THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
primarily useful to others, and secondarily to ourselves. The moral feelings are a complex growth, of which the ultimate constituents are pleasurable and painful sensations, e.g., disinterestedness is a real fact which has developed by association from personal interest and has eventually been detached from its original roots. IV. Criticism: Utilitarianism as a theory of life is inadequate (1) from the point of its motive, (2) from that of its fundamental principle. Morality is based on the conception of duty. Utilitarians regard pleasure and self-interest as the original roots of morality. But duty can never be developed from these roots. It is easy to show that virtue is useful; but impossible to prove virtue a derivative of utility. When utilitarians approach this crucial point, they appeal either to the will of God (John Austin), or to the authority of the law (Alexander Bain), or to conscientious feeling (John Stuart Mill). The theory fails, thus, both in regard to sufficiency of motive and of logical consistency. The fundamental principle of utilitarianism is the calculability of actions. Man is to act with a view to the pleasurable or painful effects of his acts, both to himself and to others. That might be a good rule to follow were man omniscient. Since he is limited in his foresight, he must act in many cases according to law and precept—either divine or human. But the moment he does so, he abandons the utilitarian principle, and obeys some rule either of man or of God. The principle ‘‘ The greatest happiness to the greatest number,” if taken as guide, does not afford basis for computation of pleasure and pain, since one can not know what will give pleasure or pain to others. Pains and pleasures differ not only with different individuals, but with different classes and stages of civilization. It was the impossibility of making fixed standards of variable pains and pleasures that caused Herbert Spencer to say: ‘‘ Hence if the method of egoistic hedonism is unsatisfactory, far more unsatisfactory for the same kindred reasons is the method of universalistic hedonism, or utilitarianism’”’ (Principles of Ethics, i. 155, London and New York, 1910). Rupoure M. Binper. BrsutiograpHy: E. Albee, Hist. of English Ttilitarianism, London, 1902; F. EB. Beneke, Grundlinien des natiirlichen Systems der praktischen Philosophie, 3 vols., Berlin, 1837— 1840; A. Bain, The Emotions and the Will, London, 1859; W. EH. H. Lecky, Hist. of European Morals, 2d ed., 2 vols., ib. 1869; J. Grote, Examination of Utilitarian Philosophy, Cambridge, 1870; H. Bleckley, A Colloquy on the Utilitarian Theory of Morals, London, 1873; J.S. Blackie, Four Phases of Morals, Edinburgh, 1874; A. Comte, Positive Philosophy, 2 vols., 2d ed., ib. 1875; L. Stephen, Science of Ethics, ib. 1882; idem, The English Utilitarians, 3 vols., ib. 1900; T. H. Green, Prolegomena to Ethics, Oxford, 1883; G. P. Best, Morality and Utility, London, 1887; H. Calderwood, Handbook of Moral Philosophy, 14th ed., ib. 1888; H. Sidgwick, Method of Ethics, 4th ed., ib. 1890; idem, Outlines of the Hist. of Ethics, 3d ed., ib. 1892; G. von Gizycki, Introduction to the Study of Ethics, ib. 1891; G. F. James, T. H. Green und der Utilitarismus, Halle, 1894; S. Chapman, The Zsthetic Element in Morality and its Place in a Utilitarian Theory of Morais, New York, 1895; A. Germain, Du beau moral formel, Paris, 1895; W. Wundt, Ethical Systems, New York, 1897; F. Paulsen, A System of Ethics, ib. 1899; J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism, Liberty, and Representative Government, latest issue, London, 1910. UTRAQUISTS. See Huss, Jonn, Hussirss, IL, § 3-7,
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Utilitarianism Uytenbogaert
UYTENBOGAERT, ai’’ten-bé’girt, JAN (HANS): Influential leader of the Dutch Remonstrants (aves b. at Utrecht Feb. 11, 1557; d. at The Hague Sept. 4, 1644. He came of Roman Catholic ancestry, and his early education he received at home and at the school of St. Jerome in his native city; he then turned to the study of law, entering the office of a notary, and a remarkable future seemed insured by 1578, when he was offended by the conditions attached to an offer, it being demanded that he cease attendance upon the sermons of the evangelically inclined Huibert Duifhuis. He thereupon broke with the Roman Catholic Church. He was a short time at Arnheim in the service of a secretary of Count John of Nassau, and then returned to Utrecht with the intention of becoming a pastor. Here the strife between Duifhuis and his partizans and the Calvinists (called Consistorials) had already broken out. In 1580 Uytenbogaert was sent at the city’s expense to Geneva to study theology and came into connection with Beza; but his sympathies were not in that direction, rather they inclined to Arminius. On his return to Utrecht in 1584 he found the strife between the adherents of Duifhuis and the Consistorials still sharper, the upper classes siding with the former. But the Consistorials called him to a pastorate in which he did not feel at home, as the conditions did not favor the expression of his own sentiments. In the course of the controversy between the parties, the magistrates decided to retire honorably all the preachers of both parties and install others in their places, and so Uytenbogaert was, in 1590, out of position.
