. Monotheism, under a sensible form, acting on the
imagination : thus it gains the interest of the human heart, and con
firms the faith of an entire nation. Thus revelation, taking into con
sideration the relation existing between natural sensation and the faculty
of knowledge, exercises a practical influence over reUgion, without wait
ing for the assistance of huraan reason to support faith. But we judge
of the UtUity and necessity of revelation by laws which do not concern
it, when we suppose that its aim was the higher culture of the inteUi
gence, or when we lay down the idea of pm-e Deism, as decisive of its
divinity and its truth. Eevelation was not sent to give man a better
theory of reUgious ideas, but to influence his moraUty and his reUgious
faith. The general idea which we should entertain of it is, that by it
we perceive the whole of what the Deity has done to establish the prac-

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 129
tical influence of religion, to preserve it, to propagate and to call into
action the sentiments of fear, love and confidence towards a superior
power. It is true that this idea does not necessarUy imply that of an
inspu-ation in itself, which would deprive the raessenger of God of
liberty and independence of mind, but this fact does not weaken the
truth of the theory. The trae supernaturalist does not the less receive
the canon of Scriptm-e, because he there finds the reaUsation of aU the
promises of revelation.
The appeai-ance of Christ upon the earth is the greatest event in the
history of revelation. It has an historical grandeur of which nothing
can deprive it. Jesus, in fact, presents himself as the most noble and
most elevated personage of humanity. He has, over the moral world,
a degree of influence never possessed by any other. Even in our days
he exercises a great power, which constitutes the whole force of reU
gion, and which we should not dare to wish to destroy.* Sacred
Scriptm-e shows him to us as the manifestation of God in the flesh,
attested by his superhuman works, as well as by the teachings which
give to the world a most powerful impulse towards regeneration. The
beauty of his character, the simpUcity of his demeanour, when working
the greatest miracles, in a word, all his proceedings, which were totally
devoid of affectation, and yet fuU of majesty, — ^aU these things cannot
be explained physiologicaUy, if we regard him raerely as a man like
ourselves. Behold him always calm and reflective, without the least of
that turbulence so generally seen in enthusiasts, and with a sanctity of
life which defies aU accusations. Do not look upon hira as a mere
tnortal ; if you do, you wiU not be able to conceive how he could form
the idea of a plan which should embrace the whole of humanity, how
he could speak calmly, and with perfect assurance, of seeing that plan
realised, notwithstanding his death, which he predicted, and which,
far frora retarding, would, on the contrary, aid in proraoting its success.
Yes, the life of Jesus is nothing raore than an historical enigma, if he
were not, as he himself declared, the Son of God.f But if his moral
character is such that it repels aU idea of deceit, it foUows that his

* We shall hereafter see the attempts to destroy it, made by Strauss, Bruno
Bauer, Feuerbach, and others,
f [See this subject treated under various aspects in Illustrations of the Divine in
Christianity, by the Editor of The People's Dictionary of the Bible, Svo. Simpkin,
Marshall, and Co. London, 1849 ; also in the same Author's Life of Christ,
forming part of his Biblical Reader, a popular introduction to the study of the
Scriptures, especially those of the New Testaraent, intended for schools, minis
ters' classes, and families. 12mo, 1849. London : Simpkin, Marshall, and
Co.— E.]
VOL. II. K

130 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
teachings should be received by us as divine, even when we cannot
fully understand their meaning. For we ought to be convinced that
nothing revealed to us by the reason of God is contrary to the portion
of reason with which he has endowed us, but that it is only above
our understanding, which wUl not remain for ever in this state of in
feriority. The theory of revelation, as received by the church during eighteen
centuries, if we strip it of certain externals, in which men have been
pleased to envelope it, is too reasonable not to be preferred by the
supernaturaUst, to the Deism under which Eationalism has concealed
itself.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 131

CHAPTEE V.
HISTORICO-CRITICAL RESEARCHES — KANT COMES TO THE AIB OF
THEOLOGY — HIS RELIGIOUS SYSTEM.
In the raidst of this revolutionary movement in the domain of sacred
criticism, which had been excited by Ernesti, Semler, and Michaelis,
and which could not fail to be fatal to doctrine, since an edifice from
which the foundations are taken away must necessarily faU, the powerful
lever of history was employed to overthrow what had been spared by
the tooth of criticism. There appeared historical treatises and labo
rious dissertations, the essential aim of which was to demonstrate histo
rically that Semler's ideas were not the fruit of his fantastic imagination,
but the product of an elevated and sincere mind. The hypothesis of ac
commodation was an especially favourite idea with the rationalists of
this period. In a thousand ways they sought to prove that the sacred
writers and the teachers who immediately succeeded the apostles, in
their discom-ses as weU as in their actions, only condescended to the
superstitious weakness of their contemporaries, who could not have
borne more solid nourishment, which modem rationaUsts profess to
give. In this they said that Jesus had set the example to his disciples,
and had displayed a high degree of wisdom in giving to his contempora
ries only so much light as they could endure. They added that these
accommodations, which were to yield in time to other more useful in
structions, were perfectly honourable, and were to be excused on account
of the noble end which was aimed at.* We may easUy understand
what latitude would be given to doctrine by a principle so elastic and
yet so arbitrary.! TeUer soon showed this when, in his dictionary of the
New Testament, he made so deplorable an appUcation of the principle, |
* See the Neues Magazin of Henke, vol. ii. p. 638. F. A. Carus, Historia an-
tiquior sententiarum Ecclesia Graca de accommodatione Christo imprimis et apostolis
tributa. Leipzig, 1793. See also a dissertation by F. V. Reinhard : Utrum et
quando possint oratores divini in administrando suo munere demittere sese ad vanas
hominum opiniones. Wittenberg, 1784,
f We can see this influence on doctrine in Henke's critical history of labours
for the history of the church, in the 18th age of his Hist., Part I. p. 189.
X W'orterbuch des N. T. Breslau, 1772. His historical and critical researches
k2

132 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
This, indeed, he had done eight years before, in treating with so much
indifference aU matters of doctrine not included in his ideas of the Ea
tionaUsm or Naturalism, called enUghtened by his friends, of the Ger
man Bictionary. A writer of mediocre talent, and a very ordinary
preacher, we can explain his renown and the high clerical dignities with
which he was invested, only by the boldness of his ideas and his mode
of presenting them under a religious appearance, which imposes on the
vulgar, especiaUy when supported by the powerful but perfidious hand
of public opinion.
It is certain that the history of the chm-ch before this time had been
merely a barren chronicle of facts, and the deeds of the orthodox doc
tors, with the somewhat bitter account of opinions caUed heterodox by
the ruling party, though not always so if judged by the Gospel. But,
instead of improving this false method of writing the history of a vast
society in which two elements are at work, that of Ufe and that of death,
where a contest is going on between holiness and immoraUty, the results
of which ought to be refiected in the august min-or of histoiy, for the
instruction of those who consult it, a new polemical system was substi
tuted for the old one, and no real change was made save in name.
Even the vast extent of the knowledge of Henke has not saved from
oblivion the greater number of his historical productions, because they
were destitute of that interest which an historian of religious matters
can derive only from that life in God which polemical writings cannot
foster. And of what use is ridicule of the doctrines of others, when we are
in want of a clear and impartial account of the past ? Tet Henke could
not refrain from it when he gives the naraes of Christolatry and BibUo-
lati-y* to attachment to ancient dogmas as weU as to the principles of
the reformers on the inspu-ation of the Scriptures. It belongs to our
age, said he, to clear the Christian soil of aU these obstacles — to cut
away aU these superstitions,! Some writers, however, kept free from
are in part contained in his doctrinal work {Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens),
1761-, a work rendered interesting by the condemnation of the magistrates of
Helmstadt, but which, without this blaze of celebrity, would have fallen much
sooner into obscurity. Teller (Wilhelm Abrahara) was born at Leipzig, in 1734,
and died at Berlin in 1804,
• [We here see the source whence Coleridge, Blanco White, and their imitators,
borrowed this phrase, by the aid of which, in a truly iconoclastic spirit, they
have striven to destroy the reverence for the Bible, forgetting meanwhile that
the spirit of true philosophy to which they make pretensions, is discriminative as
well as respectful and cautious. — E.]
t Henke, Liniamenta instil, fidei Christ. Historico-'Critica. Helmstadt 1793
We need not say that The General History of the Church, by Henke, will always

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 133
this infatuation. We may mention Schroeckh, the author of the General
History of the Church, written in the style of the French Fleury — a
somewhat heavy work, but impartial, and impressed with a simplicity
which shows a great love of truth ; Walch, who wrote the history of
reUgious disputations, and kept at an equal distance from both parties,
while he faithfuUy reported their opinions ; and Spittler, who in his
reUgious opinions was a follower of Francke. But politics, rather than
theology, formed the principal object of his labours, and he has left, as
models of their kind, summaries of the History of the Church and of
the History of the Popes, which display a rare talent for observation.
Among the raost active destroyers, on the groimd of historical cri
ticism, is Gabler, a pupU of Griesbach and of Eichhorn, who, foUowing
theu- example, devoted himself to the study of all the various branches of
oriental literature. We find him, in 1780, engaged in teaching Exegesis
in the University of Gottingen. Being at a later period nominated to
the archdeaconry of Altorf, and to a theological chair in that town, he
there pubUshed the works on Hermeneutics and the Critical History of
the New Testament, which gained him so much celebrity. He there
published, also, twelve volumes of his Neue Theologische Journal, which
has become the arsenal of rationalistic weapons of every period. Not
finding sufficient scope, however, for his activity at Altorf, he exchanged
his post there for one at Jena, where he filled the place of Paulus and
his successor Griesbach. We here find him giving instruction in the
various branches of theology, with all of which he was equaUy famUiar.
He preferred, however, exegetical and dogmatical studies, and he can
even claim the honour of having been the first to oppose, article by
article, a rationalist to a supernaturaUst dogmatism. His friends
assure us that his horror of scepticism was not less than that shown by
Semler of the NaturaUsm of Bahrdt, and this we shall easUy believe
when we read how warmly he defended what he caUed the Christian
reUgion. But his attacks on the ancient faith were nevertheless not
free from acrimony, and if he was not always the author of the articles
in his joumals, yet his was the dU-eoting mind, and he was, therefore,
responsible for them,* As nothing, however, could arrest these efforts
be consulted with profit. Braunschweig, 1818, 3rd edit, in 9 vols, published by
Vater. Henke died in 1 809, in the office of superintendent-general at Wolfen
biittel, * His N. Th. Journal was coraraenced by hira in company with Honlein,
Ammon, and Paulus, but he afterwards took the whole care of it on hiraself. If
we except his Introduction to Eichhorn's Primitive History, of which he was the
editor, and his numerous remarks on that work, whieh will establish Gabler's repu
tation as a critical historian, posterity will think little of his labours, which the
present theology has left far behind.

134 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
for the destruction of the Christian edifice, serious phUosophy was com
peUed to corae to the aid of theology, thus straggling on its death-bed.
But as it was as necessary to repair forraer evils as to prevent future
ones, he, in whora phUosophy was embodied, began by rejecting aU the
ancient phUosophical systems, acting in precisely the same manner as the
rationaUsts had done with regard to theology. He thought that, by
penetrating into the depths of the moral constitution of man, we should
better arrive at the sources of tme piety and of pure moraUty. The
man who attempted to execute this noble but difficult task was Emma
nuel Kant. And who is there who would not wish that it had been
entirely accomplished by one in whom were united such vast erudition
and so profound a love of truth ?
The examin-ition of the philosophical productions of his predecessors,
and particularly of the pedantic dogmatism of Wolf, had shown Kant
that the human understanding {Verstand) had always been regarded
more or less as the principle of human knowledge. He first directed
his attention to this foundation of phUosophy, which he found very in
secure, and he did not hesitate to substitute for it reason {Vernunft), as
being the faculty of pure ideas and principles. Hence he passed to the
conclusion that there are no speculative truths — that the ideas of God,
of Uberty, and of immortality, were postulates of the practical reason
and of the conscience — and the faith which has its source in pme reason
is the only foundation of the true Christian church ; whence it follows
that the Bible, being the truly popular book of reUgion, must necessa
rUy have for its object to make people moral, and that for this purpose
its interpreters ought to seek and can find in it only pure raoraUty,
whether clearly defined or concealed under the veil of facts, in the same
way that a fable or aUegory contains the moral idea which the author
wishes to convey.
In order to obtain a reception for his principles, Kant wrote his cri
tique on pure reason {Kritik der reinen Vernunft), in which he submitted
the powers of the human mind to strict examination, in order to learn
from them what man can know and what he ought to do — what he can
beUeve and practise. He desu-ed, as the principal object of his efforts,
the thorough extirpation of the bad systems of philosophy, which were,
according to him, the source of a vulgar materiaUsm. But high as
Kant placed reason, he did not rank among its attributes the knowledge
of the reaUy divine, and what in general is beyond the senses. He re
jected aU proofs of the existence of God and the immortaUty of the
soul derived from purely theoretical reason, though he found in it the
idea of a perfect bemg, of liberty, and of immortaUty ; and as he de
duced from practical reason only his doctrine of divinity and moraUty,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 185
Kant thus gave fresh power to EationaUsm, since he made this practical
reason the trae principle of reUgion and moraUty, to the exclusion of
every other source, and consequently of revelation. We must certainly
confess that the intentions of Kant were pure and noble, and that, igno
rant as he showed hiraself of the trae constituent principles of human
nature in banishing the reUgious element, he nevertheless placed mo
raUty on a respectable foundation. It is agreeable to the moral sense
to see a man who proclaims the laws of human moraUty in an absolute
manner, who, without consulting either the desires, the inclinations, or,
stUl less, the material interests of life, demands in aU things, and from
aU, a perfect obedience, notwithstanding the outcries of a corrupted wiU.
Yes, we must confess that in this we find everything sublime that man
can teach ; but, from a careful observation of ourselves and of others,
we shaU be convinced that this theory is impracticable, and what is
impracticable is not founded on trath. Where the spirit of God is, there
is Uberty, says the apostle; and in this system of practical reason,
falsely caUed the doctrine of liberty, is there any room for the spirit
of God?
It is true that revelation is not absolutely rejected by the school of Kant,
but its signification is changed. The reUgion in which we are obUged
to acknowledge that something is a divine comraand, is revealed reUgion ;
that religion in which we ought to recognise a duty before knowing that
God has coramanded it, that is natural reUgion. A reUgion may be at
the same time both natm-al and revealed, if it is so constituted, that a
man may and ought to arrive at the knowledge of it by the use of his
reason only. In this case the objective religion is natural, the subjec
tive revealed. It is necessary, in aU cases, that the revealed reUgion
should be preserved in certain traditions, or in sacred books. It waiUd
disappear from the world if it were not from time to time recalled to
the pubUc mind ; or if there were not in the mind of each man a
supernatural revelation continuaUy going on. And this renders neces
sary a constitution of the church which should be supported by the
written word.*
This is not the place to speak of the celebrity which the Kantian
philosophy enjoyed in all parts of Germany, nor to tell how, during a
quarter of a century, it raised its altars on the ruins of other fanes
erected by philosophy in its own honour,! I'ut it quite belongs to ray
subject to relate the great influence which it exerted on the fate of
* See Kant's Religion within the Limits of the Reason alone: Konigsberg edit.,
1793. pp. 63, 122-124, 208-222, 296-314,
f I have entered into all details, in a History of the Life and Writings of
Kant.

136 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
theology. The theologians did not all alike understand the tendency
of such a philosophy, which, attacking both the scepticism that admits
nothing d. priori, and the dogmatism which afiu-ms on its own authority
that which is above experience, might, contrary to the intentions of its
author, conduct to revelation. Those who, according to its method,
do not recognise any right of the huraan inteUect to decide in the
doraain of pm-e ideas, are nevertheless compelled by then- consciousness
to admit the religious tmths which answer to their moral wants. And
hence, making use of a sentence of Pascal, which Jacobi Uked to em
ploy, we would gladly say, that if the Kantian reason drives into
scepticism, nature conducts to the dogmatism of revelation.
Thus Kant, though he meant only to turn over the ground of philo
sophy by his criticism, and to form a system of metaphysics which might
brave the attacks of the human mind, and thus place beneath the shield
of philosophy the essential truths of aU religion, which consist in faith
in God and the immortality of the soul, gave, nevertheless, assistance
to a number of theologians who knew not what means to employ in
order to secure the reception by the minds entrusted to their care, of
those scriptural truths which they had hitherto beUeved to be without
foundation, either in more carefully studied history or m the human
heart which repulsed them.
It was with Kant as with Spinoza, whose system of accommodation
had been received with so much favour by Semler and his partisans,
and whose ideas on the eternal wisdom of God, as manifested in Christ,
form the basis of the doctrine of the celebrated Strauss.* Kant also
saw the theologians seize upon his ideas of revelation, which he con
sidered as " an historical system, containing in many places moral con
ceptions, and which, therefore, might be transformed into a rational
system;" and soon from the pulpit, as weU as from the benches of the
University, was heard nothing but precepts of Christian raoraUty, ac
commodated to the imperative demands of the philosopher's practical
reason. Certainly, when Kant exclaimed, " I know nothing more grand in
heaven and on earth than the stany firmament which is above me, and
the moral law which is in me,"! he did honour to human dignity, and
every one applauded this noble expression of a great mind ; but when,
in order to estabUsh man's free-wiU on an indisputable basis, he at
tempted with rare abiUty to show that there is a relation between the
* This is all shown in the tenth chapter of my History ofthe Life and Writings
of Spinoza {Histoire de la Vie et des Ouvrages de Spinosa).
¦f Die Religion innerhalb, &c. Preface to the 2nd edition.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 137
human conscience and the existence of law, in the same way that there
is a relation between right and duty, he confounded that which has been
with that which is, and with aU his skUl he could not demonstrate the
actual existence of this relation. This defect is a very great fault in
his system. For since all Christianity rests on actual inabiUty to fulfil
the exigencies of the law, he placed himself in direct opposition to the
evangelical faith, and the theologians who followed him in these errors
were necessarUy hostUe to a system which in each of its doctrines con-
ti-adicted the fundaraental principle of Kantian Eationalisra. It has
been sometimes said that the God acknowledged by Kant, and conse
quently by the ethical rationalists who profess his philosophy, is only a
schoolmaster exercising his pedantry in the human conscience. I would
rather compare this abstract being whom they call God, and who, after
the manner of constitutional kings, manifests himself to raen by his
laws, to a capricious aud iniquitous despot, unceasingly menacing with
his tyrant's rod a human wUl, which he knows to be incapable of obey
ing all his commands without his assistance. But if that assistance is
given, the character of God changes. He is no longer the God of
Kant, but the God of Christians, and thus does Eationalisra fly away
on the fantastical wings of the imagination. Let us honom- Kant for
having shown us how we raay acquire a knowledge of the powers of the
human mind. Let us honour him for having aroused in his nation the
sentiment of morality, thus showing wherein consists the true great
ness of man. Let us honom- him for pointing out the identity of re
ligion and phUosophy, by deducing, as a necessary consequence, from
practical reason, what he believed to be the essential part of the
Christian religion. But, besides misunderstanding the absolute value
of religion, which, though essentiaUy associated with morality, yet
differs from it, he has, moreover, renewed the Pelagian errors re
specting free-will, which are the greatest obstacle to the estabUshment
of the reign of God in the heart, and it was on this point especiaUy
that StoiT, of whom we have spoken, showed himself strong against
Kant, who put off tiU the Greek Kalends, the time of answering the
just observations of the superintendent of Stuttgardt.

138 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE VI.
KANTIST THEOLOGIANS — FICHTE, SCHULZE, TIEFTRUNK, HEYDEN
REICH, SCHMIDT, ERHARD, JOSEPH SCHMIDT, C, L. NITZSCH^
STAUDLIN, KRUG, AND AMMON — THE PERFECTIBILITY OF CHRIS
TIANITY ACCORDING TO THE TWO LAST-NAMED THEOLOGIANS.
The first work pubUshed in Germany in the spirit of the Kantian phi
losophy, even before the appearance of Bie Religion innerhalb der
Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, was written by a young man, who, after
being perplexed by many doubts in the course of his studies, sought
for repose in critical philosophy. He was so deeply imbued with the
moral and reUgious spirit of Kant, that his work, which was pubUshed
anonymously, was on all sides attributed to the phUosopher of Konigs
berg. It bore the threatening title of Versuch einer Kritik oiler Offen-
barung {An Attempt at a Criticism of Revelation in General).* God,
said its author, Fichte, reveals himself to us as a moral legislator,
and man has an immediate perception of this revelation. By these two
propositions he attempted to fortify his rationalistic system of natural
religion, which was soon to merge into a purely subjective ideaUsm,
and which left no room for the idea of God, considering hira merely as
a legislator. The boldest opinion advanced in the book was, that the
possibiUty of a positive revelation, as received by orthodoxy, can be
proved only by its contents. But by submitting the contents of a
revelation to criticism, do we not condemn it beforehand, and deprive it
of its rights ? As Fichte, however, confined the judgment of reason to
facts which have their correlatives in the region of ideas, he agreed
that the two parties, orthodox and rationalist, might fight with equal
weapons ; the first with their sensitive faculty {Begehrungs-vermbgen),
and the second with then- theoretical reason ; and that there ought to
be peace between them, since both were equally on the way to truth.
Though this work of Fichte's was written with talent, and was in
favom- of Eationalism, yet, when the first feelings of curiosity respecting
it were satisfied, it feU into the back ground, and it was only the ever-
• See some interesting details of the early literary career of Fichte, in his
Life, written by his Son, I have reproduced them in the History of Spinoza,
chap, XV.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 139
increasing boldness of its author's philosophical ideas, and the eloquent
manner in which he expressed them, that kept upon him the attention
of his contemporaries. But the Kantian philosophy was to be further
developed, and it soon obtained complaisant disciples, who, more for
tunate than Fichte, won for it the favour of serious minds. The theo
logian who appealed to theology to adopt criticism, was a colleague of
Kant, named Schulze, who, by his .Explanations, placed within the
reach of many what the phraseology of Kant seemed to have reserved
for the initiated alone.* A numerous and enthusiastic party was soon
formed, and without mentioning those who, as Eeinhold, propagated it
within the limits of philosophical instruction, distinguished theologians
answered the appeal of Schulze, and made Kantism the pedestal on
which they erected their new theology, that is to say, phUosophical or
ethical EationaUsm. Among them are more especiaUy distinguished,
Tieftrunk, Heydenreich, Eckermann, Schmidt, and Krug, who openly
espoused the cause ; while StaudUn, Ammon, Eohr, and Wegscheider,
modified the Kantian opinions more or less in applying them to theo
logy- Tieftrunk was born neai- Eostock in 1760, and was pastor at BerUn,
when, by the pubUcation of some works, he obtained the philosophical
chair at HaUe, a post which he filled respectably, though he is blamed
for the prolixity of his writings. The best of these is, without doubt,
that which treats of the foundations of moraUty, though he acquired
most celebrity by his Censur des christi. protest. Lehrbegriffs. Tieftrunk
had the good sense to reject the expression " natural reUgion," because
he thought that no reUgious idea could be drawn from natm-e as viewed
through the raediura of the senses, and that the natural sciences could
not raise us to if. I would rather say that all truth is natural, since
nothing is true that is not founded on nature. Thus, aU who believe
iu revealed, beUeve also in natural, religion, because they know that there
is not a truth in the Gospel which does not answer to some want of
human nature. But Tieftrunk did not thus understand the matter ;
he avoided the word nature in his religious considerations only to sub
stitute for it the term reason. He does not say that revealed or super
natural reUgion is incompatible with the reUgion of reason ; no, he
admits the possibUity of a revealed religion, and his reasoning is this :
the contents of a supernatural doctrine are either of a theoretical or a
* Erlduterungen der Kant' sehen Kritik. A strong personal attachment to Kant,
joined, we must believe, to a profound conviction, induced Schulze to prove,
especially to theologians, that, far from being opposed to them, this philosophy
would aid them ; that it left perfect liberty to divine things, and did not prevent
the development of the Christian faith.

140 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
practical nature ; the first kind relating to the increase of our know
ledge of sensible nature, the other to the increase of our knowledge by
rules, as laws of the will. The possibility which God has set before
man of acquiring knowledge beyond that which he possesses cannot be
doubted, since this idea contains nothing contradictory in itself. And
yet this possibUity cannot be demonstrated, because we are ignorant of
the laws of supernatural causes. To the question, whether God can
reveal to us what is beyond the Umits of the human faculties, Tieftrunk
answers in the negative, because such knowledge could be communi
cated to man only by the gift of a supernatural faculty of comprehen
sion. He adds, that, though super-reasonable, this opinion ought not
to be considered as um-easonable.*
Kantism was represented at Leipzig by Heydenreich, who was born
in 1764, and died in the beginning of the present century. We are
astonished to find him an admirer with equal ardom- of Kant, Spinoza,
and Klopstock, three geniuses of very dissimilar stamp. But Heyden
reich admired the author of the Messiah only for the graces of his style,
the severe beauties of his poetry, and not for his extravagantly evan
geUcal doctrines. He confessed, however, that the supernatural element
in the Bible may be considered as an action of God in the world inde
pendently of nature, the possibiUty of which cannot be disproved by
any phUosophy.!
Kantism claims as its followers several theologians of the name of
Schmidt. One of them was bom at Jena in 1744, and died professor
of theology in the University of his native town. He endeavom-ed
especiaUy to shovf the agreement existing between the morality of
Kant and that of the Gospels. J Another (Job. Ernst Christian
Schmidt) was born in the Duchy of Weimar in 1761, and devoted his
whole life to the task of explaining and developing the moral principles
of Kant, and applying them to all the branches of the science of the
Christian reUgion. But neither his sermons at Jena, where he iiUed
the pastoral office, nor his dissertations at Giessen, where he was pro
fessor of phUosophy, gained hira so much celebrity as the dictionai-y
which he pubUshed for the use of students, of the works of Kant.§
* Censur des christlich. protestantischen Lehrbegriffs nach den Principien der
Religions-kritik. Berlin, 1796. vol, i, p, 66-144.
t Betrachtungen iiber die Philosophie der Natur-religion. Leipzig, 1790. vol. ii.
p, 192,
+ De consensu principii moralis Kantiani cum Ethica Christiana. Jena, 1788-89.
Christliche Moral wissenschaftlich bearbeitet. Jena, 1798-1804, 3 vols. Svo.
§ W'orterbuch zum leichtern Gebrauch der Kant'schen Schriften. 3rd edit,
Jena, 1795.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 141
I must not, however, omit to mention another Schmidt (Joseph),
who devoted himself to education, and wrote against the reig-ning
philosophy. Eckermann, whom we have raentioned in speaking of
the formation of the Gospels, laboured, in a great number of writings,
to overthrow what might yet remain of the ancient doctrines. He
desired, particularly, to spread the convenient doctrine of accommo
dation, knowing well that it would prove more efficacious than the
demands of Kantian moraUty in corrupting a mind animated by the
evangeUcal spirit. He carried the doctrine of fundamental principles
so far, that a common faith in the existence of God appeared to
him sufficient to unite Chi-istians of aU sects under a comraon
standard. He pretended also that Christ's only object was to teach
men how God ought to be honom-ed, and that everything beyond
this, which is found in the New Testament, is only an accoramoda
tion to the ideas of the tirae. That was certainly a good mode of
teaching how to honom- God. Do we honour him in rendering him
a superstitious worship? He maintained, moreover, that though the
New Testament is authentic, yet it is so difficult to say whethei- its
contents have not been altered, that for greater safety it would be
better to make use only of the instructions of Christ, and to lay aside
those of the apostles.
Araong these theologians we must place also Carl Ludwig Nitzsch,
known as the author of a theory of Christian Eevelation founded on
critical philosophy. He was born at Wittenberg in 1751, and his
early opinions were simUar to those of Spalding and ZoUikofer ; but
the study of Kant's works gave rise, in his mind, to the conception of
a new theology, the principles of which he gave to the world in a
great number of Latin dissertations, which form the principal part of
his theological weapons. He upheld especiaUy, as did Planck, the
principle of an immediate and supernatural revelation ; but he ascribed
to this revelation only one purpose, that is, to assist the principles of
natural reUgion, to awaken in the world the slumbering reUgious ideas,
and to cause them to be zealously propagated by men gifted with truly
divine power. Certainly, no supernaturaUst wiU ever think of denying
that in revelation we find what is called natural religion, that is to say,
reUgious ideas, to which we may attain by the use of our moral and
intellectual faculties ; but he who has eyes to see and a heart to feel,
cannot faU to understand that the Gospel supposes, rather than esta
bUshes, this kind of truths, and that its proper aira is to announce to
humanity an event which has happened in the world, by means of
which the world has been reconciled to God. Nitzsch speaks with
pleasing warmth of the duties imposed by the moral trath of the

142 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
Gospel, but the pm-est Kantism could, at the best, only drive a timid
conscience to despau-, or hurry its disciples into the vanity of
stoicism.* Staudlin, Krug, and Ammon, to mention only the best-known
names, crown the number of theologians who thought that in Kantism
they had found a means to re-estabUsh the moral ideas of Christianity,
which it was their first desne to see triumph over the loose moraUty
which foUowed in the train of Natm-alism and SensuaUsm. It is re
markable that Staudlin, who was insensibly incUned, especiaUy in the
later years of his life, to the Christian faith, was nevertheless so infatu
ated with the morality of his idol, Kant, that he even sacrificed to it
the person of Jesus, who, he declared, had taught errors in his system
of morals. And yet, with singular inconsistency, which we can, how
ever, understand in minds in which there is a struggle between faith and
science, piety and the love of glory, he admits the necessity of revela
tion for the mass of the people who cannot rise, as do the privUeged of
science, to the height of the ideal,!
Another warm defender of the Kantian phUosophy, as appUed to
religion, and particularly to Christianity, was the writer who had the
honour of occupying for some time that phUosophical chair at Konigs
berg, which had been fiUed by the iUustrious author of the new system.
Wilhelm Traugott Krag exchanged, in 1809, this chair for that of
Leipzig, which he fiUed until his death in January 1843. His aim
was, by a slight modification in the principles of his master, to estabUsh
a transcendental synthetisra, which should silence all contradictions.
A prolific and impassioned writer, Krug employed all possible raethods
for the extension of the philosophy of Kant, at the expense of the an
cient faith. Sermons, articles in journals, programraes, dissertations,
dictionaries, manuals — he wrote in aU these forms, and in almost every
tone, in order to gain his end. He even condescended to use satu-e to
silence his opponents. After a long Ufe passed in disputation (he was
born in 1770), it seeraed only just that he should enjoy the fruit of his
labours. But we are assured that, with wounded self-love, he regarded
with bitter feeUngs the generation which had ceased to warmly applaud
his philosophical dissertations. After strongly opposing the exclusive
representatives of authority in matters of religion and poUtics, he ap
peared to change his opinions, and agree with them, especially on poli
tical subjects, the liberal tendencies of which he condemned ; he saw
* The principal work of Nitzch, in which his theory is developed, is that
which he published under the title, De discrimine revelationis imperatoria et didac-
tica. New edit. 1 830. 2 vols.
I Lehrbuch der Dogmatik und Dogmengeschichte. Gottingen, 1801.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 143
his popularity decUne, and was by no means insensible to the decay of
his lam-els. Next to his W'drterhuch der philosophischen Wissenschaften
{Dictionary of Philosophy), his Briefe iiber die Perfectiiilitat der geoffen-
barten Religion {Letters on the Perfectibility of Revealed Religion) have
undoubtedly contributed most to his renown, and have been, in reaUty,
the foundation of the modern systems which admit a perfectibUity in
all things, even in revelation. In fact, says Krug, God cannot com
municate to man perfect and absolute knowledge, because he does not
change man's nature, that is to say, he does not convert a finite into an
infinite mind. But from this principle we cannot infer the necessity of
the perfectibiUty of revelation. We can easUy suppose God revealing
only a part of his attributes for example, and, in so doing, he would
not change our finite nature, but would leave to the development of
om- faculties om- continual advance in this knowledge ; and yet we
could never say that what has always been trae has become more true
by the free exercise of our faculties. And is it not a flagrant contra
diction to admit a revelation, (for Professor Krug will by no means
sacrifice that expression,) and then to suppose that when the moment of
perfectibiUty shaU arrive, we are not to expect a new one ? In this
system it would appear that, at each evolution of the human mind, he
only can make men reaUse it who was the author of that which pre
ceded ; and where wiU divine revelation stop ? I know that professors
of Eationalism are not alarmed by these consequences ; but they must
entirely change the idea of revelation as it has always been received,
and they would act more honom-ably in rejecting it altogether. We
can conceive of perfectibiUty in relation to an individual only so far as
his inteUect becomes developed, and to humanity, so far as that the
productions of one age ought necessarUy to be to succeeding ages the
means of more easy comprehension. But to say that the object of the
human mind is itself perfectible, in other words, that the objective of
the religious sentiment which we suppose to be revealed by God is
capable of perfectibility, only shows a wish to confound aU our ideas,
and to impose upon our reason contradictory notions, in its own name.
The application which Professor Krug makes of his system to the
Christian reUgion, may be summed up in the motto to his work, which
he has taken from Professor Haffner, of Strasburg, " It was not the
design of Jesus Christ and the apostles to present to man a complete
system of truths to believe and precepts to practise. They did not
wish to mark out for the reason invariable Umits which it should not
dare to pass. They wished to give to it the fu-st impulse ; to awaken
it fi-om the deep lethargy into which it had sunk ; to point out the

144 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
path which it must pm-sue, in order to arrive with a firmer step, and in
a more secure way, at perfection and happiness."*
Schleiermacher's opposition to this system is weU known, and we
shall easily understand it when we become acquainted with his powerful
gemus, and see that the perfectibility of reUgion would have been
totally inconsistent with his Christology. ScheUing, on the contrary,
pleaded long and warmly in its defence, and, indeed, we cannot see how,
after his recent change of opinion, he could abstain from doing so, con
sidering mythology, as he does, as a necessary stage of transition to the
Christian revelation, which he now defends with aU the enthusiasm of a
pure faith. He teaches its doctrines in the same powerful language
which he employed iu support of his philosophy of identity. By his
side stands Hegel, who, though regarding Christianity as absolute re
Ugion enveloped in images and symbols, nevertheless taught that far
from possessing the life of the spirit in its origin, the Christian church
had only a presentiment of it. There is, however, some sense in the
words in which the most advanced disciple of the left side of Hegel's
school expresses his disapprobation of the system of Krug and Ammon.
The perfectibility of the race, says Feuerbach, is as little infinite as that
of the individual, since finite power, the only faculty with which man
is endowed, can produce only a Umited effect. A period, therefore,
must come when mankind shall arrive at an historical principle that
shall fix its limit ; but then the Ufe of Christianity will be over, the
thread by which it was united to humanity being broken by the same
power which formed it, viz,, the human mind.
The theologian who has maintained this doctrine with greatest
success in our day, while believing that he remained faithful to the
philosophy of Kant, with which his earUer works are imbued, is
Christoph Friedrich von Ammon, who was born at Baireuth in 1766,
After filling in succession the chairs of philosophy and theology at
Erlangen, he, in 1813, undertook the office of court preacher at Dres
den, a post which he stiU occupies with continued success. While
von Ammon professed the doctrines of the Kantian philosophy, he
* Haffner, Briefe iiber Erziehung, p, 52, In reading these words we naturally
ask ourselveS-if they agree with tbe rationalistic system of Kant, of which Krug
constituted hhnself the special defender. We see, in fact, how, in his last letter,
the 17th of his work, Krug endeavours to connect his ideas with those of Kant,
who atterapted to acquire the plenitude of raoral and religious truth, by sub
jecting Christianity to the crucible of pure reason, and thus drawing out the
raoral ideal which it contains, and which can never be surpassed. But I should
have thought that this idea of Kant, which expresses almost the opinion of
Schleiermacher, would overturn entirely the system of perfectibility.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 145
maintained this principle, that truth is to be found, not in sentiment
only, nor in forms, nor in the written word, but in self-consciousness,
conformed to the laws of our inmost feeUngs. Under the influence of
this principle, von Ammon showed himself to be a Theist in Natural, an
Arian in Christian, theology, and in morality he placed the highest good
in the conforraity of the human to the divine wUl. He cherished also
a strong belief in Jesus as the Son of God ; he made this doctrine the
central point of the Gospel, and the divine filiation of Jesus is the only
mark by which he atterapts to recognise the true Christian, He did
not perceive that this is an article of belief which has no direct influence
on the heart of man, and which cannot, therefore, be regarded as the
main spring of the Christian system. We can conceive that the prin
ciple of divine love may be considered as the only essential point of
evangelical doctrine, if we make it rest on another principle, that of
God's love for men in Jesus, because round this fundamental principle
are grouped aU the duties the accomplishment of which is facilitated
by love, and which cannot dispense with it. But the maxim of von
Ammon, which leaves the Christian Ufe in total uncertainty, cannot be
estabUshed as the general principle of a doctrine which ought not to
remain in a state of pure speculation.
But as the favom-ite system of von Ammon, by which he seems fo
wish to crown his old age, is the perfectibUity of religion, we will now
proceed to trace its progress from its origin.
Indications of the ideas on the perfectibility of Christianity recently
developed by von Ammon are to be found in his work. Be Origine et
NaturaRevelationis divina immediata," in which he gives an entire theory
of revelation. According to this writer, from the moment that a man
commences to strive after moral perfection, there arise and are developed
in his mind, thoughts and feelings deeply reUgious, which may be said
to proceed iramediately from God, since without this moral improvement
he could never have acquired this divine knowledge. And the more
he rises to freedom in breaking the chains of his physical nature, the
nearer he approaches to the hoUness of God ; and the more noble part
of his nature soars to such moral perfection, that the almighty power
of God acts on him no longer through his senses and physical nature,
but on his moral character, through the direct medium of his mind.
Then, again, he feels the presence of certain ideas which he does not
owe to his own efforts ; and whUe he feels the desire of testifying his
gratitude to his divine benefactor, he also feels himself irresistibly
called upon to communicate to others the feelings by which he hiraself
is animated. And thus we may see the origin of the immediate reve
lations made by God to those united to him in an intiraate manner,
VOL. II. L

146 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
the subjective character of which is by no means that of excitement
or fanaticism, but a firm and certain consciousness that the reUgious
thoughts which transport us are the immediate work of the Father of
Light,* These views must be considered as those of Socinian Eational
isra, not those of Evangelical SupematuraUsm. The mystical element
(I use the word in the sense received iu good philosophy) is to be
found in Supernaturalism, but does not constitute it. Eevelation is one
thing, the religious inspiration of ideas in the human mind another.
If there were no distinction between the two, there would be as many
imraediate revelations from God as there are persons accepted in holi
ness, who Usten in sUence to the divine voice which speaks continuaUy
in their hearts.
It is in his work on the continued development of Christianity that the
fragUe orthodoxy of von Ammon comes most into coniUct with a system
formed independently of the Scriptures.! It is true that a perfectible
religion seeras to have in its favour both good sense and the assent of
enUghtened reason. We might say with Dr. Strauss, in his recent
work, that, " though it appears inconsistent with the idea of revelation
when we consider it as proceeding from the Perfect Being, to declare
that it must arrive at a higher degree of perfection, yet this declara
tion may accord with the idea of divine instruction imparted to imper
fect beings, who must go on graduaUy in the work of self-improve
ment." J Very Uttle reflection, however, wiU suffice to convince us that
this idea of perfectibility cannot apply to the doctrine itself, but only
to the manner in which it is understood by the mind and heart. It
thus refers rather to the man, who is the receptacle of truth, than to
the truth itself. Would it not be highly absurd to say that a truth is
perfectible ? It could not be truth were it capable of a higher degree
of perfection. And yet it is because he beUeves in the perfectibiUty of
Christianity, that von Ammon considers it as fit to become the universal
reUgion when the only tme God shaU be known and adored by all
mortals. " AU the rays of Christianity meet ui the tme spiritual
adoration of God, as in a central point." " Now," adds von Ammon,
" the true adoration of the Deity is that through which our nature
comes into inmost communion with the essence of the Infinite Spirit ;
and this can exist only in the elevation of our minds into that com
munion. While we pay our tribute of veneration and gratitude to
"• De Origine et Natura Revelationis divina immediata. Gottingen, 1797, And
Entwurf einer wissensch. pract. Theologie. Gottingen, 1797.
¦|- Die Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1840.
X Christliche Glaubenslehre, in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung, &c. 1840.
vol. i. p. 254.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 147
him who, freeing us fi-om the traditions of temples and the sacrificial
customs of his time, conducted us to the primitive sources of truth,
and taught, by his example, how we ought to seek the Father, we
nevertheless still see before us, depths of wisdom and knowledge which
aU the efforts of om- minds cannot fathom." And a little further on
he maintains that the perfected religion of the mind and the idea should
never be wanting in the conscientious teacher of the Christian religion,
though he deplores, with an inconsistency comraon in Eationalism, that
free inquiry into the Scriptures, notwithstanding its good effects, has
placed the ancient system of the church in a position where it is ex
posed to continual attacks, which graduaUy diminish its strength and
render its defence more difficult. He hopes that his work, if favourably
received, wiU banish the fear of the schisms by which we are menaced,
wUl diminish the number of dogmatical disputes, and wiU re- estabUsh
in the church the concord so much to be desired. Before we close this
Ust of the principal theologians who were imbued with the phUosophical
spirit of Kant, let us add that von Ammon, terrified by the excitement
created in our day by Strauss's criticism of the Gospels, foUowed the
example of Tholuck and Neander in endeavouring to resist this deplor
able attack. This he did, not by a direct answer to the audacious man
who would seal for ever the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre in
which historical Christianity was buried by science, but by the produc
tion of a life of Jesus, which appears to us much better quaUfied to lead
wandering minds into a better path than the earUer works written by
von Ammon with a view to the reconciliation of contending parties.*
Nothing can be more judicious than what he says in his introduction
of the actual state of science in relation to religion. " If the signs
of the times do not deceive us, we appear to have overstepped the
limits of our faith and our knowledge, and are now occupied in seeking
once more our spiritual equilibrium, our true path." This induced him
to write a Ufe of Jesus, which renders to history and to faith what is
due to each. This he believes to be the only raeans, in the actual state
of affairs, of preventing a complete rupture between the two great
powers of om- Christian knowledge, and of fixing the ground on which
they may amicably meet. For as deep and firm knowledge preserves
* Die Geschichte des Lebens Jesu mit steter Beriicksichtigung der vorhandenen
Quellen, dargestellt von Dr. Christoph, Friedrich von Ammon. The first volume
only has appeared. Leipzig, 1842,
[The work is now complete. A critical notice of some parts of it may be
found in the Editor's Scripture Vindicated against some Perversions of Rationalism,
in an investigation of the miracles, " Feeding the Five Thousand," and "Walking
on the Water," with a Map of the Sea of Galilee. London : Simpkin, Marshall,
and Co. 1849.— E.] lS

148 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
us from superstition, and prepares a free way to pure faith, so it is only
a history of Jesus free frora doctrinal forms which can become for
Christians of all communions and of different degTces of intellectual
culture, a sure basis of their faith in his doctrine and in his high dig
nity. In von Ammon's subsequent remarks respecting the conservative
principles and the symbols and images which he takes under his protec
tion, in order not to compromise the slow progress of truth, he appears
to us to make rather a large concession to those whom he accuses of
tumult and destruction. We prefer rather fo pass to his wiser refiec
tions on the views through which, in almost aU parties and all confes
sions, fhe dignity of Jesus has become the foundation of faith in his
person. These views not only con-espond with the essential contents
of the new covenant, and repel the often-repeated accusation that our
western systera frequently places the oriental spirit of our sacred tradi
tions in the chains of a scholastic and transcendental ontology ; they
not only have shown the real possibility of an intimate union between
the divine and the human nature, and have given the just belief that
Christ preserved the divine consciousness even in his inevitable transi
tion to human thoughts ; they not only grant to the intimate union of
Jesus with his Father an unlimited and infinite elevation, — ^but they also
enable us to aUot to history as its inaUenable property the facts of the
existence and operation of Jesus, which have so often been attacked,
and they cause us to recognise, in the developraent of his raind and the
progress of his individual and personal perfection, a higher wisdom of
God, which traced out for him the holy path which he should pursue.
I leave it now to theologians who entertain opinions more decidedly
supernatural than those of von Ammon, to judge ofthe following passages,
taken from the body of his work (p. 158). They refer to the progress
which the Gospel declares to have been made by Jesus when he grew
in grace and wisdom before God and before men, "If," says he, "it
is certain that Jesus grew in knowledge and in wisdom, and became
perfect through sufferings and temptations, that was possible only by
the moral direction of his wUl, which set out from a pathological indi-
viduaUty to draw near to the divine ideal ; and it is in this activity of
the understanding and of the wiU that we ought to seek for the essence
of his character and of his personal operation  Where, then,
ought the historian of Jesus to commence ? Must it be with his supe
rior nature, the idea of which he shaU establish geneticaUy ? We know
nothing of the history of an archangel, and that of the eternal Son of
God is lost in its own immensity. The logical and psychological origin
of an idea only can become the object of an historical work  it
is, however, necessary that what is essentiaUy divine in Jesus should be

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 149
considered as something immutable, which was distinct from his human
consciousness, and which could not enter into the field of experience.
This granted, there remains for a true and real history of Jesus only his
humanity, since we cannot comprehend the superior nature of him whom
the Father has sanctified  but this is no reason why the divine
in Christ should be abandoned to all the natural phUosophers who
proudly confess or deny that which they have never examined, consi
dered, and received in silence." This step preserves us from the temp
tation of making a distinction between the miracles of Jesus and his
doctrine, which inspires us with a just and constant admiration. It
reminds aU who can read the Book of Light, of the serious duty of every
generation — that of distinguishing divine knowledge and truth from the
variable forms of any particular period — and teaches them, at the same
tirae, to sUence their laraentations over destroyed forms. The past is
only a passage to the present, which, again, is the connecting Unk be
tween the past and the future. That which in the past and present
was the means of arriving at something superior, cannot be regarded as
the highest aim of our efforts. With such thoughts, we ought to ad
vance fearlessly towards that glorious end, and not be terrified by the
excess of zeal with which many defend every post and outpost, as if
they were the central point of the body of the army. We will leave
them to strike blows on the empty air when the retreat has sounded,
and they are too much confused to effect it ; a day will corae when they
also shall enjoy the true light, which they have as yet only perceived in
the pale refiection of the letter.
Guided by this faith in the high moraUty of the Saviour, von Ammon
wishes us to acquire the knowledge of his high dignity as the Son of
God, faith in which he now, as in his earlier writings, maintains to be
the only symbol round which aU Christians may rally; and it is by
means of the distinction between the letter and the spirit, the perishable
and the eternal, which his system of perfectible religion enforces, that
he attempts to silence the contradictions proceeding fi'om those of the
orthodox party who are behind the spirit of the age, as weU as from
the impatient ones who understand nothing of the progressive march of
humanity. But neither von Ammon nor Elrag is the inventor of this religious sys
tem. Besides the gnostics and different heretics of the middle ages, who
believed that all had not been revealed by the Saviour, and that the
church would receive more ample communications when it should have
the plenitude of the Holy Spirit,* there have in all times been thinkers
* See ^ Treatise on the Critico- Historical point of View of the Perfectibility of
Christianity in the Theological Annals qf Tiibingen, No. I. p. 1-50. It is writ
ten by Dr. Zeller.

150 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
who have believed that the human race is constantly making progress
towards perfection, and that one consequence of the progress is found
in the new discoveries constantly achieved in the domain of truth. EeU
gion, they say, cannot be exempt from this law of nature. Our poste
rity ought to look upon it in a light different from that in which we
regard it, as we ourselves look upon it very differently fi-om those who
have preceded us. But, admitting a revelation, what in this case could
it have revealed to man ? And then do you not see that you insult good
sense when, ad libitum, you tear out those pages of history which tell
you that at the birth of Christianity the fu-st teachers of the church
were far from being ignorant on reUgious matters ? And yet, in the
system of the perfectibUity of reUgious doctrine, it is necessary to grant
that the earliest period of the Christian religion must have been one of
darkness. Unless we do so, there would be no progression ; the system
would have no foundation ; it would be nonsense. Semler's opinions
on the difference between the essential and the non-essential in reUgion,
on the distinction between external and internal reUgion, and on the
necessity of discriminating between what is local and what permanent
and universal, had caUed the attention of his contemporaries to the pos
sibUity of discovering the law which presides over the gradual develop
ment of religious truths, as we discover those which govem the deve
lopment of the physical world. But with Semler this system was not
sufficiently clear. It consisted, as yet, only in the gradual destruction
of the Judaical ideas stiU contained in the Christian faith.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 151

CHAPTEE VII.
MODERN SOCINIANS — HOW DISTINGUISHED FROM THE. ANCIENT —
ROHR, WEGSCHEIDER, DAVID SCHULZ, YON COLLN, CRAMER,
LANGE  HISTORY OF DOCTRINES.
We need not be surprised that the Christian reUgion offers obscurities
to the human mind, and even confounds aU our reason in some facts
which it presents to our beUef, since we see in nature certain phenomena
of which we can perceive neither the cause nor the true end. The very
idea of revelation impUes, that it reveals to man soraething which he
could not have learned without its aid ; and in him who admits the
possibiUty of a revelation, it would be inconsistent to reject what that
revelation communicates to man, although the human mind may not be
able to understand it. Yet into what an error do the rationalists fall
when they attempt to make for theraselves a supernatural Christianity
without Christology, that is to say, in abolishing all the deraands made
on man by the relations which revelation has established, not only be
tween him and God, but also between Jesus, and those to whom he
came to reveal the wiU of his Father ! A fraction of theologians who
could not evade the necessity of the ancient principles, without giving
support to Paganism, but who were not disgusted by inconsistency, feU
into the sarae error, and brought back into the Lutheran church the
most serious of aU heresies, because the most fatal to Christian piety.
In fact, Socinianism, though adraitting a supernatural revelation in the
ancient sense of the terra, considers Jesus Christ only as a man suffi
ciently favoured with supernatural and moral gifts, to teach to his
brethren faith in one only God, and in immortaUty, which, without a
special revelation, men would never have known. But how can we feel
secure of the veracity of Jesus and of the certainty of his teachings, if
the character of a mere mortal exposes him to the weaknesses or the
imperfections inseparable frora humanity ?
There is this difference between the Socinians of the seventeenth
century and those of the present day ; the former stUl kept up some
distinction between revelation and divine inspiration, whUe the latter,
more consistent, confound the two ideas. And, however little we

152 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
weaken the ancient idea of inspiration, so flexible in its nature, we
leave only NaturaUsm seriously enunciated, with words taken here and
there from the Holy Scriptures to fortify its principles. Was it not the
Socinian principle to seek and find pure biblical instruction ? Was it
their fault if, in their conclusions, they went further than Luther and
Calvin ? They have, perhaps, only been more consistent. We cannot,
therefore, find fault with the Socinianism which lurks araong a consider
able and enUghtened body of raodern rationalists ; and the only part of
their conduct at which we can be astonished is the secret horror which
they seem to entertain for the name while holding aU the opinions of
Socinianism. Like them, the Socinians wished for no other founda
tion than the Bible, and their sole article of faith was belief in Jesus as
the mediator ; like them, they were devoted to critical labours. CreU
and Schlichting have proved it. Without any bad intention, they, too,
used their destructive exegesis only to support their truncated doctrine,
which they designated by the narae of Unitarian, but zero is not unity.
Gabler was more sincere, when, being called on to explain his views on
this subject, he declared that the Socinians, relying only on Holy Writ,
ought to be regarded for that very reason as good Protestants as the
Lutherans and the Eeformed church. He adds, even, that they are
the most consistent of Protestants,* Among these Socinians, whose
name the rationalists refuse, though they receive their principles, we
may class all those who do not admit purely and simply the ancient
theory of revelation, and who are sUent as to the positive pre-existence
of Christ before his appearance as a man upon the earth. Nor should
we be very far wrong in adding to the number the greater part of those
theologians who caU themselves bibUcal, since they may very weU so
name themselves, and profess Socinianism under that convenient cloak.

* See a Preface of Gabler containing an answer to this question. Are the
Socinians Protestants ? This Preface is prefixed to a work of Zerenner, entitled,
Neuer Versuch zur Bestimmung, &c, Lubeck, 1820. The principal object of
this book is to show that Socinianism does not admit faith, but reason con
ducted by the divine word. It presents Socinianism under the most favourable
aspect. [For a view of Unitarianism by Unitarians, see Dr. Chaiming's V/orks, and the
Memoirs of his Life, 'by his Nephew. Chapman: London. See also Unitarianism
Exhibited in its actual Condition, consisting of Essays by several Unitarian Minis
ters and others, illustrative of the Rise, Progress, and Principles of Christian
Anti-Trimtarianism in different parts of the world ; edited by the Rev. J. R,
Beard, D,D, London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co, 1840. Also in the form of
a pamphlet by the same writer, A Letter fo the Rev. Richard Fletcher, containing a
Revtewofhis Lectureon Unitarianism. London: C, Fox, Paternoster Row, 1849.
— E.]

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 153
the Bible, which shelters so many raen of different opinions, and stUl
preserves the characteristic shades of distinction between them.
But as the preacher of the cathedral of Weimar and the learned
doctrinal professor of Halle both claim the honour of preserving the
sacred narae of Christian, though they do not profess Christian doc
trines, and as I know not whether the title of modern Sociniaii, or
that of biblical theologian, which in itself implies so close a connexion
with their system, raay be applied to their religion of reason, we will be
content with siraply explaining their theories, and vdU leave it to the
reader to give thera a name, which it matters little to us to choose.
The only wish that we can form on the subject is to see these men,
powerful in words and in knowledge, repudiate their past errors too
long persisted in, and, imbuing their minds with evangelical faith, give
to youth an example of a renovation of opinions, which would not be
lost. Eohr aud Wegscheider had predecessors, I will not say in Edelmann,
Bahrdt, and Basedow, who were far their inferiors in knowledge and
morality, though the results of their labours were not very dift'erent,
but in Steinbart, J. A. Eberhard, Teller, Spalding, Jerusalem, Weber,
Thiess, Cannabich, Junge, and Nieraeyer, who all in their sphere have
attempted to exalt their own reason, and to subject to this doubtful power
the divine reason, which the Christian discovers in Eevelation.* It is
not to be wondered at, that having early become familiar with authors
of doubtful reputation, it is true, but whose influence was not the less
real, the superintendent of Weimar conceived the project from the veiy
commencement of his literary career, of forming for himself also " a
rational Christianity," and of spreading its principles by every means
in his power. Gifted with the talents which form a good writer in any
* It would be useless here to quote the doctrinal works or religious treatises of
these theologians, who only survive in history, where we may contemplate the
deplorable traces of their labours. They all were connected, more or less inti
mately, with that coalition of purveyors of enlightenment, who had their head
quarters in Berlin, and their organ in the library of Nicolai, and their celebrity
at that time equalled that of this German Library. The reader may, perhaps,
be surprised to learn that Kant, one day entering Nicolai' s shop, and hearing a
student of the University ask for Jerusalem's Betrachtungen, then for the first
time became aware that there was an author of that name, while he esteemed
sufficiently the sei-raons of Spalding, the only ones which he had ever read.
Niemeyer especially, by his educational works, had a raore enduring infiuence
than all the others on the study of religion among young people in Germany ;
but his reign also is over. It is only to be regretted that his religious instruc
tions for youth were not interdicted by public opinion rather than by order of the
civil powers.

154 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
department of science, a distinguished orator, and rich in knowledge,
he was well qualified to become an ardent apostle of the Eationalism
which he declared to be identical with the religion of Jesus. He was
scarcely instaUed in a country cure, in 1804, when he commenced his
work, and, unable to confine his zeal to the Umits of a single parish, he
created for himself a more extended sphere of action, by the foundation
of his joumals. But he soon perceived that the circle of his readers
included only ecclesiastics who stood in no need of conversion, and he
resolved to address himself to another portion of the public, to explain
to them his principles and to attempt to destroy the last prejudices
which might yet remain against the idolatry of reason. With these
views, he published his Letters on Rationalism, which met with astonish
ing success.* The author, without any of the circumlocution common
among the greater number of rationaUstic preachers, considers Jesus
as an ordinary man, whose birth it is unnecessary to refer to super
natural causes ; from all his discourses, and from his manner, we see
plainly that he is the production of his age and nation ; only superior
to them in wisdom and virtues,! I would first ask this author how he
arrived at the knowledge of the wisdom and virtues of Christ ? If he
answers by means of the Gospels, does he not immediately see, that
Jesus, if only a man Uke other members of the human family, presents
in his life a mixture of fanaticism and imposture, which can never be
counterbalanced by some actions or precepts on which Eationalism de
pends to exalt his moral character ? In this case, Jesus would appear
to us to be without respect for the authors of his life, whom he treats
with less regard than strangers, and he has the inconceivable audacity
to wish that he should be considered of more importance than are his
father and mother. And many other things are there which would
show either unbounded pride or stupidity, without a name in the
vocabularies of Uving languages. It is tme that Eohr anticipates this
objection in saying that there is much that is obscure in the life of the
Saviour; "his origin, his education, the exercise of his ministry, his
unhappy end, all are fiUed with obscurities, since it is certain that Jesus
was born as other men are horn (sein Urspraug war gewiss der natiirUche
Ursprung aller Menschen) ; but the reason of this is," he says, " that
the memou-s which we have under the name of Gospels are written in so
* Briefe iiher den Rationalismus. Aachen, 1813. The title of tbe work was
followed by this explanation of its purpose. " To amend the dubious and un
certain judgments which have been formed respecting the dogmatical conse
quences of modern polemics,"
t Ibid, p. 26, " He was the hero of humanity in the highest sense of the
term."

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 155
undecided a manner, and are so little historical in their nature, that we
cannot depend entirely upon them in judging of the person of Jesus."*
Here, then, we see a man occupying a Christian pulpit, who cannot
feel convinced of the certainty of things which aU his parishioners know
by heart, in order to assist them in understanding those things, and to
show them their moral aim. And what right has he to speak to bis
audience of what the Gospel commands or forbids, if he does not repre
sent him who has enjoined us to announce this Gospel, and to enforce
the execution of its commandments ? But contradictions and incon
sistencies do not stand in the way of the partisans of EationaUsm ; they
know that their system is in all respects only one great inconsistency,
and it is not possible for them to be more logical than their system. I
speak of them in theory. Nevertheless, it would be well in so false a
position, and it would be only just, if they had more regard to those
who, are more consistent in their views. Of this regard, however,
Eohr knows nothing, and aU those who do not share his anti-evangelical
faith can be only slaves of ignorance, to whora nothing is due. He is
thus blamed, on this account, by a less decided rationalist: — "The
disciples of Dr. Eohr recognise only two forras of doctrine, that of a
simple and lawful Eationalism (their master's), aud that of a very
stupid, servile, and Uteral, orthodox faith, wbich they cordiaUy despise.
Wherever anything else appears, it must necessarily be an iUusion
which receives from Dr. Eohr, in turn, the names of SchelUngianism,
AUegorism, Pantheism ! His disciples, repeating these significant
words of their master's, spare themselves the trouble of aU scientific
research, and thus put an end to the matter. They salute with war-
cries the modern times which are passing over then- heads. As for us,
we wUl continue securely to turn our looks towards the East." !
It is superfluous here to say, that for Dr. Eohr, and aU frank and
sincere rationalists, human reason is the only foundation of religious be
Uef, and the Bible is of sraaU consequence, since it was not only written
by men liable to error, but we are unable to distinguish between what
they really did write, and what others may have added to their works
in the course of centm-ies. There is nothing more positive than that
Jesus and the apostles had no intention of founding any religion but
the religion of reason {Vernunft Religion). %
• Briefe, 28-30. He adds in a note, with imperturbable sang-froid, " The
pure rationalist does not then look upon Jesus and religion in the sarae light as
do Venturini and Bahrdt, nor does he criticise the Scriptures in the manner of
Paulus," p, 40.
f Hase, Streitschriften, 111-115,
X Briefe, &c,, 14, 24, 419, 428.

156 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
We ought, however, to say, that it was not owing to Eohr that
EationaUsm did not openly avow itself, and separate from the Christian
churches. He is too honourable not to see how inconsistent it is with
the most simple morality for any one to appear to teach Christianity
to the people while possessing no other faith than a faith in himseU",
and to declare himseU' an ambassador of Christ to the people whom
he came to snatch from perdition, when Christ himself has declared
that he acknowledges no such messengers. With these views, Eohr
proposed a creed to be substituted for those of the Christian chm-ches.
But the other rationaUsts tm-ned a deaf ear to the proposition, and
Dr. Eohr, in his office as superintendent of Weimar, continued to
edify his parish with Christological instructions, and to inspect Chris
tian churches which do not share his opinions, or at least do not confess
them on the house-top, as Christ enjoins and reason demands.
This confession of faith of Dr. Eohr, which he proposed as the
standard round which all the reUgious men of Germany should rally,
was accorapanied by a letter addressed to the faculties of theology, in
which he expressed his wish that the consistories and governments
should conform to his creed. One theologian only responded to this
appeal. It was Schott, of Jena ; and even he made some reservations.
Bretschneider himself condemned the Naturalism which disguised itself
under the name of Eationalisra, and Hase remarked, in the Leipzig
Literary Gazette (1833, No. 6), that such a creed might have been
signed as weU by a Jew or a Mahometan, as by rationalists of the
school of Eohr, if for the narae of Jesus were substituted that of
Mahoraet or Moses. Thus opposed by his own party, and humiUated
by the silence of others. Dr. Eohr did not yet despair of becoming the
pontiff of Eationalism, and he made a second attempt in modifying his
creed and colom-ing it with biblical words which could impose only on
the fooUsh. In this form he pubUshed it a second time in 1834. He
then aUowed Jesus to be a little more than a person reraarkable for
" actions and a destiny that were peculiar to him ! ! " {Bass er durch
eigenthumliche Phasen und ScMcksale ausgezeichnet geicesen!) It will be
well beUeved that this raanceuvre succeeded no better than the former,
because his partisans were unwUUng to compromise themselves, and
because the absence of zeal, or even a certain degree of indifference
in reUgion, does not always imply a state of hostiUty in the churches.
This was proved in the Canton of Zurich, where an insignificant ra
tionalistic minority, which held the reins of government, attempted to
transform a Christian pulpit into one of mythical EationaUsm. The
astonishing part of this affab of Dr. Eohr is less his proceedings than
the sUence of the tribunals of Weimar, which might have demanded to

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 157
know in virtue of what positive right he claimed the power of occupy
ing an elevated post in a church which possessed its own creeds, when
he proposed another which seemed to him to be the only one true and
consistent with the rights of reason.
But if rationalists preferred keeping the positions which they had
acquired, when Eohr proposed a creed which would have introduced
mto the Christian churches a sort of line of demarcation, we must not,
therefore, conclude that cupidity was their only motive for this deter
mination. They knew that this proceeding would in no way improve
their position, that, on the contrary, they would run the risk of com
promising it ; and this does honour to their character. Could they not
spread its principles equally weU under the shelter of the Christian
formularies which they retained, and which would conceal their expres
sion ? So thought even the friends of Eohr. When, on two different
occasions, this question was seriously agitated ; Is it moral and legal
for men caUed to a situation to fulfil certain obligations, to act contrary
to what they have promised by oath, and ought they not to be expelled
from the church ? — the rationalists, on all sides, united in claiming un
restricted liberty of reUgious opinion.* Hase especiaUy distinguished
himself by the briUiant originality of his defence and the liberality of his
principles concerning discussion.! He did not then foresee how much
bitterness from fhe side of vulgar Eationalism the publication of his
works^would draw upon him. J
We often hear the faithful adherents of Eohr, to use the language of
Hase, oppose the discourses delivered in the pulpit of Weimar to what
his adversaries object to in his principles as anti-biblical and anti-
Christian. But it is almost a settled thing in Germany that the
preacher is quite distinct from the learned man, though they be one
and the same person ; that the former ought scrupulously to discharge
his office, which is to preach to the people the Word of God, and to lay
aside in his pastoral instructions his own individual opinions respecting
what he ought to affirm and to lead others to believe. We in France
recognise no such distinction ; but I have so often heard it maintained

» In 1 827, Hahn published, at Leipzig, a dissertation De Rationalismi vera Indole,
the contents of which excited the zeal ofthe innovators. In the same way, 1830,
a denunciation of the teachings of Wegscheider and Gesenius caused the same
question to be again agitated, but without producing any results,
t Die Leipz. Disput. 1827.
X A short but substantial pamphlet has been published against Dr. Rohr's
confession of faith, under this title. Die sogenannte neuere Theologie, by a Layman.
Dresden, 1842.

158 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
by persons worthy of their reputation, that 1 refrain by prudence from
disputing it, A champion of the Gospel, who is very raoderate in his
work, and appears to profess a sincere esteem for the talents and cha
racter of Dr, Eohr, asks why the editor of the Prediger Bibliothek and
Magazin deraoUshes in these two journals the edifice which in his ser
mons he seemed so wishful to erect. He afterwards refers to a dis
com-se preached at Weimar on the day of the festival of the Eeforma
tion, containing the most formal declarations concerning what is due to
the Bible, which it points out as containing the divine word, that ought
to be a lamp to our feet aud a Ught to our path ; and then he quotes
several passages in the journals of Eohr where he denies the authen
ticity of St. John's Gospel. What right have you to wish to irapose
upon us as an oracle of the Holy Spirit the reveries of an unknown
personage ? Let us see on what foundations the learned editor erects
his hypothesis. It is impossible, says he, to attribute to the Apostle
John a Gospel which gives a false idea of the person of Jesus, an idea
strongly opposed to that presented in the synoptical Gospels. But we
may turn the argument, and dispute the authenticity of the synoptical
Gospels, for the very same reason that Ebhr disputes that of the fourth.
We have thus endeavoured to show at once the singular position of a
man who caUs black white, and white black, and who would have good
reason to be very angry (for we do not doubt his good faith) if he were
taxed with Jesuitical conduct.*
We are sorry to find in this, the most decided party of EationaUsm,
D. Schulz, professor at the University of Breslau, who has in turn dis
cussed aU questions of importance on other subjects as weU as on that
of the religion of reason. The strict Lutheran, Scheibel, has, in fact,
felt the weight of his arguments, as weU as Schleiermacher, whose con-
cUiatory theology had on him the effect of a soporific draught. But if
the blows of Professor Schulz were rather rude, they stiU were not
mortal, and it was the determined rivalry of speculative theology to
the falsely-named phUosophical EationaUsm of Schulz and his friends
which seemed most to disconcert Idra. We must, however, say that
the raost sensible part .of his writings on doctrine is that in which he
refutes the extravagant pretensions of ancient Lutheranism, revived by
Scheibel and Guerike, and where he defines, according to Scripture, the
doctruie of the Lord's Supper.! Nor do his exegetical writings want
merit ; but we there see too clearly the author's intention to make the
• See Dr. Kohr und Dr. Bretschneider als Vertheidiger des normativen Ansehens
der Bibel. Meissen, 1842,
f Die christliche Lehre vom heiligen Abendmahl. Leipzig, 1825.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 159
Holy Scriptures serve as a foundation for his rationalistic lucubrations.*
A friend of Schulz, and his coUeague in the University, appears to have
taught with the same views, as is proved by his History of Christian
Boctrines, which Schulz edited, though the more impartial method
which he adopted, of aUowing the writers of each age to speak for them
selves, prevented him from manifesting his own sentiments so crudely
as did Eohr.! More deeply imbued with the spirit of Eohr was that
young professor whose father gave him the name of Dankegott, as a
proof of his gratitude to God. He was taken away at the early age of
thu-ty- three, in the midst of his career as a professor (Leipzig, 1834),
after having given proofs of soUd knowledge and an earnestness of cha
racter which led him to contend as strenuously against the frivolity of
certain rationaUsts of his party as against what he termed mysticism in
the evangelical reUgion. Besides an interesting work on the moraUty
of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, the pupils of Danke
gott Cramer, after his death, published a Biblical Theology and Lec
tures on Christian Doctrine, which show the false du-ection which his
labours took, J "A Protestant theologian," says he himself, "by con
viction and by incUnation, I am actuated by the spirit of Protestantism,
when I consider it as the spirit of free inquiry and of tmth. Whenever
1 see men bowing to the doctrines of men or to creeds, 1 regard thera
as Catholics, and not as Protestants," This is aU very well; but if the
virritings of the apostles were inspired by God, we ought to receive their
contents without discussion. He who does not so, shows himself to be
neither a Catholic nor a Protestant, but a EationaUst — that is to say, a
Pagan, after the fashion of the sages of Greece and Eome, who also,
had they Uved in om- day, would have made a rational use of the Bible,
consulting it as they consulted Homer and Zoroaster, and imposing on
it a meaning as they did upon the oracles of Delphi, under pain of de
claring it insufficient, incapable, and I know not what besides.
On the same path is found also Lobegott Lange, who dedicated a sort
• We have quoted his dissertation on oral tradition in the formation of the
Gospels: he has written others on exegetical questions of great interest, if we con
sider them only in a critical and philological light. It is to be lamented that
illness prevented hira from giving and justifying his vote in the affair of Bruno
Bauer, which we shall speak of in another place.
t Daniel von Colin, Biblische Theologie. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1836. He himself
eiitedDr.'M.mischer's Manual of the History of Doctrine. 2 vols. Cassell, 1832-34.
To this work Neudecker added a third volume; bringing the history of doctrine
down to our own times.
X His Biblische Theologie was published at Leipzig in 1825, hy one Lossius,
and his Vorlesungen Uber die christliche Dogmatik was published by Rohr, also at
Leipzig, 1829.

160 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
of doctrinal system to the Coryphaeus of vulgar EationaUsm, Dr. Eohr,
as a proof, he says, of the most sincere veneration and the firmest con
viction of the tmth of biblical EationaUsm.* But how happens it that
with such profound sentiments of veneration for his rationaUst prede
cessors, he insinuates that before his own time the system could not
have been raised to a science — au elevation by means of which it might
have the more infiuence over the conscience ? His efforts tend, then,
to estabUsh that EationaUsm contains the pure biblical results of theo
logy, at the same time that it gives a scientific exposition of them, and
indicates the principles and rules which ought to be foUowed in the
study of this reUgious science. This is an honourable intention, but
how is it to be fulfiUed if we regard Christianity " only as the tme
mode of educating man, and of raaking him adore God in spirit and in
truth .P" Does not Christianity treat first of raan's relations to recon
cUe hira to God by means of redemption, and is not this the centre
round which all its other doctrines are grouped ? And yet M. Lange
takes the title of Doctor of the Holy Scriptures — " Ai-t thou a master
in Israel, and knowest not these things ?" !
But Wegscheider, professor in the University of Halle, has shown
more untiring activity than alraost any other theologian, in the interests
of Eationalism. His Bogmatik passed through seven editions, without
the least modification of its spirit, wkUe so many systems of theology
and phUosophy were espoused and given up, and obliged the most in
trepid or the most indifferent to do homage to some of them. The
doctrinal professor of Halle, one of the best armed veterans of phUoso
phical Eationalism, was the ever-celebrated author of the most widely-
circulated system of doctrine known, if we can give the name of a sys
tera, above aU of Christian doctrine, to instructions in which only the
forra of Christianity is preserved. The book containing these doctrines,
and which, I repeat, is more widely circulated than any other work of
the kind, as is proved by the numerous editions % through which it has
passed, is dedicated to the pious manes of Martin Luther, who, accord
ing to the author, has opened the path for us, and has proved by his
example that Christian doctrine consists not in the repetition of old
dogmatical formulas, but in the presentation of the instructions derived
• Anleitung zum Studium der christi. Theologie nach den Grundsdtxen des bib-
lischen Rationalismus, by Lobegott Lange, Doctor of the Holy Scriptures. Jena,
1841. f John iii. 10.
X Institutiones Theologia Christiana Dogmatica. Halle. The seventh and last
edition is of 1833, and contains many additions.
[The eighth edition appeared at Leipzig in 1844. — E.]

