in support of the affirmative, as well as of the negative side of the question. We oppose to the first other Fathers, who have declared in favour of the contrary opinion in a manner as clear and as positive, but better sustained and better proved. We do not at all count those whose testimony is obscure and ambiguous, any more than those who have spoken for and against; though we might interpret them in our favour with as much propriety as our opponents rank them on their side. Such testimony, according to all the rules of evidence, is nil; and when the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. are divided, their arguments should be duly weighed, and the best chosen. Now it seems evident that the passages of Scripture which we adduce are far more definite than those quoted on the opposite side; and we have for our view those of the Fathers who are considered the three columns of theology, St. Chrysostom amongst the Greeks, St. Augustin of the Latins, and Aquinas as representing the schoolmen of later times.

Thus, we have no hesitation in maintaining that the saints who rose after the death of our Saviour died again to rise on some future day in a blissful immortality; that we know nothing of the number, or condition, or age of those who then arose; that it is certain their resurrection was perfectly real; but that their bodies were not visible to every one, nor perhaps so entirely glorious as those with which the saints will be invested in heaven, but that they were all that was necessary to persuade men of the present resurrection of Jesus and of our rising again which is yet to come. In fine that, although Matthew narrates the opening of the graves immediately after the death of Jesus Christ, there is every reason to believe that that event did not take place till after the resurrection of the Saviour, and after his return from Hades, to which our creed teaches us he descended after his death to deliver from the shades the souls of those who there awaited his coming.k

The preceding version of a curious dissertation prefixed to Calmet's Commentaire Littéral is as close to the words of the author as the idiom of the languages would permit. The reader may thus be certain that he has a genuine rendering of the learned old Benedictine's singular treatise, without addition or diminution. Should he desire further information, he may consult the ordinary commentaries; but the best brief view is to be found at p. 176 of the first vol. of Bloomfield's New Test., sixth edit. On the general question of the resurrection, the authorities most worthy of notice are the following, the precise passages from which are noted:-Tertull., De Resurrectione Carnis, cap. 63; Pearson, On the Creed, p. 570, London edit. of 1845; Lord King, On the Creed, p. 398; Horne's Introd., vol. i. p. 239, ninth edition; Bishop of Tasmania's Lectures, p. 395. With reference to the word rendered 'Hell,' 'Hades' in the translation, see Gesenius's Thesaurus on Sin; and Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon to the New Test. on "Aidns. Nearly all the German commentators on this passage of St. Matthew suggest, as might be anticipated, rationalistic interpretations.-A. J. D. D.

GERMAN

GERMAN RATIONALISM IN ITS EARLY INDICATIONS.

By the Rev. O. T. DOBBIN, LL.D., of Trinity College, Dublin.

THE use of Reason in religion has been altogether denied by the divines of a certain extravagant school in theology, and the Church of Rome has founded her strongest claim to regard as a living interpreter of truth upon the same openly asserted and boldly maintained dogma. To quote the declarations of the long line of Romish doctors in disparagement of human reason when dealing with revelation, would be to compile a volume; and, being familiarly known in substance, would answer no good end whatsoever. Suffice it that we examine a few passages which an unreasoning pietism has perverted into a denunciation of the exercise of the noblest faculty of man in the noblest field which is open to his study. With the best possible intentions a serious wrong has been done to the records of inspiration, when it has been affirmed of them that they are either too sacred to be approached by the profane foot of human investigation, or too abstruse to be penetrated by the acuteness of human criticism. What is this but to say that they were never meant for man-for to no other faculty but his reason can they address themselves; and that they are not the product of infinite wisdom, for it fails to secure an adaptation in the book to the creature whom it is designed to influence? support of this blind credulism

In

'this base abandonment of reason Scripture itself will be piously quoted, with an obvious departure, however, from the Scripture signification, and an equally obvious lack of that faculty so incautiously cried down.

6

The words of St. Paul, for instance, are alleged to favour the view of these greatly mistaken persons, that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' (1 Cor. ii. 14.) This, in effect, makes nothing in their favour, because the contrast is not between the man who uses his reason and the man who uses it not, but between the natural and the spiritual man. Nothing is affirmed here against the use of reason in the spiritual man, and more than this we need not urge at present. If it be only meant to affirm that the doctrines of mediation, and all cognate truths, are beyond the discovery and appreciation of the unaided understanding of man, we find no

difficulty

difficulty in assenting to a proposition of such a nature; but that is so clearly beside the question that it were a mere truism to allege it, and mere trifling to discuss it.

Again, in depreciation of human reason, the sentiment is urged from St. James, to the effect that human wisdom is that which is not 'from above,' but is earthly, sensual, devilish' (James iii. 15); to which the obvious reply is, that it is not the exercise of the understanding which lies under the ban of the Apostle, but perverted moral affections; not synthesis and analysis-not syllogism and sorites-but envy, strife, and opposition to virtue.

Nor is such a passage as that in the Epistle to the Romans forgotten, where, in chap. i. 22, St. Paul charges the heathen at large with yielding to the dictates of a depraved understanding, and proves by painful facts that their boasted wisdom was only filthy folly. The connexion of such a passage with the point in hand is too remote to be availing in this case. The abuse or neglect of reason among the heathen, who had no supernatural revelation, bears very faintly upon the use of right reason by a Christian man.

