102 In mijn vierde lezing ga ik handelen van het Calvinisme en de Wetenschap. Uiteraard is ook dit onderwerp in zoo vluchtig woord niet uit te putten. Slechts voor vier overwegingen vraag ik daarom uw aandacht; ten eerste, hoe het Calvinisme zin voor wetenschap kweekte en moest kweeken; ten tweede hoe het aan de wetenschap haar gebied terugschonk; ten derde hoe het de wetenschap ontsloeg van onnatuurlijke banden; en ten vierde in wat weg het een oplossing zocht en vond voor het wetenschappelijk conflict.

1 In my fourth lecture allow me to draw your attention to the nexus between Calvinism and Science. Not, of course in order to exhaust in one lecture such a weighty subject. Four points of it only I submit to your thoughtful consideration; first, that Calvinism fostered and could not but foster love for science; secondly, that it restored to science its domain: thirdly, that it delivered science from unnatural bonds; and fourthly in what manner it sought and found a solution for the unavoidable scientific conflict.

143 In my fourth lecture allow me to draw your attention to the nexus between Calvinism and Science. Not, of course, in order to exhaust in one lecture such a weighty subject. Four points of it only I submit to your thoughtful consideration; first, that Calvinism fostered and could not but foster love for science; secondly, that it restored to science its domain; thirdly, that it delivered science from unnatural bonds; and fourthly, in what manner it sought and found a solution for the unavoidable scientific conflict.

Em minha quarta palestra permitam-me chamar sua atenção para o vínculo entre Calvinismo e Ciência. Certamente não a fim de exaurir um assunto de tal importância numa única palestra. Submeto a sua atenciosa consideração apenas quatro pontos: primeiro, que o Calvinismo encorajou, e não poderia fazer outra coisa senão encorajar, o amor pela ciência; segundo, que ele restaurou para a ciência seu domínio; terceiro, que ele libertou a ciência de laços artificiais; e quarto, de que maneira ele procurou e encontrou uma solução para o inevitável conflito científico.

В моей четвертой лекции позвольте обратить ваше внимание на связь между кальвинизмом и наукой. Я не собираюсь, конечно, дать исчерпывающий анализ столь важной темы в одной лекции и предлагаю вашему рассмотрению только четыре пункта. Первый гласит, что кальвинизм способствовал и не мог не способствовать возрастанию любви к науке; второй — что он восстановил для науки ее сферу; третий — что он освободил науку от неестественных связей; четвертый — это рассмотрение того, как он решал и какое решение нашел для проблемы неизбежного научного конфликта.

Allereerst dan: Er schuilt in het Calvinisme drang, prikkel, aandrift tot wetenschap. Zin voor wetenschap is er feitelijk door gekweekt, én moest er krachtens het beginsel door bevorderd worden. Laat mij voor het feit als feit slechts op ééne heerlijke bladzijde uit de historie van het Calvinisme wijzen, om daarna iets langer stil te staan bij den prikkel tot wetenschap, die in het Calvinisme als zoodanig ligt. Die eenig schoone bladzijde, ik zeg niet uit de historie van het Calvinisme alleen, maar uit de geschiedenis der menschheid, die ik daartoe opsla, is het ontzet van Leiden, nog telken jare op den derden October gevierd, toen het, voor nu ruim drie eeuwen, door de Spaansche keurbenden onder Don Louis de Requesens was ingesloten en met moord en plundering bedreigd werd. Heel de toekomst van Europa hing in 1573 aan de vraag, of Spanje dan wel Nederland het winnen zou, want Nederland moest, naar menschelijk oordeel, 103onverbiddelijk bezwijken, indien na Haarlem ook Leiden door den Spanjaard gewonnen werd. Wat in het beleg van Leiden werd uitgestreden, was de worsteling tusschen Alva en Prins Willem, om den loop, dien de historie der wereld zou nemen; en dat Alva’s troepen ten slotte af moesten druipen en Willem de Zwijger de banier der vrijheid over Europa kon zwaaien, is alleen door dat ontzet van Leiden mogelijk gemaakt. Tegen de beste troepen, van wat toen als het eerste leger der wereld gold, nam Leiden de worsteling op, bijna zonder een soldaat binnen zijn veste; schier alleen door zijn eigen burgers verdedigd. In October 1573 werd het beleg door de Spanjaarden om de benarde veste geslagen, en reeds na drie maanden was er geen brood meer in de stad. Bange hongersnood ging woeden. Met honden en ratten voedde zich de verloren gewaande burgerij. Zoo zwarte honger deed de pest uitbreken, die bijna een derde der bevolking wegraapte. De Spanjaard bood toen aan het wegstervend volk vrede en pardon, maar ook Leiden wist hoe schandelijk het Spaansche woord te Naarden en te Haarlem gebroken was, en antwoordde kloek en fier: Als het moet zullen we onzen linkerarm opeten, om met onzen rechterarm nog onze vrouwen en onze vrijheid en onze religie tegen u, o, tyran, te verdedigen. Zoo hielden ze vol. Alles wachtte, of de macht van den Prins van Oranje tot ontzet zou opdagen, maar . . . de Prins moest wachten op God. In heel Holland waren de dijken doorgestoken, en al het land om Leiden was onder water gezet. Een vloot lag gereed om toe te snellen, maar de wind dreef het water af, en de vloot kon op de ondiepe plassen niet doorkomen. God beproefde zijn volk, Tot eindelijk op 1 October de wind naar het Westen keerde, en de wateren opdreef, dat de vloot er door kon. Toen vlood al wat Spanjaard was voor de aanzwellende wateren. Op 3 October voer de vloot Leiden binnen, en met dat Leiden ontzet was, was Holland en Europa gered. De doodelijk uitgeputte bevolking kon bijna niet meer voort, maar toch strompelden allen als één man naar het bedehuis. Alles viel op de knieën om God te danken. Alleen maar, toen ze ook samen den dankpsalm zingen wilden, was er geen stem meer in de matte keel, en stierf de klank van den zang weg in dankbaar snikken en weenen. 104

First of all then: There is found hidden in Calvinism an impulse, an inclination, an incentive, to scientific investigation. It is a fact, that science has been fostered by it, and its principle demands the scientific spirit. One glorious page from the history of Calvinism may suffice to prove the fact, before we enter more fully upon the discussion of the incentive to scientific investigation found in Calvinism as such. The page from the history of Calvinism, or let us rather say of mankind, matchless in its beauty, to which I refer, is the raising of the siege of Leyden, more than three hundred years ago, which event is yet celebrated annually on the third of October : the city was invested at that time, and threatened with massacre 2 and plundered by the Spanish veteran troops under Don Louis de Requezens. In 1573 the future of Europe hinged upon the question, — whether Spain or the Netherlands would be victorious, and the doom of the latter country certainly would have been sealed, if, after Harlem, Leyden also had fallen into the hands of the Spaniard. The siege of Leyden was in fact a struggle between Alva and Prince William about the future course of the history of the world; and the result of the raising of the siege of Leyden was, that in the end Alva had to withdraw, and that William the Silent was enabled to unfurl the banner of libert} r over Europe. Leyden entered the lists against the best troops of what was looked upon at that time as the finest ariny of the world, with hardly any regular soldiers within its bulwarks ; defended almost exclusively by its own citizens. As early as October 1573 the siege of the hard pressed fortress was begun, but in March '74 it was temporarily broken up, in order that the Spaniards might meet in deadly conflict the troops of the Prince of Orange on the Mookerheide, which battle resulted in a complete rout of the Dutch and the death of two brothers of the Prince. Soon however, the Spaniards, elate with their victory, returned to the walls of Le}*den, pressing, for nearly six months, in their iron grasp the almost defenceless city, scantily supplied as it was with regulars and victuals. Three months after the commencement of thesiege, the supply of bread became exhausted. A fearful famine began to rage. The apparently doomed citizens managed to live on dogs and rats ; and this black famine was soon followed by the black death or the plague, which carried off a third part of the inhabitants. The Spaniard offered peace and pardon to the dying people, but Leyden, remembering the bad faith of the enemy in the treatment of Narden and Harlem, answered boldly and with pride: If it is necessary, we are ready to consume our left arm, and to defend with our right arm our wives, our liberty and our religion against thee, o tyrant. And even if it were our destiny, 3 to perish, we will rather with oar own hand set fire to the city and perish in the flames with our wives and children, than be crushed by thy treachery and violence. Thus they persevered. They patiently waited for the coming of the Prince of Orauge, to raise the siege, and the prince waited for God. The dikes of the province of Holland had been cut through ; the country surrounding Leyden was flooded, and a fleet lay ready to hasten to Leyden's aid, but the wind drove the water back, preventing the fleet from passing the shallow pools. God tried his people sorely. At last however, on the first of October, the wind turned towards the West, and, forcing the waters upward, enabled the fleet to reach the City. Then the Spaniards tied in haste to escape the rising tide. On the 3 rd of October the fleet entered the port of Leyden, and, the siege being raised, Holland was saved. The population, all but starved to death, could scarcely drag themselves along, yet all to a man, limped as well as they could to the house of prayer. All fell on their knees and gave thanks to God. But when they tried to utter their gratitude in psalms of praise, they were almost voiceless, for there was no strength left in them, and the tones of their song died awa^y in grateful sobbing and weeping.

