Lectures on Calvinism (Stone Lectures)

taught that there existed two spheres of life, the earthly or the human as such, here below, and the heavenly, higher than the human as such; the latter offering celestial enjoyments in the vision of God. Now, Adam according to this theory, was well prepared by God for both spheres, for the common sphere of life by the nature He gave him, and for the extra-common by granting him the supranatural gift of original righteousness. In this wise Adam was doubly furnished for the natural as well as the supranatural life. By the fall he lost the latter, not the former. His natural equipment for his earthly life remained unimpaired. It is true, human nature was weakened, but as a whole it remained in its integrity. Adam's natural endowments remained his possession after the fall. This explains why it is that fallen man often excels in the natural order of life, which is in fact superhuman. You perceive that this is a system which tries to reconcile the dogma of the fall with the real state of things round about us, and on this remarkable anthropology is founded the entire catholic religion. Two things only are faulty in this system, on the one hand it lacks the deep Scriptural conception of sin, and on the other it errs by the undervaluation of earthly life, to which it leads. This is the false dualism, to which my First Lecture pointed, in the carnival. At that time the world is once more fully enjoyed, before one enters upon the Caro vale, but after the Carnival, in order to save the ideal, follows, for a short time, spiritual elevation into the higher sphere of life. For this reason the clergy, severing the earthly tie in celibacy, rank higher than the laity, and again, the monk, who turns away from earthly possessions also and sacrifices his own will, stands, ethically considered, on a higher level than the clergy. And finally the highest perfection is reached by the stylite, who, mounting his pillar, severs himself from everything earthly, or by the yet more silent penitent who causes himself to be immured in his subterranean cave. Horizontally, if I may use this expression, the same thought finds embodiment in the separation between sacred and secular ground. Everything uncountenanced and uncared for by the church, is looked upon as being of a lower character, and exorcism in baptism tells us, that these lower things are really meant to be unholy. Now, it is evident that such a standpoint did not invite Christians to make a study of earthly things. Nothing but a study appartaining to the sphere of heavenly things and contemplation could attract those who had mounted guard over the sanctuary of the ideal.

This conception of the moral condition of fallen man has been opposed in principle by Calvinism, on the one hand by taking our conception of sin in the most absolute sense, and on the other by explaining that which is good in fallen man by the dogma of common grace. Sin, according to Calvinism, which is in full accord with the Holy Scriptures, sin unbridled and unfettered, left to itself, would forthwith have led to a total degeneracy of human life, as may be inferred from what was seen in the days before the flood. But Cod arrested sin in its course in order to prevent the complete annihilation of his divine handiwork, which natural^ would have followed. He has interfered in the life of the individual, in the life of mankind as a whole, and in the life of nature itself by His common grace. This grace however does not kill the core of sin, nor does it save unto life eternal, but it arrests the complete effectuation of sin, just as human insight arrests the fury of wild beasts. Man can prevent the beast from doing damage by putting it behind bars; he can subject it to his will by taming it; he can make it attractive by domesticating it, e.g., by transforming the originally wild dog and cat into domestic animals. In a similar manner Cod by His common grace restrains the operation of sin in man, partly by breaking its power, partly by taminghis evil spirit, and partly by domesticating his nation or his family. Common grace has thus led to the result that an uugenerated sinner may captivate and attract us by much that is lovely and full of energy, just as our domestic animals do, but this of course after the manner of man. The nature of sin however remains as venomous as it was. This is seen in the cat, which, brought back to the woods, returns to its former wild state after two generations, and a similar experience has been made with regard to human nature, just now, in Armenia and Cuba. He who reads an account of the massacres of St. Bartholemew is easily inclined to place these horrors to the account of the low state of culture in those days, but behold! our nineteenth century has surpassed these horrors by the massacres in Armenia. And he who has read a description of the cruelties committed by the Spaniards in the 16th century in the villages and cities of the Netherlands against defenceless old men, women and children, and then heard the news of what occurred now in Cuba, cannot help acknowledging that, what was a disgrace in the 16th, has been repeated in the 19th century, and, as Buckle justly maintains, that the form of evil may change, but that moral evil in germ and principle, continues the same through all the ages. Where evil does not come to the surface, or does not manifest itself in all its hideousness, we do not owe it to the fact that our nature is not so deeply corrupt, but to God alone, Who by His common grace, hinders the bursting forth of the flames from the smoking fire. And if you ask, how it is possible, that out of restrained evil something may come forth which attracts, pleases and interests }*ou, take then as an illustration the ferry-boat. This boat is put in motion by the current, which would carry it swiftly as an arrow down stream and ruin it; but by means of the chain, to which it is fastened, the boat arrives safely on the opposite side, pressed forward by the same power, which would otherwise have demolished it. In this wise God rerains the evil and it is He who brings forth good out of evil, and meanwhile we Calvinists, never remiss in accusing our sinful nature, praise and thank God for making

