310 



RATIONALISM. 



the definition accorded to the term "rationalism" 

 by the earlier writers mi tin- subject. In itself it is an 

 Indication of a modified process on the part <>!' ration- 

 whilc the domain of their inquiry and invcsliga- 

 tion is enlarged Tn its progress is assigned the credit 

 of sweeping away t.iitli in iu,.-n- and witchcraft, of de- 

 Hroying fetishism and laith in miracle, anthropomor- 

 phism, relic worship, and finally pefMOdtMM 

 These Ik-neficcnt re.-ults are ascrilicd to rationalism, 

 which owed its (Hiwer in Kneland largely to the reaction 

 against Puritanism, the influence of lli.bhcs. and the 

 Baconian philosophy, as rapmeotod by the lloyul So- 

 eiely. 



Rationalism, however, in its proper interpret :il ion 

 and ultimate anuly.-is. elevates tlie reason as tin 1 sole 

 arbiter in religion, and, by a necessary eonsci|Ucncc. 

 in (ho historian the use of facts and to the eth- 

 ical inquirer the use of emotions or of conscience. 

 Certain n priori truths determine everything e'- 

 is not difficult to see that such a narrow basis in phi- 

 losophy or in theology must sooner or lakrreveal its 

 iusuffieii'iicy. Applied to statesmanship, it would de- 

 mand that, in government all the fruits of history 

 should be ignored ; to political eoonomy it. would deny 

 the records of markets; and to religion every! him: ot' 

 an experimental and emotional character. In short. 

 its opponents claim that it is equally inconsistent to 

 tin; ultimate appeal in matters of religion 

 solely to reason, as it would be to confine our judgment 

 of the properties of matter to any one of the. live 

 senses, excluding the others. 



Lecky's definition, given above, is an indication of 

 the extent to whrch rationalists themselves have de- 

 parted from the early principles of a rationalistic phi- 

 losophy, and have attempted to bring to their aid other 

 powers than those of reason alone. 



The root of mode_rn rationalism is probably to be 

 sought in the Cartesian philosophy. l>es Cartes' syl- 

 logism of universal doubt could not help, sooner or 

 later, invading the realm of theologv, and we are not 

 surprised to find him followed by philosophers of his 

 own school, who claim for reason a place as infallible 

 as is accorded to the Divine Creator of reason. 



The rationalism of Germany owed its remarkable 

 prevalence to several concurrent causes. The mysii- 

 ei-iu of the 1'ictists on the one hand contributed to 

 bring the stricter forms of orthodoxy into contempt. 

 Prominent theologians, like Michael IjaiiL'of Alldorf, 

 J. LaiiL'e and Uambaeh. claimed for the witness of the 

 Spirit a superior place to the teichiiiL's of dogmatic 

 theology. The " inner spark," the " inner word," be- 

 came a substitute for system and ereed, until serious 

 and devout men began to feel that uncertainty rested 

 upon all religious conclusions. The Bible, itself was 

 regarded aa of so little authority that to the cultured 

 and learned men of the time it was little better than 

 a book of fable. 



This result had been hastened by the demoralization 

 consequent upon the Thirty Ye. us' war, which debased 

 the nobles and the masses alike, so -4 hat infidelity be- 

 came almost universal. Then came German Idealism, 

 with its Iwautiful but deceptive promise, and under 

 Kant soucht to counteract the method pursued by 

 Voltaiie anil Volney, and the French Encyclopaedists. 

 It was dc-ii'iii'd to oppose the deists on the one hand 

 and the supernal iir.disis on the other, and to establish 

 Its principles on the ba-i of the superiority ot 

 to revelation, while the fact of the existence of a cred- 

 ible revelation was assumed. Sender,.). <i. Michaelis. 

 and.). <!. Kichhorn were among the curly theologians 

 to apply this philosophy to theology. Of these. Kieh- 

 horn may be regarded as the most, important writer. 

 He developed his principles in Ins /'/</ ,<;/ /.ilinii-i/ 

 of KiUicid Litrnitnrr (10 vols., I* 1801), 



and in [\\alntroflnction to the Old mid A'ei/i 7'.v 

 which appeared in 7 volumes, at Oottingcn, in isui. 