First of all then: There is found hidden in Calvinism an impulse, an inclination, an incentive, to scientific investigation. It is a fact that science has been fostered by it, and its principle demands the scientific spirit. One glorious page from the history of Calvinism may suffice to prove the fact, before we enter more fully upon the discussion of the incentive to scientific investigation found in Calvinism as such. The page from the history of Calvinism, or let us rather say of 144mankind, matchless in its beauty, to which I refer, is the siege of Leyden, more than three hundred years ago. This siege of Leyden was in fact a struggle between Alva and Prince William about the future course of the history of the world; and the result was that in the end Alva had to withdraw, and that William the Silent was enabled to unfurl the banner of liberty over Europe. Leyden, defended almost exclusively by its own citizens, entered the lists against the best troops of what was looked upon at that time as the finest army of the world. Three months after the commencement of the siege, the supply of food became exhausted. A fearful famine began to rage. The apparently doomed citizens managed to live on dogs and rats. This black famine was soon followed by the black death or the plague, which carried off a third part of the inhabitants. The Spaniards offered peace and pardon to the dying people; but Leyden, remembering the bad faith of the enemy in the treatment of Naarden and Haarlem, answered boldly and with pride: If it is necessary, we are ready to consume our left arms, and to defend with our right arms our wives, our liberty and our religion against thee, O tyrant. Thus they persevered. They patiently waited for the coming of the Prince of Orange to raise the siege, . . . but . . . the prince had to wait for God. The dikes of the province of Holland had been cut through; the country surrounding Leyden was flooded; a fleet lay ready to hasten to Leyden’s aid; but the wind drove the water back, preventing the fleet from passing the shallow pools. God tried his people sorely. At last 145 however, on the first of October, the wind turned towards the West, and, forcing the waters upward, enabled the fleet to reach the beleaguered city. Then the Spaniards fled in haste to escape the rising tide. On the 3rd of October the fleet entered the port of Leyden, and the siege being raised, Holland and Europe were saved The population, all but starved to death, could scarcely drag themselves along, yet all to a man limped as well as they could to the house of prayer. There all fell on their knees and gave thanks to God. But when they tried to utter their gratitude in psalms of praise, they were almost voiceless, for there was no strength left in them, and the tones of their song died away in grateful sobbing and weeping.

Para começar então: Encontra-se escondido no Calvinismo um impulso, uma inclinação, um incentivo para a investigação científica. É um fato que a ciência tem sido encorajada por ele, e que seu princípio exige o espírito científico. Uma gloriosa página da História do Calvinismo pode ser suficiente para provar isto, antes de entrarmos mais plenamente na discussão quanto ao incentivo a investigação científica encontrado no Calvinismo como tal.

A página da história do Calvinismo, ou vamos dizer melhor da humanidade, incomparável em sua beleza a qual me refiro, é o cerco a Leyden, mais de trezentos anos atrás. Este cerco a Leyden foi, de fato, uma luta entre Alva e o príncipe William sobre o curso futuro da história do mundo; e o resultado foi que, ao fim, Alva teve de retirar-se e William o Silencioso estava habilitado a desfraldar a bandeira da liberdade sobre a Europa. Leyden, defendida quase que exclusivamente por seus próprios cidadãos, participou de uma batalha contra as melhores tropas do que naquele tempo era considerado o exército mais preciso do mundo. Três meses após o início do cerco o suprimento de alimento esgotou-se. Uma fome terrível começou a alastrar-se. Aparentemente condenados, os cidadãos foram levados a viver às custas de cachorros e ratos. Esta fome sombria logo foi seguida pela peste negra ou a peste bubônica, que causou a morte de uma terça parte dos habitantes. Os espanhóis ofereceram paz e perdão ao povo agonizante; mas Leyden, lembrando-se da má fé do inimigo no tratamento para com Naarden e Haarlem, respondeu corajosamente e com orgulho: Se necessário for, estamos pontos a consumir nossos braços esquerdos, e com nossos braços direitos defender nossas esposas, nossa liberdade e nossa religião contra vós, Ó tirano.

Assim eles perseveraram. Pacientemente esperaram pela vinda do Príncipe de Orange para levantar o cerco, ... mas ... o príncipe teve de esperar por Deus. Os diques da província da Holanda transbordaram; a região que rodeia Leyden foi inundada; uma esquadra preparou-se para ir às pressas ajudar Leyden; mas o vento fez as águas recuarem impedindo a esquadra de passar os pequenos lagos rasos. Deus provou seu povo dolorosamente. Finalmente, contudo, em 1º de Outubro, o vento voltou para o Oeste, e, forçando as águas para cima, possibilitou a esquadra a alcançar a cidade sitiada. Então os espanhóis fugiram às pressas para escapar da maré crescente. No terceiro dia de Outubro a esquadra entrou no porto de Leyden, e sendo levantado o cerco, a Holanda e a Europa foram salvas. A população, todos exceto os levados pela fome à morte, mal podiam se arrastar, todavia todos, sem exceção, andaram como puderam para a casa de oração. Ali, todos caíram sobre seus joelhos e deram graças a Deus. Mas quando tentaram pronunciar sua gratidão em salmos de louvor, estavam quase sem voz, pois não havia mais forças neles, e os sons de seus cânticos desvaneceram-se em grato suspiro e pranto.

Первое, о чем следует сказать, — это то, что в кальвинизме кроется тяга, склонность, стремление к научному исследованию. Это факт, что наука взращивалась им, и его принцип порождает дух науки. Одной славной страницы из истории кальвинизма достаточно, чтобы доказать это, прежде чем мы углубимся в более подробные рассуждения о тяге к научному исследованию. Эта несравненная по своей красоте страница его истории, или, скажем лучше, истории человечества, — осада Лейдена более трех столетий назад. В сущности, герцог Альба и принц Вильгельм Оранский определяли, сражаясь, будущий ход мировой истории. В конце концов Альбе пришлось уступить, а Вильгельм Молчаливый развернул знамя свободы над Европой. Лейден, обороняемый почти исключительно своими гражданами, составил ополчение против отборных частей армии, которую считали тогда самой лучшей в мире. Через три месяца после начала осады запас еды истощился. Стал свирепствовать страшный голод. Явно обреченные граждане уже ели собак и крыс. Страшный голод скоро сменился черной смертью, или чумой, которая унесла треть жителей. Испанцы предложили пощаду и мир умиравшим людям; но Лейден, памятуя о вероломстве врага по отношению к Нардену и Харлему, смело и достойно ответил: «Если будет нужно, каждый из нас съест свою левую руку и будет защищать правой свою жену, свободу и веру против тебя, тиран!» Словом, Лейден не сдавался. Люди терпеливо ждали принца Оранского, чтобы тот снял осаду, а принц ждал милости Божией. Плотины в провинции Голландия были прорваны, местность, окружающая Лейден, затоплена. Флот был готов поспешить на помощь Лейдену, но ветер сдувал воду назад, мешая кораблям пройти через мелкие заводи. Бог сурово испытывал Свой народ. Наконец первого октября ветер повернул на запад, вода поднялась, и флот смог достичь осажденный город. Испанцы поспешно бежали, спасаясь от прилива. Третьего октября флот вошел в Лейденский порт, и осаду сняли. Голландия и Европа были спасены. Пережившие голод горожане едва могли двигаться, но все до единого, прихрамывая, потянулись к дому молитвы. Там все упали на колени и возблагодарили Бога. Но когда они попытались выразить благодарность в псалмопениях хвалы, оказалось, что они лишились голоса, и мелодии потонули в благодарном плаче.