it possible for men to dwell together in a well-ordered society, and for restraining us personally from horrible sins. Moreover we thank Him for bringing to light all the talents, hidden in our race, developing, b}T means of a regular process, the history of mankind, and securing by the same grace, for his church on earth, a place for the sole of her foot.

This confession, however, places the Christian in a quite different position over against life. For then, in his judgment, not only the church, but also the world belongs to God and in both has to be investigated the masterpiece of the supreme Architect and Artificer.

He who seeks God, does not for a moment think of limiting himself to theology and contemplation, leaving the other sciences, as of a lower character, in the hands of unbelievers; but on the contrary, looking upon it as his task, to know God in all his works, he is conscious of having been called to fathom with all the energy of his intellect, things terrestrial as well as things heavenly; to open to view both the order of creation, and the common'grace of the God lie adores, in nature and its wondrous character, in the production of human industry, in the life of mankind, in sociology and in the history of the human race. Thus you perceive, how this dogma of common grace suddenly removed the interdict, under which secular life had lain bound, at the peril of coming very near a reaction in favor of a one-sided love for these secular studies. It was now understood, that it was the commongrace of God. which had produced in ancient Greece and Rome the treasures of philosophic light, and disclosed to us treasures of art and justice, which kindled the love for classical studies, in order to renew to us the profit of so splendid an heritage. It was now clearly seen, that the history of mankind is not so much an aphoristic spectacle of cruel passions, as a coherent process with the Cross as its centre; a process in which every nation has its special task, and the knowledge of which may be a fountain of blessing for every people. It was apprehended, that the science of politics and national economy deserved the careful attention of scholars and men of thought. Yea, it was intuitively conceived, that there was nothing either in the life of nature round about us, or in human life itself, which did not present itself as an object worthy of investigation, which might throw new light on the glories of the entire cosmos in its visible phenomena and its invisible operations. From on a different standpoint, progress in thorough scientific knowledge on these lines often leads to pride and estranges the heart from God, but we owe it to this glorious dogma of common grace that in Calvinistic circles the most profound investigator never ceases to acknowledge himself a guilty sinner before God,.and to ascribe to God's mercy alone, his splendid understanding of the things of the world.

Having proved that Calvinism has fostered love for science and restored to science its domain, allow me now in the third place to show in what manner it has advanced its indispensable liberty. Liberty is for genuine science, what the air we breathe is for us. This does not mean that science is entirely untrammeled in the use of its liberty and need obey no laws. On the contrar}T, a fish lying on dry land is perfectly free viz., to die and to perish while a fish, which shall be free to live and to thrive must be entirely surrounded by water and guided by its fins. In the same manner every science has to keep up the closest connection with its subject, and strictly to obey the claims of its proper method; and only when strictly bound by this double tie, can science move* freely on. For the liberty of science does not consist in licentiousness or lawlessness, but in its being freed from all unnatural bonds, unnatural because they are not rooted in its vital principle. Now in order to fully understand the position Calvin took, wo should abstain from any wrong conception of universitylife in the middle ages. State universities were not known in those days. The universities were free corporations, and in so far prototypes of most of the universities in America, a condition of things, which we see revive in Europe in general, and happily also in the Netherlands, in the Free University, whose servant I am. It was the general opinion in those days, that science called into existence a respublica litterarum, "a commonwealth of learned men", which hasto live upon its own spiritual capital or to die of lack of talent and energy. The encroachment upon the liberty of science in those days came not from the State but from an entirely different quarter. For ages two dominant powers, only, had been known in the life of mankind, the Church and the Staie. The dichotomy of body and soul was reflected in this view of life. The Church was the soul, the State the body; a third power was unknown. Church-life was centralized in the pope, while the political life of the nations found its point of union in the emperor, and it was the endeavor to resolve this dualism into a higher unity, that kindled the flames of the fierce struggle for the supremacy of the imperial crown or the papal tiara, as seen in the conflict between the Hohenstaufen and the Guelphs. Since then however science as a third power, thanks to the Renaissance) had pushed itself in between them. Before the thirteenth century elapsed Science had found in the rising universitylife an embodiment of its own, and claimed an existence independent of pope and emperor. The only remaining question was, whether this new power also was to create an hierarchical center, in order to unveil itself as the third great potentate, at the side of the pope and the emperor. Here three positions were possible: 1 °. that such a third hierarchy were created; 2°. that science continued to be without a central head; or 3°. that either pope or caesar usurped this place.