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 161
from the pure moraUty and virtue professed by Jesus and the apostles.
Luther would be much astonished if he could return amongst us and
see how his laborious efforts for the interests of pure views of the Gos
pel have tended to bring back gnostic Paganism, and he has a low
opinion of the inteUigence of his contemporaries who tries to convince
them of the perfect identity of the principles of EationaUsm with those
which infiuenced the reformers. It is doubtless with a view of sup
porting this assertion, repeated in different parts of his preface, that he
begins by rejecting, from the very first, aU idea of Supernaturalism, in
order that there may be no mistake concerning his exclusively rational
opinions, because, he says, every system founded on an imraediate reve
lation from God ought to be reprobated as anti-rational. On this point
he disagrees vrith De Wette, von Ammon, and Bohme, who wished to
retain, after their own fashion, the idea of Supernaturalism, and who have
only made it obscure. He complacently quotes, on the other hand, a
passage from the works of Krug, where it is said that a Protestant
SupernaturaUst, to be consistent, ought to have, Uke the Catholics, a
confessor as a spiritual guide,* Eationalism, on the contrary, says
Wegscheider, elevates the reason to the summit of glory, since, accord
ing to its principles, it is the part of reason to judge and arrange the
supernatural revelation which is proposed to it. And in this way have
acted those mortals who have been so favoured by Heaven as to perceive
in themselves the revelation of the purest religion. They might then
well beUeve themselves extraordlnarUy inspu-ed, and even capable of
producing marvellous phenomena, because the force of mind with which
they were endowed was unknown to them. If we proceed on this prin
ciple, we can easily explain the lives of the holy men of the Old and
New Testaments, and even that of Jesus. The superhuman qualities
attributed to the latter in the Gospels ought to be considered only as
local prejudices, ideas which prevaUed among the Jews of Alexandria
and of Palestine, but which are not absolutely true. Thus the sum
mary of aU doctrine concerning God and Christ, is that God, the Father
of men, revealed himself to them by Jesus as a spirit, and the principal
task of theologians is to purify the historical monuments of Christianity
from all that they contain, that was peculiar to the age in which they
were written and the people who were to read them — an age which is
past, aud which we ought not to recal by interpretations such as the
SupernaturaUsts give.
When we have read such assertions as these, maintained by a vast num
ber of empty words relating to anything in the world save the question
• Philosophische Betrachtungen iiber den Supernaturalismus und den Rationalis
mus. Leipzig, 1827.
VOL. II. M

163 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
at issue, we naturaUy ask whether, if these writers are correct, it would
not be infinitely more profitable to read the Fable of the Bees than to
turn over the leaves of a book named the Bible, where, to be rationaUsts.
we must be able to find what it does not contain. By reading the Fable
of the Bees, we shaU arrive at the idea of a good Providence ; but what
sentiments can arise in the mind of him who reads the lAfe of Jesus
with aU the prejudices of a rationaUst ? Wegscheider touches upon so
many questions and details, that it would be irapossible to enumerate
them without exceeding my Umits. Sorae of them, however, we must
mention. We know already that he denies all revelation from God,
excepting that made to us according to the fixed laws of our nature.
From this we must conclude that aU which we read on this subject iu
the Old or New Testament must be considered as myths, which the
writers have made use of to conceal a natural truth under their enve
lope, or as the effect of prejudices, which prevail to a certain extent
among aU half-enlightened nations. So that, whether it is asserted
that the revelation was immediate, or that it was made by the interven
tion of God's angels, such tales are equally without historical founda
tion. The very names given to the angels show their origin, if the
occupations attributed to them are uot unworthy of them ; this origin
shows that the religion of Moses was exempt from this superstition.
The voices from heaven are explained away by thunder ; the dreams
and visions by psychology, and they bear no signs of being true.
FinaUy, the theory of divine inspiration granted to the authors of these
accounts is contrary to the idea of a perfect spirit, annihUates individual
liberty, and deprives man of all dignity. This theory of inspiration
can be explained only by the opinions of an unrefined age, which attri
buted to the Divinity all that was out of the usual order of things —
even every emotion of the mind in any way unusual. And, says Weg
scheider, is not this arguing in a circle ? They speak to us of revela
tion, because it is contained in books corapUed under the infiuence of
divine inspiration ; and then they require us to beUeve in the inspira
tion of the book, because it contains the history of a divine revelation.
Wegscheider, who reasons thus, has not failed to study his own beino-,
and has not this study led him to recognise facts of consciousness,
without his being able to explain them otherwise than by their exist
ence ? Besides this, continues he, the diversities of style and of doc
trine, the chronological difficulties, and many other things of the same
kind which we find in these books, clearly prove that divine inspnation
did not preside over their corapUation, and, moreover, many of them are
not generally acknowledged as authentic. Whom, then, must we consider
to have been the mspired person— the copyist or the unknown author?

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 163
As for the prophecies, he does not fear to advance any supposition
which can declare thera impossible in principle and falsified in their
appUcation, The prophecies of the Old and New Testament, says he, if
we are to beUeve in them, would advocate fataUsm ; and even those which
we consider as most clear respecting the fate of Jerusalem are obscure,
if read without prejudice. Thus we see that Jesus only took advantage
of some passages in the Old Testament referring to the fate of the
Jewish nation, to apply them to himself, and thus to advance the work
of the spiritual kingdom which he wished to found.
1 have said enough, 1 think, to give some idea of the consequences
ensuing from Semler's principles. It would seem impossible to descend
lower, did we not know that the efforts of Dr. Paulus to explain na
turaUy aU the miraculous accounts contained in the Bible, and parti
cularly in the New Testament, are stiU more calculated to depreciate
what the faithfiil caU the Word of God.
But we ought to remark, as of the highest importance in the ques
tion of Christian doctrine, the difference between truth in itself, and the
manner in which it is taught. As dogmatical Christianity, or Christian
truth, which is the same thing, is quite independent of the form in which
it is expressed, it foUows that we can criticise every way in which it has
been manifested to us, wdthout denying the truth itself. The thing on
which we pass a judgment is as independent of that judgment as it is of
the opinion which we entertain of it. This, say the rationalists, is the
case with the Christian reUgion, so that there can be no system of
Christian doctrine, because the opinions formed of Christian truth may
and have been criticised, may and do vary. Thus, aU we can do is to
give a history of doctrines which must be as variable as the opinion en
tertained of a thing at different times and by different persons. Bos-
suet's Histoire des Variations, which gained him more glory as a writer
than any other of his works, would, if it appeared in the present day,
be as Uttle noticed as the most mediocre pamphlets which the church of
Eome is continually launching against its unheeding rival.* From this
distinction between truth in itself and the form under which it is ex
pressed, ai-ises another, equaUy true in one way, but false in many cases.
It is the distinction which has been established between religion and
* The best manuals of the history of Christian doctrines, published in modern
times, are indisputably those of Miinscher, Colin, and Neudecker, which we have
already mentioned; that of Augusti, Handbuch der christi. Dogmengeschichte.
Leipzig, 3rd edit, 1780 ; and, above all, that of Baumgarten-Crusius, which is
more philosophical, and which unites a wise raethod with a rare impartiality : its
title is Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte. Why does this learned pro
fessor of Jena delay so long in giving the second part of his compendium ?
M 2

164 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
theology, and which leads to the same errors aa the former.* Thus it
became an acknowledged fact, that a system of doctrine cannot be the
expression of a decidedly true religion, but only a comparison of dogmas
presented by single individuals or by an entbe church, and the conclu
sion soon followed, that what had hitherto been considered as Holy
Scripture, the Divine Word, the infaUible Word, being only a sort of
doctrinal systera, ought to be judged as the faUible and disputable
expression of a truth which it was meant to reveal, and which truth
alone is not liable to criticism. But in what does this truth consist,
under what outer covering of the letter is it to be found ? To discover
this is the aim of science ; and science only can lead to reUgion.!
Hence, the value of Christian doctrines must, of course, necessarily
depend on the idea which we form of religion. Hence, also, all posi
tive reUgion whatever loses its objective value, and is only what the
mind makes it. Idealism and aU its consequences naturaUy arose out
of this system ; and if the historian cannot say what ought to have been
done to avoid such resiUts, he ought at least to relate the causes, and to
state their consequences, if he wishes the history of the past to be a
warning for the future.
* Tittmann, Programm. de Discrimine Theol. et Religionis. Wittenberg, 1782.
— Rosenmuller, de Christiana Theologia Origine. Leipz. 1786.
] See Sohlegel's Kirchengeschichte des 18 Jahrh, vol. ii. p. 150, seqq.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 165

CHAPTEE VIII.
FEEBLE RESISTANCE ENCOUNTERED BY RATIONALISM IN GERMANY
— KLOPSTOCK — HAMANNN — CLAUDIUS — VON HIPPEL — GELLERT
— LAVATER — BARON VON STARE — COUNT VON STOLBERG —
HERDER — REINHARD — ^RATIONALISTIC LITERATURE — ZSCHOKKE
 CAMPE  DINTER.
The appearance of Eationalism in modern tiraes ought not to cause any
surprise. Under different forms it has existed in all ages of the world,
and we raay believe that its principle wiU exist as long as human beings
shaU inhabit this earth that supports us. It represents in Christianity
what scepticism represented in Paganism, that is to say, the human in
teUigence at war with the divine inteUigence. We may invent moderate
terms, which shaU establish at certain intervals a kind of armistice, a
suspension of arms, but the truce is only temporary, and the struggle
will be resumed with fresh vigour when minds are awakened from their
indifference. But it wUl happen, from the very nature of things, that
one of the two principles will be embraced by the minority in a greater
or less portion of the inhabited earth ; because tbe spread of knowledge
will always cause the balance to incUne on the side where human nature
wUl find most to satisfy its desire of knowing and loving the tmth.
The true supernaturaUst, he who has not perverted his faculties by a
system of human origin, he who reUes only on the Divine Word re
vealed by Christ, cannot for a moment doubt concerning the result.
When the dangerous efforts of empu-ical, socinian or speculative
EationaUsm shaU have disenchanted all minds and left empty aU hearts,
when the supernaturaUsts shaU have discovered that they must not ac-
coraraodate reUgious dogmas to the iU-understood nature of man, but
must discover in this very nature, points of agreement with all religious
dogmas, when they shaU have clearly pointed out the imposing harmony
between revealed things and the moral wants of the mind and of the
human heart, then refiection wiU be sufficient to ensure the adoption of
• a Christianity the germ of which aU Christian confessions possess in
the symboUcal books, whence it ought to spring forth with that power

166 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
of reason which imposes sUence on the vain instincts of our nature.
To this task of enUghtenment those ought principally to devote them
selves who know how raany errors accorapany the adoption of Ea-
tionaUsra; but we do not see in Gerraany, from the times of Seraler to
our own, one instance in which supernatm-aUsts have clearly corapre-
hended the nature of this task. They have thought to appease the
rationaUstic thu-st for destruction by concessions, not considering that
the human mind, once victorious, burns to distinguish itself by fresh
conquests, and that having at its command arms appropriate to every
cause, it wiU often prefer through vanity to precipitate itself into the
bottomless abyss of scepticism, rather than perform an act of huraiUty
which faith raay enjoin.
There have, however, been noble men who have made then voices
heard in protest against the pretensions of EationaUsm, and have early
pointed out its fatal tendencies. But these voices, with sorae rare ex
ceptions, were neither strong enough to be heard above the turault, nor
convincing enough to subjugate reason, nor sometimes pure enough to
make vibrate in men's souls that chord of divine love which is the
essence of revelation. With this last class, we have nothing to do :
but we must give the first place to those who compeUed the distracted
multitude to listen to the last accents of a doctrine which had been the
glory of preceding ages, and which appeared about to die for ever, ex
cept in the pages of history. First comes Klopstock, whose reUgious
belief had its source, not in barren polemics, but in the depths of his
tender and expansive mind. His Messiah is not only a beautifiil poem,
of which Uterature will ever be proud, but it is also an eloquent con
fession of scriptural faith, which his fine genius knew how to clothe in
forras harraonising with the sentiments that they expressed. Hamann,
too, was a writer of so much learning, that Germany, a country gene
rally so well educated, looked upon him as a phenomenon, yet gave him
only barren admiration. The influence of this " Magus of the North,''
as he was called, was perhaps limited only by the strict Lutheran
orthodoxy, from which he could not fi-ee himself, and which ought to
have been subservient to the spirit of the Bible. Hamann was at
first only a custom-house officer, and earned his bread by the sweat of
his brow. He afterwards became a distinguished philologer, a philoso
pher who knew more of human natm-e than those who pretend to have
minutely and thoroughly examined into it,* aud he possessed an emi-
* It has even been often said that his illustrious compatriot, Kant, borrowed
from him many of his ideas ; but his correspondence with Jacobi and Herder
prove only their intimacy : and two friends discussing together important ques
tions of philosophy must mutually enlighten each other.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 167
nently poetical mind. He deserted Lutheranism, probably only be
cause he did not find there souls who responded to his generous senti
ments. Hamann would have become the greatest man in Germany, had he
known how to moderate his ardour, give more order to his ideas, aud
more meditation to his works.* Gottlieb von Hippel was another de
fender of the ancient orthodoxy who followed the example of Hamann,
in doing homage to the founder of critical philosophy, aud became very
intimate with hira, without allowing himself to be overpowered by his
influence. Von Hippel's humom- gained raany partisans, and might have
had the happiest influence oil the nation, if his love for the goods of this
earth had not greatly counterbalanced his love for heavenly treasures ;
but it was the wiU of Providence that the humour of the rationalistic
writer, Jean Paul (Eichter), certainly more fertile and ingenious,
should be more esteemed and admired by many readers than that of
the orthodox von Hippel. To this number belongs also Claudius, der
Wandsbecker Bote, at once so pleasing yet so grave, so mUd, so amiable,
and yet so profoundly moral and religious. He was the most popular
of Gerraan writers, who did not yield to the influence of prevailing
opinions. " I ara no lover," said he, " of novelty in religion, and as I
have the word of God with me, I keep steady to that word. How
much is it to be deplored that people wUl trouble themselves about
fathoming the mysteries of reUgion 1 Since they are incomprehensible
by our inteUigence, they wiU remain concealed untU it pleases God him
self to remove the veil." Gellert and Lavater also were animated by
the pm-est evangelical faith ; they were esteemed by their friends and
their enemies, for their mUdness of character and their tender piety,
and weU do their works in verse and in prose represent them. Who
could faU to acknowledge the generous efforts of these two iUustrious
men ? To these we must join also that child of the mountains, whose
works and life are remarkable for their simplicity, whUe they display a
spirit of great independence, which he sometimes carried to an extreme.
The Uvely faith in Providence, which was the characteristic sign of his
reUgious Ufe, was not derived only from the contemplation of the tem
poral blessings with which it had pleased his Heavenly Father to endow
him, but from the books of revelation, which he explained only with
his heart iUled with the Spirit of God. No oue can be acquainted
* Dr. Zeller thinks this eulogium exaggerated. If he does not believe what I
say, let him refer to Rosenkrantz and Staudlin, who think as I do — the first in his
History of Kantianism, p. 373 ; the second in his History qf Supernaturalism and
Rationalism, p. 340.

168 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
with the character of Jung-Stilling and not do homage to the pe
cuUar position which he took to repulse the neologism of his native
country.* I know not whether in company with these richly-gifted men I ought
to place Baron von Stark, whose equivocal conduct in the later years of
his life explains, if it does not justify, the attacks made upon him by
both parties, when they saw his adherence to the doctrines of Catho
Ucism. His want of influence arose entirely from the false position
which he had chosen. The unbridled Eationalism of his day disgusted
him, and desirous of seeing the Lutheran church freed from it, he
wrote his Theoduls Gastma.hl,-\ which is rather an apology for Eoman
CathoUcism than a defence of the Eeformation against the innovators
who were con-upting its spirit. This work enraged both sides against
him, for parties always go to extremes, and do not fear even the ridi
cule which they bring upon themselves by the fables which they invent
against their opponents. Baron von Stark could not continue a
Lutheran after the pubUcation of tbis book, but as Protestantism
admits free inquiry, he also was permitted to remain in the Lutheran
church, while entertaining an avowed respect for the Christian opinions
of CathoUcism, as weU as those of his adversaries, who, though
Lutherans in name, did not retain one of those articles of faith which
Luther had declared essential to be believed under pain of infidelity
to the Gospel. The conduct of the court-preacher of Darmstadt was
one great inconsistency, but that of his adversaries was revolting and
ridiculous. We must not omit to mention the Count von Stolberg,
" first a disciple of Plato, a favourite of the Muses, afterwards a disciple
of the fathers of the church,"J and finaUy an eamest apologist of the
orthodox Eoman faith, though he continued to honom- his old friends,
Klopstock, Claudius, and Herder, who always believed in the rectitude
of his character and the candour of his religious belief. I purposely
oinit to mention, among the number of the opponents of Eationalism,
some other men, celebrated in literature, who, in consequence of their
antipathy for the cold conceptions of Eationalism, passed to the oppo
site extrerae of Eoraan CathoUcism. Such were Frederic Schlegel and
Werner, who becarae believers only after their aesthetical conversion, and
who did nothing afterwards for the spread of what they considered to

* See his Autobiography. We should wish to see it in the hands of every man
who knows how to appreciate beautiful characters.
t Translated into French, under this title, Entretiens sur la reunion des diffe-
rentes communions Chrefiennes. Paris, 1818.
I Madame de Stael, de L'Allemagnc.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 169
be the truth.* Though we have already mentioned Herder in speak
ing of exegetical EationaUsm, it would be unjust not to notice his efforts
to spirituaUze the orthodoxy of Lutheranism, and to gain for it the
approval of all his contemporaries. Herder was bom in 1734, in
Eastern Prussia. After a youth passed in privations, he at last saw a
brighter star rise on the horizon of his life, and his briUiant university
career at Konigsberg early showed that his narae would not descend
inglorious to posterity. Herder proved himself in turn a skilful theo
logian, a distinguished orientalist and a poet, even in works from
which poetry is in most cases entu-ely absent. Thus we find him con
stantly more intent upon inculcating faith by means of his sweet poetry
than on implanting it in the mind by the use of powerful dialectics.
There are few who are not acquainted with Herder's most important
work, that which seems to be the focus which unites aU the rays of his
genius. He thus speaks of its subject : — " When I was stiU young,
and when the fields of science began to unfold before me all their
morning glories, which the mid-day sun of Ufe insensibly effaces, there
already rose in ray mind this thought ; that since everything in the
world has its philosophy and its science, why should not that which
concerns us more intimately, viz., the history of humanity as a whole,
also have its philosophy and its science ? AU made me think of this ;
metaphysics and morals, physics and natural history, but, more par
ticularly, religion." Influenced by these lofty thoughts, he wrote his
Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit.f In this work,
to which aU branches of human knowledge contributed, he unfolds to our
view the physical and the moral world, the past and the future, uutU
to this harmonious moveraent a gentle calm succeeds, to give us repose
frora the fatigue which we must have experienced frora the multiplicity
of certain details, the analogy somewhat forced of certain facts, and the
pain which we involuntarUy feel at not finding in the work of Herder
that God whora Bossuet pointed out in his Biscours sur I'Histoire Uni-
verselle. W^hat a grand work would be produced by a man uniting the
quaUties of these two eminent writers. Herder and Bossuet ! %
* I except Schlegel's Philosophy of History, vih-ich, though -vnitten in a dull
and heavy style, is worthy of notice for the conformity of his ingenious concep
tions to the historical facts of the Bible,
f Thiswork has been translated into French, by M, Edgard Quinet, 3 vols. Svo.
X There were evidently two men in Herder in ceaseless conflict; but the man
of the age almost always vanquished, though he did not kill, the man of Christian
piety, but caressed him after be had conquered-hira, and wished to be his friend.
The illustrious Johannes von Muller used a characteristic expression respecting
this work. " I find all there," said he, " excepting Christ; and what is an uni
versal history without Christ? "

170 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
Another writer who, in the field of doctrine and moraUty, did much
to repulse the advances of Eationalism, especiaUy in its excess, was the
celebrated theologian Eeinhard, whom we have already mentioned. He
occupied successively the chairs of theology and phUosophy at Witten
berg, and in 1792 was caUed to the dignity of first court-preacher at
Dresden, in virtue of which office he held a great part of the adminis
tration of worship in the kingdom of Saxony. Occupying this elevated
position, which he owed entirely to his oratorical talents, Eeinhard
published, among other works, a number of sei-mons, in a series of
more than thirty volumes ; but we must say that they are far from
justifying his high reputation. And who can expect sermons generaUy
meditated and written on Saturday evening, to be models of pulpit
eloquence, or, at least, to take a place as works of lasting value in a
Christian library ? Aud yet this practice seeras to be rendered neces
sary by custom among the majority of German preachers ; but such
demands are raore likely to fatigue the man and to kiU the preacher
than to produce any true edification. Eeform, in upsetting every part
of pubUc worship, has made preaching, if not the essential, yet more
than the principal, thing, and has thus prevented the preacher from
having time to construct, from the resources of his mind and his daUy
observations, discourses of force and utility. Their prolix fecundity is
not the only remarkable characteristic of Eeinhard's discourses. We
see in them, from year to year, the preacher's gradual inclination to
doctrine more and more supernaturaUstic, until he arrives at perfect
Christian faith,* He openly explains his opinions concerning the great
question of the period in one of his works. He there maintains that,
in the question of the foundation of the idea of doctrine, Eationalism
cannot admit the Scriptures ; that, in dogmatical ideas, it does not
concern us to know in what the contents of revelation are thought to
consist, but only what principles have been the starting point; that
between reason and revelation there is no place for a third principle,
and that the only consistent men are those who declare theraselves in
favour of one of the two contending parties.! He speaks as openly
respecting the phUosophical systems of his day. Though he thought
that philosophy ought to be separated, from theology, a distinction
however rejected by many good men, he nevertheless confessed that the
study of historical philosophy could not leave in the mind of the student
great distrust of all in the domain of speculation, because we are not
* He met with alraost unexainpled success in his Sermon on the Reformation,
preached in 1800. It was in consequence of this Discourse that he was accused
of outre orthodoxy. Rohr's serraon, preached in 1839, is the counterpart to it.
i In his Gestandnisse, and in several of his sermons.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 171
slow to perceive the weakness of every production of the human mind.
Thus the result of all his researches, and of all his meditations, was a
firm and entire faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ ; and though in his
doctrinal system he bas made, as we have said, rather large concessions
to the innovators on the questions of revelation and inspiration, he has
never attempted to impeach the authority of the divine monuments of
faith. While engaged in these profound studies, he published the most
iraportant of his works, which stiU enjoy a well-merited celebrity.*
These were the means employed by Supernaturalism up to the com
mencement of the present century, to oppose 'the progress of its power
ful adversary. Imagination, poetry, the noble quaUties of the heart,
and pure intentions, these, it would seem, ought to have ensured the
triumph of a cause, if that cause deserved to triumph. But poetry is
not understood by the majority, and sentiment alone cannot take the
place of the other qualities which are necessary to appeal to the whole
human being. At this period, Eationalism, now passionate, now gentle ;
now scornful, even to impertinence, and now austere to rigidity, as was
the case with some Kantists, held possession of all the avenues of lite
rature, and, by its journals, was the awarder of celebrity ; it had iu its
favour the whole force of the Belles Lettres and the fine arts. This was
the time when Wieland, with his epicurean phUosophy and light ideas
on reUgion, gave amusement to all loquacious wits ;! when Jean Paul
touched with an any religion the chords of a sentimentality whose har
mony is pleasing to the sensuous nature of man ;% when SchUler, the
king of poetry, yet saw in Christianity only its objective side, and so
indulged in a region he made for himself between the pomps of Pagan
ism and those of Christian worship ; while Goethe, an eccentric man,
* Ueber den Plan Jesu, and System der christlichen Moral, a favourite work with
Reinhard, and the principal aim of his literary activity, 4 vols, Sth edit,, 1815.
Rohr, having occasion to speak of this work, calls it " a classical work of its
kind," though he disapproves of it, and condemns its tendencies, Briefe iiber
Rationalismus, p. 41.
¦f See, particularly, his Aristippus, for morals; and the Agathademon, for the
ridiculously foolish maimer in which he speaks of the noble Theurgos, a Jew, who
had deceived others only after having deceived himself. It is curious to see in
the Briefe iiber den Rationalismus, how often Dr. Rohr likes to support himself on
the testiraony of Wieland.
X In the correspondence of Plattner, it is said that Jean Paul was exposed to
the persecutions of powerful stupidities, and to secret caluranies ; " that he was
also accused of Materialism  But it was by a consistory ! which has the
right to be stupid with increase of honour, and wicked with all the more holi
ness," I quote this passage of Plattner, not because I approve of any kind of
persecution, from which my whole being revolts, but to show the tendency of the
age, even in the gravest writers.

172 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
par excellence, the poet of deified humanity, if the word humanity can
be appUed to the sublime author of so many immortal poems, thus
answered his friend Lavater, " that if they would not leave him his
own conception of Christianity he would prefer Atheism, since after all
there was no very clear idea respecting the two forms of opinion."
Goethe was a thorough rationaUst ; his intellect governed him, and he
stifled in his soul, sentiment, without which it is irapossible to be a
Christian. He whose only God was art, to which he sacrificed every
thing, paganised by this deification a whole generation of writers, who
followed in the direction whither he led. So many different causes,
all of which united to rationalise that which is not subject to the known
laws of the human understanding, wUl explain the progressive triumphs
of Eationalisra in Germany.* If to these causes of triumph we add the
want of unity of action among the superior men whom I have named as
the adversaries of Eationalism, and the false impulse given to study in
almost all the schools, and that too by men esteemed on all sides, we
shall have the key to that which is an historical enigma to aU countries
foreign to Germany, viz., that the country which justly enjoys a great
reputation for religious feeling should be nevertheless in our days the
country \ie,^%i positively Christian.
Among those who contributed most efficaciously to the spread of the
reUgious feeling distinct from Christianity, and whose honourable
character seemed to be a sure pledge of the goodness of their doctrine,
the principal were Campe, Dinter, and the mysterious author (now
known to be Zschokke) of the Stunden der Andacht, in which is de
scribed the best religious feeUng, but which is almost entirely without
* Events succeed rapidly. Scarcely were these lines printed when the whole
of Germany, from the Rhine to the Baltic, seized the occasion of Schiller's
birth-day to claim for him the worship which seems to have replaced that due to
the God of spirit and of truth ; it is the idolatry with which we reproach the
Greeks and Romans that is now spiritualised in the schools, and under the name
of genius opposes itself to Christianity. The self-adoration of the human mind
will, perhaps, be the last stage of our errors. What will become of the human
race called to pass through this new crisis ? It is certain that the excess of evil
brings either a cure in an entirely new state of existence, or it causes death,
and death in the raost frantic convulsions. In all the political and literary jour
nals have been published accounts of this file in honour of genius, and raany
paraphlets have come forth, both from the votaries of this new worship and from
those who, seeing in genius only a gift of God, give to him all the glory in a
grateful worship. Similar reflections, probably, prompted the ironical expression
in the Deutsche Jahrbucher, 1841, No, 112, that religion was jealous of this /Sfe! ! !
Let us hope that of all this exaltation, there will remain only the excellent reflec
tions of Ullmann addressed to the poet Schwab, under this title. The worship of
Genius considered relatively to Schiller and to Christianity. Hamburg, 1840.

HISTORY OP RATIONALISM. 173
the spu-it of Christianity. He who does not thoroughly understand
Christianity, and for that self-knowledge is necessary, could not faU to
be pleased with a work which, by its variety of subjects, and the
warmth of its sentiments, is sure to captivate a serious mind, without,
however, satisfying it entirely ; for repose cannot exist when we are
soothed to rest only by the deceitful sounds of a mere terrestrial har
mony. Campe published a great number of works on education, where
he so happUy accommodates himself to youth, where he gives such
wise lessons to parents, such judicious instructions to those who devote
themselves to the education of childhood ; but where we must greatly
regret the absence of an evangelical spirit, which alone could give some
savour to the precepts of reUgion and morality, which he so strongly
recommends, and so weakly supports.
With a zeal traly worthy of respect, Dinter also consecrated his
whole Ufe to the improvement of schools, but his writings, which bear
the impress of a lamentable Eationalism, sought to raise an edifice
without a foundation, Dinter early gave himself to the task of form
ing good schools, and of inducing others, by his writings, to follow his
examples. Certainly, if aU the world thus undertook a mored task, the
Uves of many would not be as void and empty as they now are. But
we must deplore Dinter's want of the Christian spirit ; he loved religion
and moraUty, and wished to make them loved ; but what is religion
without a beUef in moral wants, which can be satisfied only by a set of
ideas to be found in revelation alone ?
Friedrich Dinter was born at Borna, near Leipzig, in 1760, and
he studied in the Leipzig University. He first became tutor to some
chUdren, and afterwards pastor of a Uttle town. WhUe exercising the
functions of his ministry, he became aware that one of the best means
of improving the morality of a parish is to provide it with good edu
cators. That the tendency of the instractions given in the normal in
stitution which he founded in his parish, and in that which he afterwards
directed at Dresden, was not altogether bad in its nature, is proved by
the fact that the celebrated and venerable Eeinhard, who was then at
the head of ecclesiastical affairs in Saxony, offered him a superintendence
as a reward for his services. Dmter, however, preferred a situation
which would not prevent him from taking part in the education of
youth. The Christian faith, then, can only reproach bim with having
read the Bible with prejudiced eyes, and with having pubUshed an edi
tion of it for the use of educators, the notes and explanations to which
are truly rationaUstic, and make it a dangerous book for those who
kuow not how to use it. The success of this Bible was truly astonishing,
being gi-eater than that of any other work written in the same spirit.

174 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
But what cannot party spirit do ? When an attempt was made to
show its tendency, and to prove that it was more dangerous than that
of Funk, of Altona, whose indiscreet audacity warned the reader against
his travestied doctrines, the rationalists took fure, as if the sacred ark
had been touched, and the disputes which this book occasioned only
served to ensure its success.*
» The latest of these disputes took place in 1840, in Holstein. The dispu
tants were the celebrated provost of Kiel, Clans Harms, and M. Wolf, the arch
deacon of the town. It gave an opportunity to Professor Pelt, of the Kiel Uni
versity, of publishing some of his academical lectures on Protestantism, Super
naturalism, Rationalism, and Speculative Philosophy, in whieh, among many
things that are vague or wanting in conciseness, much that is excellent may be
found. The rationalists were much excited hy the opinion of the judicious Pelt
respecting Protestantism — viz,, that to be a religion, it ought to be evangelical,
and that it could not be evangelical without conformity to the fundamental arti
cles of the confessions of faith. The learned professor, in one of bis lectures,
happily defines tradition, as " the Christian spirit of the history of the world."

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 175

CHAPTEE IX.
RE-ACTION OF STRICT LUTHERANISM AT THE JUBILEE OF THE
REFORMATION  THESES OP HARMS  CONTROVERSY OCCASIONED
BT THEM — MORE RECENT RE-ACTlON AGAINST HARMS  THE
PHILALETHES.
Eationalism having now obtained a firm footing in the territory of
the church, and having so far gained the favour of the pubUc, as to
think itself safe from any attack, prepared to celebrate the jubilee of
the Eeformation in the midst of its joyful triumphs, and sharpened its
weapons only agauist the Jesuitism of the south of Gerraany, which
was becoming to it an object of suspicion. But suddenly a voice was
heard from the midst of the Lutherans, and the enemy, thus taken by
surprise, was compeUed to make use of the arms destined for another
purpose, against the true children of reform, those who remember that
it is to Luther that they are indebted for that reform, and not to Semler
and Lessing. When we examine the number of pamphlets to which
the Theses of Harms gave rise, we cannot understand how men of
honourable character could aUow theraselves to use against the faithful
representative of the doctrines of Luther, injurious terms, such as the
French UberaUsm of the Eestoration would not have employed against
the Jesuitical power. But an angry theologian has no scruples in
overstepping the limits of comraon civUity. He does not consider that,
in so doing, he furnishes his adversaries with formidable weapons
against himself. Every irapartial observer of the discussion wUl address
him in the words of a dramatic writer, — " You are angry ; therefore
you are wrong." The leader of this movement against the prevaiUng
Eationalisra, which made far raore noise than that of Hamann and
Claudius, was a man whom his adversaries cannot refuse to esteem,
and whose briUiant qualities as a preacher must comraand admiration,
when considered in a literary and not a theological point of view.
Claus Harms, then archdeacon, now provost, of Kiel, was born in 1778,
in a vUlage of Holstein, where his father was a mUler. Glaus foUowed
the same business, untU the death of his parent left him at Uberty to
devote himself to theological studies. Let those who wiU, reproach

176 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
him with his eariy occupation ; every enUghtened, every right-minded,
man, must see in it only another reason for honouring his excellent
qualities. We know that at Kiel he has the respect and the love of his
feUow- citizens, and time having calmed the excesses of passion, has
caused him to be rightly judged, even by those who opposed his Theses.
Eohr, who is known to be the editor of the PredigerbibHofhek, though
devoted to the most extreme EationaUsm, terminated one of his articles
in 1836, with these words, so descriptive of the theologian who now oc
cupies our attention : — " Harms possesses the genius of the heart ; it is
frora feeling that springs the poetry of his eloquence : and if we wish
to reduce to a system this poetry so unsystematic, we cannot find a
better rule for it than these words of the author himself — ' The heart
has its own understanding and its own expressions.' Hence arise
that picturesque variety of iraages, that strong, simple and energetic
language, those bold flights, that tone of mind which penetrates, im
presses, and absorbs ; but hence also spring those usurpations of senti
ment, which too often take the place of argument ; hence it is that we
sometimes find colours instead of thoughts, Ught which dazzles in
stead of informing ; hence, in a word, are all the qualities which
charm, and those defects which also often please, since man, by an in
stinct of truth, may love even the imperfections of a genuine nature."*
Such was the brilliant individuality and talent of the theologian who,
on the occasion of the jubilee, asked himself whether the Lutheran
church was about to celebrate the destruction of the word of God by
EationaUsm, or the re-establishment of that divine word at the expense
of the traditions of popery. He searched among the archives of the
Eeformation, and found no difficulty in proving that EationaUsm is only
of recent date, and that its features, however concealed in some of its
votaries, have nothing in common with the noble simpUcity of the
Christian faith. To remind the German people of the true spu-it in
which the jubUee ought to be celebrated, he gave to the pubUc ninety-
five Theses, which re-produced textually the doctrine of the reformers on
the corrupt nature of man, on the weakness of human reason, &c.,
with the same crudeness of expression that had been used in the six-
» This biography of Harras is very well translated in the Revue Germanique,
1836, and contains analyses of several discourses which give an idea of the raind
and talents of the preacher. Why has no French editor ever undertaken the
task of collecting the most remarkable discourses of this distinguished man 1
Joined to a selection from the oratorical works of Reinhard, Schleiermacher,
von Ammon, Draseke, Sec, tbey would make France acquainted with a kind of
eloquence quite distinct from that of the French preachers, and Catholics and
Protestants alike might profit by them.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 177
teenth century. Let us first remark, that the proper and consistent ob
ject of the jubilee was to celebrate the triumph of the Protestant prin
ciple of free inquiry in religion, and the substitution of the authority
of the word of God for the authority of the popes. Thus to mistake
the nature of the festival, aud to show, moreover, the ill-address of
maintaining doctrines respecting the total corruption of human nature,
which Luther would never avow in our days, was to expose himself to
the attacks of EationaUsm ; and its nuraerous sateUites did not spare
him.* In the very neighbourhood of Kiel, at Schleswig, at Altona, and
even in the parishes under the jurisdiction of Harms hiraself, an outcry
was raised against the revival of doctrines of a past age ; and a man
of the narae of Meyer! actuaUy exclaimed in the heat of his anger,
" Tetzel rather than Luther !" He then sought to prove, which was
not very difficult, that these fatal Theses were neither biblical nor con
formable to the symbolical books. Would it not have been better to
commence with this argument ? Other declarations foUowed respecting
the principles of Harms concerning fhe powers of human reason, and the
writer had the good taste to declare that they are long and stupid philo
sophical harangues. Another of these furious opponents, by the name
of Schiitze, wrote that aU those who did not belong to the side of
darkness ought to declare themselves the adversaries of the greater
part of the principles of Harms, who had collected in his Theses aU the
confused mysticism of Gotze. As for Schiitze himself, he consults aU
the writers in his library, and makes them, however dissimilar, agree with
his views, compelling GeUert, Kant, and Spalding, to utter some gross
pleasantry, in company with Shakespere and Jean Paul. He concludes
by declaring the super-orthodox view [superorthod-ochsen) conquered. J
More serious, and certainly more logical, was the letter addressed to
the Archdeacon of Kiel by von Ammon. It appeared in the Prediger
Magazin, which he then edited. In it were these words : — " Tou declare
that truth alone is your sovereign, and I take leave to account impar-
* On the occasion of the Jubilee of Geneva in 1835, I wrote the same reflec
tions in the journal L'Helvetie, and they drew upon rae, from a Vaudois, calling
hiraself a minister of the Gospel, incivilities which he called arguments.
f Die menschliche Vernunft iiber und gegen die 95 Theses von Harms. Schleswig,
1818. X Gesprdche im Biicherzimmer Uber die vOn Harms herausgegebenen Streitsdtze.
Kiel, 1818, in two parts. It is pleasant to be able to say that a professor of juris
prudence at Kiel, Dr. Falk by narae, answered these lost children of Rationalism
with much calmness and dignity, and proved to them that the symbolical books,
far from being a yoke and a mark of servitude, served, on the contrary, to protect
. the people from the arbitrary interpretations of the ecclesiastics {Letter to the
Consistorial Counsellor Boysen, &o., by Falk, Professor of Jurisprudence).
/vol.ii. n

178 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
tiality the best guide in the research after tmth. Human reason, which
you declare to be of no use in matters of reUgion, was never, it is true,
considered as a constituent principle of reUgion by pious theologians
not unacquainted with science. They have almost always taught that it
is powerless for the acquisition of a living knowledge of God and of the
extemal operation of nature — that for this we must employ experience
and history. Eeason, then, can only teach us respecting God what he
is for us, what we are through him, and what we ought to become
through him. But it was justly argued that reason ought to be the
regulating principle and the organ of religion. Every truth, even in
the domain of reUgion, is to each of us the representation of a reality
and of something living, according to the laws of our reasonable nature.
Thus knowledge and faith become possible, through the regular action
of our thoughts and our judgment ; a thousand passages of the Bible
speak of this natural knowledge of God, which every uncorrupted
human reason is constrained to admit, just as our eyes acknowledge the
existence of the sun on which they gaze. Luther even represented to
himself the act of revelation as the manifestation of God in the con
science of holy men, because he wished that the Bible should be revered,
not as an image faUen from heaven, but as a book rich in divine truths.
Hence also arose the consideration shown by the fathers of the church
for the religious ideas of Socrates and Plato, which they regarded as
flowing from a superior inspiration ; hence the judgraent ofthe pious and
learned Melancthon respecting the value of the knowledge of God
which we derive from natiu-e and from reason ; hence that treasm-e of
profound instruction drawn from the theology of nature by aU wise men
from Aristotle to Eeimarus ; hence the powerful appeals of the learned
Chemnitz, for the union of the study of rational theology with the doc
trines of the Christian faith ; and hence the agreement of philosophers
of the most dissimilar schools in this principle, that without the pre
supposition of an internal and divine revelation, by means of our own
reason, we could not know whether or not an extemal revelation were
worthy of God." " The question of the connexion between reason and
revelation possesses, then, exactly the same interest as the problem of
the relation of human Uberty to divine grace. As he who denies the
latter faUs into all the horrors of ultra-predestination, so he who sepa
rates faith fi-om reason acknowledges an ultra-supernaturalism, which
takes from our minds the liberty of recognising trath, and thus opens
wide a door for fanaticism. Common experience teaches, it is true, that
the weaker the knowledge the more profound is the faith, and that in
proportion to the diminution of faith is the increase of knowledge. For
myself, I do not beUeve it to be God's wiU that it should be thus, but

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 179
that men themselves are the cause of it, and with them, therefore, rests
the blame. A good painter first tries his skiU in tracing Unes, then in
representing the forms and shades, and lastly in depicting light spring
ing from the bosom of Aurora. Many are content to draw all their life
with black chalk. What, then, would you have me do ?" * Eesting
on these principles, von Ammon then passes in review the chief proposi
tions of Harms, from which he dissents, and decides that they are irra
tional. Schleiermacher even felt himself caUed upon to undertake the
defence of reason against the Archdeacon of Kiel, and we must laraent
that in this work is wanting that observance of politeness which usually
distinguished the learned professor of BerUn. He raight be allowed, con
founding the exaggeration of Harms with the principles which he de
fended, to characterise the Theses as " flying shots and devices of fire
works, which would endure but for an instant;" but he ought not to have
permitted himself to give the name of hypocrisy to conduct in which
Harms was actuated solely by conscientious motives. The ironical tone
in whieh Schleiermacher hints at his hope of seeing Harms return to more
just opinions contrasts strongly with the seriousness of his other writings,
and causes us to make sad reflections on that human nature the dignity
of which he attempts to defend against Harms. It is stiU more to be
lamented that he soon afterwards published a second pamphlet, so far
passing the first in invective, that von Ammon felt himself obliged to take
up the pen, to caU to order one who was already beginning to be con
sidered the oracle of modern theology,! These Theses can nevertheless
be regarded only as " flying shots," if we consider that they were not
adopted as a groundwork of instruction. It must be said, however,
that they induced very many people to examine the question closely ;
in this respect their influence sliU endures in Germany, for from the
time of their appearance, works have been constantly pubUshed, ex
plaining, supporting and developing the propositions first ardently
revived by Harms. The works of Luther hiraself, so long forgotten,
have from that period been continuaUy reproduced by the German
press. It is the duty of the faithful historian to mention this happy influence,
owing to the indefatigable zeal of Harms, which continued uninterrupted
from the tirae when he was summoned to Kiel from a poor parish in
the country, to the day when he celebrated his own jubUee of twenty-
five years' activity in the same parish ; but it ought not to be concealed
• Prediger Magazin, Part IV. p. 193-197.
f See the work entitled Sendschreiben an Herm Dr. v. Ammon Uber seine PrUfung
der Harmsischen Sdtze. Berlin 1818 ; and the Answer of Dr. von Ammon. Hano
ver, 1818.
N 2

180 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
that, though his oratorical talents, and especiaUy the brUUant originality
of his expressions and his happy imagery, have collected for him a nu
merous audience, who delight in his instructions, he has driven others
to a closer examination of what had only struck their imagination ; and
when the charm of poetry has left it, they have been surprised to find
themselves under the guidance of principles against which are arrayed
aU the powers of their faculties. Falsely imagining that the deacon of
their church, from his high talents and his virtues, must be the repre
sentative of the purest expression of orthodox Christianity, they have
preferred a complete renunciation of a religion with which they could
no longer sympathise, to a re-examination of the Gospel, and an attempt
to find there mUder doctrines than are contained in the somewhat heavy
symboUcal books of which the Provost Harms is the raost intrepid de
fender. Hence arose the society of Philalethes, who profess to belong
to no Christian sect, and yet are very desirous not to be confounded
with Atheists. The irrational contempt of Harms for the powers re
maining to human nature after the faU is not the only point on which
his adversaries differ from him. They find another subject of dispute
in his expressions respecting justifying faith, which is the grand doc
trine of Protestantism, and that which overthrows aU the pretensions of
the Eoman Catechism. On this point Harms expresses himself in a
manner which not only could not be assented to by the most frivolous
reason, but is also anti-biblical. They quote especiaUy a discourse
lately deUvered before the Ciueen of Denmark, in which he is said to
have expressly declared that love or charity {die Liebe) is not the fu-st
commandment (though Jesus declares it to be so), but that faith is the
first of Christian virtues, since love can spring from faith alone.* Is
there not here a little confusion in the expressions of the eloquent
orator, and ought not his adversaries to know that, in the language
of Scripture, faith, hope, charity, are three different expressions for
the same idea? Must we quote the Latin verse, ignoti nulla cu-
pido, to prove to them that we can in fact love only what we know ? —
is not Christian faith the eye of the soul ? — ^is it not the internal sense
by which we see invisible things, become attached to them, and love
them ? Yes ; the Christian doctrine is valuable only because it shows
us the riches of the love of God for men, and thus proves that aU our
laws — ^^those which govem the moral world as well as those which rule
civil society — are only arbitrary and opposed to nature, unless they are
penetrated by the spirit of the truest love.
* See a correspondence of Kiel in the Zeitschrift fur die elegante Welt. 1842.
No, 223,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 181
Another complaint raade against the venerable Provost of Kiel is,
that he is accustomed to introduce political allusions in discourses
which ought to bear a strictly Christian character, and that he frequently
connects the narae of the King or Queen so closely with the august
name of the Deity, that it is difficult to discover where the phrase re
specting the King begins and where that concerning the Deity ends.*
We would gladly believe that this representation is exaggerated, for we
cannot think that a raan of honourable character like Harms, however
decided his opinions respecting the forms of government, would choose
to compromise his ministry, far raore elevated than any dignity which
court policy could confer, and, by so doing, drive away from the sanc-
tuai-y those whose different political convictions lead them to wish to
exalt only God, law, and Uberty.
However this may be, the Philalethes endeavoured to forra themselves
into a society distinct from Christians, most of the merabers of which
are to be found at Kiel, where it originated in 1830. Frora this town,
as a centre, they seek to propagate their principles wherever their zeal
leads thera,! Some people have expressed astonishment at this forraa
tion of a society avowedly anti-Christian ; but why it should cause sur
prise we cannot understand. There is no article in the creed of the
Philalethes which has not been admitted and openly professed by many
of those who continue to call themselves Christians, though they no
longer retain Christian principles. In the manifesto published by the
Philalethes, J they declare, in fact, that they wish for no other religion
than that the principles of which shaU be proclaimed by the human
mind, enUghtened by phUosophy and science ; and as neither science
nor philosophy can agree with the accounts in the Bible, which Chris
tians of aU denominations regard as divinely inspired, they prefer to
have nothing in common with Christianity. Thus they not only desert
the temples raised by Christian faith, but they abstain from any cere-
jnony — such as baptism, for example — which raight actuaUy introduce
them into a reUgious society whose Scriptures and doctrines they aUke

• Zeitschrift fiir die elegante Welt. 1841. No. 239.
f According to the Konigsberg Gazette, a similar society has already been
established at Berlin. It may, however, be with this intelligence, as with the news
of a general assembly of adepts, said to have been held at Hamburg, but of which
no one at Hamburg had heard anything.
^ Vorldufige Nachricht iiber den im Mdrz 1842 gestifteten holsteinischen Phila-
lethen- Verein. Printed in the Faubourg St. Paul, in Hamburg, where it appears
works can be printed without undergoing the censure of the republic. Here then
is one small point on the German soil where the press is accountable only to God
and to- men's consciences for its formidable power.

182 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
condemn.* These reUgious opinions have nothing new in them ; and
whoever reads this history of EationaUsm with an unprejudiced mind
wiU conclude, without rashnfess, that to this result the rationaUstic
principles must necessarily tend. But the Philalethes, more decided
than the Deists, under the convenient cloak of Eationalism, think, with
justice, that truth ought not to be confined to a few of the initiated, but
that it is our duty, on the contrary, to pubUsh on the house-top what
science has revealed to us ; and that if the opposition to Christianity is
to be effectual, it must descend from the heights of science to the ranks
of the people, where it wiU not faU to find adherents. Not that they
have the least wish, say they, to impose on any one whatever their
opinions in phUosophy or religion, since they proclaim absolute liberty
on all subjects with which the human raind is occupied ; and then they
say that the huraan mind cannot be treated as the sacred books would
treat it. They are a sort of larder wherein aU the eternal food of the
mind is arranged and prepared. The mind must be left to itself; it
wants neither men nor books to prepare for it its nourishment ; it de
sires liberty aud free inquiry, without any fear of its consequences. In
order to spread these opinions, the mother society has decreed the for
mation of Serainaries of Wisdora {Pflanzschulen der Weisheit) in thirty-
five places in the duchy of Holstein, each of which shall send deputies
to the general meeting, to be held at Hamburg, It is enjoined on each
of the initiated, that by his honourable conduct he shall disprove the
charge of impiety which the society has already incurred on many sides ;
that he shall make as many proselytes as possible, in order that
thoughtful men, who yet dare retain the name of Christians, may be
drawn from then errors, and that many others who ought to bum
with the love of truth may be roused frora the slumber of indiffer
ence. We see that the creed of the Philalethes is as clear as it is concise.
They have, in fact, none save what is contained in the two foUowing ar
ticles : — 1st. To the PhUalethe alone belongs judgment; he may think
and do what he wiU. 3nd, All that the PhUalethe shaU think and
shaU do wUl be right, because he alone possesses the judgment to think
and to act rightly. To recal men from such mental abei-rations a
voice has gone out frora this same Holstein, in a journal conducted
* The journal entitled The Pilot (1842, No. 59), in speaking of tbis society,
says, that it would not dare to report the expressions used by the Philalethes to
signify the Lord's Supper of the Christians. " Were we Jews, Mahometans, or
even Philalethes ourselves, we would refrain from doing so, through respect for
religion and humanity,"

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 183
by a very intelligent writer, deploring that the country should be
abandoned to the infiuence of the Pope enthroned at Kiel, and that
there is no rationalist sufficiently independent to oppose the ancient
doctrine of Harms.** SeeFreiluifeH; March, 1842, edited by Th. Mundt.

184 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,

CHAPTEE X.
UNION OF THE LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CHURCHES — PREVIOUS
EFFORTS IN FRANCE AND GERMANY  PLANCK, TZSCHIRNER,
SCHLEIERMACHER, STEUDEL, TITTMANN, SCHEIBEL, AND VON
AMMON.
The third jubilee of the Eeformation had another consequence of
great importance. The project, so often formed aud as often forgotten,
of an union into one church, of the two fractions of Protestantism in
Germany, was now revived and carried into effect with almost universal
success. We remember the observation of Leibnitz respecting this division
of the two churches : he said that the separation would cease to exist as
soon as the principle of free inquiry, contained only in its germ in the
estabUshment of the Eeformation, should become a rallying point for
most rationalists of all parties. What a truly singular spectacle would
it have been to see men who had banished the supernatural element
from Christianity, yet continuing in the eyes of the people to profess
doctrines which could not agree with those of other Christians ! The
most reasonable men of both parties felt this, and governments wU
lingly promoted arrangements which it would have been absurd not to
favour. The Prussian government, with great political foresight of the happy
influence of such a step on the religious spirit of Gerraany, published,
in June 1798, a cabinet order, in which were expressed, wishes for the
union of the two Protestant coramunions, and the confident expectation
that such an union would be effected on so large a scale as to admit aU
those who, in all parts of the world, acknowledged Jesus as the Saviour
of the world. The extraordinary events which immediately followed
this order caused the postponement of the realisation of such a project
to a more favourable period. Some honourable men, however, thought
that the time was corae for the fulfUment of these wishes, when they
saw the French erapire repudiate the eiTors of the repubUc, and that its
chief, in opening the Christian temples, which had been closed by
tyranny, showed no very decided preference for Eoman Catholicism.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 185
They imagined that some words in the Bulletin des Loix were sufficient
to induce Catholics and Protestants to effect that general fusion of
churches which reason and religion alike seemed to demand. But
Napoleon, indifferent about the doctrinal questions excited by this
honourable desire, was pre-eminent as a warrior and statesman, and as
such he judged the spirit of his age more justly than short-sighted
writers. He saw that the general dispositions of minds, especiaUy in
France, agreed with his policy in counseUing him to consolidate his own
power by means of a spiritual power, which desired nothing better than
to conclude with his glorious sword an alUance equally advantageous to
both parties. Thus the writers who desired to see this union effected
by poUtical agency, and those who raore wisely beUeved that the very
nature of things must bring it about, since, says de Bonald, where
there is no faith there is no subject for discussion, aU these writers were
deceived in then- hopes, when they saw, on one side, imperial politicians
turning away from a question the morality of which they did not un
derstand, and, on the other side, Protestants, notwithstanding the ac
cusations so often repeated against them of no longer believing in posi
tive doctrines, persisting in their refusal to unite with Eome, untU
Eome should have renounced her superstitions,*
A German writer was especially distinguished in this affair ; though
most ardently desirous of seeing an union of worship in his native
country, he rejected aU these projects and demonstrated their futUity,!
Persuaded that such an union would be advantageous only so far as it
should be the expression of coramon thoughts, Planck laid down, as a
first principle, that tolerance ought to be eamestly practised, that we
should be just and moderate towards opponents whose religious tenden
cies we do not always properly understand, that we should thoroughly
study their doctrines in order to discover wherein they differ from or
agree with our own, and that while waiting tiU God in his own good
time shall be pleased to unite us under the standard of the same faith,
we ought to coraraence our union in the bonds of Christian charity.
These remarks of Planck at this period of reUgious decline were fuU of
wisdom, and we cannot be surprised at the favourable reception which
they met with from Catholics and Protestants who were animated by
Christian sentiments. It was, doubtless, with a view to prepare the
* It would be superfluous to mention all the attempts at union which have
been made since the sixteenth century between the Roman and Protestant
churches. In Marheinecke, Institutiones Symbolica, &c,, 3rd edit,, pp. 81, 82,
there is a catalogue of works which treat historically of the subject
f Ueber die Trennung und Wiedervereinigung der getrennten christi. Hauptpar-
teien. Tiibingen, 1803.

186 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
way for an union traly rational, aud therefore truly Christian, that
Planck reprinted, in 1804, an historical and comparative exposition of
the doctrinal systems of the principal Christian sects, which should not
only teach his pupUs to take right views of so many systems, that aim
at truth by accusing each other of error, but should also show the points
of agreement by means of which the different communions might hope
at last to unite together,*
There is, however, a principle common to aU Protestant communions,
which ought to have united them, notwithstanding their difference of
opinion on minute points, when the symboUcal books which separated
them had lost their ancient authority. And this principle is the pure
and simple faith in the authority of the sacred books considered as the
rule of beUef in the church. A certain time, however, is needed to
make the logic of a portion become that of the majority. It was,
therefore, necessary that the multitude of works written on the advan
tages of the union should carry conviction to the minds of those not
yet confused by the principles of Eationalism, and even of Protestantism
in general. Protestantism as a principle, in our days, is no longer sup
ported by the authority of the symboUcal books, but only by that of the
word of God. It therefore foUows, that if diversity of opinions is once
tolerated in a community, there is no reason why the toleration should
not be extended on a larger scale. As long as the symbolical books
retained their authority, fhe project of an union was absurd ; but when
once that authority was set aside, when the Lutherans and the Eeformed
church recognised each other as brethren in the principle of seeking
» Abriss einer histor. Darstellung, Stc. The first edition was published in 1796.
This mode of setting forth the doctrines received by the different comraunions
has been frequently imitated, and has contributed no little, especially in Ger
many, to the destruction of many of the prejudices existing between Catholics
and Protestants. First Marheinecke published his Institut. symbolica doctrinarum
catholic, protest, socin. Eccles. Graca, minorumque societ. christ. summam et dis-
crimina exhibentes. Berlin, 1812. This was followed by Winer's Comparative Dar
stellung des Lehrbegriffs der verschied. christi. Hauptparteien, nebst vollstdnd.
Belegen. a. d. symbol. Schriften derselben in der Ursprache. Leipzig, 1 824 ; and
Guerike's Allgemeine christi. Symbolik. Leipzig, 1839. We raust not forget to
mention Herbert Marsh's work on the same subject, translated into German by
Screiter {Sulzbach, 1821), nor the Symbolik of Mohler, to which Dr. Bauer, of
Tiibingen, and Imm. Nitzsch, of Bonn, wrote answers, which, especially that of
the latter, made a great impression on many Catholics, Giinther, of Vienna,
calls it a weighty answer ; but, as he was writing in favour of Mohler and Catho
licism, he contents hiraself with adding that he received Nitzsch's work after his
own was finished, and when it was too late to remodel it. It is well known that
Vertot, when some one brought him better documents respecting the siege of
Malta, said, " I am very sorry, my siege is done,"

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 187
for a rule of faith in the word of God alone, then only hypocrites or
ignorant men could oppose an union which would leave each one at
Uberty to interpret the Scriptures as he might think proper. Anxious
as we are to be on our guard in judging of events in which men of
such high reputation have taken part, it is yet impossible not to see,
from the character which EationaUsm had assumed, that, with many,
indifference to doctrine was a motive for determination. When we
know that the most distinguished and most moral men among the
rationalists saw in the estabUshed churches only remnants of supersti
tion, which the Eeforraation had faUed whoUy to destroy, and that
Tzschirner, for example, did not shrink from the idea that a Christian
church might comprehend aU opinions, as Paganism comprehended all
classes of divinities which had their origin in the imagination of the
poets, — we must see that a separation between the Lutherans and the
Eeformers was absm-d, and that their union was demanded by simple
good sense. After many fruitless attempts, the history of which has
been frequently related,* the appeal made by the Prussian government
to the Protestants of Germany was at last honourably responded to.
The union was effected, as a ripe fruit of the period, in Prussia, in the
grand duchy of Baden, in that of Darmstadt and of Nassau, and
shortly afterwards in some other localities, and no very strong opposi
tion was made to it. The least indifferent, as well as those who took
part in it, fi-om reUgious convictions, Schleiermacher, for example,
thought that the union could, after aU, be only extemal, that is to say,
that it would relate only to the temporal administration of the churches,
while the members would retain their individual faith, for which they
had to account only to God. Steudel and Tittmann, two decided
naturalists, opposed this mode of proceeding, and desired only, they
said, an union of hearts; but they confounded two things essentially
distinct, unity of faith and unity of the principles which lead to the
acquisition of faith. The first is quite consistent with the idea of a
church, entire and holy, and should never be separated from it. But
in the actual state of the church, this unity of faith has become im
possible. We must, therefore, employ eveiy means of attaining it in
sensibly, and the removal of the barriers which formed an external
separation between the Lutherans and the Eeformed party may hasten
the time when unity of faith shaU harmonise with the church in whose
bosom it shall be found. May that happy time arrive even sooner than

* The best work on this subject, in French, is that of M. Tabaraud, Histoire
critique des projets formes depuis trois cents ans pour reunir les Communions Chre-
tiennes. Paris, 1824, It is written in a Catholico- gallican point of view.

188 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
we venture to hope ! may not only the children of Eeform, but also
those of the two other great Christian coraraunities unite together to
worship the same God in the name of the same Eedeemer ! The pros
perity of the people depends on this event more than may at first be
imagined. Who does not know the power of unity in religious belief
and enlightened zeal to purify the sentiments, ennoble the mind, and
to form great characters. If harmony is desirable in the thoughts of
an individual, should we not labour to produce it in a society of
minds ?
But the doctrine of the consubstantiality and the ubiquity of the
Lord's Supper, which was in fact given up in the union, had not been
entirely nuUified by Eationalism. It was still retained in some loca
lities ; and it was principally on account of this doctrine that the Lu
therans of Bremen refused to communicate with the members of the
Eeformed church, and thus the union could not be effected in that free
town. At Breslau Dr. Scheibel placed himself at the head of a some
what considerable party of Lutherans, and energetically opposed an
union which he declared to be too exclusively the work of religious indif
ference. But the differences have by degrees vanished, and " The Evan
gelical Church" waits only for the appearance of some superior men who
wUl know how to prepare all for the success of a greater union, which
is demanded by all the friends of reUgion and order.*
In regard to protestations, I ought to have mentioned that a weU-
known voice was heard to blarae the raeasures advocated by the Prus
sian Government ; it was that of von Ammon, who took a part in aU
the important questions of his time, without espousing any party. In
the affair of the Theses of Harms, Schleiermacher had reproached him

* Rudelbach and Guerike, one a superintendent of a church, the other a pro
fessor at Halle, two writers whose historical learning is well known to everybody,
have made strenuous efforts, in their special works on the subject, and in their
Review of Lutheran Theology, to call for a revision of the work, and to make the
Lutheran doctrine prevail iu the Evangelical churches over the Calvinistic,
which, according to them, had the supremacy. There is both truth and false
hood in these assertions. They are true in so far as the Lutheran doctrine
respecting the Lord's Supper has been universally abandoned; but they are
false when they maintain that the rigid doctrines of Calvin and of the synod
of Dordrecht, respecting predestination and justification, are supreme in the
Reformed churches, when, in fact, in all Protestant countries, very few par
tisans of these opinions are to be found. The learned, but soraewhat conceited,
Guerike, ought to have known this, when he undertook to compose his Allgemeine
christliche Symbolik, Leipzig, 1838, and he then, perhaps, would not have said these
words, unworthy of so learned a man : " The Union, is the root of all evil, it is the
work of the Devil."

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 189
somewhat sharply with the maUeabUity of his opinions, and even with
desiring to transplant Jesuitism into the Protestant chm-ches. He was
now asked whether he opposed the union in virtue of unity of faith, or
only because he did not approve of the grounds on which it was about
to be effected. Von Amraon answered that an union in which aU parties
were not infiuenced by a Christian principle, could end only in a political
confusion, from which it would be impossible to extricate ourselves, and
that he feared that the indifference which was the motive of many in
this affau- would produce new sects, and would strengthen the cause of
pietism. As to the fusion of aU the differences into one and the same
form of opinion, he had too much philosophy, he understood too well
the rights of truth, not to desire the accomplishment of a result which
he had sought to promote in his own way by his work on Christianity,
which tends to prove that that religion ought to becorae universal and
to be represented in the world by a monarchy whose tendencies would
never oppose liberty. Von Araraon maintained that for the accomplish
ment of this good work, much charity and patience are necessary, and
that they will be far more effectual than aU the efforts of the civU power.
Though not among the number of the indifferent, we might tell this
writer that his exhortations are excellent when they relate to the moral
life of individuals, since, in such cases, much improveraent may be
effected by means of mUdness, patience, and charity ; but for certain
social evUs strong measures are necessary to make the patients at least
understand their condition.

