KELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Rationalism
Pietism and in the philosophy of Wolff, he demanded critical analysis with tradition; moved dogma into
the light of historical elucidation, and
2. Biblical measured it by the standard of its
Form. moral utility, and specially championed
a liberal independence of piety from dogmatic fetters. However, he served rather to sound the key-note than to offer the program. J. A. Ernesti (q.v.), conservative in dogmatics and Wolffian supernaturalist in his view of revelation, demanded a grammatical exegesis to the exclusion of all matter foreign to the text. Real rationalism reached its climax in the third generation of this school in K. A. G. Keil (q.v.) and others. More considerate to orthodoxy is J. D. Michaelis (q.v., 3), who employed his inclination to rationalistic interpretation only where no direct dogmatic interest was at stake. The triumphantly advancing historical treatment of Scripture crystallized itself by the formation of the literary method in Biblical introduction (J. G. Eichhorn; q.v.) and in New-Testament textual criticism (J. J. Griesbach; q.v.). Their most significant fruit was the founding of Biblical theology which not only transformed the Scriptural proof of dogma but sought to create a secure foundation for the efforts put forth for the Biblical reduction of dogma. Its beginnings (A. F. Buesching; G. T. Zachariae; q.v.) assume the character of a censorship of church doctrine; the originator of its scientific program, J. P. Gabler (q.v.; De justo discrimine theologcce biblicce et dogmaticce, 1787) , and his followers belong to rationalism. With W M. L. de Wette (q.v.) Biblical theology first enters upon a more historical method. In the field of dogmatics, it was not so easy to break away from tradition shielded within symbols. A transition
method arose characterized by a mod-
3. Dog- eration of the boldest extravagances
matic and and by proposing a simple mode of
Eudemon- teaching as an alternative for the tra-
istic. ditional. Important for the history
of dogmatics is J. F. Tollner (q.v.) thoroughly Wolffian in system, but exercising a keen criticism on the single point of Christ's obedience. J. F. Gruner (d. 1778) carried this criticism to a farther extent; recognized in all Christian dogma perverting Platonic and Aristotelian influences; and committed himself to the progress of theology, historical-grammatical interpretation, and the ample use of the reason. A further step in the adaptation of dogmatic material to the rationalizing process was the substitution by theologians of the principle of happiness for the supernatural plan of redemption (eudemonism) . As soon as men were convinced that religious knowledge was to a great extent accessible to the reason and that rational knowledge was only unessentially complemented by revelation, the next step was to determine the result upon human life. But by reason was understood not so much an ideal principle as the usual sound common sense, which has its function m the promotion of human happiness. Eudemonr^i became the material principle in dogmatics, corresponding to the formal principle of rationalism. The preacher no longer sought to prompt the people to a higher idealism, but complacently de-
scended to the discussion of practical interests, such as the benefit of vaccination, of stall-feeding, or how to obtain a quiet sleep; although it is to be said that there was no lack of celebrated pulpit speakers. The corresponding pedagogical theory is philanthropy which aims to advance human happiness along the line of natural development. This was frequently combined with theological rationalism in the persons of its representatives.
A transcript of the average rationalistic dogmatics
of the period is not out of place. Religion was
essentially a matter of the reason. Its
4. Effect essence was to guide a man to a reaupon sonable and therefore moral, happy
Religion, life. Revelation was a supernatural form of instruction which missed its object when it retained mysteries. It must prove itself an expansion of natural knowledge, subject to the criteria of reason. To some, Christianity was the embodiment of reasonable religion, of course in its Biblical simplicity, not in its dogmatic form. Yet this was subject to further reduction, mostly on the principle of expelling individual, local, or temporal admixtures, or on the assumption of the theory that the writer was accommodating his production to the limited intelligence of his contemporaries. Others held the theory of the potential perfectibility of Christianity (Semler, W. A. Teller, Lessing). This position exhibited a greater measure of historical appreciation than the average rationalism. It thought to derive the picture of Christianity from the sources, employing the representation of the religion of reason as the critical norm. The Old Testament was considered within its time and environment and the Jewish religion was the main source of the elements of the New Testament, which were taken to be less in accordance with reason. The doctrine of Scriptural inspiration was reduced by accepting only the historical material or limiting its function to the place of an auxiliary of the divine Spirit. Miracles were explained by natural causes, by the aid of thunder and lightning, or assuming for the men involved in the miracles knowledge of physics, chemistry, or even pyrotechnics. J The principle of parsimony as to miracles offered by J. D. Michaelis gained wide acceptance. Original sin was specially attacked; its guilt was denied, and it was presumed to be merely a limitation of nature (Tollner), a physical corruption to be illustrated, for instance, by the eating of a poisonous fruit (Michaelis). To man was ascribed a capacity to fulfil his moral duties, and all that was left to grace was the function of supporting and acknowledging human virtue. Predestination was indignantly repudiated or identified with justification (E. J. Danovius; q.v.). In Christology the doctrine of the two natures was replaced by the assumption of an extraordinary inspiration, on the part of conservatives (C. W. F. Walch; q.v.); rationalists as such maintained a more or less unconditioned moral preeminence of Jesus. On the doctrine of the atonement Ernesti considered the threefold office of Christ a dissection of the simple Biblical view. Tollner disputed the active obedience. Conservative dogmaticians rested on an Arminian theory, while radicals re-
Rationalism