contrary the republican character of the university demanded the exclusion of all monarchical aspirations. But it was just as natural for pope and caesar, who had partitioned among themselves the entire domain of life, to watch with suspicion the growth of a third, entirely independent power, and to try eveiything in order to subject the universities to their rule. If all the then existing universities had taken a firm stand such a plan would never have succeeded. But as is often the case among free corporations, competition allured the weaker to seek support from without and to turn for help to the head of Christendom. This compelled the strong Universities to follow, and so the favor of the pope was soon universally coveted, in order to secure special privileges. Herein is found the fundamental evil. In this wise Science surrendered its independent character. It was overlooked, that the intellectual reception into, and the reflection from our consciousness, of the cosmos wherein all science consists, forms a sphere entirely different from Religion. Now this evil has been checked by the reformation, and mastered especially by Calvinism. Formally mastered, because in the Church itself the monarchical hierarchy was abandoned, and under the monarchical authority of Christ a republican and federal organisation was introduced. A spiritual Church head, whose task it would be, to rule over universities, no longer existed for a Calvinist. For Lutherans such a visible head was at hand in the ruler of the land, whom they honored as "first Bishop", summus episcopus, but not for Calvinistic nations, which kept Church and State separate as two spheres of life. A doctor's diploma, in their system) might not derive its significance from public opinion neither from papal consent nor from an ecclesiastical ordinance, but solely from the scientific character of the institution. To this must be added a second point. Without regarding the papal auspices over the University as such, the Church exercised pressure upon Science by harassing, accusing and persecuting the innovators on account of their expressed opinions and published writings. The Church did not tolerate freedom of the word. Truth alone, not error had the right to propagate itself, and truth was expected to keep its ground, not by conquering error in honest conflict, but by arraigning it at the bar of justice. This impaired the liberty of Science, because it submitted scientific questions, which could not be settled by ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to the judgment of the Church. He who shrunk from conflicts, kept silence or submitted to circumstances, and he, who, being of more heroic mettle, defied opposition, was punished by having his wings clipped; and if he nevertheless tried to fly with clipped wings, had his neck wrung. He who published a book, betiding too bold opinions,was considered a criminal, and came at last in contact with the inquisition and the scaffold. The right of free inquiry was unknown. Firmly believing, that everything knowable and worthy of being known, was known already, and known firmly and well, the church in those days had uo idea of the immense task, reserved for science, just awaking from its mediaeval slumber, nor of the "struggle for life," which was to be the indispensable rule in the execution of its task. The church was unable to hail, in the dawn of science, a rosy morn, heralding to the horizon the rising of a new sun, but saw in its glittering rather the smouldering sparks, which threatened to set the world on fire, and therefore considered herself justified and in duty bound to quench this fire and to extinguish these flames wherever an outbreak occurred. This position, placing ourselves back in those times, we can understand, but not without firmly condemning its underlying principle, for it would have smothered nascent science in its very cradle, if all the world had persisted in favoring it. Glory, therefore, to Calvinism which first of all abandoned this pernicious position with effectual results; theoretically by its discovery of the sphere of common grace, and, before long, practically, by offering a safe harbor to all who were caught in a storm elsewhere. It is true, Calvinism, as always happens in such cases, did by no means immediately understand the full bearing of its opposition, for it began Iry writing the same duty to extirpate error, in its own code, and yet the invincible idea, which was bound to lead and in the course of time has led to freedom of the word, found its absolute expression in the principle, that the Church has to retire to the domain of particular grace, and that exempted from her rule lies the wide and free domain of common grace. The result of this was that the penalties of criminal law were gradually reduced to a dead letter, and that, to instance only one case, Des Cartes, who had to leave Roman Catholic France, found among the Calvinists of the Netherlands, of course a scientific antagonist in Voetius, but in the republic a safe retreat.