190 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE XI.
CRITICAL LABOURS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT  EICHHORN, HERDER,
GABLER, L. BAUER  THEIR FOLLOWERS, BUCHHOLTZ, JANISCH,
LUDERS, CLAUDIUS  TENDENCY OF EWALD, HITZIG, BERTHEAU
 VATKE, OF THE SCHOOL OF HEGEL — SUPERNATURALIST SCHOOL,
HENGSTENBERG, HEINRICH RANKE, HAVERNICK, M. BAUM
GARTEN.
Before we relate the history of new phUosophical attempts to remodel
doctrine, we must go back a little, and show how the doraain of exegesis
in which Michaelis laboured with so much success, but with a tendency
which opened every avenue to Eationalism, was soon usurped by an
unbridled exegetical system ; and thus Protestantism was deprived of
its basis, as it had been stripped by historical researches of its Christian
doctrines. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was the first who followed ardently in the
footsteps of MichaeUs. He made use of his profound knowledge of
languages to degrade the Bible to the rank of the other oriental sacred
books, according to it only a certain literary superiority. He pubUshed
the fruits of his researches in several journals which he had founded,
and which are stUl precious treasures for the learned ;* but his hypo
theses respecting the Old and New Testaments, as they are found in
his Primitive History, and in his Introduction to the New Testament,
rendered his name stUl more celebrated in the domain of Eationalism.!
In his exaraination of the fragments of Wolfenbiittel, Eichhorn had
already made the boldest concessions to NaturaUsm, in granting that
all which is said in the Old Testament respecting the immediate inter
vention of the Deity must not be understood literally, and in taking
great pains to exculpate the authors of the books which compose it
from aU participation in an imposture. It was generaUy beUeved
* Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur, 10 vols. This learned journal
was preceded by his Repertorium fur biblische und morgenldndische Literatur.
18 volumes had appeared of it.
f His Einleitung is in 7 volumes, and his Urgeschichte in 2. The latter is pub
lished by Gabler.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 191
among the people of that time, said he, that God often interposed his
authority in the midst of the events of life, in a visible manner, or by
means of his messengers. Is it to be wondered at that men superior
iu mind and wisdom to all their contemporaries, took advantage of
then- position, and of the received beUef, to make themselves useful to
humanity, which claimed their care, their devotion and their inteUigence ?
It is true, adds Eichhorn, that the writer often appears, as for instance
in the Book of Judges, not to have seen himself the facts which he
relates, since he exaggerates their proportions, but this should be ascribed
rather to the enthusiasm by which he was inspired than to a wish to
misrepresent. When we look more closely into the matter, we do not
see any great difference between this manner of judging of the sacred
writers, and that of Eeimarus, who, with more politeness, says only
that they profited by their enthusiasm and the infiuence of their genius.
In this way, however, he explains most of the miraculous accounts
which accompany the history of Noah, of Abraham, and of Moses.
We perceive, nevertheless, that Eichhorn is not at his ease with an
exegesis of this nature, and we see him recoU from the task of fuUy
developing these ideas. He preferred to leave that care to Gabler and
Paulus, who consecrated to it aU their labom-s.
On the verge of the ground thus broken up by Eichhorn were some
high-minded men whom the spirit of Uberty, excited in them by Sender,
induced to attend to the criticism of the Old Testament, but from
whom the imposing work of Michaelis on the Mosaic law extorted ad
miration. The philosopher of Komgsberg fu-st attempted to apply his
system of moral interpretation to the history of the primitive times
related in the book of Genesis. He was followed by Herder, who is a
passionate admirer of the poetical element in these accounts, but who
makes a strange mixture of the sacred and the profane, which he after
wards turns, in a graceful style, into a monument worthy the great
historian of the Hebrews. Herder saw in the Jewish nation only one
Unk in the long chain of humanity, and the love-songs, of the Arab and
the Indian excite in his mind as much emotion as the Song of Solomon,
to which, with his habitual sagacity, he compares them. But the
morality and the poetry thus deduced frora the Old Testament did not
satisfy EationaUsm. It was necessary to show that not only might
Moses and Abraham be treated Uke Homer and Ulysses, but that to
preserve the honour of the books, and to save them fi-om evU suspicions,
we must prove that the apparent absurdity presented by the facts men
tioned in them, is owing to their being more or less ingenious myths,
from which we must take away the veil if we wish to arrive at the ideas
which they conceal. Hence arose that series of mythical suppositions

192 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
with regard to aU ancient nations ; and Gabler, Lorentz Bauer, and De
Wette, afterwards applied them to the Bible.
It is, however, a glory — or shaU I say a fatality ? — attached to the
name of Semler, that we must always go back to him to discover the
origin of any novelty in religion. His wandering iraagination touched
on so many things, that the question of myths, generaUy thought to
have been agitated for the first time by Eichhorn, has for its author
Semler, in so far, at least, as it concerns the Old Testament. In fact,
in his Freie Untersuchung Uber den Kanon, he does not hesitate to caU
the histories of Esther and Samson myths ; and we must observe, that
from the pen of Seraler this word is equivalent to fable.* However, in
his Erklarung iiber Theologische Censuren, he uses these words : — " I dis
tinguish in interpretation purely historical notions, which cannot and
ought not to become general, and which, in consequence, do not form a
part of Christian doctrine {nicht in den Lehrbegriff der Christen gehoren),
even when they are found in the Jewish teaching ; this leads me to con
clude that there exists a sort of Jewish mythology.'' Perhaps the alle
gorical manner in which some ancient doctors interpreted the Old Tes
tament caused Semler to think that between this method and that of
explaining the fables of Homer or of Ovid there was no difference save
in words. As he had no convenient opportunity of developing this
doctrine, the germ of mythical interpretation lay hid in his writings,
waiting only for a propitious moment to unfold itself. Eichhorn ex
tended the domain of myths over the first chapters of the book of Ge
nesis, and continued his attempts until, with Paulus, he saw the possi
bility of explaining in a natural manner all that is marveUous in the
Bible. But whether because his gi-eat sagacity showed hira the in
utUity of such attempts, or whether from some other motive, he con
fined himself to a little excursion on the FaU of Adam and on the two
first chapters of Matthew. Gabler and ScheUing, in their turn, enlarged
the circle, as far as relates to the Old Testament, until L, Bauer, more
daring than they, pubUshed his HebriXische MytJiologie. He there
defined the myth as an historical legend {historische Sageri) respecting
the most ancient facts of the history of the earth and its inhabitants,
principally those which concern either a tribe or a nation ; or, again, as
reasonings resembUng something historical on cosmogony and geogony,
on the physical causes of things, on material objects, and worked up
into a marveUous form, and insensibly ornamented in different ways.-j-
Hence we see that his system was applicable only to the Old Testa-
* So thinks Tholuck also. Verm, Schriften, 2, 57.
f Hebrdische Mythologie, Part I. p. 3,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 193
ment ; the writers, also, who received his hypothesis with favour eon-
fined themselves, contrary to the course pursued by the empirical and
philosophical rationaUsts, to finding the myth in the Books of the Old
Covenant. The attempts of Paulus to explain naturaUy what the others
tried to explain mythicaUy having prevaUed in argument, there ensued
an interval of repose, during which De Wette tried in vain all the
resources of his brUUant erudition to draw the myth frora its obscurity.
Even in the camp of EationaUsm was stiU maintained a sort of authen
ticity of the sacred books, and this prevented the myth, which always
supposes a compilation posterior to the events, from being well received
by theologians. Gabler, nevertheless, in his journal, continued to advo
cate the mythical explanation, and to boast its superiority over the
natural method, whieh left to the facts only a smaU and almost imper
ceptible nucleus of history, that spoke neither to' the mind nor the
heart, whUe the myth always contained some thought which might be
profitable. The exegetical labours and historical researches, however,
were continued with ardour, and the Old Testament was especially thefr
object. It was perfectly weU understood that, if criticism succeeded in
overthrowing it entirely, an essential base would thus be removed from
the Christian edifice, and for this aim, though unacknowledged even to
themselves, the learned laboured with indefatigable acti-rity. In the
Ust -of works of this nature we must place the writings of Professor von
Bohlen, of Konigsberg, which excited the attention of the learned, from
the vast knowledge displayed in them. He had studied the oriental
languages, at Bonn under Wilhelm von Schlegel, and at Berlin under
the celebrated Bopp, to whom the Sanscrit particularly was so famiUar,
and he was equally weU versed in the kindred studies. He made him
self acquainted with the researches already conducted, before undertaking
himself to bear the torch of criticism into the questions relative either
to the origin of the IsraeUtes and of their more ancient Uterature, or
those which concern the cradle of the huraan race, — questions stiU so
obscure. He shows profound wisdom, especiaUy in his work on India,*
where he disproves the theories which aim at showing that from Egypt
India received its civUisation, when the reverse was actuaUy the case.
It is not my pm-pose here to exhibit the importance of this work, which
* Das alte Indien {India considered in its Relations to Egypt), 2 vols. Konigs
berg. [Compare Die Genesis, erlautert von P. von Bohlen, 1835; and Bohlen's Auto-
biographie. Konigsberg, 1845; aXso Kommentur iiber die Genesis, von Tucb. Halle,
1838 ; the first vol, of Ewald's Geschichte des Volkes Israel (1843-1848), See
especially an Essay, by Ewald, in tbe first part of his new Jahrbucher der bib
lischen Wissenschaft. Gottingen, 1848,— E.]
VOL II. O

194 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
placed von Bohlen high in the domain of critico-historical science, but
I ought, frora a spirit of impartiality, to speak in favourable terms of
his learning before pointing out the anti-Christian tendency of his
labours. We perceive this tendency in the scrupulous care which he
takes throughout the work to disengage the reUgious ideas of India
from then- gross covering, and afterwards to institute between them and
the Hebrew literature coraparisons rarely advantageous to the latter.
But we feel stUl more cei-taui of it when we find the echoes of Eational
ism using his works as a support to them in lowering the importance
of the Old Testament. It has even been said of his work, that it is
eminently fitted to corabat the prejudice which regards the Hebrew
people as being the only ancient nation that was favoured with a reve
lation.* In his work upon Genesis, especially, he attacks, with imper
turbable sang f raid, and a contempt which science cannot excuse, aU the
data of Christian tradition, to secure to the books of Moses, with respect
to the moral and reUgious ideas which they contain, a superiority over
the sacred books of other nations, which few will feel inclined to dispute.
There are some happy efforts to show the essential Unks which unite
the traditions of Genesis with the national sentiments of the people of
Israel, and to prove, in consequence, that notwithstanding the unau-
thenticity of that book and the others of the Pentateuch, it must be
acknowledged that the compilation was founded ou generaUy-received
national ideas. The author employs his best efforts to prove that all
the supernatural facts contained in the Pentateuch are products of the
imagination on the part of unknown authors, who gave to the work the
forra it now has ; and, moreover, that the Pentateuch, and particularly
Genesis, borrowed from other nations its primitive history, and, what is
raore, disfigured that history. It is irapossible to be more imjust than
this towards the legislator of the Jewish people, and, at the same time,
it is impossible to show more clearly how systematic prejudices some
times overcome ordinary sagacity. For, is much learning necessary to
teach us that there are between the contents of Genesis, and of the
sacred books of India and Persia, radical differences ? These are plain,
for example, in the creation out of nothing, and the pure and simple
idea of one only God, the purpose of the deluge, and many other facts
which might be multipUed, and which prove a gi-eat dissimUarity
between the essence of the original history of the Hebrews and the
analogous accounts which we meet with among other oriental nations.
If von Bohlen had not been prejudiced against the Hebrew Uterature,
and infatuated with EationaUsm, he would have been content, at least,
* See Rohr's Krit. Prediger -Bibliothek,

HIS'TORY OF RATIONALISM, 195
to regard these differences as special developments of primitive elements
in the Umits of a proper nationaUty, and he would have confined him
self within the bounds of probability, without being obliged to adopt
the theory directly opposed to his own, viz,, that aU other nations had
received their ancient history fi-om the Jews.
To this class we must also refer the work of Bleek,* although he
disputes many of the assertions of the professor of Konigsberg ; for
he, too, beUeves Genesis to be a composition in which myths, if they
do not occupy the principal place, are at least not subordinate to history.
To it belong also the writings of Professor Vatke, of BerUn, whieh
are to the Old Testament what Strauss's Leben Jesu is to the New ; and
De Wette's Einleitung in das Alte TestaToent. AU these seek to propa
gate, whUe heaping up rubbish on the field of history, the idea that
religion is not attached to facts, aud that the indestructible sentiment
planted in the hearts of mortals wiU survive aU the perishable elements
to which what rationaUsts term an ignorant orthodoxy would subject
them. The hypotheses accumulated one on the other to cast discredit
on the old opinions respecting the formation and age of the books of
the Old Covenant, the efforts to make their accounts undergo the same
operations as Voss had performed on the Iliad of Homer, and Niebuhr
on the Roman, History, that is to say, to find in it only myths, now
poetical, now philosophical, now historical, and sometimes of a mixed
nature ; aU these efforts, 1 say, have faUed to produce anything of
stabiUty in the domain of criticism, and each rationalistic theologian
stUl pursues his way according to his own fancies. SupematuraUsm,
meanwhUe, by a criticism more sober and less hazardous, has laboured
in its tum to throw light on the origin of the Pentateuch, and to solve
the difficulties accumulated by criticism. Through the medium of two
other professors of BerUn and of Eostock, it has done justice to these
strange romances respecting the history of a people whose literature is
the only one entirely free from romance.!
We might foUow the encroachments of the myth which, from the Old
Testament, have been extended by Kaiser, Gabler, Bauer, von Ammon,
Berthold, and Sieffert, to different facts of the evangelical history, such
as the resurrection, the ascension, and some other narratives not less
marveUous, until all the scenes containing that element would come into
the number of detected myths. Sieffert goes so far as to consider as
myths, in the Gospel of Matthew alone, the genealogy of Jesus, the his
tory of his childhood, the calling of the sons of Zebedee, many parts
* De libri Geneseos origine atque indole historica. Bonn, 1836.
f Hengstenberg and HHvernick.
o2

196 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
of the sermon on the mount, the calling of Matthew, and, on acount of
the accessoiy circumstances, the story of the cme of the woman who
had an issue of blood, that of Jau-us' daughter, many parts of the
tenth chapter, which contain our Lord's instructions to his apostles, the
parables of the sower, of the tares and of the grain of mustard-seed,
the Ul-treatment of Jesus at Nazareth, the multiplication of the loaves,
the cure of the bUnd man at Jericho, and the scene at Bethany, in the
house of Simon the leper. As for the account of Christ's triumphal
entry into Jerusalem, his conduct towards the money-changers in the
temple, and the malediction of the fig-tree, our author recognises iu
them a sUght trace of apostoUcal tradition, coloured by the Greek
authors of the actual Gospels. The account of the Last Supper bears
indestructible marks of simple and natural truth, and yet he is of opi
nion that it has been much embellished by the Greek compUer.* We
thus see that 'Sieffert has subjected the whole Gospel to his mythical
investigation, for his criticism lasts from the genealogy to the passion.
Was there anything left to Dr, Strauss, unattacked by the murderous
tooth of exegesis ? Yet, adds Sieffert, this Gospel of Matthew, though
composed of mythical stories, bears evident marks of its dependence on
tradition, such as an accumulation of things iu the discourses and the
facts, without the least chronological order, the assimUation of different
facts, &c.! These different considerations appear to have led to the
same conclusion, in a work, specially on the subject,^ Schnecken-
burger, otherwise so Christian a writer, and Kern, in an article in a
journal, § pubUshed, so to say, under the eye of Strauss, at the time
when that writer was giving to his bookseller the fruit of his own medi
tations. We thus see that no precedents were wanting to inspire Dr.
Strauss, whose system astonished the rationaUsts, who did not expect
such audacity, much more than it did the supernaturaUsts, who had
long believed in the power of logic. Strauss, in fact, did nothing more
than deduce the consequences of the premises laid down duflng the last
three quarters of a century. " The author for the first time brought
together the most contradictory doctrines, the schools of Bolingbroke,
of Voltaire, of Lessing, of Kant, of Count J. de Maistre, under what
ever names they were transformed and disguised ; materiaUsm, mys
ticism, lovers of symbols, of natural, figurative or dogmatical explana
tions, of vision, of ammal magnetism, of allegories, of mythologies ;

* Sieffert, Ueber den Ursprung des ersten canon. Evangel. Konigsberg, 1832.
t Ibid. p. 60, 68, 73, 74, IU, 147.
X Kritisch. Versuch uber den Ursprung des ersten can. Evang. Stuttgardt, 1834.
§ In the Tubingen Zeitschriften, 1834. Part II. 3-132.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 197
and interpreting them, confusing them, comparing them, by means of in
defatigable dialectics, he succeeded in deducing from aU the same con
clusion. In a word, he concentrated aU doubts into one, and coUected
into one quiver the fugitive arrows of scepticism. In addition to this,
he tore away the metaphysical veU which had covered these doctrines,
and thus reduced the question to the most siraple terras ; it was seen
openly and for the fu-st time what a work of destruction had been accom-
pUshed. He raised, like Antony, the robe of Csesar, and each could
recognise on that great corpse the blows which he had struck in the
dai-k."* But having shown the natural interpretation which prevaUed,
in consequence of the efforts of Paulus and Eichhorn, who distrusted the
myths, I ought briefly to relate the aira and results of the efforts of the
former, who is himself their best representative. Paulus was born at
Leomberg, near Stuttgardt, in 1761. He early conceived the plan of
reconciling, in his way, the Christian religion with the general sciences
whieh he delighted to cultivate, and with this view he appUed his mind
to the study of the monuments on which that reUgion is founded. He
supposed that Jesus thought only of establishing Theism on the ruins of
Polytheism, and that to this noble end he devoted the high moral quali
ties which Providence had gi-anted him. But as he was far superior to
the men of his day, and especially to the companions of his labours,
the impression which he made upon thera easUy produced enthusiasm,
and from enthusiasm to adoration the distance is not great. When
* Edgard Quinet, Revue des deux Mondes, 1839. One of the most powerful
and successful arguments against Strauss, is the intimate connexion between the
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, which prove so well the truth of the evan
gelical narratives ; this connexion is very striking to any one who admits the
authenticity of the Acts, and it has been well demonstrated by Paley in his Hora
Paulina. But a year after the appearance of Strauss' Life of Jesus, a theological
professor in the same University of Tubingen, a great lover of myths, who sees
in Christianity only a phase of gnosticism, whieh prevailed over pure Judaism
{Die christliche Gnosis. Tiibingen, 1 835), asked himself whether criticism could do
nothing respecting the Acts of the Apostles, which, during an uninterrupted
point of eighteen centuries, had been revered as canonical by the whole church.
With ahold hand, he endeavoured to strip tbis book of an essential fact, viz., that
concerning Paul's voyage to Rome — [see a truly scholar-like, and, in the writer's
estimation, unanswerable, work on this subject, in The Voyage and Shipwreck of
St. Paul, by James Smith, Esq., of Jordanhill. London : Longman, 1848. — E.] —
which he considers legendary. (See Tubingen Zeitschriften, 1836. IU.) "Mean
while," said he, " let me return to this book and all Paul's epistles, which sooner
or later, I, or some others, will also submit to a critical examination." But a
worthy answer, which somewhat abates the pretensions of Professor Bauer, has
been made to him by Bottger, who, as yet, has published only the first part of his
work {Bauer's Histor. Kritik in ihrer Consequenz, erste Abtheilung. Braunschweig,
1810).

• 198 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
some of them wished to transmit to posterity an account of what had
so much struck thera in their intercourse with the Saviour, then- words
expressed their admiration, and as they thought that the New Covenant
ought not to be in any way inferior to the Old, they attempted to give
to the events of our Lord's life the same marvellous cliaracfter which
had made the glory of Moses and the prophets. Proceeding on such
data. Dr. and Professor Paulus, more familiar than ever with the Divine
word, asked whether, by translating differently from others, or by sepa
rating from historical fact, the cu-oumstances which surround it, and
are raerely accessory, though full of what is marvellous, we could not
succeed in extracting from the evangelical narratives an account which
should preserve its historical foundation, and might defy the criticism of
every adversary to the faith of Jesus as the holy founder of the purest
Theism. The result of the labours of Paulus on this subject was the
pubUcation of his commentary on the New Testament,* which, during
twenty years, gave so fatal a direction to German theology. It is true
that, in this work, Paulus shows much originality, much knowledge in
the various branches of human leaming, and a certain gravity which
we would willingly beUeve serious ; but we see that the ingenious writer
opened the New Testaraent to discover its raeaning in the same way as
he would have opened Ovid's Metamorphoses to explain them to his
pupUs. Seeing in the Gospels only oriental metamorphoses, he devoted
all his efforts to strip them of their supernatural character ; his greatest
ambition was to deduce from them a Life of Jesus simUar to those of
the great men of antiquity whom we admne for their fine characters,
without, however, admitting anything in their achievements which
surpasses the power of the inteUect or of the human wUl. It has been
weU said by a sensible and highly inteUigent woman, — " It is a bad
direction of the spirit of inquiry, to wish to apply it to truths which
can only be perceived by means of contemplation and mental elevation.
The spirit of inquiry ought to recognise what is superior to reason, as
an astronomer marks heights which man's sight cannot reach ; thus we
should employ the spu-it of inquiry to point out incomprehensible
regions, without attempting either to deny or to submit them to lan
guage."! ^^ ^^^^ shown the path which the commentator pursued :
it would be superfluous to give examples of the way in which he exe
cuted his plan. The phUosopher would only shrug his shoulders at the
* [See Paulus' Philolog. Krit. Commentar. uber d. N. T. Liibeck, 1805; and
Exeget. Handbuch uber die drei ersten Evangelien. Heidelberg, 1831, Die drei
Lchrbriefe des Johannes ubersetzt. Heidelberg, 1839. Dos, Leben Jesu als Grundlage
e'liitr reinen Geschichte des Urchristentliums, Heidelberg, 1828. — E,]
¦\ Madame de Stael, De V Allemagne.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 199
mention of such extravagances, and the Christian would be shocked
to hear of such indecencies.*
Is it sm-prising that, after so arbitrary an interpretation of a book
which had hitherto been venerated on account of the real and positive
facts of which it contained the narrative, other writers rushed on the
Bible Uke birds of prey, and defiled it in emulation of each other?
When they saw that Eichhorn, for example, maintained that the pro
phets never intended to announce future contingent events, but that
they only expressed themselves in a poetic manner ;! when they saw
that Paulus employed several pages of his commentary in denying that
om- Lord, though he admits the authenticity of his words, ever spoke of
his futm-e resurrection ;J when they heard Bauer, with an assurance
which should proceed only from infaUibUity, declare that aU commen
tators were deceived when they thought that they found in the Old
Testament ideas bearing a relation to those of the new ; § when they
had ascertained (so were they deluded by science) that the works of
EosenmuUer, of Vater, and of Gesenius, tended only to support these
audacious suppositions, — then the mania for insulting the Bible was car
ried to its height, and the rationalists might judge of the excesses to
which, by a sUppery descent, their principles necessarUy lead. Then
Soberer, rather than deny the existence of the prophecies too evidently
contained in the Bible, preferred to condemn all the prophets as im
postors, adding that the true faith would have been better established
on the earth without them, |1 Professor Buchholtz confined his attacks
more especiaUy to Moses, and reproached him with having governed the
people by terrorism.^ Janisch, a preacher of Berlin, speaking of the
God of the Old Testament, whom Christ caUs his Father, considers him
to be a kind of household divinity to whom the family of Abraham had
vowed a special worship, and who was afterwards elevated, doubtless,
on account of the services which He had been pleased to render to the
chUdren of Israel, to the dignity of monarch of heaven and earth.**
Professor Luders, of Gottingen, said of the God of Israel, that he pos-

* Those who know Strauss' Life of Jesus will find there numerous specimens
of the natural exegesis of Paulus.
¦)• Die hebraischen Propheten. 3 vols. Gottingen, 1816-1819.
X Second volurae of his Commentary, p. 564.
§ In his edition of the Philologia Sacra, of Glassius, vol. ii. p. 401.
II Erklarung der sdmmtlichen Weissagungen des A. und N. T. Altenburg, 1801.
The library of Nicolai accorded to its author the reward of immortality for
having powerfully aided in dissipating ignorance and folly.
f Moses und Jesus. Berlin, 1803.
** Betrachtungen iiber die Entwickelung des menschlichen Geschlechts.

200 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
sessed neither the hearts of men of feeUng nor the minds of those who
knew how to think, but that aU these withdrew from him.* A super
intendent of HUdesheim thought to exalt the glory of Jesus by proving
that the tricks which he aUowed himself to play among his countrymen
were designed only to ensure the reception of a better reUgion.! The
author of a serious work published at Helmstadt asserted, the better
to defend the contents of the New Testament, that Christianity must
have its mythology as weU as other religions, and that the sacred writers
could not do otherwise than insert their legends if they wished a super
stitious people to receive the maxims of their morality. J It would be
easy to add to this description of the aberrations of the human mind,
other follies which have been printed in our own times ; but the picture
would not be more graphic from being over crowded. Yet I cannot
refrain from mentioning a discourse delivered seriously and with all the
gravity of a titular professor, before the learned members of the His-
toi-ico-Theological Society of Leipzig, on the occasion of its jubUee of
twenty-five years. Professor Hermann there treated this subject {risum
leneatis ?), viz,, that Eve was created before Adam, and that, conse
quently, " Moses and Hesiod had committed the sarae error in their
account of the creation of the human i-ace,"§ If we had not found this
discourse in the usually serious journal edited by Dr. lUgen, we should
have taken it for a joke played upon the learned physiologist Oken, to
show him the result of some of his theories ; but the journal which con
tained it, the circumstances under which it was delivered, notwithstand
ing the singular details which enter into the developraent of the theory,
all concur to show that it is one more of those mental aberrations which
raust ensue when the spirit which inspu-ed the Bible does not aid us to
understand it. It is not to be wondered at, that Professor Hengsten
berg became very angry, and sharply reproved Hermann for his theology
of apes. We wUl finish these detaUs by mentioning the contempora
neous audacity of one Adolph Brennglas, who accuses Moses of avarice,
because he refused to raelt down the golden calf, and treats him as a
true buffoon when he makes him sit down at the table of Jehovah, who
cheerfuUy gave him hospitaUty on Mount Sinai. This author speaks
of Lot as one " who, like a true Israelite, did not wait to be told twice"
* Geschichte der vorziiglichsten Volker der alten Welt. Brunswick, 1800,
f Betrachtungen uber das Urchristenthum. 1808.
X Vindicia sacrarum N. T. scripturarum. Helmstadt, 1 824.
§ [Compare Illgen's Zeitschrift fiir Histor. Theol. 1840, 1 Heft, p. 61, seq.
The learned writer finds the first parent of our race in an ape, and gravely con
tends that his view is more probable than that contained in the Bible, as well as
highly conducive to moral efforts. — E,]

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 201
when he was warned to quit Sodom. These instances will surely suffice
to show to what excesses those may corae who have lost the clue which
should guide a reasonable man to the understanding of the bibUcal
narrative.* Eationalists have wished to disavow these excesses ; but
they have no right to condemn them, since they themselves have con
fiised the external proofs of the authenticity and divinity of the Old
Testament, and have indulged in interpretations which, though under a
more serious form, are not less reaUy destructive.
We must, however, add that the serious works of Eichhorn, Herder,
and De Wette, and particularly the spirit of sesthetic piety by which
they were pervaded, exercised in some degree a beneficial influence on
philological science, and did something for the better appreciation of
the literal sense of the different biblical books. WiUingly would we
say something further in praise of De Wette's Einleitung in das Alte
Testament ; but this work is of a more arbitrary character than the Ein
leitung in das N. T., of which we shall afterwards speak. He decides
from a single relative improbabUity on the reality or falsity of a fact
related as historical ; nor can we, in reading the book, refrain from
saying, with the latest commentator, that, notwithstanding the great
learning which enriches it, it is without Ufe, and entirely wanting in the
spirit which pervades the Old Testament. We cannot understand, adds
this commentator, how an author generally so spiritual could write it.!
Eichhorn and De Wette, however, aroused some eminent men. Among
these was Gesenius, who united the rare gift of teaching, to a knowledge
of the Oriental languages, seldom acquired, and who was unequaUed in
the pm-ely grammatical and lexicographical parts of the Old Testament.
In this class stands Umbreit also, who was born at Sonneborn in Saxe
Gotha in 1795, and who raised himself to a high rank between empi
rical and speculative EationaUsm by works which remind us of those of
Herder, and are slightly tinged with the colours of Schleiermacher.t
To these we may add Ewald, Hitzig, and Bertheau, who, though of
most decidedly rationalistic tendencies, yet rendered eminent services to
the cause of Christian trath, by compelling the pure supernaturaUsts to
* The work of Brennglas is entitled, Neue Berliner Guckkastenbilder. Mann
heim, 1841.
t M. Baumgarten, Tlieologischer Commentar. zum Alten Testament, vol, i.
Ixiv. X Ueberseiz. und Ausleg. des Buches Job. Heidelberg, 2nd edit. 1832. Phi
lolog. krit. und philos. Commentar. Uber die Spruche Salomes, Sic. Heidelberg,
1826. Christliche Erbauung aus dem Psalter. Hamburg, 1835. Umbreit is
known to be the co-editor of that eclectic review of theology {Theologische Slu-
d'len und Kritiken) which has lately done so much for theological science.

202 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
follow them into the field of science, and beat out with them the wheat
stiU left in the husks.
Ewald, also, sees in the prophetic spirit of the Old Testament only
the reUgious enthusiasm of its writers, but he is au upright writer, and
zealous for justice and truth.* This zeal leads him to point out very
happUy, in the biblical books which he translates and annotates, the
earnest morality which he finds in all parts of them. " Nowhere," says
he, " among no people, has the sublime thought of the divine appeared
so durable as with the people of Israel, and there is nothing equal to
the poetry of this people for assisting us to understand the superior
rehgion, of which it breathes the truth." " The prophecies of this
people," adds he, " so far as they are purified and have taken a better
form, have acqubed a higher importance, and even a worth, which wUl
never perish." But Ewald explains the worth of prophecy in a manner
which the most accommodating orthodoxy could not adopt. " The
Spirit," says he, and by this word he understands the pure; divine Ufe,
" the Spirit which was first in God alone, was placed in the germ in
man, and at each movement or strong impulse, the germ became
excited, and the divine spirit, formerly in repose, showed itself openly.
In proportion as religion is better understood by history, this prophetic
spirit wiU becorae stronger, aud the appeals made by God to man wiU
be the more u-resistible." !
This is the natm-al mode of explaining the gift of prophecy, as laid
down by Spinoza, in his Tractatus Politico-theologicus, and the learned
Ewald does not therefore assume a supernatural faculty, when, struck
by the endless ravages made by criticism and its results in the province
of reUgious truth, he utters, from time to time, regi-ets expressive of
poignant grief, and prophetic words, which are anything but favourable
to the future, not only of EationaUsm, but also of German Protestantism
* We must not forget that he was one of the seven professors who were com
pelled to leave tbe University of Gottingen, in consequence of their protestation
in favour of the constitutional law revoked by the reigning king. Georg Hein-
rich August. Ewald was born at Gottingen in 1803. Since 1838 he has been
professor of oriental languages in Tiibingen. When still a student at the Uni
versity, he made himself known, by a work full of talent on the composition of
Genesis (Brunswick, 1823), which plainly showed what were his favourite
studies. He has since published A Critical Grammar of the Hebrew Language,
3rd edit. Leipzig, 1838 ; another Critical Grammar of the Arabic. 2 vols. But
his principal works, and those which he wrote most from inclination, are. Die
poetischen Biicher des alten Bundes. Giittingen, 1835-37 ; and Ueber die Propheten.
Stuttgardt. 2 vols.
t Die poetischen BUcher des alten Bundes, Part I, p. 7, 8. Ueber die Propheten,
p, 2, 3.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 203
itself.* It is true that Ewald has removed from the study of the oriental
languages, and consequently from the field of criticism, many en-ors,
and has understood the reUgious morality of the men of the ancient
law better than many of his contemporaries, than De Wette, for ex
ample, who considers as spiritless aud insipid most of the Psalms and
the productions of Zacharias aud Malachi, while he finds, on the con
trary, aU the conditions of an epic poem in the Pentateuch, unpoetical'
as it is in many places. Still Ewald, fi-om his way of considering the
mission of the prophets, and from the relation in which he places the
God of Israel to the gods of Paganism, can be regarded only as a wise
and pious rationaUst, who has placed his foot on the threshold of the
temple of Christian truth, and would advance into the sanctuary, if the
spirit whose powerful infiuence he admits, shed upon his conscience the
light wbich as yet illumines only a part of his mind. Modesty, gene
raUy the companion of true learning, prompts him to say, that he is far
from imagining that he has exhausted the subject, but hopes that his
labours wUl give encom-ageraent to other fi-ieuds of biblical studies.!
To the school of Ewald belong Bertheau and Hitzig; the former,
rather a philologer than a grammarian, has, by his great archseological
knowledge, thrown most valuable light on the history of the Old
Testament. J Hitzig is as great a philologer as his master, but appears
to be inferior to him iu earnestness, and in the moral tendency of his
wi-itings ; § still, Uke Ewald, in his translations and annotations of the
books of the Old Testament, he omits nothing which raay improve the
text, or assist in discovering the grammatical meaning ; and in this
respect, aU must acknowledge the indirect services which Hitzig may
render to religion. Shall we be able to say the same of that pupil of
Gesenius and Hegel, who employs the philosophy of the one, and the
grammatico-rationaUstic tendency of the other, to depreciate aU the
reUgious ideas of the patriarchs and the prophets, and to prove worth
less the books which contain them ? We know how Uttle Hegel himself
thinks of the Old Testament ; he devotes only a few pages to it in the
whole of his works. This, however, is not to be wondered at in one so
Uttle irapressed by true Christian doctrine ; for HegeUanism having
borrowed from the Christian system only names and empty forms, it
* See, especially, his Preface, p. xiii. of the second volume of the Prophets.
f Second volume of the Prophets, p. 10,
+ Besides the Poesien des Ephrem, which he edited, (Gottingen, 1837,) he pub
lished, in 1840, Die sieben Gruppen Mosdisch. Gesetze, tfc. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik
des Peniateuk.
S F, Hitzio', Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handbuch z. Alt. Test, He has as yet pub
lished only Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets, and the Psalms,

204 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
was impossible that its founder should understand the connexion be
tween the two Testaments, or admire their imposing harmony. We
cannot wonder that his -disciple, Vatke, who was influenced at HaUe by
Gesenius and Wegscheider, and was not attracted to the study of the
Hebrew books by Schleiermacher, who is weak on this point only,
should, when he became an adept of HegeUanism, and felt incUned to
handle a subject neglected by his master, treat it in a manner most
unfavourable to the cause of orthodoxy.
Vatke first pubUshed his opinions in a work on the reUgion of the
Old Testament, as developed in its canonical books, a work which was
to be the prelude to his biblical theology, scientificaUy explained.* If
be had shown how the development of reUgious ideas ought to take
place, supposing that this development should not contradict his pre
suppositions, but that harmony must be displayed in all its reality, he
ought also to have regulated his subject, and have vrielded the sword of
criticism against the many details which would oppose his synthesis.
But we find that this partisan of Hegel takes his master's phUosophy
for granted, and by it judges of the progress of the events related in
the Bible ; and thus the national history of the Hebrew people is cora
pelled to submit to a fate simUar to that of the unfortunate beings
who were stretched on the bed of Procrustes.
Taking this point of view, we can not only see what was the path
pursued by fhe writer, but we can also see that he could foUow no
other, and we can foretel the consequences. He was certain to depre
ciate the Hebrews and their reUgion, and to eiUogize Paganism, since
the development of the divine consciousness could be shown only by
these means ; and if facts carae into coUision with the HegeUan apho
risms they were declared unfounded, and a modern origin was, a priori,
attributed to them. When we see Vatke enchanted with certain com
mandments of the Decalogue, and especially with the precept of love
towards God and men, which tempers the austerity of the laws of
Moses, we should expect to find him ou the search for proofs to esta
bUsh the authenticity of these and other passages. This would be the
course of a writer desirous, above all things, of finding tmth ; but a
philosopher is not guided by this wise rule. As it is his business to find
in history only approving evidences of his system, the task of historian,
when he undertakes it, is to re-construct history, and not to Usten to
its teachings. Vatke then declares apocryphal aU the passagesof the
Pentateuch, and of the books anterior to the Prophets, which are cha-
« Die biblische Theologie, wissensclmftlich dargestellt. Th, 1, Die Relig, d. A, T.
Berlin, 1835.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 205
raoterised by exalted piety and morality, and which, as the tenth com
mandment and the precept of charity expressed in Deuteronomy, are the
expressions of a purer moml feeUng. He maintains that these words
could not have been written at a period when the Hebrew people hardly
knew whether to worship Jehovah or the gods of foreign nations, at a
period when Saturn seemed to enjoy the same rights as the God of
Israel, and when Monotheism was so far fi-om being fu-mly estabUshed
that no one would dai-e to name David as the author of one of the
Psalms now generally attributed to him.* There is, says he, an im
mense interval between idolatry and the prohibition to make carved
images; must we not, therefore, conclude that that prohibition was
conceived and uttered at a less remote period? By pursuing this
& priori method, Vatke arrives at the conclusion that if what is related
of the life of Moses were not generaUy mythical, that account would
make him superior, in our eyes, to Jesus, whose life is not so fuU of
the marveUous.! We have said that Vatke did for the Old Testament
what Strauss did for the New, Both of them, in modifying the facts,
or altogether removing them, still wished to preserve the ideas which
they veiled. But the field of Vatke was the wider of the two, and
gave room for .the development of phUosophical considerations respect
ing the progress of the huraan race, which could not be comprehended
in the narrow liraits in which Strauss works the machinery that is to
produce his evangelical myths.
But the time of reaction was at hand, and Hengstenberg, professor
at BerUn, was the man to introduce critico-historical researches into the
camp of Supernaturalism.
Hengstenberg has long been a mark for the rationaUsts, and he has
weU deserved to be so on account of the lively attacks which he has
directed against aU their manifestations. We cannot say that we agree
with aU IUs dogmatical views, but we cannot deny his great zeal for
what he beUeves to be the truth, and his profound theological know
ledge. This man, by the activity which he shows in the cause of Su
pematuraUsm, and by the pubUcation of learned works on the Old
Testament, deserves to be considered the chief of that new school which
attempts to re-construct by science what science had mtended to de
stroy, in order to strike away from evangeUcal Christianity the piUar of
the Old Testament, which Jesus and his apostles had taken as a firm.
support of the new faith. Men such as Professor Hengstenberg are
necessary in times of mental languor, when ideas are confounded, when
* Biblische Theologie, vol. i. p. 293 ; compare pp. 177-78, 233-239.
t Ibid. p. 183.

206 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
we caU indiscriminately good or evil whatever disturbs our repose.
Men are needed who, with cutting or even rough words, may arouse us
from the lethargy in which we might run the risk of sleeping for ever,
and they have done us a great service by restoring us to ourselves, to
the feeling of our personal dignity, which lukewarmness or indifference
tended to make us forget. And as time removes our complaints, with
the Uvely exclamations of the Berlin Evangelical Gazette which caUed
them forth, we shaU remember only the proposed aim of the editor,
and in doing justice to his intentions, shaU be stUl more content with
his critical and historical labours.*
Ernst WUhelm Hengstenberg was bom in 1803 at Brandenburg, in
the county of Mark. He was the son of a pastor, who carefully super
intended his early studies, and, when stUl young, implanted in his mind
a strong love of whatever is pure and honest. It is said that during
his University studies at Bonn he was at first incUned to the phUosophy
of Kant, and afterwards more decidedly to that of Fries, who regarded
sentiment as the criterion of religious faith. But his subsequent resi
dence at Basle, and his intercourse when there with some members of
the Eeformed church, who were strictly and unreservedly orthodox,
settled all his doubts, and from that time he devoted himself entirely
to the defence of the letter, when he should have remembered that the
spirit only giveth life.
Hengstenberg's first works show his knowledge of antiquity and the
languages of the East. Those which prove him to be a learned theo
logian are his Christologie des Alten Testaments,^ and his Beitrage zur
Einleitung in das Alte Testament. % The first of these works is directly
opposed to all that has been written by the different schools of Ea
tionaUsm on the passages of the Old Testament which seem to an
nounce Christ ; and if it is partly true that we ought to caU in the aid
of previously conceived doctrinal opinions in the interpretation of any
passage, it is equally true that when this interpretation is not forced,
when it is a necessary consequence of the narrative, it must support or
rather create a doctrine. This is what Hengstenberg has wished to
show when, with minute criticism, he stops at every passage aUeged by
supernaturaUst writers in order to graft the New Testament on to the
• His aim in the publication of the Evangelical Gazette was, be said, when he
gave it to the world, " to show and defend the unity of evangelical truths, as con
tained in the Scriptures and in the Confessions of Faith, to fortify them by the
Christian belief of all ages, and to join in this unity of faith all true merabers of
the Church.'*
t 3 vols, Berlin, 1829-35.
X 2 vols. Berlin, 1831-36,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 207
Old, by showing that the prophets and the apostles announce one and
the same Christ. The Beitr&ge established the authenticity of the book
of Daniel, so often attacked on account of its important prophecy re
specting the time of Christ's advent and the ruin of Jerusalera ; the
integrity of the book of Zacharias, and the authenticity of the Penta
teuch. In this last work especially the author displays vast erudition
and a profound knowledge of aU that could have been written against
the authenticity of a work which, according to certain learned men,
contains so many historical, geographical, archfeological, aud I know
not what other errors ; and with rare abiUty he overturns their asser
tions one after another, relying on the most recent evidence of impartial
traveUers, who certainly never thought of the Pentateuch when they
were collecting information at the feet of the pyramids.
Though Hengstenberg's doctrines, which he sometimes defends as
pure evangeUcal beUef, with a warmth which Christianity cannot inspire,
though these doctrines, agreeing as they do with the symbolical books
of Protestant Christian communities, do not appear to us to be the
creed in which future generations may unite ; yet posterity wUl always
owe esteem and gratitude to the professor of Berlin for the impulse
which he has given to biblical historical studies, and they wiU reverence
him as the restorer of sound criticism, the wise man who erred frora
excess of zeal, but whose piety and learning are indisputable. F. Hein-
rich Eanke, Havernick of Konigsberg, and Baumgarten, have shown that
in foUowing in the footsteps of such a guide they have not erred, but
have obtained a surer footing on the ground on which he preceded
them, by means of new discoveries which were stiU to be made. I
think I cannot do better than close this chapter in the words of homage
addressed to Hengstenberg by one of his most worthy imitators : " He
it is who has held aloft the banner of science against the profaners of
the Old Testament, and many, of whom I have the honour to be one,
have vowed to him smcere gratitude for -the zeal and courage with
which he has defended the Old Testament fi-om the humUiation inflicted
on it by the different schools of theology, and has asserted the sacred
rights of the church respecting it The high degree of faith which
Hengstenberg has shown in the truths which these books contain has
touched and excited raany who have become his foUowers ; and this
fact appears to me to be of more significant importance for the ad
vancement of bibUcal science than even the perseverance which he has
used to obtain the same results. Tet notwithstanding Hengstenberg's
indisputable merits in his manner of treating and understandmg the
book of the Old Covenant, we must confess that his system rests upon
a violent rupture of the chain of the development of ideas, and upon a

208 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
retm-n to a point of view which is not historical. He had plunged too
deeply into the whirlpool of continuaUy renewed opposition to be able
to see that the age of revolution and Uberty through which the Old
Testament has passed has not been without its benefits."* .Baumgarten
terminates these frank remarks on him whom he recognises as his guide,
but to whom he does not sacrifice his independence, by showing his
sympathy with Hoffmann, the author of Weissagung und Erfullung,\
whom he regards as the precursor of Hengstenberg, and who, according
to him, has, with his far-searching discernment, not only penetrated
into the reality of bibUcal history, but has also understood its spirit,
that spirit which alone points out the lyay to the true and Uving Christ. J
* Baumgarten, Theologische Commentar. ibid. 84.
f Weissagung und Brfiillung, im A. und N. T. Nordlingen, 1841.
X Baumgarten, Theol. 86.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 209

CHAPTEE XIL
CRITICAL RESEARCHES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — HYPOTHESIS OP
A PRIMITIVE GOSPEL — HYPOTHESIS OF ORAL TRADITION — EICH
HORN, HERDER, AND GRATZ — ECKERMANN, DE WETTE, NEU
DECKER, WEISSE, STRAUSS,
The fm-ther theologians advanced in. the lamentable path marked out
by Semler, the better did they understand the extent of the sacrifices
demanded by criticism for its full development. But they did not see
that, in depriving Christianity of the powerful support of the books of
the Old Covenant, on which Christ and the apostles had thought proper
to found the new religion, and in acknowledging the similarity of some
accounts in the Old and New Testaments, they made a new concession
to Eationalism, by attributing to the evangelical books an entirely
human origin. This soon brought them to an attack, not only on the
authenticity but the inspiration of the New Testament, and then to its
alteration. Eichhorn, as we have seen, esteemed the Bible no more than any
other Indian, Greek, or Eoman book. Wishing, however, to defend
the moral character of the sacred writers, he invented a theory designed
to explain the dif&culties which we meet with in their works in a man
ner satisfactory to reason. This was the hypothesis of a primitive
Gospel supposed to have been written in the Aramaic language, which,
though lost to us like many other works whose loss we must regret, was
nevertheless the som-ce whence our Evangelists derived the matter for
their works. Michaelis also, to escape difficulties which he thought it
wiser to cut through than to unravel, had spoken of docuraents anterior
to our Gospels, the existence of which would explain the identity of
phrases and expressions used by authors who wrote separately and
vrithout the knowledge of each other,*
Not only the Chancellor of the University of Gottingen, but also
Jean Leclerc, Bishop Marsh (in the explanations which accompany his
English translation of Michaelis), even Semler, and at a later period
* Einleitung, &c,, vol, ii. p. 930,
VOL. II. P

210 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
Schleiermacher,* spoke of one comraon source whence our Gospels are
derived. Eichhoi-n highly coloured this supposition, and succeeded in
gaining many adherents to it. This, as we shall see immediately, went
to overthrow aU the divine authority of the New Testament. To sup
pose that the witnesses of our Lord's actions, and most frequently the
hearers of his discourses, needed foreign aid in vn-iting the Ufe of their
master, not only takes away from them the privUege of inspiration pro
mised to thera by Christ when he should send his spirit to them, but it
also makes thera responsible for aU the voluntary or involuntary en-ors
made in theu- accounts by the uncommissioned writers. This question
had not been overlooked by Semler, and, in a translation of Townson's
Considerations on the Four Gospels, he had maintained that one work
or more in the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldee language must have furnished
the materials for the so-caUed canonical Gospels. Semler, however,
touched on so many subjects at once, that this early suggestion respect
ing the origin of our Gospels was Uttle noticed by theologians. . But
Eichhom, who took it up, and by embelUshraents gave it an air of plau-
sibUity, has always favoured such suppositions.
This hypothesis of Eichhorn, supported by probabUities, but in no
way founded on historical testimony, rested only on some siraUarities in
the synoptical Gospels, especially in those parts which contain the his
tory of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension.! The theory has been
answered by a supposition equaUy gratuitous, though better calculated
to maintain the divine authority of the sacred books ; this was, that
Matthew may very probably have composed an historical work in
Hebrew or Syro-Chaldee, and translated it at a subsequent period into
Greek, making at the same time additions to the original. | This was
only a modification of Eichhorn's system, but in a doctrinal point of
view there is an immense distance between the two. But as the theo
ries of Eichhorn and Berthold were not found sufficient to remove aU
doubts, others thought proper to modify and stUl further to complicate
them. Among these was Herder, who, from his briUiant imagination
and admiration for the beautiful, was much better fitted to understand
the beauties of the Bible than to seek out its origin, notwithstanding
the esteem in which we feel compeUed to hold his historical works. He
supposed that Mark, usuaUy considered as the abbreviator of Matthew's
Gospel, re-constructed it in the same Aramaic language ; that Luke in
his Greek work foUowed the primitive Gospel as a model, using what
* Ueber d. Schr. d. Lucas, Part I. p. 218.
I Eichhorn, Einleitung, p. 162, 145.
X Berthold's Einleitung, III, p, 1,205.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 211
Matthew had added to it, and also making other additions derived from
different sources ; that the Aramaic Gospel was translated iuto Greek,
and that the translator made use in his work of the Gospels of Mark
and Luke. This theory of Herder's con-esponds in some degree with
those of Berthold and Eichhorn ; but is it anything more than a theory?*
We must confess that it explains pretty well the identity of words in
the four sacred writers, but the improbabUity of it is very evident.
Thus the identity of words is not continual, and in Matthew we find
accounts which have a parallel only in Luke instead of in Mark, as, ac
cording to Hffl-der's hypothesis, it ought to be ; and in Luke there are
narratives which can be compared only with those of Mark,!
Another modification of Eichhorn's hypothesis was made by Gratz,
who thought that a primitive Gospel was composed in Aramaic, and
almost immediately translated into Greek, for the use of the chm-ch at
Antioch. He founds his theory on the 37th and 38th verses of the
11th chapter of Acts, which do not in any way speak of such a transla
tion. He supposes, however, that this translation furnished to Mark
and Luke, together with their own recollections, the principal part of
the materials for their narrative ; while Matthew composed his on the
same model, but in the Aramaic tongue, and the translation which we
have of it was made by one who had before him all the other accounts. $
The reader may judge for himself whether aU these vagaries of the
imagination are Ukely to shake, in the least degree, the received beUef
that the four Gospels were reaUy written by the authors whose names
they bear, and who composed them from their own knowledge, with
special divine assistance which prevented them from teaching error.
One of the strongest proofs adduced by Eichhorn in favour of the

» See Herder's Vom ErToser der Menschen nach den drei ersten Evangelien, 1776 ;
von Gottes Sohnder Welt Heiland nach Johannis Evangelium, 1797, in his Coraplete
Works, xi. Tiibingen, 1810. In these same small works, which he entitles Zur
Religion und Theologie, Herder ventures further. He defends the theory of an oral
tradition which might have given rise to our Gospels ; he goes so far as to say,
what is certainly very plausible, that wherever churches were founded, by apostles
or their fellow-labourers, all that they had declared was collected together, and it
is thus probable that Gospels were formed bearing the names of all the apostles.
If rationalists rely thus on the authority of the apostolic churches to support
their theories, they surely ought to admit that authority in explaining the sense of
writings originated by itself. In that case what becomes of the rationalistic
principle ?
f See J. C. Gieseler, Histarisch-kritischer Versuch iiber die Entstehung der
Evangelien. Leipzig, 1818. p. 48; also De Wette, Einleitung, p. 119.
X Moys Gratz, Neuer Versuch die Entstehung der drei ersten Evangelien zu
erkldren. Tiibingen, 1812.
p2

212 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
theory of the primitive Gospel, of which he is the principal supporter,
is, that the early fathers of the church do not quote in their works the
Gospels which we possess, but rather apocryphal books.* By this fact
Strauss also was led to deny the authenticity of the canonical Gospels,!
It is, however, clearly proved that in the works of Barnabas, the First
Epistle to the Corinthians, the writings of Clement of Eome, of Igna
tius, Bishop of Antioch, and of Polycarpus, we find passages which are
either literal extracts from the canonical Gospels, or are quoted from
memory in such a way as to preserve all the characteristics of a quota
tion,!: I mention Eichhorn's mode of argument only to show how far
even the most enlightened rationalists wUl venture, rather than remain
steadfast to what has been believed by the Christian church in all places
and at all times.
In vain men raade these attempts to discover even the slightest traces
of a primitive and common source which might have furnished raate
rials for the compUation of our Gospels ; but though Berthold's argu
ments, to prove, for example, that certain passages of the Pauline
epistles § refer to a primitive Gospel, caunot be considered as vaUd
without perverting the natural signification of those passages, other
rationalists, unwUUng to give up the attempt to destroy the faith in the
inspu-ations of the Gospels, invented another hypothesis which gave stUl
more scope to the imagination. Eckermann, in particular, sought to
make this theory consistent, and he was foUowed by several writers
whose names have some weight in German theology. These were
Kaiser, Paulus, and Gieseler, ||
Oral tradition may, we imagine, be understood in different ways.
Some confine it to the time of Jesus, others prolong it untU the death
of the apostles, while others, again, assign to it a duration of several
centuries. Every one must know that the Gospel was known throughout
a great part of the Eoman empire before the evangeUcal accounts were
written. It is certain that Christ's command to his apostles to teach
* Eichhorn, Einleitung, Sec, p. 1, 113.
f Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, vol. i.
X This point is scientifically explained in Neudecker's Handbuch der Einleitung
zum Neuen Testament. Leipzig, 1840. p, 99-104. See also Vorlesungen uber das
Leben Jesu fur Theologen und Nicht- Theologen, by Otto Krabbe. Hamburg, 1839.
p, 21-44.
§ Rom, ii. 16 ; 1 Cor. xi, 23 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1 5.
II Eckermann, Theologische Erklarung aller dunkeln Stellen des Neuen Testaments.
Kiel. Also his Collection printed at Altona in 1796, under the title of Theo
logische Beitrage, 6 yoXs. 1794-1799. 'K.s.iser, Biblische Theologie. Erlangen, 1813.
vol. i. p. 224. Paulus, Theologisch-exegetisches Conservatorium. Part.I. p. 104,
seq. Gieseler, Historisch-kritischer Versuch uber die Entstehung der Evangelien.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 213
and baptize the people was obeyed before they fulfiUed the duty of
writing, which arose from circumstances only. But is this any reason
for concluding that the compUers of the canonical Gospels needed in
composing them, as we now have them, the aid of the information re
specting the Ufe and doctrines of Jesus, spread abroad in the churches
by those who had seen and heard him ? We may come to this conclu
sion if, like Strauss, we are consistent in our opinions, and contest, not
only the inspiration, but also the authenticity of the Gospels. For
those, however, who, like Eckermann and his followers, dare not venture
on this, we have a right to appeal to their good sense, and ask them
whether it was probable that the teachers would, in composing accounts,
borrow aid from their disciples. The foUowing passage is a specimen
of the moderation with which the first author of this hypothesis ex-
presseshiraself : —
" It is easy to explain the concordance of the Gospels, even suppos
ing that the synoptical ones were written without any reciprocal know
ledge of it, on the part of the authors. Matthew, according to the
evidence of antiquity, first coraposed a Hebrew Gospel for the use of
the Christians of Palestine; this Gospel, from the very nature of
things, became the prototype and source of all the oral narratives, re
specting Jesus and his doctrine, circulated either by the Evangelists
who founded chm-ches, or by Christians in general, whora they had
taught. It is not strange, then, that Mark and Luke, who may have
collected their materials at Jerusalem itself, should have received their
information from eye-witnesses, and hence follows the resemblance in
matter and form of their writings to those of Matthew."*
Thus Eckermanii's hypothesis has no other foundation than the fact
of the propagation of the Gospel by the word of raouth of the apostles,
their disciples, and that large number of Christians, who, being zealous
for the truth, sought to extend its dominion. Even if, with Gieseler, we
limit the duration of this tradition to the apostolic times, the hypothesis
remains equally vrithout proof, and stiU makes the veracity of om-
Gospels depend entirely on simple narratives, which could not fail to re
ceive alterations in passing from mouth to mouth, and destroys aU belief
in the special privUege conferred by Christ when he said that he himself
would speak by the mouths of his disciples, and that his divine Spirit
should guide them in aU truth.
Professor De Wette's conjectm-es rest entirely on what Luke says of
the works which he had consulted before undertaking his own account
* Eckermann, Erklarung aller dunkeln, &c,. Preface, p, xi.

214 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
of the Saviom-'s history.* These, De Wette assures us, were only nar
ratives borrowed fi-om oral tradition. He thinks that he can in this
way explain the perpetual concordance, which, he says, exists between
the fh-st and the third Evangelists, especiaUy in the parts relating to the
events in GalUee. Bnt the learned professor, after taking a great deal
of trouble to estabUsh this concordance, forgets to mention a fact
which overturns his theory. This fact is the nonconformity of the first
chapters of the two Evangelists ; Matthew makes the famUy of Jesus
travel into Egypt, Luke says that they went from Bethlehem to Jeru
salem, and thence to Nazareth, without ever mentioning the story of
the Magi ; and it would be most extraordinary for him not to speak of
it, if, as De Wette supposes, he made use of the same sources of infor
mation as did Matthew.
The only remark which he makes on this point is, that the authenticity
of the first two chapters of Matthew has been strongly suspected, and
that as Luke consulted certain memoranda or collections of facts and
precepts for the materials of his first two chapters, the difficulty is thus
removed. But instead of giving proofs of his assertions against
Matthew, he only refers the reader to a number of writers who take his
view of the question.! Thus we see that the theories of oral and of
written tradition were equally unsuccessful in sUencing the voice of
criticism. It may be said, certainly, that this system explains the frequent
brevity of the evangeUcal narratives, and also the recurrence of passages
in a poetical style ; because it is perfectly natural that what is related
for the pm-pose of being committed to memory, should be made as
short as possible. Tt also accounts for the many diversities of style in
the EvangeUsts, even without taking into consideration the diversity of
their inteUectual culture and of their knowledge of the Hebrew lan
guage. The Gospel, in fact, was announced in the popular language of
Judea, which the apostles spoke in their intercourse with the Hebrew
Jews, while others, preaching to Hellenistic Jews and to GentUes, were
compelled to make use of the Greek language, and thus arose an idiom
composed of a mixture of Greek and Hebrew. Thus we may explain
the occurrence of rude deviations from the ordinary harmony of their
words. This is particularly the case with Matthew and Luke, and by
the foregoing theory it can be accounted for without supposing that one
of tliem made the other his model. Thus is explained also the unity
of the Gospels as wholes, and yet their originality of form, since oral
* Luke i. 1-4.
t De Wette, Handbuch einer Einleitung, Stc. Berlin, 1834, p. 133,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 215
tradition cannot remain the same in amount, because one person wUl
relate more fuUy than another, according to circumstances; and yet
each would consider it indispensable to mention certain facts of our
Lord's life, the iraportance of which was universaUy recognised.
Neudecker* also considers oral tradition as the som-ce of our Gos
pels, and regards this system as the only one fitted to preserve their
character of authenticity, while it explains theu- natural harmony, in
facts as weU as in classification, and even in the words and modes of
expression. He supports his opinions by this passage from Wachner's
Hebrew Antiquities : " The words of a teacher ought to be retained
unchanged in the memory, just as they were uttered, so that there may
be no different versions." ! This, adds Neudecker, must have been
the case with Jesus and the apostles, more especially as they frequently
spoke in signs and parables, and in expressions stamped by a peculiar
originaUty, which made it easy to recollect their instructions, and after
wards to relate them to the writers who wished to commit them to
paper. Literal fidelity was not necessary for this ; it was sufficient that
the account should be exact, and related as much as possible with the
essential expressions : and this is just what proved to be the case. To
the list of theologians who defended these theories, I ought to add the
names of Schulz and Gieseler, { After every possible effort had been
made, by means of the theories of oral and written tradition, to explain
iu a natural manner the origin of the evangelical books, after aU this
display of wisdom in researches and suppositions, it seemed Ukely that
at length there would be an end to these hostUities on the ancient
faith. But not only did this method meet with opponents among the
orthodox party ; it seems that it did not satisfy even the rationaUsts,
for it was sharply and successfuUy attacked by Weisse, and was soon
superseded by the bolder system so ably developed by Strauss, in his
Life of Jesus, examined in a critical point of view. Casting a pene
trating glance on the systems of his predecessors, and finding them
weak and Ulogical, though ingenious, he asked. Why this hesitation,
why this timidity, when once they had acknowledged as a principle the

* Handbuch der Einleitung, &c., 172.
f Wacbner, Antiquit. hebr. 1,253.
X Historisch-kritischen Versuch uber die Entstehung und die fruhesten Schicksale
der schriftlichen Evangel., von Gieseler. Leipzig, 1818. p. 53-130. Schulz, Dis-
sertatio de Evang., qua ante Evang. canonica in usu ecclesia fuisse dicitur, Konigs
berg, 1812.
§ Ch. Herm. Weisse's Evangel. Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet.
Leipzig, 1838, p, 10. I am not unacquainted with what Weisse has written
respecting Strauss ; but I have had occasion to quote it before.

216 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
rights of criticism to treat of aU questions respecting the Scriptures ?
Seeing others falter in the work, he fancied he should confer a benefit
on the cause of religion and even of Christianity, by declaring the
Gospels to be the works of individuals whose names we shaU perhaps
never know ; men who not only did not write them under the influence
of oral or written tradition as generally understood, that is to say, in
the time of the apostles, but composed them at a far subsequent period.
Thus the facts which they relate may have reached them in a mythical
form, shown in those strong colours and those colossal proportions in
which what has astonished oue generation is transmitted to the next.
The noise which Strauss's book made in Germany was but faintly
echoed in the other countries of Europe. Tet, when calmly reflecting
on the subject, we may ask why Germany was so excited by it, and
especially why EationaUsm launched its arrows with so much irritation
against a book to the production of which it had contributed. We can
easUy understand the sorrow of the supernaturalists, and their efforts
to counteract the pernicious effects of a system which completely over
turned the ancient faith;* but EationaUsm, which eraployed aU the
power of the press to crush, by the weight of its own celebrity, the
audacious one who dared advise it to be more sincere, by placing the
keys under the gate of the church, has done more thau show its incon
sistency — it has made itself ridiculous, since Strauss only showed the
consequences of aU the systems which have been openly adopted since
the time of Semler, and which unlimited free inquiry in religious
subjects introduced into Protestantism.
* "Dr. Strauss's Leben Jesu," says a young writer, " is a sword which has
deeply wounded both Eationalism and Supernaturalism. Its author resembles
Fernando Cortez, who burned his ships and rushed on to the conquest of new
land ;" and a little further on — " Strauss is the Spinoza of the new eternal Gos
pel, whose certain advent Lessing foresaw." — {Die Religion in ihrem Begriffe, Sec,
by Moritz CarriSre. Weilburg, 1841. p. 175.) CarriSre says, that he himself
derived his Christianity from the writings of Fichte and Hegel, of Schiller and
Goethe, rather than from those of Hengstenberg and Twesten, of Wegscheider and
Staudenraeyer. {Telegraph von Deutschland, 1842, No. 33.)
[See Voices of the Church, in reply to the Leben Jesu of Dr. Strauss, by the
Rev. J. R. Beard, D.D. London : Sirapkin, Marshall, and Co, ; and the article
' Gospel,' in The People's Dictionary ofthe Bible. — E,]

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 217

CHAPTEE XIII.
NEW ATTEMPTS OF PHILOSOPHY TO RE-CONSTRUCT DOCTRINE — PRIES,
PICHTE, SCHELLING AND HIS FIRST DISCIPLES — RELIGIOUS PHI
LOSOPHY OP HEGEL AND JACOBI — ANCILLON.
Philosophy had learned from Kant to be a rival of theology, which
could not dispense with its aid, though always treating it as a servant.
Proud of seeing that theology could do nothing without it, but in every
difficult crisis took refuge under its wings, and borrowed from it the
means of defence against aU aggressors, philosophy now wished to show,
that not only was it worthy to assert its independent existence in
friendly aUiance with theology, in accordance with the views of aU en
Ughtened minds, but that it could also supplant its rival, and occupy
the throne with equal iclat and success. By the mouth of Kant it had
abeady compelled theology to acknowledge absolute moral freedom.
This avowal took away the corner-stone from the Christian edifice, since
Christianity exists only to show that it is impossible for man to work
out his moral regeneration by his own unaided efforts. By applying
allegory to Scripture, Kant made it yield only the residuum of the aus
tere law of duty. But man needs more than the knowledge of the
law, and Kant's phUosophy treated only of the law aud the power of
observing it. It is necessary to do more than merely to excite man's
wUl. Unless we point out the path which he must pursue to attain his
proposed aim, we have only shown him the sword which wUl inevitably
sraite him. Kant's philosophy had another fault — it addressed itself
only to the human conscience, and man has more than a conscience ; he
has reason, sentiment, and a soul susceptible of holy emotions and of
pure thoughts. It was not long before minds trembUng under the
yoke of a too severe system proudly rose, and asked if in existence there
was nothing better to satisfy the moral wants which the criticism of
pure reason had only lulled to sleep. There soon appeared, with asto
nishing rapidity, new systeras of phUosophy, and thence new move
ments in theology. The names of Jacobi, Fichte, SchelUng, Hegel,
occur to our minds in mentioning the heirs of the Kantian phUosophy,
and these I shaU speak of before proceeding to those of our own time.

218 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
who dispute the palm even with the most celebrated of their prede

cessors.* It is true, that during the Ufe of Kant, and even after his death,
there were very many writers who thought that they taught either his
philosophy or modifications of it, and recognised its founder as their
master, while in reality they only preserved his forms and made use of
his terminology. Krug alone can be considered to have reaUy deve
loped the Kantian systera, and of him and his important influence on
theology I have already spoken. He was foUowed by Fries and his
school, who differed from Kant both in his method and in the develop
ment of his doctrine, particularly in regard to the conception of faith.
According to Fries, faith is nothing more than the presentiment
{Ahnung) by means of which we conceive of the physical world as an
internal manifestation of things.! The results of the Kantian phUosophy
in regard to the wants of practical and moral life were not, as I have
said, sufficient for that period of great intellectual agitation. This sys
tera became, as did the school of Socrates, a starting point for specula
tive philosophy. There was, first, the idealism of Fichte, which, gra
dually losing its primitive rudeness, became at last a profound doctrine
respecting the eternal connection of God and the spirit, with spuit, as
the essence of aU things. This idealism was only a necessary conse
quence of the criticism of Kant, and one at which he himself would
have an-ived had it not been for one of those inconsistencies to which
phUosophers are subject when they follow in the least degree the guid
ance of good sense. It is weU known that Fichte made aU objective
existences subordinate to subjective ideas; for the Ego, wherever it
exists, is aU, and nature in its universality can only be its offspring. It
is the shade which necessarily accompanies the reality ; and what, when
it thus contemplates itself, remains for this powerful, this unique, and
absolute principle, if not a loving reference of its phenomenal life to
this universal spirit ? According to Fichte's opinion, this was the mode
* Rosenkrantz has published a work entitled Schelling und Hegel. Konigsberg,
1843 ; and one volurae of Lectures on Schelling. Dantzic, 1843 ; which give an
excellent idea of the essential opinions of the two philosophers.
f Rosenkrantz designates the views of Fries and his plans of improvement as
a wearisome and tame modification of Kant's speculations, the whole aim of
which is, that man should examine his own mind, and accept the ideas of truth,
goodness, and beauty. — (Rosenkrantz, Geschichte der Kantischen Philosophie.
Leipzig, 1840. p. 431.) J, F, Fries was born at Barby, in 1773, and died in
1844, as Professor of Physics in the University of Jena. His principal works
ai-e—Practische Philosophie. Heidelberg, 1818-1832 ; Kritische Anthropologic,
Sic, Heidelberg, 1828-1831; Julius und Evagoras oder die Sch'onheit der Seele.
Heidelberg, 1822; and Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung. Jena, 1823.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 219
in which the Apostle John understood Christianity ; but we can hardly
imagine that, if such were the language of the apostle, he would have
founded an ideaUsticaUy Christian church in the tovras of Asia Minor.
Fichte founded no such society, and his influence has been almost as
smaU in the chm-ch as in the universities. Perhaps he himself volun
tarUy aided in making his doctrines ineffectual, by modifying them.*
But, notwithstanding his grand errors in relation to Christianity, he
has rendered to religion and morality an indisputable service, by show
ing the impossibUity of materialism even in an unreflecting age.
A different influence was exerted by Schelling on the theology of
his time. He was Fichte's contemporary, and succeeded him in the
philosophical chau- at Jena. He began by applying the idealism of his
predecessor to the principal doctrines of the Greek and CathoUc faith,
considering them as the principal features of the development of the
world, and, at the same time, as the fundamental thought of the divine
consciousness which had been revealed.! Schelling soon transformed
his doctrine into the objective, which was the all, the absolute, — an as
semblage of blind powers in the beginning, but animated by an irre
sistible tendency to develope itself, and to manifest itself by creations
graduaUy rising to infinity, and which, in tending to perfection, gives
always a greater consciousness, especially when referring to the human
intelUgence. The theory, thus explained, presented no new features,
since we see in it the ancient Pantheism of which Germany had learned
soraething from the Italian Bruno, and especiaUy from Spinoza, the
philosopher of Amsterdam. But there was novelty in ScheUing's ideas
respecting the perfect parallelism of the ideal and the real, the subject
and the object, and in the form with which he always opposed more and
more Fichte's doctrine of idealism. J
The doctrine of identity is this, viz., that the phenomenal world or
* Bretschneider, Systematische Entwickelung. In this work, p. 53, maybe found
a list of all tbe literature respecting the writings of this philosopher.
[The last edition of this valuable work (the fourth) appeared at Leipzig in
1841. Since then the literature, both on the present topic and every other,
has very much increased. Additional information may be found in Universal-
Worterbuch der Theolog. Kirchen-Relig. Literatur, von Dr. J. T. L. Danz. Leipzig,
1843 ; and in Handbuch der Theolog. Literatur, von Dr. G. B. Winer, 4th edit.
Leipzig. — E.]
•f ScheUing was bom in 1775, at LSonberg, in Wiirtemburg, and has, since
1798, filled philosophical chairs in different universities. He is now professor at
Berlin. X Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur. Leipzig, 1797. Von der Weltseele.
Hamburg, 1798. Bruno. Berlin, 1802, Philosophie und Religion. Tiibingen,
1804.

220 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
nature is not only the reflection or shadow which necessarUy accompa
nies the eternal Spirit, but that this pure reality is Spirit made visible.*
Frora this it foUows that the phUosophy of nature and transcendental
idealism are of equal necessity, and become, completing each other, the
foundation of philosophical science. The business of philosophy, there
fore, is to show this identity of nature and of spirit, which identity,
however, is full of oppositions.
But before all existences, before aU duality, there was a being, the
priraitive source of aU beings, and this being can only be conceived of as
absolute indifference, totally separated from all opposition. This being,
having in itself the foundation and reason of its existence, is God, who
reveals Himself by making a reflection of Himself, and by this act pro
duces unity and plurality, the finite and the infinite.!
God being thus revealed in and by nature, ScheUing developes his
opinions on evil and on human liberty, which has all the characteristics
of necessity, on the revelation of God in the history of the earUest
times, and by His astonishing appearancg in a mau who caUed himself
the Christ. J In this part of his works, the imagination of the poet is
so richly displayed, that it almost makes us forget the feebleness of the
phUosopher's demonstrations. The philosophy of nature, however, not
only found warm partisans, who appUed it to phUosophy and physics, but,
as we shall soon see, it was applied also to theological questions bv dis
tinguished men, such as Blasche, Troxler, Eschenmayer, Steffens, Daub,
Schwarz, and others less known, who, to the great astonishment of
SchelUng himself, deduced from it doctrines more or less in accordance
with orthodoxy.
It is now weU known in the world that ScheUing has abjured his
phUosophy of identity, and that, as I have stated elsewhere, on the
best authority, § he now acknowledges a God, the sovereign Master of
the universe, who is only what He wiUs, and that creation consequently
is a pure act of His wUl.
Can it be true, as it is reported, that ScheUing, Uke Schleiermacher,
who is reproached with simUar inconsistencies, has declared that he has
always been on the same ground, but that he now occupies a more
elevated position ? We cannot answer this question unless his lectm-es
on mythology and revelation are printed. We cannot judge a wi-iter
* Ueber das Verhdltniss, &c. Hamburg, 1806.
f Philosophische Schriften, vol. i. p. 497. Landshut, 1809. Darlegung des
Verhdltnisses, &c., p. 53. Tiibingen, 1806.
X Philosophische Schriften, 429, 456, 457.
§ Histoire de la vie et des ouvrages de Spinosa, p. 288 ; and see generally, chap
ters 21, 23, and 24, for more details respecting Schelling and his ancient school.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 221
from what he is made to say by disciples, frequently unskilful, or ad
versaries, always in quest of equivocal words, to show, in the least
favourable light, the sentiments of any great man who presents himself
before us. However, as friends and enemies seem to agree respecting
the fundamental principles of ScheUing's new phUosophy, we shall pre
sently give a sketch of it, drawn from the least suspicious sources.
Schelling founded, in the absolute, all the antitheses of the object and
the subject, of the ideal and the real ; and he explained the faU of raan
and the sin which followed, not by the abuse which he raade of Uberty,
but by the use of it ; for man detached himself by it from the unity at
which he must arrive ere order can be established. This expression of
faU led to those of reparation, reconcUiation, original sin, and of a holy
life to be gained, which is no other than the sanctification demanded by
the Gospel. We can understand how theologians, distressed by the sad
consequences of empirical and phUosophical Eationalism, thought that
they had found the means of re-establishing Christianity, by transform
ing it into a phUosophical systera, in which all the doctrines venerated
in the churoh should hold an honourable position. But as it is re
marked by the vulgar rationalists, whom these pretensions of philoso
phy have particularly displeased, if speculative theology has re-estabUshed
tbe words, it has not re-established tbe ideas. It was by altering the
traditional signification of words, and by using them only to clothe new
ideas, that a doctrinal system, which was not really ancient, was made
to pass as such.
Among those adherents to the philosophy of SchelUng who have
applied it to theology,* we may first mention Eschenmayer, who, though
not acknowledging the literal raeaning of the confessions of faith esta
blished in the church, has, however, by a veritable trick of argument,
arrived at a belief decidedly evangeUcal. He has not in the least
attacked the supernaturaUst principle, but may rather be accused of
sometimes carrying it so far as to lapse into real mysticism, as in his
writings on the relation between the visible and invisible worlds.
Eschenmayer was born in 1770, at Neuenburg, in Wiirtemburg. He is
a learned naturaUst, a skUful physician, and fills well the chair of phUo
sophy at Tubingen. When he first came before the pubUe, he seemed
to be somewhat inclined to Kantism, but he soon embraced the phUoso
phy of Schelling, which he has ever since declared to be the best cal
culated to prepare the way to a salutary restoration of the faith. His
works are numerous, and refer to many subjects in every province of

* This is not the place to speak of its application to other sciences as made by
Oken, Walther, and many others.

222 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
nature, but his Philosophic der Religion, and his work on the doctrine of
Hegeb give the best idea of the tendency of his reUgious opinions.
He has been justly reproached by supernaturaUsts with regarding the
accessaries of a doctrine as its fundamental principles, and with giving
as mathematically demonstrated truth, mere probabilities ; with a want
of clearness in his doctrinal opinions, and with a want of conciseness
in his conception of thera, which prevents their becoming an united
whole. Were it not for these defects, Eschenmayer's system would by
no means be wanting in harmony, especially as, unlike the famous
naturalist Oken, who, seeing nothing beyond nature, thinks and writes
that everything is born and perishes with it, he excels in describing
other things besides mere animal life and the material world.
Blasche and Eichmann, again, have taken different views. They saw
in ScheUing's philosophy only a raode of making human nature divine
by identifying it with the divine nature. He, says Eichmann, who
separates himself fi-om God, {and we all do so by sin,) cannot expect any
kind of immortality, for there is no immortality where there is no Ufe,
and can there be life where God is not ? That man, only, who feels
his intimate and indissoluble union with the divinity, can flatter himself
with the hope of a supremely happy immortaUty.* The loss of im
mortal destiny is coldly announced by the theologian Blasche also, who
died in 1833. He considers the life eternal promised by Christ only as
the general life of the universe, and thinks that this promise is fulfiUed
in the continual change of the Ufe of individuals.!
External nature was the book where Steffens early loved to seek so
lutions of the grave questions which interest the whole of humanity.
It seemed, for a time, that the long-misunderstood theories of Spinoza
would be sufficient to satisfy the craving desire which he felt to esta
bUsh some kind of unity in his varied knowledge; but he was too
poetical to devote to the service of a materialised idealism the best
quaUties of the mind and heart. He therefore warmly embraced the
philosophy of SchelUng, when in the com-se of his travels he not only
became acquainted with the system, but also had some intimate inter
course with its author. J He thought that he here saw the true solution
* Ricbmann's Gemeinfassliche Darstellung und WUrdigung aller gehaltreichen
Beweisarten fiir Gott und fur Unsterblichkeit der Seele. Stuttgardt, 1817.
t See principally his work on the attributes of God. Die gottlichen Eigen-
schaften. Erfurt, 1831.
X Heinrich Steffens, who has acquired a reputation in the provinces of poetry,
philosophy, and natural history, was born at Stavangor, in Norway, in 1773.
After filling professorial chairs at Jena, Halle, and Breslau, he was invited, in
1831, to Berlin, where he was Professor of Physics until his death in 1844.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 223
of unity in multipUcity, which he had sought for in vain in Spinoza's
theory. In Steffens, a vniter of uncommon power, we see the old vo
lunteer who not only courageously opposed the invaders of his adopted
country, but also communicated to his pupils the enthusiasm by which
he was himself animated. He was, however, of a profoundly subjective
nature, and would wiUingly have sacrificed aU the objectivity of his
knowledge to Uve tbe internal Ufe which he so weU described and felt,
if his naturally expansive mind had not sought to re-establish the equi-
Ubrium of its powerful faculties. The memoirs of himself, which Stef
fens pubUshed, and where he relates his own experience with so
much grace and simplicity, have been so popular, that I may be aUowed
to give here an analysis of that part referring raore particularly to the
subject under our consideration.* It seems that the mind of Steffens,
like so many others, was tossed on the waves of human opinion before
he arrived at the rest which, as he assures us, he found in the purely
Lutheran faith. He was first enamom-ed of the system of Kant, and
thought that with his strong mind he comprehended its whole import ;
but his wandering imagination, not finding rest there, opened to hira a
new prospect, in vague sentimentaUties in the style of Jacobi. This,
however, was only a transition stale, for the study of Jacobi's opinions
first made him acquainted with Lessing, by whose works he was intro
duced to Spinoza. The opinions of this phUosopher had the greatest
infiuence on his mode of thought, though the poetry of Shakspeare and
Goethe formed the charm of his leisure. The moral power of the phi
losopher of Amsterdam, the boldness of his conceptions, the numerous
mental gifts with which he was endowed, made Steffens imagine that
only by pursuing the same object should he obtain repose of mind.
Without positively declaring that he had frankly adopted the spu'itual-
istic Pantheism of Spinoza, he says enough of him to show that, " at
a period when aU his religious recoUections of the past had vanished,"
he esteemed himself happy in having met with a phUosopher who made
him love virtue for its own sake, and transform it into reUgion. Those
who are intimately acquainted with the opinions of Spinoza wUl under
stand how it was that his disciple, at the very moment when he thought
that he perfectly understood ethics, felt how much he had lost. " AU
living nature," says he, " the whole of varied life, seemed to me faded
and grey ; aU my wishes and hopes I had left behind me, for I was
obUged to confess to myself that as such they contained falsehood, and
their true importance was manifest only when they had vanished. This
total abnegation seemed to me to destroy something dear and holy
* Was ich erlebtel 4 vols, Berlin, 1841.