Ziedaar wat ik noemde een eenig heerlijke bladzijde in de met bloed geschreven historie der vrijheid, en vraagt ge mij nu, wat dit met de wetenschap te maken heeft, ziehier dan het antwoord: Als hulde voor zoo dapperen moed is door de Staten van Holland aan Leiden geschonken niet een handvol ridderorden, noch goud, noch eere, maar een School der Wetenschappen, de heel de wereld door vermaarde Leidsche Universiteit. Pratter dan iemand is de Duitscher op zijn wetenschappelijke eere, en toch heeft geen minder dan Niebuhr getuigd, “dat de Senaatszaal te Leiden de meest gedenkwaardige aula der wetenschap is.” De schranderste geleerden werden door hoog inkomen derwaarts gelokt. Scaliger werd in een oorlogsschip uit Frankrijk afgehaald. Salmasius werd door een geheel eskader geëscorteerd. Wat zal ik u de lange lijst van namen noemen van de prinsen der wetenschap, van de vorsten der geleerdheid, wier roem in Leiden geblonken heeft, of u verhalen hoe deze zin voor wetenschap, van Leiden uitstralend, tot heel het volk doordrong. Gij kent de Lipsiussen, de Hemsterhuysen, de Boerhaves; ge weet hoe in Holland de telescoop, in Holland de microscoop, in Holland de thermometer is uitgevonden, en hoe hierdoor eerst ware empirische wetenschap mogelijk is geworden. Het feit, dat het Calvinisme in Nederland zin voor wetenschap kweekte, wordt dan ook door niemand betwist. Maar het meest afdoend, het aangrijpendst bewijs ligt daarvoor toch in de stichting van Leidens Academie. Op een oogenblik, dat men in bange doodsworsteling de historie der wereld haar loop heeft doen keeren, als hoogsten prijs een Universiteit der Wetenschappen te ontvangen, is niet denkbaar dan onder een volk, dat in zijn levensbeginsel zelf de liefde voor de wetenschap op het hart draagt.

Behold what I called a glorious page in the history of liberty, written in blood, and if you now ask me, what has this to do with science, see here the answer: In recognition of such patriotic courage, the States of Holland did not present Leyden with a handful of knightly orders, or gold, or honor, but with a School of the Sciences, — the XJniversit}' of Leyden, renowned through the whole world. The German is surpassed by none in pride of his scientific glory, and yet no less a man than Niebuhr, has testified, "that the Senate chamber of Le3 r den's University is the most memorable hall of science." The ablest scholars were induced to fill the amply endowed chairs. Scaliger was conveyed from France in a man-of-war. Salmasius came 4 to Leyden under convoy of a whole squadron. Why should I sive vou the long list of names of the princes of science, of the giants in learning, who have filled Leyden with the lustre of their renown, or tell you how this love for science, going forth from Leyden, permeated the whole nation? You know the Lipsius, the Hemsterhuis, the Boerhaves. Y r ou know that in Holland were invented the telescope, the microscope and the thermometer; and thus empirical science, worthy of its name, was made possible. It is an undeniable fact, that the Calvinists in the Netherlands had love for science and fostered it. But the most evident, the most convincing proof is doubtless found in the establishment of Leydens University. To receive as the highest reward a University of the Sciences in a moment, when, in a fearful struggle, the course of the history of the world was turned by such heroism is only conceivable among a people, in whose very life-principle love for science is involved.

Behold what I call a glorious page in the history of liberty, written in blood, and if you now ask me, what has this to do with science, see here the answer: In recognition of such patriotic courage, the States of Holland did not present Leyden with a handful of knightly orders, or gold, or honor, but with a School of the Sciences, — the University of Leyden, renowned through the whole world. The German is surpassed by none in pride of his scientific glory, and yet no less a man than Niebuhr has testified, “that the Senate chamber of Leyden’s University is the most memorable hall of science.” The ablest scholars were induced to fill the amply endowed chairs. Scaliger was conveyed from France in a man-of-war. Salmasius came to Leyden under convoy of a whole squadron. Why should I give you the long list of names of the princes of science, of the giants in learning, who have filled Leyden with 146 the lustre of their renown, or tell you how this love for science, going forth from Leyden, permeated the whole nation? You know the Lipsii, the Hemsterhuizen, the Boerhaves. You know that in Holland were invented the telescope, the microscope and the thermometer; and thus empirical science, worthy of its name, was made possible. It is an undeniable fact, that the Calvinistic Netherlands had love for science and fostered it. But the most evident, the most convincing proof is doubtless found in the establishment of Leyden’s University. To receive as the highest reward a University of the Sciences in a moment, when, in a fearful struggle, the course of the history of the world was turned by your heroism is only conceivable among a people in whose very life-principle love for science is involved.

Vejam o que chamo de uma página gloriosa na história da liberdade, escrita com sangue, e se vocês agora me perguntarem, o que tem isto a ver com a ciência, eis aqui a resposta: Em reconhecimento a tal coragem patriótica, os Estados da Holanda não presentearam Leyden com um punhado de ordens cavalheirescas, ou com ouro, ou com honra, mas com uma Escola de Ciência, a Universidade de Leyden, famosa em todo mundo. A Alemanha não é ultrapassada por ninguém no orgulho de sua glória científica, e todavia ninguém menos do que Niebuhr testemunhou, “que a câmara do conselho administrativo da Universidade de Leyden é o mais memorável saguão de ciência.” Os eruditos mais competentes foram persuadidos a ocupar as cadeiras amplamente dotadas. Scaliger foi transportado da França num navio de guerra. Salmasius veio a Leyden sob proteção de todo um esquadrão. Por que eu daria a vocês a longa lista de nomes dos príncipes da ciência, dos gigantes na erudição, que encheram Leyden com o brilho de sua reputação, ou falaria a vocês como este amor pela ciência, saindo de Leyden, impregnou a nação toda? Vocês conhecem os Lipsius, os Hemsterhuis, os Boerhaves.82 Vocês sabem que o telescópio, o microscópio e o termômetro foram inventados na Holanda;83 e assim a ciência empírica, digna de seu nome, tornou-se possível.

É um fato inegável que a Holanda calvinista tinha amor pela ciência e a encorajava. Mas, sem dúvida, a prova mais evidente, mais convincente, é encontrada no estabelecimento da Universidade de Leyden. Receber como a mais alta recompensa uma Universidade de Ciência numa ocasião quando, através de uma luta terrível, por seu heroísmo o curso da história do mundo foi mudado, somente é concebível entre um povo em cujo próprio princípio de vida está envolvido o amor pela ciência.