To this I must add that in order to cause science to flourish a demand for science had to be created, and to that end the public mind had to be made free. As long however as the Church stretched out her velum over the entire drama of public life, the state of bondage naturally continued, because the only object of life was to merit heaven and to enjoy as much of the world as the church considered to be consistent with this main end. From this point of view it was unimaginable, that any one should be willing to devote himself with sympathy and seeking love to the study of Nature. The seeking love of all was directed towards eternal life, and it could not be realized that Christianity, besides its yearning for eternal salvation, has to perform on earth, by divine commission, a grand task with regard to the cosmos. It was this conception, which Calvinism eradicated, cutting down at the root in the most absolute sense, every idea, that life on earth were ever destined to merit the blessedness of heaven. This blessedness, for every true Calvinist, grows out of regeneration, and sealed by the perseverance of the saints. Where in this manner the assurance of faith supplanted the traffic of indulgences, Calvinism called Christendom back to the order of creation: "Replenish the earth, subdue it and have dominion over everything that lives upon it." Christian life as a pilgrimage was not changed, but the Calviuist became a pilgrim, who, while on his way to our eternal home, had yet to perform on earth an important task. The cosmos, in all the wealth of the kingdom of nature, was spi'ead out before, under and above man. This entire limitless field had to be worked. To this labor the Calviuist consecrated himself with enthusiasm and energy. For the earth with all that is in it, had, according to God's Will, to be subjected to man. Thus flourished, in those days, -in my native country, agriculture and industry, commerce and navigation. This new-born national life awakened new needs. In order to subdue the earth, a knowledge of the earth was indispensable, knowledge of its oceans,'of its nature, and of the attributes and laws of this nature. And so it came to pass that the people itself, who had until now i-efrained from encouraging science, by a new and sparkling energy, suddenly called it into action, rousing it from its slumbers, and spurring it on to a sense of liberty, hitherto entirely unknown.

And now I approach my last point, viz., the assertion, that the emancipation of Science must inevitably lead to a sharp conflict of priciples, and that, for this conflict, also, Calvinism alone offered the ready solution. You understand, which conflict I have in view. Free investigation leads to collisions. One draws the lines on the map of life differently from his neighbor. The result is the origin of schools and tendencies. Optimists and pessimists. A school of Kant, and a school of Hegel. Among jurists the determinists oppose the moralists. Among medical men the homoeopaths oppose the allopaths. Flutonists and Neptunists, Darwinists and anti-Darwinists compete with one another in the natural sciences. Wilhelm van Humboldt, Jacob Grimm and Max Mueller form different schools in the domain of language. Formalists and realists pick quarrels with one another within the classical walls of the philological temple. Everywhere contention, conflict, struggle, sometimes vehement and keen, not seldom mixed with personal asperity. And yet, although the energy of the difference of principle lies at the root of all these disputes, these subordinate conflicts are entirely put in the shade by the principal conflict, which in all countries perplexes the mind most vehemently, the powerful conflict between those who cling to the confession of the triune God and His Word, and those who seek the solution of the world-problem in Deism, Pantheism and Naturalism. Notice, that I do not speak of a conflict between faith and science. Such a conflict does not exist. Every science in a certain degree starts from faith, and, on the contrary, faith, which does not lead to science, is mistaken faith or superstition, but real, genuine faith it is not. Every science presupposes faith in self, in our self- consciousness; presupposes faith in the accurate working of our senses; presupposes faith in the correctness of the laws of thought; presupposes faith in something universal hidden behind the special phenomena; presupposes faith in life; and especially presupposes faith in the principles, from which we proceed; which signifies, that all these indispensable axioms, needed in a productive scientific investigation, do not come to us by proof, but are established in our judgment by our inner conception and given with our self-consciousness. On the other hand every kind of faith has in itself an impulse to speak out. In order to do this it needs words, terms, expressions. These words must be the embodiment of thoughts. Those thoughts must be connected reciprocally not only with themselves but also with our surroundings, with time and eternity, and as soon as faith thus beams forth in our consciousness, the need of science and demonstration is born. Hence it follows, that the conflict is, not between faith and science, but between the assertion, that the cosmos, as it exists to-day is either in a normal or abnormal condition. If it is normal, then it moves bymeans of an eternal process from its potencies to its ideal. But if the cosmos in its present condition is abnormal, then a disturbance has taken place, and only a regenerating power can warrant it the final attainment of its goal. This, and no other is the principal antithesis, which separates the thinking minds in the domain of Science into two opposite battle-arrays.

