cates of the modern, or, as it perhaps may be more properly desig- nateil, the modern pantheistic philosophy of Germany.
Althongh in a measure banished from its recent home, it con- tinues to prevail in all its forms, variously modified, both in Europe and America. Mansel, in his " Limits of Religious Thought," * includes under the head of Rationalism every system which makes the final test of truth to be " the direct assent of the human con- 8ci(^usness, whether in the form of logical deduction, or moral judg- ment, or religious intuition, by whatever previous process these faculties may have been raised to their assumed dignity as arbitra- tors." This, however, would include systems radically diflferent in theii nature.
§ 2. Deistical Rationalism.
A. Possibility of a Supernatural Revelation.
The first point to be determined in the controversy with the Deistical Rationalists, concerns the possihility of a supernatural revelation. This they commonly deny, either on philosophical or moral grounds. It is said to be inconsistent with the nature of God, and with his relation to the world, to suppose that He inter- feres by his direct agency in the course of events. The true the- ory of the universe, according to their doctrine, is that God having created the world and endowed his creatures with their attributes and properties. He has done all that is consistent with his nature. He does not interfere by his immediate agency in the production of effects. These belong to the efficiency of second causes. Or if the metaphysical possibility of such intervention be admitted, it is nevertheless morally impossible, because it would imply imperfection in God. If his work needs his constant inter- ference it must be imperfect, and if imperfect, it must be that God is deficient either in wisdom or power.
Tliat tliis is a wrong theory of God's relation to the world is manifest. (1.) Because it contradicts the testimony of our moral nature. The relation in which we stand to God, as that relation reveals itself in our consciousness, implies that we are constantly in the presence of a God who takes cognizance of our acts, orders our circumstances, and interferes constantly for our correction or protection. He is not to us a God afar off, with whom we have no immediate concern ; but a God who is not far from any one of us, in whom we live, move, and liave our being, who numbers the hairs of our head, and without whose notice a sparrow does not fall
1 Page 47, edit. Boston, 1859.
36 INTRODUCTION. [Ch. HI. — Rationalism.
to the ground. (2.) Reason itself teaches tliat the conception of God as a ruler of the world, having his creatures in his hands, able to control them at pleasure, and to hold communion with them, is a far higher conception and more consistent with the idea of infin- ite perfection, than that on which this system of Rationalism is founded. (3.) The common consciousness of men is opposed to this doctrine, as is plain from the fact that all nations, the most cul- tivated and the most barbarous, have been forced to conceive of God as a Being able to take cognizance of human affairs, and to reveal himself to his creatures. (4.) The argument from Scrip- ture, although not admitted by Rationalists, is for Christians con- clusive. The Bible reveals a God who is constantly and every- where present with his works, and who acts upon them, not only mediately, but immediately, when, where, and how He sees fit.
B. Necessity of a Supernatural Revelation. Admitting, however, the metaphysical possibility of a supernat- ural revelation, the next question is whether such a revelation is necessary. "This question must be answered in the affirmative. (1.) Because every man feels that he needs it. He knows that there are questions concerning the origin, nature, and destiny of man ; concerning sin, and the method in which it can be pardoned and conquered, which he cannot answei". They are questions, however, which must be answered. So long as these problems are unsolved, no man can be either good or happy. (2.) He is equally certain that no man answers these questions for his fellow-men. Every one sees intuitively that they relate to matters beyond the ffeach of human reason. What can reason decide as to the fate of the soul after death ? Can he who has been unable to make him- self holy or happy here, secure his own well-being in the eternal future ? Every man, without a supernatural revelation, no matter how much of a philosopher, knows that death is the entrance on the unknown. It is the gate into darkness. Men must enter that gate conscious that they have within them an imperishable life combined with all the elements of perdition. Is it not self-evident then that immortal sinners need some one to answer with autiiority the question. What must I do to be saved ? To convince a man that there is no sin, and that sin does not involve misery, is as im- possible as to convince a wretch that he is not unhappy. The necessity of a divine revelation, therefore, is a simple matter of fact, of which every man is in his heart convinced. (3.) Admit- ting that philosophers could solve these great problems to their ov^n