But the carnal mind, it is affirmed, is enmity against God' (Romans viii. 7); to which a more than sufficient answer is, that the flesh-not the mind--is here stigmatized as the enemy of God.

But the doctrine of the Lord Jesus himself is adduced as all convincing upon the subject. When Peter made his memorable confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!' the Saviour replied, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.' (Matt. xvi. 16, 17.) This passage only proclaims a doctrine we have ever held and published, that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost!' (1 Cor. xii. 3.) St. Peter was indebted to a divine illumination for his recognition in the Lord Jesus Christ of the Son of the eternal God; but Peter was the last who would repudiate the exercise of his reason because of his celestial endowments. None other was it but he who exhorted his correspondents to make such vigorous use of their understanding as to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asked them a reason of the hope that was in them.' (1 Peter iii. 15.)

6

Of these passages the greater portion do not apply; and of those that may, it is in a very modified sense, rather expressing the insufficiency of the depraved or unassisted understanding to fathom or approve of revealed truth, than undervaluing the great light of the soul-the intellectual image of God in man.

That the exclusion of human reason from the province of religion is in itself unreasonable and indefensible will appear from a few cogent considerations.

Reason

Reason is the guide of our life-the prompter of our actionsthe controller of passion-the regent of society. When we walk by its light, and observe its laws, we do well; while the moment we violate its precepts, we sin against our own welfare, and offend God. If reason be our all in all in the lower life, that of mundane affairs, and we only do wrong when we neglect its monitions, why should we suppose ourselves right in scorning its guidance in spiritual things? Revelation was never meant to supersede or extinguish reason in man, and reduce him to a mere machine, moving as he is impelled, and following as he is led, without volition, without judgment, without conscience-no, but to direct reason, inspire reason, expand reason to more glorious developments, enlarge the bounds of its empire, and invest its dictates with more commanding authority.

Again, all attempts at proof on the part of religious teachers or churches are so many appeals to reason; every lesson which the naтnxоúμεvoι ever received was proof that the understanding as well as the heart has ample room for exercise in religion; every controversial pamphlet that ever took wing from the press, and fired as it flew, and tracked its way with flame

'liquidis in nubibus arsit

Signavitque viam flammis,'

appealed to the reason alike of its friends and foes. Atheism, Deism, Romanism, are all attacked with the weapons of reason. The great Goliath of error is never so courageously met, and triumphantly mastered, as when the sling of reason is armed with pebbles from the brook of holy writ. Thus equipped, our Davids do valiantly, and successfully too; but the stone without the sling would do small execution, while the sling without the stone would be worthless. Both are essential to the armament of the good soldier of Jesus Christ.'

Never was there a revelation given to a patriarch or prophet that did not appeal to the reason of the recipient; never was there a miracle wrought that did not invite the reason of the observer to pronounce upon its reality; and never, among philosophers or preachers of ancient or modern times, was there more straightforward address to reason in their hearers than in the Saviour of men to his Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.' (John vii. 24.) Why even of your own selves judge ye not what is right?' (Luke xii. 57.) If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.' (John x. 37, 38.) And the whole of that divine apology, contained in the fifth chapter of the same Gospel,

is a powerful appeal from the folly of tradition, the force of habit, the bigotry of prejudice, to the calm reason and unwarped understanding of his judges. How were his disciples to detect the wolves in sheep's clothing? By using their reason. How shall we understand that Christ is not a deal board when he says, 'I am the door'? By the use of our reason. How shall we ascertain that his body, soul, and divinity, are not couched under the form of bread in the attenuated mola? Doubtless by our reason. Why should we not go a grape-gathering in a thorn-brake, or a fig-hunting in thistle-ground-but that reason forbids it? Surely, what Jesus commands, and common sense sanctions, is not to be lightly proscribed; nor will either a well-meaning but weak-minded piety, or an imperious dogmatism, prevail on us to lay an artificial and untenable interdict upon what is as essential in religion as in secular life. Scripture and reason dwell together, like the sisters of Bethany, under one roof. To neglect reason, then, and leave Scripture alone to do the work of both, is to give the latter more just ground for the remonstrance than ever Martha had: 'Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me!'

Both the higher and lower criticism of the sacred Scriptures make large demands upon the application of our reason. The doctrines of Christ cannot be gathered without it, nor comprehended when gathered. Those doctrines, as given in the inspired volumes, are not propounded in elaborate schemes, nor digested into orderly systems, but are aphoristic, parabolic, circumstantial, and occasional, owing their meaning often to the accidents of time and place, as much as to the terms of expression. What but reason then makes our dogmatic Christianity what it is-a structure of exquisite harmony and beauty to the eye of the admirer-an impregnable fortress to the efforts of the assailant?

And the Bible, a book composed in three tongues, and needing the literature of many for its elucidation, how shall we collect its meaning-how translate its vocables-how interpret its figuresbut by the aid of reason? Away then with the unreasoning cry, which actually effects nothing but to demonstrate the folly of those who raise it, 'Not reason, but faith-not reason, but faith.' There cannot be faith without reason, for faith is the assent of the understanding as well as the acceptance of the heart. They therefore who would absolutely exclude human reason from intermeddling with religious documents and doctrines, and would reduce the speculative and the practical in religion to a passive and plastic submission to an assumed divine revelation, do virtually abolish religion altogether, and symbolise with the fool who saith in his heart, no God.' (Ps. xiv. 1.) We do not charge them with consciously

VOL. I.-NO. I.

K