The formalists refuse to reckon with other than natural data, do not rest until they have found an identical interpretation of all phenomena, and oppose with the utmost vigor, at every turn of the line, all attempts to break or to check the logical inferences of cause and effect. Therefore, they also honour faith in a formal sense but only as far as it remains in harmony with the general data of the human consciousness and this be considered as normal. Materially however they reject the very idea of creation, and can only accept evolution, — an evolution without a point of departure in the Past, and eternally evolving itself in the future, until lost in the boundless Infinite. No species, not even the species Homo sapiens, originated as such, hut within the circle of natural data developed out of lower and preceding forms of life. Especially no miracles, but instead of them the natural law, dominating in an inexorable manner. No sin, but evolution from a lower to a higher moral position. If they tolerate the Holy.Scriptures at all, they do it on condition that all those parts, which cannot be logically explained as a human production be exscinded. A Christ, if necessary, but such a one as is the product of the human development of Israel. And in the same manner a God, or rather a supreme Being, but after the manner of the Agnostics, concealed behind the visible Universe, or pantheistically hiding in all existing things, and conceived of as the ideal reflection of the human mind.

The Abnormalists, on the other hand, who do justice to relative evolution, but adhere to creation over against an evolutio in infinitum, oppose the position of the Normalists with all their might; they maintain inexorably the conception of man as an independent species, because in him is reflected the image of God; they conceive of sin as the destruction of the unsinful human origin, and consequently as rebellion against God; and for that reason they postulate and maintain the miraculous as the only means to restore the abnormal; the miracle of regeneration; the miracle in the Scriptures; the miracle in the Christ, descending as God with his own life into ours; and thus, owing to this regeneration of the abnormal, they continue to find the ideal norm not in the natural but in the Triune God.

Not faith and science therefore, but two scientific systems or if you choose, two scientific elaborations, are opposed to each other, each having its own faith. Nor may it be said that it is here science which opposes theology, for we have to do with two absolute forms of science, both of which claim the whole domain of human knowledge, and both of which have a theology of their own as the point of departure for their world-view. Pantheism as well as Deism i< a theological system and w ithout reserve the entire modern theology finds its home in the science of the Normalists. And finally they are not relative opponents, walking together half way, and, further on, peaceably suffering one another to choose different paths, but they are both in earnest, disputing with one another the whole domain of life, and they cannot desist from the constant endeavor to pull down to the ground the en/in- edifice of their respective controverted assertions, all the supports included, upon which their assertions rest. If they did not try this, they would thereby show on both sides, that they did not honestly believe in their starting-point, and that they were no serious combatants, and that they, did not understand the primordial demand of science, which of course claims unity of conception. A formalist, who retains in his system the slightest possibility of creation, of a specific image of God in man, of sin as a fall, of Christ in so far as he transcends the human, of regeneration, as different from evolution, of the Scriptures, as bringing us real oracles of God; is an amphibious scholar and forfeits the name of scientist. But on the other side, he, who, as Abnormalist, transforms creation to a certain extent into evolution; who does not see in the animal a creature, made in the image of man, but men's origin; who surrenders the creation of man in original righteousness; and who moreover tries every way. to explain regeneration, Christ, and the Scriptures as the result of merely human causes, instead of clinging with all the energy of his soul to the Divine cause, as dominating in all this over all human data, must as decidedly be banished from our ranks as an amphibious and unscientific man. The normal and the abnormal are two absolutely differing startingpoints, which have nothing in common in their origin. Parallel lines never intersect. You have to choose either the one or the other, but whatever you may choose, whatever you are as a scientific man, you have to be it consistently, not only in the faculty of theology, but in all faculties; in your entire world and life-view; in the full reflection of the whole world-picture from the mirror of your human consciousness.

Chronologically, it is true, we Abnormahsts, for many ages in succession, have been the speakers, hardly ever having been challenged, while our opponents have had no opportunity to dispute our principles. With the decay of the old heathen, and the rise of the Christian world -view, the conviction soon took deep root, that everything has been created by God. that the species of beings have been brought into existence hy special creative acts, and that among these species of beings man has been created as image-bearer of God in original righteousness; further, that the original point for every scientist, then the logical conclusion is, that it is an impossibility, that both should agree, and that every endeavor to make them agree must be doomed to failure. Both, as honest men, will feel duty bound to erect such a scientific edifice for the whole cosmos, which is in harmony with the fundamental data, given in their own self-consciousness.