Вот что я называю славной страницей в истории свободы, написанной кровью. Если вы спросите меня, какое отношение это имеет к науке, я отвечу: за такую отвагу голландские провинции одарили Лейден не орденами, не титулами, не золотом или почетом, а школой наук — университетом Лейдена, который прославился на весь мир. Никто не гордится так, как немцы, своей научной славой, и все же сам Нибур сказал, что «Сенатская палата в Лейденском университете — самый достопримечательный зал науки». Лучшие ученые заняли прекрасно оснащенные кафедры. Скалигера доставили из Франции на военном корабле. Салмазий приехал в Лейден под эскортом целого эскадрона. Надо ли перечислять имена королей науки, гигантов знания, которые наполнили Лейден блеском своей славы, или рассказывать, как эта любовь к науке, выйдя за его границы, охватила всю нацию? Вы знаете представителей семей Липсиев, Хемстерхейзенов, Бурхавесов¹. Вы знаете, что в Голландии изобретены телескоп, микроскоп и термометр²; из-за чего и стала возможной эмпирическая наука, достойная своего наименования. Несомненно, кальвинистские Нидерланды вообще любили науку и заботились о ней. Но самое очевидное, самое убедительное доказательство — учреждение Лейденского университета. Дать в качестве высшей награды университет тем, кто в страшной борьбе изменил ход мировой истории, может только народ, у которого сам принцип жизни включает любовь к науке.

Thans kom ik tot dat beginsel zelf. Want niet alleen het feit dient erkend, maar ik heb u ook te doen zien, waarom het Calvinisme zin voor wetenschap moestkweeken. En zie nu niet vreemd op, zoo ik u daartoe op het Calvinistisch dogma van de praedestinatie wijs, als voor wetenschap in hoogeren zin de destijds sterkste drijfveer. Doch dan zij over hetgeen we onder wetenschap te verstaan hebben vooraf ook een dreigend misverstand weggenomen. 105

And now I approach the principle itself. For it is not enough to be acquainted with the fact, I must also show you why it is that Calvinism cannot but foster love for science. And do not think it strange, when I point to the Calvinistic dogma of predestination as the strongest motive in those clays for the cultivation of science in a higher sense. But in order to prevent a possible misunderstanding let me first explain what the term "science" means.

And now I approach the principle itself. For it is not enough to be acquainted with the fact, I must also show you why it is that Calvinism cannot but foster love for science. And do not think it strange, when I point to the Calvinistic dogma of predestination as the strongest motive in those days for the cultivation of science in a higher sense. But in order to prevent misunderstanding let me first explain what the term “science” here means.

Agora abordarei o princípio em si mesmo. Pois não é suficiente estar familiarizado com o fato, também devo mostrar a vocês porque é que o Calvinismo não pode fazer outra coisa senão encorajar o amor pela ciência. E não penso causar estranheza quando aponto para o dogma calvinista da predestinação como o motivo mais forte, naqueles dias, para o cultivo da ciência num sentido mais elevado. Mas, a fim de evitar equívoco, deixem-me primeiro explicar o que o termo “ciência” significa aqui.

Теперь я перехожу к этому принципу. Мало ознакомиться с фактом, надо показать, почему кальвинизм не может не воспитывать любовь к науке. Не удивляйтесь, когда я скажу, что кальвинистская догма о предопределении была тогда сильнейшим мотивом к культивированию науки в самом высоком смысле. Чтобы избежать недоразумений, позвольте мне, прежде всего, объяснить, что означает здесь термин «наука».

Ik spreek van de menschelijke wetenschap als één geheel. Niet van wat men onder u wel noemt de “sciences”, zooals ook de Franschen spreken van “sciences exactes”. Vooral betwist ik, dat bloote empirie op zichzelf ooit voltooide wetenschap zou kunnen zijn. Zelfs het fijnste microscopisch, het verst-reikend telescopisch onderzoek is nog niet anders dan waarneming met versterkt oog, en tot wetenschap klimt ge uit de aldus waargenomen verschijnselen dan eerst op, als ge in dat bijzondere de wet van het gemeene ontdekt, en alzoo tot het verstaan komt van de gedachte, die het geheele complex van verschijnselen beheerscht. Op die wijze ontstaan de enkele wetenschappen; maar ook daarbij rust de geest des menschen niet en kan hij niet rusten. Ook wat de enkele wetenschappen vormden moet door resultaat of hypothese, groepsgewijze onder één hoofd, onder de heerschappij van één beginsel worden gebracht, en ten slotte treedt de philosophie uit haar tente, om al wat dusver groepsgewijze gevormd werd, als één organisch geheel te denken. Eerst waar de eenheid van heel het kosmisch leven doorgluurd wordt, viert de Wetenschap haar hoogsten triomf. Want wel weet ik, hoe men met het Ignorabimus van Duboys Raymond den dorst naar de hoogste wetenschap gedoemd had om nimmer gelescht te worden, en in het Agnosticisme een gordijn voor den achtergrond en over den ondergrond van het leven schoof, om met de verbijzondering van de enkele wetenschappen vrede te nemen; maar sinds lang wreekt zich ’s menschen geest op dit geestelijke wandalisme. De vraag naar den oorsprong, den samenhang en de bestemming van al het bestaande liet zich niet onderdrukken, en het veni, vidi, vici waarmeê de Evolutie-theorie in alle kringen, die tegen het Woord ingaan, en met name onder onze naturalisten, spoorslags het terrein veroverde, is het voldingendst bewijs, hoezeer we aan eenheid van gezichtspunt behoefte behielden.

I speak of human science as a whole, not of what is called among you "sciences", or as the French express it "sciences exactes". Especially do I deny, that mere empiricism in itself ever is perfect science. Even the minutest microscopic, the farthest reaching telescopic investigation is nothing hut perception with strengthened eyes; this is transformed into science, when you discover in the specific phenomena, perceived by empiricism, the universal law, and thereby reach the thought, which governs the whole constellation of phenomena. In this wise the special sciences originate; but even in them the human mind cannot acquiesce. The 5 subject-matter of the several sciences must be grouped under one head and brought under the sway of one principle by means of theory or hypothesis, and finally philosophy, as the queen of sciences, conies forth from her tent to weave all the different results into one organic whole. It is true, I know, that Dubois Raymond's winged word lgnorabimm has been used by many, to make it seem impossible that our thirst for science in the highest sense will ever be quenched, and that Agnosticism, drawing a curtain across the background and over the abysses of life, is satisfied with a study of the phenomena of the several sciences; but some time ago already, the human mind began to revenge itself on this spiritual vandalism. The question about the origin, interconnection and destiny of everything that exists, cannot be suppressed; and the veni, rid/, vici, wherewith the theory of evolution with full speed, occupied the ground in all the circles, inimical to the Word of God, and especially among our naturalists, is a convincing proof, how much we need unity of view.

I speak of human science as a whole, not of what is called among you “sciences”, or as the French express it “sciences exactes”. Especially do I deny that mere empiricism in itself ever is perfect science. 147 Even the minutest microscopic, the farthest reaching telescopic investigation is nothing but perception with strengthened eyes. This is transformed into science when you discover in the specific phenomena, perceived by empiricism, a universal law, and thereby reach the thought, which governs the whole constellation of phenomena. In this wise the special sciences originate; hut even in them the human mind cannot acquiesce. The subject-matter of the several sciences must be grouped under one head and brought under the sway of one principle by means of theory or hypothesis, and finally Systematics, as the queen of sciences, comes forth from her tent to weave all the different results into one organic whole. It is true, I know, that Dubois Raymond’s winged word Ignorabimus has been used by many to make it seem impossible that our thirst for science in the highest sense will ever be quenched, and that Agnosticism, drawing a curtain across the background and over the abysses of life, is satisfied with a study of the phenomena of the several sciences; but some time ago, the human mind began to take its revenge on this spiritual vandalism. The question about the origin, interconnection and destiny of everything that exists cannot be suppressed; and the veni, vidi, vici, wherewith the theory of evolution with full speed occupied the ground in all the circles, inimical to the Word of God, and especially among our naturalists, is a convincing proof how much we need unity of view.

