A Short History of Freethought Ancient and Modern, Volume 2 of 2 by J. M. Robertson

led men on the whole towards deism, [1326] much more must this hold true of the new school who applied rationalistic methods to religious questions in their capacity as theologians. Of this school the founder was Johann Salomo Semler (1725-1791), who, trained as a Pietist at Halle, early thought himself into a more critical attitude, [1327] albeit remaining a theological teacher. Son of a much-travelled army chaplain, who in his many campaigns had learned much of the world, and in particular seen something of religious frauds in the Catholic countries, Semler started with a critical bias which was cultivated by wide miscellaneous reading from his boyhood onwards. As early as 1750, in his doctoral dissertation defending certain texts against the criticism of Whiston, he set forth the view, developed a century later by Baur, that the early Christian Church contained a Pauline and a Petrine party, mutually hostile. The merit of his research won him a professorship at Halle; and this position he held till his death, despite such heresy as his rejection from the canon of the books of Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, the Song of Solomon, the two books of Chronicles, and the Apocalypse, in his Freie Untersuchung des Canons (1771-1774)--a work apparently inspired by the earlier performance of Richard Simon. [1328] His intellectual life was for long a continuous advance, always in the direction of a more rationalistic comprehension of religious history; and he reached, for his day, a remarkably critical view of the mythical element in the Old Testament. [1329] Not only did he recognize that Genesis must have pre-Mosaic origins, and that such books as the Proverbs and the Psalms were of later date and other origin than those traditionally assigned: [1330] his historical sense worked on the whole narrative. Thus he recognized the mythical character of the story of Samson, and was at least on the way towards a scientific handling of the New Testament. [1331] But in his period and environment a systematic rationalism was impossible; he was always a "revelation-believing Christian"; his critical intelligence was always divided against itself; [1332] and his powers were expended in an immense number of works, [1333] which failed to yield any orderly system, while setting up a general stimulus, in despite of their admitted unreadableness. [1334] In his latter days he strongly opposed and condemned the more radical rationalism of his pupil Bahrdt, and of the posthumous work of Reimarus, here exemplifying the common danger of the intellectual life, for critical as well as uncritical minds. After provoking many orthodox men by his own challenges, he is roused to fury alike by the genial rationalism of Bahrdt and by the cold analysis of Reimarus; and his attack on the Wolfenbüttel Fragments published by Lessing is loaded with a vocabulary of abuse such as he had never before employed [1335]--a sure sign that he had no scientific hold of his own historical conception. Like the similarly infuriated semi-rational defenders of the historicity of Jesus in our own day, he merely "followed the tactic of exposing the lack of scientific knowledge and theological learning" of the innovating writer. Always temperamentally religious, he died in the evangelical faith. But his own influence in promoting rationalism is now obvious and unquestioned, [1336] and he is rightly to be reckoned a main founder of "German rationalism"--that is, academic rationalism on theologico-historical lines [1337]--although he always professed to be merely rectifying orthodox conceptions. In the opinion of Pusey "the revival of historical interpretation by Semler became the most extensive instrument of the degradation of Christianity." Among the other theologians of the time who exercised a similar influence to the Wolffian, Töllner attracts notice by the comparative courage with which, in the words of an orthodox critic, he "raised, as much as possible, natural religion to revelation," and, "on the other hand, lowered Scripture to the level of natural light." [1338] First he published (1764) True Reasons why God has not furnished Revelation with evident proofs, [1339] arguing for the modern attenuation of the idea of revelation; then a work on Divine Inspiration (1771) in which he explicitly avowed that "God has in no way, either inwardly or outwardly, dictated the sacred books. The writers were the real authors" [1340]--a declaration not to be counterbalanced by further generalities about actual divine influence. Later still he published a Proof that God leads men to salvation even by his revelation in Nature [1341] (1766)--a form of Christianity little removed from deism. Other theologians, such as Ernesti, went far with the tide of illuminism; and when the orthodox Chr. A. Crusius died at Leipzig in 1781, Jean Paul Richter, then a student, wrote that people had become "too much imbued with the spirit of illuminism" to be of his school. "Most, almost all the students," adds Richter, incline to heterodoxy; and of the professor Morus he tells that "wherever he can explain away a miracle, the devil, etc., he does so." Of this order of accommodators, a prominent example was Michaelis (1717-1791), whose reduction of the Mosaic legislation to motives of every-day utility is still entertaining.