RATIONALISM
921
RATIONALISM
The second generation of Halle pietists had left the stage, J. H. Michaelis in 1738, J. Lange in 1714 ; G. Francke outlived his age — until 1770. So, also, had departed the last champions of the old orthodoxy— Wernsdorf in 1729, Cyprian in 1745, Loscher in 1749 ; Wolff, having outlived the vitality of his own system, departed in sadness in 1754. The superficial and pe- dantic Gottsched still held his mastery in the fine arts. An unproductive, compiling spirit prevailed in science and theology. " Most of our preachers," says Erenius, "give now large attention to the making of collections of curiosities, stamps, and old coins." There was want- ing a fresh wind to fill the weary sails of life. But just now the lacking stimulus was abundantly supplied; it was furnished by the furor of criticism which broke out first on the field of history, then on that of philosophy.
Although Thomasius and others had already done something in the field of historical criticism, this was only from a superficial, empirical standpoint. It was only when historical criticism assumed a thorough and systematic form that it wrought its full clarifying and revolutionizing effects on the whole field of theology. New investigations were now instituted ; every nook and corner of antiquity, linguistics, and science of every form was subjected to a searching and sifting such as had never before been paralleled; and the results at- tained were such as clearly required a re-examination and reconstruction of the whole circle of the religious sciences. It is true the main motive which inspired the critical movement was devoid of deep religious character, and hence many of its boasted results have proved to be untenable ; but many others are admitted, and accepted by all parties as absolutely unassailable.
Also, on this critical field, English deism had been in the advance, and had contributed no insignificant re- sults. Toland, Collins, Tindal, and Bolingbroke had un- settled the popular faith in the authenticity of the can- on, insisting that the multiplicity of apocryphal books, some of them accepted by the fathers, threw doubt, upon all the others; that many passages in the Gospels were manifestly spurious; that the time of the settlement of the canon was absolutely unknown ; that the genuine sacred books of the Jews had perished in the time of the Exile, etc. Ilobbes gave lengthy reasons for dis- believing the Pentateuch ; Collins threw discredit upon Daniel; Morgan gave to the views of Toland and Bol- ingbroke an attractive rhetorical expression, thus dis- seminating them among the uneducated. Collins as- sailed the very foundations of the historical argument — to wit, the prophecies — insisting that the predictions of the Old Testament relate, when properly interpreted, to very different things from those to which the New-Tes- tament writers apply them. Only in one of the Proph- ets— Daniel — are there real predictions , but these relate, not to Christ, but to political events. Moreover, these prophecies of Daniel " were written after the events."
In Germain^ the full tide of revolutionary criticism takes systematic form in Semler of Halle. By Sender almost the whole circle of orthodox landmarks was thrown into confusion: the Bible-text was assailed; the pertinency of standard proof-texts was denied ; the gen- uineness of Biblical books was contested ; the foundation was dashed away from numerous usages and dogmas which bad hitherto passed as absolutely unassailable. Although many of the points which Sender made were subsequently further developed and accepted as sound, yet the immediate effect in his day was to throw doubt into the whole arsenal of orthodoxy.
The general effect was to set in motion an unpar- alleled vigor of critical investigation. It spread like wildfire among all the universities and all ranks of the clergy. Biblical criticism and exegesis, the history of the Church and of doctrine, were speedily enriched and enlarged. In Halle, Semler found an able anil like-spir- ited pupil in Gruner, at Leipsic labored the cautious but progressive Emesti (since 1759); Michaelis represented the movement at Gbttingen (since 1750) ; Griesbach,
Diiderlein, Eichhorn, at Jena ; Henke at Ilelmstedt ; Tbllmer, Steinhart, at Frankfort-on-the-Oder. Undei the labors of these and kindred critics there was scarce- ly a single dogma that remained unscathed. But the general inspiration, the purpose, of the whole is not the overturning, but only the clarification, the correct con- struction, of the Biblical teachings. Even the authority of the Church is held fast to by Semler, though in a pe- culiar manner. The symbols and forms of the Church are useful in preserving external unity and uniformity. Criticism is simply the right of the private judgment of the individual. His position seemed practically to involve a doubt of the possibility of attaining to objec- tive truth ; his radical mistake was the assumption that religion can exist without a doctrinal basis. Starting out from the warm atmosphere of pietism, he gradually descended until he had little more reverence for the ora- cles of God than for the fables of Ovid. Holding that the inner conviction of our own truth-loving heart is the sole test as to the inspiration of a book, he decided against the claim of Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and the Canticles; he doubted the genuineness of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Daniel; he held that the Pentateuch is but a collection of legendary fragments. The New Testament is better than the Old, though some of its parts are positively pernicious; the Apocalypse is the fabrication of a fanatic; the Gospel of John is the only one which is useful for the modern Church. There are two elements in the Bible, the transitory and the eternal. It is the prerogative of criticism to sift among the chaff and select out the scattered grains of pure truth. Much of the Bible was written simply for local or party purposes : it was never intended for general use. A principle of which Semler made large use was the celebrated "accommodation theory." He insisted, namely, that Christ and the apostles taught many things byway of mere accommodation to the whims and preju- dices of the age. They did not abruptly contradict many false views that prevailed, but they partially accepted them, though planting within them a substratum of ab- solute truth. To sift out this truth from the encasement of rubbish is the privilege of the clear-sighted modern critic. In the field of dogmatics Semler was almost ferocious in his iconoclasm. For the Protestant or even the apostolical fathers he showed the most thorough disrespect. One after another of the central dogmas of orthodoxy fell under the hammer of his criticism, and seemed to be dissipated forever. And what Sender did at Halle, a bold choir of like-minded men did in other parts of Germany.