Falo da ciência humana como um todo, não do que é chamado entre vocês “ciências”, ou como os franceses o expressam “ciências exatas”. Especialmente, nego que o simples empirismo em si mesmo sempre seja perfeita ciência. Mesmo o microscópico mais preciso, o alcance mais distante da investigação telescópica não é nada senão percepção com olhos reforçados. Isto é transformado em ciência quando vocês descobrem nos fenômenos específicos, percebidos pelo empirismo, uma lei universal, e com isso alcançam o pensamento que governa toda a constelação dos fenômenos.84 Desta forma originam-se as ciências especiais; mas mesmo nelas a mente humana não pode concordar. O tema das diversas ciências deve ser agrupado sob um título e conduzido sob a influência de um princípio por meio de teorias ou hipóteses, e finalmente a Sistemática, como a rainha das ciências, sai de sua tenda para organizar todos os diferentes resultados em um todo orgânico.

É verdade, eu sei, que a sublime palavra Ignorabimus de Dubois Raymond tem sido usada por muitos para fazer parecer possível que nossa sede pela ciência no sentido mais elevado jamais será saciada, e que o Agostinianismo, puxando uma cortina sobre o pano de fundo e por cima dos abismos da vida, está satisfeito com um estudo dos fenômenos das diversas ciências; porém, algum tempo antes, a mente humana começou a fazer sua vingança sobre este vandalismo espiritual. A questão acerca da origem, conexão e destino de tudo que existe não pode ser suprimida; e o veni, vidi, vici, necessário a teoria da evolução ocupou com toda velocidade a base em todos os círculos hostis à Palavra de Deus e especialmente entre nossos naturalistas. É uma prova convincente do quanto nós necessitamos de unidade de conceito.

Я говорю о науке в целом, а не о том, что вы зовете «науками» или, как говорят французы «sciences exactes» («Точные науки»). Особенно я не согласен с тем, что чистый эмпиризм сам по себе — совершенная наука. Самое мельчайшее микроскопическое исследование и самое дальнее телескопическое есть не что иное, как усиленное прибором восприятие. Оно трансформируется в науку, когда в отдельных явлениях, воспринятых эмпирически, мы обнаруживаем всеобщий закон и постигаем мысль, управляющую многообразием явлений³. Так возникают отдельные науки; но даже в них человеческий разум не может найти успокоения. То, что исследуют несколько наук, надо собрать воедино и подчинить одному принципу посредством теории или гипотезы; наконец, на сцену выходит королева наук систематика, чтобы соткать из всевозможных результатов одно органическое целое. Я знаю, что крылатое слово Раймонда Дюбуа «Ignorabimus» ([Мы] не узнаем) использовали многие, имея в виду, что невозможно утолить нашу жажду науки в высшем смысле, и что, опустив завесу перед основой и глубинами жизни, агностицизм довольствуется изучением отдельных явлений; но не так давно человеческий разум начал мстить этому духовному вандализму. Вопрос о происхождении, взаимосвязи и судьбе всего сущего нельзя отложить в сторону; и «veni, vidi, vici» («Пришел, увидел, победил»), с которым теория эволюции заняла господствующее положение во всех кругах, враждебных Слову Божиему, особенно среди наших естествоиспытателей, убедительно доказывает, как необходимо нам единство воззрения.

Hoe nu is zin voor wetenschap in dien hoogeren, heel den kosmos als eenheid bedoelenden zin zoo krachtig bewaard door der Calvinisten geloof aan de voorbeschikking Gods? Ga, om dit te vatten, van de voorbeschikking op het Raadsbesluit Gods terug. Dit is geen wilkeur, dit moet gedaan. Het geloof aan de praedestinatie 106 is toch niet anders, dan het geloof aan het Raadsbesluit Gods in eigen persoonlijk bestaan te laten indringen; toonen dat men het meent, door de vrijmacht van Gods besluitenden wil ook op zijn eigen persoon te durven toepassen. Het is het niet bij woorden laten, maar met eigen persoon, existentie en toekomst voor zijn belijdenis instaan. Het bewijs van oprechtheid, onwankelbare vastheid en soliditeit in wat ge uitspreekt omtrent de eenheid en bepaaldheid in het werken Gods. Een daad van hoogen moed, omdat ze u van hoogmoed verdenken doet. Maar goed, ga dan nu door op het Raadsbesluit Gods, en wat anders beduidt alsdan dit dogma dan de verzekerdheid, dat het bestaan en het verloop der dingen, d.i. van den ganschen kosmos, niet de speelbal van gril of fortuin is, maar gehoorzaamt aan vastheid van ordening; dat er één vaste wil is die zich in heel de natuur en heel de historie doorzet. Gij stemt mij toe, dit dwingt aanstonds tot eenheid van conceptie. Dit dwingt tot het aanvaarden van één alles beheerschend beginsel. Dit dwingt tot de erkenning van een algemeen iets, dat schuilt achter en zich uit in al het bijzondere. Dit dwingt tot de belijdenis, dat er in alles vastheid en regelmaat schuilt. Zoo wordt de kosmos u niet een hoop los opeen geworpen steenen, maar een in strengen stijl opgetrokken monumentaal gebouw. Geeft ge dit standpunt prijs, dan is het op elk gegeven oogenblik onzeker wat er gebeurt, wat loop de dingen nemen zullen, wat elke morgen en elke avond aan u, en uw gezin, en elk land, en elk werelddeel brengen zal. ’s Menschen grillige wilkeur is dan de spil waarop het alles draait. Ieder mensch kan elk oogenblik zus, maar hij kon ook zóó kiezen te handelen. Zoo is op niets peil te trekken. Er is geen samenhang, geen proces, geen continuïteit; een kroniek maar geen historie. Een zeg zelf, hoe zal er dan wetenschap zijn? De studie der natuur moge dan vast blijven, de studie van het menschelijk leven wordt dan geheel op losse schroeven gezet. Alleen feiten kunnen dan historisch geconstateerd worden, maar alle samenhang en plan valt dan uit de historie weg.

How, now, can we prove that love for science in that higher sense, which aims at unity in our cognizance of the entire cosmos, is effectually secured by means of our Calvinistic belief in God's fore-ordination ? If you want to understand this you have to go back from predestination to God's decree. This is not a matter of choice; on the contrary, it must be done. Belief in predestination is nothing but the penetration of God's decree into our own personal life; or, if you prefer it, the personal heroism to apply the sovereignty of God's decreeing will to our own existence. It means that we are not satisfied with a mere profession of words, but that we are willing to stand by our confession, in regard both to this life and the life to come. It is a proof of honesty, unmovable firmness and solidity in our expressions concerning the unity of God's Will, and the certainty of his operations. It is a deed of high courage, because it brings you under the suspicion of 6 high-niindedness. But if you now proceed to the decree of God, what else does this dogma mean, than the certainty that the existence and course of all things, i. e. of the entire cosmos, instead of being a plaything of caprice and chance, obeys law and order, and that there exists a firm will which carries out its designs both in nature and in history. Now do you not agree with me, that this forces upon our mind the indissoluble conception of one allcomprehensive unity; and the acceptance of one principle by which everything is governed. It forces upon us the recognition of something that is general, hidden and yet expressed in that which is special. Yea, it forces upon us the confession, that there must be stability and regularity ruling over everything. Thus you recognize that the cosmos, instead of being a heap of stones, loosely thrown togethei*, on the contrary presents to our mind a monumental building erected in a severely consistent style. Do you abandon this point of view, then it is uncertain at any moment, what is to happen, which course things may take, what every morning and evening may have in store for you, your family, your country, the world at large. Man's capricious will is then the principal concern. Every man may then choose and act every moment in a certain way, but it is also possible that he may do just the reverse. If this were so, you could count upon nothing. There is no interconnection, no development, no continuity ; a chronicle, but no history. And now tell me, what becomes of science under such conditions 1 You may yet speak of the study of nature, but the study of human life has been made ambiguous and uncertain. Nothing but bare facts may then be historically ascertained, interconnection and plan have no longer a place in history. History dies away.