Singularly enough, the philosophers whose meta- 

 physics furnished tbc basis for these theological con- 



clusions, like Ki.-hte and Si-helling, do not 

 stigmatize the work ol H common- 



place and vulgar. The greatest, and by all means (he 

 most powerful, exponent of the school of rationalism 

 *M I'r II. K. <;. Paolo* (1761-1861). lie held that 



we must discriminate l>e(\\ecn .statements of fai-ls and 

 of opinions in the Bible. A fact is that which has 

 occurred within their experience ; an opinion is their 

 expression of the conditions under which it oe.-urrcd. 

 As these are naturally and necessarily confused in Bible 

 records, it is the duty of the critic te separate thrm. 

 Of course, all Mipcrnatur.il or divine interter. 

 denied and miracles are discredited. Christ, according 

 to this view, was not divine, but be was a wise and \ir- 

 tuous man. lie wrought no miracles what appeared 

 such were simple events, easily explained. The heal- 

 ing of the blind was due to an efficacious pow<: 

 iTctly applied to tin; eyes. The transmuting of the 

 water into wine never occurred Christ simply had his 

 disciples bring wine, where nothing but water ha , 

 provided. 1'eter Mild a fish, and thus secured the 

 money for tribute, etc. These are given simply as 

 illustrations of that form of rationalism which .-ought 

 its basis in the ideal philosophy. According to its 

 theories, truth was to be sought not by empirical pro- 

 cesses at all, but in the line of certain n priori princi- 

 ples by which all truth is to )>e judged. Guided by 

 these principles, the rationalists sought to explain the 

 truths of theology. Some doctrines of Christianity 

 were allegorized, many others were swept away alto- 

 gether. 



The German idealists, of whom Kant was incom- 

 parably the greatest, were succeeded in llieir influence 

 upon theological thought by Frederick Henry .lacobi 

 (1743-1K19), one of the most powerful thinkers of any 

 time. lie in-isled that all knowledge communicated 

 to us by the understanding (reason) is contingent, und 

 never universal, infinite, or purely philosophical. To 

 demonstrate any truth we must infer it from another 

 and so on to an infinite scries. All human knov. 

 he insisted, depends at last on faith or intuition. 

 Sensation itself, he affirms, is a mystery and our 

 knowledge of it rests on our faith in our memory of its 

 presence, (ioil, providence, freedom, moral distinc- 

 tions, are ideas that do not come to us by proofs. 

 They are ours by intuition. It is by the twofold office 

 of this faculty therefore that we cognize two worlds 

 the whole material of truth comes within the scope of 

 our knowledge and man is thus prepared to approach 



the questions of this world and of the world t me ; 



"the immediate certainty of feeling" was empha- 

 sized, and it was claimed that every perception proved 

 something actual present, whose existence and condi- 

 tions were independent of our internal laws and facul- 

 ties. Hi 1 was billowed by Boiitciwck. Krng, Fries, 

 Schlegel, Novalis, Schubert, Baader, and others who 

 pursued his principles with van-ing success. (, 

 among all those who availed themselves of the fruits 

 id' his philosophy was !'. I). K. Schlciermacher (I Ti'.S- 

 1834). This wonderful philosopher and divine, whilo 

 he is properly classified as a modified rationalist, 

 wrought effectively to save theology from the ilestruct- 

 ive tendencies (if his predecessors. He gave to < iermali 

 thought an uplifting that prepared it for Hase's llni- 

 Ifritx Jtnlirims. which was the deathblow to German 

 Hationalism and so effectively destroyed it that instead 

 of being recoL-ni/.ed as scientific it is henceforth distin- 

 guished as " Itationalisnnis Y'diaris." 



The writings of Strauss and Kenan seem to proceed 

 upon the basis of ;ui endeavor to find at the bottom of 

 theGo.-pel narrative some veritable history. In the 

 work of Strauss there is an attempt to explain by what 

 is known as the mythical theory the prevalent beliefs 

 of Christianity. According to him Christ really lived 

 and taught and died, but his disciples innocently poet- 

 i/ed his life, and having been rudely shocked by his 

 dying, were really comforted by the mistaken belief 

 that lie had risen from the dead. These myths which 