224 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
which at any price I must retain." But Steffens did not long do
homage to the God of Spinoza. With his erainently poetical nature,
he felt ill at ease in a systera 'which petrified everything before his eyes,
because he saw only one aspect of it — that which relates to space. But
despairing thoughts soon weakened his faith in it, and in the memory
of the past he found strength to struggle successfuUy against himself,
and to give glory to the God of Christians who made the victory easy
to him. He makes one statement which is well worthy of notice ; it is,
that the system of Spinoza was far from having made him an Atheist.
" What was in agitation within me," says he, " was by no means a con
sciousness fixed and bounded by mathematical demonstration ; it was
rather that great whole which began to exist and pulsate in me, so that
this pulsation, like a breath of the living God, beat even in the smaUest
particle of nature and the most trifiing events of history. I had, be
sides, not yet found the place whence the living motion of the whole
raight be seen ; but I knew that it must be accessible to the eamest
seeker." One of his most remarkable works is doubtless his Anthropologie,*
where the majestic concord between man and the surrounding universe
is described with a rare power of imagination, and a profound know
ledge of the subject. In opposition to the Hegelian phUosophy, for
which he has no love, Steffens seeks especiaUy to raise human dignity by
his doctrine of personality, which, when once firmly estabUshed, enables
him to develope his doctrine of immortaUty, which is its happy result.
His Religious Philosophy is fuU of the same spirit of evangeUcal piety ;
and in this work it is his pecuUar effort to arrive at a reconcUiation of
faith and phUosophy by a full knowledge of Christian sentiraent. But
it was irapossible that his raethod should be free fi-om error, since,
wishing to find aU the doctrines of the old Lutheran system in the phi
losophy of identity, he may be justly reproached with reviving the
heresy of the SabeUians, who confounded the personaUties in the Deity
in the unity of the Father, because they had not penetrated sufficiently
deep into the idea of individuality to deduce from it the Christian doc
trine as conceived by the ancient church.! HegeUanism has indulged
in a free criticism on the tendencies of this Lutheranism restored by
* Anthropologie, 2 vols. Berlin, 1832, Several novels of Steffens, such as
Die Familien Walseth und Leith, are also a sort of poetical Anthropology in which
the manners of the ISth century are admirably depicted.
t Christliche Religions Philosophie, von Henrich Steffens. The first part com
prises theology, and the second ethics. Breslau, 1839. Tbis work and the
Anthropologie have secured for their author an indisputable position in philoso
phical science.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 225
philosophy, and Eosenkranz, in the Jahrbuch of Berlin, has endeavoured
to point out defects in every part of the work. This is the darkness
which, thinking itself light, endeavom-s to drive away the last ray which
troubles it. We may judge of it from these short quotations : — " In
soterology," says the critic, " Steffens considers the Holy Spirit only as
a purifying and sanctifying agent, instead of regarding it as the totality
of the idea of God, in which the existence of the Father and the Son is
only the moment, and of which the Spirit forms the unity. The Holy
Spirit is reaUy so only by the Spirit ; hence it follows that the Christian
church is not only, as Steffens imagines it to be, a pious community,
aUied coUectively by individual faith in Christ the Saviour, but the
community is itself the divine spirit in which the Father and the Son
are really present. By this definition, is not the Christian church placed
in a higher position than that which Steffens himself assigns to it ? We
must represeut it to om-selves as the organisation without which we
could not imagine the Divine Spirit, for the church is not only a society
of saints, it is also the eternal perfection of the existence of the Spirit.
In eschatology, Steffens seeks to preserve for the future judgment an
abstract future, because he does not yet understand the church to be
the reaUsation of the Uberty which in history outstrips history. The
divine Ufe of the church is the absolute enjoyment of the Divine Spirit,
which glorifies aU the past and the futm-e in the living union of God
and man by the mediation of the God-man, fiUs it with the plenitude
of a felicitous present, and even admits the future judgment as the
moment of its eternal process, and withdraws it from aU the relations of
time." *
The theory of Schwarz is more positive, and has a more du-ect appU
cation to the divine Ufe, He had had occasion to superintend the edu
cation of young children while pastor of a parish near Giessen, his
native town, and he knew that it is impossible to iraplant and develope
reUgious feeUngs in the soul by mere philosophical speculations, but
that for this end a purpose must be given to sentiment, so that it may
not spend its strength in vague abstractions. The Uterary activity
shown by Schwarz, who has been professor of theology at the Univer
sity of Heidelberg since its re-organisation in 1804, has been entu-ely
with a view to improve the moral system of schools, and his writings
on this subject are numerous. He wished to show that phUosophy, to
• Jdhrbiicher fur wissenschaftliche Kritik, Nov. 1840. Bome, in a moment of
teraper, has called Steffens a neophyte of faith and an apostate of science ; but
Th. Mundt replies to hira, that Steffens bad no other foundation than specula
tion for his pietism of sentiment. {Literatur unsers Zeitalters. Berlin, 1842.
p, 508.) VOL. II. Q

226 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
be worthy of the name, ought to lead to the highest moraUty, and for
this purpose he published in 1793 his science of morality, which he has
since revised, and printed in the third edition in 1830, under the title
of Cliristliche Ethik.
In this work, principally, Schwarz explains his religious views,
which are strongly coloured by the phUosophy of ScheUing, and im
pressed with marks of Christianity, which empirical rationalists have
termed mysticism. Schwarz, in fact, insists on the individuaUy im
mortal destinies of man, which can be accomplished only by the fulfU
ment of God's wiU, through faith in Christ. For from this faith only
flows the highest science, the purest Ught, the truly divine Ufe, and
there can be nothing greater for man on earth than to become a
Christian.* With these deep convictions, it is not to be wondered at that he laid
the foundations of raoraUty in a Uving and animated faith in him who
showed in his person the beau ideal of moraUty. We must not, how
ever, despise all the moral systems which rest on other gTounds. The
Christian moralist can make use of them also, but he must choose from
the vast field of then operation those stones polished for this purpose
by human reason, and raust join thera to the Christian materials from
which the moral edifice ought to be constructed. We wUl give
Schwarz's answer to the ignorant zeal which made use of the word
mysticism, when strong arguraents would have been necessary to over-
thi-ow the moral superiority of his ethical system : " He to whom the
principle that Christ dweUs in us, appears to be mysticism, must blame
only the apostolic word for it ; or if we are reproached with calling
Christ the huraan consciousness, we raight appeal to Kant, who also
presents him to our minds as the ideal of pure humanity ; we might
appeal, too, to Ficinius, who caUs him vbtue revealed to men ! The
spirit of an age is not invariable, but when we have found a sure founda
tion for truth, it wiU not change. For us, my friends, we wUl remain
with Christ, and wiU seek our supreme good in intimate communion
with bun, so that by his spirit he raay sanctify our whole existence.
It is for you who seek to obtain this good that I have written this
work." And then, as a fundamental principle of Christian moraUty,
he gives this command of Jesus, " Seek ye first the kingdom of God
and his righteousness, and aU these things shaU be added unto you."
This principle he derives from the fundamental idea of the Christian
reUgion, viz., the immediate revelation of God in Jesus, and through
him the foundation of the divine kingdom among men.! We thus see
• Nicht h'oheres kann der Mensch sein, als ein Christ.
t Evangelisch-christliche Ethik, vol, i. Preliminary Dissertation, §§ 34 & 41.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 227
that Schwarz, as weU as Steffens, needs only more orthodox opinions
respecting Christ, to deduce from ScheUing's phUosophy principles
favourable to the restoration of pm-e Christianity.
The efforts of Daub were the most important of all those made to re
model Christian doctrine by ScheUing's phUosophy. He, like Schwarz,
was a theological professor at Heidelberg, and his influence in some
degree counteracted the effect of the natural and far too amusing ex
planations given by Dr. Paulus in his course of exegesis. The great
fault of Daub was his indecision and hesitation between different
systems of phUosophy. His opinions at &-st partook of the nature of
Kantism ; they were afterwards re-modelled on the phUosophy of
identity, and in the later years of his life he adopted the Hegelian
system. When under the influence of this last phUosophy, he said that
the ordinary faith of the church is a pure illusion, the SupematuraUsm
of our day is foUy, and Eationalism a self-deception.
From the many different phases through which Daub passed in the
course of his scientific career, he has been caUed the TaUeyrand of
German philosophy. From the revolutionary period of Kant, he passed
to the empire of SchelUng, which prepared the way for him to swear
aUegiance to the restoration of Hegel, who claimed tribute from the
whole kingdom of the new philosophy.
But, adds his biographer. Daub, as an individual, is the direct oppo
site of TaUeyrand. The statesman obeyed only the impulses of egotism,
and could justify his conduct only by his political position, and not on
moral grounds. Daub, on the contrary, was actuated only by the love
of truth, and preferred to be accused of inconsistency, rather than
maintain what he knew to be unfounded.* The reproaches, bitter as
they were, which he endured, did not prevent him from declaring that
the phUosophy of Kant, from the very nature of things, must lead to
the systems of Fichte and SchelUng, and thence to that of Hegel. It
js said that his faith in the Christian reUgion was firmly established
during all these changes, because they were changes in form only, and
not in the principles on which the different systems were supported in
his mind. His only aim was to estabUsh historical Christianity in the
minds of men on a scientific basis. Thus we may see that it is not
with justice that vulgar Eationalism has rejected speculative theology in
general, and that of Daub particularly, on the grounds of its being
ideaUsm.! This expression idealism, in fact, can be applied only to a
system which recognises truth in ideas alone, and not in facts. Now, a
Christian phUosophy, which recognises ideas in their historical reality,
* Erinnerungen an Karl Daub, by Rosenkranz, Berlin, 1837.
f Wegscheider, Institutiones, p. 132.
q2

228 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
cannot be thus designated. Did not Daub struggle bravely against the
giants of subjective and objective ideaUsm ? It must be said in his
praise, that whether he plunged into the immense ocean of objective
nature, or climbed the giddy heights of subjective idealism, he never
lost sight of the figure of Christ advancing on the waters, and ready to
assist him, like Peter, in walking over the moving surface of the abyss,
without fear of being swallowed up therein. According to Daub,
religion manifests itself in us by the recognition of a God united to
the feeling of our dependence upon him. Now, this religion necessarily
exists in a heart which has faith in the Gospel of Jesus, and passing
through stages of continual improvement effected in the lapse of ages
by assemblies of the church (councUs), it has come down to our own
tirae, though in a symbolical form, since our inteUect could understand
divine nature only in human nature. We have, however, at tbe same
time, a consciousness of its symbolical foi-m, and this serves in no
small degree to purify our sentiments and thoughts. It is the part of
Christian doctrine to develope, and to show the necessity for developing,
this positively symbolical system : thus our religion becomes a science ;
but a science glorified by the divine idea. To disprove still more clearly
the accusation of being merely a system of philosophy, the theology
of Daub adds that the doctrine ordinarily taught is the necessary
preamble to the other ; it furnishes the historical materials which the
true doctrine penetrates according to its symboUcal principles. These
materials furnished by doctrine make the speculative theology of Daub
rest upon the authority of the Bible, and as the Bible, in its historical
nature, is the starting point of aU doctrine, how are we to prove the
divinity of its narratives ? By the intimate connexion between doc
trines and facts. Thus the historical part of it never presents itself to
us as a mere relation of facts, possessing only a transient interest ; it is
imbued with the eternal essence of the very truth of the doctrines which
are founded on those facts.
If we ask from this theologian a guarantee of these truths, he wUl
speak to us of the inspiration existing in the identity of the huraan
consciousness and the divine, and wiU tell us that the Saviom- under
stood this identity better than any one else. It existed in him in the
greatest degree, so that God became man in Christ, and it is the form
under which he appeared on earth, that is the historical fact of Chris
tianity.* These were the opinions by which Daub's early years were charac
terised, and they gained for him great celebrity. The universities were
* See his Theologomena S. doctrine de relig. christ., &c. Heidelberg, 1806.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 229
beginning to be somewhat satiated with vulgar Eationalism, and they
were very glad to compare this new system with the manoeuvres practised
by Paulus and Wegscheider to deduce from the Gospel something different
from the ancient faith. Daub, however, was not satisfied with his own
conclusions, and had visions of a new form of tmth. He was struck by
the mode in which Marheinecke treated doctrine, and sought to pene
trate into his spu-it. He thus came to meditate his desertion from the
ranks of SchelUng to the HegeUan camp. This desertion was not gene
rally known until after his death, when his editors communicated to the
public his doctrinal lectures, which plainly show the Hegelian nature of
his opinions. He had, however, proved his change of opinion in a work
published a short time before his death, which treats of the dogmatical
theology of our day, or the egotism in the science of faith and of its doc
trinal points.* We are surprised to find in this work, written by an old
man entitled to our respect on so many considerations, a prevaUing bit
terness of tone and a severe manner of deciding questions concerning
which the author had hiraself been long in a state of uncertainty. He
could not forget the sermons in the Kantian spirit which he had pub
lished at the commencement of his literary career,! nor his transition
from Kant to ScheUing. Modesty is surely especially becoming in those
who have experienced how much it costs to attain mental repose. But
human natm-e seems to be such, fhat intolerance and egotism are the
lot of every man who has not yet arrived at a complete knowledge of
the truth, even when he inveighs against these two passions, condemned
by the Gospel, This unfortunately was the case with the learned pro
fessor, who has, notwithstanding, left lasting traces of his influence at
Heidelberg. The leading idea in the Theologie jetziger Zeit, is that all
the opinions agitated in our times, with the single exception of Hegel's
doctrines, are the productions of egotism, and that they are made
ridiculous by being confined to the domain of moraUty, when they
should rather launch forth into the infinite fields of science. A singular
assertion, truly, for an old adherent of Kant ! And yet in these pre
tensions Daub only follows in the footsteps of his master. Hegel saw
no evU save in the negation of his philosophy : all which does not, ac
cording to it, surmount the finite limits of the human mind, he caUs
evU {Esse), in the same way that he gives that narae to the knowledge
* Die dogmatische Theologie jetziger Zeit, oder die Lebssucht in der Wissenschaft
des Glaubens und seiner Artikel. Heidelberg, 1833. In the same spirit, but more
fully developed, are written his academical lectures on philosophy and theology,
which have been published since his death, by his friends Marheinecke and Dit-
tenberger. 6 vols. Berlin, 1838-41.
f Predigten nach Kantischen Grundsatzen. Giessen, 1 794.

230 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
of our own individuality {Wissen seiner Eimelnheif), and to the return
of subjectivity on objectivity,* These words of the master show us
that the meaning given by his disciple to the word egotism, is the
attachment of the subject to its individuaUty. Are not the discussions
necessitated by the absolute truths of Hegel equaUy egotistical, since
they express the variable thoughts of the subject ? Is not the total
deprivation of subjectivity equivalent to identity with the object, and
does it not realise the Pantheism which this school professedly wished
to avoid ? It was not only Supernaturalism that was wounded by this
new form of polemics ; Eationalism, which had been pitilessly scourged
by Daub, accused him of having distorted its principles in order to
make his triumph over them seem the more complete ; and we must
confess that the confusion of ideas in which Daub entangled himself to
gain credit for originality, frequently caused him to attack what was in
fact a reaUty. But Daub's opinions have little influence in the schools,
and only add another and a somewhat disconnected chapter to the
history of the vagaries of the human raind. It wUl, therefore, be better
to give some detaUs respecting the opinions of the philosopher who was
his guide, and who has disciples occupying the attention of the public
far more than does Daub.
It would be foUy to think of giving a complete exposition of Hegel's
opinions on philosophy and reUgion, within our narrow Umits. But
smce we have shown above their tendency, and are speaking of then-
influence on the theology of our day, we must make some inquiry into
the reUgion of a man who now engages the attention of aU phUosophical
parties, and to whom his disciples seriously ascribe opinions of a nature
very equivocal in the eyes of Christians.
Hegel was born at Stuttgardt, in 1770. He early devoted hunself
to the studies of phUosophy and the natm-al sciences, and when he
left the University he was able to teach then- elements to the young
people, the care of whose education was entrusted to him, fu-st at Berne,
and afterwards at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, This employment, however
interesting its nature, did not please him more than it had pleased
Fichte and Kant, who had gladly abandoned it, and, Uke them, Hegel
seized the first favourable opportunity of entering on the career of a
professor. He made his debut at Jena in the character of a pro
fessor and writer. The philosophy of Schelling was then just rising
into notice, and as it appeared to bim to unite the conditions of the
future, he appUed himself to develope its principles, and show their use
in science. But he afterwards thought that he had discovered the
weak side of this system. It was not untU after his instaUation in the
» Encyclopddie der philosophischen Wissenschaften. Heidelberg, pp. 363, 460.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 231
philosophical chairs of Heidelberg (1816) and of BerUn (1818), at
which latter city he succeeded Fichte, that he founded that phUosophy
of the mind which he has dared to caU the final expression of the
human inteUect, in spite of his own fundamental principle, which fixes
no limits to the developraent of the mind.
Our purpose, however, is especially to show the religious part of
Hegel's system. We must therefore state that his first religious stu
dies were purely rationalistic. Eosenkranz teUs us that Tubingen
was the scene of Hegel's first attacks on the reigning theology.* He
was then only a student, yet he took part in aU the religious disputes
which were excited principaUy by the lAfe of Jesus, published by the
venerable Hess, of Zurich, a book which gave rise to so many works
respecting the plan which Jesus must have formed for the realisation
of his views.! H^gel, as we have said, took part in these disputes,
and he showed his predUection for phUosophy, which he would exalt,
even at the expense of theology, by instituting comparisons, after the
fashion of the day, between Christ and Socrates, and pointing out the
superiority of the son of Sophroniscus to the son of Mary. When in
Switzerland, he abandoned these notions, borrowed from the NaturaUsm
of Lessing and Eeimarus. Without caring more for the fate of Socrates,
he followed Jesus of Nazareth, step by step, hoping to find in his ter
restrial Ufe something which reUgion and philosophy would agree to
acknowledge as truth. The result of these studies was a life of Jesus,
yet unpublished, in which Christ is considered as a divine man, in
whom all is pure and subUme, and who made himself remarkable chiefly
by his triumphs over vice, falsehood, hatred, and the servile spirit of
his age. Nothing is said of mu-acles in this history, and yet Eosen
kranz, who has seen it, affirms that it produces a sublime impression
on the mind. J Hegel represents Christ in the fulness of his huraan
reality, in his teachings, as well as in his connexion with his disciples.
In his earnest desu-e to do better than Bahrdt and Ventmini, he en-
* In the interesting work in the Literarisch-hist. Taschenbuch, published by
Prutz. Leipzig, 1843.
f We may become acquainted with it, either in Hase's Life of Jems, 3rd edit.
p. 33-35, or in Bretschneider {Systematische Entwickelung aller in der Dogmatik,
Sec, 4th edit., p. 229).
X Rosenkranz says that in passing over in silence the miraculous part of the
Gospel, Hegel had no intention of facilitating his task, since he had accounted
to himself for the philosophical idea of miracle. He quotes a passage from
Hegel, in which that philosopher says that it is as impossible to decide by
reason the question of the possibility of miracles as it would be to give to a Moor
the fair complexion of a European ;] and then says that the best way to reconcile
adversaries is to show their truth in the imagination.

232 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
deavours by paraphrases to raise the words of Christ to a loftiness of
meaning far remote from the simpUcity of the evangeUcal words.
But in these preparatory studies, Hegel did not confine himself to
the elements of the positive part of the Christian faith ; he sought to
discover a synthesis which should explain the reason of Christianity in
the world, and of its historical development. Like Leibnitz, who had
reconciled reason and faith by explaining the difficulties experienced by
the minds of his age in understanding truths said to be evangelical ;
like Kant, who had proposed the religion of reason as the best anti
dote to Naturalism ; Uke Fichte, who made use of the fourth Gospel to
represent Christianity as the acquisition of the happiness to which raan
aspires ; Uke ScheUing, who, from the beginning of his phUosophical
career, sketched for himself an historical construction of Christianity ; —
Hegel also wished to find a positive reUgion which should at the same
time be a philosophy. Great men cannot endure duality in their reli
gion and philosophy. He applied hiraself to refiection on the generating
principle of universal life. This he found in love, considered as the
action of self in another without ceasing to be self, returning to self to
pass again into another. These refiections led him to his system of
dialectics. He has himself said, in his Phenomenology, and in his
Philosophy of Religion, that the nature of his systera might be repre
sented as the action of divine love.*
Hegel's phUosophy may, then, be reduced to three parts, which may
be designated as the logic which, as the science of ideas, accomplishes
the process of didactic development — a philosophy of nature which has
quite a dift'erent raeaning from that of SchelUng ; for with Hegel it is
only the expression of the passage to another being, and the philosophy
of the mind, which considers thought refiecting itself on itself, aud
showing itself by the mind in the sciences of law and morality, in the
state, history, reUgion, and the arts. The reUgion which is deduced
from this system may be said to consist of the objective existence of the
infinite mind in the finite, for mind is only for mind, consequently God
exists only in thinking and being thought of. In the phUosophy of
nature, inteUigence and God are lost in objective nature. Hegel aUows
* Compare this fundamental idea of tbe religious philosophy of Hegel with
the following proposition of Spinoza : — " Mentis amor intellectualis erga Deum
est ipse Dei amor, quo Deus se ipsum amat, non quatenus infinitus est, sed qua-
tenus per essentiam humanae mentis, sub specie eternitatis consideratam, expli-
care potest  Mentis amor actio est qua mens se ipsam contemplatur, con-
comitante idea dei tanquam causa, id est activa, quo deus, quatenus per mentem hu
manam explicari potest se ipsum contemplatur concomitante idea sui ; atque adeo
hie mentis amor pars est infiniti amoris, quo Deus se ipsum waM' —{Ethices,
Pars 'V. prop, 36,)

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 233
them a distinct and separate existence, but refers them to a common
principle, which is, according to him, the absolute idea, or God. In
this case, objective nature is only the absolute idea going out of itself,
so to say, giving itseK limits, though it is infinite, and individuaUsing
itself; so that the intelligence of aU men and external nature are
only manifestations of the absolute idea. When we say to the disciples
of this system, that it is only the phUosophy of identity modified, they
exclaim against us ; and when we speak of the Pantheism which per
vades it, they make a division among themselves. We may, therefore,
say that there are three different parties among the warmest partisans
of the professor of BerUn, These parties are represented, on one side,
by Usteri and Gotschel; in the middle, by Eosenkranz, Daub, and
Conradi ; and on the other side, by Eichter of Magdeburg, Dr. Strauss,
Bruno Bauer, and Feuerbach.
Whatever we may think of the philosophy of Hegel, it is certain
that the collection of his works published since his death by devoted
adherents, such as J. Schulfze, Gans, Michelet, Marheinecke, and For
ster, forms a lasting monument of a gifted mind and profound inquirer
into human thoughts, under whatever form they appear in civil life, in
history, or in the arts. These works entitle their author to a place
among the oracles who will be frequently consulted in philosophical
science, but they cannot exculpate Hegel from the charge of having
perverted all the ancient Christian opinions which he attempted to
restore.* I have purposely omitted to speak of Jacobi, who also had an influence
on theology, because his philosophy was not derived from that of Kant,
though he, like that philosopher, thought that the existence of a God
cannot be proved by science, and that something more than inteUigence
[der Verstand) is necessary to aid us in rising to the ideas of liberty and
immortality. The mling faculty with Jacobi was sentiment, and for this
reason the transcendent intellect of Fichte despised what he considered to
be in Jacobi the mere language of a charlatan. But Fichte's profound
lucubrations sank into obscurity, even while their author was still Uving,
whUe the opinions of Jacobi are now held in universal estimation even
araong the HegeUans, who make them enter into the evolutions of their
absolute idea. Jacobi maintained, that if we would arrive at any truth,
we must set out from a principle which, though indisputable, cannot at
first be demonstrated. This principle is faith, which he afterwards
confounds with reason, and this is the cause of so many misunderstand
ings in the lustory of Eationalism. As the external world, says Jacobi,
* For more details, see ch. 22 & 23 of the Life of Spinoza,

234 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
is revealed to us by means of the senses, so divine things are revealed
to man by means of faith or reason. This revelation through faith
brings irresistible conviction ; it responds to an imperative demand of
the soul ; the soul acquiesces unhesitatingly. But when mere intelU
gence addresses it, it hesitates, knowing that the knowledge of the in
tellect is communicated to it, and it is therefore susceptible of error.*
Thus the phUosophy of Jacobi occupies a middle place between the
criticism of Kant and the idealism of Fichte. Jacobi's aim was not,
Uke that of Eeinhold, Herbart, and Fries, merely to modify Kant's sys
tem, but to re-construct its foundations, and preserve only its noble prin
ciples respecting the liberty and the conscience of man.! He did not,
it is true, arrange a regular system, but this is rather a circumstance in
his favour. We must always distrust one who shows us a complete
organisation of the science of ideas. Men may attempt, but God alone
could execute, such a work ; he who is placed at the summit of the
synthesis can explain it according to his conception of it. But a pe
rusal of Jacobi's Letters to Mendelssohn on the Boctrine of Spinoza, his
Woldemar, some of his pamphlets, and, above aU, his correspondence,
wUl give a very good idea of his views on reUgious philosophy which with
him is the purest religious feeling without the sacrificial Christ — reUgious
feeling which is not the result of speculation, but which seems fo us to
be a want of om- nature that it is the most essential condition of our
existence to satisfy. The mUng idea of the whole system is, that there
are truths of faith which cannot be demonstrated— truths which rest on
facts of the conscience, of which the conscience alone can judge, and of
which it is as firmly convinced as if they had been demonstrated.
Jacobi agreed with the philosopher of Konigsberg in affirming that
pure reason is unable to rise to the knowledge of God, of immortality,
and of moral Uberty ; but he accuses him of adraitting these three truths
only by an inconsistency in his own principles. While Kant allowed
to the understanding only a forraal objective or subjective-objective
knowledge, Jacobi claimed for it, in relation to the knowledge of finite
reality, objectively real truth ; so that, whUe the first wishes in expe
rience to fix things subjectively, the second, on the contrary, lays it
down as a principle, that the subjective which recognises can only be
fixed objectively, or by things. J
* His principal work on religious philosophy is entitled Von den g'ottlichen
Dingen, 2nd edit, Leipzig, 1822.
f Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi was born at Diisseldorf, in 1753. He died in
1819, when President of tbe Munich Academy of Sciences.
+ For further details respecting Jacobi and Kant, in their connexion with Pan
theism, see the Spinoza, ch. 18, 19.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 235
Frederic AncUlon, late foreign minister in Prussia, took the same
views. We should have preferred to see him confine himself exclusively
to philosophy. He, too, shows the point at which experimental know
ledge stops, whether in reUgion or phUosophy ; he shows that sentiment
goes much further than knowledge, and that beyond demonstrative
proofs there is natural evidence — beyond analysis, inspiration — beyond
words, ideas — ^beyond ideas, emotions ; and that the sentiment of the
infinite is a fact of the soul — a primitive fact, without which man would
be merely an animal of physical instinct or calculation.*
* Besides his Essais Anciens et nouveaux, and bis Melanges sur des sujets lit-
teraires et philosophiques, see particularly his Essai sur la science et la fai phi
losophique. Paris, 1830.

236 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE XIV.
SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY FOUNDED UPON SENTIMENT  EARLY CAREBE
OF SCHLEIERMACHER — HIS DISCOURSES ON EELIGION AD
DRESSED TO CULTIVATED MINDS.
Th:^ologians did not remain idle spectators of these contests of
mind with itself. But modern theologians, unlike the partisans of the
philosophical systems anterior to those of Hegel, ScheUing, and Jacobi,
made theology speculative, and thus subjected it to a coraplete trans
formation. PhUosophy was no longer either the ally or the enemy of
theology, but became united to it, adopted its phraseology, but yet did
not cede one of its own pretensions. This transformation has been so
complete that we may caU modern EationaUsm theology absorbed by
philosophy. It is true that theologians have not avowed this ; they
have always appeared to make philosophy support the decisions of their
speoulative spirit. But in reality those decisions have been dictated by
phUosophy, which has, in spite of the theologians, domineered over all
their new systems, Jacobi and Schelling speak by the mouths of
Schleiermacher, Twesten, aud Nitzsch ; ScheUing, thi-ough Eschen
mayer, Schwarz, Daub, and Steffens; Hegel, through Marheinecke,
Conradi, and Strauss ; and Daub again, and Fries, through the profes
sors De Wette and Hase. These theologians, each in his own peculiar
way, have endeavoured to raise theology to a speculative science, and
to prove that philosophy has value only so far as it rises to the height
of theology, and becomes identified with it. They have thus preserved
in the eyes of philosophy which denies this identity, and yet does not
refuse to yield to evidence, several Christian truths which vulgar Ea
tionalism had rejected as being contrary to reason. But we shaU soon
see that if Christian doctrine has appeared to derive support from spe
culative theology, it has incurred dangers the more formidable, because
less evident than those which it has escaped. Schleiermacher was the
first to attempt this task, which requires for its fulfilment inteUectual
power of no ordinary stamp. This theologian, from his actual import
ance and from the no less real influence which, by raeans of his
writings, he stUl exercises on theology, deserves a prominent place in

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 237
our history. He was born at Breslau in 1768, and died in 1834. He
was thus a witness of those remarkable events which foretold to clear
sighted men the approach of a new era in the history of nations, and
warned them to prepare the raaterials for a new social edifice, if they
did not wish to be found unprovided, and to be entangled by the course
of events in difficulties whence they could not extricate themselves
without great trouble, Schleiermacher, whose versatiUty of mind would
have qualified him for becoming distinguished among those who had the
guidance of public affairs, chose what would to most men seem a far
more humble part, and applied himself to the regeneration of the reli
gious ideas of his day. He belonged to that class of richly-gifted men
who, whatever position they raay occupy, cannot fail to distinguish
themselves, and it must be confessed that, notwithstanding the raode
rate terms which he made use of to effect a reconciUation between
parties, and that kind of fusion of EationaUsm and SupematuraUsm the
place of which we cannot always perceive, he has given light and life
to his native land. If he has inflicted severe wounds on the Christian
faith of ancient times, in attempting to cure the maladies of the church,
he has at least raised reUgion from the depths to which it had fallen,
and has restored to evangelical Christianity a part of its ancient fame.
Schleiermacher was educated among the Moravian brethren, first at
Niesky and afterwards at Barby, From the examples of practical
Christianity before him, even raore than from the doctrinal instructions
that he received, he derived a piety which he never lost, and which
often protected him from the saUies of an imagination that perhaps
might otherwise have led him very far. We cannot read without emo
tion what he himself has written respecting this period of his life.
" Piety," says he, " was the maternal bosom in the sacred shade of
which my youth was passed, and which prepared me for the yet un
known scenes of the world. In piety my spirit breathed before I found
my peculiar station in science and the affairs of life ; it aided me when
I began to examine into the faith of my fathers, and to purify my
thoughts and feeUngs from aU alloy ; it remained with me when the
God and immortality of my childhood disappeared from my doubting
sight ; it guided me in active life ; it enabled me to keep my character
duly balanced between my faults and virtues ; through its means I have
experienced friendship and love." * If it is tme that the impressions
of early youth are lasting, it is probable that his somewhat severe edu
cation among the Moravians was the cause that Schleiermacher, with
his astonishing mental activity, and sui-rounded as he was by circum-
* Ueber die ReUgion, Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verachtern. 4th
Auflage. Berlin.

238 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
stances so likely to give a wrong impulse to his mind, did not, instead
of beginning a new era in theology, take up and develope with some
^clat the system of NaturaUsm, which, in reality, sank into obscu
rity before him. We have seen that Schleiermacher speaks of mental
doubts which caused him, not to deny, but to regard in quite another
light, the questions relating to God and immortality ; this is equivalent
to a confession that doctrine held no important place in his positive
belief. It was at this period of trouble and anxiety of mind that he
seceded from the Moravian community, and went to complete his stu
dies at the University of HaUe, where, in 1803, he was appointed ex
traordinary professor of philosophy and theology, and preacher of the
University. Before that date, however, he had commenced his career
at Berlin, where for some time he had held the office of chaplain to the
House of Charity. While at Berlin, he wrote sorae discourses addressed
to people of cultivated minds who professed little esteem for religion.
These essays excited gTcat interest, and created a reputation for their
author. FuU of rare eloquence and skilful arguraent, they forcibly
attacked the indifference which at that tirae wore the garb and bore the
name of tolerance, but which did not always conceal its profound con
terapt for all positive reUgion, Astonished by so much boldness, and not
understanding the unusual forms employed by the young orator, the
incredulous asked whether they were seriously attacked thus in then-
last stronghold of indifference ; and, when once convinced of the sin
cerity and courage of their new opponent, it becarae their first aim to
make hira a convert to their own party. Then the most suspicious
praises were lavished on him by the dispensers of fame, whUe ancient
orthodoxy, with a narrow-mindedness which it too often shows, has
tened to thrust hira out fi-om the number of the faithful, forgetting that
Christ himself has said that whoever is not against him is for him. In
exculpation, however, of these orthodox men, we must say that Schleier
macher laid himself open to religious criticism as much by his definition
of the religion which he endeavom-ed to defend against indifference, as
by his toleration of opinions somewhat akin to the phUosophy of Spi
noza. In fact, in the second of his discourses, after refuting the dif
ferent ideas of piety formed by his contemporaries, he says that the
meditation of the pious man consists only in the immediate knowledge
of the finite in the infinite, of the temporal in the eternal. To seek
this infinite, and to find it in aU that lives and moves, in aU which is
born and changes, in all action and endurance, to have Ufe and feel it
only in this immediate sentiment — this he caUs reUgion. This senti
ment alone can give peace ; where it exists not, we find only anguish,
trouble, and death. Thus piety is a life in the infinite nature of all.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 239
possessing God in all and all in God. These are beautiful ideas, but
we can easUy understand how they might be misconstrued, especially
when found in connexion with passages in which, deploring the un
happy destiny of Spinoza, whom he caUs the rejected saint {verstossenen
heiligen Spinoza), he afBrms that that philosopher was fuU of the uni
versal spirit — that the infinite was with him the beginning and the
end, the universe his only and eternal love, and that it was because he
was imbued with reUgion and the holy spirit that he remained alone —
raised above the vulgar, but without disciples, without even the rights
of citizenship.*
We may ab-eady perceive, fr-om the new forms in which he clothed
his reUgious ideas, that a tmly philosophical spirit animated Schleier
macher, and yet we cannot say that he derived his phUosophy from
Spinoza and Jacobi, of whora he always speaks with esteera, rather than
from Schelling, whose sesthetical views and explanations of ancient my
thology he approved. Schleiermacher belonged properly to no school,
though he appUed so successfully to phUosophy, and the many parties
who have seemed to claira him have only done so because he would re
fiect gloiy upon them ; but, if he formed no school of philosophy, it
was because he wished rather to speak to the souls of his disciples than
to construct new systems for their use ; he wished rather to infuse into
them religious life — to nourish them with piety, which compensates for
the want of so many things, and whose place nothing can supply — than
to teach them how to maintain ingeniously new mental combinations,
and, by imposing on them his ideas with all the authority of lus pro-
• Reden ueber die Religion, Fifth Discourse. I repeat that these Discourses,
glowing with eloquence and strong in argument, ought to be read only in the
fourth edition, in which there are explanatory notes of the passages most open to
criticism. It is true that many of these notes explain nothing, because Schleier
macher shared the weakness comraon to great men, of believing that he bad
never erred, and of attempting to reconcile this work of his youth with the doc
trines of the experienced professor. Is it then so difficult for a Christian heart
to perform an act of humility ? Thus, he says, with truth, of Spinoza and No-
valis, that it had excited surprise to find them joined together in this passage—
" When philosophers shall be religious and shall seek God like Spinoza, when
poets shall be pious and shall love Christ like Novalis, then will the great resur
rection be celebrated in the two worlds." He adds, in a note, that he venerates
these two men equally, because Spinoza was as pious in science as Novalis was
in the arts ; that, though written with the enthusiasm of youth, he would not alter
one word of this eulogium in old age, since there can be no question respecting
the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as understood by the church,, in Spinoza, and that
he does not see why he should not be accused of Catholicism for having praised
Novalis, with as much justice as of Pantheism for having spoken justly of its mo
dern restorer.

240 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
found learning, to deprive thera of the indisputable rights of their free
reason. This was a truly noble aim, and, like a true "Priest of the
Most High," who despises these partial struggles with irreligion which
benefit no one, he attempted to guide men into the most hidden depths
of the religious sentiment, to show them there all the living forms under
which it has always displayed itself, to prove how humanity necessarUy
produced these forms, and how they belong to that which we hold most
dear and sacred, and to lead his disciples to the surarait of the temple,
in order to look into the depths of the sanctuary and to discover aU its
secrets.* Then, with arguments fuU of vigom-, he shows fhe nuUity of aU
raental cultivation which is not founded on this groundwork of piety.
It matters little to Schleiermacher whether a man reject or admit the
doctrines of a church, because reUgion has no need of these forms. He
wishes to make man reflect on the religious sentiments of which he can
not be deprived. Eepudiate the miracles, the revelation, the inspiration
of the sacred books ; are we children, that we should need such legends
{seiche Milhrchen) ? yes, reject all hitherto given you to believe ;
Schleiermacher will soon compel you to adopt other miracles, other re
velations, another inspiration. AU which has an immediate connexion
with the infinite, with the universe ; all which is finite in so far as it
shows us the infinite, — all this is to hira a miracle. What is revela
tion, if not a primitive communication of the universe to man ? what is
inspiration, if not the spontaneous sentiment which raanifests itself in
us ? Thus the reUgion which he announces deraands no bUnd faith,
it does not begin by condemning the usages of science and the rights
of phUosophy ; it is quite natural, and in so far as it fiows from the uni
verse of which we are a part, it is entirely an effect of grace {ganz
Gnadenwirkung). We must not be surprised at this use of the word
grace with respect to the universe, because he takes care to add that his
God is his universe ; it is the unity of all, of that aU which affects our
sentiments and gives us spirituaUy the consciousness of our infinity.
If these views sm-prise you, if your Deism is alarmed by such boldness,
(for there is no one like the Deist for maintaining the divine personality
aud the individual immortaUty of fhe human soul,) Schleiermacher
wiU prove to you that you must know how to renounce this learner's
science of which you are so proud, and that you wiU become a com
plete man only by abandoning to the Eternal your perishable person
ality. The only immortality proraised you by reUgion is, that in the
midst of the finiteness in which you exist you shaU become one i
• Reden, p. 8, 9, 13.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 241
infinite. With this conviction you will not remain idle, but you will
labour for self-renunciation ; and when you shaU be thus lost in the
universality of existence, and when greater and holier desires arise
within you, then, and then only, he wUl speak to you of the hopes given
you by death, and of the infinity to which you may aspire.* Thus
Schleiermacher attempted to destroy all the prejudices, well or ill
founded, of those who thought themselves too enlightened to honour
religion, by showing the distinction already made by other rationaUsts
between religion and its forms, and by abandoning to the destroyers of
Christianity the books of theology, the symboUcal books, and even the
Scriptures, because the spirit of religion endures no slavery ; and he
only who is free from the chains of the letter and from a blind authority
can penetrate into the sanctuary. Having thus conciliated the sym
pathies of the scoffers and the indifferent in the cultivated classes, he
addresses himself to the epicureans and to the friends of the arts ; he
shows them that the highest enjoyment consists in a devoted attach
ment to religion and in an entire abandonment of the whole soul to the
immediate sentiment of the infinite and the eternal. He points out
the celestial aud imperishable as the highest aim of our exertions, and
fortifying this idea by aU the resom-ces suppUed by elevated sentiments,
he compels cultivated individuals, in whom the religious feelings are
not excited, either to renounce their claim to that title, since science
without reUgion is the most deplorable Ulusion, or to turn and do ho
mage to that benefactress of mankind as to the most blessed of realities.
From religion alone can proceeH that which is true and divine in the
vocation of man which forms the melody of his life ; it sounds its sub
Ume concords, and fi-om this union proceeds a powerful and holy har
mony which raises him to the plenitude of life. A whole volume would
be necessary to develope these ideas of Schleiermacher. They are
poured forth Uke a torrent from his heart, and nevertheless speak to
the intellect as much as to fhe sentiment of man. Nor can we foUow
him when he enters on the fruitful field of history, or when he pene
trates into the depths of the inner man, to make the whole world bear
testimony in favour of the reUgious sentiment, and to lead us by the
knowledge of the world to that of humanity, frora the knowledge of
humanity to man, whom we ought to love as its representative and as
much as ourselves, since he, like us, is a central point of the universe
which elevates and universalises us.
• See, besides the development of these ideas in the second and third Dis
courses, a beautiful Treatise of Dr. Zeller on the personality of God, as conceived
by Schleiermacher, in the Theological Annals, of which Zeller is the Editor.
1842. Part II. p. 263-288,
VOL. II. R

242 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
But it is not sufficient to respect the reUgious sentiment ; we must
also honour it in the positive reUgious systems, which are aU terres
trial forms of religion. When it puts off its infinity it can show itself
only under forms more or less pure, according to the state of mental
culture. They would be very bUnd who should condemn ancient Eome
for its Paganism, when she was so full of the divinity that she admitted
all the gods into her Pantheon ; and should praise modem Eome, when,
in banishing those gods fi-om her bosom, she has proscribed the reU
gious element. Yes, the positive religions are preferable to the ab
stract reUgions of the Epicureans and the Deists, since in them only
does the universal spirit develope itself, and in them only are found the
characteristic expressions of the religious sentiments of individuals.
Hence it foUows that none has a right to caU himself a religious being,
who has not a religion of his own which possesses a firm character and
decided features. We do not mean to say that we must set an equal
value on aU positive religions. We leam to appreciate the spirit of a
religion by reflecting on its fundamental idea. Thus we see that Ju
daism was an advance upon Polytheism, because it appears to us to be
a reciprocal intercourse between God and man, a retribution of God by
the finite which was itself a work of God, for and upon the finite which
was the work of man. But Christianity is superior to it, inasmuch as
by it is revealed the general tendency of what is finite towards the unity
of the whole as well as from the manner in which it intervenes in the
oppositions whieh arise, either by fixing bounds to them, or by distri
buting what is necessary of the divine and the human, to restore things
to their proper level. So that corruption and purity, enmity and in
tervention, are the constituent elements of the Christian idea ; and this
explains the holy sadness with which Christianity treats the sacred and
the profane, and gives the key-note to the sublime harmony of the life
of Jesus. Because the religion of Jesus alone is capable of raising us
to the infinite by the redemption which breaks down aU contradictions,
it suffers the existence of other reUgions by its side, in order that we
may judge of it by this amiable endurance, and that its Ught may seem
the more biiUiant from shining in the midst of darkness.*
By means of these discourses, sent forth into the raidst of an indif
ferent society, Schleierraacher sowed no unproductive seeds of reUgious
thought. He led many to the porch of the Christian temple which he
himself had trouble in entering ; but the reUgious progress which he
afterwards made through a better appreciation of evangelical Chris
tianity ought to have enabled him to introduce a great number into the
* Reden, Fifth Discourse.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 243
very interior of the sanctuary of whieh he had discoursed fo his earUer
readers. It seems however that the thwartings which his discourses caused him
to undergo deeply afflicted him, for he complains of them in the preface
to the third edition. After insisting on the difference of the period at
which they were written fi-om that at which he should no longer be re
proached for them, be adds, "that his work had become strange even
to himself."
These discourses of Schleiermacher, of which the fourth, on reUgions
in general, is not the least important, from the bold propositions which
it contains, — these discourses, which seemed to lend weapons to in
difference concerning reUgion, which, however, he opposed so warmly
and obstinately, did not fail to produce salutary fruits. They taught
some to reflect, and that was a great point gained, whUe others were
induced to seek for something more positive than the vague ideaUsra of
Fichte and ScheUing, which was beginning to engage certain minds at
that period. And then, as usual, in times of re-action, the reasonable
medium was lost, and Schleiermacher could say with some warmth,
" Why do you ask me for a new impression of my discourses, when the
class to which they were addressed seems to exist no longer ? for if we
make a close exaraination, here at least (at BerUn), among cultivated
people, should we not think it more necessary to compose discourses
for pietists, for slaves of the letter, for the superstitious and ignorant,
who condemn aU uncharitably?"
It has been sometimes said that these discourses sought to restore
Christianity in the name of science; but this is a strange mistake.
Schleiermacher spoke to cultivated men in language which they could
understand ; and by sentiment he thought to lead fhem to a better appre
ciation of the facts of consciousness, which they could not condemn
when once acquainted with them. To those who, relying on their re
putation as learned men, made of it a rampart against the Christian
faith, he showed the vanity of science when not vivified by religious
thoughts. He then presents some phases of reUgion to make it
admired even more than loved, and when he thinks that he has pro
duced a reasonable conviction, to deprive science of every pretext against
it, he takes up again the amiable, graceful and poetical side of the
question, in order to carry to the heart what he had at first presented
only to the mind. Tet valuable as these discourses are, both from
their intrinsic merit and the intentions with which they were written,
and though in Germany they are generaUy regarded as brilUantly elo
quent, we can look on them only as the work of a writer whose iraagi
nation has outstripped his reason, and who seeks to ereet a temple to a
r2

244 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
God unknown alike by the Christians of his day, and to the phUosophers
who listened to hira. And when we find that Schleiermacher, twenty
years later, published a doctrinal system, the principles of which are
so much opposed to his discourses, we regret that a man of such
genius, in his reluctance to confess his errors, should have made such
fruitless efforts to prove that there always existed an unity in his reU
gious opinions, wliich his friends have much trouble in maintaining.
At this same period of inteUectual labour, and of doubt concerning
positive Christianity, he wrote those Letters on the Lucinde of Schelling,
which may be regarded as the application of his religious principles to
actual life. When we see in reUgion only a sort of aesthetics, we soon
find it in the affections of the soul, and what is more easy than to make
art for art in respect to the sentiments ? Certainly, when one of the
most spiritual writers of young Germany thought proper to reprint these
famous letters, in the preface to which the writer declares that he would
rather be in heU with SchelUng than in heaven with Marheinecke, and
that the world would have been happier if it had never heard the
name of God, he certainly did not do so to show the Christian vntues,
and still less the religious belief of the author. Yes, Schleiermacher
would have risen in the esteem of the admirers of his fine genius, if he
had been more sincere respecting these first productions of a stormy
period in his inteUectual Ufe, if he had shown less anxiety in the long
and numerous notes which accompany the last edition, to veU, like a
true Schleiermacher {veil-maker), a part of his meaning, to confound
criticism, which was not always unjust towards him, to join accessories
to the first plan, and employ his powerful arguments in restoring parts
which had been rejected by superior light. What was the consequence
of this ? More consistent minds have been prejudiced against his later
works, which certainly are worthy of serious consideration, and a great
number of others among the young, who have been charmed by his
leaming, have attempted to blend the past and the present of Schleier
macher, and have made of his opinions a rationaUstico-supematuralistic
jumble, which they have dared to present as Christianity restored by
science. When we are recalUng this part of Schleiermacher's life, which his
friends avoid speaking of, in order to avoid also justifications which
justify nothing, we must not forget how lamentable was that period of
reUgiou, when, with the exception of some pure disciples of Kant,
who stUl honoured religion as a product of morality, all parties either
attacked Christianity with the arms of a shameless Eationalism, or
merely placed themselves on the defensive, and contented themselves
with some insignificant formulas, which they represented as reasonable

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 245
orthodoxy. Schleiermacher, however, was, from the commencement of
his literary career, able to take a high position, and gave to theology
especiaUy a strong and happy impulse, which wUl lead to stiU further
results, if it is to be really useful to the Church of Christ.
But if Schleierraacher was only the defender of a somewhat vague
though subjectively positive religiousness, he did not hesitate to offer to
these same persons of cultivated minds stronger mental nourishment in
proportion as his intentions were better understood and his powers in
creased with his faith. We discover this mental and Christian advance
ment very clearly in the sermons which, as a preacher, he deUvered up
to the latest period of his life.*
This is the most proper place ^to quote some passages of these ser
mons, in which the piety of the preacher soraetiraes contrasts with the
boldness of the theological professor. But what difficulty there is in
choosing, in volumes which contain from fifty to sixty sermons !
In order to give an idea of the style of the orator, and to show the
nature of his Christian faith, when his first impressions of a too
SBsthetical religion had faded, we wiU analyse two of the sermons best
suited to our purpose. The first is an occasional discourse, delivered
March 28th, 1813, in which the preacher displays a degree of patriotism
that made him somewhat unjust towards a nation which fulfilled a pro
vidential mission in the adventurous marches of its armies through all
the countries of Europe. He begins thus : " An extraordinary event
interrupts our instructions on the sufferings of the Saviour, and is
to furnish the subject of our meditations this day. We have seen the
departm-e fi-om our city, of the army of a nation aUied to us only in
name, and we experienced none of the emotions ordinarUy felt by
parting friends. We indulged, on the contrary, in grateful joy, because
we were delivered at last from a long and heavy oppression. This ai-my,
however, was iraraediately succeeded by the troops of another nation,
which had been nominaUy our enemy. These we received with the
most Uvely enthusiasm when they declared themselves friends of our
king and country. The excitement increased when we witnessed the
return of our own warriors and became assured of our deliverance. Then
cries of gladness were everywhere heard. Thanks to the Lord for the

* The third edition (of 1834) is in only four volumes, but it is so compact that
it contains the six collections published before the death of the author. Of his
posthumous sermons there have been published two volumes explaining the Gospel
of Mark, and two explaining the Gospel of John ; but these four volumes appear
to contain only the ideas of Schleiermacher collected by students and compiled
by his editors.

246 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
sure signs which he has given to the army through the frightful ravages
of the northern war ; thanks to the brave and noble leaders, who, not
fearing even to appear disobedient, dared to act according to the true
meaning and purpose of the king, and thus took the first decisive step
towards breaking the insupportable bonds, which had so long enchained
us ; thanks to the king, who, in such favourable circumstances, has acted
in a manner agreeable to our intentions. Yes, thanks to this union of
circurastances, the transition from slavery to Uberty is about to take
place. But though our hearts were thus deeply moved, we could not
express our feelings pubUcly, because the king had not yet explained his
intentions. The royal word has now been published, and though the
journals which have communicated it to us have deeply impressed it on
our hearts, you wiU yet hear it read with joy and emotion."
The address of the king to the nation here foUows, wdth some sen
tences pointing out to notice its patriotic spirit. The orator resumes
his discourse thus : — " The passage of our army through this town to
the struggle, the decisive struggle, for aU that is most high and noble,
is the event which, as it certainly occupies and excites aU our minds,
must engage our thoughts, particularly at this hour, so that this holy
war may commence with thanksgiving to heaven, and that our joy and
our hope may be consecrated by prayer to God." Here foUows the
text, the foregoing part being the preamble, which always precedes it in
Gerraan serraons,— Jeremiah xvu. 5-8 : " Thus saith the Lord, Cursed
be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose
heart departeth from the Lord. For he shall be like the heath in the
desert, and shaU not see when good cometh, but shall inhabit the
parched places in the wUderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.
Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord
is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth
out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her
leaf shaU be gTcen ; and shaU not be careful in the year of drought,
neither shaU cease from yielding fruit," Jer. xviii. 7-10 : "At what in
stant I shaU speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to
pluck up and to piUl down, and to destroy it ; if that nation, against
whom I have pronounced, tm-n from their evU, I wiU repent of the evU
that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak
concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to buUd and to plant
it ; if it do evU in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I wUl re
pent of the good wherewith 1 said I would benefit them." " Do not
imagine that I am going to draw a parallel between my country and the
nation against which we are about to enter the field, and that for this
purpose I have chosen these significant words of the prophet. No ;

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 247
I only wish to remind you of the contrasts which we meet with in our
own history, in order to show you what reality there is in the revolution
which causes our rejoicing, and to teach you that the smiling pictures
which we love to draw of our temporal future are only the accessaries
which ought to occupy our thoughts. Let us consider the changes that
have just taken place only in their relation to our morality, and to our
position before God. Let us meditate— 1st, on the contents of the
text, and then- application to our moral dignity ; and 3nd, we shall see
that such an application of the text is a motive for responding to the
appeal of our monarch."*
The discourse is glowing with patriotism, but the reproaches of the
corruption, infideUty, baseness and disloyalty of his fellow-citizens are
not less warm, and we refrain from quoting them, not only because
our space forbids us, but also because we would gladly see a skilful
translator render into our own language a part of the sermons contained
in the coUection of Schleiermacher.
Having given an example of his patriotic oratory, we will quote
some passages in which he attempts to re-buUd the Christian faith,
and treats of a subject which is the touchstone of theologians. The
text is Peter's answer to Christ's question, " But whora say ye that I
ara ? And Siraon Peter answered and said. Thou art the Christ, the
son of the Uving God." (Matt. xvi. 15, 16.) In a somewhat brief
exordium he says, that if it is natural to commence the new ecclesiasti
cal year by a preparation for the joyful feast of Christ's advent upon
earth, it is equally natural that the hope of a rich benediction which
should accompany the celebration of Christmas, should cause us to fix
more particularly our attentions on the author and finisher of our faith.
Since the text is an answer to the question, what is the true faith in
the Saviour on which depends the fulfilment of his promises, we must
prove that this answer contains the tme Christian belief, 1st, because it
is a faith which flesh and blood have not revealed, but our Father who
is in heaven ; 2nd, because it is the only faith on which the Lord can
buUd his church, so that in it and by it all wUl remain bound or loose
in heaven. Here we only analyse. Some of the disciples had answered that
here Jesus was taken for John the Baptist, restored to life ; there for
EUas, the old prophet, once more visiting the earth. These answers
remind us of the different ways in which men regard the person of
Christ. For among Christians we not rarely meet with some who con-
• Friedrich Schleiermacher, Predigten, p. 37-40 ofthe 4th volume. Edition of
Berlin, 1835.

248 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
sider Jesus only a severe but just judge of aU human greatness, as was
John ; others who think him Uke Jeremiah, who continuaUy raised a
complaining voice against the sins of his nation, and found consolation
only in his intercourse with God ; aud others again who regard him as
one of the ancient prophets returned to the earth, at a time when the
spirit of prophecy was reviving in Israel, and was again making heard,
by the mouth of Jesus, the powerful voice of the Deity. But the
Saviour does not speak the words of salvation in favour of those who
think thus of him, for flesh and blood, that is to say, man's unaided
reflection, can produce these opinions. Jesus caUs Peter blessed, be
cause instead of having had his faith revealed to him by flesh and
blood, he had received it from his Heavenly Father. At a period of
general national confusion, no express revelation from God is necessary
to teach us that this state of affairs is the result of forgetfulness of
divine things, and we rejoice when men appear who can uproot the
evil. We may caU thera messengers of God, and yet not attain salva
tion by this faith. We may rejoice at the appearance of a com-ageous
Elias, who denounces the baseness of courts, who speaks with energy
to those before whom all others are silent, and humUiates, by the power
of his representations, those before whom aU ought to bow; who,
when asked, "Art thou he that troubleth Israel?" will answer, "No,
but thou, and thy father's house." (1 Kings xviii. 17, 18.)
Many among the Jews may have thought Jesus such a man, and
yet exclaimed, Crucify'him. Such a faith may be pm-ely human in its
origin. It is not the faith confessed by Peter when he said, " Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
From the earliest ages of Christianity down to the present day, there
have been disputes concerning the manner in which the human and divine
were united in Jesus. But remark, that Jesus does not ask Peter, In
what sense dost thou understand me to be the Son of God ? in what
sense is the human and divine united in me? Such a question he
thought unnecessary; he refrained from putting it, in order to teach us
not to condemn pitilessly the different explanations which may be given
of Peter's answer. We om-selves do not undertake to define the nature
of this union, in order to form a complete idea of Christ, but we must
discriminate between Peter's confession of faith and the opinions respect
ing the Saviour given before that of the apostle. When Peter affirmed
that Jesus was the Christ, every one understood that he was not merely
sent, as was Johu the Baptist, to announce the approach of the king
dom of God, but he came to found it himself, in his own name ; that
he was not sent, like EUas and the other prophets, to recal the atten
tion of his contemporaries to the forgotten law, and to punish them for

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 249
their transgressions, but he came to substitute for an imperfect institu
tion one more nearly perfect, and to judge the whole world, according
to what, by his intervention, God wUl reveal to the world, to reconcUe
it to heaven. He was not only one who, in days of grief and mourn
ing, came to proraise a better future, nor merely the flower of the
nation from the virtues which distinguished him ; he was the strong
and vigorous tree of humanity pointed out by all prophecy, and which
wiU be found in aU prophecies of the future ; from him proceeds aU in
spiration, and in him are found spu-itual consolations in such abun
dance, that we may for ever draw from them, as from the plenitude of
aU gifts. As to the second part of the answer, viz., that Jesus was
not only the Messiah, but also the Son of the living God, Jesus himself
has, in another place, declared that if the great ones of the earth were
sometimes caUed sons of God, he might, with mucb greater reason, be
so designated, since the word of God, which prophets addressed equally
to kings and subjects, was incarnate in him, so that whUe all his ac
tions derived life from God, and aU his words were divine truths, yet
this incarnation of the word did not prevent him from being our
brother, our companion, in all the weaknesses of humanity, excepting
sin. This, then, was the faith confessed by Peter, and such a faith the
Heavenly Father alone could reveal to him. It was not an act of flesh
and blood to foreknow and hope for such a son of God living among
men, or to admit the idea of such a being, when presented to us. This
faith, according to the preacher, is the basis of Christianity. " Yes,"
says Schleiermacher (we here translate his words), " if we consider the
person of om- Saviour, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the living God,
we shaU confess that this faith could not arise at the time of our Lord's
appearance any more than now, when flesh and blood are the only
agents employed to lead us to faith. For men, who stiU exist in the
atmosphere of material life, engaged in occupations of an entirely ter
restrial nature, look only at the external advantages which alone gain
then- respect and obedience. In Jesus, there is no extemal splendour,
no magnificence, no glory nor honours, but disgi-ace and insults, con
tempt under every form. If a raan of a more cultivated mind contem
plates the Son of God, he pictures hira devoted to the intellectual labours
which, by a certain class, are placed among the first of our advantages.
But in Jesus we find nothing indicative of a great superiority in what
are caUed the arts and sciences ; in place of art he has a love of God in
aU its purity ; his only science is that of the way to life, and the divine
laws which are our guide. If we look in hira for some of those gifts
which strike and dazzle us, we find but one, that of truth. And there-

250 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
fore has faith in Jesus, as the Son of God, been always considered a
foUy by human wisdom, when unenlightened by God himself. Hence
it follows that in order to recognise Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of
God we must first deny the world, must feel that for the salvation of
the soul we need something more than mere worldly ambition can give,
and that aU huraan wisdora is full of vanity, if it does not recognise
commumon with God and obedience to His will, as the only things of
real value. The mind which feels these sentiments as an ardent desire
which it cannot itself satisfy, this mind then begins to be attracted by
the Father to the Son, and when it yields to this attraction by acknow
ledging that indeed Jesus deserves that we should come to him, it ex
claims with Peter, Lord, thou hast the words of life eternal, thou art
the Son of the living God." *
It would seem, at first, that the preacher disagrees with the professor
at war with the spirit of his age ; but though these sermons are the
productions of strong conviction, of a mind impressed with a high idea
of its vocation in offering the aliment of tmth to the immortal souls
which demand it, yet in respect to doctrine we can see in them traces
of that medium system proposed by Schleiermacher in his Bogmatik,
and which his adversaries have qualified as revived Sabellianism.
Neither in phUosophy nor theology has Schleiermacher founded a
school, because it .was his aim, and it does honour to the nobleness of
his character, to give an impulse rather than to proscribe, to extend and
liberate rather than to concentrate and restrain in the chains of a school
which always assumes more or less the aspect of a coterie. He had
too high an idea of science to confine it to the narrow proportions of
an academical dispute, and too high an idea of humanity to restrain it
within the limits of a party or a seot.f Yet, though these were his
views, aU his works show that he was a man attentive to the progress
of science. Though he founds all his doctrines on sentiment, and con
fesses his predUection for the phUosophy of Jacobi, we see that he main
tained his own independence, and refrained from imposing on any one
the opinions which he preferred. If in his controversy respecting the
Theses of Harms, and in his opposition to the Liturgy which the King
* Friedrich Schleierraacher, Predigten, p, 87-95 ofthe 4th volume. Edition of
Berlin, 1835.
f Ritter, the celebrated historian of philosophy, has thus spoken of this sub
ject : " Hegel wished to found a school, in order to extend, by its means, his
sphere of activity. Schleiermacher repudiated such an idea, because he wished
others to enjoy as well as himself, the liberty of science. Thus Schleiermacher's
disciples labour more for the future than those of Hegel," — {G'oltinger gelehrte
Anzeigen, March 24, 1842.)

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 251
of Prussia wished to impose — an affair in which he gained the indepen
dent suffrages of all parties, — if in these disputes he indulged in some
haughty and contemptuous expressions, we must attribute it to that in
voluntary annoyance felt by every great man who finds himself stopped
in his progress by the idle and indifferent, whom he would crush in
passing only in order to reach the goal sooner, and not from forgetful
ness of the principles of liberty so often proclaimed by himself. We
must, however, repeat, that by the sagacity of Ms criticism he has pre
pared the way for a reform in ethics, the mere exposition of which has
already excited a lively interest.* Through the medium of his disciples
at Berlin and HaUe, we owe to hira that school of speculative theology
whose organ is the Review of Ulraann and Umbreit. The editors of
this periodical are the disting-uished writers Liicke, Gieseler, Nitzsch,
Schweitzer, and others, who are aU proud of their connexion with the
great man who cultivated with equal success the unfruitful fields of phi
lology and an unknown theology. We cannot deny ourselves the
pleasure of here quoting some beautiful sentences addressed to his
young friends at the end of one of his discourses : — " You, my friends,
who honour what is beautiful and good, remember that you are invested
with a priesthood. Each of you treats as the object of study and of art
the representation of the spu-itual Ufe, and the Deity, from His rich and
infinite stores, has given to each a peculiar destiny. To the general
sentiment for aU belonging to the sacred domain of religion, each of you
unites the desire of becoming perfect in one particular branch. There
reigns among you a noble emulation, and the wish to be able to present
something worthy of such an assembly, so that each receives with zeal
and fidelity what belongs to his individual destiny. Preserve it in a
pure heart, arrange it in a reflecting mind ; a heavenly art wiU make it
* One of his most devoted disciples, Schweitzer, professor at Zurich, has pub
lished, in fact, what he calls the Morality of Schleiermacher {Entwurf eines Systems
der Sittenlehre aus Schleiermacher' s handschriftl. Nachlasse. Berlin, 1835). In
1841, Dr. Twesten also, his worthy successor in the chair of Berlin, published
The Principles of Schleiermacher' s Philosophical Ethics, also from the posthumous
manuscripts of the author {Fried. Schleierm. Grundriss der philos. Ethik, mit ein-
leitender Vorrede, von Dr. A. Twesten). But if there is any diffl"erence between
the two works, it is only in form, since all agree that Schleiermacher merely
wrote down ideas which his friends or disciples afterwards arranged or developed.
They were scattered, and soraewhat confused, elements on which the great raan
who tried all subjects (his aesthetical lectures are now being published from his
raanuscript notes) hoped to work some time if God had prolonged his existence.
These two works, of which Twesten's is perhaps the best introduction to the sub
ject, must be read in order to learn the connexion between all the ideas of
Schleiermacher, to understand better the direction of his labours, which, in fact,
appeared all to relate to Ethics.

252 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
perfect, and thus from aU sides and in aU tones will arise a hymn of
gratitude and glory to the Infinite, Yes ; let each of you offer, from a
heart fuU of joy, the ripened fruits of his reflections and his contempla
tions. You are a band of friends. Each of you knows that he is a
part, a work of the universe, and that in him are manifested the divine
life and action : let him regard himself, then, as the worthy object of
the attention of the others ; let him freely, though with a holy fear, dis
close to their observation what he finds in himself in his relation to the
universe and his individual element of humanity. Why should you
conceal yourselves from each other ? AU that is human is sacred, for
aU is divine. You are a band of brothers ; what better expression can
you find for this entu-e union of your nature, not as regards being and
action, but in sentiment and comprehension ? The nearer each one of
you approaches to the universal, the more does he communicate himself
to the others, and the more completely do you become one. You are
no longer merely men — you are humanity ; and in issuing forth frora
yourselves, you enter on the road to true immortality." *
» Rede 3rd, p. 212.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 253

CHAPTEE XV.
schleiermacher's doctrinal system — DIGRESSION RESPECTING
HIS EXEGETICAL OPINIONS — HIS INFLUENCE ON THE PREVAIL
ING THEOLOGY.
Schleiermacher's instmctions in the University were as gradual in
then- advancement as his preaching in the temple. Whether this arose
from a premeditated determination not to expose his teachings respect
ing positive Christian faith to the ignorant contradictions which he fore
saw, or whether he waited patiently for the accomplishment of his men
tal labours, which should change him from a m-an pious after the manner
of the most truly pious sages to a Christian with iu-m convictions, it is
impossible to say. It is certain, however, that it was not untU 1821
that he thought himself sufficiently acquainted with the ground on which
he stood, to teach as a doctor what he had already taught as a preacher,
as we have shown by an extract from a sermon delivered a few years
before the appearance of his doctrinal system. It is an indisputable fact,
that the name of Schleiermacher is in the present day more venerated
than that of any other theologian, and no cultivated person cau fail to
wish to search into the deep meaning of his Christian doctrines. We
have already seen that Schleiermacher thought that neither religion nor
piety, in his sense of the words, was an affair of the intellect, but rather
of the sentiment. A man who felt conscious of possessing this holy
reUgion in the depths of his soul, as the most sacred nurture of his Ufe,
before aU scientific speculation, could not, as Liicke justly says,* con
sider it either as a production or a complement of science. He as
signed, therefore, and in a manner somewhat too exclusive, sentiment as
its principal seat, and deelai'cd it to be the source of spiritual Ufe ; but
as he endeavoured to arrive at the conviction that true religion is to be
found only in the Christian church, he began by proving that aU truly
reUgious sentiment exists only in an intemaUy reUgious society. This
will account for those discourses which have furnished aU kinds of accu-
* In an article written in honour of tbe memory of his friend and master. See
the review, Studien und Kritiken. 1834.