How, now, can we prove that love for science in that higher sense, which aims at unity in our cognizance of 148 the entire cosmos, is effectually secured by means of our Calvinistic belief in God’s fore-ordination? If you want to understand this you have to go back from predestination to God’s decree in general, This is not a matter of choice; on the contrary, it must be done. Belief in predestination is nothing but the penetration of God’s decree into your own personal life; or, if you prefer it, the personal heroism to apply the sovereignty of God’s decreeing will to your own existence. It means that we are not satisfied with a mere profession of words, but that we are willing to stand by our confession in regard both to this life and the life to come. It is a proof of honesty, unmovable firmness and solidity in our expressions concerning the unity of God’s Will, and the certainty of His operations. It is a deed of high courage because it brings you under the suspicion of high-mindedness. But if you now proceed to the decree of God, what else does God’s fore-ordination mean than the certainty that the existence and course of all things, i.e., of the entire cosmos, instead of being a plaything of caprice and chance, obeys law and order, and that there exists a firm will which carries out its designs both in nature and in history? Now do you not agree with me that this forces upon our mind the indissoluble conception of one all comprehensive unity, and the acceptance of one principle by which everything is governed? It forces upon us the recognition of something that is general, hidden and yet expressed in that which is special. Yea, it forces upon us the confession that there must be: stability and regularity ruling over everything. Thus 149 you recognize that the cosmos, instead of being a heap of stones, loosely thrown together, on the contrary presents to our mind a monumental building erected in a severely consistent style. Do you abandon this point of view, then it is uncertain at any moment, what is to happen, what course things may take, what every morning and evening may have in store for you, your family, your country, the world at large. Man’s capricious will is then the principal concern. Every man may then choose and act every moment in a certain way, but it is also possible that he may do just the reverse. If this were so, you could count upon nothing. There is no interconnection, no development, no continuity; a chronicle, but no history. And now tell me, what becomes of science under such conditions? You may yet speak of the study of nature, but the study of human life has been made ambiguous and uncertain. Nothing but bare facts may then be historically ascertained, interconnection and plan have no longer a place in history. History dies away.

Como podemos provar que o amor pela ciência neste sentido mais elevado, que visa a unidade em nosso conhecimento do cosmos todo, é efetivamente assegurado por meio de nossa fé calvinista na predestinação de Deus? Se vocês desejam entender isto devem voltar da predestinação para o decreto de Deus em geral. Esta não é uma questão de escolha; pelo contrário, deve ser feito. Crer na predestinação nada mais é do que a penetração do decreto de Deus em suas próprias vidas pessoais; ou, se vocês preferirem, o heroísmo pessoal para aplicar a soberania da vontade decretiva de Deus a suas próprias existências. Isto significa que não estamos satisfeitos com uma simples profissão de palavras, mas que estamos dispostos a defender nossa confissão tanto em relação a esta vida como em relação a vida por vir. É uma prova de honestidade, firmeza inabalável e solidez em nossa expressão concernente a unidade da Vontade de Deus, e a certeza de suas operações. É uma ação de grande coragem porque traz vocês sob a suspeita de arrogância.

Mas se vocês prosseguem agora para o decreto de Deus, o que mais a predestinação de Deus significa senão a certeza de que a existência e o curso de todas as coisas, i.e., de todo o cosmos, em vez de ser um brinquedo do capricho ou do acaso, obedece a lei e a ordem, e que existe ali uma vontade firme que põe em prática seus desígnios na natureza e na História? Então, vocês não concordam comigo que isto força sobre nossas mentes a concepção indissolúvel de uma unidade toda compreensível, e a aceitação de um princípio pelo qual tudo é governado? Força sobre nós o reconhecimento de algo que é geral, escondido e todavia expresso naquilo que é especial. Além disso, força sobre nós a confissão de que deve haver estabilidade e regularidade governando sobre tudo.

Deste modo vocês reconhecem que o cosmos, em vez de ser um monte de pedras livremente arranjadas às pressas, ao contrário, apresenta a nossa mente uma construção monumental erigida num estilo severamente consistente. Se vocês abandonam este ponto de vista, então é incerto o que irá acontecer em algum momento, que curso as coisas podem tomar, o que a cada manhã e noite pode ter reservado para vocês, sua família, seu país, o mundo em geral. Então a vontade caprichosa do homem é a principal referência. Cada homem pode escolher e agir a cada momento de uma certa forma, mas é também possível que possa fazer exatamente o contrário. Se isto fosse assim, vocês não poderiam confiar em nada. Não há conexão, nem desenvolvimento, nem continuidade; uma crônica, mas não uma história. E agora digam-me, o que é feito da ciência sob tais condições? Vocês ainda podem falar de estudo da natureza, mas o estudo da vida humana tornou-se ambíguo e incerto. Nada exceto fatos nus podem então ser averiguados historicamente, conexões e planos não têm mais um lugar na História. A História desaparece.

Каким образом сможем мы показать, что любовь к науке в этом высоком смысле, то есть к единому постижению мира, обеспечивается нашей кальвинистской верой в Божие предопределение? Если вы хотите понять это, вы должны обратиться от предопределения к Божиим установлениям как таковым. Это — не вопрос выбора, а долг, неизбежность. Вера в предопределение — не что иное, как проникновение Божиего установления в вашу собственную жизнь; или, если предпочитаете, ваша решимость применить суверенность предуставляющей воли Божией к вашему собственному существованию. Это значит, что мы не просто говорим какие-то слова, а хотим через свое исповедание находиться в определенном отношении и к этой жизни, и к будущей. Так мы доказываем искренность и твердость в том, что говорим о единстве Божией воли и определенности Его действий. Это требует большого мужества, потому что навлекает на нас подозрение в гордыне. Но если вы обращаетесь к Божиим установлениям, то предопределение означает, что существование и движение мироздания повинуются закону и порядку, а не капризу и случаю; и в природе, и в истории исполняет свои замыслы твердая воля. Не правда ли, это предписывает разуму нерушимую концепцию всеохватного единства и велит принять единый принцип, посредством которого все управляется? Он принуждает нас признать нечто всеобщее, сокрытое и в то же время выраженное в конкретном. Более того, мы полагаем, что во всем должна быть стабильность и всем должна управлять регулярность. Таким образом, вы осознаете, что мироздание — не груда камней, произвольно сваленных вместе, но монументальное строение, воздвигнутое в строго выдержанном стиле. Откажитесь от этой точки зрения, и в каждый конкретный миг вы не будете знать, что должно произойти, какой ход могут принять события, что готовит новое утро и новый день для вас, вашей семьи, вашей страны и всего мира. Главное место займет капризная воля человека. Каждый человек может выбирать определенный образ действий в каждый момент, но он может выбирать и противоположный образ действий. Согласитесь, тогда вы не могли бы ни на что рассчитывать. Нет ни связи, ни развития, ни преемственности; словом, не история, а хроника. Скажите, что станет с наукой? Вы еще сможете говорить об исследовании природы, но исследовать человеческую жизнь вам никак не удастся. Ничего кроме голых фактов нельзя будет подтвердить исторически; взаимосвязи и замысел исчезнут из истории. Другими словами, история умрет.

