Of very considerable influence in this second half of the 18th century were translations of the works of Eng- lish and Dutch rationalists and deists. Semler him- self acknowledges his great indebtedness to AVettstein and Le Clerc. The biographies of the day are full of references to the wide influence of Toland and Tindal. The same fact is evinced by the scores and scores of clerical attempts at refuting these sceptics.
From the lawless subjectivism of Semler the descent was easy to the most absurd and degrading consequen- ces. Two theological writers especially carried out the logical consequences in both their writings and their lives. Edelmann took up the tradition of Thomasius, and constructed his whole system of theology from a superficial utilitarian standpoint. Not what is true, but what is of use to the subject, was his whole inquiry. The result was that he simply reduced Christianity to a feeble and insipid deism. But the climax was reached in Bahrdt. This man used his eminent popular talents to ridicule the Bible, to blaspheme Christ, and to de- grade to the very lowest infamy the name of theologian. His popular treatises were read by the ten thousand, and produced great evil. But his career as a whole marked a turning-point in the tide of rationalism. Criticism, when left unguided by any fixed principle of objective truth, was found to be fruitless and to lead only to de- struction. It became necessary to look about for some
RATIONALISM
922
RATIONALISM
i orner-stone of truth upon which to stay the tottering edifice of theology and religion. The various attempts in discover this const >•■
:;. The Period of Philosophical Criticism (1780 L800). —After tti" decline of the popularity of Weill', the vital- ity of philosophy in Germany stood al the zero point. So long as philosophy was represented by the feeble eclec- ticism of Mendelssohn, Garve, Sulzer, Meiners, Plainer, Reinh ird, and Flatt, the criticism of the Semler school could Batter itself with standing upon philosophical ground; for both tendencies were built upon the one principle of the so-called " sound human understanding." K Kant came, both systems were overturned at a blow. Kant showed thai our transcendental knowl- hes no further than our experience, and that our knowledge of supernatural objects is defensible only as postulates of the practical reason. Philosophy and theology musl concede thai the proofs for the existence of God avail no further than simply to establish a prob- ability. The subjective morality of utility was oxer- thrown by the principle thai no morality is possible Bave where it is grounded upon a purely objective "ought." It was shown that the whole duty of theology was, by the help of religious ideas, to contribute to the suprem- acy of tie' "ought" in human society. But also the philosophy of Kant took on somewhat of the coloring of the age, and many of the old rationalists interpreted it as favorable to them. Thus the three Kantian jm.</n- lni<.< of the practical reason were metamorphosed into mere hypotheses of the theoretical reason. The objective categorical imperative was identified with the subjective
voice of, science; and that ••morality is the chief thing
in religion" was said to lie the very essence of the old subjectivism, lint there were two phases to the matter: while one current of rationalistic theology welcomed Kant and vainly hoped to force the new wine into tile old bottles, another current mocked at it as mere mys- ticism and scholastic jargon. I mly a few deeper-sight- ed men, such as Schmidt, Vogel, and Tieftrunk, saw the folly of both of these positions— saw that the new was utterly subversive of the old.
1. /'//< Period of the So-called Rationalismus Vulgaris (1800 L833). The attitude of the theology dominant at. the dawn of the 19th century was thus: The Holy Scriptures rationally interpreted were still revered as the codes of a rational religion and morality. lint with every advance step in what was called historical exe- gesis, the discrepancy between the traditional sense of ile Bible and the new construction which reason en- deavored to put upon it became more strikingly ap- parent. Semler's accommodation theory was made to apply to every narrative and every doctrinal statement of the whole Bible. Every passage in the Scriptures was thoughl to be so enveloped in a Judaistic haze as to render necessary a greal deal of clarification before
the trie- sense could be reached. The New Testament citations from the Old were thought to be totally mis- applied. Jesus was thoughl by some to have been a
veritable fanatic John the Baptist regarded him as sin- less: but did Jesus think so himself? The myth theory
begai w to play it- /-;/,. I.. Bauer published in 1800
a Hebrew mythology of the old and New Testaments; the miracles were explained away as mere natural events.
As early as 17'.M the aspeel of matters was thus summed up by Riem: -The champions of the religion of pure reason have already advanced so far that all the best theologians are going over to them, and all candi- dates for po ition bold them in -real honor, It has aln tdj ■ om ■ to bi a settled matter that reason is the
court of highest appeal; and that this court will not
decide against itself is easy to see." a writer in 1792 had said: "The truth of a doctrine rests upon rational grounds. If it can stand the test of reason : if ii does not contradict any of the results of science and expe- rience; if it commends itself to all rational men. then it