254 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
sations against Schleiermacher, from that of IndUferentism to that of Spi-
nozaisra. In 1 8 2 1 , after twenty years of discussion, inquiry, criticism, and
doubtless also of great mental perplexity, he determined at last to pub
lish his final opinions respecting the Christian faith, and thus attempted
to build up, after having, as we shaU soon see, done much to destroy
by his exegetical essays.* Liicke, somewhat bUnded by friendly par
tiality, compares the importance of this work to that of Calvin's Insti
tutes, forgetting that the strength of arguraent, which is its principal
merit, is a poor substitute for that harmony in detaU which in the In
stitutes strikes the least practised eye, and shows the &-m and indestruc
tible convictions of the author. But, as Twesten says justly, though
somewhat too decidedly, in referring doctrine to the fact of the Christian
conscience as its foundation and true object, Schleiermacher has pre
served faith from the excursive attacks of science, and has at the same
time restored consistency to doctrine.f
Though Schleiermacher's cast of mind caused him to regard questions
from an elevated position, and his strong individuality made him speak
of them Uke a master, we cannot avoid considering his Christian doc
trine as a powerful effort for conciUation, and therefore wanting the
characteristics necessary to preserve it from the attacks of argument.
Though a work written for the purpose of concUiation and explanation
does honom- to the intentions of the author, it must necessarUy lead
hira into half decisions, which give a certain degree of weakness to his
writing, and rob it of some portion of its value.
Sentiment, said he, is the source of all moral greatness, of all human
dignity ; why should it not also be the source of religion or of piety ?
Thus he connects his doctrine with his lectures and his sermons, so as
to show that there has always been a unity in his phUosophical and
religious views. But his idea of basing religion on sentiraent has no
novelty, since mystics of aU ages have advanced similar opinions, and
their subsequent aberrations cannot invalidate then- principles any more
than the errors of the human mind can cause it to be deprived of its
rights. Yet Schleierraacher, whose mind the philosophy of Jacobi had
turned to the truth of experience, that the inteUect is obUged to admit
principles which it cannot demonstrate, and which nature compels it to
admit under pain of favouring the cause of the most desperate scep-

* This work is entitled Darstellung des christlichen Glaubens nach den Grund
satzen der evangelischen Kirche. 2 vols, Berlin, 2nd edit. 1830-31. This edition
has undergone many alterations, but they have been made rather in the expres
sions than the substance.
t Vorlesungen uber die Dogmatik, vol. i. p. 255, 2nd edit.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 255
ticism — Schleiermacher defines much better the principles of the reli
gious sentiment, and with infinite art connects them with his doctrinal
system, whose aim could only be the exposition of the reUgious senti
ment in itself, and of the obstacles which it meets with in its manifesta
tion or development, and of the manner in which the Gospel re-esta
blishes it in the plenitude of its perfection. The author imposed on him
self another task also, as the title of his book impUes. This was to show
a double character in the doctrines of the Evangelical church — that is,
the Christian church, formed by the union between the Lutherans and
the Eeformed party : for in the doctrines which it offers to the belief of
its members we find the truth of the primitive evangelical doctrine and
theu- perfect agTcement with the general truths of reUgion.
Thus reUgion consists in the sentiment which makes us feel our ab
solute dependence on God ; but in this sentiment of dependence in a
finite being there always presents itself the possibUity of an opposition
and a re-action ; hence the empire of sin in the soul, as weU as the em
pire of grace. It follows that Christian doctrine may be reduced to
two points — the development of the feeling of our dependence on God,
independently of the disorder created by sin, and the development of
the same dependence regarded under the law of sin and of grace. This
inward feeling of dependence is not something accidental or accessary ;
it is one of the essential elements of Ufe, so that aU irreligion and im
piety are only raeans of self-deception and false iUusions. Thus we see
that the sentiment of piety, the constituent element of our life, can take
the place of aUthe proofs ofthe existence of God deduced d, priori, for it
gives us an immediate knowledge of the Divinity, and aiiother certainty
rests necessarily on this first certainty. Granting that these d priori
proofs of the existence of God are possible, stiU they do not belong to
doctrine, whose task ought to be, not to confound incredulity in order
to lead it back to religion, but only to develope what is ab-eady admitted,
namely, the religious sentiment, the perception of which is avowed, and
which supposes the immediate certainty of the existence of God. Thus
far for the reUgious man in general ; but the Christian is in the same
relation of sentiment to Christ as he is with God as a human being ;
and these two sentiments are confounded in him, and by their union
reaUse the evangelical faith which is the nurture of his soul. But as
our union with God depends on the harmony which exists between the
soul and the generaUty of beings, it is necessary to treat the question
of this universal harmony of the world in its relations to God ; and
from this arises another question — that of the creation and providential
preservation of the world.
The mode in which the confessions of faith respecting the origin of

256 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
the world are made, is very simple, because it is the pure expression
of the general sentiraent of the dependence of raan on God. But the
question, properly so-caUed, of the creation, belongs rather to philo
sophy than to doctrine, and we cannot regard as strictly historical
{ttreng historisch) what the Bible says on the subject. As for the ques
tion of the aet of creation being performed, not by the absolute being
God, but by Christ, the second person in the Trinity, this question
depends on the manner in which we understand the divinity of the
Saviour, a point on which we shaU speak hereafter ; nor could Christ, in
any case, be considered the Creator, except in the sense that he per
fected the creation by his rederaption. The expression create out of
nothing entirely precludes all idea of matter pre-existing and indepen
dent of the Divine agency, but does not contradict the idea of form to
be given by God. God is thus placed between form and matter, by
which, nevertheless, the primitive sentiraent of dependence is not re
presented in its purity. It is better, therefore, to keep the expression
ex nihilo, which implies this dependence much more fully. But did this
creation take place in consequence of a free determination of God or by
a necessity of his nature ? As soon as it cau be weU taught in the
church, whether time existed or did not exist before the creation, seeing
that the question in no way affects the sentiraent of our dependence on
God, then the creation may be considered merely as an act of the divine
wiU, without attempting to place the Deity between the two opposite
ideas of Uberty and necessity. What grounds are there for His Uberty,
since God, before the creation, has nothing to deterraine or to hinder
Hira ? As little right has any one to say God ought to have created,
since with equal reason we might say God ought not to have created, or
God ought to have created something else. The more reasonable opi
nion is, that by the creation God revealed His being, and that His
wisdom and goodness are so stamped upon the creation, that fi-om aU
etemity it ought to appear thus, and that therefore nothing ought to
have happened which has not happened.* i
The question of the creation has in aU times suggested another rela
tive to beings of a nature different from that of man. The Jews, who had
no astronomical knowledge, were satisfied on this point when told of a
hierarchy of angels inhabiting other regions of this vast universe,
remote from the globe on which we live. But since we people in ima
gination the suns which shine in the &-mament with intelligent beings,
the question of angels is superfluous. The symboUcal books seem
not to have doubted the existence of these pure spirits ; but if we ob-
» Vol. i. § 48, 49, 59.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 257
serve closely we shaU be convinced that this reaUty has no grounds save
in the imagination of the writers. Therefore it is more consistent with
reason not to speak of the influence of angels over us, and to say that
the primitive world needed these beings only to explain man's connexion
with nature.* The notion contained in Scripture, and also in the sym
bolical books, of those angels who had revolted against God, and united
the greatest wickedness to the highest degree of inteUigence, though in
a finite manner, — this notion is self-contradictory, since it implies the
existence of a being who, though subject to God, is equal to Him
in power. And as in Holy Scripture, Satan and his angels are men
tioned only in parables, or in certain popular addresses, and never in
didactic instructions, we should treat this doctrine of demons as we do
that of angels ; that is to say, we should speak of it only negatively,
for aU the influence of bad angels has vanished since the estabUsh
ment of the church, and the admission of them can only distm-b the
peace of the mind which has reposed with confidence in the king
dom of God. Let poetry stiU preserve the character of Satan, but the
Liturgy cannot be permitted this licence.-|-
There follow two treatises ; one ou the preservation of the world
{von der Erhaltung), which Schleiermacher substitutes for the ancient
and biblical idea of providence, the other on the attributes of God.
They partake niore of the somewhat pantheistical infiuence of the dis
courses on religion than the other parts of the work, and we should
be tempted to attribute to his concUiatory intentions the uncertainty of
his decisions, if the posthumous appearance of the dialectics had not
shown us, that in him the philosopher prevaUed over the historian, and
that eternity conceived in unity was the only God which his sentiment,
and, perhaps unconsciously, his intellect stiU more than his sentiraent,
led him to admit. Then there is no special chapter on the divine per
sonality, a question which it would have been the raore proper for him
to treat, as in his discourses he may be accused of having confounded
the life of God with His personality, and with not having sufficiently
distinguished it from moving and animated nature. J

* § 51, 52, 53, 54.
t § 55, 56, 57, 58, As Schleiermacher comprehends in poetry the canticles
in use in worship, it follows that in the same religious assembly should be used
a liturgy denying the existence of the wicked angels, and a collection of canticles
confessing it.
X "  einen grossen Unterschied machen sollte zwischen einem person-
lichen Gott nnd einem lebendigen. Das letztere allein ist eigentlich der vom
Pantheismus und von der atheistischen blinden Nothwendigkeit scheidende Be
griff." — {Reden uber die Religion, Rede ii. p. 138.)
VOL. II. S

258 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
The appearance of Christ on the earth is connected with preceding
ages by one thing only, and that is sin. Therefore, says Schleiermacher,
if you wish to have in the church a Christology, which is favourable
to the cause of Christianity, by exalting the moral power peculiar to it,
renounce the Old Testament, which cannot teach you anything respect
ing Christ. This, however, is in direct opposition to Scriptm-e ; for
without being blindly subservient, an unprejudiced reader of the New
Testament must feel that Christ himself, as well as the historians of his
life and doctrine, was convinced that iu him were accoraplished aU the
predictions of the Old Testament respecting the Eedeemer of the World,
and that thus the Old Testament is a type of the New. Schleiermacher,
however, had firm faith in Christ as the Eedeemer of men, and we
should say that he renounced the Old Testament only to free himself
from difficulties.
But redemption supposes the existence of sin. We feel that sin
exists in us when visible things prevent us from arriving at a purer life,
and this takes place if in our own consciousness we feel an unwiUing
ness to unite with the divine consciousness. This opposition the Scrip
tures term the opposition of the flesh to the spirit.
Sin is original or actual. Schleiermacher defines the first as a dis
position which has been communicated to us, which we have from
the fact of our existence, and which is not, however, free from culpa-
bUity, whUe actual sin is every separate and individual manifestation of
this disposition. It is an erroneous notion, that a primitive justness
has always been the lot of humanity, because the faU can be explained
only by the existence of a previous propensity, and consequently aU
which the symbolical books say of sin can be considered only as the
consequences of sin. A sin can be conceived possible only by supposing
that it has been preceded by another sin. If this be the case, redemp
tion is a consequence, or rather a necessary result, of the creation, for it
consists only in the earnest desu-e to see ourselves stripped of aU which
is opposed to our perfect communion vrith God.*
This perfect union has never existed, and will never exist, on earth,
save in Christ, and for this reason he is the only Son of God, insomuch
as he personified in the highest degree the divine consciousness, and in
all the circumstances of his life his divine always completely vanquished
his sensuous nature. Hence it is said in Scripture, that in Jesus God
became man, and yet we have no right to give him the exclusive name
of God, nor to designate him as a mere man, for he was such as man
ought to be, and not such as he is. Eedemption then is this, that in
* 'Vol, xi. p, 84 96,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 259
the faith of the Christian, the essential sinlessness of Christ exists as a
thing which we can appropriate to ourselves, and that as members of
a church which Christ founded, and which is imbued with his spirit,
we renounce by this association our personaUty and our sensible indi
viduaUty. Now as the Saviour was God manifested in the flesh, only
in so far as he was Christ only, and as at no period of his life the human
nature gained the ascendancy in his actions, so are we redeemed when
we renounce our proper individuaUty, and model our Ufe on that of
our Saviour. This transformation of the human being, Schleiermacher
terms the new birth which every beUever in Jesus experiences. Hence
we may say that if the development of human life is only the person
ality of God in progress of establishment, the development of the indi
vidual life of Christians is only participation in the divine personality
of Christ.*
After speaking of this redemption from sin effected by Jesus, in his
threefold character, as a prophet by his instructions, as a high priest
by his complete and painful obedience, and finally by his truly regal
function, inasmuch as that nothing is done in his church save by his
order, and that aU in it proceeds from his spirit, — after this most im
portant part of doctrine, in which he displays the most profound know
ledge of the subject, Schleiermacher passes to the question of the church,
which, according to him, is the depository of that spu-it of Christ with
which every believer must be imbued if he wish to have a part in life.
The chm-ch could come into existence only after Jesus had disap
peared from the earth, nor could the Holy Spirit exist untU after that
event : for the church is only the society which possesses the senti
ment of the Divine, and the spirit of Christ which gives birth to that
sentiment in its members is no other than the Holy Spirit. If then
the church possess, as a basis of its faith, books which claira theraselves
and for which it claims the title of inspired, we must by this inspu-a
tion understand the operation of the general spirit of the church in the
wUl of an individual in order to the production of a decided work.
When speaking of the Holy Spirit, we naturally ask what we are to
think of the Trinity. The light iu which Schleiermacher regards the
divine essence precludes the idea of Deity in three persons ; and we
must confess that in his doctrine he retains merely in name what the
symboUcal books consecrated respecting this subject. We may, how
ever, comfort ourselves with the thought that in this matter the sym
bolical books are directly opposed to the books of whose pure and simple
doctrine they claim to be a reflection.! If we wish to retain the name
* § 113-134. t § 135-150.
s2

260 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
of the Trinity, we may do so by considering the second person as the
being of God in Christ, and the thbd person as the spirit which vivifies
the Christian church, and represents the union of the divine with human
nature.* Thus we see that araong heretics, those raost decidedly op
posed to the true faith are the Nazarenes, the Manichseans, and the
Pelagians, who reject or greatly invalidate the idea of this divine life in
man ; a life foreign to man, and which he ought nevertheless to appro
priate to himself because in it only consists his dignity.
Such, in substance, are the doctrines of the greatest theologian of
our age. They are remarkable for the Christian spirit in which they
are conceived, but stiU more remarkable for the devastation which
they have made in the domain of the ancient faith. His disciples re
mark that this spirit of destruction does not exercise itself on the es
sential doctrines of Chi-istianity which are shown by Schleiermacher to
be in harmony with the moral wants of the human soul, that soul which
in fact feels its culpability, and burns with the desne to amend in the
eyes of God. It rather attacks principles so connected with Chiis
tianity that without them we could not understand it. By these we
mean the personality of God and a decided faith in the immortaUty of
every human soul. This personaUty Schleiermacher disavows, as he
also disavows a real immortaUty, because, according to him, it can be
considered by the believer only as a participation in the immortality of
Christ, that closely resembles the life in God promised us by the Pan
theists, and with which the reUgious sentiment is not satisfied.
From all this we might easily conclude that Schleiermacher's Chris
tian feelings had led him to invent a doctrinal system of his own, in
which the evangelical elements are employed only when they do not
come into coUision with his own ideas.f It would be supei-fluous after
this to ask whether his speculative theology is rationaUstic or super-
naturalistic in its nature, since it is evidently d priori that Schleier
macher has conceived his doctrines and has taken at wUl from the
sacred books whatever may be a cement to strengthen his work. The
speculative theology which we conceive of ought to spring from Scrip
ture and not itself explain it ; and it must appear when a true philo
sophy of Christianity shaU have estabUshed all its elements. If not,
Christianity cannot expect an eternal duration.
* § 186-190.
f Strauss justly says, that this miraculous appearance of Christ, in the
Schleiermacherian sense, is either inexplicable in itself, and consequently lies
open to every attack of philosophy, or does not explain all the miraculous accom
paniments assigned to it by the orthodox doctrine. — {Life of Jesus, end of the
second volume.)

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 261
I cannot conclude this article on Schleiermacher without some words
on the tendency of his opinions on exegesis, a subject in which he
might have had great influence if he had ever given his attention to it.
His friends have said that his great knowledge of the HeUenic tongue,
to which wc owe his eloquent translation of Plato, having prevented
him from profound study in the strictly Oriental languages, he did not
dare, from a sort of modesty known only to the truly wise, to enter on
a field where, if he had wished to exert an infiuence, be must have
taken the first place. This did not, however, prevent him fi-om show
ing what he thought of the tendency of the disputes of his day. He
had written in a somewhat accommodating spirit, " that the writings
of the Old Testament ought to hold a place in our Bible, partly as tes
timony to which the New appeals, and partly as forming an historical
link between Chiistian divine service aud the synagogue, but that they
ought not to share the moral dignity of the books of the New Testa
ment,"* But hewas more frank when no longer compelled by the na
ture of his work to be conciliatory ; and he has shown, clearly enough,
how Uttle consideration is due to these external supports on which super
naturalists placed their doctrines.f
It would seem, however, from some essays, that exegesis was far from
being disagreeable to Schleiermacher's tastes. We must explain his
subsequent avoidance of questions relative to it, not by the feeUng of
his weakness, especiaUy in the exegesis of the New Testament, but
probably by another feeling more congenial with his character, viz.,
that it was much better to pass over in silence questions beneath the
knowledge of the age, and to endeavour, by other means, to rebuUd the
ruined edifice. That such was the opinion of Schleiermacher, we can
hardly doubt, when we see him commence his exegetical essays, not as
did Bretschneider, at a later period, by Probabilia, but by striking out
of the canon, without any preamble whatever, Paul's first Epistle to
Timothy.J Liicke himself observes that, after the first impression pro
duced by Schleiermacher's arguments has faded, we cannot help seeing
the weakness of certain proofs, the rashness of some conjectures, and,
in general, the absence of proper criticism. §
Schleiermacher, however, defeated on this point by a host of oppo-
* Dogmatik, vol. ii. p. 3.
•f Baumgarten deplores that so great a genius could not comprehend the whole
of the apostolic faith, and consequently did not find in the Old Testament the
"Word made flesh. — {Theolog. Commentar zum alten Testam. Einleitung.)
X Schleiermacher, Ueber den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulus an den Timo
theum. Ein krit. Sendschreiben. Berlin, 1807.
§ Theologische Studien und Kritiken, Part IV. 1834.

262 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
nents, wished to take his revenge in exegesis, and he now ventured on
a bolder attempt. In the hopes of recaUing the distracted attention of
his contemporaries to the subject of the formation of the Gospels, he
brought forward and maintained a theory that Luke's Gospel is the only
one unexposed to the attacks of criticism. But he proposed a most
strange hypothesis respecting this Gospel. It had, he maintained, been
composed by four different persons, of whom one wrote the mu-aculous
part, another recorded the discourses of our Lord, a third the events
relating to his death, while the fourth, probably Luke himself, collected
the scattered fragments, which, says Schleiermacher, are written in a
style which betrays the work of different authors, and to which Luke
only supplied, so to say, the prologue and conclusion.* It must be
understood, however, that in this Gospel, so eminently historical,
Schleiermacher makes the most of the circumstances which might pre
vent the author, whoever he was, from being very accurate in the things
which he relates. It is enough to say that an arbitrary principle pre
vaUed in this critical essay, as well as in so many others which have
had equal renown.
But, I repeat, such efforts were not calculated to di-aw the disputa
tion between historical Christianity and EationaUsm from the obscurity
into which the latter had thrown it.
If it was the intention of the author to restore, by means of a didactic
work. Christian opinions, or what he believed to be such, he ventured
too far on the slippery ground of criticism ; he did not go far enough
if he wished to raise a standard round which the members of the new
school might raUy. Those who have made themselves acquainted with
the character of this great writer will prefer the supposition that his
wish was to prevent all future dispute respecting books which could
only be an obstacle in the onward path, since it is quite possible to be
a disciple of Jesus and defend the truth of his reUgion without having
to descant upon difficulties which arrest the progress of doctrine, and
for the sake of which we run the risk of compromising our inteUectual
capacities in the eyes of scientific men. We are supported in this
supposition by two letters addressed by Schleierraacher to his friend
Liicke, in which we learn his opinions stiU more from what he leaves
unsaid than from what he actuaUy does say clearly. He declares that,
seeing the immense progi-ess made by the natural sciences within a cer
tain period, he entertains the most lively fears respecting the fate not

• Die Schriften des Lucas, ein kritischer Versuch. Berlin, 1817. See also
an answer by Planck, Observationes quadam de Luca Evangelii analys. critica a
Schleiermacher proposita, Gottingen, 1819.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 263
merely of theology, but even of Christianity itself. " For," says he,
" with the means which we now use, it wiU henceforth be impossible to
fortify ourselves against the advances of science, unless we consent to
be ceremoniously interred." Then he adds, with noble pride, "I have
no desu-e for such obsequies, and since the field of history stiU lies open
to us, there we must defend ourselves. How much, nevertheless, must
be abandoned to the enemy ! Not only must we give up the work of
six days, but even the very idea of the creation, notwithstanding the
sometimes undecided modifications made in it by exegesis. And do we
not see that the miracles of the Old and New Testaments fall before the
knowledge of our day? Either the history to which they belong must be
considered fabulous, or we must regard the miracles as facts having an
analogy in nature. There is no medium : what part must we take; and,
in either case, what becomes of the ancient faith in miracles ? If you
take refuge in science, you are free to do so ; but in that case, on one
side wUl be Cliristianity and barbarism, on the other science and incre
duUty. Some may wish and nitend to shut themselves up within
their narrow religious fortifications ; but neither you, nor I, nor many
of our friends, desire to occupy such a position ; but are we sure that
history itself will lend us a defence when we are yet ignorant as to the
fate of the whole of the Old Testament? The brave Staudlin, and Sack
hiraself, are doing with the Messianic prophecies all that can be done
to extricate themselves honom-ably from such a false position, but it is
to be feared that their labours wUl soon terminate.* It would be most
important to declare from this time, in the 'most positive raanner, that
the revelation of God in Jesus Christ depends in no way on beUef in
the Old Testament, for the longer we should cling to that beUef instead
of profoundly studying the New Testament, the wider becomes the sepa
ration between science and piety. We know not what Ught criticism
may throw even upon the canon of the New Testament.
" WUl it not perchance be necessary to admit the suppositions of Dr.
Schulz respecting the Gospel of Matthew, and to re-consider the doubts
long since entertained as to several of the epistles ?f And what can
* The opinions of Sack on these subjects are to be found principally iu his
Christian Apology, the second edition of which appeared at Hamburg, in 1841.
See pp. 259-336.
+ The Dr. Schulz to whom Schleiermacher here alludes is that veteran of
empirical Rationalism of whom we have spoken, and his hypothesis respecting
the Gospel of Matthew is, that it is not an apostolical work in the true meaning
of the term ; but that it was drawn up and translated into Greek by some one
unknown. Tbis had been already brought forward by Eichhorn. David Schulz,
BemerkungCH Uber den Verfasser des Evangeliums nach Mathaus. Leipzig, 1824.

264 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
be said respecting the inspfration of the sacred books, when we do not
rightly know which books are entitled to the name of sacred ? No, we
should act pmdently in renouncing in time aU that evidently does not
belong to the essence of Chiistianity, in order that we raay not expend
our power in a useless struggle where many would lose even the hope
of preserving the essential."*
These are certainly very bold words, and coming, as they do, from a
person of great penetration in aU subjects, they must give pain to those
who set a value on the traditional faith of the Christian church. They
cannot fail to ask whether Schleiermacher had penetrated into aU the
depths of science, and if he reaUy saw what he imagined he saw
there. Do not the heads even of the gi-eatest men become giddy when
they approach too near the edge of a precipice ? And when, fifteen years
after the period when this cry of distress was uttered, we are caUed on
to compare these fears with the actual results, shaU we not have to
relate facts which contradict the presentiments of the learned professor
of Berlin ?f Without taking into consideration the labours of Cuvier,
Brogniart, Humboldt, EUaproth, and so many other naturaUsts, equally
weU known at Berlin and Paris, and who speak with so much timidity
respecting the new systems in geology which attack Genesis, without
speaking of theu- formal declarations concerning so many things which
would prove Moses to be a wise geologist of our own age, if he did not
learn the facts which he relates from some other source than the study
of the formation of the globe, — do we not know that it is only a raind
in which great frivoUty of character is joined to deplorable ignorance,
that can perceive any fiagrant contradictions between Holy Scripture and
the profane sciences ? But Schleiermacher had, perhaps, that fault very
Ukely to exist in a huraan mind, of soraetimes only glancing at what he
ought to have thoroughly examined, relying too much on his own intel
lectual conceptions, and believing himself capable of seeing the whole
of things, of which, in fact, he saw only one side, because he would not
move and take up a better position.
* Sendschreiben (Missive to Dr. Liicke) in the Theolog. Studien und Kritiken,
vol. ii. part 3, p. 489, seq.
t The Evangelical Gazette of Berlin, in discussing the assertions of Schleier
macher, could not refrain from comparing thera to those of the spies of Joshua,
who returned from Canaan terrified by the giants which they had there seen.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 265

CHAPTEE XVI.
OPPOSITION TO schleiermacher's DOCTRINAL SYSTEM — CONSE
QUENCES OF SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY POUNDED UPON SENTI
MENT — -DE WETTE, LUCKE, TWESTEN, BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS, C. J.
NITZSCH, HASE — POSITION OF AUGUST NEANDER IN THEOLOGY.
The task which Schleiermacher undertook in atterapting to restore, by
raeans of powerful arguments derived from the inmost sentiments of the
huraan soul, the principal doctrines taught in all Christian churches,
but more especiaUy in the two Protestant communions, — this task was
not above his power. That his developments of the religious conscience
in matters relating to sin and to grace brought to the world by the
Saviour were of a natm-e to bring back to Christianity many minds that
had never reflected on the harmony of human nature with the teachings
of the Gospel, is proved by the almost universal opposition excited by
the appearance of his doctrinal system, and by the fact that from the
advocates of the most vulgar Eationalism to those of the highest spe
culations of HegeUan phUosophy, all have vied in attacking the great
man whose nature seemed to impel him towards positive Christianity,
while aU the tendencies of his mind appeared to incUne towards a mys
tical Pantheism to wbich he was invited by Spinoza and Fichte.*
» The Literary Gazette of Halle (No. 115, 116, 117, of the year 1823) accused
hira of having introduced into his doctrinal systera the Pantheism of his dis
courses, Twesten refuted this accusation in his Lectures on Doctrine, 1, 235.
But the Preacher's Journal, vol. 46 and 47, of 1825, published some articles of
Bretschneider, afterwards reprinted separately, and finally incorporated in his
Doctrine of the Lutheran Church, which raade a greater sensation, and which
Schleierraacher felt hiraself called on to answer. Bauer designated this work as
& gnostic enterfivise {TUbing. Zeitschrift, &.C. 1828. 220-264, Cliristliche Gnosis,
Tiib. 1835. 626-668.) Hegel dared to say that a religion founded on sentiraent
was an animal religion, since all the faculties of the beasts may be reduced to
sentiraent, and that we should thus be more religious the more animal we became
(in a Preface added by Hegel to the work of Heinrich : Religion in its Internal
Connexion with Science, p, xviii,), Rosenkranz attacked it in the Scientific Annals
of Berlin, in the name of speculative philosophy, and contrary to Bretschneider,
who had sought to prove that the doctrines were not evangelical because they

266 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
But if the adversaries were nuraerous, some partisans were not slow
in appearing, who, using the liberty largely accorded to them by
Schleiermacher himself, undertook his defence, and atterapted to carry
on the labours begun by him, the influence of which was ab-eady felt in
many parts of Germany.
We must say, however, that before this attempt of Schleiermacher to
recognise sentiment as the source of religion, and to erect scientifically
on this foundation, weak when alone, a system of Christian doctrine,
De Wette had attempted, by raeans of the philosophy of Fries, to unite
reason and sentiraent, by securing to all the powers of the mind their
special functions, and by recognising the mysteries of the Christian
faith as aesthetical symbols of ideas and of reUgious presentiments.
Kantism was thus surpassed, and the philosophy of Jacobi, which had
perhaps decided Schleiermacher, perfected. But it was a capital error
with De Wette, fhat he confounded the reUgious with the aesthetical
sentiment, and thought that the theologian could re-adjust, by means
of this impulse of the soul, the pieces broken into morsels by the
hammer of exegesis.*
The doctrinal system of Professor De Wette, from its uncertainties
and from the air of mysticism which pervades every part of it, neces
sarily casts the reader into a confusion of ideas little likely to reconcUe
him to positive Christianity, and makes him ask whether, among the
scientific elements which generally compose the works of De Wette,
that skilful professor might not have found means to define better what
he meant by Christianity revealed by God. This is the more astonish-
were too speculative. Rosenkranz, however, after an impartial exposition of the
system, though made, according to his custom, with a slight shade of irony, says
that he does not think it evangelical, precisely because it is too empirical, and
does not rise sufficiently on the wings of speculation. Other works were also
written against this doctrinal systera, which, though viewing it in different lights.
attempted to prove the weakness of its foundation. Those of Braniss {Ueber
Schleierm. Glaubenslehre. Berlin, 1824), oi 'Deihruck {Er'orterungen einiger Haupt-
stucke in Schl. Glaubenslehre. Bonn, 1827), and of H. Schmid {Ueber Schl.
Glaubenslehre, mit Beziehung auf die Rede uber die Religion. Heidelberg, 1835),
are generally regarded as having raost deeply penetrated the meaning of the
author, and have from that fact provoked answers from tbe party of Schleier
macher, which have, in no small degree, contributed to gain him numerous ad
herents. Hermann's History of Doctrine, already quoted, contains au article on
this systera, conscientiously written, though by a very zealous disciple, who seems
to go beyond even his master in license (p. 212-278),
* De 'Wette ("Wilhelm Martin Leberecht) was born near "Weimar, in January
1780. After being a professor, successively, at Jena, Heidelberg, and Berlin,
he now occupies [he died a few weeks since, — E.] a chair at Basle, where he has
been since writing the letter of consolation very innocently addressed to the mother
of the young fanatic Sand.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 267
ing since De Wette can advantageously treat of criticism, and nothing
can equal criticism in clearness of expression when it chooses to be
clear. But the fact is, that De Wette allowed himself to be dazzled by
science, when he ought to have foUowed with more docUity the sacred
inspu-ations of his own soul, which would have explained to him better
than criticism, facts wbich have their origin in sentiment as weU as in
the phenomenal world. A pupil of Fries, so weU known by his ancient
Teutonic patriotism and by his teachings, which resemble those of
Jacobi, from the value which he sets on faith and on the presentiment
of the eternal truth which he places above scientific certainty, De Wette,
who re-produces some of the ideas of Fries when barren and dry exegesis
did not stifie the warmth of his soul, incUnes too much to scientific
criticisra. He does not perceive the entire instabiUty of all productions
of human knowledge, and this prevents him from breaking through the
chains in which he is held by his Eationalism, strongly tinctured vrith
mysticism. The work in which De Wette has more especially explained
his opinions on Christianity is a concise exposition of the Lutheran
faith, taken from its origin, and written in the ingenious raanner of this
learned author.* But, as is always the case with De Wette, the criti
cal soon succeeds the historical. According to him, in fact, revelation
is only the presentiment of God's government of the world in the his
torical development of religion. And in another of his works he affirras
that, to see in any religious manifestation a revelation from God, we
ought to be so struck and moved by the power and attractions of truth
and reUgious beauty, that we feel raised spirituaUy above ourselves ; we
ought moreover to recognise in this manifestation {Erscheinung) an in
finitely superior power, before which we involuntarUy bend our knees
in adoration. Suppose Christianity to be one of these religious mani
festations, and, consequently, a divine revelation, still it is merely a re
ceived article of faith, that is to say, an ideal judgment, which can rest
on no reasonable foundation. The divine carries internal proofs. Now
Christianity is not constituted of anything analogous to these received
articles of faith ; but it contains the eternal ideas of reason in then-
greatest purity and fulness, and for this reason only is the Christian
faith in revelation justified. According to this, we can see in Eation
aUsm only the philosophical mode of appropriating the revealed faith.f
In this conflict of words rather than of things we may discover the
mental confusion of the rationalist theologian, who is less a Christian
than the phUosopher, who in fact has gUrapses of the truth, but cannot
* Lehrbuch der Dogmatik der evangel.-Luther Kirche, Berlin, 1821.
f Religion und Theologie, p. 232. See also Dogmatik, p. 52-54.

268 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
recognise it in the place whither exegesis has atterapted to banish it.
This seeraing mixture of the combinations of faith and sentiment with
critical philosophy, which is continuaUy made by De Wette, has caused
sorae writer, whose name I do not recollect, to say that all his theology
ended in vain sighs. For in summing up the religious opinions of De
Wette, we find that reUgion, with him, is faith in an eternal existence
of things which are beyond Ufe, founded on the law of the mind, and
the presentiment of a kingdom of God, founded on an ineffable senti
ment. It is also an internal revelation of God caused only by an ex
ternal revelation ; and this is the reason why the reUgious sentiment
envelopes itself, whether voluntarily or involuntarUy, in symbols or
visible images. We must then learn to distinguish the dogma fi-om the
symbol, since the development of the symbol only indicates the reli
gious sentiifient of which it is formed. How much is it to be desired
that such talents were employed in forming a Christian system for which
the celebrated professor has as yet only prepared the materials, and the
majestic plan of which he has not yet conceived ! We must wait for
new labours to reveal it to us, and, meanwhile, it would be a task weU
worthy the fine talents of the professor of Basle himself to criticise his
own works after the example of Augustine. He would find in them
plenty of polished stones to aid him in erecting a reUgious edifice which
should fulfU the wishes of so raany who rest their hopes on him.*
Schleiermacher, as we see, had no intention of becoming the founder
of a school. But many of the most distinguished theologians of our
day, besides De Wette, were attracted to him, not merely by feelings of
friendship, but by the fact that, though they maintained their own in
dependence, their views were the same as his. Of these men we raay
mention Liicke, of Gottingen, Twesten, of Berlin, Baumgarten-Crusius,
* De 'Wette's name will again occur to us in our account of the latest attack
made by criticism on the authenticity of the Gospels ; but we cannot quit our
present subject without mentioning one of his works, written in the form of a
romance, and which would have been alone sufficient to secure for him a very
distinguished place among German authors, as much from the charm of its style,
the rich profusion of graceful and poetical imagery, as from its moral character.
I allude to his Theodor oder des Zweifiers Weihe (Berlin, 1822). This work is
doubtless, like the first discourses of Schleiermacher, very well calculated to con
vince sceptics of their folly ; but it will never lead to the Gospel those who do
not confound the moral and religious wants of the human soul, with 'a vague
desire for the beau ideal which should be unceasingly pursued by the disciples of
him who appeared on the earth only to show it to us in its purest reality. It is
known that Tholuck's Guide und Julius, a work of unqualified evangelical piety,
was written to compensate for the omissions, far too apparent, to the eye of the
Christian, in the Theodor of Professor De 'Wette,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 269
of Jena, Nitzsch and Sack, of Bonn, Ulmann, of Heidelberg, Hase, of
Jena, and some others, who do no less honour to him whora they are
proud to consider as theu- master.* We omit the name of August
Neander from this list of the admu-ers, we might almost say partisans,
of Schleiermacher, only because that learned author has taken a dis
tinct position in the same sphere of speculative theology founded on
sentiment. Gottfried Christian Friedrich Liicke was bom near Magdeburg in
1791. He became a pupU of Planck, after studying at HaUe under
Niemeyer and Gesenius, whose rationaUstic lucubrations had not satis
fied his mind. Pursuing unhesitatingly the historical path traced out by
Planck, he attained a wise comprehension of the nature of Christianity
and the means of defending its principles ; and he has, perhaps, to thank
that venerable old man that he stopped short on the extreme Umits of
EationaUsm. Though entertaining the highest esteem for this teacher,
Liicke took advantage of some favourable circumstances, to travel to
BerUn, there, in the society of Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Neander,
to receive some sparks of that fire which should communicate some
strength to the weakened body of the German church, and which has
begun to re-kindle since the friends and disciples of Schleiermacher
attempted to caU it down from heaven. Liicke has pubUshed his theo
logical opinions in a great number of writings, partly polemical, partly
didactic, which have appeared principaUy under the form of critiques
in the G'oltinger gelehrten Anzeigen and the Studien und Kritiken.
None of his works, however, can give a better idea of the independence
of his character than the Commentar zum Johannis evangelium, the third
edition of which appeared in 1843, enriched with all the fruits favour
able to the evangeUcal cause, of recent researches provoked by recent
attacks. Liicke has, wdth some show of reason, been reproached for
havino- written in favour of the nomination of Dr. Strauss to the doc
trinal chair of Zurich, It is one thing to proclaim even unUmited
Uberty of the press, which, in my opinion, is perfectly consistent with
the strictest Supematm-alism, and another to place in a chair founded
for the purpose of teaching Christianity, one who has publicly avowed
an intention of Uving for the future without Christianity. This
friend of De Wette is an example of the inconsistency of many of those
Germans who think that they are supernaturaUsts, because they say
that they admit the divine in Jesus, and, above all, his sinlessness,
which they regard as the attribute which distinguishes him from aU
* " He whom we call our spiritual father" {unsern geistigen Vater), says
Liicke, in his Commentary, Preface to the third edition.

270 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
other chUdren of humanity, and makes him a true son of God. The
number of those who share this inconsistency seems incredible to us
who have no idea of this double character in the same person, nor
understand how the critic can, in the same individual, be entirely
different frora the Christian, and the councUlor be dissimUar to the
humble disciple of Christ, Liicke, after quoting with eulogy the works
of his predecessors, Tholuck, Olshausen, and Meyer, says that he shaU
often be obliged to contradict them ; and this is not surprising. But
when he adds that " he considers as beneficial to the healthy life of
science and the church, individual differences and freedom of opinion,
and values them as highly as union and concord," he passes beyond aU
the Umits of toleration. There is nothing better than Uberty, and we
ought eamestly to desire that in the contests of the church against
Eationalism, she will not, as she has before done, fly to the protection
of the civil power. But he who considers differences of opinion as
signs of health in religion and science, has a strange idea of the moral
worth of unity of doctrine ; and when he adds that he esteems this
diversity as highly as union, he vu-tuaUy proclaims the domain of re
Ugious tmth the richest treasure of the lowest classes of society, to be
merely an enclosed field in which the cavaUers of criticism only are at
Uberty to break their lances. Liicke, however, recommends so much
liberty, only in order that he himself may be unrestrained in his move
ments ; and he makes such great use of this freedom, that he frequently
finds himself alone in his opinions. To those who reproach him with
this isolation he thus replies : — " 1 am sorry for it ; but I caunot
change : I recognise no theological authority {theologisches Regiment)
save that of free science and a Uvely faith in Christ, as I see him in the
light of the sacred Scriptures, without troubling myself with obscurities
or transfigurations of new sects or schools." This is a frank declaration ;
but the chiefs of sects and the founders of schools have always held
the same language, and they have never been sorry to see themselves
foUowed by disciples. What would become of a military corps, in
which every captain should pursue a different direction, or each soldier
should march according to his own fancy ? Liicke adds, " I have been
told that in my explanations I show too much timidity and reserve ;
and as the reproach has proceeded from a man whose notice honours
me, I wiU reply to it with frankness, since his observation seems to
attack my moral and scientific character. In my opinion, then, the
essentiaUy theological point in the explanation of the New Testament
is merely the humble and believing gratitude for the true and perfect
revelation of God in Christ, and for the clear and bright word of God
in Scripture. To this word I submit willingly and unreservedly. I do

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 271
not think that 1 belong to the party of those who take away from the
positive word of God in the Scriptures all which is displeasing to them,
so that at last they retain only an abstraction of their own religious
philosophy. But it is also true, that the word of God ought to be un
derstood; and to be so, it must be taken in its historical relations : this
requires researches in the domain of history." * From these declara
tions we may see that Liicke would be one of the most enlightened
champions of the evangelical cause, if his love of an exaggerated inde
pendence and of an unUmited scientific Uberty did not deprive him of
the right to attack in others what he terms pm-e abstractions.f
With the opinions of Schleiermacher, it seems natm-al to connect
those of the professor who has succeeded him in the doctrinal chair, and
who fiUs it, if not with the same renown, at least with distinction, and
with consequences, perhaps, stiU more satisfactory. Twesten, by the
amiable quaUties which distinguish him, and the agreeable suavity of
his character, united to profound theological learning, and a great know
ledge of his age, cannot fail to obtain over his young pupils an in
fluence the more durable from being acquired less by a striking and
brUUant mode of teaching, than by the esteem in which he is generaUy
held. I have not been sm-prised to learn that at Berlin his lectures are
attended by a yearly increasing number of pupils. The fields whose
fertility lasts the longest are not exactly those which receive unceasing
rain or heat, but those which have a gentle succession of temperate
warmth and refreshing rain. The aim of Twesten is, by giving expla
nations of De Wette's doctrinal system, which he takes as the subject of
his labours, to reconcile it with tbe positive Lutheran creed, and espe
cially to show the practical side of each of its articles, in order that a
Uving faith may spring up in the mind, instead of the alarming barren
ness of Uteral orthodoxy. Thus Twesten considers a doctrinal system
only the Uving re-productioii of the doctrine of the church, proceeding
frora the depths of the soul of him who explains it. J But he who
wishes to re-produce in a Uving form the doctrine of what he beUeves
to be the true church, can only do so by putting it in a better form ; he
ought not to conciUate the ruling opinions of his day in order to effect
between them and his own peculiar doctrine an union not demanded
even by the spirit of civiUty. And is not Twesten as much in fault as
* Commentar, vol. i., Preface to the second edition.
f Dr. Zeller says, that " Liicke belongs to Rationalism ; there can be no doubt
of it,"
t Vorlesungen Uber die Dogmatik der evangelisch.-Luther Kirche. The first edi
tion of the first volurae appeared in 1826, the first part of the second volume in
1837.

272 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
De Wette and Schleiermacher, with whom he seems to sympathise much
more than with the symboUcal books which have nothing in common
with these two great theologians, when he entertains their opinions re
specting the inspiration of the sacred books and the general action of
the spirit of God on the human heart ? It is not for me to judge this
mode of representing the doctrine of a church with the sarae severity as
does Dr. Strauss in his doctrinal system ; but I cannot avoid remarking
how the best characters are apt to deceive themselves on subjects of the
highest importance, since we are speaking of Christian truth, which is,
as its author says, for the establishment or the faU of many. Do not
these things refer to the destiny of the iraraortal soul in a future life ?
This destiny was clearly described in the old doctrinal system, and the
great majority of the theologians of our day, even those least infected
with Eationalism, leave it in a discreet silence, so that we should say,
judging from the best among them, that with the advocates of restored
theology, as with the Hegelians, men are considered as nothing, and hu
manity alone is esteemed of importance. We should say that aU their
efforts tend by different ways to the common aim of elevating this poor
idol of humanity at the expense of the crowd of human beings who, tossed
on the waves of contradictory opinions respecting raatters which they had
long thought to be the nurture of their souls, rush at last headlong into
the giUf of eternity, with disgust for reUgion in their hearts, and often
with blasphemy on then- Ups. It is most assuredly far from my inten
tion to address speciaUy to Twesten, reflections which spring naturally
from my subject, but I cannot withhold them when I see writers of high
merit pass their whole Uves in circuitous journeys round about the
field of combat, when they might occupy a stronger position had they
more decided characters, when they might greatly contribute to the
victory of the Christian truths which they themselves feel, but whose
imprescriptible rights they dare not raaintain, lest they should offend
science or provoke the attacks of criticism.
In this Ust of speculative theologians, I ought to place a writer who
has distinguished himself more especiaUy in historico-dogmatical theo
logy, and who hardly aUows us an insight into the sanctuary of his
thoughts. I aUude to Baumgarten-Crusius, now professor at Jena.
His legitimate enthusiasm for Schleiermacher would certainly place him
among the partisans of that theologian,* did not his writings show a
changefubiess of mind which causes him to esteem the phUosophy of
Fichte as much as the systems of Jacobi and Fries, while in one of his
works he seeras to take particularly under his protection that of Schel-
• See Ueber Schleiermacher, seine Denkart und seine Verdienste. Jena, 1834.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 273
Ung, and defines phUosophy as " attempts to arrive at etemal Ufe." *
His Einleitung, where this thought is expressed, should be, accordmg
to the author's plan, a scientific explanation of the Christian religion,
and of the Protestant creed ; he has executed the work with talent, but
with a suppression of his own opinions, which disappoints the reader.
But the work of Baumgarten-Crusius whieh is most rich in learning is
his Compendium of the History of Boctrine, which we have already
mentioned, and in which he reviews, in the most animated manner, all
the raanifestations of the reUgious spnit at aU periods of Christianity.
The tendency of this work is evidently SupernaturaUstic, but it is so
undecided that EationaUsm also might claim the production, if the
writer had not, on different subjects, expressed hiraself strongly against
Wegscheider and his party. I wiU, however, quote the criticism of a
more skUfiU judge than myself : " With respect to knowledge, as well
as some other points, we shall find many features of resemblance be
tween Baumgarten-Crusius and Semler. There is the same facUity of
conception, but the same want of connexion and unity of ideas ; the
sarae abundance of interesting notices of different kinds, and also the
same defect in compUation and representation. With respect to theo
logical convictions, there are the same ideas respecting religiousness or
Christianity, and also the same groundless and immeasurable indecision,
and the same scepticism. But iu Semler, the critical talent and the
spirit of investigation are much greater than in Baumgarten-Crusius ;
whUe, on the other side, Baumgarten-Crusius is perfectly free from
what we caU triviality in Semler, and is, on the contrary, distinguished
by the richest mental endowments.'' f
Karl Immanuel Nitzsch J advanced much further than Ms father
on the path towards strictly Christian opinions, but a fatal eclecticism
seems to have arrested his progress. He is the fellow-labourer of
Ullmann and Umbreit in the review Studien und Kritiken, and shows a
great degree of sagacity in penetrating into the subjects which he
treats. We have not yet forgotten his series of ai-tieles on the Creed of
Mohler, in which he displayed such strength of logic and such an
amount of knowledge. § But the question of the chm-ch paralysed his
zeal and stranded his fine talents ; and untU theology employs itself in
re-modeUing the church apostoUcaUy, the best efforts wiU be wrecked
by this touchstone of every system which has not a church privUeged
* Einleitung in das Studium der Dogmatik. Leipzig, 1 820.
t See the Vermischte Schriften of Tholuck, vol. ii. 45. Baumgarten-Crusius
was born at Merseburg, in 1788.
X Professor at Bonn since 1822.
§ These three articles of Nitzsch have since been published separately.
VOL. II. T

274 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
to teach. He has developed his opinions on Christian doctrine in a
special work,* the principal aim of which, -viz,, the attempt to re-kindle
the unity of Christian life in the diversity of knowledge and operation,
is explamed according to the traditions of the apostoUc church, and
without regard to its historical development, or to the necessities of the
time. Like aU theologians who reject the symbolical books, Nitzsch wishes
that Christian doctrine should be only the system of biblical truth ; and
in undertaking the task of arranging this system, he takes care especiaUy
to remove every idea which may, even in the least degree, remind him
of the instructions of the creed. Then he appUes himself to the compa
rison of the different apostolical traditions, in order to deduce from them
a whole, which he terms a system of Christian doctrine. As the result
of this is far from being contrary to the fundamental principles of the
church, it would seem that he ought to be reckoned among the pure
supernaturalists, but, like Liicke, he is not so in the tme acceptation
of the word, since he receives the doctrine, not because it coraes to
him from the inspired volurae, but only because he pre-supposes its
truth. In this class of speculative theologians we must also place a writer of
an elegant and original mind, who often manifests his intention of being-
independent, of pursuing the path which seems best to himself, free
fi-om all restraint, uninfluenced by individuals or sects, a writer who says
to the ancient doctrinal systera. You no longer suit our age, and who has
raised his voice against critical Eationalism in so decided a manner, that
he has provoked loud outcries from its adherents. I refer to Karl Hase,
theological professor, and privy councUlor, at Jena. His opinions, how
ever, are so scattered throughout his works, and there is so Uttle har
mony among them, that we can hardly place him among those Eation
alists who seek to incorporate supernaturalism in their speculative the
ology, unless, indeed, we consider as a complete system the following
summary, which may be made of his principles. EeUgion is our rela
tion to God, the absolute one, who by an infinite love was induced to
communicate his being to an infinite number of creatures. The essence
of humanity consists in the infinite created frora the finite by the love
for the infinite, which man seeks to appropriate to himself. The im
pediment to this divine love is objectively evU, and subjectively sin.
No moment of the present exists vrithout the feeUng of sin, since no one
possesses in himself the plenitude of infinite love. Love, however, re
mains, and presents itself as a loving bond of reconciUation with God.
* System der christlichen Lehre, 3rd edition. Bonn, 1837.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 275
This reconciUation is reaUsed by Christianity, because it forms a treaty
of love between God and man.*
If we observe the phraseology of Hase, we shaU immediately see
that his studies have been influenced by the different phUosophical
systeras which have lately disputed the possession of the field of
science. SchelUng and Schleiermacher appear to have had most weight
with him ; and this explains the fact, that though a decided rationaUst,
so far as concerns the great questions of dispute between that system
and orthodoxy, he has, nevertheless, expressed contempt for the vulgar
EationaUsm of Eohr, Wegscheider, and Schulz, on whose foreheads the
epithet of vulgar, which has, since used by Hase, become historical,
remains as though branded thereon with a hot iron.f
At the time when Wegscheider and Gesenius were stiU attracting at
tention at HaUe, Hase was preparing with care an edition of the symbo
Ucal books of the Lutheran chm-ch, and it seemed at first that his own
opinions did not differ widely fi-om the contents of the works which he
sought to restore to honour. J But iu the very work which seemed to have
this end in view, are found these elegant sentences, which undeceived
supernaturaUstic Christians : " The doctrinal system of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries reminds me of one of our ancient German
cathedrals, with its arches pointing to heaven and its wonderful symbo
Ucal ornaments. A cathedral like those of our ancestors can no longer
be buUt. For some years they have been considered as belonging to a
Gothic and barbarous style of architecture. Yet in observing them, we
feel as if in the house of God."§ The doctrinal work which contains
these beautiful expressions shows throughout that they give a correct
idea of Hase's sentiments, and that for once at least poetry expresses a
reaUty. But if we examine its raeaning, we discover in it the known
intention of Hase to unite by his science the objective faith of Chris
tianity with the subjectivity of the human being in its free development,
and to produce by this labour of the intellect the doctrine of the future
• See Lehrbuch der evangelischen Dogmatik, 2nd edit. Leipzig, 1838; and
Gnosis, oder evangelische Glaubenslehre fur die Gebildeten. Leipzig, 1827. A spi
ritual but severe criticism on Hase's doctrinal opinions is to be found in Bret
schneider's Dogmatik.
f The editor of the Literary Gazette of Halle declares, on the contrary, that
this title ought to be considered as his crown of laurel.
X Hase was born in 1800, at Steinbach, in the principality of Altenberg. After
a youth passed in stormy political agitation, he is now settled as theological pro
fessor at Leipzig, where he attracts a great number of hearers.
§ Hutterus redivivus. Preface to the 4th edition. Leipzig, 1839. This work is
a faithful exposition of the ancient Lutheran doctrine as compared with tbe
modern.
t2

276 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
church. The principal merit of this doctrinal work of Hase, as of that
which he afterwards published,* is the concise explanation of the
manner in which the Lutheran doctrines were conceived. We must
not, however, imagine that he wishes to revive the ancient doctrines of
Hutter, the professor of Wittenberg ; if he wishes to see the works of
that professor in the hands of his readers, it is only on condition that
they are treated as an university manual. " For," says he, " the com
pUer of an academical manual in our day, who wishes to attain his end,
must be able to sacrifice his own individual opinions, and devote himself
entu-ely to the object of a general historical faith. "f That is to say,
in other words, that a doctrinal system ought to be merely a history of
the variations of the human mind respecting religion.
From these views we may imagine that Hase's opinions respecting
Christ are far from orthodox. He formaUy denies our Lord's unity of
nature with the Father, and he endeavours to prove this position rather
by recalUng the mortal conduct of Christ, which was always submissive
and impressed with a truly fiUal piety, than by refuting the texts of
Scripture which declare his participation in the Deity. He says well
in speaking of Jesus, — " When he recognised in himself the Messiah, he
raised the theocratical and mystical signification of the Son of God to its
highest religious meamng."J But the Socinians would say the same.
It is true that, like all other speculative theologians, he employs the
expression, God-man {Gott-m,en,scK), to show the nature of the person
of Christ. But as we aU, in one sense, partake of the divine nature,
and as we ought aU to labour to attain the perfect stature of Christ, or,
to use Hase's expression, as we ought aU to believe, in order to reach
that point at which every son of man is declared a son of God, we can
entertain no doubts of the Socinianism of the author uuder considera
tion. If, however, we are not alarmed by the name Socinian, which,
indeed, may be appUed to every theologian of any importance in the
present day, we shaU feel admiration for the transformation effected on
Eationalism by Hase's opinions. So does he modify it, that, with great
justice, he considers the doctrine of man's redemption as the funda
mental and characteristic article of Christian faith, and charity or love
as the essence of reUgion. Thus, Hase's creed is very simple, and con
sists merely in faith in the pardon announced by the Gospel. §
* Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 2nd edit, Leipzig, 1 838.
f Hutterus redivivus, p. xi.
X Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, p. 244. See also his Life qf Jesus, p, 439.
§ In an explanation which he has given of his own work. Evangelical Doctrine
{New Gazette of Jena, 1842, 1 10), in answer to the critiques of Julius Miiller
jmd of Dorner, Hase says, " Strange and artful plans are again being formed, to

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 277
I cannot better close my remarks on this theologian, who, as yet,
has only held out hopes to his numerous foUowers, than by giving his
opinions on the dispute between Eationalism and Supernaturalism.
In spite of mucb ingenious suppression, he thus treats the question :
" The decision between the two systems of EationaUsm and Super-
naturaUsm depends on tbis thesis, Can the human mind, as it actuaUy
exists, produce by itself reUgious life, as a tendency to perfection ? If
this be possible, then we cannot understand why it should accept un-
conditionaUy a foreign revelation, even admitting that such a revelation
has, at some period, taken place, or has been necessary. This question
must be settled in Ufe by action, in the sciences by enUghtenment, and
thus are the claims of EationaUsm to be decided. To come to this
conclusion, we must isolate om-selves from Christiaruty, and if, in so
doing, we find that the phUosophical maxims of faith which we have
acquired, correspond essentiaUy with the articles of Christian faith de
veloped in a purely historical manner, we shall prove that Christianity
is, in its essence, a religion of reason, — we shaU prove the necessity of
a Christian Eationalism. But if, on the contrary, the human mind, in
this development of its reUgious disposition on any point, finds in itself
a total incapacity for reUgion, or a constant conflict, then Eeason herself
will ask from Supernaturalism what she is deficient in, to obtain the
knowledge and possession of the reUgious life. This decision will never
be reaUy made iintU philosophy and Christian faith are developed in their
intrinsic worth, and even then, however the question may be settled,
one of the systems wUl be justified only as a principle, and not in its
respective doctrines."*
Thus, on one side it is confessed that Christianity ought to be the
life of the people, that it alone can elevate man to a high degree of
morality ; but, on the other side, it is doubted whether EationaUsm or
SupematuraUsm be the guide to true Christianity ; and when the time
shaU arrive for the solution of this question, even then we shaU have
made no progress, since it wiU be necessary to re-commence the exami
nation of each article of doctrine. Oh ! how true are those words of

connect the doctrine of ancient times with both strong and weak parties of the pre-
sent day ; but if this attempt proceeds from raen really pious, and attached to the
opinions of our ancestors, and is not a mere philosophical bastard dressed in the
clothes of the God- man, I greatly fear lest the eflbrts to present as Christianity
that which is only a perishable form of it, will end in preparing a path for those
who desire to place an impassable gulf between the Christian faith and modern
culture." • Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 18,

278 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
the celebrated Claudius, " Man Uves not by the bread alone which the
learned have prepared for him," *
StiU let not Chiistians despair. This school of Schleierraacher, not
withstanding the vagueness of its assertions, has in its ranks men of
strong rainds, and their happy influence cannot faU to increase in pro
portion as, penetrating into the mysterious depths of human natm-e, and
ceasing to be dazzled by the splendour of science which seems to restrain
them in their investigations, they become convinced themselves, and
convince others, that if the Gospel is the truth, there is not a single
precept uttered by Jesus or his apostles, not a fact related by them,
which has not its origin in the human heart and its parallel in nature.
A fine example is presented to these theologians, in the learned profes
sor who was the friend and colleague of Schleiermacher, and who, to
arrive at Christian truth, pursues not the ever-adventurous path of d,
priori demonstration, but that of experience, not in the empirical sense
of the term, but as Jesus understood it when he coramanded us to con
sult our conscience if we would be convinced of the divinity of his doc
trine. The whole doctrinal system of August Neander, if we may so
designate the operation of that Chi-istianity whose different phases in the
course of ages he has described, — the whole of this is, we say, founded
upon sentiment, which he makes the judge between the moral wants of
the soul and the remedies which the Gospel offers for its complete cure.
His work entitled Benkwurdigkeiten aus der Geschichte des christlichen
Lebens shows us how efficacious is this method in releasing from the
bonds of error, well-intentioned men; and his great history of the
Christian religion has no other aim than to show in the large and im
posing picture which he unfolds to our view, that, in aU times, faith in
the reUgion of Jesus has possessed a divine power, which has caused
that religion alone to produce more virtues than all other reUgions
uuited could do, that thus the history of Christianity is a school of ex
perience for moral and reUgious life, and that we need only listen ear
nestly to hear its sweet voice and to feel to the very depths of our being
a kindling and enUghtening glow.f Not that Neander entertains the
* Der Mensch lebt nicht vom Brod allein, das die Gelehrten einbrocken.
f Dr. Johann August 'Wilhelm Neander, Professor at the University of Berlin,
was born at Gottingen in 1789. He must not be confounded with Daniel
Araadeus Neander, general supermtendent of the province of Brandenburg, who
was born at Langefeld in 1775. The opinions of the latter are quite rational
istic, and even if the collection of his sermons did not prove this to be the case,
his participation in the editorship of the Journal of Preachers would be sufficient
to distinguish his religious opinions from the Christian opinions of August
Neander.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 279
least contempt for the use of science in religious matters. He who
when only twenty-two pubUshed tbe age of the Emperor Julian, the age
of St. Bemard a year afterwards, and, at a later period, the history of
the gnostic systems aud the age of St. John Chrysostom ; he who within
the last ten years, without the slightest interruption to his numerous
lectures at the University of Berlin, has given to the world a vast his
tory of the church, which is found on the table, not only of every learned
professional man, but also of every layman in Gerraany, — this man has
surely done enough to show his respect for science. But we see that
he considers it merely as a means of proving truths already felt by the
heart, and that he makes it subordinate to the influence of him who has
declared himself to be the way, the truth, and the Ufe,*
Neander not only employs advantageously the agency of science in
removing the difiiculties with which time and sophistry have obscured
Christian truth, but he also does it with an unfaUing latitude of prin
ciples. Both with regard to the professors Gesenius and Wegscheider,
and to Dr. Strauss, in his criticism on the Gospels, he has always main
tained that the living faith which he wishes to reign in the church can
only arise fi-om Uberty of discussion ; and in this every reasonable su
pernaturalist wUl agree with him. But he seems to us to go too far
when, Uke the rationalists, he joins De Wette in distinguishing the doc
trine of the theologian from the pure and simple faith of the Christian
beUever. We quite agree with Neander in saying that if we wish to
preserve incorrupt the work of God, we should permit free development
to the progress of the human mind according to the laws of divine
wisdom, if we wish to reach the end prescribed by that wisdom. But
is it not a prejudicial mistake to demand from the simple believer the
submission of the mind to a doctrine, every part of which the theolo
gian is permitted to criticise ? Can Neander, who so ably pleads the
cause of Chi-istian equality, become the champion of a privUege which
would estabUsh in the church a caste more monstrous than the Eoman
hierarchy, so different in its sympathies, can be ? On this point we
must say that we consider the arguments of the Evangelical Gazette
against Neander, much more valid than those of the learned professor ;
but we by no means intend to justify the attack of the Gazette which
provoked Neander's declaration. Those who wish to form some idea
of the doctrinal position of Neander are refened not only to the letters
• Nine volumes have appeared of the Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen
Religion und Kirche, (Hamburg, 1825-1841,) which bring it down to the 12th
century. "We must regret that Neander has eraployed himself on an improved
edition of these nine volumes instead of continuing a work so impatiently looked
for by the public.

280 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
which I have already quoted, but also to the two prefaces to his lAfe of
Jesus in answer to that of Strauss, which seem to have made a happy
impression on his learned opponent. We wiU give sorae extracts.
" Herder said to Lavater, It is impossible for me to write a life of Jesus
according to the evangeUsts. Instead of writing his life, let us try to
becorae like hira. So thought Herder ; but why should not the histo
rian employ himself on the most SubUme subject of huraanity ? why
should human activity neglect that which can sanctify it, even when we
feel that we have faUen far short of our task ? Since the artist, with
the sole aid of his imagination and pious enthusiasm, creates for himself
an image of Christ, we can, with the historical fragments which we
possess, and whose scattered parts we re-unite, atterapt the same work.
Yes, we feel the necessity of vividly representing to ourselves this his
torical ideal which belongs to aU ages, of considering it on the grounds"
of science and the development of life. This necessity never ceases :
the image of Christ is neither of yesterday nor to-day ; though it grows
young again constantly with humanity, and ever communicates to the
world an impulse which raises it towards heaven. For those who would '
know my position with respect to the different parties now disputing m
the field of theology, though I have explained it in a previous work,*
I repeat unreservedly what, after serious investigation, made without
prejudice but with respect for all that is sacred, I have concluded to be
true, or at least probable. As Luther says, he who has good in view
must aUow the devU to contradict him. Without doubt I shall dis
please two parties, that which desires to renew everything by violent
means, and which, in its presumptuous folly, thinks that it can even
shake the rock of ages ; and that which by violent means, at the ex
pense of the free spirit of truth, would retain or restore all that is old,
even that which has outlived itself.f I shall also displease the hyper
critical, who submit sacred history to the subjective arbitration of a
perspicacity beyond aU limit ; as well as those who hold in contempt
aU criticism, or at least aU founded on internal arguments. These two
parties have one thing in common ; they aUke contradict the spirit of
truth and man's consciousness of it, and thus endanger the progress of
sound mental culture. I am persuaded that an impartial criticism ap-
* In the Preface to Geschichte der Pfianzung und Leitung der Kirche, so well
translated by M. FontanSs under the title Histoire du siecle apostolique, 2 vols.
Paris and Geneva, 1836,
f These words against the ultra -supernaturalists are somewhat strong; have I
misunderstood them ? " Und denen, welche auf gewaltsame 'Weise, auf Kosten des
unbefangenen "Wahrheitssinnes, alles Alte und auch das 'Veraltete, was sich selbst
uberlebt hat, festhalten oder zuriick fiihren wollen."

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 281
pUed to all which we have received by written and historical tradition
is not only consistent with the chUdUke faith, without which no Chris
tianity, and therefore no Christian theology, could exist, but from it
also results the consecration of the true sense of Scripture which is
essential to the prosperity of theology, as weU as the most efficacious
means for its preservation."*
" CounseUor Schulz, in a critique on my work, accuses me of con
tradicting my previous assertions. I hope that the passage which has
caused this misunderstanding wiU be more clearly expressed in the
second edition. But respecting this enthusiasm for reason, I can
not do better than quote the words of Jacobi, which so weU charac
terise this enthusiasm for reason which is no reason. ' Your faith,'
said he, (Jaeobi, Works, vol. ii. p. 493,) ' is always reason, and you
can recognise the reason of another only in his faith. You do not
inquire in what way he feels, perceives, observes, judges, and concludes,
but you only ask what he thinks upon a subject : that you think
enough to show whether or not his sentiments are in harmony with
the canon.' This view, so weU described by Jacobi, gives rise to a pre
judice which leads to unjust judgments on those who think differently
frora yourselves, and to errors of which you remain in ignorance, just as
enthusiasm for an absolute doctrine, which is the rule of a certain
number of opinions or maxims connected with it, causes you to depre
ciate, with equal injustice, the share which each claims in the Christian
faith." t
" What wUl be said of my assertions by those who admit the symboli
cal books ? What any one may say, is a matter of perfect indifference
to me. We have here to do only with Christian truth. I could not
subscribe to one of the creeds as the unconditional expression of my
religious convictions, excepting to that of the apostles, which is the
primitive fact of the Christian faith essential to the existence of a
Christian chm-ch. I think that when we have passed through the storms
and schisms of the present day, we shaU have a new and more majestic
constitution of the church, which wUl infuse the Holy Spuit into reli
gious Ufe, wUl bring back to unity the different reaUy Christian con
fessions of faith, which, though the expositions given of them are always
defective, and bear the variable impress of their period, will neverthe
less be the expression of Christian truth, and thus we shall have a
creed corresponding to the developraent of the church, if, at least,
such an expression of the spirit which wUl animate it be found neces-
* Das Leben Jesu, already quoted, xii,-xiv.
f Das Leben, Sec, xviii.-xix.

282 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
sary. But I ought, however, to confess, with the theologians here
mentioned, that I hold to the fundamental principle of the Eeformation
and of the EvangeUcal church, viz., the doctrine of the corruption of
human nature. But this doctrine is not opposed to the beUef in the
divine origin of human nature, but rather impUes it, through the justifi
cation by faith in Jesus as the Saviour. 1 respect then, as the founda
tion of the Evangelical chm-ch, the essence of the Confession of Augs
burg, and of its apology, in so far as it expresses this fundamental
principle. Dr. Schulz is surprised at my belief in the proneness of our
nature to sin. I am much raore surprised that any man can dispute a
trath, not only attested by Scripture, but also graven upon the human
heart. As to the expressions 'natm-al reason' and 'justification,' which
he wishes me to remove from my works, I cannot gratify him, since
these expressions are too weU estabUshed in the Evangelical church,
and the ideas which they represent are too weU founded in bibUcal
anthropology. They have not been invented by a ' neo-evangelical'
theology, but have descended in a du-ect Une frora the ancient faith.
Those are only false instructors (whose devastation, however, wUl pre
pare for a better future) who can attack these ideas." *
Thus does Dr, Neander answer those who ask for some testimony of
his faith, and who would see him take a more decided tone. History
wUl say whether, by foUowing the path which he considers to be the
true medium between parties,! he wiU attain the noble end that he
has in view, of preparing for a glorious day, the bright dawn of
which he foresees, when the sun of a real and living faith in the Gospel
shall form the happiness 'of aU nations, J Let us close these remarks
on August Neander by quoting a criticism on him, written by a dis
tinguished man of letters, who, though of opposite opinions in philo
sophy and religion, nevertheless does justice to his eminent talents.
"August Neander is a trae father of the church, such as, in every
age, the church would wish to have. But in saying this, we regard
only the sentiraents by which he is influenced, and not his scientific
views. Whatever these may be, his intentions are worthy om- esteem
{liebenswiirdig), as those of true Christianity generally are. Kant has
said, ' Christianity, besides the high esteem irresistibly inspired by the
hoUness of its laws, possesses also something to be loved in itself. 1 do
not mean the love due to the person who acqubed it for us by so gi-eat
* Das Leben, &c., xviii. -xx.
t 'With this proposition Neander commences a circular of invitation to the
Annual Meeting of the Biblical Society.
X A most strictly supernaturalistic refutation of this work of Neander's is to
be found in the Review of Lutheran Theology, Part I, 1846, p, 146.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 283
a sacrifice, but the goodness of the thing in itself, that is to say, the moral
constitution founded by the Gospel. Esteem, undoubtedly, should hold
the highest rank, since, without it, no true love can exist ; though we
may feel love for the person ; but if to Christianity we would join even
divine authority, notwithstanding the best intentions and an exceUent
purpose, this amiabUity wiU immediately disappear ; for there is an
inconsistency in commanding not only that a thing shaU be done, but
also that it shall be done with pleasure.'  Now Neander
is a true disciple of these liberal views of Christianity 
He has pointed out three deviations fi-om the true medium, most
hurtful in their consequences, and has justly shown true and pure
Christianity to be an antidote to the e"vU, and a high unity which can
reconcile oppositions. But in attributing to Christianity exclusively
the true medium, and implying that, apart from Christianity, it cannot
be found, he shows that Christian bigotry which he shares with aU his
friends {Berufsgenossen) who would derive from Christianity, as revealed
in a supernatm-al manner, aU that is just, tme and good, instead of
showing its source in the nature and reason of man. True aud pure
Christianity does not differ from the pm-e religion of reason, and
Neander, instead of proclaiming the Gospel raised above aU human
opposition, and, for that reason, the trus medium, should have entitled
his programme, Eeason raised above aU opposition." * If these
words of a writer entirely devoted to literary studies describe a ration
alist in reUgion, they are only the better calculated to bring about the
results expected by the reUgious world of Gerraany from the serious
and profound labours to which Neander has devoted his life, and which
have gained for him the sincere homage of writers opposed to science.
• See the Piloten, edited by Laube, No. 94, for 1841. A French journal, the
Archives du Christianisme, the organ of old Calvinism, said, in speaking of Nean
der, and of those who entertained sirailar views, ""We must confess that the peru
sal of German books in support of supernaturalism has not a favourable influ
ence on our spiritual condition ; we find in them doubtful and uncertain argu
ments instead of motives for faith and love.' ' — {Archives, vol. iv. p. 37. ) The writers
of this journal had doubtless forgotten this passage when they blamed me
severely for having said that certain supernaturalists of Germany inclined towards
Rationalism.

284 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE XVIL
GNOSTIC SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY, OR THAT POUNDED SOLELY ON
KNOWLEDGE  MARHEINECKE  STRAUSS.
If it was a difficult task to attempt to transform traditional Christianity
into a system of strong conceptions and ingenious connexion in aU its
parts, we can easUy imagine that it could not be less difficult to do the
same for the Lutheranism of the sixteenth century. To this task, how
ever, did Marheinecke, a professor of BerUn, devote himself with a per
severance worthy of a better end. He begau his work by sm-veying the
field of phUosophy, and, finding in Hegel that which suited his purpose,
he adopted HegeUan formulas to express the Lutheran faith.* Mar-
heinecke's first position is this — that to consider reason as the original
source of religion is quite as absurd as to suppose that we can receive
a divine revelation vrithout the use of reason ; and as all the truths of
faith and Ufe known by the Israelitish and other people show, according
to him, in their existence, their common descent from the eternal reason
of God, who, before assuming human nature, sowed among aU people the
germ of divine wisdom, it foUows that the attention of aU should naturaUy
be fixed on the Son of God, who is their eternal heaven, and that aU
should constantly address to him prayer, since it is to the soul what
respiration is to the body. We must not apply to the Bible only, stUl
less to the letter of the Bible, to acquire this vrisdom, since, if the ex
istence of the word of God in the Bible were as essential to the essence
of reUgion as the word of God in general, Christ himself should have
been the author of the Bible, if he wished entirely to accompUsh the
work of reUgion. Such are the principles of Marheinecke : to justify
them, he says to the foUowers of Jacobi and Fries, that sentiment can
produce in him who trusts to it only an obscure and therefore worthless
faith ; for faith, to have any value, must be radiant with clearness ; and
can such a faith exist save in idea and knowledge ? Faith, then, cannot
* Die Grundlehren der christi. Dogmatik als Wissenschaft. Berlin, 1819, revised
in 1827, See also Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens und Lebens fUr denkende
Christen. Berlin, 2nd edit, 1826.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 285
be a thing distinct fi-om knowledge ; and knowledge, in its turn, wUl be
only the consciousness of the consciousness of God. In this system of
doctrine we next find opinions on God and his attributes ; on God in
Himsetf, who is the Father — on God out of Himself, who is the Son —
and on God self-sufficing, who is the Holy Spirit. His proof of the
existence of a God lies in these words : Lead a pure and divine Ufe,
and God wiU reveal Himself to you in such a way that you wiU never
doubt again. Certainly, the raan who doubts the existence of God has
not a healthy mind ; but is it enough to say to a sick man. Cure thy
self, and thou wUt no longer need a cm-e ? Without doubt, this argu
ment is very powerful with those who are far advanced in reUgious
truth, and therefore Christ commanded us to do the wiU of his Father,
and then we should understand the divinity of his mission ; but I cannot
see that it is a decisive argument for the ignorant man or the sceptic.
This is not the only false reasoning which we discover on examining the
system, the very foundation of which is a false argument ; for the author
says, in speaking of reUgion, that aU truth is reUgious, since religion
alone knows the truth.
Marheinecke, who rejected sentiment as the foundation of knowledge,
shows his consistency when he requires from man the entire renunciation
of the sentiment of his individuaUty, and even of the distinction between
God and himself, and the forgetfulness, in the idea of God, of aU know
ledge of self. This Marheinecke calls " the insertion ofthe human thought
inthe divine thought ;" and without it he maintains that mind can never
arrive at a true, happy and etemal existence. These are his own ex
pressions : — " The first step towards tme religion is for the mind to
renounce its individuaUty, and to rest entirely in God. Every step in
the opposite direction leads to ruin. But if the mind advances towards
the light, it is delivered fi-om vUe and unworthy things ; it is delivered
from itself — that is to say, from the care of preserving the / and sub-
jeetirity, by arriving at the life in God as truth, and consequently at
the true life. The truth and reality of human nature consist not in its
individuality, but in its admission into a superior nature. Only in
coming to God does man come to himself. The trath of human nature
is divine nature. Divinity is the only tme humanity, and mere huma
nity is untrue, is evU." We fear that such language wUl be unintelU-
gible to many ; and of what use m-e reUgious systems which are inap
plicable to the majority ? And even did we feel the strongest desire to
renounce our individuality, and plunge into the fathomless depths of
the divine essence, we should naturaUy ask how is this to be effected :
yet Marheinecke gives no answer to this question in his work ; for we
must unquestionably submit to the guidance of the divine wiU. All

286 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
ancient theologians say the same, and speculative theology only "repeats
the assertion.
All this speculation is entirely unfounded, and is opposed to our sen
timents respecting our own nature, which recognise a distinction between
the object and the subject which has an intimate and indestmctible con
sciousness of it. It foUows, therefore, that this modern gnosticism wiU
remain only as the beautiful dream of a fertile imagination, and wUl not
satisfy those soids longing for trath, which wish rather for re-assurance
and consolation, than for iUumination.
I have shown the nature of the Trinity of God recognised by Mar
heinecke. It furnishes hira with a division of his work. By raen-
tioning the subjects treated in each book, we shall show how our author
appUes his system to the Lutheran doctrine of the symboUcal books.
The first part treats of the divine essence or ideas of the reasonable
sentiment, as opposed to nature destitute of knowledge ; then of the
existence of God or the reality of ideas, as opposed to nature as an ap
pearance of existence ; and again of the divine attributes or the union
of thought and existence, of knowledge and the will. The second part
relates to God the Son, that is to say, to the internal revelation in itself,
which Marheinecke calls the testimony of the Son, and the external re
velation, comprehending the creation, the preservation of the world, evU
and sin, and its annihUation by redemption. The third part is devoted to
the Holy Spirit and its operations, conversion, liberty, the kingdom of God
or the church, and finaUy death, judgment, and eternity. We see thus,
that orthodoxy seems to have no cause of complaint against speculative
Eationalism, since it rejects no Scripture doctrine, provided we aUow it
to explain them in its own way. 1 wUl quote only one example to prove
this substitution of new doctrines for ancient, under cover of words bor
rowed fi-om the creeds of the church : " The doctrine of the Son of
God is the doctrine of the internal and external revelation of God.
This distinction is lost in the unity of God revealed and of the world in
the person of a man. If we consider the internal revelation, it is God
reflecting on Hiraself. In this thought God becomes an object to Him
self, and there is the Son, who is the revelation of the Father. This
revelation of God is His own internal clearness, so that without the
Son, God would not see Himself. Thus the internal revelation of God
is His own appearance. His own action in thinking. His reflection on
Himself." What obscurity has this learned author plunged into, for the
strange pleasure of restoring orthodoxy vrith different expressions and
different ideas from those of the apostles ! Many Christians have often
been embarrassed by this majestic introduction to St. John's Gospel :
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 287
Word was God  and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us." Compared with Marheinecke's works, however, these words seem
most clear. We cannot avoid regretting that so great talents and the
best intentions should have been spent only for a gnosticism, which can
never become popular ; though Christianity ought to be so, if it is to
fulfil its principal destiny. To continue our extracts -. " It is not given
to human nature to assume the divine nature, since the human exists per
sonally only in the divine ; but the divine nature may assume human
nature. In renouncing his mental individuaUty, man rises above himself
without renouncing his nature, and God, in departing from His mental
absoluteness, descends to humanity without leaving His divine nature.
So that the one as God in human nature, and the other as man in the
divine nature, together form a whole, which is the God-man." Now, ac
cording to Marheinecke, Jesus was the being in whom the unity of God
and of man was reaUsed, and thus God revealed Himself extemaUy as
the Son. In the person of this God-man, reason was not corrupted by
the error committed by aU other men, that of considering the world and
the individuality of each man as self-existing things, an error which
practicaUy causes us to renounce reason. No, Christ preserved intact
the unity of God and of the world, and in that he showed himself
a normal and divine man. The grace and wisdom which are essentiaUy
revealed in him are communicated by him to aU those to whom this
trath is certainly revealed by their faith in the Saviour as the God-man,
and by this acquisition they become chUdren of God.
By these speculations, which he modified but very slightly in his
pulpit instructions, the professor endeavoured to restore under a better
form the Lutheran creed now universally rejected. But it would appear
that he afterwards perceived the futility of his own efforts, and the
general false tendency of Hegel's phUosophy, the extravagances of
which he deplores, and completely disavows the consequences deduced
fi-om it by bolder logicians, such as Strauss, Bruno Bauer, and Feuer
bach, whom, mdeed, he does not consider to be Hegelians.* The
humble and regretful tone of Marheinecke's later work forms a strange
contrast to the self-sufficiency of certain Hegelians who, if they have
reaUy found that for which others are stUl seeking, ought only to be
the more modest and more benevolently incUned to poor wanderers. The
numerous complaints, too, which this work contains, of friends and
enemies, show the despair felt by the sincere and learned author. The
philosophy of Hegel, according to him, has now sunk to the lowest
* Einleitung in die 'offentlichen Vorlesungen uber die Redeutung der Hegelschen
Philosophie in der Christlichen Theologie nebst einem Separatvotum uber Bauers
Kritik der evangel. Geschichte. Berlin, 1842.