Nu denk ik er natuurlijk niet aan, thans op het vraagstuk der wilsvrijheid in te gaan. Daarvoor ontbreekt de tijd. Maar staande voor de tegenstelling van de eenheid en vastheid 107 die het Calvinisme in het Raadsbesluit Gods beleed, en van de gespreidheid en losheid die de Arminianen voorstonden, staat het dan toch vast dat de hoogere ontwikkeling der wetenschap in deze eeuw met een schier eenparige stem aan het Calvinisme gelijk gaf. De stelsels der moderne philosofen zijn alle voor eenheid en vastheid. Buckle’s History of the civilisation in England bewees de vaste ordening op menschelijk gebied met verbazingwekkende, bijna wiskundige bewijskracht. Lombroso, en op zijn voetspoor heel de school der deterministen onder de criminalisten komt in dit opzicht geheel op de Calvinistische lijn. En het jongste beweren, dat de wetten van erfelijkheid en verandering, die geheel de organisatie der natuur beheerschen, doorgaan ook op menschelijk gebied, is nu reeds „the common creed” van alle evolutionisten geworden. Ook al onthoud ik mij dus op dit pas van elke beoordeeling zoo van deze philosophische stelsels als van deze naturalistische hypothesen, er blijkt dan toch op overtuigende wijs, hoe ook in onze eeuw de geheele ontwikkeling der wetenschap een kosmos onderstelt, die niet aan het spelen van het toeval ter prooi is, maar bestaat en zich ontwikkelt uit één beginsel, naar vaste ordinantie, doelende op één vast plan. Een eisch die, gelijk in het oog springt, lijnrecht tegen het Arminianisme overstaat en daarentegen in volkomen harmonie is met het Calvinistisch belijden, dat er één wil in God is, die alle dingen deed ontstaan, ze aan zijn ordinantiën onderwierp, en ze richt op een vooraf vaststaand doel. Nooit is door Calvinisten geleerd, dat het beeld van den kosmos in Gods Raadsbesluit lag als een aggregaat van los bijeengevoegde beschikkingen, maar steeds beweerd dat het geheel één organisch program voor heel de schepping vormde. Te spreken van “natuurwetten” was ons dan ook steeds behoefte, mits hier maar onder verstaan worden, niet wetten die de natuur ons oplegt, maar wetten door God opgelegd aan de natuur, in den zin van wat ook de Psalmist betuigt, dat de aarde bestaan blijft door de ordinantiën Gods, omdat die ordinantiën „Gods knechten” zijn. En gelijk in dat Raadsbesluit Gods voor den Calvinist de grondslag en oorsprong der natuurwetten ligt, zoo ligt er eveneens in de vaste grondslag en oorsprong der zedelijke en geestelijke wetten. En die beide nu, natuurwetten én 108 zedelijke wetten, vormen saam één hooge orde, die bestaat naar Gods bestel en waarin Gods Raad volbracht zal worden, uitloopende op het door Hem gestelde wit.

I do not for a moment propose to enter just now into a discussion about man's free will. We have no time for it. But it is a fact that the more thorough development of science in our age has almost unanimously decided in 7 favor of Calvinism with regard to the antithesis between the unity and stability of God's decree, which Calvinism professes, and the superficiality and looseness, which the Arminians preferred. The systems of the great philosophers are, almost to one, in favor of unity and stability. Buckle's History of the civilization of England has succeeded in proving the firm order of things in human life with astonishing, almost mathematical demonstrative force. Lombroso, and following him the entire school of determinists among the criminalists, place themselves on record in this respect as moving on Calviuistic lines. And the latest hypothesis, that the laws of heredity and variation, which control the whole organization of nature, admit of no exception in the domain of human life, has already been accepted as "the common creed" by all evolutionists. Though I abstain at present from any criticism either of these philosophical systems or of these naturalistic hypotheses, so much at least is very clearly demonstrated by them, that the entire development of science in our age presupposes a cosmos, which does not fall a prey to the freaks of chance, but exists and develops from one principle, according to a firm order, aiming at one fixed plan. This is a claim, which is, as it clearly appears, diametrically opposed to Arminianism, and in complete harmony with Calvinistic belief, that there is one will in God, the cause of all existing things, subjecting them to his ordinances and directing them towards a preestablished plan. Calvinists have never thought that the idea of the cosmos lay in God's foreordination as an aggregate of loosely conjoined decrees, but they have always maintained, that the whole formed one organic programme of the entire creation and the entire history. We have always felt the need to speak of natural laws, with this proviso however, that they were not considered as laws, wmich nature imposes upon us, but as laws imposed upon nature by God. And as a Calvinist looks upon God's decree as the foundation and origin of the natural laws, in the 8 same maimer also he finds in it the firm foundation and the origin of the moral and spiritual laws ; both these, the natural as well as the moral laws, forming together one high order, which exists according to God's command, and wherein God's counsel will be accomplished in the consummation of His eternal, all-embracing plan.

I do not for a moment propose to enter just now into a discussion about man’s free will. We have no time for it. But it is a fact that the more thorough development of science in our age has almost unanimously decided in favor of Calvinism with regard to the antithesis between the unity and stability of God’s decree, which Calvinism professes, and the superficiality and looseness, which the Arminians preferred. The systems of the great modern philosophers are, almost to one, in favor of unity and stability. Buckle’s History of the Civilization in England has succeeded 150 in proving the firm order of things in human life with astonishing, almost mathematical demonstrative force. Lombroso, and his entire school of criminalists, place themselves on record in this respect as moving on Calvinistic lines. And the latest hypothesis, that the laws of heredity and variation, which control the whole organization of nature, admit of no exception in the domain of human life, has already been accepted as “the common creed” by all evolutionists. Though I abstain at present from any criticism either of these philosophical systems or of these naturalistic hypotheses, so much at least is very clearly demonstrated by them, that the entire development of science in our age presupposes a cosmos which does not fall a prey to the freaks of chance, but exists and develops from one principle, according to a firm order, aiming at one fixed plan. This is a claim which is, as it clearly appears, diametrically opposed to Arminianism, and in complete harmony with Calvinistic belief that there is one Supreme will in God, the cause of all existing things, subjecting them to fixed ordinances and directing them towards a pre-established plan Calvinists have never thought that the idea of the cosmos lay in God’s foreordination as an aggregate of loosely conjoined decrees, but they have always maintained that the whole formed one organic programme of the entire creation and the entire history. And as a Calvinist looks upon God’s decree as the foundation and origin of the natural laws, in the same manner also he finds in it the firm foundation and the origin of every moral and spiritual law; both these, the natural as well as 151 the spiritual laws, forming together one high order, which exists according to God’s command and wherein God’s counsel will be accomplished in the consummation of His eternal, all-embracing plan.

Nem por um momento eu proponho entrar, exatamente agora, numa discussão acerca do livre arbítrio do homem. Não temos tempo para isso. Mas com relação à antítese entre a unidade e estabilidade do decreto de Deus que o Calvinismo professa, e a superficialidade e frouxidão que os arminianos preferiram, é um fato que o desenvolvimento mais completo da ciência em nossa época quase unanimemente tem decidido em favor do Calvinismo. Os sistemas dos grandes filósofos modernos são, quase unanimemente, em favor da unidade e estabilidade. A History of the Civilization in England de Buckle foi bem-sucedida em provar a ordem estável das coisas na vida humana com força demonstrativa surpreendente, quase matemática. Lombroso e toda sua escola de criminalistas declaram-se publicamente quanto a esta questão como andando sobre linhas calvinistas.85

E as hipóteses mais recentes, sobre as leis de hereditariedade e variação, as quais controlam toda a organização da natureza e não admitem exceção no campo da vida humana, já tem sido aceitas por todos os evolucionistas como “o credo comum”. Embora eu me abstenha no momento de qualquer critica quer destes sistemas filosóficos quer destas hipóteses naturalistas, simplesmente ao menos está claramente demonstrado por eles que todo o desenvolvimento da ciência em nosso tempo pressupõe um cosmos que não se torna vítima dos caprichos do acaso, mas que existe e desenvolve-se de um princípio, segundo uma ordem estável, visando um plano fixado. Esta é uma reivindicação que está, como claramente aparece, diametralmente oposta ao Arminianismo e em completa harmonia com a fé calvinista de que há uma vontade suprema em Deus, a causa de todas as coisas existentes, sujeitando-as a ordenanças fixadas e dirigindo-as a um plano preestabelecido.

Os calvinistas nunca pensaram que o conceito sobre o cosmos coloca a predestinação de Deus como um agregado de decretos livremente combinados, mas eles sempre sustentaram que o conjunto formou um programa orgânico da criação toda e da História toda. E assim, como um calvinista considera o decreto de Deus como o fundamento e a origem das leis naturais, do mesmo modo também encontra nele o firme fundamento e a origem de toda lei moral e espiritual; ambas, as leis naturais bem como as leis espirituais, formam juntas uma ordem superior que existe segundo o mandato de Deus e por isso o conselho de Deus será completado na consumação de seu plano eterno, todo abrangente.