At the invitation of Prince Maurice he went to The Hague in 1591, where he was soon installed over the Walloon congregation, and there his preaching was attended by the prince and the nobility. He gained the high favor of the prince and of Louise de Coligny, and undertook the education of the young Prince Frederik Hendrik, as well as the labors of court preacher. The appointments were to the taste of Oldenbarneveld, who expected to make use of the great influence which Uytenbogaert had already gained. The latter undertook the education of Oldenbarneveld’s two daughters, and in ecclesiastical matters was the adviser of the grand pensionary, but the friendship and cooperation of Uytenbogaert and Oldenbarneveld eventually cost the former his influence with the ecclesiastics. Yet for a long time he was the recognized head of an ecclesiastical party, and to him was attributed practically everything that was done, while his counsel was constantly sought. Yet as the head of his party he was no dogmatician, and in his pastoral work he emphasized piety and the renewing of the life; but he emphasized freedom of thought and speech, in which his opponents thought they saw the overthrow of the Church and of the republic. His influence was used time and again for peace, as in the case of Arminius (q.v.) in 1591, but in several of these cases he was accused of attempting to subject the Church to the State. On the death of Arminius Uytenbogaert became the head of the Arminians, now compacted into a party, to whom was to be given the name Remonstrants. Forty of these
as pastors met at the invitation of Oldenbarneveld and under the leadership of Uytenbogaert, Jan. 14, 1610, the result of which meeting was the famous ““ Remonstrance”” (see RmMONSTRANTS) to the States of Holland. At the same time came Uytenbogaert’s first writing, T’ractaet van ’t Ampt ende Authoriteyt eener Hoogher Christelicker Overheydt in Kerckelicke Saecken (The Hague, 1610), which called forth a series of answers and focused the strife which the conferences of 1611 and 1613 could not abate. The Calvinists began to institute their own services, the favor of Prince Maurice was lost to Uytenbogaert, and he at last declared he would no longer go, to hear the latter’s preaching. In 1617 the States decided for a synod, against the wish of the Remonstrants. Uytenbogaert lost courage, in Mar., 1618, asked to be relieved of his charge, and when, Aug. 29, 1618, Oldenbarneveld, Grotius, and Hogerbeets were arrested, Uytenbogaert fled to Rotterdam and thence to Antwerp. On May 24, 1619, he was publicly banned from the republic and his goods confiscated, the reason assigned being that he had introduced new views, contrary to those of the accepted Reformed doctrine. In October he sent a document to Prince Maurice in his own defense, Schriftelijcke Verantwoordinghe ... of de openbaere Klock inluydinghe Edicte . . . (1619), and continued from afar to direct the affairs of the Remonstrants. In Oct., 1621, he removed to Rouen. When Maurice died, Apr. 23, 1625, and was fol. lowed as stadholder by Uytenbogaert’s pupil Frederik Hendrik, affairs looked more favorable for the Remonstrants, and Uytenbogaert returned, reaching Rotterdam unheralded Sept. 26, 1626. But Frederik would not espouse openly the cause of the Remonstrants, though he granted his protection to his old teacher. Uytenbogaert began to preach quietly at The Hague, and regained possession of his own house. For the rest of his life he worked for his cause by his writings and by personal effort.
Although Uytenbogaert’s literary activity began late in his life, the results were fruitful. A list of his works is given in the appendix to the third edition of his autobiography (see bibliography, below); most of them were polemics, drawn from him by the stress of the times. Yet two of his productions, historical in nature, are of permanent value. The first is his autobiography, brought down to May 13, 1638. It was not intended for the public eye, and was edited by Rijckewaert. It is apologetic in character, and gives valuable information concerning the persons and events of his times. The second work was suggested by another which he issued anonymously under the title Oorspronck ende V oortganck der Nederlantsche Kerckelijcke verschillen tot op het Nationale Synodus van Dordrecht (1623), and aimed to be a history of the Church, especially in the Netherlands. It was called De Kerkelicke Historie, vervetende verscheyden ghedenckwaerdige saken, in de Christenheyt voor-gevallen, appeared in 1646, and covered the period 400-1619. The work is excellent in character, uses various sources, and is not uncritical. While the tone is moderate, the great fault is that in fact it is a defense of the Remonstrants.
Uytenbogaert was one of the great men of his
Uzziah Valdes