You perceive immediately how radical and fundamental this Calvinistic solution of the perplexing problem is; Science is not undervalued or pushed aside, but postulated for the cosmos as a whole and all its parts. The claim is maintained, that your science has to form a complete whole. And the difference between the science of the Normalists and Abnormalists is not founded upon any differing result of investigation, but upon the undeniable difference, which distinguishes the self- consciousness of the one from that of the other. Free science is the stronghold we defend against the attack of her tyrannical twin-sister. The Normalist tries to do us violence even in our owTn consciousness. He tells us, that our self- consciousness must needs be uniform with his own, and that every thing else wre imagine we find in ours, stands condemned as self-delusion. In other words, the Normalist wishes to wrest from us the very thing, which, in our self-consciousness, is the highest and holiest gift, for which a continual stream of gratitude wells up from our hearts to God; he calls a lie in our own souls that which is more precious and certain to us than our life. With royal pride our consciousness of faith, and the indignation of our heart rise up against all this. We resign ourselves to the fate of being slighted and oppressed in the world, but we refuse to be dictated to by any one in the sanctuary of our heart. We do not assail the liberty of the Normalist to build a well construed science from the premises of his own consciousness, but our right and liberty to do the same thing we are determined to defend, if needs be; at any cost.

for a moment surely, public opinion was stupefied with sudden fright, but since the mass of the people lacked personal faith, this superficial reluctance was only of short duration. Within a quarter of a century the life-view of the Normalists had conquered in a literal sense the world in its leading centre. And only he, who adhered to the abnormalist view by virtue of his personal faih, refused to join in the chorus of those, who sang the praises of "modern thought", and at the first brunt, felt inclined to anathematize all science, retiring to the tent of mysticism. It is true, for a short time theologians tried to defend their cause apologetically, but this defense might be compared to a man who tries to adjust a crooked window-frame, while he is unconscious of the fact that the building is tottering on its foundations. This is the reason, wiry the abler theologians, especially in Germany, imagined, that the best thing to do would be to avail themselves of one or the other of these philosophical systems as a prop to sustain Christianity. The first result of this mixture of philosophy and theology was the so-called mediating theology, which gradually became poorer and poorer in its theological, richer and richer in its philosophical part, until at last modern theology lifted up its head and found its glory in the attempt, to cleanse theology of its abnormal character in such a thorough manner, that Christ was transformed into a man, born as we are born, who was not even entirely free of sin, and the Holy Scriptures into a collection of writings, for the most part pseudepigraphic and in every possible manner interpolated and filled with myths, legends and fables. The song of the Psalmist: "We see not our signs; they have set up their ensigns for signs", has been literally fulfilled by them. Christ and the Scriptures included, every sign of the abnormal was rooted out, and the sign of the normal process embraced as the only genuine criterion of truth. In this result, I repeat what I have already stated, there is nothing to surprise us. He, who subjectively looks upon his inner being and objectively upon the world around him as normal, cannot but speak as he does, cannot reach a different result, would be insincere in his position as a scientific man, if he were to represent things in a different light. And therefore from a moral point of view, not thinking for a moment of such a man's responsibility in the judgment of God, nothing can be said against his personal stand-point, provided that, thinking as he does, he shows the courage, to voluntarily leave the Christian church in all its denominations.