288 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
depth of abasement, not because it has been satisfactorily refuted, but
because it has been attacked by aU the weak and superficial.* He then
insinuates reproaches against the Prussian government, for what he
caUs its intention of teaching a state philosophy, grows angry with
those whora he calls pious denouncers, and ends by inviting all the adver
saries of Hegel to bring forward a powerful refutation of his principles,
to deliver the world from its errors, and to show that they are heroes
who can substitute something better for this phUosophy. For it is
only by means of a true philosophy that we shaU find it easy to distin
guish the false.f
The declaration of Marheinecke with respect to Bruno Bauer, which
is affixed to this introduction to his lectures, was a necessary conse
quence of the position in which he was placed. When he foresaw the
possibUity of an approaching oppression of the Hegelian phUosophy, of
which he considered hiraself the purest representative, he did right to
claim for others the liberty of teaching, which he might be obUged to
claim for himself. But can we compare the position of Bruno Bauer
to that of the pure Hegelians ? They, though changing the nature of
the spirit of Christianity, yet persist in beUeving theraselves the pos
sessors of its true principles, whUe Bauer raakes a coraplete divorce be
tween Christianity and phUosophy, and declares the latter to be supe
rior to aU the forms of religion which Christianity would bonow. But
I shaU anticipate if I do not speak fu-st of the author of the new school
of speculative Hegelian phUosophy.
Since Lutheranism has ceased to have the power of preserving the
religion committed to its care, and since, in spite of it, philosophy has
become the i-uUng power in matters of faith, it was quite natural that a
man should appear and say to the two parties, " You tu-e the world
with your endless debates ; if they were advantageous to religion they
would be equally so to the morals of your people ; experience proves
that you have lost the path of morality, and the feeble and powerless
manner in which you defend your pretensions shows that you have out
lived yourselves. Mine, then, be it to give the death-blow to this life
less body ; and, though denying the Christianity of the Gospels, even
though placing in the class of myths all the facts there related, stUl to
give to coming generations a better understanding of Christianity, be
cause I shaU be able to show you that the supernatural birth of Christ,
his miracles, his resurrection, and his ascension, remain etemal truths,
* Einleitung in die 'offentlichen Vorlesungen uber die Bedeutung der Hegelschen
Philosophie in der Christlichen Theologie nebst einem Separatvotum uber Bauers Kritik
der evangel. Geschichte. Berlin, 1842. p. 14.
t Ibid. p. 18-26.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 289
however we may doubt the reality of the historical facts on which they
rest." In this spirit, and with these intentions, Strauss gave to the
learned world his Life of Jesus.* I say to the learned world, because it
is an established custora among German theologians to think theraselves a
class so distinct from the other classes of society, that they claim the right
of having books for themselves alone, and of using other books in their
connexion with the people. This pretension is very extraordinary, since
Protestantism has destroyed the idea of a priesthood, aud we do not see
what society has gained in changing the priest, essentiaUy the friend of
the people, for the learned man with whom the word people is a syno-
nyme for ignorant. Dr. Strauss, however, sincerely believed that his
book would be read only by men of his own profession ; to ensure this
he should have foUowed the example of Bretschneider, whose Probabilia
were not written in German. Had he done so, the people would not
have known as much as he did of this new method of destroying the
Christian ideas in the world, and the election of Strauss to the doc
trinal chau- of Zurich would not have been opposed. When, therefore,
he complained of the interference of the laity in matters not concerning
them, he should have known that the voice of God often speaks by the
voice of the people, and that he himself had prepared the way for it.
Strauss's first position is very simple, being merely the unqualified
denial of the authenticity of the Gospels. By this denial he attempts
to throw light on points which the imperfect criticism of his predeces
sors had only obscured. What, says he, can be worse than to attri
bute, as does vulgar or socinian Eationalism, the origin of the Gospels
either to the apostles, to their disciples, or to weU-informed friends of
the Christian cause, and then to dispute concerning the degree of their
eredibUity, or, still more strange, to make them declare things quite
different from what they really do say ? Is it not enough for the Chris
tian reUgion that its doctrine is preserved in its purity, without there
being any necessity to defend the authenticity of a number of narratives
which have their origin in ideas eternaUy true, but which were framed
by the evangelists only as a sort of body for those ideas ? To give some
reasons for his rejection of the Gospels as the works of the apostles,
Strauss examines the extemal testimony generally adduced in support of
their authenticity. This testimony he declares to be weak and in no
way calculated to counterbalance the numerous internal proofs of their
unauthenticity. Then, in order to re-assure those readers who might

* An account of his opinions may be found in the different Prefaces to the
Life of Jesus, vol. i. of the French translation by M. LittrS, and especially in the
Introduction. VOL. II. U

290 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
consider his work of destruction incompatible with the sentiments of
Christian piety, he declares, that he supposes the inventors of the
Gospels to have beUeved aU which they related, because they had heard
these stories from numbers of people who made them their favourite
topic of conversation, or because they had before them many small
works in which the simple actions of the Saviour, or some of his pre
cepts or parables, were recorded in an emphatic manner and adorned
with miraculous circumstances. All these accounts tended to excite
the admiration of readers, to touch their feeUngs, and to lead them to
the practice of the virtues of which Jesus had given so beautiful an
example. But how were they to be invested with an authority strong
enough to lead to conviction and to compel obedience ? It was found
that the best means would be to represent them as the work of the
apostles, so that they might for ever command the respect of Christians.
In this way, within the century after the death of the apostles, were
formed the canonical and a great part of the apocryphal Gospels, and it
is only in consequence of circumstances quite independent of the wUl of
the compilers that those bearing the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John, are alone considered as canonical. If to this abstract of fhe
arguments of Strauss we add that he treats as myths most of the facts
which the Naturalists considered as impostures, and which the Eation
aUsts of the school of Eichhorn and Paulus explained, by depriving
them of their rairaculous character and reducing them to very ordinary
occurrences, we shall then be able to form an idea of aU the contents of
the lAfe of Jesus. It delighted all the secret or declared Deists stiU
belonging to the Christian chm-ch ; it justly alarmed aU those whose
hopes rest only on the promises of Christ ; and it provoked the anger
of the vulgar rationalists, who found theu- system designated as incon
sistent, and without any scientific value.
At one time the Prussian government was inclined to put an end to
the scandal by interdicting the entrance of the work into its dominions,
believing that this measure would suffice to check its growing celebrity.
Neander's lofty inteUigence, however, had succeeded in preventing this
step, and, in a subsequent edition, Strauss sincerely thanked him for it.
The learned professor of Berlin gave it as his opinion, that the work of
Strauss, though not profound, was written with much talent, and that
throughout science predominated over and extinguished sentiment. That,
in truth, the writer appeared to be guided by singular good faith, but
that his mythical system did, nevertheless, undermine Christianity, and
that, if it spread, would, it might be feared, destroy the existing Chris
tian faith ; that it would, notwithstanding, be a great mistake to in
terdict the work, since when once interdicted it could not be refuted.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 291
and by such a measure it would acquire an undue importance. As the
words of Neander were badly reported in the Allgemeiim Zeitung, he
thought proper to pubbsh them, together with an explanation, which
was in fact a censure of Strauss's work. He subsequently criticised it
in a Life of Jesws, which may be UteraUy called the counterpart of that
of Strauss. We may judge of its importance from these words written
by Strauss himself in the preface to his third edition : " With De
Wette's Commentary and Neander's Life of Christ before me, 1 have
re-commenced the examination of the fourth Gospel (St. John's), and
this renewed study of it has shaken in my mind the validity of my
doubts respecting its authenticity, and fhe credence which it deserves ;
not that I am convinced that the fourth Gospel is authentic, but I am
less strongly convinced that it is not so."* Thus we see Strauss con
demns his own system. For when a writer expresses himself in this
way, he aUows himself conquered, as does Strauss, in saying that he is
not convinced of the unauthenticity of the fourth Gospel. We do not
need the learning of a theological professor, to see that if the Gospel
of John is admitted to be authentic, the whole mythical system faUs to
the ground ; for does this Gospel contain anything diametricaUy opposed
to the other three ? Posterity wUl owe the deepest gratitude to him
who, by the skilfulness and worthy tone of his criticism, drew forth this
confession from Dr. Strauss, and at the same time proved that Chris
tianity, which has vanquished so many enemies, can have nothing to
fear from speculative phUosophy. The new trial to which it has been
subjected by Dr. Strauss has been the more severe because it did not
consist of sharp witticisms, nor of polite sarcasm ; but came from a
conscientious man, possessed of learning, strength of mind, and, above
all, of an iron consistency. It is true our feelings are wounded by the
icy indifference with which he anatomizes what, as a whole, we have
so much pleasure in admiring ; and when we find that his emotion
is not once excited by the contemplation of the mild and imposing
person of Christ, we are saddened by a want of feeling which we can
hardly attribute to science alone. The work of Strauss, though it may
have seduced some minds which had never experienced a heartfelt
Christian faith, can only have strengthened those who were wavering
but stUl sincere.
It would be an endless task to mention aU the works which followed
the appearance of this lAfe of Jesus, and the articles concerning it in pe-

* Leben Jesu, vol. i. p. vi. See also Neander's Erklarung in Beziehung auf einen
Artikel der Allgem. Zeit. nebst dem auf h'ohere Veranlassung von ihm verfassten
Gutachten Uber das buch des Dr. Strauss. Berlin, 1836.
c 2

292 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
riodical reviews and journals. The most important among the first are
those written against the work of Strauss by Neander, Tholuck, Hoff
mann, Krabbe, Kuhn, and von Ammon, which, taken altogether, have not
left unanswered one of his critical objections. We have already spoken
of those of von Ammon and Neander, whose feeble side lies rather in what
they leave unsaid, than in what they both express with so much talent.
But their lucid explanations of certain facts apparently contradictory,
especially those of Neander, seem to have made a happy impression
even on Strauss himself. But Tholuck, Krabbe, and Hoffmann, took a
raore decided tone. They, less prudent than Neander, who would have
been silent, had he not felt convinced of his superiority over his oppo
nent, made no sort of concessions, and thus gave Strauss an opportunity
of animadverting, with the bitterness which distinguishes his later
works, on the too dogmatical tone of Tholuck's work.* The lAfe of
Jesus, by Kuhn, a CathoUc professor of the University of Tiibingen,
bears the impress of unequivocal Supernaturalism. This is not sur
prising frora a Catholic who could uot take up the pen without resolving
not to contradict, in any particular, either the received doctrine or any
historical facts ; but Professor Kuhn has displayed great learning in his
scientific exposition, and we are grieved to find, that though five years
have elapsed since the first part of his work appeared, the second has
not yet been pubUshed for want of encouragement.f
We must also mention particularly the witty noveUst of Sweden,
Frederika Bremer, whose writings have become naturaUsed in Germany,
where they are read with as much interest as in Sweden. This lady
has written a little book, which we have read in the Gerraan transla
tion, J and which is composed in a true womanly spirit, the pen being
guided by the heart. She has found no difficulty in showing that
every soul imbued with that love of God and men which is the first
commandment of the Gospel, can easUy give an answer to all the ob
jections accumulated by Dr, Strauss, respecting the origin and formation
of the evangeUcal books, and that thus the science of the heart is
superior in reUgion to the science of the mind. In speaking of this
work in the New Gazette of Jena,\ Baumgarten-Crusius said, that
" such women ought not to be silent in the church." Here, at least,
* Tholuck, die Glaubwurdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, Sec. Hamburg, 1837.
"Wilh. Hoffmann, das Leben Jesu von Strauss, gepriiftfur Theolog. und Nicht-theol.
Stuttgardt, 1836. Otto Krabbe, Vorlesung. an d. Leben Jesu, fur Theolog. und
Nicht-theologen. Hamburg, 1839.
f Johann Kuhn, das Leben Jesu wissenschaftlich bearbeitet, vol, i. Mayence,
1838. X Morgenwachen; einige Worle in Veranlassung, he. Hamburg, 1842,
§ 1842, No, 101,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 293
we have one pure and popular voice, which may be a guide to learned
theology in the confusion which prevails in its domain. Such works,
continues he, produced by a mind inspired by faith, should outweigh
a whole anti-Christian Uterature ; if its voice is listened to, we may
have many like it, which wUl announce the dawn of a clear day, and
wUl bring Ught and joy in a period so darkened by the mists of
error.* After speaking of a work unequaUed in celebrity by any other of
modern times, if, perhaps, we except Lamennais' subUrae pamphlet,
entitled Paroles d'un Croyant, it seems natural that we should have to
mention some gi-eat mmd that, penetrated by the spirit of Strauss, fol
lowed the same path. In fact, though Strauss had written nothing new,
as he had only shown to what a deplorable condition Eationalism had
reduced Christianity, yet, as soon as he showed the possibility of a new
dogmatical construction by means of the phUosophy of the absolute,
some young minds applauded his attempt, and, becoming his feUow-
workers, they formed the new Hegelian school, which we now see on
the brink of rushing headlong into the gulfs of negation and the most
refined Materialism. Their efforts, however, cannot be described until
we have given an account of the doctrinal work by means of which
Strauss vainly attempted to restore what he had destroyed by his Life
of Jesus.On the same phUosophical grounds as were taken by Marheinecke, but
aiming at a different end, for the sole reason that Strauss did not shrink
from consequences which would have alarmed the Christian feelings of
Marheinecke, the celebrated author of the Life of Jesus attempted to
construct a HegeUan doctrinal systera, as if in answer to the defiance of
his opponents, who accused him of a tendency too exclusively destruc
tive. There is this immense difference between the two disciples of
Hegel, — ^that whUe Marheinecke endeavoured to explain the Lutheran
doctrines by means of idealistic philosophy, Strauss wished to retain,
not of Lutheranism merely, but of Christianity itself, only those parts
* Araong the articles in periodicals written against Strauss, the most remark
able are those of Schweizer, Ullmann, and Julius Miiller, in the Studien und Kri
tiken; of Weisse in the Litterarische Unterhaltung, 1836, No. 61-65; those of
Paulus, in the literary sheet of the Allgemeine Kirchenzeitung, 1835, No. 85-89,
and in 1836, No. 27-32. An abstract of these articles, and of several others, is
given in Zeller's pamphlet Die Stimme der d. Kirche. Zurich, 1837. We can
not pretend to give a decided opinion on the articles in French journals on this
subject ; but we cannot refrain from mentioning those by Edgard Quinet, in the
Revue des Deux mondes, and by M. Coquerel, in the Lien, as being interesting and
instructive to those who are desirous of understanding only the essential part of
the question.

294 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
which agreed with his pre-conceived system. In the Life of Jesus he
had made some undecided efforts to restore a Christ in reUgion after
destroying by his criticism the Christ of history. He had affirmed that
the Christians of the earlier centuries had clothed in an historic garb
the image of the Messiah that dwelt in them. He spoke in this Uke
the Hegelians, who assure us that the human mind had given, by a pre
sentiment of their future phUosophy, an historical form to the doctrines
of Original Sin, of the Trinity, and of the God-man. Strauss confessed
this to those who reproached him with this desertion to the camp of
philosophy, while persisting in his belief that there are positive data for
the history of Christianity.* In his doctrinal work, especiaUy, he under
took to show that when phUosophy had once obtained the sovereignty,
the Christ of Hegel would for ever supersede the evangeUcal Christ.
Strauss was born at Ludwigsburg, in Wurtemburg, in 1808. He
studied theology at Tubingen, where he at first espoused somewhat
immoderate Supernaturalism.f The perusal of the works of Hegel
made him desirous of visiting Berlin, to converse respecting the phUo
sophy of that master with some of his pupils. During his visit, which
took place in 1831, a year after the death of Hegel, Strauss had occa
sion to attend some of Schleiermacher's lectures. J
The logical connexion of the ideas of Strauss was directly opposed
to the very concUiatory opinions of the restorer of doctrinal theology.
Strauss returned to his native province with the fu-m resolve of aban
doning- every moderate path, and yet with a sincere desire of doing what
he could to restore Christianity, which was, he saw, in a deplorable
state of decay. Yet on what can his system rest, when he does not
acknowledge the historical certainty of any of the facts on which all
Christian systeras of doctrine are founded? For, if Schleiermacher's
definition of doctrine be correct, it is the science which shows fully the
teachings of a Christian church at a given period. Strauss, then, ought
to have given us a representation of what he consi<lei-ed to be the doc
trine of the actual church, if he meant his work to conform to its title.
But this does not stop our writer's progress : not only does he not show
the doctrine of the actual church (he might have some trouble in finding
out what that chiu-ch is) — not only does he not foUow the example of
* See his Streitschriften, Part III.
f See an article in the Freihafen, a literary journal published at Altona, where
we may see the difi'erent phases through wbich Strauss passed before arriving at
HegeUanism. J I do not understand what several critics mean by making me say here what
I do not say. Strauss did visit Berlin after Hegel's death ; but he conversed with
some of that philosopher's adherents respecting their system.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 295
the empirical and speculative rationaUsts, who found their explanations
on phUosophical principles calculated to throw light on those doctrines,
— but he begins by effacing aU which exists, and attempts to produce a
system of doctrine in which some Christian expressions are retained in
order that it may still be considered as a Christian system. He teUs
us that the time is come when it would be foUy to attempt to rationaUse
the Bible anew, or to christianise speculative reason. The effect of
such an attempt would be only to conceal the evU, instead of curing it.
A change, therefore, is necessary, if we are to make any progress. We
must, however, do Strauss the justice to say that his criticism is charac
terised by a frankness which reminds us of his Jjife of Jesus, and that
he never attempts to conceal the force of an argument against himself.
But though he does not omit to raention things unfavourable to his own
side of the question, we must say that he does not show equal toleration
towards individuals ; and no speculative theologian in Germany can
read certain passages of his writings without feeling annoyed by what
he must consider to be foolish impertinence. After saying that a dog
matical system in our day should contain the different elements of
thought which occupy the minds of men, in which altei-nate revelation
and speculation, the Bible and the natural sciences, the beatitude of
heaven and the riches of industry, he proceeds to attack the would-be
friends of moderation, and defies them to engage pubUc attention for
one moment. " It is not," says he, " every one who possesses the tact
and perseverance with which Schleiermacher made such a mixture of
Spinozaism and Christianity, that it was impossible to distinguish the
different elements. With many, the union of Christian faith and modern
ideas exactly resembles the mixture of oil and water. They remain in
unison only so long as they are shaken. Others, who have a certain
degree of reputation, make, to use an image not unworthy the reality, a
sort of highly-seasoned dish, in which the orthodox doctrine represents
the meat, Schleiermacher's doctrine the lai-d, and Hegel's philosophy the
seasoning. Lessing showed the greatest disgust for this mixture, and
would have preferred ancient orthodoxy, which was, he said, at least
consistent." *
" Trae conciUation," says Strauss, " must henceforth consist of sepa,-
ration and selection. It cannot attain its end, via sicca. It must take
place by fusion and fermentation, which may pm-ify. The task wUl not
be difficult, for since Christianity began to exist, parties have disputed
in such a way that we have only to take the result of so many different
opinions, and submit it to the purification of criticism." Thus the true
* In a letter to his brother, published in his correspondence.

296 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
criticism of doctrine is its history, and it must be acknowledged that
Strauss treats this history, in the section entUled apologetic, with re
markable expository talent. He foUows, step by step, what he terms
the origin and development of each doctrine, then endeavours to enter
into the spbit of the period when it was held in esteem, in order to
show what worth it may have; and, finally, he describes its decline
and the indifference with which it comes to be regarded. For this
purpose he quotes the best authorities, viz., those theologians held in
the highest esteem by all parties, and after thus giving a critical nar
rative of the fundamental ideas on which are generaUy supported all
Christian doctrines, such as those of revelation, miracle, inspiration,
prophecy, tradition, scripture, infallibUity, commentary, reUgious per
fectibUity, sentiraent, faith and knowledge, and the developraent of
these in Christian history, he deduces fi-om these premises the foUow
ing consequences, for which he alone is responsible. " The mind," he
says, " which gave the comprehension of these dogmas, has resumed it ;
for the mind being at first only in itself or internally more reasonable,
has, for that very reason, been so only out of itself. It placed the
reason which it had in itself as another individuality, before its own in
dividuality, immediate, but not yet fathomed. All the spiritual depth
exists in this way on the objective side ; the subjective side is empty,
or fiUed with material fallacy, which should receive its spiritual perfec
tion and its destiny from the objective, and it exists by revelation.
Eevelation should raanifest itself by extemal and objective signs, by the
subject which exists apart from itself. It must especiaUy make known
its origin as proceeding frora the absolute inteUigence, by passing be
yond the Umits of the finite, or by prophecies ; audits origin from abso
lute power, by surmounting the power of nature in miracles. It is
necessary, then, that for coming generations revelation should be pre
served in sacred writings ; and that it may be certain that it is there
preserved in its purity, it is necessary that those writings should be in
spu-ed by the author of the revelation. As all this is, as yet, only the
objective side, in order that revelation may be a reaUy comprehensible
idea, one thing is essential — the mediation of the subjective which
takes place by the interpretation of the Scriptures. By what is this
interpretation to recognise the divinity of the revelation in question ?
By the miracles and prophecies which accompanied it. But how are
we to know the truth of these mu-acles and prophecies? From the
testimony of Scripture. "Who shaU affirm that that testimony is true ?
The Spirit of God which inspired it, and which cannot deceive. And
who shaU certify this inspiration ? The internal testimony of the Holy
Spirit, which, in reading Scripture, there recognises its own work. But

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 297
how can we feel assured that this internal evidence is given by the Holy
Spirit, and not by some other and EvU Spirit? Here the thread of
orthodox systems is broken ; for instead of divine testimony iu favour
of revelation, human proofs are brought forward  But
against these huraan proofs appear quite as many humau doubts. The
reality and eredibUity of the Scriptures are attacked. The possibUity,
if not of voluntary errors, at least of iUusions, of corruption of historical
truths, by legends or myths, naturaUy presents itself; Scripture no
longer appears to be anything more than a collection of writings very dis
similar in theu- nature and value. The prophecies disappear before the
absence of events, the miracles are explained by the raythical system,
and what remains of them belongs to the domain of nature. FinaUy,
in revelation, man recognises his own laws, — if not those of his reason,
at least those of his feelings and his imagination, — and extending his
hands towards this image of himself, he sees it disappear, in proportion
as he considers himself internally." *
This language is sufficiently decided ; yet, as the writer fears lest
he should be misunderstood, he takes care to warn us that he writes
only for the inteUigent, the leai-ned, and that the people have nothing
to do with this enlightenment. The herd of beUevers require some
authority, and they may as weU be led by the ancient authority of re
velation as by any other. I will quote the words of Strauss himself :
" There is a gulf between the two classes of society, that is to say, be
tween the learned and the unphilosophical, whether belonging to the
higher or the lower classes, and this gulf wUl perhaps never be re
moved." ¦{• The conclusion which Strauss draws from this is, that as
the learned ought to allow the people quietly to enjoy their belief, the
people should allow philosophers to think and express themselves in
their own way. " And if the ultra-pious should succeed in excluding
us from their church, we shall consider it an advantage. Attempts
enough at false mediation have been made, nothing can lead us further
except separation from oppositions." J
Thus the intention of Dr. Strauss was not to form a new doctrinal
system. He does not consider that necessary, since where there is no
longer to be a church, a society of men united by the links of the same
* Die christliche Glaubenslehre, by F. Strauss, vol. i. § 22.
f Hier ist eine Kluft zwischen zwei Chassen der menschlichen Gesellschaft, den
Wissenden und dem Volke, das heisst den Nichtphilosophirenden der hohern wie der
niedern Stdnde befestigt, die sich vielleicht niemals ausfullen wird. — (Ibid. p. 355.)
X These are free expressions, and yet one hundred and twenty theological stu
dents of Halle signed a petition to the King of Prussia, praying for tbe appoint
raent of Dr. Strauss as philosophical professor.

298 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
faith and the same hopes, there cannot be instruction. What he wished
was " to do for reUgious science what a merchant does who presents his
balance sheet," — to establish a criticism or critical researches to show all
parties the possibUity or impossibility of constructing a new doctrinal
system. But, in the first case, when he says, " Let us abandon the
question of a revelation to which not subjective criticisra is opposed,
but criticism, as accompUshed objectively in the course of ages," and
when he takes away from it a personal God, a God possessing attributes
conceived in Him only by a pretended wisdom, such as goodness,
knowledge, justice, whence logic had inferred connexions with the tem
poral and eternal existence of man, — we must not accuse him of these
things ; " he only gives utterance to the judgment already passed by
history and the feelings of the period."
This new work of Strauss was contradicted by a great number of
opponents ; but not with the same distinction nor the same success as
that which had attended the refutations of his Life of Jesus. From
the conduct of some of his adversaries, however, it seemed that they
should have found it more easy to triumph over their opponent when he
presented himself openly and with no weapon save an axe with which
he attempted to dig the tomb of aU positive reUgion. But they did
not remember all the destructive power of the human mind, and how
difficult it is to erect anything by the side of ruins, unless God himself
lays the corner-stone of the edifice. It has been said that writers of
the highest merit refrained from entering the lists on this occasion, be
cause they had exhausted the subject on the publication of the Life of
Jesus, and the numerous answers which it drew forth. Was it not
rather because to refute such a work, it was not enough to recal the
arguraent of prescription ; but if positive reUgion is true, it should,
like philosophy, have a synthesis, and derive its articles of belief from
a principle so evident that it may defy aUthe pretensions of increduUty?
We must, however, mention the names of Koster, Kahnis, Sartorius,
Boden, Hanne, Fischer, Kratander, and some others, whose united
efforts possess indisputable value.*
* Die christliche Glaubenslehre des Dr. Strauss auf dem Standpunkte evangelischer
Prediger krit., by F. Koster. Hanover, 1841. Die moderne Wissenschaft des Dr.
Strauss und der Glaube unserer Kirche, by K. A. Kahnis. Berlin, 1842. Die
christliche Glaubenslehre im Gegensatze der modernen Gewissenlaxheit, by E. Sar
torius. Zur Beurtheilung der christi. Glaubenslehre des Dr. Strauss, by A. Boden.
Frankfort, 1842. Der moderne Nihilismus und die Strauss Glaubenslehre im Ver
hdltniss zur chrislichen Religion, by Dr. J. W. Hanne. Bielefeld, 1842. Die spe
culative Dogmatik von Dr. Strauss, geprUft von Dr. Fischer, Professor der Philos.
und Univers. Tubingen. 2 sraall volumes. Tiibingen, 1841. Anti-Strauss, ernstes
Zeugniss fiir die christi. Wahrheit wider die a. und n. Unglaubenslehre, hy'Kintd.nAeT:.
Stuttgardt, 1841.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 299
Koster confesses that if knowledge were the only thing to be con
sidered in reUgion, the HegeUan method of Strauss would lead to satis
factory results ; but we must consider faith also, whose rights cannot be
disputed by science, and which rejects the argumentative process. But
he ought to have proved, that faith, which is a presentiment of the soul
for truth, is endowed with the same capacity as the mind to estabUsh facts
in the domain of supra-sensible truths. By using faith only as a negative
aim, instead of showing its affirmative power, he gave encom-agement
and weapons to his adversary. Then Kahnis came forward. Though
this was not his first dispute with the Hegelians, he appears to have
wanted experience and sound knowledge. Had he possessed these, he
would have expressed hiraself with more tact and less gi-andiloquence,
and would have known what place in the history of religious disputa
tion is to be assigned to the Socinians and Arminians, by whom the
epithet of ignorant is certainly undeserved. Dr. Sartorius conducted
the controversy in a very different manner. He knew that to defend
Christianity it is necessary to appeal to the huraan conscience, and he
endeavoured to show that the erroneous doctrines of Strauss respecting
the personality of God, His spiritual nature, on the existence of sin, and
the necessity of such a redemption as the Scripture announces fo us,
are opposed to the claims of the moral wants of our nature. On these
grounds, he tells us that the surest means to make Strauss perceive the
truth of what his criticism has demolished, would be to induce him to
try that criticism on himself.* Boden attempts to show that the leaming
of Strauss is only false learning, by which we must not be dazzled, and
that if his blows strike ecclesiastical doctrine, they glance aside harmless
from biblical doctrine. And here Boden treats of a matter which he
does not understand, viz., the destiny of the church in this world, which
he compares to any other human institution, which has nothing perma
nent in its natm-e.
Dr. Hanne, a zealous disciple of Schleiermacher, does not deny that
Strauss possesses the talents requisite for a good writer, nor that he
understands the questions raised by his audacity ; but he endeavours to
silence him and his two foUowers, Feuerbach and Bruno Bauer, by
compelling them to confess that their principles are powerless for the
creation of anything, or rather that if they do not destroy Christianity,
to which they have sworn mortal hatred, it wUl be a certain proof that
their principles must be destroyed by faith. He desfres uot to be con-
* Dr. Sartorius, known by an important work on the person and mission of
Jesus (Haraburg, 1841), is a true supernaturalist; but he has this peculiarity —
that he can see no safety for Christianity save in the Lutheran views respecting
the Lord's Supper,

300 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
founded with the orthodoxists (a new terra), with the pietists, and with
the pectoral theologians {pectoral-Theologen), who are Unmoderately
warm against the incredulity or an ti- Christianity of Strauss, whose
great merits he wiUingly aUows ; but he is equally anxious not to receive
the as Uttle desirable title of HegeUan, for, says he, I wUl not reUn-
quish my beUef in a personal God, in a Saviour of the world, in a future
Ufe, notwithstanding the outcries of modern critics, who treat these
truths as superstition, servitude, scholasticism, Jesuitism. But does not
justice require that you should not do to others what you fear for your
self? and since you wUl meet your Hegelian adversaries only on the
ground of discussion, it would be well if you acted in the same way
towards those who extend the sphere of Christian faith more widely
than you do. And then by what right can you consider as worth
less, doctrines which others think have been taught by the Saviour
whom we venerate, when Strauss and his friends show you that your
faith in a personal God is so Ulusory, when you think of His infinity,
that even Schleiermacher has abandoned the idea ? * And why should
you dispute with men who ascribe more power, and even more reaUty,
to an idea, than you do to a fact, viz,, the temporal appearance of
Christ, which, as a fact, is open to objections, whUe the idea, when once
comprehended, becomes indelibly fixed in the mind, and coeval with it ?
Strauss, having become pantheistical by a logical necessity, has gained
a position whence he will never be dislodged by your mixed theories, as
he calls them. You will never obtain a hold on his system untU you
succeed in proposing to the conscience of the writer one of those inter
rogatories which shall compel it to ask for mercy. Then the soul
accepts the truth before understanding it, because it feels the necessity
of it, and perceives its efficacy. And when we feel the efficacy of a
remedy, are we not very near to understanding its nature ? Though
not a sworn disciple of Schelling or Hegel, Dr. Fischer fears not to
encounter his adversary on the grounds of speculation. After endea
vouring to show that the kernel of Christian faith, which must be dis
tinguished from the husk which surrounds it, is quite comprehensible to
the human understanding, he proceeds to prove much more satisfacto
rily that the history and criticism of doctrine are two distinct things.
Now, Strauss has exhibited only the negative side of the development
of doctrine, and has entirely neglected the positive part of it. We can,
says Fischer, judge of the true development of anything only by a tho-
• Dr. Hanne is the author of a paraphlet entitled Schleiermacher, the Genius of
Germany. It is an inflated panegyric, which corresponds with another pamphlet,
Socrates, tlie Genius of Humanity. In these two works the enthusiasm of the writer
predominates over his other good qualities.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 301
rough understanding of the principle of that thing, and the constant
development which follows is an essentiaUy positive process. If we were
to form an opinion of Kratander's work from Hengstenberg's eulogium,
or Zeller's criticism of it, we should quite misunderstand the tendency
of the Anti-Stratiss. It is, in fact, the work of a man of faith, whose
zeal would be better understood by a Christian audience than among
critics. Yet the book, though in its form Uable to attack, penetrates,
like that of Sartorius, into the depths of the question, which is one of
morality and conscience rather than of learning ; and it proves, with
some degree of success, that modern criticism has claims on our respect
only so far as it infuses into society the principles of life which are
wanting there. For Ufe and tmth appear together, and Christianity is
trath only because to all ages may be applied these words of Christ)
" If any man wUl do his wUl, he shaU know of the doctrine whether it
be of God" (John vii. 17).*
• The following Reply to Strauss appeared in this country ; — Voices of the
Church in Reply to Strauss's Leben Jesu; consisting of Essays, original and trans
lated, in Defence of Christianity ; collected and composed by the Rev. J. R.
Beard, D.D. Svo, cloth, 12s, The various portions of this work may be bad
separately, as follow : — ' Strauss, Hegel, and their Opinions,' by the Rev. J. R.
Beard, D.D. ; Is. 6d. ' A Reply to Strauss's Life of Jesus,' from the French
of Prof. Quinet and tbe Rev. Pasteur A. Coquerel ; 2s. ' The Credibility of the
Evangelical History Illustrated,' frora the Gerraan of Dr. A. Tholuck j Is. 6d.
' The Theory of Myths, in its application to the G ospel History, Examined and
Confuted,' by Dr. Julius Miiller ; Is. 6d. ' Illustrations ofthe Moral Argument
for the Credibility of the Gospels,' by the Rev. J. R. Beard, D.D, ; 3s. 6d.
'The Fallacy of the Mythical Theory of Dr. Strauss, Illustrated frora the
History of Martin Luther and frora actual Mohammedan Myths of the Life of
Jesus Christ ;' Is. 6d. ' Extracts from Neander's Leben Jesu, selected and abridged,
with reference to Strauss's Leben Jesu;' 2s. — London: Simpkin, Marshall,
and Co.

302 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE XVIII.
FOLLOWERS OF DR. STRAUSS AND THE YOUNG HEGELIAN SCHOOL —
CONRADI, BRUNO BAUER, FEUERBACH, RUGE— LAST ATTACK ON
THE AUTHENTICITY AND DIVINITY OF THE GOSPELS  DE WETTE,
GFEORER, WILCKE, WEISSE, B. BAUER — PROBABILIA OF BRET
SCHNEIDER, B. BAUER, LUTZBLBERGER  PRESENT CONDITION
OP EXEGETICAL LABOURS IN GERMANY RELATIVE TO THE NEW
TESTAMENT.
After the gi-eat sensation caused by the opinions of Strauss in Ger
many, it was very natural that the writer, who united such profound
learning and severe and conscientious criticism, should find himself
speedily surrounded by a large number of devoted followers ; yet, we
must repeat it, Strauss brought no new materials for the erection of the
edifice which modern philosophy would raise for the glory of the human
mind. By his powerful arguments aud his ingenious criticism he rein
forced and provided a rallying point for those disciples of Hegel who
have not wished to apply their master's phUosophy to every form of
government, but have associated it with the liberal and democratic
movement of our day, and who endeavour to gain ground as much by
the boldness and liveUness of their attacks as by their outrageous pre
tensions of establishing a heaven upon earth, and of altogether re
nouncing the ideas of a personal God and of an individual immortaUty
in the huraan race.
If 1 were to foUow strict chronological order, I ought first to mention
those who foUowed Strauss in the domain of exegesis, since the lAfe of
Jesus belongs to that province ; but 1 will first speak of two writers who
pursued the same path in doctrine, and one of whom has already far
outstripped his leader. The first of these is a pastor in the Duchy of
Nassau of the name of Conradi, who has been for some years advanta
geously known in the literary world, as the author of a work on reli
gious phUosophy.* This work, independently of its HegeUan character,
* Ueber Selbstbewusstsein und Offenbarung. Mayence, 1831, — a work which
Marheinecke terms a " phenomenon of the religious sentiment."

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 303
openly showed a tendency to deviate from historical Christianity respect
ing the ideas of the Gospel on a future life. He has since pubUshed a
formal criticism of Chi-istian doctrines,* which takes for its text the
Apostles' Creed, in order to give to those parishioners of Conradi, who
might be scandabzed at it, a patent pledge of orthodoxy. But in reality
the aim of the work, as the author himself confesses, is to subject to
criticism every pai-t of Christian doctrine, in order to deduce from it the
doubt in which faith is found ;f to reconcUe the doctrines of the Apostles'
Creed with the phUosophy of Hegel, and to propound a theory respect
ing the Trinity and the work of Christ, whieh has nothing in common
with any of the ecclesiastical doctrines. For example, he says : God,
as the Father, exists neither as the foundation and cause, nor as a person
nor absolute substance for Himself, but as the absolute substance per
sonified. What must be the feeUngs of the poor citizens with whom
Conradi prays every Sunday, when told that om- Father in Heaven, that
good Father who welcomes the returning prodigal, who tells us that He
desires not the death of the wicked, but rather that he should turn from
his wickedness and Uve, — what, I say, must be then- feeUngs when
told that this good and affectionate Father must be considered as the
absolute substance personified ? J In the same spirit our author esta
bUshes the eternal generation of the Son, though he by no means proves,
what a phUosophy ought to prove, how this eternal generation can agree
with a personal eternal substance, and how this generating power was
exhausted by the birth of one son. By wishing to be wise, says an es
teemed writer, we become fooUsh ; yet the phUosophy which undertakes
to explain everything ought to sUence every contradiction raised by the
human mind. This, however, Conradi does not do, in constructing
from his pi-inciples a doctrinal system, which should complete that of
Strauss by furnishing it with a positive side, but where we find neither
that writer's extended knowledge, nor Marheinecke's profundity. The
most important attack made by an avowed foUower of Strauss, not only
on the facts of Christian history or on its doctrines, but on what have
always been considered its essential ideas, was that made by Feuerbach.
He, openly and with aU the frankness of one who feels sure of success,
attempts to deprive man of everything which makes him superior to
mere material beings, whUe pretending only to remove the bandage of
* Kritik der christlichen Dogmen, nach Anleitung der apostolischen Symbole, von
Casimir Conradi. Berlin, 1841.
f " den Zweifel, iu welchem der Glaube einbegriffen ist."
X" ¦ . . Gott als "Vater existire weder als Grund und Ursache, noch als Person,
noch als die absolute Substanz fiir sich  sondem als die absolute Substanz
als Persongesetz." — {Kritik, p. 34.)

304 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
error from his eyes. Conradi, he says, attacks openly only the doctrines
invented by the Church, but he respects the Gospel ; Strauss attacks the
Gospel, but respects rebgion : but he (Feuerbach) attacks every religious
idea, and, others would add, every moral idea, which he considers only
as the production of a fantastic imagination, which we have allowed to
fascinate us too long. Here he far outstrips the phUosophy of Hegel
from which he started, because, if the dead proceed quickly, logic proceeds
much more quickly, when entire freedom from hj'pocrisy causes it to
speak directly to the point. Thus Feuerbach does not consider reUgion
as the divine consciousness of self, but as a dialectical Ulusion of the
mind. If you would understand it thoroughly, you have only to study
man, and you wUl see it in all its phases, its variations, and its capri
cious fantasies. You must no longer call religious science theology, but
must use tbe term anthropology. That word comprehends aU the his
tory, past and present, of religious ideas. The New Testament, which
speaks of a future life, is less advanced than the Old, which spoke only
of man on this earth ; whatever may be said to the contrary, we are
more under the infiuence of the Old Testament than of the New, for
men marry, and by that action protest against Christianity, which makes
man, deprived of sense, the beau ideal of a future life. In one word,
Christianity may be characterised as hypocrisy, because it teaches only
what is not done and never will be done. Things like these, and others
even worse, are to be found in Feuerbach's book on the nature of Chris
tianity,* and also in several articles in the Beutsche JahrbUc'her, a
periodical well known to be compiled by the young school of Hegel, the
great apostles of which are its author, Euge, and Bruno Bauer.-j- We
must not, however, iraagine that they reject Chiistianity, so that they
cannot make use of any part of it : Feuerbach is not so unjust. As
love is everything in his estimation (this would be true did he use the
word love in another sense), it foUows that love is the central point of
the only possible religion, and Christianity is for once right in teaching
us that love has made man into a god. Feuerbach, also, maintains as
an essential point of doctrine the supernatm-al conception of Jesus, as
well as the immaculate conception of Mary, J and he declares that if
any one deserves to be admitted into the family of gods, Mary has by
her raaternity (apart from marriage) a much better claim than the Holy
Spirit, which is only a poetical personification, to be considered, though
* Das Wesen des Christenthums. Leipzig, 1841,
f Deutsche JahrbUcher, 1842, No. 19-22, — For details respecting Ruge and
his work, and the materialistic tendencies of the young Hegelians in general, see
tbe Life of Spinoza, p. 345, seq.
X P. 60 and 390 of tbe Wesen des Christenthums.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 305
a woman, as the third person in the Trinity {dritte und zwar weihliche
Person in der gOttlichen Familie). For marriage itself, though sanctified,
it is true, by the ancient law, is nothing better than a sin under the
new dispensation, or, at least, has no religious but only a moral
(poUtical) signification.* The only means, therefore, by which Chris
tianity can recover its ancient influence wUl be to reject faith as an in
significant virtue, and to proclaim love as the only law of humanity.
When Christianity made love subordinate to faith, the love of faith has
changed into an extravagant faith {betrunkener Glaube). Let it be
declared that love is without faith, and faith without love, and this belief
wiU be able to regenerate the world.f Though Feuerbach, in his
earlier works, J spoke with sorae respect of the Christian reUgion, yet
there might be found in them traces of the opinions and purposes which
he openly avowed in the book from which we have been quoting, a
book written with facility, and a certain degree of talent, but in an un-
phUosophical manner. And in his history of modern philosophy, he
stUl reverences in Christ, the logos or pure and universal reason, and
hence even that holy nature of humanity which had been lost sight of
in the Pagan world in consequence of the distinctions of nations, each
of which thought itself the only centre of humanity, — that which, in
Pagan philosophy, had been only an idea, became fiesh in Christ, that is
to say, a concrete nature and reality, and consequently the entire con
sciousness of the divine in man. § But he modified his tone in the his
tory of the phUosophy of Leibnitz, where he dwelt upon his favourite
distinction between the theory and the practice of reUgion. Practice
he considered to belong to phUosophers, while theory serves to employ
the leisure of theologians. In his Pierre Bayle, his Ul-wUl towards re
ligious faith was much more manifest, and he vented it in an especial
manner in his treatise on phUosophy and revelation, which the editors
of the Beutsche Jahrbucher refused to insert as a whole, though it had
been written expressly for that periodical. But in his last work, on the
nature of Christianity, he arranged systematically aU his prejudices
against a reUgion which he did not understand. The reader will be
* Das Wesen des Christenthums, p. 180, 182, 223.
t Das Wesen, Sec, p. 360-363.
X Ueber Philosophie und Christenthum, in Bez. a. d. der hegels. philosophie.
Mannheim, 1830 (see p. iv, of the Preface, and p, 9 of the work itself) ; Ge
schichte der Leibnitz. Philosophic. Ansbach, 1837. p. 120 ; Pierre Bayle, nachseinen
Verdienste fiir die Geschichte  Ansbach, 1838. p. 32. He had, however,
published an anonymous pamphlet against the immortality of the soul, which had
excited the great indignation of the school of Hegel, as did that of Richter of
Magdeburg, Gedanken uber Tod und Unsterblichkeit. Nuremberg, 1830.
§ Geschichte der neuern Philosophie. Ansbach, 1835. p. 2, seqq.
VOL. II. X

306 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
surprised to learn that Feuerbach began his career as privat-docent,
with a decided resolution to maintain the principles of SupematuraUsm.
This is said to be the case, and we know that Strauss, in his early
life, professed the sarae principles. Is it not possible that they may
return, if not exactly to the point whence they set out, at least to a po
sition where they may enjoy more peace of mind ?*
The same may be said of Bruno Bauer, whose celebrity equals that
of Feuerbach and Strauss. He, too, began his Uterary career with a
zeal for SupematuraUsm, which, it is said, alarmed his friends. He
took up his position at the extreme verge of HegeUanism, by the side of
Marheinecke and Eosenkranz, and warmly defended against Vatke the
supernatural revelation of the account of the creation in Genesis, and
the authenticity of the Pentateuch. What is still more wonderful, he
opposed Strauss on the subject of the miraculous birth of Christ, and
thus gave cause to Professor Michelet to say, in his History of Modern
Philosophy, that this young man was going to abandon them, and join
the followers of Hengstenberg. Strauss himself, in his doctrinal work,
mentions him as one of those zealous believers who used the weapons
of philosophy to repel the attacks made in the Leben Jesti.-\ And now
his greatest ambition seems to be, that it may be said that Strauss and
Feuerbach sink into insignificance before him, since they have avoided
several points over which his criticism has triumphed. Hengstenberg
remarks, that, in fact, he has not only outstripped his new friends, but
that he has gone as far as he can go, since there is nothing left for him to
destroy; and where genius is wanting, it is vain to invoke it. J We will
quote his own words, from the preface to the most important of his works :
" It wiU perhaps be thought that we have here carried negation too far,
and in too rash a manner ; but let it be remembered that the truly

* As I have before said, the most interesting particulars respecting the reli
gious life of Strauss are to be found in the Freihafen, a journal published by
Theodore Mundt. An account of Feuerbach is given in tbe Literary Annals,
first year, Hamburg, 1839. We there read — ""Wlien he left the Gymnasium, F.
read with assiduity the works of St, Augustine, and under their inspiration stu
died theology at Heidelberg and Berlin ; but he soon became a disciple of the
Hegelian philosophy, and resolved to devote himself entirely to speculative
science. On leaving Berlin, he attempted to establish him&eli as privat-docent at
Erlangen ; and it is to be reraarked, that the few pupils that he obtained have
all taken a pietistic turn (in France we should say that they all became pious).
He was anxious to become a professor, but not having patience to wait for his
appointment, be retired to the country residence of a relation, where he has since
lived devoted to his studies."
f Die christliche Glaubenslehre, vol. i, p, 2.
X Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, June 9th, 1842,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 307
positive can become apparent only when the negation is serious and
general. The corruption arising from the letter cannot be arrested
untU it is put into motion by the spirit confident in its purpose, and
this motion is directed and produced by the substance of the corrup
tion  I hope to prove that the most destructive criticism
is the only thing to show the creative power of Jesus and of his prin
ciples." *
But before entering into the details of the recent attack on the Gos
pels, I must show how that attack originated. Many writers, who owe
their celebrity to works of real utility, though not altogether agreeing
with Strauss, made to him concessions in many ways. This was done
in the greatest degree by De Wette, Gfrorer, Weisse, and Wilcke. After
asserting in his Commentary^ that most of the researches of Strauss are
only negative, and the consequences which he draws wanting in clear
ness, De Wette equally deprecates the timid manner in which those who
have embraced the chUd-like faith {kindlichen Glauben) of the first cen
turies attempt to retain it, and this he considers a proof of their inabi
Uty to advance with the progress of time. The Christian faith, he adds,
does not rest originally and essentially on the Bible, but on the revela
tion by Christ, a revelation which itself rests on certain facts, indepen
dently even of the testimony of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are, it
is true, the normal Une by which we ought to measm-e and rectify the
objects of our beUef ; but the rude empiricism, and the unyielding man
ner in which the Bible has hitherto been treated, both in its historical
and dogmatical relations, and by which it has been made into a kind of
legal code to be interpreted literaUy, have debased its character, and it
is high time to abolish these evUs. Thus Christianity, as a source of
life, wiU not perish; its history and the conception of its doctrine,
which are hieroglyphics written by the finger of God, wiU always un
dergo new and more liberal interpretations, and reUgious society wUl
receive them, we hope, not with the reason which has so often profaned
thera, but as proceeding from the feeUng of a soul, holy, creative, ex
alted, and fuU of sacred sentiraents.
We might easily point out raany things in these remarks which show
sad indecision and a truly deplorable want of clearness. In the volumes
which foUowed this declaration, the indecision of a mind very unfit for
scepticism becomes apparent. I shall here mention only the volume
• Kritik der evangelisch. Geschichte der Synoptiker. Leipzig, 1841, 2 vols.
t This refers to the exegetical manual for the understanding of the New Tes
tament, the first volume of which was then being published. The work is en
titled Kurzgefasstes e.xegetisches Handbuch, Sec. Leipzig, 1836. Five volumes
have appeared,
x2

308 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
containing the commentary on St. John, dedicated to the author's
learned friend., Liicke, of Gottingen. As Lucke is himself the author
of a commentary on the sarae Gospel, in which his supernaturaUstic
tendency is quite apparent, notwithstanding the reserve and too hasty
decisions in which, as a speculative theologian, he indulges, De Wette
takes care to warn his fiiend that he shaU frequently disagree with him
respecting this Gospel, which Lucke prefers to the others, and he begs
him to read attentively those passages wherein they differ in opinion.
We do not so much blame De Wette for his opposition on certain points
to received opinions, but we would know exactly what he thinks — we
would have a frank exposition of his system, and would see him put off
the cloak of a despairing scepticism. For example, in the fourth chapter
of his introduction, he takes care to enumerate exactly all the arguments
against the authenticity, and even the truth, of this Gospel; and he
shows weakness, great weakness, when he recounts the proofs to the
contrary. The hypothesis which he advances, that John may have
written at a late period of life, and at a time when faith and the senti
ments which governed him may have overcome, in the determination of
the writer, his desire to write from memory, is not only unfounded but
injurious to the moral character of the apostle. The same indecision
prevails in his account of the rairacles ; and it is not without surprise
that we find him, after making the greatest concessions to Strauss,
coldly saying of the expression pure fiction, by which that writer cha
racterises the raising of Lazarus, that such a judgment was undoubtedly
too hasty. In a commentary which pretends to explain everything, and
which certainly shows great learning in aU its parts, the reader might
have expected to learn the author's opinion respecting an event of which
Spinoza said, " that if he could believe it, he would iramediately embrace
the Christian faith."* What can we say when we find him first incUned
to consider as mythical certain facts, such as the marriage of Cana, and
to oppose Strauss on this point, and then declaring against myths in
general, because, he says, the authenticity of the fom-th Gospel is not
yet entirely disproved, because the form of the accounts is much more
subjective than legendary (an observation which seems to have made
the deepest impression on Strauss), and because they abound in ideas
worthy of Jesus, notwithstanding the obscurity in which they are enve
loped ? f This confusion of light and darkness, occasioned by the want
of fixedness in the ideas of the gi-eat theologian, always leaves his reader
in suspense, and causes us to wish for the time when De Wette, forget-

* Bayle, Article Spinoza.
f Kurzgefasstes e,v Handbuch, Part III,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 309
ting part of his past life, shaU enter on a new and not less glorious
career. Another learned man, who rendered homage, if not to the system
of Strauss, at least to its [negative results, was Gfrorer, professor and
librarian of Stuttgardt. There, long surrounded by the rabbinical folios
in which that library abounds, he thought that their shadowy lucubra
tions had enUghtened him as to the true origin of Christianity. Like
the author of the lAfe of Jesus, Gfrorer endeavours to prove the non-
historical, or at least apocryphal, character of the three fu-st Gospels,
commonly called the synoptical, but he defends the authenticity of the
fourth against Strauss, and explains it by the natural method of Paulus.
In the third part of his work, entitled Holiness and Truth, he even
professes to heal the wounds infficted on Christianity in the second
part. Sacred Legends. In that second part, he attempts to show the
complete falseness of the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, not
seeing that, if the Gospel of John and the PauUne epistles are admitted
to be authentic, it is easy, even apart from other proofs, to re-establish
the three synoptical Gospels,* The principal aim of Gfrorer's vyork is
to show that, except the doctrine of the advent of the Messiah, Chris
tianity has no doctrine peculiar to itself, that it has borrowed all from
Judaism, for which it is scarcely more than another name.
The librarian Gfi-orer has studied and understood the works of the
rabbis much better than the Gospels, to which his mind and heart alike
are foreign. Supposing his hypothesis correct, supposing that he had
satisfactorUy proved the identity of Christianity and Judaism, of what
use could such a discovery be ? What advantage would it be to men
to be shown that, obeying the same precepts, they might as weU call
themselves Jews as Christians ? Did these conclusions entitle Gfi-orer
to take so high a tone, to insult those who think differently from him
self, and from the pedestal of the Talmud to declare that he has at last
removed the gutta serena from the eye of the Christian world ? These
pretensions are the more Ul-founded, fi-om the fact that the theories
advanced as new are, in reality, anything but original. Before the
librarian of Stuttgardt had given his attention to the subject, Schottgen,
a writer of weU-known science and erudition, had gone over the same
ground, comparing aU the doctrines of the rabbis with those of our
Gospels ; but he differs from Gfrorer, in proving from this inquu-y the
indisputable superiority of the Christian faith.f Thus Gfrorer has not
* See Geschichte des Urchristenthums, divided into several parts, each under a
different title.
f Ch. Schottgen, Hora Hebraica et Talmud, in N. Test. Dresden, 1733-42.
2 vols, iu 4to.

310 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
only failed to discover the truth, but he has also added to the long list
of en-ors produced by modern EationaUsm. The theological world
might reasonably have expected more from a writer whose early works,
though containing the germ of his recent errors, gave promise of a
brighter future.*
WUcke, in the work in which he thought proper to answer Strauss,
maintains that the four Gospels were formed by apostoUc tradition, and
were preceded by fragmentary accounts written in Syriac and Aramaic
for the Christians of Palestine ; that ihe first and fourth Gospels are
not to be attributed either to Matthew or John ; that the latter apostle
may perhaps have supplied the foundation of his Gospel, but that it
owes its present form, in aU probabUity, to ApoUos. WUcke agrees
with Strauss in thinking that not one of the Gospels belongs whoUy to
one apostle ; but he differs from him in supposing that we have in the
Gospels the pure tradition of John, Peter, Paul, and Matthew. After
supposing oral tradition to be their principal source, the author passes
to the question. Bo the Gospels contain myths or history ? In order to
decide this question, he defines the myth as an idea represented by an
image, and relating either to the philosophy of antiquity, or to the
origin of a people. " The philosophical myth," he says, " is pure in
vention ; the other may have a foundation in history." That neither
of these definitions is appUcable to the Gospels, WUcke proves, by de
veloping the idea of the myth, and its results ; and then he shows, in
his way, how oral tradition alone could be the source of the Gospels,
and ought to be considered as a good pledge of their historical faith.
He proposes this difficulty, "Do the Evangelists relate histories or
myths ? If they relate myths, they are not the simple and ignorant
men they were thought to be, but men of the greatest wisdom and
sagacity, and yet, for aU that, irapostors!" He adds, that at a later
period some legends were interwoven with the Gospels, but did not
essentiaUy alter them. He regards as legendary, the annunciation, the
miraculous birth, the temptations of Jesus, the transfiguration, and the
ascension. Our author, however, aUows the reality of the mbacles ;
and to defend the historical portion of the Gospels against Strauss, he
draws a picture of the age of Jesus, from which he concludes that the
lofty individuality of Christ, and his pure and spiritual doctrine, can be
nothing else than historical. He adds, " We may invent myths, con
ceive heroic characters, but the divme character of the Saviour is above

• His work entitled Philo und die alexandrinische Theologie, though of merit
as a learned work, tends to prove that Christianity derives its origin frora the
Rabbinical schools of Palestine and frora the school of Alexandria.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 311
aU human imagination, it is a truth in history." WUcke afterwards
gives the following opinion of the Life of Jesus : " The work of Strauss
shows knowledge, faciUty, strength of raind, and an iron consistency ; his
manner of presenting things is clear and concise ; the style is pure and
forcible ; the tone almost always noble, the bearing serious. But the
work maintains what is not true, and this want of truth produces much
that is false. Thus we find in it no distinction between the myth and
the legend, no enlargement on the richness of ideas in the evangelical
doctrine, no indications of the holy grandeur of Christ : it is only a
collection of the contradictions which the writer thinks he can discover
in the evangelical narratives. A learning which loved the truth, and
was not the result of predetermined opinion, would, from its very nature,
have appreciated historical individuality. The speculation into which
Strauss plunges is a magical ring, without beginning or end. He has
created for himself adversaries, such as there might have been among
the orthodox of the seventeenth century, and he lends them his own
arguments. We find him using the Gospel of John, in which he gene
rally places little faith, sometimes as a history, sometimes as a mythical
narrative, as it suits his own convenience. If that is a mythical mode
of acting, we might just as well, by the same means, make a myth of
the work of Strauss." *
We have spoken of Weisse's hypothesis respecting the formation of
the evangeUcal writings ; we ought to have added, that he gave the
preference to that of Mark over the other synoptical Gospels, because
it offers more evidence of its authenticity. One year previous, the
pastor Wilke, not satisfied with the same conjecture, had advanced the
supposition that it was the primitive Gospel of which so much had
been said, and which had furnished the principal materials for the for
mation of the two others that bear the names of Matthew and Luke.f
This theory of Weisse and WUke was taken up by Bruno Bauer, who
makes it the basis of his criticism of the Gospels. With this writer,
however, the Gospel of Mark obtained the preference, not on account
of the proofs aUeged by tradition, for which he cares little, but because
he thought that it would assist bim in the contest for which he was pre
paring ; it was because he found it more simple in its narratives ; more
fi-ee from the marveUous, and bearing fewer traces than the others, of
what the subsequent wants of the church caused to be added to the

• Tradition und Mythe. Leipzig, 1837.
t See the Urevangelist (Leipzig, 1837), by Christ. Gottlob. Wilke, pastor of
Herraannsdorf, who must not be confounded with the preceding Wilcke, pastor
at Rothenburg on the Saale.

312 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
original accounts. He does not, however, admit that Mark's Gospel pos
sesses aU the characteristics of authenticity. Far from so doing, Bauer,
on this point, attacks Weisse and Wilke, who had supported that Gos
pel, in opposition to Strauss. But he displays most strength in exposing
the arguments advanced by Weisse and Wilke, when they assert, in
a somewhat arbitrary manner, that the narratives of Mark and Matthew
ought to be the piUars of Hercules to criticism, and when, with all the
authority given by his growing celebrity, he answers, by a siraple nega
tion, the conclusion which they draw, that in those Gospels we can recog
nise a positive reality, and not merely an artistic composition.
But who, then, are we to consider as the author of these Gospels ?
The church, we are told — the church, which found it necessary to sup
port itself on something sensible for its extension and perpetuation —
the church, which owes its existence to itself alone, since those Jews
who were completely astonished by their feUow-countryman, Jesus, felt
a desire to manifest publicly what theu- souls could no longer contain,
and resolved to introduce into the conscience of the human race this
extension of their idea, and to reduce it to its most simple expression.
The moment which created that expression gave birth to the church.*
In here admitting the existence of Christ, Bruno Bauer contradicts his
own system, which tends to prove that the Christian conscience created
itself. It was hardly worth while to designate Strauss as orthodox
because he recognises here and there some historical traces in the sacred
books, and because he does not establish unreservedly the subjective
idea as the foundation of history. This contradiction may show the
vanity of the prevailing idea of the work, which considers an effect
without a cause — that is to say, a church forming itself by the nature
of things, and creating for itself in the second century, books which
should support its pretensions ; though the criticism of Bauer shows,
nevertheless, that these very books teach us nothing certain respecting
Jesus, save that he was an eminent personage, without our knowing how
he was so, and that he accomplished an immense work {ungeJieures Werk),
we know not how.
Bruno Bauer thus takes as his first principle the contradictions in the
synoptical Gospels, nor can he agree even with Mark, who appears to be
better informed than the others, and thus he excludes every supposition
of mythical operation. He begins with Strauss, the inconsistency of
whose system he points out in order the better to strengthen his nega
tive consequences, and then he applies to Wilke to confirm his suppo
sition that the authors did not in composing foUow the dictates of their
* Kritik, vol. i, p, xiv, ; vol. ii, p, 108 ; see also p. 409.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 313
consciences. But, as the time for caUing things by their right names
has passed away, Bauer does not by any means iraagine that the com
pUers of the Gospels, whoever they were, wished to irapose; for the phi
losophy of Hegel, he says, explains very well those haUucinations of the
human conscience which tend to advance the progress of humanity.*
* Kritik der Synoptiker, p. 80. After quoting this work of Bauer's, we need
hardly do more than mention the naraes of paraphlets, of which he published a
great number. First there appeared the " Trumpet of the last Judgment on Hegel the
Atheist, and Antichrist, which he gives as an ultimatum, and in which, after many
sarcasms on his opponents, and much praise of himself, he endeavours to show
the agreement between Hegel and Feuerbach. But the frivolous tone and the gross
ness of his sarcasms disgusted even his friends. The same may be said of his
Teachings of Hegel on Religion and Art, from the point of View of Faith, which is a
worthy companion to the Trumpet, and obtained for hira from the Jahrbucher, the
name of a professional scandal-monger. We must not omit to mention the great
movement throughout Prussia, caused by the discussion of the question, whe
ther the author of so raany works, avowedly an ti- Christian, raight, as a licentiate
of theology, teach his new opinions in a Christian University. We have seen a
work containing the consultations of all the Universities in the Prussian dorai-
nions respecting this question, and any one wishing to write on the trifling of
theologians, would find here araple materials for very affiicting considerations.
Tbe University of Berlin declares that the work of Bauer is an ti- Christian in its
tendency, and, consequently, the faculty of theology requests that his license as a
teacher may be taken away, and that another place may be given him. Mar
heinecke, as we have seen, gave a separate vote, and pleaded the cause of un
limited liberty. He consents that Bauer shall be deprived of a theological
chair, only on condition that he shall be appointed philosophical professor. What
a confusion of ideas ! Has not the philosophy of our days become theological !
Bonn votes with Berlin, and gives a more detailed opinion, proving, by very just
quotations, that in depriving the author of these works of the liberty of teaching
in a Christian institution, they should act conformably to his own spirit. (See
principally, pp. 59-61, of the Gutachten der evangelischen theologisch. Facultaten,
Sic. Berlin, 1842.) Breslau also votes with Berlin, but it is a pity that an infir
mity, duly raentioned, prevented Dr, Schulz from voting. Professor Middeldorfr
there voted separately, and said, that since it had been thought proper to make
him a licentiate, he ought to be allowed to continue teaching. At Greifswald,
Schirmer and Finelius say, that Bauer does not exceed the limits of Christianity,
though he errs in tlie details; while their colleagues, "Vogt and Kosegarten, express
a wish that free inquiry may not be confounded with unlimited liberty in teach
ing. Halle declares that, as Bauer is opposed only to the ecclesiastical doctrines,
his place ought not to be taken from him, and the rather so, because his book is
too frivolous to produce any bad consequences, and it would only be brought
into repute by the persecution of its author. Konigsberg and sorae others say
that the work cannot be properly judged of until the appearance of the third
volurae, and that in any case Bauer cannot be deprived of bis license, because if
his book does contain some things contrary to Christianity, it also contains some
agreeable to its spirit. The Church ought to possess in its bosom, arms for all kinds
of attack. All this is very poor; but it is a necessary consequence of the posi-

314 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
Not only did Bauer attack the synoptical Gospels, in attempting to
show their perpetual contradictions, and in pointing out ideas or expres
sions which could not have contemporaries of Christ for their authors ;
he also adopted the opinion of Strauss, that a decisive contest cannot
take place unless we previously disprove the authenticity of the fourth
Gospel, which has, by the traditions of eighteen centuries, been attri
buted to the Apostle John. " This is henceforth the great question for
us," said Strauss, in a private conversation with Edgard Quinet ; and
the observation was just, because, if the authenticity of the Gospel of
John is once proved beyond a doubt, who could seriously dispute the
authority of the other Gospels, on the ground of mere internal argu
ments ? But if, by any possibUity, it could be proved that the writers
living immediately after the apostles, as IreuEeus, Justin, Papias, and
perhaps Ignatius, Barnabas, and Polycarpus, did not know what they
were doing in quoting this evangelist, or that in a closer examination
of its contents we could find no sign indicative of its being the work of
the disciple whom Jesus loved, then we must confess that our position
is no longer tenable, and we must retreat before our more enUghtened
adversary. But as impartial spectators of the contest, who wish not to
describe it for the benefit of any party or coterie, we may be permitted
to hope that the decision wiU be in favour of the ancient faith, which
we believe to be seriously threatened, though as yet by no means in a
condition to yield up its arms.*

tion in which the church placed itself by refusing a better constitution. Here
and there, however, there appeared some one to contradict this strange manner
of regarding liberty of instruction. The works which caused the greatest sensa
tion were those of Dr. Gruppe, who, however, pleaded against Bauer the cause
of the State rather than of the religious community, which has much greater
reason to watch over a question of such vital importance to itself. {B. Bauer
und die academische Lehrfreiheit. Berlin, 1842.) The author shows very well that
as Bauer has voluntarily left tbe Christian church, his dismissal from a theologi
cal chair is a consequence of his own act. Dr. Gruppe has carried on the con
test with Bauer and his officious protectors in the Universities, in a new work
entiiied Lehrfreiheit und Pressunfug, (Berlin, 1843,)which he concludes with these
words, taken from a cabinet order : " The more desirous I ara to grant liberty of
speech to all who show loyal, frank, and noble sentiments, and to remove, as far
as possible, all limits from the field of publicity, the more necessary is it to
show severity to those who employ the weapons of lying and seduction, so that
liberty of speech raay not be deprived of its use and its blessings, by the abuse
that raay be made of it." We must, in justice, mention the pamphlet of a bro
ther of Bauer's — Bruno Bauer and his Adversaries, Leipzig, 1842, which has
been praised only by the Deutsche Jahrbucher.
* For historical testimony in favour of the authenticity of John, see princi
pally the Introductions to the New Testament, by Credner, Neudecker, Guerike,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 315
Until the end of the eighteenth century, if we except the obscure
sect of the Alogians, who attribute the compilation of this Gospel to
Cerinthus, on account of doctrinal prejudices which kept them out of
the pale of the chm-ch, no one had ever questioned its authenticity.
The Englishman Evanson was the first to express doubts on the sub
ject :* these doubts were soon taken up by the rationalists Eckermann,
Horst, and J. E. C. Schmidt, and afterwards by Vogel and Cludius.f
As yet, however, no regular attack was made on the authenticity of the
Gospel : the word logos was the only subject of dispute. It was asked
whether this word were not of Platonic origin ; and from induction
after induction the conclusion was drawn that a writer of Alexandria
only could have used it in reference to Christ. To this dispute the
history of theology owes a number of dissertations stUl to be read in the
journals edited by Schmidt, Henke, StaudUn, and more particularly one
by BaUenstedt, which has given rise to so many others of the same
kind.J Some others, studying the question in a pm-ely scientific light,
thought that they found in certain parts of the narrative, indications
which might give rise to the supposition that John was the author but
not the compiler. This opinion was entertained first by von Ammon and
Eettig, aud afterwards by Weisse. § But such an hypothesis is inconsis
tent with the tone and aim of the whole Gospel ; it is inconsistent with
the first epistle of the same apostle, which bears so striking a relation

and especially the work published by L. Kirchbofer, under the title Collection of
Sources for the History of the New Testament down to Jerome, first and second
parts, Zurich, 1843.
• The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, and the Evidence of
their respective authenticity Examined. Ipswich, 1792.
t Eckermann expressed them in his Theologische Beitrage, v. p. 2, year 1796,
and afterwards in his Erklarung aller Stellen des N. T. Kiel, 1837. He was an
swered by Miinscher, Storr, and SUsskind. Vogel, der Evangelist. Johannes und
seine Ausleger vor dem jungsten Gericht, 1801. Cludius, Uransicht des Christen
thums nebst Untersuchungen uber einige BUcher des N. Test. Altona, 1808.
X Philo und Johannes, oder fortgesetze Anwendung des Philo zur Interp. der
Johannischen Schriften. Gottingen, 1812.
§ See Rettig's Epliemerides of Giessen, 1824, No. 1 and 3, Rettig, professor
at Zurich, died in 1836, scarcely thirty-eight years old. He would have been
one of the purest supporters of enlightened Supernaturalism, if Death had per
mitted him to realise vast projects which would have obliterated the memory of
slight tributes paid to Rationalism, while he was only a tutor at the University of
Giessen. If this is not sufficiently apparent from his writings, which are full of
warmth and full of truly liberal ideas (and pure Christianity is truly liberal), I
think it is satisfactorily proved by these words, uttered by him three weeks before
his death : " My friend," said he, with an expressive pressure of the hand, "my
friend, remember that no one is a rationalist when on the point of death."

