Page images
PDF
EPUB

1845.]

The Bible ascribes personality to the Devil.

139

that there cannot be any adjustment or reconciliation between them, for then would a comparison be empty and fruitless. And since we have made the question of the existence of the devil wholly dependent upon the declarations of Holy Scripture, without being able to go into an examination of particular passages, it may be of additional importance to compare our results with the positions of those theologians who have made it their special object to take all the passages of the Bible that refer to the doctrine, and develop their meaning with the greatest possible degree of historical impartiality and truth. Among such theologians v. Cölln, too early deceased, takes a very honorable rank. With all the difference of our theological views, I yet regard his Biblical Theology as an admirable legacy for every one who wishes to attain a thorough knowledge of the biblical basis of our faith. How stands, then, his view of the biblical doctrine respecting the devil and his kingdom in comparison with our own?

According to v. Cölln, Jesus was not convinced of the reality of demoniacal influences. It was otherwise in respect to Satan; but even Satan was not supposed by Jesus to be a distinct personal being, with definite traits and attributes of character, but only the personification of the general notion of a hostile power of evil. Thus, too, it was with the apostle John; for him, Satan had only a general symbolical importance, but he did not think of him as a real personal being; he was only a sign or figure of the ungodly principle which is opposed to the ends of God's kingdom.2 In the same way, Paul intends only to represent, in a sensible form, the principle of evil; he speaks of it, not in abstract phrases, but in a concrete manner, as Satan.3

Abstracting, now, from all which is unessential or of but secondary importance (to which belongs v. Cölln's view, that the evil principle for which the apostles used the word Satan as a symbol, is nothing but our earthly desires, or our vain sensual lusts), this theologian agrees with us in the view, that the idea of an evil power, hostile to the kingdom of God, lies at the basis of what Christ and the apostles have said respecting Satan. And according to our own views, this is the chief thing, although we should recollect that there must be something in the idea itself which led Jesus and the apostles to understand and represent it in the pre

1 Von Cölln's Biblische Theologie, Th. II p. 73. 2 The same, p. 234.

3 The same, p. 237.

↑ If, for example, evil be nothing but a transitory manifestation of the fluctuations that necessarily result from the conflict between the sensual and rational

cise concrete way they did; and this, too, although this designation of the evil principle as Satan be nothing more than a mere personification. But here comes up the very point of contest, as to the personal existence of the devil and his angels.

In regard to this, there are two extreme opinions, both opposed to the doctrine of the church. The one is, that which v. Cölln maintains, that the doctrine rests upon a mere personification, and is therefore only the product of a mode of exhibiting and understanding the notion of an evil principle, corresponding with the culture of the times. The other extreme view would be, if it was conceived that in Satan evil itself had become personal, had come, if we may use the phrase, to a consciousness of itself, that in him evil was concentrated into a self-conscious personality; as, according to some physiological views, disease is not merely the cause of the deposit or discharge of peccant matter (materia peccans), but sometimes attains an independent existence in malignant ulcers, or in some unnatural forms of organization, which may have the semblance of health, but are wholly opposed to it. not to be denied that some such conception of it must have been in the minds of many who supposed they were talking about the devil in a very orthodox way; but it is not the doctrine of the church. According to the true view, the general evil power has indeed become a matter of conscious experience, and in this sense has attained to personality; but only in beings who were origi nally created good and for good, but who have voluntarily given themselves up to sin, or have let themselves become subject to this evil power. Von Cölln, and every body else, will concede the truth of the last statement in its application to the human race. The difference of the doctrine of the church is then only this, that it asserts that higher spirits have fallen, have fallen deeper than man, have fallen so deep that they exhibit in themselves personified evil itself. If the possibility of this (as we believe we have proved) cannot be denied, why will we rather force a personification into the words of Jesus and the apostles, than take the natural sense of the expressions as the true opinion of those that uttered them?

nature (those two factors of our moral life), this mode of representing it would be inconceivable even as a symbolical one. Take the two propositions-Ananias has a diabolical thought—and, a diabolical thought has got hold of Ananias (Acts 5:3); only the second of these can be understood as meaning to give a figurative representation of the notion that it was put into him by a personal evil spirit distinct from himself, even though one might have a fancy very much inclined to personifications.

1945.]

Condition of Theology in Holland.

141

ARTICLE VI.

CONDITION OF THEOLOGY IN HOLLAND, ESPECIALLY IN THE REFORMED CHURCH.*

By B. B. Edwards, Professor at Andover.

EVERY attentive observer of the religious state of Central and Northern Europe, must be struck with the radical differences which distinguish the theology of Holland from that of Germany. At first view, these differences seem to be unaccountable. The two nations have the same origin; they speak dialects of the same original tongue; they are near neighbors, separated in part only by a river; both have fought the battles of Protestantism, and have, alike, a precious martyrology; both look back with gratitude to the same restorers of learning, the Erasmuses and Reuchlins of the sixteenth century; the students of both countries have been distinguished for laborious industry and accurate investigation; eminent classical and oriental scholars adorn the annals of both; yet how unlike, in many respects, have been, and still are, the theological characteristics of Germany and Holland.

