THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF THE PASTORAL OFFICE............ 81 METHODIST QUARTERLY RARY JANUARY, 1867. ART. I.-HURST'S HISTORY OF RATIONALISM. History of Rationalism, embracing a Survey of the Present State 1866. THE aim of this work is indicated by its twofold title. It is not simply a history of Rationalism, but also a survey of the state of Protestant theology. Had Dr. Hurst aimed simply to sketch the rise and progress of Rationalism, properly so called, his method would doubtless have been different, and many things now properly placed in his volume would have been excluded from it. The work might have gained in point of unity by this exclusion; but it would have lost in completeness and utility. As it stands, it is to be judged by its professed aim, as expressed in its title. Rationalism properly and historically is the name of a movement in German theology in the eighteenth century. The essential spirit in this movement was that the human mind is the standard and measure of truth in religion, as in other things. It did not, in the beginning, deny Revelation, but held that Revelation must not only address itself to reason, but must submit to be judged by reason. Its professed aim, in fact, was to reconcile Revelation with science. Starting with the apparently harmless maxim that the Bible must be studied and interpreted on rational principles, it began its career by what FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XIX.-1 seemed to be only a peculiar method of interpretation, namely, that of proceeding historically, and not dogmatically, in the exegesis of Scripture. Ernesti was no skeptic or infidel; he aimed, we have no doubt, to purify and elevate biblical criticism. We cannot say so much of Michaelis, whose culture, like his nature, was less elegant than Ernesti's, and who lacked the spirit of reverence almost wholly. But Michaelis was far from an absolute rejection of Scripture. Nor can even Semler be called an infidel. Had any of these forerunners of the modern pantheism been charged with discarding the Bible, they would have repelled the accusation indignantly. "Because we love it," they said, "we are putting ourselves to all this trouble of elucidating it. It grieves us beyond measure to see how it has been suffering from the vagaries of weak minds. We are going to place it in the hands of impartial Reason; so that, for once at least, it may become plain to the masses. We will call in all the languages and sciences to aid us in exhuming its long-buried treasures, in order that the wayfaring man, though a fool, may appropriate them. And as to the Church, who would say aught against our venerable mother? We love her dearly. We confess, indeed, that we love the green fields and gray mountain-rocks better than her Sabbath services; nor do we have much respect for her Sabbath at all. But we cherish her memories, and are proud of her glory. Yet the people do not understand her mysteries well enough. They do not love her as much as we do. Therefore we will stir them up to the performance of longneglected duties. They ignorantly cling too proudly to her forms and confessions. But we will aid them to behold her in a better light. We know the true path of her prosperity, for do you not see that we have been born and bred within her dear fold? Let everybody follow us. We will bring you into light."-Pp. 27, 28. The movement of which we have spoken lay, it will be ob served, entirely within the domain of theology, or rather of theologians. Men who absolutely rejected Christianity were not called Rationalists, but infidels, deists, or atheists. The starting point of the professed unbelievers, and, in fact, their whole line of thought, lay outside of the sphere of Christian ideas, while that of the Rationalists lay within it. The primary and proper application, then, of the name Rationalist, is clear. It was, as we have said, the title given to certain theologians in the eighteenth century, who assumed to interpret Scripture in the light of reason, but who in reality placed reason above Scripture. The name soon came to be a |