316 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
to the Gospel, both in its style and contents. Hypotheses, however,
cost nothing to those who are resolved at any price to abandon the
beaten track.* At length Bretschneider came forward, and he, with all
that artifice of words, wbich houses even when employing the language
of the ancient Eomans, pointed out what he called the probabilities of
the unauthenticity of the fourth Gospel. He endeavoured to prove that
neither the apostle nor any other Jewish Christian could have been the
author, but that it was the work of some converted GentUe, who pro
bably about the middle of the second century undertook its compilation
in order to sUence the eneraies of Christ and the apostles. This theory
will explain how it is that this Gospel passes over in silence many cir
cumstances which we find in the other Evangelists, but which were not
necessary to lead the GentUes to a knowledge of the Eternal word.f
It is only by internal evidence that Bretschneider attempts to disprove
the authenticity of the fourth Gospel. As to the historical testimony,
he contents himself with saying that it has not sufficient weight, that
it wants the necessary condition of antiquity, and that it does not by
any means outweigh the arguments adduced against it. J
Dr. Paulus did not altogether reject Bretschneider's probabUities, but
the full admission of them did not enter into his system of natural in
terpretation. If he had admitted them, he would, by so doing, have
virtually confessed that all his raanceuvres to explain the miracles of the
fourth Gospel had been employed uselessly. He made known his sen
timents in such a way that they might conciliate both the common
opinion and that of the new system of criticism. He declared that be
tween the synoptical Gospels and that of John there existed a real dif
ference : but he would not hear of any peculiar ideas entertained by John,
different from those which he might have held at the beginning of his
apostolic career, particularly respecting the meaning of the word logos.
* See the work already quoted, Die Evangelische Kirclie, krit. und phil. bear
beitet. Leipzig, 1838. I may be perraitted to make one remark. This Gospel
does differ in forra frora the synoptical Gospels. The mind of John did re
ceive the doctrine of Jesus in another raanner — that doctrine he has represented
in the colours of the philosophy of his day ; but we raust not forget that Christ
could not have confined himself to one style of speaking, and that the apostle
John lived the life of the patriarchs, that he may have studied much, and may
have learned much from his opponents, and that these circumstances in no way
weakened the divine assistance which strengthened his raind.
¦]¦ Probabilia, de Evang. et Epist. Joannis apostoli, indole et origine. Leipzig,
1820. X Probabilia, pp. 2, 31, 32 and 220. The most remarkable of the many works
written in answer to Bretschneider are indisputably those of Schott, Parg, Fleck,
and Stein. This is acknowledged by Bretschneider himself

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 817
He accounted for the difference of tone and of local colouring by sup
posing, not that an Egyptian or any one else compUed the Gospel in
the second century, but that a disciple of the apostle himself, also named
John, who perfectly understood the ideas of his beloved master, was the
author, and expressed himself in the style of the apostle.*
The result of this controversy was not in favour of the unauthenticity
of the Gospel, though De Wette continued to declare that it could not
be considered as the work of a fisherman of the Lake of GaUlee, and
that it even was superior to a mind cultivated and initiated into the Alex
andrine philosophy.! Bretschneider himself, after watching impartially
the dispute which he had provoked, declared that he had received new
light, and was convinced of the authenticity of the Gospel. { Doubts,
however, have been re-awakened in some minds, and Strauss, who had
unceremoniously erased from the Canon all the four Gospels, appUed
his attention particularly to undermine that one which was more directly
opposed to his mythical system. I have quoted his declaration in the
third edition of his work; it renders unnecessary any account of his
arguments, which are, however, nearly the same as those of Bret
schneider. I cannot refrain from remarking that, if this retractation of
Strauss is less formal than that of Bretschneider, it must perhaps be
attributed to the indecision of De Wette's commentary, and, dare I say
so, to the hesitation of Neander himself in some parts of his Life of Jesus,
which Strauss could not regard as dictated by science and reUgious faith.
* A. Neander, after recounting the strongest objections, makes this remark :
" Let us yield without prejudice to the impression made by the Sermon on the
Mount, and then let us ask ourselves whether a genius so sublime, so profound,
and so powerful, employed in the course of his ministry only one style of speech.
A mind which extended its power, not only over simple and practical characters,
but also over inquiring and profound geniuses, such as Paul, must also, on occa
sion, have given to its own elements a similar direction. As Christianity soon
attracted, from different places, and from the most opposite directions, minds of
the most diverse cultivation, and displayed an irresistible power, whether in the
ideal or the reality of spiritual life, so the action proceeding from the internal
nature of Christianity leads us to the idea of an union of so many elements and
different modes of expression in the person of its founder." The same author
afterwards proves, by examples, that the difference between the manner in which
John relates the discourses of Jesus and that in which the other Gospels relate
them, has been exaggerated. — (Neander's Leben Jesu, &c.)
f See his Einleitung and his Commentary, in tbe volurae containing the four
Gospels. X Tzscbirner's Magazine for Christian Preachers, vol.ii. 164. Bretschneider
added in his Dogmatik, vol. i. 292, that his Probabilia had been intended only to
rouse tbe attention of the learned, and to give them an opportunity of strength
ening the foundations of this Gospel.

318 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
We must commend Dr. Strauss for openly declaring that his book, whose
merit lay in its strict unity, has necessarily lost that character by the
concessions which he has been compeUed to make to criticism.*
The controversy has thus been renewed since tbe publication of
Strauss's work, and it is again a matter of dispute whether that Gospel
which has hitherto appeared to have the strongest proofs of authenticity,
must fall before the criticism which questions those proofs. Strauss,
like Bretschneider, after raising the storm, was led, by reading De Wette
and Neander, to be alarmed by his own audacity, and to confess his in
ability to prove his first assertions. But among his opponents we find
Weisse, whom we know from his opinions respecting the primitive
Gospel of Mark, and who endeavoured to add credit to the synoptical
Gospels, and particularly that of Mark, at the expense of the fourth.
He admits, however, that the ancients of the church of Ephesus may
very possibly have collected the instructions given them by the Apostle
John, and have made them public under the form of a Ufe of Jesus, and
that, therefore, it may be reasonable to attribute a certain authority to
this second-hand work.f But two writers soon appeared who, rejecting
aU these concessions, offered to undeceive even the most persevering in
their belief in the authenticity of John's Gospel. These were Bruno
Bauer J and Liitzelberger, § who used different means for the same end.
Liitzelberger does not quit the ground of history, and, assuming John
to be the author of the Gospel that bears his name, endeavours to
show, by proving the resemblance between what he teaches, and doctrines
posterior to his age, how great this historical mystification is. Bruno
Bauer makes use of the Gospel itself, without having recourse to tradi
tion, to prove that its contents belong entirely to a period at which the
apostle could never have lived. Bauer endeavours especiaUy to show
the difference between the christology of John and that of the synop
tical Gospels. In fact, he says, in the one we find " a Christ in the in
finity of his historical self-consciousness ; in the other, we find only a
Christ in the limited reflection of a member of a cbm-ch which succeeded
the church of the synoptical Gospels." And then what kind of per
sonage is the hero of the fourth Gospel ? He is pride personified.
Euge, in his journal, gives the best commentary on this idea of his co-
editor, Bauer, when he says that vanity and its consequent defects are
* Das Leben Jesu, vol. i. Preface to tbe third edition.
t Fromman bas refuted this hypothesis in the Review Theol. Studien und
Kritiken, 1840. Part IV.
X Kritik der evangel. Geschichte des Johannes. Breraen, 1840.
§ Die kirchliche Tradition Uber den Apost. Johannes u. seine Schriften in ihrer
Grundlosigkeit dargestellt. Leipzig, 1 840.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 319
the most evident characteristics of this Gospel in which Jesus is con
tinuaUy speaking of his celestial origin, and is angry when any one ap
pears to recal him to more modest ideas.*
Liitzelberger attributes the Gospel of John and his first epistle to a
Samaritan of the second century. To arrive at this conclusion, he ex
amines the testimony of tradition, and from it he learns, not only that
all the writings bearing the name of John are unauthentic, but also that
it is a great error to suppose that that apostle ever visited Asia Minor.
Liitzelberger adds, that if Ephesus had been so fortunate as to possess
such an apostle, we should have more numerous and animated accounts
of him. It is to Greater Asia, that is Mesopotamia, Ai-meiua, &c., that
we must attribute the origin of the fourth Gospel, and most probably
Edessa was the town which produced it. It was most likely written by
a Christian philosopher of that district, who, about the second centmy,
wished to refute doctrines which he considered false, and which were
propagated in his country by Pagans and Jews. That this philosopher
was a Samaritan, is proved by his predilection for Samaria, and his iU-
concealed aversion for the Jews, Such is the spnit of this work, in
which rectitude of intention does not conceal the imperfection of the
system, whose tendency is to see in the Gospels only the production of
the imagination of the compilers, and in the essence of the Christian
faith (which we suppose the author means by the expression Havptsache),
only a dream of its founder.f
This audacious negative criticism has been repUed to by another cri
ticism, which has shown what might be done by faith united to science,
if there were in Germany a raUying point, a church which should protect
efforts, inspire them with its ovvn life, and sanction them by its powerful
and enlightened authority. But, in the interval before this renovation,
we must mention the isolated eflbrts, not only of some journals conducted
by Harless, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and even Bretschneider, but also of
several weU -armed writers, who with one hand repelled the attack, and
with the other repaired boldly, and with some success, the numerous
breaches made by the enemy in the last waU which remained to shelter,
• Hallische Literatur-Zeitung (sinoe changed into the Deutsche Jahrbucher).
1841. No. 115.
f To prevent any mistakes, Liitzelberger has confirmed these opinions by a new
publication, What Jesus was and wished. Niirnberg, 1 842. It is remarkable that
Strauss, in his Dogmatik, prophesied that a man must soon appear who would fully
demonstrate the unauthenticity of the fourth Gospel, and it has appeared in print
that the manuscript of Liitzelberger had been coraraunicated to him sorae time
before. We must mention, to the honour of Liitzelberger, that before writing
against evangelical Christianity he left the ecclesiastical order.

320 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
not merely one particular church. Catholic or Protestant, but the most
essential and universally received doctrines of Christianity. First stands
the work of Schweizer, which, inspired as it was by the eclecticism of
the author, could be only a work of comproraise.* Schweizer dis
tinguishes two parts in the Gospel of John, a part properly belong
ing to it, or, at least, compiled by an apostolical witness, and a part
which has been interpolated. This second part consists, besides the
2Ist chapter, of the account of the marriage of Cana, of the cure at
Capernaum, and of the miracle of the loaves. These accounts he con
siders as an exaggerated appreciation of the idea of miracle, and as
forming too great a contrast to the rest of the Gospel, which is far
fi-om being imbued, Uke the others, with the GaUlean spirit, and which
rests on an indestructible historical basis. We must pass over the dif
ferent lives of Jesus already quoted ; araong others those of Tholuck
and Neander, which have proved the authenticity of narratives in the
synoptical as well as in the fourth Gospel ; and the third edition of
Liicke's commentary, which contains a complete dissertation on the late
debates raised by Strauss, where the author, with his usual sagacity, has
shown that all aUeged by modern criticism against the authenticity or
integrity of the fourth Gospel, is not of a very serious nature, though
he does not conceal any of the difficulties sometimes presented by tra
ditional evidence.! But superior to them in the extent of his work,
stands Ebi-ard,t who, with one certain glance at the efforts of the

* Das Evangelium Joh. nach seinem innern Werth, &c. Leipzig, 1841.
f Commentar uber das Evang. Joh. &c. 3rd edit. Bonn, 1840. Part I. Ch. i.
contains, in 160 pages, this dissertation— a model of its kind — on the authen
ticity, integrity and canonicity of the fourth Gospel. Liicke, iu this third edi
tion, particularly endeavours to refute Schweizer's hypothesis, yet they both
belong to the same school.
X Aug. Ebrard, Wissenschaftl. Kritik der evangel. Geschichte. This is a com
pendium of all pending questions relative to criticism, with solutions of them in
a Christian spirit, and fitted to enlighten negative criticism. It appeared in
three parts, forming an enormous volurae of 1,112 pages. Frankfort-on-Maine,
1842. Neither the nature of our work, nor our necessary limits, will permit us
to give a coraplete analysis of contemporary works on exegesis. But in the hope
that if it is raade known in France it may excite a desire, in some minds, to
cultivate a portion of the vast field of theology or religious philosophy, we will
mention Guerike's Introduction to the New Testament. This work, if we set
aside the author's mania of seeing nothing true, nothing perfect, save in the old
Lutheran church, presents a complete exposition of the actual situation of exe
getical science relative to the New Testament, and is an arsenal where the de
fenders of the faith will find arms to defend the authenticity of all the books of
the New Covenant. — {Historich.-critische Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leip
zig, 1843,)

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 321
enemy, appreciated their whole bearing, characterised their fatal ten
dency, and wdth a complete knowledge of the subject, separated the
straw fi-om the good grain. In a profound examination of the contents
of tbe fourth Gospel, he opposes De Wette, and shows how a GaUlean
fisherman, whose mental culture confounds the learned professor of
Basle, may reaUy have composed the work bearing his narae ; and in
this agreeing with Credner, he shows the necessity of such wisdom with
men so learned as those of Ephesus ; he then exaraines into the value
of tradition, appreciates one after another all the kinds of evidence, and
arming himself with the concessions made by his adversaries, their in
consistencies, and the profound historical science which he himself
appears to possess, he refutes the assertions of the eclectic Weisse,
Schenkel, and Schweizer, throws Ught on the badly-expressed doubts of
some, and shows the sad aberrations of an entirely negative criticism.
This he does not only for one Gospel, but for all four, the harmony of
which he skUfiUly displays, and shows it to be a necessary consequence
of their authenticity.
We must now cast a glance behind, and must not be content with
merely deploring the ravages made on the symbols of the Christian faith
by the school of modem HegeUanisra, of which Strauss, Feuerbach, and
Bruno Bauer, are the brightest stars ; but we raust also present a picture
of the results produced by aU shades of EationaUsm in the domain of
reUgious criticism.

VOL. II.

322 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE XIX.
CONSEaUENCES OP EMPIRICAL, SPECULATIVE AND GNOSTICAL RA
TIONALISM IN THE DOMAIN OP CHRISTIAN PAITH — SUMMARY
OP OPINIONS ENUNCIATED BY DIPPERENT SHADES OF RATION
ALISM.
It is a popular maxim, and one consecrated by the high authority of
the Gospel itself, that we may judge of the goodness of a tree by its
fruits. May we not apply this maxim to EationaUsm, and decide that
a system presenting itself to the people with the sole aim of purifying
the Christian reUgion and of strengthening its sentiraents in the human
mind, but which has corrupted it in its source, and has misrepresented it
in every branch of its teaching — that a system which has not been conteut
with pulUng every part of it to pieces, but whieh has derided it to such a
degree as to make it promise to adopt entirely different precepts, entirely
different ideas, though still calling itself the same reUgion — that such a
system, I say, must be conderaned by every sincere and inteUigent mind,
and can no longer seduce any one ? When philosophy wished to take the
place of the religion of the twelve Galilean fishermen, it was more sincere ;
it avowed its projects, apparently because it felt more secure of attaining
its end. Was it, then, from a feeling of its weakness that Eationalism,
which could not be ignorant of the point whither the exigencies of its
principles would conduct it, preferred to foUow a route which should
conceal the lowness of its intentions ? Vainly do some of its adepts,
terrified at their own work, now attempt to avert its consequences.
The ruins of the edifice which they have destroyed are still smoking ;
each may contemplate them at his ease, and form an idea of the culpable
boldness of the destroyers. The Eeformation left, if not churches fiou
rishing in Ught and piety, at least churches which, Uke those of the first
centuries, still placed their glory in the cross of Jesus Christ — churches
where the fundaraental dogmas of the Christian reUgion were placed
under the safeguard of the oaths of the pastors, and which, above all,
preserved pure and intact that Bible in whose name the Eeformation
was effected, and for which several generations of Protestants would
wUlingly have sacrificed their lives. But Eationalism came, and effaced

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 323
fi-om that Bible every one of its doctrines, and then, when it found itself
sinking beneath the power of accusations from this same Bible, it
changed its mode of attack; it discontinued the tiresome work of
making deceptions come from that book which claims to speak nothing
but the truth, and it began to dispute its right of teaching that truth.
It began the work anew, very skilfuUy dividing the labour among the
numerous adepts which it had enroUed under its flag; and from the
first page of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, it caused to disap
pear from the saered books, by means of the word reason, aU the traces
there left by the Deity in inspiring their authors. The Bible sank to
the level of a pendant to Homer or Ovid, a deposit of the mythology of
the Jews and the early Christians. What remained for EationaUsm to
do after accoraplishing this work of destruction ? Any one who under
stands logic in the least will answer, that if Eationalism had been sin
cere, it would have said to PhUosophy, " You have been victorious :
here are the keys of the temple out of which we have driven the god at
your instigation : it is for you to reign therein, unless you wiU, as a
reward for my efforts, honour my theologians with the title of Pontiffs
of Philosophy;" — or Eationalism would have turned to those of its
ancient adherents who had refused to foUow its adventurous career, and
would have conjured them to labour to restore to honour among the
people, principles whose salutary influence it no longer denied. The
appUcation of this alternative would have been wise; but do parties
ever return from their errors ? The men who compose them may do
so, but parties themselves never do ; they wUl prefer an obscure death
to a recantation whieh would re-estabUsh them in public esteem. But
as we know that the writers of the present day, who entertain the dif
ferent shades of rationaUstic opinion, are most of them men of high
moral and scientific worth, we may presume that the fertiUty of their
labours wiU soon induce many of them to destroy their present objects
of adoration, and to adore what they now consider to be fit only for
destruction. Have the consequences been the same on the side of gnostic Eation
aUsm ? — by which we mean, that system which relies on the exclu
sive faciUty of perception or understanding, to effect a reconciUation of
ideas between phUosophy and Christian theology. If we can be satis
fied with words instead of realities, we may fancy that the theologians
of the old school of SchelUng, of Jacobi, and of Hegel, have made un
paralleled efforts to restore Christian Lutheranism, duly interred by the
empirics, to a life which should not have to fear a second approach of
death. But if we weigh the value of words, if we compare the ideas
conveyed under these newly-adopted expressions, with the ideas con-
y2

324 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
stantly received during the long period of Christian ages, we shaU find
that these restorers of ancient tmth are only men of eminent talents
and perfect good faith, chosen by Providence to prepare a part of the
materials to be used by others when the period for the renovation of
reUgious doctrine shaU arrive. That renovation is foreseen by every
great mind, but it cannot take place until society itself shaU have un
dergone the change of constitution which we raust expect.
Gnosticism, under whatever name it raay in different circumstances
appear, always proceeds from this principle, that the apurce of reUgious
faith should be either in science, in man alone, or in the world, inde
pendently of the divine word, which aims at the production of trae
faith only by obedience to the instmctions of a mediating God-man,
the teacher of true knowledge.* This speculative separation of Chris
tian doctrine from the domain of historical truth could not fail to intro
duce confusion into that doctrine. Thus, though gnosticism admits
several fundamental points of the symboUcal books, it differs from
them on others which even empirical Eationalism had passed over, and
thus destroys with one hand the edifice which it raises with the other.
It can be proved that this separation of Christian principles from reU
gious truth tends to take away from the ideas of revelation, of redemp
tion, aud of justification, the meaning always attached to them by the
church. It has, moreover, cast the veU of the most deplorable obscurity
over the so-called natural tmths of reUgion, such as the existence of
God and the nature of his attributes, the existence of the soul and the
nature of its individuality.
God is a being existing for himself, said the ancient theologians, and
all which exists, exists only by hira. But different is the being which
exists necessarUy, and different are the beings which could never have
received existence ; for if we admit a God, we must admit him free to
create or not to create, perfectly independent of the laws of development
to which he subraitted ourselves, when he had once resolved on the
Creation. Gnostic EationaUsm attacked first the proofs which demon
strate the existence of this God, one, free and independent, and declared
them insufficient to prove the legitimacy of their pretensions. f Then con
founding aU the attributes of the Deity, it at last mingled up with the
• See some excellent reflections on this subject, and on the state of the church
in general, in Sack's work, Christliche Polemik. 1838. . That tbe pitiless logic of
the author should displease all parties, was to be expected ; but still the book
shows the inability of all tbe religious ideas of tbe period to direct the human
mind, f See Daub, Theologomena, § 34, p. Ill, seq.; and Marheinecke, Die Grund
lehren der christlichen Dogmatik, p. 121.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 325
idea of a God all that it had met with on its way, soul and body, spirit
and matter, the individual and the species, man and the universe. Thus,
Fichte's school may be accused of ideaUstic Materialism, because it
gives to reUgious ideas only a subjective value, and contradicts their
objective reality ; that of ScheUing may be charged with materiaUstio
Atheism, because it asserts the identity of the world with God ; and
that of Hegel with materiaUstic Idealism, because, according to it, God
would know Himself only in the history of the human mind. And how
many more antt-scriptural consequences have ensued from this first cor
ruption of the idea of God ? The Uberty of man, his relation to God,
the nature of his own being, that is to say, its personality and immor
tality, have aU been sacrificed to a multitude of new ideas which are
Christian only in name. Let us &-st examine into the gnostical opi
nions respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, and faith in the Son of
God as the Eedeemer of the World. 1 will afterwards give an account
of those concerning man's position in eternity.
Lessing taught, that God, refiecting from etemity on His own perfec
tions, created from eternity a being perfect like Himself, who might be
named the Son, and that the bond which unites them is the Holy
Spirit.* Here, therefore, the three names by which the Christian
Trinity is designated can only be considered as thoughts of God, to
which the language of man gives a personal reality. Daub and his
friends considered the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as being
merely expressions for the different operations of the Deity. I have
already mentioned that Schleierraacher admitted no Holy Ghost except
the spirit which animates the spiritual society of Christians. The
opinions of De Wette, Daub, and Marheinecke, were as far from being
orthodox.f The empirical, phUosophical and socinian rationalists have shown
less hesitation, and have adopted the simple idea of Deism respecting
God. We may, perhaps, here remark, with Bretschneider, that in aU
these phUosophical definitions, there reigns an arbitrary principle, by
which' we might admit a duality or quadraUty in God just as weU as a
trinity. J Or must we frankly avow, with Hase, that we should admit
as a principle that the ancient doctrine is not only above reason, but
that it is also contrary to it, and is, consequently, inadmissible ?§
Thus speculative EationaUsm, being distinct from vulgar Eationalism,
* Das Christenthum der Vernunft, in his posthumous works. Berlin, 1787.
f Ueber Religion und Theologie, p. 237, 270. Einleitung in das Stud, der Christ.
Dogmatik, p. 65. Die Grundlehren, &c., p. 120.
X Handbuch der Dogmatik.
§ Dogmatik, p. 640,

326 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
represents neither bibUcal Christianity, nor the doctrines of any church ;
it is a mixture of Christian and Pagan terms, which express, in a con
fused manner, profound or superficial ideas, according as we preserve
the ancient meamng of the words, or fritter it away in vapours and
fantastic images.
The great, the fundamental error of aU these systems, is thefr attempts
to change reUgious faith into science, when reason and reUgion teach us
that the view of faith wiU never change, untU we enter into a higher
world. When we speak of faith as the last degree of the religious idea
and as absolute knowledge, we can only do so relatively to the termi
nation of all things for us in the tomb. But unmindful of this fact,
gnostical EationaUsm, though asserting that the huraan mind is God,
and that he in whora speculative phUosophy is brought nearest to per
fection has a good claim to the title of God, since, in his mind, God
has arrived at the highest degree of self-knowledge, though making
these audacious assertions, it nevertheless afBrms that the human mind
is eternal only in its generality, and by no means in its individuality.
We have seen what the God of this philosophy is, — a being without inde
pendence or liberty, not even possessing the plenitude of knowledge ;
for that it would be necessary that a perfect mind should have existed,
and every one knows that in very many of the aspb-ants to divinity
God is far from arriving at self-consciousness. But the speculative
theologians have shown by an arguraentative process the possibiUty that
God may by degrees arrive at this self-consciousness ; but when this
possibUity shall have become a reality, they show by reversing the
same process of argument, that humanity, instead of remaining at this
subUme height, will begin to descend frora it, and that thus the work
wUl aU have to be commenced again. This they attempt to prove by
bringing forward as evidence the alternations of enlightenment and
ignorance in history. Eosenkranz, one of the most learned and mode
rate disciples of Hegel, says, "I consider that the fundamental fault of
Strauss's system is, that he recognises the subjectivity of the substance
only by the infinite number of subjects in the human race. Christ is
not a collective predicate, aUotted to him by the spirit of huraanity, — ^he
is its concrete unity. The essence of the idea contains, also, the abso
luteness of this individual appearance. The idea of seeing Christ in
huraanity can be fuUy understood only when we admit the absolute
humanisation of God, with which it is perfectly consistent."*
If empnical EationaUsm reduced Christ to the level of a sage of
* Rosenkranz, Critique on Schleiermacher's Dogmatik, p. 17, Preface. — Compare
Strauss, Streitschriften, vol. i. part 3. p. 57.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 327
Judea, who should accomplish a better work than the sages of Greece
and Eome, gnostical Eationalism appears to have been as unsuccessful
in its attempts to re-estabUsh the ancient doctrine of Christ's divinity,
as in its efforts to do the same for the stUl greater mystery of the
Trinity. According to De Wette, the doctrme of Christ's divinity can
be considered only as an aesthetical idea. The pious Christian sees in
Jesus the Uving divinity ; he goes no further in his inquiry, and never
asks if that is possible which his feeUngs teU him to be real. If we
retain this doctrine, it is only as belonging to aesthetics, and as a beau
tiful and expressive image, not as an invention of an exalted imagina
tion, but as the result of an historicaUy reUgious experience.*
The idea of a God made man, says Marheinecke, is the same as that
of a man whose consciousness of God does not differ essentiaUy from
that which God has of Himself. This doctrine rests, then, on the idea
which we form of the religion which comes from God, in so much that
it has had such an influence over humanity as to become a part of it,
that God Himself — ^that is to say, God who comes from God — that is,
the Son of God — or, what is the same thing, the knowledge of God by
God or religion — that this divine nature has become for humanity
another nature.f
Fichte said, that if Jesus were to return to the world, we may rea
sonably suppose that he would be much better pleased to find Chris
tianity raUng in the hearts of men, thau to find his merits extoUed or
not extoUed by Christians. This, he adds, is the least which we could
expect from such a man, who during his life never sought his own
glory, t
We know that Hegel made a distinction between the historical and
the ideal Christ, as also did Marheinecke and Strauss, especiaUy the
latter, who considered our Lord merely as divinity manifesting itself in
humanity. §
When the person of Christ ceased to be viewed in a scriptural light,
obscurity was necessarUy cast over his chief work. Gnostical EationaUsm
cannot boast of any superiority to the vulgar system in the definitions
which it gives of the death of Christ, and of the reconcUiation effected
by it between heaven and earth. These facts are not, indeed, consi
dered as they were by Eberhardt, Loffler, Gabler, 'L. Nitzsch, Weg
scheider and Krug, in the Ught of empty ideas, by means of which the
• De "Wette, Ueber Religion und Theologie, p. 257.
t Grundlehren, p. 233. See also Schleiermacher, Christliche Glaubenslehre,
ii. 193.
X See his Life, published by his son, p. 173.
§ Leben Jesu, the last paragraphs ; and die Streitschriften, vol. i. part 3. p. 76.

328 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
apostles accommodated theraselves to the received opinions, nor were
they regarded, as by the Kantists, as mere aUegories ; butDe Wette and
his school looked on the expiatory death of Christ as a symbol of the
resignation and reconciliation of aU differences in the domain of reUgious
sentiment.* With the HegeUans, on the contrary, we see " the visible
fact of the etemal process of the divine Ufe, which, penetrating into the
finite, remains divine." Christ, said Hegel, died for aU, and that means
that in him all are dead. This is an action in the divine nature, which
took place in God himself. God can receive satisfaction only from
Hunself. This death is love itself, shown in an action of God, and^it
is the reconciUation of it. We contemplate in it the absolute. It is
the identity of the divine and human.-f The incarnation of the Son,
begotten from the beginning of all things, is the reconcUiation [of the
finite with the infinite, of that which has been created with the principle
of existence, of the temporal with the etei-nal. The Son of God made
man, departs in his death from the sphere of the finite to return into
the sphere of the infinite, as a spirit still acting in the finite, and eter
nally united with God.f
Schleiermacher says on this subject, — " We raay caU Christ an ex
piatory victim in this sense, that on one side he represents by his dig
nity a model of human perfection, and on the other side our identity
with him ; God sees and appreciates in him alone the generality of
believers." § De Wette maintains that the doctrine of reconcUiation by
the sufferings and death of Jesus can be only an sesthetical reUgious
symbol, which represents and therefore preserves the religious feeUng of
resignation with which we ought to humble ourselves before God, or the
reconcUiation of the religious sentiment put into action in history. ||
This change of the received opinions respecting the person of Christ and
his redeeraing work, was a necessary consequence of the gnostical ideas
on the fundamental points of the inspiration and revelation of Scripture.
On these .subjects, gnosticism has quietly submitted to the dictates of
vulgar EationaUsm, which had asserted by the mouth of Eohr that
Protestantism could not exist together with faith in the inspu-ation of
Scripture.^ De Wette, in fact, sees in the minds of the apostles only

» De "Wette, De morte Christ., Sie. Berlin, 1813. See also Religion und Theo
logie, 254; and Dogmatik, § 73, a, b,
t Hegel, Religion Philosophie, vol, ii. p, 253,
X Usteri, Doctrine of the Apostle Paul, p, 133.
§ Christliche Glaubenslehre, ii. § 100-105.
II Dogmatik der lutheranische Kirche, p. 53 ; and ReUgion und Theologie, p. 254.
^ See Rohr's Confession of Faith, p. 50-70.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 329
a diviue presentiment (consciousness) of writing only the truth :* and
Schleiermacher attributes the veracity of the apostles to their perfect
union with Christ, and considers their writings only as the first Unk of
the long chain of doctrinal teachings which should appear in the bosom
of the church, and which would aU rest on that faith in Christ found
in the apostoUc writings.-(- Thus we see that if one of the phases
of EationaUsm considers the Bible as tbe work of ignorant men, the
gnostics pay respect to it only when it consents to speak their lan-

The gnostical or speculative theologians have repeatedly confounded,
in their explanations, the ideas of revelation, of redemption, and of jus
tification. After thoroughly examining aU which they have said on this
subject, it amounts to this, that the divine and human are united in an
intimate raanner in Jesus, and that in this new direction given to
humanity, reUgion wUl constantly receive further development, untU it
raises man to the highest degree of religious sentiment, or makes him
understand scientificaUy aU within the sphere of reUgion. J Schleier
macher himself rejects the ancient idea of revelation as impossible, and
sees in it only an impulse of the Divinity that developes itself constantly
with new strength. §
Gnosticism has not been less destructive, in speaking of the soul, its
nature and immortality. In these questions, in fact, it has gone beyond
vulgar EationaUsm, and all its professors have more or less adhered to
Schleiermacher's assertion in his Reden,, that it is a vice to believe our
selves immortal in the sense of an individual life. The soul, in the
opinion of speculative theologians, is only a portion of that Absolute, in
which it ought to be absorbed, " though continuing to Uve," as they add,
in order not to shock common readers. This cannot surprise any one.
When once we have ceased to acquiesce, in the most formal and simple
manner, in the divine word, we are forced to yield to the demands of the
human mind, which from argument to argument goes through aU the
degrees of logic, and never stops, because, in fact, it is impossible to
come to any real, desirable, or even probable conclusion. Every thinking
man who refuses to be a simple and docUe Christian, must become a
Pantheist. No one of any mental worth will ever stop short on the
road of vulgar Eationalism, which is so much exposed to the sharp

* De "Wette, Dogmatik, 41-53.
t Schleiermacher, Christliche Glaubenslehre, ii. 352.
X This view of tbe Christian faith is developed principally in a work by
J. Rusk, Philosophie und Christenthum. Mapnheim, 1825.
§ Christliche Glaubenslehre, i. 103.

330 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
arrows of criticism. We find Spinozaism in aU the questions of specula
tive theology; and horrible as the very name is to mauy, yet from the
idea of God to that of immortaUty, aU is impregnated with the theo
logical phUosophy of Spinoza, because he was in fact the most profound
thinker of modern times, and the most consistent of all anti-Christian
reasoners. The most illustrious of modern critics speaks thus on this subject :
: — " As to individual immortaUty," says Strauss, " Schleiermacher's ex
pression to become one with the Infinite is aU that modem science can
say upon the subject." Schleiermacher further says, — " Life to come,
as actuaUy conceived, is the last enemy which speculative criticism has
yet to encounter, and if possible to overcome."* As, then, there is no
personal God, no personal Christ, so there ought to be no personal man
or true individuality. Since there is no real distinction between God
and the world, between the divine and human mind, it is man's duty to
put away from himself aU individuality, and to lose his individual con
sciousness in the idea of God. In this consists piety ; it is real only
when we renounce om-selves. He does evU, he is a sinful man, who
claims an individual independence. We might ask. What does morality
become with such a pictm-esque definition of sin ? but it would require
a separate work to show all the injmy done by such systematic concep
tions. We wUl conclude this account of the consequences of Eationalism
with the words of a sincere professor of it. We have, elsewhere, spoken
of a violent controversy between the new school and a supernaturalist
professor, who is very learned, but with whom we do not agree in his
historical views, especiaUy respecting France, whose providential mission
he has misunderstood.f But I mention the dispute between Leo and
the new school, which he accused of being atheistical, immoral, and
inimical to its native country, only that I may quote some words of one
of that school, which are necessary to this part of my subject. " No
one now thinks of contradicting the complaints of Leo. AU the prin
ciples of Christianity, yes, aU that has hitherto been called reUgion, has
faUen before the inexorable criticism of reason. The great revolution
of which the French phUosophers of the last century were only the
precm-sors, has been accomplished in the domain of thought. It has
completed its own creation. The phUosophy of Protestantism is at an
end ; a new era is commencing, and it is the duty of those who have in
themselves followed this mental development, to carry its extraordinary
consequences into the conscience of the nation, that they may become a
* Christliche Glaubenslehre, vol. ii. last section.
f Histoire de Spinosa, p. 355-360.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

331

prmciple of life for Germany."* I wUl now attempt to place before
my readers a paraUel of the old and new systems.f

INTRODUCTION.

Old System.
True morality is founded on religion.
True religion has its source in a su
pernatural revelation.
The truths of this revealed religion
are contained in the Sacred Scriptures.
This revelation is proved by miracles,
or works which surpass the known powers
of nature.
The sacred writers ought to be con
sidered as teachers of antiquity inspired
by God !—
Even when they teach us doctrines
which surpass the limits of our reason,
as the doctrines of expiation, of justifi
cation, &c.

Rationalistic System.
True religion is founded on morality.
Tbe only source of true religion is the
human reason.
The writings called the Sacred Scrip
tures are not more sacred than the works
of Plato or Virgil. .
All that is called miraculous ought
either to be considered as mythical, or
to be explained in a perfectly natural
manner. They deserve our belief only so far as
they teach nothing more than our reason
can understand.
When they teach doctrines which we do
not understand, we ought not to believe
them, first, because they cannot prove
what they teach ; and secondly, because
such doctrines have no infiuence on our
lives.

GENERAL THEOLOGY.

The existence of God is the first, and,
at all tiraes, most easily proved of all
truths. God is a personal being, who sees, acts,
and understands : this is the ground of
the Christian's assurance.
In a general sense God is the Father
of all men ; but He is in a peculiar
sense the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Jesus, as the Son of God, participates
therefore, in the divine nature.
The Holy Spirit is a personality dis
tinct from the Father and the Son.
The Trinity is a conception of the
Deity taught by Christianity.

It is impossible to prove the existence
of God.
The personality of God cannot be af
firmed ; it is confounded with the soul
of the world.
It is only metaphorically that God is
called the Father of Jesus.

The title of Son of God may be given
to every pious man.
The Holy Spirit is nothing more than
a divine quality.
The Trinity is a scholastic invention
of the middle ages.

* The work so praised by the Deutsche Jahrbucher, entitled Schelling und die
Offenbarung. Leipzig, 1839. p. 9.
t The principal features of this parallel are taken from von Ammon's Maga
zine, vol. iii. part, 2. p. 15.

332

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

Old System.
The doctrine of Moses respecting the
creation contains the most profound
truths in the most simple narrative.
By the fall of the first man, the hu
man race became degenerated from its
state of innocence.
The doctrine of angels assists us in
our conception of the world of intelli
gences. What Scripture teaches us respecting
the bad angels is calculated to put us on
our guard with respect to morality.

Rationalistic System.
We must regard the accounts of Ge
nesis as the productions of a poetical
imagination, similar to the theogonies
of other nations.
We are all born with the same purity
as the first men who appeared on the
earth. The doctrine of angels bas no reality j
it is only a consequence of Judffio- Chal
dsean myths.
What we find in Scripture respecting
the bad angels is equally unfounded in
theory and dangerous in practice.

CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTEROLOGY.

Christ was conceived of the Holy
Ghost and bom of the Virgin Mary.
The doctrine which he taught us, he
had learned from his Father.
His teachings were accompanied by
miracles which attested his power.

He died on the cross and was buried ;
he returned to life and ascended into
heaven. Christ possesses the divine and the
huraan nature,
God acts upon men by His Holy Spirit,
to lead them to the knowledge of the
truth, and to the improveraent of their
souls. The sacraments of the church are
means by which God communicates His
grace to the faithful.
By baptism man undergoes a new
birth. In the Lord's Supper, Jesus strength
ens by his presence the souls of the faith
ful, and gives them a pledge of his love
and of their future admission to life eternal.
By his union with Christ in the church
the Christian has the assurance of becom
ing also a member ofthe invisible church,
in which are found all those redeemed by
the Saviour.

Christ came into the world in the same
way as other raen.
From his own refiections he derived
the doctrine which he taught us.
The cures which he worked might have
been effected by others. And those whom
he resuscitated were only in a lethargic
state. There is nothing real in these accounts,
except the crucifixion. The resurrection
admits of a natural explanation, and the
ascension is a myth.
Huraan nature becomes divine by a
pious life.
Man is abandoned to the free govern
ment of reason.

The sacraments are only symbols of
an invisible truth.
Baptism is only a sign of the purity
with which a Christian ought to live.
The Lord's Supper is only a memorial
of the death of Jesus, and unites us with
him only morally.
The church is only a human institu
tion, whose teachings may be very dis
tinct from the teachings of God. It gives
therefore only relative aid.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

333

ESCHATOLOGY.

Old System.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ fi-om
the dead is one of the foundations of our
immortal hopes.
Christ will judge the living and the
dead. Some will receive life etemal, others
will be condemned to etemal death j all
will preserve their individuality.

Rationalistic System,
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is
only an allegory which explains the con
version of Pagans to Christianity.
The future judgment is only a rab
binical vision.
Every one receives the punishment of
his faults in this life; and there is no
etemity save that of God, in which all
beings are absorbed.

334 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,

CHAPTEE XX.
STATE OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY IN GERMANY IN THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY — CONVERSION TO CATHOLICISM, OF F. SCHLEGEL, VON
STOLLBEEG, HAMANN, WERNER, VON HALLER — SCEPTICISM OP
SOME THEOLOGIANS — PLAN OF REFORM — DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS
GIVEN TO THEOLOGY — VON WESSENBERG, WERKMEISTER AND
HIS FOLLOWERS  BISHOP SAILER  P. BAADER, GUNTHER, VEITH
AND PABST, J. A. MOHLER, HIRSCHEL — HERMESIANISM — ITS
CONDEMNATION  RESISTANCE OP THE DISCIPLES OF HERMES.
In the midst of those theological movements which, in the course of a
century, have destroyed so much, and have thrown doubts on doctrines
and facts concentrated by ages, we naturally ask what path was pursued
by the Eoman church, and whether the German party which had op
posed the Eeformation remained idle spectators of a struggle interesting
to the whole Christian community. From our knowledge of the con
stitution of that church and its d. priori method of judging everything
which passes without the circle in which it has for ages moved, and to
which it thinks proper stUl to confine itself, we may conclude also ci
priori that, though severely condemning the fatal tendencies of a theo
logy contrary to the Gospel, it might nevertheless rejoice at them in the
hope that the excess of the evil would call for a remedy, and that supe
rior minds, not finding any in the new systems, would be driven into its
bosora as a refuge from their fatiguing doubts. And at one time it
seemed that this hope would be fulfiUed, when men such as Schlegel,
von StoUberg, Hamann, Werner, and von Haller, declared that nothing
should keep them in a church whence aU life Bad departed. But the
very circurastances which induced these gifted men to make comraon
cause with the Eoman church were precisely those which prevented a
far greater nuraber from foUowing their example. It was said that if
the anarchy which prevaUed, and which they foresaw would prevail for
some time, in the church, induced them to join another church which
promises unity of doctrines to its members, and suffers no contradiction
in what it has decreed to be Christian truth, they gave in so doing a
proof of egotism, since, instead of working according to their power for

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 335
the reform of a system whose many imperfections they perceived, they
quietly retired to the tempting retreat offered by an eceledasiical faifh
which demands nothing but submission to its authority, when they might,
by seeking to kindle religious faith in men's hearts, have each contri
buted to the erection of a temple which must soon be buUt, and God
would have rewarded their self-denial. It was asked whether, by shel
tering themselves from the fiii-y of the storm, they could save the vessel
and those whom it contained, and whether there would not be much
more merit in dying in the fight than in withdrawing from it to enjoy
the deUghts of a tranquil existence.
But the support given to Catholicism by some justly celebrated neo
phytes had no other effect than that of exciting some obscure writers of
the great cause to enter the Usts proudly against the giants of Protestant
learning ; and as these combatants always had in view the triumph of
the priesthood rather than that of the Gospel of the Son of God, the
raraour of theu- opposition arising in some CathoUc cantons of Switzer
land, and in some French journals, quietly died away on the frontiers of
Germany. At most, some isolated individuals were moved by it, but
the mass of the German Catholics were perfectly indifferent to it. The
fact is, that in Germany Catholicism has had a near view of aU the
Ufe, force and tmth of certain doctrines derived by Protestantism from
Scripture, and substituted for the Eoman doctrines respecting the merits
of the saints and the manner in which we ought to appropriate their
virtues, and it does not judge of these doctrines from the vagaries of
EationaUsm. In Germany the friends of reUgion are also the friends of
severe and serious studies, and are not in the habit of forming an opi
nion on the grave questions which separate the two churches, from in-
jm-ious pamphlets, or works in wbich ignorance and presumption dispute
the mastery. They examine aU the monuments which can throw Ught
on a fact or doctrine ; they consult the sources and weigh the value of
evidence ; they put aside the question of a church, otherwise so impor
tant for practical Ufe, but which causes so many prejudices in those who
do not know how to give it a secondary importance in the discussion of
eternal truths which must influence, not the external life, but the con
science of every man who seeks for truth. For these reasons it is said
that the theologians of CathoUc Germany have never received from the
Pontiff of the Vatican all the consideration which they seem to deserve
from their learning, and, excepting a certain number of high dignitaries
who are obliged from their position to entertain relations with the pon
tifical court, it is a thing unheard of for a German Catholic to consent
to receive its faith impUcitly from the foreigner. We do not mean to
say that there is perfect sympathy between the Catholic and the Pro-

336 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
testant church, either Lutheran or Eeformed ; but though remaining
faithful to their traditional faith, the CathoUcs, and especiaUy the majo
rity of then- best writers, oppose seriously and decently what they stUl
think to be error ; and if they are jealous of anything, it is because they
have not yet succeeded in creating repositories of instruction and leam
ing which may rival the learned Universities of Protestant Germany.
We must say, for the sake of historical truth, that, either from fatigue
or from a feeUng of inabUity to recover their lost ground, the theologians
of the Eoman communion virtually yielded up their weapons in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and it would not be difiicult to
show, in the works published by sorae of their most distinguished men,
a great number of propositions which could not faU to sound iU in the
ears of their ultra-montane co-reUgionists. Among this number was
Stattler, professor at Ingolstadt, of whom the venerable SaUer, his former
pupil, bears witness that from the first page of logic to the last of theo
logy, he had the talent of interesting his pupUs and of teaching them to
think for themselves.* But thinking for oneself is not always a pledge
of fideUty to the Eoman church, if we may beUeve some of this writer's
contemporaries, who assure us that many of his works were censm-ed at
Eome.f We must, however, state, since truth is the first duty of the
historian, that it seems that those theologians of Catholic Germany who
in opinion approached most nearly to their Protestant adversaries, did
so, not so much from a conviction of Christian truth, as fi-om a vague
feeling of scepticism respecting Christian doctrines, which made them
rather the friends of the French phUosophy of the day, that looked
with scepticism on the whole of revelation. But they hardly understood
their own position. On one side they were influenced by the spirit of
the age, which tended to the entire abolition of everything belonging to
the past, both in politics and reUgion ; and on the other they were re
strained by their old respect for the religion of their chUdhood. We
cannot with impunity raise the fruit of the tree of knowledge to our Ups.
No sooner had the Catholic ecclesiastics tasted that fi-uit than they began
to devote themselves to the work of reforming theur church without com
pletely overturning it. To this cause we may attribute the eager wel-
* Alzog, Universalgeschichte der Christlichen Kirche, p. 807. Mayence, ISll.
I have been surprised to find nothing respecting this writer in the Dictionary of
Learned CathoUcs of Germany, published by Felder and Waitzenegger.
t Huth, Kirchengeschichte des Wen Jahr hunderts, vol. ii. The work by Sailer,
against which Rome was most enraged, was entitled On the System qf the Pope's
Primacy. His principal works are, Demonstratio Evangelica. Aug. Vind. 1771.
Demonstratio Catholica. Pappenh. 1775. Theologia christ. theoretica, vol. vi.
Ingolstadt, 1776. Allgem. Kathol. Religionslehre. Munich, 1793.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 337
come given to the reformatory projects of Joseph II., the zealous at
tempts of many Catholics to put a happy end to the secularisation of
the bishoprics and cloisters, and finaUy the two classes of opinions and
writers which even now exist, and between which the separation is every
day growing wider. These two parties, known in France as Ultramon-
tanists and GaUicans, have taken the more significant names of Curialists
aud EpiscopaUans ; the former being applied to those of an Ultramon
tane tendency, and the latter to those who, retaining episcopacy, would
stiU establish evangelical Uberty in tbe bosom of a national church.
The Episcopalians, without admitting unreservedly the principle of fi-ee
reUgious inquiry, which would not have aUowed them to retain a teach
ing church, stiU maintained that principle so far as concerns the purifi
cation of tr-adition, in order to the formation of an ecclesiastical consti
tution similar to that of the first centuries of the Christian faith ; and
they agreed with the evangelical writers in advocating the estabUshment
of free Universities, the liberty of the press, the propagation of early
instruction in the Scriptures and their dissemination in the vulgar
tongue. The Cm-ialists, on the other hand, were obliged to maintain
their ground against the Liberals by flattering vulgar superstitions and
undertaking their defence. These two parties differed especiaUy re
specting the ceUbacy of the priests. It is now some years since, from
the recesses of SUesia to Mayence, the people claimed the right of mar
riage for a class of men who', it was declared, would be the more vu--
tuous the more they resembled the pastors of the primitive church, who
were thought worthy to rule because they knew how to govem their own
famUies well.
The Uberal party of Catholicism not only desired reforms in dis
cipline, but also took a very active part in the improvement of the
scientific studies of theology, and in the development of a doctrine
which should be the more truly rational, the more it rested on Scrip
ture and an enlightened tradition. This principle of liberaUty and
knowledge, adopted by a large majority, gave rise to three new parties.
One of these remaining firm in its opposition stUl calls for the reforms
Ul CathoUcism promised by Joseph, and may be compared to the party
of constitutional priests in France. In its ranks we find the respect
able vicar-general of Constance, von Wessenberg, who has been inde
fatigable in his efforts to extend stiU further the schemes accompUshed
by his zeal in his own diocese.* To it belongs also Werkmeister, who,
* His last work, The General Councils of the 15th and 16th Centuries, compared
with the Ancient History of the Church, for the Improvement of its Discipline, (Con
stance, 4 vols. 1840,) has been well received only by that portion of the clergy who
VOL. II. Z

338 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
even when studying in the cloister of Neresheim, became thoroughly
imbued with the spirit of the reformers, and who, when he became
chaplain of the CathoUc church at the court of Stuttgardt, effected a
great number of reforms, which his archbishop seemed to authorise by
sUence, and particularly the celebration of the offices in the vulgar
tongue, which it would now be so difficult to abolish. To this party
belonged also a considerable nuraber of ecclesiastics, aU raore or less
known by works of merit, and whose reformatory views were supported
by the University of Friburg {in Brisgau), and even by that of Tiibingen
untU the time of Mohler. They found an organ in two joumals, which
are stiU edited by Pflanz, and which expressed the liberal Catholicism of
Carov6, Fridolin Huber, the brothers Theiner, one of whom afterwards
returned into the inmost pale of the Eoman church, of Schreiber, and of
aU those who united French freedom of thought to the most decided
religious feelings of Germany. To this constitutional party, which sees
in the positive reUgion of Christianity only the doctrine of charity to
men, and in the church only an institution fitted to cherish it in the soul,
belonged a man whose name is venerated throughout the whole of Ger
many, and whom it is our duty particularly to notice. I refer to the
Archbishop of Eegensburg, who ought to be considered as the best and
purest representative of the moderate party of Uberal Catholics, since
even his opponents give him the name of a pious and enlightened man.
Johann Michel Sailer was born in 1751 in a little viUage of Bavaria.
It has been said of him,* that if the existence which we owe to pious
though poor parents is the greatest blessing which we can receive
from God, Sailer ought to have been the most grateful of men, since
he received this blessing most fuUy. We cannot help being affected
by these words in one of his works respecting his mother : " I shaU for
ever be thy debtor, most beloved mother ; whenever I think of aU thy
conduct, thy words, thy gestures, thy sufferings, thy beneficence, thy
labours, thy hands which relieved misfortune, the fervour of thy prayers,
fi-om the time of my infancy, I always feel re-awakened in my heart
the reUgious feelings and the hope of the eternal Ufe which they pro
mise ; and these feelings can never be destroyed by any system, any
doubt, any suffering, any tyranny, not even by any sin. That eternal
Ufe to which thou didst lead me animates me stiU, though forty years
have passed away since thou hast quitted this earth."
The piety, which he thus imbibed so to say with his mother's milk,
sympathise with the views of the author. Abbot Hefele has written a refutation
of it, entitled, Kritische Beleuchtung der Wessenbergschen Schrift, Die grosse
Kirchen-Versammlung, Sic. Tiibingen, 1841.
* Klem. Baader, inthe Gallery of Learned Men and Statesmen. 1816, Part. III.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 339
was ever the inseparable companion of his studies, and, though it gave
them a very Uberal direction, preserved him from the perUs of incre
duUty into which he might have been driven by the spirit of his day
after the suppression of the order of Jesuits. That order Sailer had
entered a few years before, aud many wiU be not a little surprised to
learn that he there passed the happiest part of his life. " I lived there,"
he wrote to one of his friends, " a Ufe Uke paradise : meditation on eter
nal things, the love ofthe divine, fervour and piety which were cherished
in this twofold element, and a superior spiritual life, — these were the
advantages I gained from my noviciate." By this love of the divine he
was always influenced, and it enabled him to say with his weU-known
candour, respecting the caluranies spread concerning him by false
CathoUcs, " I would rather be calumniated for ten years, than spend
one day in defending my innocence. To forget an injustice is not a
virtue in me ; for convinced as I am that the recoUection of injustice
causes agitation, 1 love my repose of mind too well to cherish any
such recoUection." I am very glad to have an opportunity of quoting
the words respecting the Jesuits, of a man held in general esteem, and
they wUl prove that it is as absurd to accuse wholesale, as is sometimes
done, a body which has contained so many distinguished men, as it is
to join with the ignorant in blaming the Protestant doctrines for the
temble extravagances of the extreme rationaUsts. " In the foundation
of the order of Jesuits,'' said SaUer, " there was much that was divine
in its development, much that was human, and at the period of its
destrnction the divine and human elements were equally wanting."
If Fenelon, whose Lettres Spirituelles were translated by Sailer, had
Uved in our day, would not he have expressed similar opinions ?
After SaUer had completed his studies at Ingolstadt, where he had
been maintained by the Uberality of a benefactor, he himself gave in
struction in the philosophical and theological sciences successively at
Munich, Ingolstadt, and Landshut. At the same time, feeling a desne
to communicate to the people generally the instructions which he gave
to the pupils of the Universities, he published a great number of works
which give proofs of his great and varied knowledge and his noble and
reUgious character. From them we learn his rare facility in treating aU
subjects relating to philosophy aud theology, and in bringing forward
their practical side, which he thought eminently fitted to enlighten and
moraUse the country to whose service he had devoted himself.* We
• His principal doctrinal works are, The Foundations of Religion (in German)
and the Evangelical Demonstration (in Latin). His miscellaneous works on phi
losophy, religion, and education, as well as those which tend to awaken or revive
religious feelings and practice, are very numerous.
z 3

340 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
do not mean to say that he considered doctrine of as Uttle value as did
the Catholic Kantists of his day; but being convinced with reason,
that every doctrine of the Gospel ought to have its root in the heart of
man, he regarded the Christian religion only as a means of purifying
the feelings and inflaming the heart with a sacred love of vbtue. In
consequence of this preference for practical Christianity he has been
accused of neologism by the curialists and of mysticism by all ration
aUsts, because he had the good sense to agree with Fenelon, Lavater,
Jacobi, and Schleiermacher, in raaintaining that if inteUigence was
given us to direct us in the experimental sciences, we received a heart
to bring us near to God, and to feel the truths which revelation offers
as worthy our belief.
The influence of Sailer was great in southern Germany, notwithstand
ing the silly persecution raised against him by the enemies of enlighten
ment. But as that influence was exerted principaUy over the hearts of
men, it is not surprising that his writings, numerous as they were, are
held in veneration only among a smaU number of disciples, who, like
him, place love higher than knowledge, and the reUgion of Jesus above
the sects which dispute the inheritance of it without possessing its,
spirit. The time at which Sailer lived was less fit than any other for a
great religious renovation. The din and turmoU of battle hardly left
time for phUosophy to destroy what stUl remained of the past. Quiet,
patience, and much enlightenment, are necessary before we can re-buUd,
and is it not, also, necessary that the ground should be cleared of the
old ruins ? With his great piety, his varied talents, and his honourable
zeal. Sailer could only prepare materials for others, and give an example
which wiU not be lost on reUgious Germany. Since the time of Sailer
the theological movement in Catholic Germany has been of no Uttle im
portance ; and, notwithstanding my desire to pass on to the second refor
matory efforts, I mean the bold essay of the Hermesians to place Catho
licism on a new base, I must first cast a glance on the work effected by
some men esteemed even by Protestant learning. These labours we owe
to a third impulse given to contemporary theologians, by F. Baader on
one side, and on the other by the celebrated author ofthe Compared Creeds
of Catholics and Protestants. Doctrinal science was treated first by
Liebei-mann, whose works have deserved the honour of becoming classics
in the academies of Eome. He has, it is said, merited tbis distinction
rather by his method of exposition and the clearness of his ideas, than
by the exaggeration of his doctrines.* Oberthur, who had acquired
much knowledge in his journeys in Austria and Italy, felt that the
» Fr, Liebermann, Institutiones Theol, 5 vols. Mayence, 3rd edit,, 1831-32.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 341
best form for a good Christian doctrinal system would be the bibUcal,
and he attempted to construct one on that plan.* Dobmayer and
Brenner, in their attempts, foUowed the example of Augustin, the ancient
bishop of Hyppo, who took as the ground-work of his writings the idea
of the kingdom of God. But it seems that this task can be weU fulfiUed,
especiaUy in its details and general harmony of doctrine, only by Franz
Bittner, who, as yet, has given only hopes that he wUl do so. The
Catholics expect quite as much frora Professor Drey, who condescends
to enter the field of speculative theology. It is weU known that Franz
Baader was not less inimical to the doctrine of the Eoman infallibility,
which he termed an insupportable tyranny, than the Protestants of the
16th century, but he nevertheless thought himself a good CathoUc, and
aU his efforts, which showed high intelligence, were made to raise the
Catholic faith to the height of a traly divine wisdom. He himself said
that his numerous works ought to be regarded only as germs of true
knowledge, which others would, at a favourable period, be caUed to de
velope. " The seedsman," said he, " professes only to sell seeds, not
flowers ; 1 am the seedsman — let others turn to account the seeds which
I offer them."f Franz Hoffmann, one of his disciples, has endeavoured,
by his ingenious essays, to respond to this appeal ; and theologians of
different parties have borne honourable testimony to him.J Sengler,
Gengler, Schmitt, Alb. Kreuzhage, and some others, § have also written
on speculative theology, but few have done so with more originaUty and
success than Pabst, Veith, and Giinther, — these writers of talent who
aimed at the same result by different means, and whose works completed
each other. Giinther was, so to say, the creator of the ideas which
Pabst attempted by lus explanations to put within the reach of a greater
number of people. Giinther was the author of the system which should
at last concUiate opponents and overcome all differences ; Pabst threw
light on this painful, mental elaboration, by judicious explanations,
while the eminently gentle and simple raind of Veith popularised the
» The list of his works is very long; but those most in use among Catholic
students are written in Latin, and entitled. Encyclopedia et methodologia theo
logia, genio litterario gustui nostri avi accommodata Spec. i. Sf ii. Wiirzburg, 1783,
in 4to. Encyclopedia et methodologia theologica. Salzburg, 1786.
t Fr. Baader, Philos. Schriften, Sec. Munster, 1831-32. Vorlesungen iiber spe
culative Dogmatik, 5 Hefte. Munster and Stuttgardt,
X Vorhalle zur speculativen Lehre Fr. Baaders. AschafFenburg, 1836.
§ Sengler, Ueber das Wesen und die Bedeutung, &c. Mayence, 1834. Gengler,
The Ideal of Sciences, or Encyclopedia of Theology. Bamberg, 1834. He bad pub
lished before, at Landshut, 1827, reflections on the relations between philosophy
and theology. Alb. Kreuzhage, Ueber den Einfluss der Philosophie auf die Ent
wickelung des innern Lebens. Miinster, 1831.

342 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
system, by means of the prayer uttered at some period by every
Christian.* At a later period, J, B, Baltzer attempted to estabUsh himself on the
territory of speculative theology, as a mediator between Catholicism and
Protestantism,! b"*^ Professor L, Klee soon closed all the avenues to
fame against him by the publication of works fuU of Ufe and talent. J
No one, however, has yet equalled in renown Adam Mohler, who, in
his critical examination of the Protestant systems compared with the
Eoraan CathoUc system, showed great knowledge, singular good faith,
and religious feeUng, equal to his learning and sincerity. He has, it is
true, found opponents worthy of him in the Protestant theologians.
Bam- of Tiibingen, and Nitzsch of Bonn ; but though they cau conquer
him on bibUcal grounds, they cannot do so on the question of the
church, which forms the raost ingenious part of his system, § Stauden-
mayer, Kuhn, Hefele, and Eeyraayer, each in a soraewhat different
sphere, attempt to iraitate Mohler, or, at least, to becorae imbued with
his spirit. Hirschel, on the other side, devotes his attention to ques
tions of moraUty, and endeavours to remove fi-om them every shade of
scholasticism, which SaUer himself and his immediate followers, Grei-
schiittner, Eeyberger, Schenkl, Wankeriet, and Eiegler, had not entirely
destroyed. Hirschel indisputably shares with Mohler the glory of influ
encing the most active party of the Catholic theologians of Germany,
but it is very evident that he would not take so decided a position as
his celebrated predecessor in the chair of the University of Tiibingen,
and that he feels more at ease in writing on morals, his treatise on
which is considered as superior to anything of the kind possessed by
Catholic Germany, II
We cannot, consistently with the plan we have laid down, make a
• Beside his co-operation with Pabst in the Two Heads of Janus for Philosophy
and Tlieology, Giinther is better known by his Last Creed, explanatory of those
of Mohler, and his opponent Baur of Tiibingen, Heinrich Pabst, among other
philosophical works, wrote one entitled, Is there a Positive Philosophy of Chris
tianity ? Cologne, 1832. Veith's work on the Lord's Prayer consists of a series
of explanatory discourses, Vienna, 1831.
f Beitrage zur Vermittelung, &c. 2 Hefte, Breslau, 1839.
X Klee, System der catholischen Dogmatik, 3 vols, Mayence, 1835 ; and a His
tory of Doctrine, 2 vols. Mayence, 1837.
§ Symbolik, oder Darstellung, Sic. The 5th edition, which I have before me, is
preceded by a life of tbe author, who died in the prime of life (April 12, 1838),
at the age of 42. I understand that the French edition of his Symbolik, a work
which is held in such high esteem in Germany, and marks the commencement
of a new era in theology, remains unnoticed in Catholic France.
II " Professor Hirschel's Treatise on Morals is as far removed from the Jose-
phist productions of Wanker, Werkmeister, and Wessenberg, as heaven is from

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 343
digression to the subjects of polemics and asceticism, in order to notice
the labours of some men in Bavaria and Wiirtemburg. We must be
content with saying that those men only need a little traveUing to teach
them the sole means of restoring, if possible, harraony to the different
famUies of Christianity, or at least to enable them to forra, like Mohler,
Klee, Hirschel, Gunther, and so many others, an exact idea of the
power of their opponents. We should not then see such writers as
Guido Gorres wasting so much talent in drawing on the cause which
they defend, attacks difficult to be repulsed. But our survey of the
actual position of Catholic science in Germany would certainly be in
complete, if we omitted to mention Hermesianism, which, though pro
fessing to defend Christian piety against incredulity better than any
other system, has nevertheless incurred the displeasure and menaces of
Eome.* Who was Hermes ? What innovations did he wish to make iu
Catholicism ? What are the views of his enthusiastic and enUghtened
disciples who inhabit the banks of the Ehine, and especiaUy the Univer
sity of Bonn? Hermes was born at Dreyerwalde in 1775. He early
became a proficient in the philosophical and religious learning of the
day, and he imagined that the CathoUc doctrine could be restored, and
the Christian life re-awakeued in the Catholic community, only by means
of logic and clear and powerful demonstrations. He was strongly at
tached to the Eoman church, which he believed to be the sole guardian
of the truth : he devoted to it his services ; and his zeal for making
converts and strengthening the faith of beUevers was never diminished.
At the tirae of his death, in 1831, he was labouring for the cause as
earnestly as in periods so disastrous to the faith, when all the winds of
heaven seemed to rage against the Eoman church and every reUc of
Christian antiquity. But can CathoUcism treat reUgion scientificaUy ?
Is it permitted to place its creed on any foundation save the authority
earth, and in reading it we can easily do justice to their morality of the reason."
These are the words of a curialist writer, a man of the noblest charity and tole
rance, which he has shown in a work on Liberalism and strict Orthodoxy in the
Catholic church. The author's name is Hahn: he fills the office of chaplain at
St. Gall.
* For the same reason we pass over the discussions raised by the question of
mixed marriages, not only between Catholics and Protestants, but also between
curialists and liberals. This question does not in any way concern doctrinal
points, nor consequently modern Rationalism- There yet remains, however,
ground for cultivation and fruits to be gathered by unprejudiced science. But if
we except Klee's History of Doctrine, and vpn Alzog's History qf the Church, we
cannot mention any interesting historical production; since the History of the
Church in Modern Times, by Dr, and Prof. Riflfel, does not appear to us to be hn-
partial.

344 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
of the Pope and the Bishops ? Is it not an anomaly to attempt to
prove, by the free inquiry of criticism, what the infallibiUty of the
chm-ch alone has a right to declare true or false, worthy of faith or
conderanation? Hermes, like aU other sincere Catholics, must have
asked himself these questions ; but though avowing to himself that all
inquiry on his part must necessarily lead him to the conclusions of the
council of Trent, on pain of being declared a heretic, he stiU persevered
in his intention of giving to Catholic Christianity the new support of a
scientific demonstration. To this purpose he devoted aU his labours,
in his university instruction, and the different works pubUshed in his
lifetime or by his disciples since his death. He fiUed the theological
chair of Miinster from 1807 tiU 1830; he then removed to Bonn,
where he spent the remainder of bis life.
We wUl give a sketch of the opinions of Hermes, as found in his
principal works.* The reason of raan, said he, is without doubt endowed
with the faculty of knowing, but we must distinguish between what is
in itself a principle of knowledge, and a principle of recognition. The
adoption of the first principle engenders Eationalism, while the other
conducts directly to Catholicism, which rests only on histoiy. But an
exposition of historical faith is oiUy a preliminary ; that it may become
a reaUty, we must enter into researches which shaU bear testimony to it,
and these researches, to have any result, should commence with positive
doubt, that we may overcome by thought. Then we must become con
vinced of the truth of the New Testament, of the conformity of oral
instmction with that added by tradition to the different parts of Scrip
ture. We should then ask ourselves two questions relative to the
extei-nal or internal truths of things which we consider as the sources
of our mediate knowledge. Now, as the Catholic theology is purely
historical, as it rests on the fact that its doctrines are identical with the
doctrines of Jesus, the true Catholic's principle of knowledge is not a
rational nor an h priori principle. No, this principle ought to be essen
tiaUy historical in its character, and accessible to all minds ; and the
author undertakes to show that the CathoUc church alone possesses
these two characteristics, and that if they are once recognised, the
arbitrary barrier between philosophy and theology will be removed.
Hermes, then, in his positive Introduction, as he calls it, demonstrates
the historical and intrinsic truth of the documents which contain theo
logical truth, and in \a.i philosophical Introduction, in which he opposes
* Inquiry into the Internal Truth of Christianity. — Einleitung in die Christ.-
katholische Theologie, 1st part, 1819; 2nd part, 1829. Christlich-katholische Dog
matik nach seinem Tode herausgegeben, published in 1834, by one of his disciples,
Prof. Achteifeld.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 345
Kant and Fichte, though he does not altogether disagree with them, he
an-ives at the conclusion that God is the foundation of all human know
ledge, tbe only source of aU truth, and therefore the only judge of the
means by which He is pleased to lead us to that truth. When Hermes
has estabUshed the existence of God as the principle of knowledge, and
has thus proved the possibUity of a revelation, he no longer troubles
himself about the contents of that revelation, for he must have a very
weak reason who cannot beUeve what God has revealed. So that this
Catholic work reasons in such a way, that though the reader has fol
lowed the author's arguments, he is quite surprised at conclusions which
any CathoUc, enUghtened but devoted to his church, must necessarily
draw from the principles laid down and developed by Hermes.
This system bears some similitude to that advocated by Lamennais
before his rupture with Eome, when he, too, admitted CathoUcism only as
a fact, m whose favour he compeUed the human race to bear testimony.
But substitute the word Christianity for the word Catholicism iu the
works of Lamennais and Hermes, and, without altering their arguments
in the least, you may draw equally strong conclusions in favour of the
truth of Christianity alone. How, then, can these two writers exclude
Protestant Christianity from the benefits of CathoUc Christianity? But
this is not the place to dispute with such a system ; we wUl only state
that the late Pope,* notwithstanding the CathoUc conclusions of its
author, condemned it as enoneous, and tending to scepticism and indif
ference. But it has been very weU remarked, that Eome did not conderan
so much the rational form by means of which Hermes attempted to
anive at Catholicism as his starting point, which, as we have said, is
doubt, and which, we are reminded by Gregory XVI., contradicts in fact
the path hitherto pursued by the defenders of Catholicism; and would,
if once recognised as legitimate, undei-mine Eoman Catholicism, and,
though it might not conduct to scepticism and indifference, might still
lead far away fi-om the conclusions of Hermes himself.f We have here
one more proof that it is in vain to attempt to give to Eoman Catho-

* By a Bull, dated Sept. 26, 1835.
t Le Semeur, 1838, p. 107, has an interesting article on Hermesianism, but we
do not understand its criticism of the system of Hermes, when the biblical Pro
testant views have so much in coramon with those of this excellent raan. Bib
lical Protestantism also permits the examination of the documents which con
tain the Christian faith, and then it demands complete obedience to scriptural
truths.' The only diflTerence is, that the Hermesian Catholic finds in the Bible a
doctrine which the Protestant does not find there, viz., the infallibility of the
church ; but if there exists no external authority to decide between the two, who
has any right to blame them ?

346 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
licisra a scientific constitution ; and another conclusion that we may
draw from it is, that Eationalism is irapossible in such a state of things.
But we wUl not affirm that extreme increduUty never borrows the
Catholic cloak, and thus gives an example of the most detestable hypo
crisy. What do the disciples of Hermes mean, when, since the condem
nation of their master, they assert that the Pope has not understood
them ? Does the right of infaUibility extend to the comprehension of
a system? If they have once, by their reason, acknowledged the right
of infalUbility, do they not, by a necessary consequence, profess that
reason can no longer discuss the object of that infallibility ? They
speak of the Jesuitical denunciation of false brethren who persecute
them, they aUege the ignorance of their opponents, and a thousand sub
terfuges of the Jansenists, in order to justify themselves in a resistance
which every consistent CathoUc wUl condemn until it shall be frankly
defined in what limits CathoUcism can remain Catholicism without the
pontifical action.
Protestations have however been made ; but the Eoman CathoUcs of
some parts of Gerraany have answered. Give thanks to the Holy Father
who, in his tender solicitude for erring though pious and learned raen,
has been wilUng still to retain you within his fold, and has spoken only
of the tendencies of your systera, when he might have found in your
writings, particularly in those of Baltzer, semi-rationalistic and semi-
pelagian propositions, which, fi-om the time of St. Augustin, the Eoman
church has always pursued with its anathemas.* And then what a
tone you have taken with those of us who wished to continue Roman
Catholics ! Can the reason whose defence you have undertaken, au
thorise the insulting language of the Review for Catholic Theology which
you pubUshed at Bonn, and which owed its failure only to the unheard-
of extravagance in which it indulged ?
Two disciples of Hermes, however. Dr. Elvenich, professor at Bres
lau, and Dr. Braun, professor at Bonn, assuming the pilgrim's staff',
resolved to go and euUghten the pontiff who had condemned them un
heard; but they were prevented fi-om doing so, and instead of an
inquby being made into the merits of the question, all the ecclesiastics
were required to give their simple and entire adhesion to the bull of
the Pope which condemned Hermesianism. Some submitted, and
among them were the professors of the seminary of Treves. But the
raajority have refused corapUance to this day, and there are conse
quently in the Ehenish prorinces, and in Westphalia, a great number of
• These accusations are brought against Baltzer's work entitled Means for
forming an exact Judgment respecting Catholicism and Protestantism, especially
pp. 156 and 26K Part II. Breslau, 1840.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 347
ecclesiastics who oppose the ecclesiastical authority which they pretend
to reverence. It is true that they say that the Pope had no right to
condemn in Hermes the very thing of which he approved in the affair
of Professor Bautain of Strasburg ; * but when papacy has iraposed
silence on any one of its adherents, he can never be permitted to speak,
and moreover the friends of Eome have answered that there is a me
dium between the EationaUsm of Hermes and the um-easonable doctrine
of Bautain, which deprived man of aU power of knowledge, in order to
enrich faith. The future wiU show whether this medium, which is the
stronghold of German curialists, if any writer take up the idea of giving
it a scientific form, wiU not be , considered revolutionary, and as such
be anathematised by the authority which permits no discussions in
religious science save those that set out from principles which, on
the contrary, speculative CathoUc theology regard as the end to be
attained. * See the Report of tbe Bishop of Strasburg concerning the works of the
Abbs Bautain. Paris, 1838; and Mobler's letter, Sendschreiben an Herm Bautain,
in his miscellaneous writings, vol. ii. p. 141-164 : also the deductions made by
Prof. Braun from tbis position of the Pope in condemning at Bonn what he
approved at Strasburg : The Doctrine of Hermesianism on the Relation between
Reason and Revelation declared good and dangerous by the Bishop of Strasburg and
Pope Gregory XVI. Bonn, 1835.

348 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.