In Germany, the discussion has often turned on the question between Christianity and absolute skepticism. A party, within the church, have attempted to destroy, not only the church system, but Christianity, and even religion itself. This party has not been weak or small. It has had bold, able, and energetic leaders, unable or unwilling to build up theology and the church, but keen in detecting defects, vigilant in seizing on the favorable moment to overthrow an established truth, adroit in imposing their sophisms on the susceptible hearts of the young. Their system is that of negations; their weapons are sarcasm and jeers; they would not reform Christianity, but abolish it, as ill adapted to the times, obsolete, like the ritual system of the Old Testament.

Again, the diversity of views among those who call themselves orthodox, and who may be regarded as real friends of the church, is almost infinitely greater in Germany than in Holland. Not taking into the account the Roman Catholics, and small sects like the Swedenborgians, what wide and diversified modes of thinking

1 The greater portion of the following article is translated or condensed from a'paper by Dr. Ullmann of Heidelberg, in the "Studien u. Kritiken," 3d No., 1844, and from the "Kirchliche Statistik," by Dr. Julius Wiggers of Rostock, Vol. 11. 1843, pp. 253-298. A few of the first pages are original.

prevail! It is sometimes said that the old rationalism is dead or dying; but it is not so. It still has unwearied and learned champions; it is strongly rooted in a large mass of educated mind. There are still those who make human reason the ground and criterion of religious truth, though they do not consider the Kantian philosophy the basis, but rather rely upon the Hegelian or some other system.

In a general point of view, the German theologians may be divided into three parties, the followers of Hegel, those of Schleiermacher, and the old orthodox party. Yet these are mingled with each other to such an extent, that it is difficult to determine the position of many individuals. It is well known that the Hegelian party include men of decided orthodox views, as well as those of the wildest rationalism. The nomenclature, which has been adopted from the French Convention, but partially designates the actual divisions which exist.

The individuals who were strongly affected by Schleiermacher, and who adopt his views more or less, have little bond of union among themselves. Some of them decidedly incline to the old Lutheran symbols; others are vacillating between orthodoxy and rationalism. In the writings of some, a loose criticism abounds; in others, an historical faith is firmly vindicated.

Even those theologians who take their position, with great decision, on the Church doctrines, are not altogether harmonious. The orthodoxy of some is more exclusive than that of others. Some lean to what is common in the several Protestant Confessions; others adhere tenaciously to the identical words of their peculiar creed; with some, the understanding is predominant; the faith of others has a strong mystical element; a portion fiercely contend for the union of church and State; another part are ready to deny, altogether, the right of the State to interfere in ecclesiastical matters. In short, an exact classification of German theologians seems to be out of the question.

It follows, necessarily, from the above statements, that there is a boundless mental activity in Germany. Society, in certain aspects of it, is stirred to its foundations. Intellectual tranquillity is a condition but little known. Discussion provokes discussion, controversy succeeds controversy, while the common ground, on which theologians in former days stood, has become very narrow. In Holland, on the contrary, the intellectual world has never been thoroughly aroused. The changes, that have occurred, have been, for the most part, gradual and silent. Adherence to the ancient

1845.]

Differences between German and Dutch Theology. 143

standards has been the motto in science and literature, as well as in theology. The multiform disputes, which have rent in sunder the theologians on the other side of the Rhine, if known, have been regarded with indifference or contempt.

Now why this marked difference between the two nations? What causes have produced so wide a diversity? Without attempting to answer this question fully, we may hint at two or three considerations which have had a decided influence.

The intellect of Holland has had, in some important respects, a far wider scope for development than that of Germany. Hol. land has enjoyed a greater degree of civil freedom than perhaps any continental country. It has often been the asylum of the exiled republican, as well as of the persecuted Protestant. Political and Christian liberty owes it a great debt. The intellect of the country has here had free vent. The mind, that might have been plunging into the mysteries of the divine decrees, or of the absolute reason, has been strenuously occupied in resisting Spanish or French aggression. But in Germany, with the exception of a brief interval after the battle of Jena, there has been no such outlet. The political press is an insignificant affair. A severe censorship has restrained every liberal tendency. Dungeons and immense standing armies have been ready to crush the first uttered aspiration in favor of liberty. Of course, the mind, shut out from this great field, has turned, with convulsive ardor, to theology and abstract science. The more narrow the arena for discussion, the wilder the movement within that arena. The despotisms of Germany are accountable for no small share of the infidelity that has given a bad eminence to the country. Paulus and Wegscheider and Strauss are the natural growth of an irresponsible monarchy. The mind will assert its freedom in some direction; coërced on one point, it will violently break out on another.

Again, Holland had, for many years, a wide and prosperous foreign commerce. Much of the intellectual activity of the people flowed in the channels of trade. Commercial, not mental, wealth, became the object of eager enterprise. On the other hand, the greater part of Germany is shut out from commercial activity. No large rivers or bays intersect her principalities. An important branch of her enterprise has centered at the Leipsic fair; her merchants are dealers in books. She has lived within herself.

Again, Holland is one country, compact, homogeneous, acknowledging one sovereign, with common ancestral recollections, with peculiar and strongly marked features of character. The stu

« PreviousContinue »