If the character of the keen and unavoidable conflict is thus and not otherwise, behold then the unconquerable position which Calvinism points out to us in the strain and struggle, resulting from this conflict. It does not keep itself busy with useless apologetics; it does not turn the great battle into a skirmish about one of the outworks, but immediately goes back to human consciousness, from which the man of science has to proceed as his consciousness. This consciousness, just on account of the abnormal character of things, is not the same in all. If the normal condition of things had not been broken, consciousness would emit the same sound from all: but as a matter of fact, this is not the case. In the one the consciousness of sin is very powerful and strong, in the other it is either feeble or entirely wanting. In the one the assurance of faith speaks with decision and clearness as a result of regeneration, the other does not even understand what it is. So also in the one the Testimonium Spiritus Sancti resounds loudly and in tones firm and strong, while the other declares, that he has never yet heard its testimony. Now, these three, consciousness of sin, assurance of faith and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, are constituent elements in the consciousness of every Calviuist. They form its immediate contents. Without these three self-consciousness does not exist with him. This the Normalist disapproves, and, therefore, he tries to force his consciousness upon us. and claims, that our consciousness has to be identical with his. From his point of view nothing else could be expected. For if he conceded that there might be a real difference between his consciousness and ours, he would thereby have admitted a break in the normal condition of things We, on the contrary, do not claim, that our consciousness shall be found in him. It is true, Calvin maintains, that there is hidden in the heart of every man a "religious seed," — semen religionis, and that the "God-feeling", — sensus divinitatis, confessed or unconfessed, in moments of intense mental strain, causes the soul to tremble, but it is no less true, that it is just his system, which teaches that human consciousness in a man who believes and in a man who disbelieves, cannot agree, but that on the contrary disagreement is inevitable. He, who is not born again, cannot have a substantial knowledge of sin, and he, who is not converted, cannot possess assurance of faith; he who lacks the Testimonium Spiritus Sancti, cannot believe in the Holy.Scriptures, and all this according to the thrilling saying of Christ himself: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of Cod"; and also according to the saying of the apostle: " The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of Cod." Calvin however does not excuse unbelievers on this account. The day will come, when they will be convinced in their own conscience. But with regard to the present condition of things we, of course, have to ackwowledge two kinds of human consciousness: that of the regenerate and the unregenerate; and these two cannot be identical. In the one is found what is lacking in the other. The one is unconscious of a break and clings accordingly to the normal; the other has an experience both of a break and of a change, and thus possesses in his consciousness the knowledge of the abnormal. If, therefore, it be true that man's own consciousness is his primum-verum, and hence must be also the startingpoint for every scientist, then the logical conclusion is, that it is an impossibility, that both should agree, and that every endeavor to make them agree must be doomed to failure. Both, as honest men, will feel duty bound to erect such a scientific edifice for the whole cosmos, which is in harmony with the fundamental data, given in their own self-consciousness.

You perceive immediately how radical and fundamental this Calvinistic solution of the perplexing problem is; Science is not undervalued or pushed aside, but postulated for the cosmos as a whole and all its parts. The claim is maintained, that your science has to form a complete whole. And the difference between the science of the Normalists and Abnormalists is not founded upon any differing result of investigation, but upon the undeniable difference, which distinguishes the self- consciousness of the one from that of the other. Free science is the stronghold we defend against the attack of her tyrannical twin-sister. The Normalist tries to do us violence even in our own consciousness. He tells us, that our self-consciousness must needs be uniform with his own, and that every thing else we imagine we find in ours, stands condemned as self-delusion. In other words, the Normalist wishes to wrest from us the very thing, which, in our self-consciousness, is the highest and holiest gift, for which a continual stream of gratitude wells up from our hearts to God; he calls a lie in our own souls that which is more precious and certain to us than our life. With royal pride our consciousness of faith, and the indignation of our heart rise up against all this. We resign ourselves to the fate of being slighted and oppressed in the world, but we refuse to be dictated to by any one in the sanctuary of our heart. We do not assail the liberty of the Normalist to build a well construed science from the premises of his own consciousness, but our right and liberty to do the same thing we are determined to defend, if needs be; at any cost.

The parts are now exchanged. Not so very long ago the principal positions of Abnormalism were looked upon as axioms for all sciences in almost all universities, and the few formalists, who at that time opposed the principle of their antagonists, found it difficult to find rest for the sole of their foot. First they were persecuted, then outlawed, after that at the most tolerated. But at present they are the masters of the situation, control all influence, till ninety per cent of all professorial chairs, and the result is, that the Ahnormalist. who has been forced out of the official house, is now obliged to look for a place, where he may lay down his head. Formerly we showed them the door, and now this sinful assault upon their liberty is by God's righteous judgment avenged by their turning us out into the street, and so it becomes the question, if the.oarage, the perseverance, the energy, which enabled them to win their suit at last, will be found now in a still higher degree, with Christian scholars. May God grant it! You cannot, nay, you even may not think of it, deprive him, whose consciousness differs from yours, of freedom of thought, of speech and of the press. That they, from their standpoint pull down everything that is holy in your estimation, is unavoidable. Instead of seeking relief for your scientific conscience in downhearted complaints, or in mystic feeling, or in unconfessional work, the energy and the thoroughness of our antagonists must be felt by every Christian scholar as a sharp incentive always to go back to principles in his thinking, to renew all scientific investigation on the lines of these principles, and to glut the press with the burden of his cogent studies. If we console ourselves with the thought, that we may without danger leave secular science in the hands of our opponents, if we only succeed in saving theology, ours will be the tactics of the ostrich. To confine yourself to the saving of your upper room, when the rest of the house is on fire, is foolish indeed. Calvin long ago knew better, when he asked for a PMlosophia Christiana, and after all every faculty, and in these faculties every single science, is more or less connected with the antithesis of principles, and should consequently be permeated by it. As little may you. seek your safety in shutting your eyes to the actual conditions of things, wherein so many Christians imagine they find a safe shield. Everything astronomers or geologists, physicists or chemists, zoologists or bacteriologists, historians or archeologists bring to light has to be recorded, detached of course from the hypothesis they have slipped behind it, and from the conclusions they have drawn from it; but every fact has to be recorded by you, also, as a fact, and as a fact that is to be incorporated as well in your science as in theirs.