CHAPTEE XXI.
POSITION OP SUPERNATURALISM IN GERMANY  ITS PROBABLE TRI
UMPH IN A CONSTITUTION UNITING THE ELEMENTS OF LIBERTY
AND AUTHORITY  RECENT DISPUTES RESPECTING THE CONFES
SIONS OP FAITH  THE BISHOP AND PREACHER DRASEKE  ME
DIATION OP BRETSCHNEIDER AND OF SCHELLING WITH THE NEW
PHASE OP HIS PHILOSOPHY — CONCLUSION.
We must not attempt to conceal from ourselves, that the situation of
Supernatm-alism in Germany is almost desperate. Traverse the pro
vinces of this interesting country, exaraine the universities, enter the
temples, and learn the nature of the doctrines taught there ; question
the man of the world, converse with the learned, consult the innumer
able productions of contemporaneous literature, — and everywhere you
will find the supernaturalists in a minority. Even where you may stUl
meet with enlightened fiiends and warm defenders of supernaturalist
principles, you will too often find that they are undecided, and think
themselves obUged to yield part of their ground in order to defend the
rest. Add to this critical position, the fact that Christians in times of
moral stagnation allow themselves to be easily overcome by the audacity
of criticism, and that EationaUsm, on the contraiy, is upheld in its
opinions by every secret or declared eneray of Christian sentiments,*
When we consider the precarious state of SupematuraUsm iu Germany,
the audacious criticism of some, the ignorant frivolity of others, we may
ask. What wiU become of the church of Christ, as minds become more
and more absorbed in the material interests of life ? We dare not an
swer so grave a question. For myself, it is ray duty, as an historian, to
state facts as they are, and not to predict what may happen. When
however we wish to show the position of Supernaturalism in Germany,
* [Since the author wrote these words, a reaction towards the older forms of
opinion has taken a more and more decided character. — E,]

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 349
that is to say, of the system which continues to defend an immediate
revelation from God, and the doctrines introduced by that revelation
into the Christian church, we suppose that it still occupies a place iu
that country, and that it has not been entirely exterminated by ration-
aUsm. It is an indisputable fact, that here and there in the numerous
provinces of Germany are to be found writers of approved merit, who
defend the ancient faith with talent and perseverance ; but is their suc
cess certain ? We must here put Catholicism out of the question,
although it is itself a prey to division, because Catholicism, properly so
caUed, is essentially supernaturaUstic, and he ceases to belong to its
community who in the least degree passes over the limits which it has
irrevocably fixed. But we have shown in recounting the labours of
several supernaturalists that in the bosora of German Protestantism
there are representatives of Christian Supernaturalism, who, though of
different shades of opinion, vigorously oppose the enemy of the ancient
faith.* But, strictly speaking, many of these writers can belong to Superna
turalism only virtually, and not quite rightfully, and yet it is on the
grounds of right that theological questions ought to be debated : what
is virtual is in its nature too variable for us to form a certain opinion of
it, and hence it foUows that victoiy cannot be secure to him who does
not fight on the side to which he rightfuUy belongs. Argument will
always overcome all that is not placed under the eternal safeguard of
right. We shaU thus, it is true, be always confined to the position which
Heaven has commanded us to defend untU the extinction of life, but the
sword of logic wiU be stronger than good intentions, and Eationalism has
on its side logic against many supernaturaUsts. God forbid that I should
not do justice to the learning and piety of these men. As I have been
just to men with whose anti-Christian tendencies I cannot sympathise,
so wiU I allow that it is owing to the noble efforts, to the numerous and
instructive works of many of the supernaturalist theologians, that Eation
aUsm has not yet received the title of national religion in a country where
it is advocated by a large majority. I wUl say more ; these works of
modern supernaturaUsts, though in certain parts very dogmatical, are
distinguished from those of their predecessors, with some rare exceptions,
by a frankly liberal character, by a wise use, I do not say of reason,
* If this history had been that of Supernaturalism instead of Rationalism, we
should have given a prominent place to the labours of Tholuck, who, though he
has not written on doctrine, hasmade known his decidedly Christian tendencies by
his Commentaries on the Psalms, on the Gospel of John, on the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and by his Guido und Julius, in which the principal points of Christian
doctrine, sin and redemption, are treated with a masterly hand.

350 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
that would be too little, but of aU the resources offered by science for
the moral, and therefore rational, estabUshment of the revealed truths
which Eationalisra persists in rejecting as incomprehensible. We have
shown that all attacks on the Bible have called forth apologies for
it, stronger in argument, and that if Eationabsm has undermined the
authority of each of the biblical books, their authenticity has been de
fended with much success, either by inconsistent rationalists or by super
naturalists of imraense learning.* The German supernaturalists have
now the good sense not to despise the weapons which their adversaries
know so well how to use. They wiU now never dream of allowing
science to blockade them in their elevated position, as Schleiermacher
feared it would. They know how, when necessary, to change theu-
ground of defence, to employ successively criticism, history, philosophy,
psychology, aU the branches of learning in fact, as supports for the Chris
tian edifice, which they earnestly desire to restore. And why, if the
truth is on their side, should not such Ulustrious labours be crowned with
brilliant success ? Why should not the churches at last aUow the dis
cordant voices of Eationalism to sink into sUence, and eagerly rally round
the standard of truths which have been the joy and consolation of past
generations ? Alas ! we dare not yet hope for this ; and the reason is,
that German Supernaturalism has not yet fixed the limits which separate
it essentially from Eationalism ; that its theologians frequently make
concessions for which they have no authority save their own individual
opinions, concessions which materiaUy affect the strength of things
that they wish to retain. Supernaturalism and Eationalism are too
decidedly opposed to each other, to aUow any hope of an union between
them. If SupematuraUsm yields one given point, it may be very reasonably
asked, why it stops there in its concessions. On such grounds, logically
speaking, we may accuse Neander and Hengstenberg of Eationalism,
just as weU as Gesenius and Wegscheider, though the two professors
of BerUn would be shocked to find theu- names coupled with those of
the professors of HaUe whom they so strenuously oppose. But it is not
a greater or less degree of infideUty that is culpable, but infideUty
itself; not only is he a traitor to his country who deserts to the ranks
of the enemy, but he also who has secret communications with them,
or who abandons a position which it was his duty to defend to the last
extremity. Let us confine ourselves to the two professors of Berlin,
* Who would not place by the side ofthe works by Hengstenberg, Havernick,
and Baumgarten, on the Old Testament, and of Olshausen on the New, all
so decidedly supernatural, the learned Introductions to the New Testament of the
rationalists, Schott, Credner, and Neudecker ?

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 351
already mentioned, and examine Neander's History of the Establish
ment of Christianity, his Life of Jesus, in answer to Strauss, — works dis
playing the purest piety and the most profound erudition, — and Heng
stenberg's Vietes on the Inspiration of the Old Testament, which are to
be found in his two most important works. Would it be difficult to
prove that certain of their views are inconsistent with the principles of
SupematuraUsm ; that in sometimes substituting their own authority for
the only authority which they recognise as legitimate, they commit a
logical ei-ror ; and that EationaUsm will always have an argument against
them, because it has the same right to protest against what they admit,
that they have to reject a part of what their principles would compel
them to adrait ?* The great evU resulting from this, is the false posi
tion in which supernaturaUsts have stood since they have relaxed the
reins of discipUne in the Lutheran church, if indeed they were ever
tightly drawn, especially since either virtually or actually the symbo
lical books have been declared worthless. It may be, and indeed has
been, demanded by Hahn at Leipzig, with more zeal than prudence, that
the intruders should be driven from the sanctuary, but the rationalists
conceive that their right to the ecclesiastical dignities is quite as good as
that of any one else, and it wiU be impossible to deprive them of it unless
we re-establish the custom, as old as Christianity itself, of requiring every
pastor of a church and every teacher in a Christian university to promise
to teach according to a creed clearly set before him. The rationaUsts
know weU that if this custom were restored their cause would be lost ;
at the present time they are making a last effort in almost aU parts of
Germany, especially at Casscl, at Altenburg, Hamburg, Bremen, and
Magdeburg, while they hope for co-operation in other quarters, to, de
stroy the very memory of those symboUcal books that condemn thera.f
The attack was most formidable at Cassel. The minister of the interior
having prescribed, in 1838, for the candidates for church offices, a for
mulary which exacted from them a promise to have respect to the sym
boUcal books in preaching, one of the consistorial counciUors protested
against this innovation. The whole body of rationalists iraraediately
poured forth a deluge of pamphlets upon this poor councillor Eberhard
and the few who dared to espouse his cause. Here EationaUsm took the
side of the civU power in a case of direct usurpation against the eternally
• I might have said that the epithet of Rationalist and the name of Professor
Hengstenberg would clash together, but some of my critics have had the charity
to say that I accused Hengstenberg of Rationalism. How can I protest against
such a senseless judgment ?
t The dispute at Magdeburg was more doctrinal, and related to the worship of
Jesus, which was opposed by Sintenis, who has been so badly answered.

352 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
rational principle of the confessions of faith in a religious society which
wished to preserve its existence ; and, as usual, a great cry was raised
at Cassel against the eneraies of enUghtenment and religious liberty, as if
it were wished to compel the outcriers to jelieve and practise. I repeat,
that when all true supernaturalists shall have just ideas respecting
liberty, when they shaU cease to display any sort of fanaticism, when
they shall remain fb-m to their principles, then they wiU have on theu-
side men of good faith from aU parties. In this controversy at Cassel,
which is still going on, we may raention particularly on the rationaUst
side the work of the advocate Henkel,* who totally rejects the confes
sions of faith, and bravely offers to maintain his gTOund against every
aggression. We might mistake this frankness for loyalty to his cause,
were not his book entirely destitute of ideas, and full only of violence
against Dr, Bickell, who had with justice asserted that, in principle, the
confessions of faith were a bulwark against incredulity. Dr. BickeU
treats the legal question rather in a canonical point of view.f Another
defender of Eberhard takes a malicious pleasure in showing the ignorance
of Dr. Henkel on subjects of religious doctrine, and speaks admirably
of the nature of Protestantism, which cannot be a religion of negation,
and must be founded on doctrines that it is necessary to fix in confessions
of faith, if we would not see them lost in the midst of the indifference
or hostility of passing generations, J But let Supernaturalism beware;
if it can conquer, humanly speaking, only by means of this external bul
wark, it ought to defend rather the principle of confessions of faith than
the confessions actually existing. There are articles in those confessions
* Einige Worte wider die Feinde der Vernunft und der Glaubensfreiheit.
f Ueber die Verpfiichtung der evangel. Geistlichkeit auf die symb. BUcher. Cassel,
1839. X Ein Wort Uber Lehrfreiheit, by W. K. Maurer, Rector and Professor at Hof-
geisraar. Dr, Liicke, speaking of sorae works on ecclesiastical law in the
Gelerhte Anzeigen, of Gottingen, justly congratulates the present day on the
fact that such distinguished lawyers as Bickell, Stahl, and Puchta, not only study
ecclesiastical law professionally, but also show a profound knowledge of the
Gospel, which contradicts the old proverb respecting lawyers. But it is curious
to learn Liicke's opinion on the symbolical books. He says, in concluding his
article, " The fundamental essence of the church consists not so much in any
creed as in a good ecclesiastical discipline and a good theology, which enable it
to retain pure doctrine and true practice. We do not undervalue the protection
given by creeds to the church any more than we undervalue the protection given to
the state by a constitution. But without the supreme protection of free conviction,
clear knowledge, and a loyal will, they are all only temporary securities, merely
a law which exists only to prevent infractions, and which nevertheless causes
them. But who would think of dispensing with laws?" — {G'ottingen gelehrte
Anzeigen. 1841, pp. 30, 31.)

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 353
which it would be impossible for an enlightened Christian to subscribe ;
he would be compeUed altogether to renounce the books containing these
anomalies were a revision of them refused. Eationalism knows so weU
that such a measure woiUd be ik death-blow, and that it would imme
diately lose its credit with the people, if it were effected, that it opposes
this imperative revision quite as strenuously as the re-admission of the
old symbolical books. All the strength of Eationalism Ues in this
maxun, as absurd in its principle as it is fatal in its consequences,
viz., that the Bible only ought to be considered the mle of faith, — the
Bible, all the pages of which have been torn or soiled by rationaUsts,
the Bible, which they do not believe, and yet from which they tell the
people that they derive their misused authority. But let Christians
unite and say. We do not speak of a negative profession of faith ; you
must confess that the Bible contains doctrines which we would believe
and instU into the minds of our chUdren ; and lest we should err, we
vriU read them there in the spirit in which they have been read by the
faithful Christians of eighteen centuries. If you do not find them
there, you may undoubtedly form a society according to your own con
victions ; but for our churches, founded on the words of Christ and the
apostles, they know you not ; or, rather, tbey know you to be erring
men, whom we would see united to us, communicating at the same
table, and full of faith in the blood of the new covenant, which was shed
for you also, and which would cry aloud for vengeance if you continued
to profane it.
This necessity for a confession of faith, more definite than the vague
principle that the Bible is itself that confession, arises from the very
nature of things, for no society can exist without a standard round
which its members may rally ; and it is, moreover, proved by history.
EationaUsts themselves have proved it, when, like Lessing, they have
shown that nuraerous churches long existed without knowing the Bible,
since the canon was not then formed, aud that they were nevertheless
flourishing, because they had a creed which was the faithful expression of
the doctrines contained in the Bible. In this Semler and Schleiermacher
agreed, and the rationaUsts in general have not contradicted them.
Lessing remai-ked, with justice, though with a purpose hostile to reli-
- gion, — " The reUgion of Jesus Christ was practised before any of the
apostles or evangelists had written ; the Lord's Prayer was repeated
before Matthew or Luke had recorded it in then- Gospels ; the form of
baptism had been used before it was made known by the same Gospels,
for Jesus prescribed it hiraself, and baptism could not be performed
without its use  It is then impossible not to beUeve that the
early Christians had a sort of creed, containing aU that they were to
VOL. II. 3 A

354 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
believe, compUed, perhaps, by Jesus Christ himself, or at least by the
apostles, and this they called the rule of faith."* When De Wette says
that it is a pure and simple impossibUity to confine doctrine within sym
boUcal limits,! he forgets that aU theologians of his opinions have said
that a doctrinal system can only be the exposition of a doctrine at a
given period. Let it be so, then, with a creed : we would not have
it stereotyped, but susceptible of development and improvement, as it
may be found necessary. Such an objection does not touch the principle
itself, which cannot be destroyed without completely abandoning the
very idea of a church. J
In the mean time, the theologians of both sides lament the religious
indifference which is gradually spreading throughout all classes of society.
From the Christian pulpits in Germany are continuaUy heard expressions
of sorrow on this subject. And who wUl refuse the homage due in this
respect to the noble efforts of rationalists themselves, of those eloquent
orators, Tzschirner, von Ammon, Schleiermacher, Bretschneider, Zimmer
mann, Alt, Schmaltz, Eohr, and a number of others who have vainly em
ployed their brUUant powers ? But where must we seek for the cause of
these complaints and this grief, if not in the dissension of religious parties,
and especiaUy in the sraall esteem in which Eationalism holds the word
of God ? If I was surprised by anything in traveUing and studying in
Germany, it was not by the decay of evangeUcal faith, but rather by the
fact that in the midst of so many causes of ruin and dissolution, the
Christian feeUngs have still continued alive in many hearts. The reason
of this is, that men are always better than their principles, and that
* See Lessing's Theological Works, p. 75.
t Theolog. Studien und Kritiken. 1831.
X The mor^. I study the work of Bretschneider, recently published, on this
subject, the more he seems to me to agree with these views, and I raust say of
this controversial work, » that if the question of confessions of faith could be
decided in the way which rationalists wish, no one, perhaps, wotdd have suc
ceeded better than the theologian who justly enjoys great consideration from
both parties, on account of bis vast learning, and the sort of mediura which he
has tried to find between philosophical Rationalisjn and decided Supernaturalism.
But Bretschneider has in this work shown only his leaming, and because he has
succeeded in refuting a number of anti-biblical assertions, which the symbolical
books gave as expressions of the Word of God, he has, therefore, pronounced
them insufficient, and rejected them. But here he does not reason justly. The
only legitimate conclusion is, that if the symbolical books were corrected and
elevated to the present state of learning, they would possess an authority against
which the clamour of fanatics would be powerless.

"¦ Die Unzuldssigkeit des Symbolzwangs in der evangelisclien Kirchen. Leipzig,
1841,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 355
Eationalism is not yet entirely understood by the people. In their idea
EationaUsm is only Christian morality preached with less severity, and
that is aU that they want ; while they reject Supernaturalism, not ok the
ground of its principles, of which they cannot judge, but on account of
the inflexible laws which it proclaims, and often we may say on account
of the harsh, stiff, and even grotesque forms under which it dispenses
the Bread of Life. Preachers, such as Harms, Theremin, and Tholuck,
who, each in his own way, know how to unite the elegant forms of the
French pulpit with the more severe and argumentative style of the
Germans, have not many imitators, I should despair of seeing Super
naturalism, which these preachers represent so well, resume the superiority
to which it is entitled from the worth of its principles, if I did not
believe that the German church wiU one day recover its independence.
That independence it has imprudently sacrificed to the temporal power,
m expiation of the faults of another age ; but in taking a new ecclesias
tical constitution, it wiU proclaim Christian truths under a form which
shaU reconcUe the rights of human dignity wUh those of revelation, by
which they are by no means despised. Kant said somewhere, that a
reUgion which declared war against human reason would never exist
long. Had the philosopher of Konigsberg said against human dignity,
he would have spoken an eternal truth. Let SupematuraUsm never
forget that the reUgion of Christ, far from making war on man's dignity,
came only to restore to ns the lost titles of our primitive greatness.
In mentioning- the most Ulustrious German preachers, I have pur
posely omitted one whom, in my former edition, I placed with von Am
mon and Schmaltz. With many of their opinions he long agreed, and at
that time the only works of Draseke known to me, were some discourses
dated, some from MoUn or St. George, near Eatzeburg, and others from
Bremen. Though eloquent and sincere, they were deficient in that
evangelical spirit which can be comraunicated only by an anti-rationaUstic
faith. I had some vague idea that Draseke had changed the direction
of his opinions since he was invested with the high functions of general
superintendent, and raised to the episcopacy ; and this has since been
confirmed by a satirical pamphlet, written against his actual style of
preaching, and seasoned by anecdotes more or less pointed, of the way
in which he cai-ries on his ministry at Magdeburg, and thoughout the
prorince under his spiritual jurisdiction. This pamphlet is by an
anonymous writer, who is captivated by the talents of Draseke, from
one of whose old sermons he says that he derives daUy edification, but
who deplores that the bishop, in his episcopal visits, speaks " when he
thinks proper " of the Saviour of the world, in places where that divine
name had not been mentioned in his presence in the sermon of the
2 A 2

356 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
pastor visited, and that in general he has fallen into a christolatry, of
which there was not the least sign when the Ught of truth (rational
istic) shone before him. He who, contrary to the author's intention,
would form a high idea of Draseke's zeal in the fulfilment of his high
functions, aud of his fine talents of preaching, has only to read Ber
Bischof Brasehe und sein achtjdhriges Wirken im Pretmischen Staate,
von G, von C. (an assumed name). Bergen, 1840. Notwithstanding the
witticisms and tbe grave subjects of scandal which we find in this book,
we cannot faU to ask. Why employ so much talent in making us respect
the man whom you would lower in our esteem ? Draseke is now a
septuagenarian ; he was bom at Brunswick in 1774, but, says a lexico-
gi-apher, " he stiU labours richly blessed, and with aU the powers of his
noble mind,"*
Two men of our day may be mentioned as able to give powerful sup
port to raoderate Supernaturalisra, the one a theologian of great renown,
and the other a philosopher of the highest celebrity. A work has lately
appeared, which recoramends the doctrinal system of Bretschneider as
the true medium which shall reconcUe aU contradictions, because it is at
once theological and philosophical, and by this double character raises
Christianity to a religion of the inteUect, and because it offers to our
faith a new trinity equaUy rational and scriptural. This trinity consists
in belief in the personaUty of God, in the individual iraraortaUty of men,
and in virtue as the aira of life and the condition of this immortaUty.
This it represents as the only true and etemal Trinity, the only one which
can be generaUy received, and can attach to the Gospel of the Son of
God all pious raen,f It is now well known that ScheUing has changed
the direction of his labours, and has undertaken the subUme task of
showing the tmth of Christian revelation by proving that it is the com
plement and explanation of humanity in aU its phases.
We would not question the merit of the superintendent of Gotha, nor
dispute his right to the title of conciliator, which the admu-ers of his fine
talents have given him. But by showing exactly the place which his
religious ideas occupy in the domain of theology, we shall prove that his
equivocal position between the two contending systems disquaUfies him
for the work of effecting the triumph of modern SupematuraUsm, of
which he is caUed the defender.
Karl GottUeb Bretschneider, an eloquent preacher, a correct and pro
lific writer, and an indefatigable joumaUst, since he succeeded Zimmer
mann in the editorship of the Allgemeine Kirchen Zeitung, has employed
* Encyclop. der deutsch- National Literatur. bearbeitet, von O. L. B. Wolff, vol. ii.
p. 199,
i Die rechte Mitte, oder Rationalismus und Christian i.imus. Leipzig, 1841.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 357
his powers on every question which has during the last thirty years
agitated reUgious society ; and without positively joining any party, he
has attempted to find some position where, free from every influence, he
might act upon the mind of his contemporaries in such a way as to
awaken their Christian feelings. But it is in vain for him to talk of his
neutraUty and his good wiU towai-ds SupematuraUsm. His language,
and the conclusions at which he has arrived, prove that Supernaturalism
has nothing to hope frora his principles, and the protection given by his
journal to everything of a rationaUstic tendency, and the severe censures
which he there passes on works of a different description, speak very
plainly as to his predilections. We find, moreover, iu the Annals qf
History and Politics of Politz, some critical refiections by Bretschneider,
which give a fair idea of his reUgious opinions. The article treats of
mysticism, and he defines it as a tendency of the human mind to found
the religious opinions principally upon sentiraent. He then recounts the
fatal consequences, as displayed in the history of all nations, of such a
mode of thought in religion. We might dispute the justness of this defi
nition, since the errors which are mentioned are frequently caused only
by a corrupted imagination united to a mind of little cultivation : besides,
supposing these errors to be the consequence of a false tendency or
sentiment, what right have we to attribute to a faculty of the mind the
aberrations of a bad heart ? Do we ever ascribe to human reason the
moral as weU as the religious excesses of rationalists ? That would be
very unfair reasoning, though the importance given to the inteUect in
morals produces lax moral principles, and man has a great propensity to
act in practical Ufe in the way which he believes to be most advanta
geous to himself. We quite agree with Schiller, whose testimony our
author quotes, that " the raost terrible scourge is a man abandoned to a
furious delirium ;" but he is so when he has engaged his intellect in the
service of his passions. After having defined mysticism in this way,
Bretschneider declares our age, especially in Germany, to be under the
influence of this sombre mysticism, and he attributes its prevalence to
the deplorable state of religion in the last century ; for, says he, one ex
cess causes another, and in the inteUectual and raoral world, as in the
physical, too great a tension is always foUowed by extreme laxity. He
expresses his confidence that the balance wiU be recovered, and that at
last we shall find the true medium which wisdom points out and reason
perceives. Then wUl reason resume its empire, and reform, which owed
its origin to one of the directions of scepticism, wiU do justice to aU the
systeras which, founded on reaUsm or ideaUsm, or a combination of the
two, such as pantheism, have corrupted the intelligence of modern times •
then, too, reform, destroying the cause of mysticism, will obliterate its

358 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
traces, by submitting the whole human Ufe to reason, wbich wiU direct
the wiU of man in a regular, invariable manner, and wUl infiame the
heart with a raUd, pure, and sincere piety. This eloquent philippic
against mysticism, containing as it does a summary of all Bretschneider's
phUosophical and reUgious opinions, was received with enthusiasm by
vulgar EationaUsm, which was at that time pitUessly attacked by the
Schellingico-Hegelian party, to which principally the superintendent of
Gotha attributed the origin and growth of the monster. But how could
so enUghtened a writer confound two things so distinct as sentiment
and intelUgence ? and since he considers mysticism as the product ot
depraved sentiment, could he logically attribute to the intellect an undue
excitement of the feelings, which, on the contrary, it prevents by throw
ing light on the most hidden recesses of the human heart ? Aud is not
the intellect, and the inteUect alone, the foundation of those systems of
phUosophy against which he so vigorously declaims ? And if Bret
schneider glories in being always free fi-om their infiuence, is he not so
by the most happy inconsistency ? What, then, is this philosophical
Eationalism, as you caU it, in which, to avoid the errors of vulgar Ea
tionalism, you give the highest place to the inteUect, which you make
the mediator between reason and sensibiUty, thus inverting the ideas of
Kant, who, in the same way, made reason pre-eminent ? Neither the
wiU nor sentiraent is the source of religion ; but ideas are the ruUng
principle of Ufe. Surely this is the language of HegeUanism.*
But what becomes of the Ught of revelation in this theory ? Bret
schneider maintains that its true character consists in the continual
development of the intelligence according to the rational laws appointed
by the Creator Himself. And if you ask him to particularise this reve
lation still further, he will answer that he caunot restrict it to any
given period ; that it is one, constant and universal, the conservative
agent of the moral world ; hence, he concludes that the substance of
revelation cannot be contained in creeds or in any books, but rests
entu-ely in ideas.f Dr. Strauss would not have spoken otherwise ; and
if this is not an idealistic conclusion, I understand nothing of the
value of words. We see, however, from the flattering manner in which
Bretschneider speaks of critical SupematuraUsm, that he desires to be
accounted among its advocates, because he admits that for the du-ection
of life, we need some revelation beside the power which every individual
* Among the contradictors of this manifesto, we may mention Benda, who
answered it in the name of Spinoza, whom Bretschneider accused of being the
father of all modern Pantheists, who, in their turn, were the fathers of mys
ticism. ¦f Annals of History and Politics, published by Pcilitz, 2nd Part, for 1829.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 359
possesses, of forming his reUgious ideas ; but as such a revelation has
nothing scriptural in its nature, we are compeUed to consider it as one
of those visionary ideas which the human mind can multiply to any
extent unless its Supernaturalism is only that philosophical religion,
the mere historical manifestation of the reUgion of reason. Bretschnei
der is moreover equally adverse to the philosophical systems of our
day and to the Supematm-aUsm of the Bible and the symboUcal books
of his church : this he shows in his Bogmatik, and in this article, by
the unsparing attacks which he makes on them.
Bretschneider in his doctrinal work, though less precise and decided
in relation to a mystical, that is, an entirely inspired revelation, stiU
speaks of the law of progress ; and human reason, rather than Chris
tian revelation, here shows its title to credence, though the publicist
does not entirely overcome the theologian. But evangeUcal Chris
tianity is far from receiving due consideration. This doctrinal system
is distinguished by much method, by clearness of exposition, and Ute
rary exceUence. To give a just idea of his views, we wiU quote his own
expressions. After speaking in praise ofthe works of Marheinecke
and Schleiermacher, whose views however he does not agree with, he
thus continues : " The time is near when HegeUanism and Kantianism
wiU no longer belong to the living world, but only to the history of
philosophy. I may say without vanity, that the study of modern phi
losophy from the time of Kant has been the object of my serious
attention, and I frankly confess that I think a familiar knowledge of
phUosophy an indispensable requisite for a good theologian. If, then, 1
have been unable to assent to any of the modern systems, even to that
of Kant, the reason lies in two principles by which I am guided, and
which I believe more certain the more I study philosophy. In the first
place, I maintain that the laws of our mind are primitively true, and
that consequently every philosophy which dispenses with those laws is
deficient in the necessary certainty, and is rather a mental and dialec
tical quibble than a science of the truth. In the second place, I main
tain, as a consequence of the preceding principle, that no phUosophy
can be true that attacks or wishes to destroy the moral personality of
the mind. In such a systera I see only the effort of erroneous specula
tion, or of extravagant sentiment, for a dialectic suicide, which can
never take place, because the nature of the conscience, eternaUy the
same, etemally rectifies and contradicts the exaggerations of speculation.
Consequently, HegeUanism, which attempts to annihilate the indestruc
tible and immutable consciousness of self, rolls the stone of Sisyphus,
endeavours to fiU the. bottomless vessel of the Danaides, and the time
wiU come, if, indeed, it has not abeady arrived, when minds wiU grow

360 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
weary of so vaui a labour." After this declaration, Bretschneider coolly
remarks that he is aware that neither the rationaUst nor the self-styled
evangelical will agree with him, but adds that he is accustomed to such
criticisms, and is too much devoted fo study to allow them to trouble
him.* Such, then, is the spirit which guides Bretschneider in his
reUgious instructions ; he wiU have no philosophy d, priori, no pm-e and
sensible adraission of revealed tmths, because the natural laws of the
human raind are opposed to the facts of revelation. If, then, we take
his view — if we repudiate, for exaraple, all necessity for a revelation
derived from man's culpabUity before God, the doctrine on which the
whole of Christianity depends, then his Socinian or Philosophical Ea
tionaUsm, whichever you choose to caU it, has free scope ; and if we
were not aware of his real views, we might easUy be deceived by the
exceUent remarks which he makes respecting the necessity of a revela
tion relatively to the imperfections of human nature. I think, however,
as I am not writing the history of doctrinal theology, but that of the
rationalistic tendencies of theologians, I shall better fulfil my task, of
giving a complete idea of the tendencies of this system, by recounting
the opinions of its author ou the connexion between the human sciences
and revelation : — "In answer to the question. Has the human reason
the right, as the whole of doctrine, to pass a judgment on revelation ?
and, if so, what judgment ? — we may suppose three cases. We may
maintain, not only that reason has no right to pass a judgment on
revelation, but also that it ought to submit unreservedly to the dictates
of revelation. This is strict Supernaturalism, or it belongs to reason
to pass a decisive judgment on revelation, of whose possibiUty, reality,
and substance, it can and ought to judge : this is strict Eationalism,
or there are only certain rights which are not yet defined ; these are the
mixed opinions, which are, in turn, named Eationalism, Supernaturalism,
and EationaUstic Supernaturalism. The terms Eationalism and Super
naturalism are often employed, not only in relation to the opinion en
tertained of revelation, but also in relation to belief in its existence or
non-existence generally, SupematuraUsm being the name given to belief
in the reaUty of an immediate inspiration from God, and Eationalism
that applied to the denial of an immediate and supernatural revelation
of God to the human reason.f As to the early fathers of the chm-ch,
they had no theory either respecting revelation or the connexion
between revelation and reason ; nevertheless, differences of opinion on
this subject soon arose between the fathers of Alexandria, of Africa, aud

» Handbuch der Dogmatik, Sic, vol, i, ; ix, of the fourth edition, 1839.
I Handbuch, i. 210 221.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 361
of the West. But those who would test the doctrines received in the
church by the doctrines of revelation, or would support them on the
authority of Jesus as the God-raan, coramit a petitio principii, because
in both cases these doctrines belong to a revelation whose relation to
reason has yet to be inquired into, and they pre-suppose the divinity of
revelation proved, whUe we are stUl uncertain whether it is possible and
in accordance with reason. The doctrines of our church, at a later
period, were the more conformed to the strictness of Luther, because
their advocates wished to keep as distinct as possible from the Socinians
and Arminians, who brought all the strength of argument against the
doctrine of the Trinity, and also wished to use the principles of reason
in seeking for the doctrines of the Bible. Some misunderstood passages
of Scriptm-e were their grounds of support, and caused them to value
the use of reason only for the explanation of Scripture, the forma
tion of systems, and controversial disputes with their opponents : this
they termed the usum organicum instrumentalem of reason. They re
jected, on the contrary, the usum normalem, when they wished to con
sider reason as a principle, as a proof or test of doctrine, and when
they considered the relation of reason to revelation as the relation of
servant to master. The philosophy of Leibnitz and Wolf restored to
reason the right of examining- revelation, and decided that revelation
could not oppose the established truths of reason. The dispute which
ensued caused so much confusion, and was so vehement, especially
after the publication of the Theses against the use of reason by Harms,
and the commencement of the Kirelienzeitung of Berlin, that the study
of that period is one of the most disagreeable parts of modern doc
trinal science. The confusion of ideas arises principaUy from the fact,
that, after the example of our ancient theologians, the word revelation
is often understood to signify the historical Bible, and that those who
think they have proved that a revelation should be judged neither by
reason nor by scientific experience, have wished to extend this proof to
the book of the Bible itself. One of the most common arguments
against the use of reason is derived from the multipUcity and diver
sity of philosophical systems, which show the uncertainty and even
inconsistency of the decisions of reason, by which it is made equally
incapable of being the principle of an objective and certain reUgion, and
of becoming a principle for judging of revelation. It is to be remarked,
that our own feeUngs and our inward experience tell us so much that is
indubitable, that our reason forms ideas which by their inward perfec
tion necessarily decide our opinions, and make aU other proof super
fluous." Among these ideas Bretschneider classes the reUgious opinions
respecting God, morality, and the other questions which are connected

362 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
with these two principal points of knowledge. " Without the power of
these ideas, there would be no possibUity of a religion for man, stUl less
of a revealed reUgion ; for if man could not discover a God before reve
lation, he could not teU whether a doctrine coming professedly from the
Abnighty did really proceed from that divine source ; and if, in general,
he possessed in himself only a false and insufficient measure for reUgious
truths, he could never know with certainty which of the reUgions an
nounced to him by revelation was true." * By means of this theory
on the relations of human reason, or rather of the human mind, too
often confounded by rationalists with the reason, which is not merely
one faculty, but the whole of the faculties of the human being, — by
means of this theory Bretschneider unfolds, according to the series of
the Lutheran doctrines on God's government and Christology, his ideas
of development and purification in reUgion, so far as the culture of the
human mind demands that purification. " The Bible," he says, " is
before us, to testify in favour of this system." Jesus, according to him,
did not only represent in his life the ideal of a reUgious man, from which
he received the title of the Son of God, and also made chUdren of God
aU those who resemble him ; he also accomplished in his instructions
the development of reUgious ideas. But the form under which he re
presented them was necessarUy suited to the period at which he lived ;
had it not been so, he would not have been understood, and his sacri
fice of himself in bearing witness to the tmth would have been in vain.
It is now the duty of the church to keep aUve the sacred fire, and to
propagate the reUgious truths, of which it has a palpable and visible
summary in the person and life of Christ.
But can principles so vague as these revive or quicken the ancient
faith ? And the church, whose ardour you would see re-kindled, what
is it in your system, what place do you assign it in the kingdom of
Jesus Christ ? With what authority do you invest it, to give it the
hope that the sacred fire of which it is the depositary wiU re-kindle ?
And what can the Gospel expect in the future from those who, indeed,
say to the dead in the faith. Arise, but who have none of those words
which formerly had infiuence over the corpse, and restored it to Ufe ?
But I repeat with pleasure, that few doctrinal manuals can be read with
so rauch profit by persons unacquainted with the science of theology.
The style of the writer is always clear and easy, and this is no sUght
advantage to the foreign reader. It contains also an ample coUection
of historical and exegetical materials, which make it, as Twesten says,
" an excellent guide in the study of doctrine." f
* Ha7idbuch,yo\.i. 221-229. f Vorlesungen, &c., vol. i.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 363
WUl the efforts of the Ulustrious phUosopher, whose chair at BerUn
was surrounded by men of aU ranks and aU ages, be more useful, and
wUl SupematuraUsm, so long despised, recover at last, by the aid of
ScheUing's powerful inteUect, that influence over men's minds which
banishes increduUty, calms u-ritation, and compels to silence the bra
vadoes of sophism ? The friends of ScheUing think that this wiU be
the case ; and it has given us pleasure to quote elsewhere, in speak
ing of the author of the phUosophy of truth, as he is caUed by his ad
mu-ers, a passage from a letter of one weU able to judge of the matter,
in whieh he is considered as the founder of a new era for the regenera
tion of Christian faith.* For many years there were outcries through
out Germany agauist a new doctrine taught by Schelling in his chair at
Munich, and it must be confessed that the specimens of it offered by his
friends and his opponents did not give a very definite idea of the nature
of this doctrine. Perhaps this gave occasion to F. Baader to say that
the new phUosophy appeared to take pleasure in the memory of its old
errors. But the position which SchelUng occupies at BerUn, and the
publicity of his lectures, affords an opportunity of judging whether he
has entirely changed his ground, or whether, as he himself once said in
private, " that ground is only more elevated than before ;" for the old
phUosophy of identity openly recognised a God, Sovereign of existence,
and therefore the free Creator of nature. AU the facts contained in the
Bible have an historical foundation, and the ideas proceeding frora them
correspond perfectly with the doctrine taught in the evangeUcal churches.
Yes ; such is the tendency, such are the consequences, of what ScheUing
denominates, not a new phUosophy, but a new phase of the old systera,
which was only negative, and which, Uke Aristotle, he terms his phi
losophia prima. It was, therefore, a grave mistake to say that he made
the science of the real consist in the science of what we can know;
that would have been a continuation of Hegel's errors, and ScheUing
does not believe that reality is to be constructed by logic.
Eeason, he said, is the infinite power of knowing ; the object of this
knowledge is being. The infinite power of being includes the immediate
power of being, the apeiron without limits, the matter of Plato ; but if it
were only this, it would not be actually infinite. It therefore contains
also that which cannot pass into being, such as the pure form or activity,
and from the union of these two possibiUties proceeds a third, which is
* A, Neander says, " I think that the words of tmth so powerfully spoken
here (Berlin) by Schelling will have an unheard-of influence, and will commence
the new era which we are expecting, notwithstanding the fanaticism of incredu
lity and of literal orthodoxy." — {Histoire de la vie et des ouvr. de Spinosa,
p. 288,)

364 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
the raind. Finite beings occupy a place inferior to these three infinite
powers. But above them, that is to say, above the powers which en
joy the possibUity of passing into being, there is one which has being in
itself, and which, from the fact that it exists, must necessarily exist ; it
is being in all its reality. This power can be only a simple idea in
negative philosophy ; but it is recognised as an object of real knowledge
by positive phUosophy, aud is therefore called necessary empirical know
ledge. Thus the existence of this being, which has been preceded by
no thought, but has been before every idea, is an absolute transcendental
existence, which, however, becomes living, only by its faculty of passing
into a being not thought of {unvordenklichen Sein), whence proceeds the
active being which concurs, by this union, to produce the mind. God
is personal only in the union of these three powers. This is not the
place to discuss this mode of existence in God, nor the manner in
which ScheUing passes over the difficulties of a temporal creation, which
he pretends to have surmounted, — difficulties that do not interfere with
his development of the idea of liberty, but which, if examined on meta
physical grounds, would lead us away from om- subject. We wUl pro
ceed at once to the way in which the iUustrious phUosopher explains
the actual condition of humanity, which, according to him, fell from its
fu-st state when man, wishing to be Uke God, the author of something
new, came under the power of a principle no longer diviue. By this
faU the conscience of man was troubled, and the divine powers that
have their central point in it were thus separated from each other.
They formed three distinct personalities, which wiU never be re-united
until everything shaU return to God, and shall reaUse perfect unity.
UntU that time, the wiU of the Father is irritated, therefore it acts only
as a power, and the Son, whose task it is to bring the world back to
God, is a prey to intense sufferings, and acts only as the servant of the
Father. But this renovation can be effected only insensibly, by means
of tbe laws of progress and liberty. Hence the efforts of the people of
the earth to return to God, manifested by the different reUgions that
have successively engaged the attention of the human race. Hence the
appearance of mythology, Judaism, and Christianity, which have the
same end in view, and, therefore, differ not in the principles which are
essentially identical, but in the impulse given to the development of
them. This impulse is stronger in Chiistianity only because it comes
from without, from the approach of God to man, whUe in Paganism,
and in part in Judaism, aU development, being the natural effect of the
human wiU,,was necessarUy feeble and imperfect.
That God did draw near to man, and did reveal Himself to man, is
a fact founded upon history, and testified to by the human conscience.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 365
If revelation is a fact, its phUosophy is not merely a doctrine, but the
explanation of that fact. It is possible that we may not comprehend
the whole of the idea contained in this fact ; but the fact existing never
theless, we cannot say that the idea of it is incoraprehensible, except
it should, in any way, surpass the grandeur of God, and should not be
in accordance with the event that manifested it. ScheUing says, with
the Bible, the thoughts of the Lord are not our thoughts, nor are his
ways our ways ; they are as superior to those of man as the heaven is
high above the. earth. That which may appear to man folly and
weakness, is in God tme wisdom, true strength. That which is above
reason, is not therefore absolutely incredible, for it is above reason
only subjectively, and not in the sphere of objectivity.* That which
is a scandal to many in Christianity, namely, that the dirine, the gTeat,
the infinite, is contained in the finite, the limited, is precisely the thing
which constitutes its grandeur, for, by this means, God may be called
in the highest degree ingenious natm-e ; art consisting in showing the
most subUme idea under a determinate form. Christianity, then, the
more ideas that it proposes above human reason, offers the more tes
timony of its divine truth, and the greater proof that to it alone belongs
the power of making known the personality of God. It is, then, true
that the person of Christ is the essential substance of the Christian
faith, and the central point of the revelation, for that person is no other
than the second power in God, which the Father entrusted with the
task of overcoming matter, but which, after the Creation, was, by the
faU of man, deprived of glory and personaUty. From that time it could
act only as a natural power, as the only means of restoring the world
to its former position, and thus it annihilated itself, and took the form
of a servant. This position of Christ explains his temptation.f
Thus the mediation of Christ consists in his triumph, not over the
bad principle, as it has been said to do, but over the non-principle found
in the displeasure of God. If Christ had not acted as a mediator, or
if he had accepted the proposal of the terapter, the link which joins
man to God would have been destroyed for ever, humanity would have
taken a direction that would have led it stiU further away from its first
condition. But Christ voluntarUy accepted this mediation, which de
prived him of the independent being of the Father, and made him a
dependent being. At the end of time, the extra-divine being {ausser-
gottlich Sein) wiU retum to the reconcUed Father, and then the Father
will resume his sovereignty over the whole being. It is not necessary

* ScheUing's Vorlesungen, von Frauenstadt, p. 100-103.
t Ibid. p. 104-106.

366 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
here to state how ScheUing connects the pre-existence of Christ with
the opening of the fourth Gospel, but we must not omit to say that he
does not consider the generation of the Son as etemal, but only as of
aU time, making a distinction in the eternity between that which pre
ceded thought, and that which preceded time only. It would occupy
too much tirae to show how he connects mythology with Christianity.
Mythology is a consequence ofthe Creation, and differs frora Christianity
in operating in its developraent only on the human conscience, which it
does naturally, and without divine intervention, while Christianity places
humanity in a path that wUl, in the progress of time, lead to the con
summation of its unity with the Deity. Then God wiU be all in all ; the
divine persons be no longer independent of each other ; and humanity,
by its participation in the unity, will take part in His glory, which will
be freed from all opposition. Christianity, thus understood, is distinct
from pietism, which finds the salvation of the soul in the subjectivity
of individuals ; and not less distinct from Eationalism, which offers to
our belief only an abstract, incomprehensible God, in the idea of whom
man cannot find the repose for which he longs.*
Such, in a few words, is the substance of the new doctrines of Schel
Ung, which were developed by the Ulustrious professor vrith that power
of words, that even his opponents admit that he possesses. These are
* ScheUing's Vorlesungen, von Frauenstadt, p. 110-113-121. Theologische Jahr
bucher, ^i. 414-19, 608, 611-14. Marheinecke, Zur Kritik der Schellingschen Offen-
barungs Philosophie. Berlin, 1843, pp, 7, 13, 22, 43-50, 60, See also ScheUing's
Offenbarung-Philosophie, Drei Briefe. Berlin, 1843 ; also Michelet's Entwickelungs-
geschichte der n. deutsch. Philosophie. Berlin, 1843, principally, pp. 183-218. Ro
senkranz, who declares that he knows so well this new phase of ScheUing's phi
losophy, says that it is not original, since all in it that is good and permanent,
whether in the ingenious explanations of ancient myths, or in the philosophical
ideas, is borrowed from Hegel, Creuzer, O. Miiller, Solger, and even Rosen
kranz himself. Is it not a pity that the professor of Konigsberg has not tried
bis powers in so fine a field, especially when he has made us so well acquainted
with the forty years of philosophical labours through which the illustrious Schel
ling passed before arriving at his positive philosophy? (Schelling, Vorlesungen,
gehalten im Sommer 1842, Dantzig, 1843.) This we raay say, without pretend
ing to approve of the tone taken by Rosenkranz, in a paraphlet on Schelling,
addressed to Pierre Leroux, wbich would have lost none of its excellence, had it
been characterised by more modesty — the natural companion of true learning, I
say nothing of the publication, Schelling der Philosoph. in Christo, which is nothing
but rhodomontade. I must, in justice, raention a work from the new school of
Hegel, which, notwithstanding its points, cannot fail from its (for once) scientific
character to fix the attention of the public. But this monograph of Schelling
{Fr. W. J. von Schelling, ein Beitrag z. Geschichte des Tages. Leipzig. 1843), pub
lished by an anonymous observer of the dispute, was too late for me to raake any
use of it, I suspect, however, that this is not tbe first attempt of the anonymous
observer.

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 367
the means that he employs to call forth all contradictions on to the field
of history, and to refute them by the most ingenious explanations of
the mythology of aU people, and of its connexion with Judaism, in
which the Pagan principle stUl Ungered, and with Christianity, whence
the non-principle has disappeared only by the fact of the incarnation of
the second divine power, which cannot fail to result in the final recon
ciliation of heaven and earth. Time will soon show us whether this
new phase of gnostical philosophy is weU received by the theologians
who are now studying it in sUence, and whether SchelUng or Bret
schneider may claim the honom- of having given a successful tura to
modern Supernaturalism.*
Certainly, if phUosophy must at some period be enthroned in the
sanctuary instead of theology, we know no system which could be sub
stituted for the ancient faith, better, more quietly, and with less alarm
to the people, than this. But the Christian opinions are generaUy com
prehended by the majority in a way so little phUosophical, that we may
well be astonished at the pretensions of speculative philosophy. It may
justly be said that this new philosophy, in which revelation is not com
prehended but merely explained, only shows in that its weakness. No
system which offers itself as a synthesis can embrace facts as a whole
without understanding them, and they cannot be understood unless
then- nature, relations, and the reason of their existence, are compre
hended. But while phUosophers have been busy at Berlin in attempting to
connect the future with the past, far greater numbers elsewhere have
been engaged in entangling stiU more the intervening thread, and while
science is making these efforts, the people are rushing with the greatest
eagerness into the bottomless abysses of indifference and practical
materialism. Is this misuse made by the people of aU your religious
assemblies, which have insensibly become towers of Babel, where you
can no longer understand yourselves, — is this systematic disdain which
they affect for what you term your religious renovations, — are these
things arguments in favour of freedom of discussion, of the removal of
all boundaries, of the destruction of all restraining authority ? Alas, we
must doubt it when we see the laxity of morals increasing in proportion
to the laxity of reUgious Ufe, and reUgious Ufe declining in proportion to
• Dr. Hast, a Catholic theologian, who has written in fevour of Hermes, has
already done homage to the Christian philosophy of the Protestant Schelling, in
a pamphlet entitled Andeutungen iiber Glauben und Wissen, &c. veranlasst durch
ScheUing's erste Vorlesung in Berlin, Miinster, 1842. But the ArchivfUr theol.
Literatur (5 Heft, p. 407-409), published by the professors of Munich, is far from
wishing to encourage this essay.

368 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
the food without nutrition that, to use the expression of Claudius, is
prepared for it by the learned.
It is now some years since Bretschneider, with praiseworthy zeal,
wrote a work that excited some attention, but whose object was forgotten
in the midst of more material interests, in which he lamented the in
difference of men of all classes to subjects of importance to the pros
perity of the church. This indifference, said he, to worship, to the cele
bration of the Lord's Supper, especially in towns, is becoming so pre
valent, that we can anticipate from it only the dissolution of the internal
church. And yet, he added, with the external forms of religion, the re
ligious feelings also disappear, and with them are shaken the foundations
of the State, which owe their firmness to the sentiments of piety in the
hearts of men. Then Bretschneider accuses the EngUsh and French Deists
of having cornipted Germany; but did not naturalistic Germany respond
with enthusiasm to the advances of its neighbours ? Did not the ine-
ligious phUosophy of the last century bring the remedy in its own
excesses ? Was not the freedom which it professed preferable to the
cunning and pei-fidious EationaUsm, which lends itself to every system,
and has always reservations according to the time and circumstances in
which it is placed, and the persons with whom it has to do ? Bret
schneider shows as little sagacity, when, in order to overcome w'hat he
calls mysticism, by which, as every one knows, he raeans the revival of
evangelical faith, he proposes to propagate everywhere better ideas of
natural reUgion. He is rauch more just when he expresses the wish
that a better constitution should be given to the church, that there
should be more severe laws for the punishment of immoraUty, and that
the magistrates should set an exaraple in the fulfilment of then- reUgious
duties. Another rationaUst, the author of esteemed and truly useful works,
I raean Professor Winer, of Leipzig, has pointed out the evils in the
church, and has in his way endeavoured to remove them. He gave a
course of lectures on the subject, in which, \\ ith his usual eloquence, he
inveighed against the religious indifference of his day, attributing it, on
one side, to the invasion of industrial occupations, which engage the at
tention and affections of the people ; and on the other, to the decay of
the various elements of the Lutheran worship. He proposed, as the only
means of restoring warmth, the improvement of preaching, the reform
of the Liturgies, and the practice of reUgious singing. AU these things
may be very useful, but can such trivial expedients restore the ancient
faith ? Not unless the preaching, which is to be improved, be the pub
lication of that Gospel that has, according to the apostle, power to
save those who believe in it. A young writer who has analysed Winer's

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. 369
course, remarks with much justice, that it is singular that these two
laments, uttered simultaneously over the decay of Protestant /o?-»»«, pro
ceeded fi-om the land of Saxony, that ancient stronghold of reform, the
native country of Luther, where the old right of inquiry was strenuously
defended.* Of the Protestant forms. — Here we find a reason for the
inutiUty of these complaints. We must not trouble ourselves about
forms, but about realities, and on realities does EationaUsm make aU its
attacks. Of what importance is it to the Gospel, whether men have
the titles and authority of superintendents, or whether all ecclesiastical
dignities are aboUshed. But it is of importance that the Gospel should
be preached uncorrupted to the ignorant people, and that we should
preserve from destruction the' precious doctrines which alone can purify
and save the soul. Since the fu-st pubUcation of this work, many other
voices have been raised to deplore this state of things, and to demand
a better constitution for the church. On this 1 have reason to congra
tulate myself. So that all that my critics have said on this subject wUl
apply equaUy to C. Haas, who desires the restoration of more unity and
more authority in the Protestant church, together with more forms of
worship ;f and to Gustav Julius, who laments the decay of religious
Ufe, and the inefficacy of the remedies hitherto employed : and who, as
a disciple of Hegel, proposes a more intimate union of the objective or
the State, with the subjective or the Church, as a means of restoring a
healthy state of things. J A didactic work on aU the questions relating
to the existence and forms of the constitution which the church ought
to receive has been pubUshed by Aug. Petersen. It contains not only
leaming, but also exceUent views on the destination of the two societies,
civU and reUgious, which Eothe wished to unite. § Who has not read
with interest the excellent dissertations on the church, and the reforms
to be made in it, under Presbyterian auspices, vnitten by Sack and
I. Nitzsch, in the new journal which they are pubUshing at Bonn. || And
who does not peruse with equal interest the pubUcation of J. Wiggers
on the necessity of giving to the interpretation of the Bible an external
authority. He has been much blamed for these works ; it is the usual
fate of those who depart from the beaten traek.^ But Wiggers, the
* Adolphe Dupuis, in 'Ca.eNomelle revue germanique, viii. 172.
t Die Glaubens-Gegens'atze des Protestantismus und Katholicismus im Lichte
der heiligen Schrift und Erfahrung. Stuttgardt, 1842.
X Ueber die Hebung des kirchl. Lebens in d. protest. Kirche. Leipzig, 1842.
§ Die Idee der christi. Kirche. Leipzig, 1842.
II See particularly the introductory article by Prof. Sack, Die Stellung der evang.
Kirche, &c. ; and that of 'Sitzch,Verstdndigungen uber die christl.Verfassung, Sec,
in their Monatschrift fur die evang. Kirche. 1842. 1st and 2nd part, pp. 65-81.
^ Kirchlicher oder rein biblischer Supernaturalismus. Leipzig, 1842,
VOL. II. 2 B

370 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM.
professor of Eostock, has weU answered the trivial accusation that his
system would lead to CathoUcism. " I do not consider," said he to his
opponents, "the doctrine of the church as anything extemal and tangible,
nor the creed of the church as a Pope upon paper ; I desire only a
visible church, closely united with the invisible  On the other
side, we must not forget that the individual position of every Christian
in relation to Christ, depends on his position in relation to the church.
So that there always remains this difference between CathoUcism and
the Confession of Augsburg, that the former regards the visibility of the
church as essential, whUe Lutheranism sees in the church only a commu
nity formed bythe indissoluble union ofthe visible with the invisible."*
In the desu-e of supporting my ovra reflections by those of several
writers advantageously known for their enUghtenment on a question of
life or death to German Protestantism, I vrill close this historical essay
by some remarks by Twesten, written with his peculiar mUdness and
fervour, on the deplorable state of reUgion in Germany.
" Christian opinions seem to have lost then- power and activity; the
forms of public and domestic life no longer bear their impress as in
former days. WorldUness, want of faith and piety, seem to prevaU;
but perhaps these evUs are now more apparent only because they have
been hidden under the external veU of received doctrine. Let the
evangeUcal faith be again preached with power, and the evangeUcal
community wiU be restored sooner than many expect. A foundation
does exist, and there is not so much need of a new life as of a new
impulse to the life which stUl remains. It wUl be Uke the change of
the chrysabs ; the old forms are dissolved, and he who dissects the
covering finds only raatter without a form ; nevertheless, it contains the
elements of the new organisation, of the being which in a higher state
of development than the former, shaU come forth from it."
" As to the learned and cultivated classes, we find among them a
certain degi-ee of toleration for the Christian faith, and many feel a
consideration for it, and a desu-e to be reconcUed to it. It is acknow
ledged that the path hitherto pursued has not been blessed ; enlighten
ment has not effected the expected good ; phUosophy has not justified
the joyful confidence with which it was haUed, when the foundations of
positive faith had been destroyed in many minds ; after them feU the
general truths of the self-styled natural reUgion ; we feel the calamity
of scepticism, which is hidden, it is true, under high-sounding phrases,
but which cannot deceive man, when tried by the struggles of life, and
leaves him without consolation in the hour of death. We are convinced
» Der Gegensatz des kirchlich. u. des rein bibl. Supernaturalismus : ein zweites Wort.
Leipzig, 1843,

HISTORY OF RATIONALISM, 371
that by the side of the numerous edifices raised for instruction, which,
without any great expense of talent and originality, have received sup
port and toleration, the ancient doctrine of the chm-ch, which yields to
no other in good effects and profundity, might honourably maintain its
position. He, therefore, who comes forward in its defence need not
fear the raiUery and enmity of those who think themselves wiser than
he, if, indeed, we except some jom-nals and some individuals that repre
sent a period which is past."
Twesten then observes that the barren systems of moraUty, which
they thought to substitute for religion, have, in our day, been quite un
successful ; that science has taken a more favourable turn ; that mere
empiricism and materialism have disappeared from the schools of phi
losophy ; that reason and the wUl are no longer considered as mere
expressions of the activity of the mind ; that the real organs of reUgion,
the soul and the feeUngs, are again taken into consideration ; that in
historical studies a new spirit prevaUs, and that, in a word, everything
presages the return of more reUgious ideas. He concludes in these
words : " The ground is prepared, the seed of living faith must be
sown ; the fields are ripe for the harvest ; may the Lord send forth into
them his husbandmen 1 Why should we not trust in Him, who, in the
midst of such difficult circumstances, was able to establish, propagate
and preserve Christianity ? He whose aid has upheld our evangelical
church in so many painful confficts wiU not abandon it now. Oh, that
He would send us some one who, gifted with the mind and the power
of Luther, would be able to change the hearts of men, and to lead back
the children to the faith of then- fathers ; or would that it were His
wiU that the crisis should pass slowly, and that the life of the church
should graduaUy recover its health and ancient strength 1 Many symp
toms of the day indicate a more profound and general movement to
wards faith. If men once begin to draw from the true fountain, we
shaU soon see something more'decided ; indecision wiU become firmness;
what is cold wUl grow warm ; the indifferent wUl becorae enthusiastic ;
and those accessaries which sometimes rendered the good cause suspi
cious to the thoughtful, and gave to its enemies some grounds to de
preciate or reject it, — these accessaries wUl, 1 say, be removed." *
If 1 did not fear to efface the gentle impressions made on the mind
of the reader by the hopes, perhaps too flattering, of a writer who, in
stead of arriving at speculation by means of the Gospel, passes through
the somewhat close atmosphere of speculation to reach the evangeUcal
heights, I would add, that smcere men of aU parties are endeavouring
to learn the state of the question. In this dispute between Supematu-
* Twesten's Vorlesungen, vol, i, p. 216-220, second edit.
2 B 2

372 HISTORY OF RATIONALISM,
raUsm and EationaUsm there are many misunderstandings, especially
vrith several who give only a divided attention to the subject. They
must strip the question of certain local accessaries, which give it the
falsest colom-ing. It has been weU said by an able critic of Hamburg,
that we have not under consideration church interests which are striving
to obtain the mastery ; it is not in order to destroy reUgious Uberty that
individuals oppose the innovators ; — no ; the whole Christian revelation
is struggling against these powerful adversaries, who attack it in the
name of Eationalism ; it is a renewal of the combat between Paganism
and Christianity, and therefore the stmggle cannot end untU one of the
combatants is destroyed.* But the cessation of the struggle is not ne
cessary to restore peace to the hearts of Christians ; they would have as
much to fear from a coraplete triumph as from a defeat. What advan
tage would they derive from a decisive victory, which is not in the
nature of things, and would, if it were possible, only enervate them,
or make them proud ? Do we not know that it is by struggles, inces
sant struggles, that tmth is purified and maintained ? Our highest hope
ought to be, that into this vast and rich harvest our Master vrill send
workmen animated by his spirit, so that they may labour for the triumph
of truth by means of science united to charity. Then true enlighten
ment wUl be spread abroad, and vrith enUghtenment more just ideas of
the road which we must follow to attain that which all minds desire —
the possession of the truth. Then phUosophers and theologians wiU no
longer be divided into two classes ; they wUl cultivate the same ground,
because their aira will be identical, and because to reach the same good
the best way is to follow the path pursued by those already in possession
of the truth which we seek. Then from this identity of philosophical
and theological truth wUl spring the identity of reUgious faith ; then, if
the disputes must cease, there wiU be reason for relaxing our efforts ;
but we must always grow in knowledge if we do not wish to extinguish
the sacred fire of love, which these controversies aid in keeping alive.f
* Literarische und krit. Blatter. Hamburg, 1839. p. 1,028.
f [ A useful Summary, showing what Criticisra has left uninjured, and generally
exhibiting the positive results of theological research, may be found in an
English translation of Einleitung in die Biicher des Alten und Neuen Testaments,
von Ad. Schumann. Berlin, 1848. The translation forms the third volume of
The Library of Christian Literature : London, Sirapkin, Marshall, & Co. See
also some excellent remarks on the progress and the present condition of theo
logical learning in regard both to the Old and the New Testament, in the JahrbUcher
der Biblischen Wissenschaft, von H. Ewald : Erstes Jahrbuch, 1848. Gottingen,
1849.— E.]

APPENDIX.

APPENDIX
By t'he Translator,

POPULAR MANIFESTATIONS OF EATIONALISM IN GEEMANY.
The rationalistic spirit which pervades the German nation has practically
developed itself in two directions, one of which is represented by the
Lichtfreunde, the other by the German Catholics under Ronge. The
Lichtfreunde may be caUed the successors of the New Hegelian school.
Their principles'were similar, being merely another modification of Ration
alism, but their plans of action were different, and their influence was
decidedly of a popular nature. Their first meetings were held in Saxony.
They petitioned the Go vernmeut to remove all taxes for religious purposes,
and to appropriate the revenues of the most richly-endowed clerical bene
fices to the uses of popular education. This movement was followed by
similar meetings in other parts of Germany. The chief director of these
assemblies was Uhlich, pastor of Pommelte. Another leader of the party
was Gustav Adolph Wislicenus, the author of a work entitled Ob Schrift ?
oh Geist ? These two men were the leaders and principal wr-iters of the
body. The meetings of the Lichtfreunde were, after a time, prohibited by
the governments of Prussia and Saxony. The last was held on the Asse,
a, woody hill in the duchy of Brunswick. Gustav Adolph Wislicenus
was born on the 20th of November 1803, at Battaune, near Eilenburg.
He was left an orphan at a very early age, and the care of his education
was undertaken by two uncles. He studied theology at Halle, and on
leaving that University in 1 834, was appointed preacher at Klein- Eich-
stadt and Grockstadt. He filled this ofiice for seven years ; at the end of
that time he received an appointment as preacher to a church in Halle.
The part which he took in the meetings of tbe Lichtfreunde, drew upon
him the enmity of many opponents, who endeavoured to deprive him of
his office. The book entitled Ob Schrift ? ob Geist ? was written in answer
to the accusations of his enemies, and is one ofthe principal works belong
ing to the Lichtfreunde. As we have said before, their views seem not to
differ materially frora those of their rationalistic predecessors. Their mode
of spreading them only was different from those formerly employed, being
more popular in its nature. We subjoin an extract from Uhlich's
Bekenntnisse (Leipzig, 1 845), which may give some idea of the opinions
of the Lichtfreunde. " I beg permission to express my creed in a few

376 APPENDIX,
simple sentences. These propositions I brought forward at the meeting of
Protestantische Freunde at Leipzig, in 1842, but they did not appear in the
printed report, as it was thought probable that the adoption of a creed
might cause dissension: 1. I consider myself, notwithstanding the high
position, which, as a man, I occupy in creation, aa imperfect and faulty.
Something is deficient in me, but the longing for truth, virtue and peace
never forsakes me. 2. In seeking to satisfy this longing, I find the best
means of doing so in Christianity, the living representation of which I see
in its author, Jesus Christ. 3. In him I recognise the most sublime mes
senger of God to man, the perfect man, the Lord and Master, to whom I
can, with the fullest confidence, devote my soul. 4. I believe in the prin
cipal facts of his history ; but my faith rests particularly on the purity of his
life, the truth of his doctrine, and, as the last and surest foundation, on the
experience that, in obeying him, I am made blessed. 5. Through Jesus I
know that God is my father, whom I endeavour to worship in spirit and
in truth, and, particularly, by child-like, unqualified devotion. 6. Through
Jesus I have the precept of love as the guide of all my actions. 7. Through
him I know that the object of my whole life should be holiness, which,
though constantly approaching, I never quite attain. 8. If I have relaxed
in my efforts for this object, and am repentant for so doing, Jesus promises
me forgiveness, if my heart be changed. 9. He too promises me the gift
of the Holy Spirit, as a divine power, which works throughout all Chris
tendom, inspires my soul, aud assists me in attaining my object. 10. As
tbe fulfilment of all my efforts, Jesus directs me to a higher kingdom of
God, beyond the grave, where shall be completed the judgment and retri
bution which are commenced here. All these articles are, as may be seen,
composed with express reference to Jesus, and so also is the faith which
' fills my mind. In doctrine, I think of him who gave it for our use, and
set us an example in the practice of it. I rejoice that Christianity consists
not in doctrine alone, but possesses also the personality of the Saviour, and
this I preach to my hearers. But I see very many who hold fast the doc
trine of Jesus, without this steadfast meditation on his person, and I am
of opinion that they may be not the less good Christians. Jesus says
clearly enough, ' Not all who say unto me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven, but those who do the will of my Father who is in
heaven,' It may seem very strange to many of my contemporaries, that
a man entertaining this faith should, in the year 1844, have, on that
account, fallen under the ban of the Protestant church. A year ago I,
too, should have considered it impossible.'' Uhlich goes on to explain
his connexion with the Protestantische Freunde, " Three years ago, an
ecclesiastic in Magdeburg, who had openly repudiated the worship of
Jesus, was threatened with deposition by his superiors. This aroused my
attention. If this is the case, thought I, then is it necessary for all
free-thinking ecclesiastics to unite together, partly that they may not
be alone when they need advice in difficult circumstances, and partly that
they may take counsel together respecting the further development and
fonn of Christianity, These thoughts I communicated to several friends.

APPENDIX, 377
and sixteen of us met at Gnadau. This happened July 29, 1841. Thus
arose the association of Protestantische Freunde, which, on the second
meeting at Halle, numbered in its ranks many laymen as well as" ecclesi
astics. The third meeting was held at Leipzig, the fourth at the conve
niently-situated town of Kijthen, and the association now has thousands
of members, and is regarded with sympathy by many thousands more.". . .
"The Protestantische Freunde hold two grand yearly meetings at Kbthen,
at Easter and Michaelmas, and there are district meetings at Halle, Mag
deburg, Halberstadt, Oschersleben, and Hoym. In the autumn of the
same year, a similar association was formed at Konigsberg. The two sen
timents of the first meeting, — opposition to all powers inimical to free pro
gress, cultivation of the kingdom of God in freedom with united strength,
— are stiU the principles of our efforts.''
Johannes Ronge was born at Bischofswalde, in Neisse, October 16, 1813.
His father possessed a small property, but bis family was large, and Johannes
was compelled, in his early childhood, to take a part in the labours of the
farm. It was bis business to feed tbe sheep untU he arrived at the age of
twelve. His early education was therefore little attended to, but the boy
was fond of reading, and in the intervals of his duty gave all his time to
it. He was naturally quiet and reflective, and having been brought up in
a pious manner, early conceived a desire to enter the priesthood. It is a
great good in the Catholic system, that it affords the means of instruction
to the poor. Ronge, though very poor, was able to obtain an education
to fit him for the priesthood. In 1 827, he entered a school at Neisse, and,
in 1837, a higher one at Breslau. His conduct in both was unexceptionable.
He was a quiet and retiring young man, and was little noticed by his
fellow-students. About the end of the year 1 839, he entered the seminary
at Breslau, where he was to complete his preparations for entering the
priesthood. But here he found the state of things very different from what
he had expected. The teachers, instead of communicating truly religious
instruction, spent their time in inculcating obedience to the authority of
Rome. The periodical repetition of long prayers wearied and disgusted
Ronge. But it still remained his earnest wish to become a preacher, and
in another year it was fulfilled. He was appointed chaplain at Grottkau,
in 1840; but he was not suffered long to occupy this situation quietly.
The Ultramontanists at this time were very active, and awakened great
zeal among the adherents of tbe Romish community. The preachers
were closely watched, and any liberality of expression made them objects
of suspicion. Before very long, Ronge was considered as a svispicious
person by the chapter of the Breslau Cathedral, and he soon came to an
open rupture vrith his enemies. Breslau had been for some months without
a bishop, and the ecclesiastical authority was in the hands of a Dr. Ritter,
who was universaUy disliked, as a tyrannical and illiberal man. In 1841,
the canon Knauer was chosen bishop by the chapter, and his election was
hailed with joy by all parties. But the Pope hesitated to confirm the choice,
and delayed so long, that a year passed, and the episcopal chair was still
vacant. In these circumstances, suspicions naturally arose of intrigues in
VOL. II. 2 c

378 APPENDIX,
the chapter, and it was thought that the decision was retarded by the
influence of Ritter, whose authority would cease as soon as the matter was
settled, Ronge, who was in hopes that the new bishop would prove more
tolerant than his predecessor, wrote an essay on the subject, which he pub
lished in a Saxon newspaper. It was only signed " A Chaplain," but sus
picion immediately fell upon Ronge. He was compelled to leave bis
chaplainship, and all oifices in SUesia were closed against him. He left
the town of Grottkau, esteemed and regretted by aU who knew him, and
retired, first to the estate of Count Reichenbach, and afterwards to Laura-
hiitte, in Upper Silesia. Here he employed himself in education, and
remained in retirement until his attention was excited by the events passing
in Catholic Germany. It was the exposition of the Holy Coat at Treves
that induced Ronge to come again before the public. He had employed
his leisure hours in composing works against the Romish hierarchy, and he
took this occasion of publishing that celebrated letter, which was the signal
for the German Catholic movement. He was hailed as a new reformer, a
second Luther, and speedily was followed by a great number of adherents.
Communities were formed for worship, a council was held at Leipzig, and
a second at Berlin. In the deliberations of the councils, and as a preacher
to the church at Breslau, Ronge took an active part. He found an efficient
coadjutor in Czerski, who may be considered as one of the chiefs of the
German Catholic church. Little has been heard of this movement lately.
This may, perhaps, be owing to the state of politics on the continent, which
seems to have engrossed all minds. From a work by Gunther, entitled,
Bibliothek der Bekenntnissschriftcn der deutsch-lcatholischen Kirche (Jena,
1846), we learn that in January 1846, there belonged to this community
310 churches. From the same source we give the confession of faith pub
lished by one of these churches, that of Hanau : —
(1) The Holy Scriptures are the sole and only foundation of the Christian
faith. The comprehension and interpretation of them is granted to reason,
moved and penetrated by the Christian spirit.
(2) As the universal substance of our beUef, we give the following
Creed : —
" I believe in God the Father, who, through his Almighty word, created
the world, and governs it in wisdom, justice, and love.
" I believe in Jesus Christ, our Saviour.
" I beUeve in the Holy Spirit, a holy universal Christian Church, the
forgiveness of sins, and life etemal. Amen."
(3) We reject the primacy of the Pope, we assert our independence
of the hierarchy, and reject before-hand all concessions which may, in any
possible way, be made by the hierarchy to bring the free church again
under its yoke.
(4) We reject oral confession.
(5) We reject celibacy (compulsory).
(6) We reject the invocation of the saints, the worship of reUcs and
images. (7) We reject indulgences, appointed fasts, pilgrimages, and all such

APPENDIX, 379
church ordinances hitherto estabUshed, which can lead only to a spiritless
sanctification by works.
(8) We consider it as the task of the church and of individuals to bring
the substance of our faith into a living correspondence with the spirit of
the age.
(9) We allow entire liberty of conscience, free inquiry, and interpreta
tion of the Holy Scriptures, unrestrained by any external authority. We
abjure all compulsion, lying, and hypocrisy, for we recognise in different
views and interpretations of our doctrine no grounds for condemnation or
schism, (10) We recognise only two sacraments — Baptism, and the Supper of
the Lord ; but we do not wish to compel iiidividual congregations to ob
serve these Christian usages.
(11) Baptism shall be performed on children, on condition of their con
firmation in the doctrines of the creed when they arrive at a mature age.
(12) The Lord's Supper is received by the congregation under both
forms, as appointed by Christ.
(13) We consider marriage as a sacred institution, and observe its con
secration by the church ; we recognise no restrictions and conditions of it,
save those appointed by the State.
(14) We believe and acknowledge that it is the first duty of Christians
to show their faith by works of Christian love.

RICHARD KINDER, PRINTER,
GREEN ARUOVR COURT, OLD RAILET, LONDON.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 7552

m

tm

r-tlit

«#i:'liiiiifii^:i:;i|#'

mw

i;iii(|iii;nti.ij;,,,ii,uiii-iiJl2iii||iiUj)

||il>*ijt.li.il

WH
*:. '31
fi«piii