In order however to make this possible, university-life has to be subjected to a radical change. Until now university-life presumed, that science grew up only from one homogeneous human consciousness, and that nothing but learning and ability determined whether you might claim a professorial chair or not. No-one thought of two lines of universities, opposed to one another on account of radical difference of principle. Since however the world-wide conflict between the Normalists and Abnormalists broke out in full force, the need of a division of university-life began to be felt more generally on both sides. The first in the field were, (I speak only of Europe), the unbelieving Normalists, who founded the Universite Libre of Brussels. Before this in the same Belgium the Roman Catholic university of Louvain, in virtue of old traditions, had been placed in opposition to the neutraluniversities of Liege and Ghent. In Switzerland a university arose at Freiburg, renowned, although yet young, as an embodiment of the Catholic principle. In Great Britain the same principle is followed in Dublin. In France, Catholic faculties are pitted against the faculties of the State institutions. And also in the Netherlands Amsterdam saw the birth of the Free Uuiversity, for the general cultivation of the sciences on the foundation of the Calvinistic principle.

If now, according to the demands of Calvinism, Church and State withdraw, I do not say their liberal gifts, but their high authority, from university -life, in order that the university may be allowed to take root and flourish in its own soil, then certainly the division, which is already begun, will be accomplished of itself and undisturbed, and in this domain also it will he seen, that only a peaceful separation of the adherents of antithetic principles warrants progress,— honest progress, — and mutual understanding. We here call upon History as our witness. First, the emperors of Rome tried to realize the false idea of one State, but the division of their universal monarchy into a multitude of independent nations was needed, to develop the hidden powers of Europe. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe yielded to the enchantment of one world- Church, until the reformation dispelled this delusion, also, thus opening the way for a higher development of Christian life. Nowhere else is this as clearly seen as in the United States of America, where denominational multiformity gave a separate Church-embodiment to every differention of principle. In the idea of one Science only, the old curse of uniformity is yet maintained; but of this also it may be prophesied, that the days of its artificial unity are numbered and in this domain also at last the Catholic, the Calvinistic and the Evolutional principles will cause to spring up different spheres of scientific life, which will flourish in a multiformity of universities. We must have systems in science, coherence in instruction, unity in education. That is only really free, which, while it is strictly bound to its own principle, has the power to free itself from all unnatural bonds. The final result, therefore, will be, thanks to Calvinism, which has opened for us the way, that liberty of science will also triumph at last; first by guaranteeing full power to every leading world-view, to reap a scientific harvest from its own principle; — and secondly, by refusing the scientific name to whatsoever investigator dare not unroll the colours of his own banner, and does not show emblazoned on his escutcheon in letters of gold the very principle, for which he lives, and from which his conclusions derive their power.

In this fifth lecture, which is the last but one, I speak of Calvinism and Art.

It is not the prevailing tendency of the day that induces me to do this. Genuflection before an almost fanatical worship of art, such as our time fosters, should little harmonize with the high seriousness of life, for which Calvinism has pleaded, and which it has sealed, not with the pencil or chisel in the studio, but with its best blood at the stake and in the field of battle. Moreover the love of art which is so broadly on the increase in our times, should not blind our eves, but ought to be soberly and critically examined. It presents the fact, which is in every way explainable, that artistic refinement, thus far restricted to a few favored circles, now tends to gain ground among broader middle classes, occasionally even betraying its inclination to descend to the widest strata of lower society. It is the democratizing, if you like, of a life-utterance which hitherto recommended itself by its aristocratic allurements. And though the really inspired artist may complain that, with the majority, piano-playing is mere strumming, and painting little more than daubing,