Я вовсе не предлагаю обсуждать сейчас вопрос о свободной воле. У нас на это нет времени. Но самые основательные науки почти единодушно решили в пользу кальвинизма, когда речь идет о противостоянии между единством и стабильностью Божиих установлений, которые провозглашает кальвинизм, и поверхностностью и нечеткостью, которые предпочитают арминиане. Системы крупных современных философов, почти до единой, провозглашают единство и стабильность. «История цивилизации в Англии» Бокля доказала твердый порядок человеческой жизни с удивительной, почти математической силой. Ломброзо и вся его школа криминалистики двигаются в этом отношении по кальвинистским рельсам. Самая последняя гипотеза о том, что законы наследственности и изменчивости, контролирующие всю организацию природы, действуют и в сфере человеческой жизни, стала «символом веры» всех эволюционистов. Я временно воздерживаюсь от критики этих философских систем и натурфилософских гипотез, но по крайней мере они доказывают, что все развитие науки в наш век предполагает мир, который нельзя считать игрушкой каприза и случая. Он развивается на основе одного принципа, согласно твердому порядку, нацеленному на реализацию одного установленного плана. Это положение диаметрально противоположно арминианству и полностью согласуется с кальвинистской верой в то, что есть одна Высшая воля, причина всего сущего, подчиняющая все определенным установлениям и направляющая все в соответствии с предустановленным планом. Кальвинисты никогда не считали, что мир замыслен Богом как агрегат свободно соединенных частей, но всегда утверждали, что замысел этот образует единую органическую программу, относящуюся ко всему тварному мирозданию и всей истории. Божии установления для кальвиниста — основа и источник естественных законов. Точно так же он видит в них твердое основание и несомненный источник всякого нравственного и духовного закона; причем и естественные, и духовные законы образуют вместе единый высший порядок, который существует по заповеди Божией и посредством которого Божий совет осуществляет Свой вечный и всеохватный замысел.

Het geloof in zulk een eenheid, vastheid en orde der dingen, persoonlijk als uitverkiezing en kosmisch als Raad Gods, moest derhalve den zin voor wetenschap wel luide wekken en krachtig voeden. Zonder het diep besef van die eenheid, die vastheid en die orde, kan de wetenschap het niet verder brengen dan tot bloote vermoedens, en alleen als er geloof aan die organische gebondenheid van het heelal bestaat, kan de wetenschap uit de empirie van het bijzondere tot het algemeene, uit dat algemeene tot de beheerschende wet, en uit die wet opklimmen tot het beginsel dat alles beheerscht. De voor alle hoogere wetenschap volstrekt onmisbare gegevens zijn alleen bij die onderstelling aanwezig. Let er maar op, hoe in de dagen, toen het Calvinisme zich een baan in het leven brak, het waggelend semi-pelagianisme niets zoozeer als dit besef van eenheid, vastheid en orde had afgestompt, zoodat zelfs Thomas van Aquino terrein verloor en de Scotisten, Mystieken en Epicuristen om strijd den geest zijn vasten gang ontnamen. En wie besef dan niet wat geheel nieuwe aandrift tot wetenschappelijk leven uit het nieuw geboren Calvinisme moest opkomen, dat in één machtigen greep die geestelijke tuchteloosheid tot de orde riep, aan dat hinken op twee en meer gedachten een einde maakte, en ons voor het ordeloos zweven van de vaagheid der nevelen het beeld bood van één machtig voortstuwenden stroom, die zich hoog van de bergen, door vaste bedding, naar den hem wachtenden oceaan voortbewoog. Een harden kamp heeft het Calvinisme, om dat zich vastklemmen aan het Raadsbesluit Gods, moeten doorworstelen. Telkens scheen het den ondergang nabij. Het Calvinisme is er om gesmaad en er om gelasterd, en toen het weigerde zelfs onze zondige daden buiten het plan Gods te sluiten wijl dan toch weer heel het program der wereldorde verscheurd wierd, heeft men zich zelfs niet ontzien, zij het dan al uit misverstand, ons te beschuldigen dat wij God tot auteur van de zonde maakten. Maar door kwaad en goed gerucht henen, heeft het Calvinisme onwrikbaar stand gehouden. De onwrikbare overtuiging, dat geheel 109 ons leven onder den alles overweldigenden indruk van eenheid, vastheid en orde, die in God haar klem vonden, voor onze geloofsaanschouwing moet staan, heeft het zich door spot noch hoon laten rooven. Hierdoor heeft het behoefte aan eenheid van inzicht, aan vastheid van kennis, en aan orde in de wereldbeschouwing bij den breeden volkskring gekweekt, en het is door die sterk sprekende behoefte, dat die dorst naar wetenschap levendig werd, waaraan destijds nergens overvloediger dan juist in Calvinistische landen zoo heerlijk voldoening werd geschonken. Het is daarom dat uit de geschriften dier dagen u zulk een beslistheid, zulk een energie der gedachte, zulk een alles saamvattende levensovertuiging toespreekt. Ja zelfs mag gezegd, dat in de gedenkboeken van edele vrouwen uit die dagen en uit de briefwisseling van eenvoudigen in den lande u een eenheid van wereld- en levensbeschouwing toespreekt, die een wetenschappelijken stempel drukte op hun bestaan. Iets waarmeê het tevens saamhing dat ze nooit van het dusgenoemde “primaat van den wil” wilden hooren. Alle denken vroeg om den teugel van een helder bewustzijn, en in dat bewustzijn moest heerschappij worden gevoerd niet door nuk of gril, door inval noch door toeval, maar door de majesteit van dat hoogste beginsel, waaruit ze én hun leven verklaarden én waaraan heel hun existentie was toegewijd.

Faith in such an unity, stability and order of things, personally, as predestination, cosmically, as the counsel of God's decree, could not but awaken as with a loud voice, and vigorously foster love for science. Without a deep conviction of this unity, this stability and this order, science is unable to go beyond mere conjectures, and only when there is faith in the organic dependence of the Universe, will there be also a possibility for science to ascend from the empirical investigation of the special phenomena to the general, and from the general to the law which rules over it, and from that law to the principle, which is dominant over all. The data, which are absolutely indispensable for all higher science, are at hand only under this supposition. Remember the fact, that in those days, when Calvinism cleared for itself a path in life, tottering semi-pelagianism had blunted this conviction of unity, stability and order, to such an extent, that even Thomas Aquinas lost a great deal of his influence, while Scotists, mystics and epicureans vied with one another in their endeavors to deprive the human mind of its steady course. And who is there who does not peixeive, what entirely new impulse to undertake scientific investigations had to grow out of the newly born Calvinism, which with one powerful grasp brought order out of chaos, putting under discipline so dangerous a spiritual licentiousness making an end to that halting between two or more opinions, and showing us instead of rising and falling mists, the picture of a powerfully rushing mountain stream, taking its course through a well regulated bed towards an ocean which waits to receive it. Calvinism has gone through many fierce 9 struggles on account of its clinging to the counsel of God's decree. Again and again it seemed to be near the brink of destruction. Calvinism has been reviled and slandered on account of it, and when it refused to exclude even our sinful actions from God's plan, because without it the programme of the order of the world would again be rent to pieces, our opponents did not shrink from accusing us of making God the author of sin. They knew not what he did. Through evil report and good report Calvinism has firmly maintained its place. It has not allowed itself to be deprived by scoff and scorn of the firm conviction, that our entire life must be under the sway of unity, solidity and order, established by God himself. This accounts for its need of unity of insight, firmness of knowledge, order in its world view, fostered among us, even in the wide circles of the common people, and this manifest need is the reason, that a thirst for knowledge was quickened, which in those days was nowhere satisfied in a more abundant measure than in Calvinistic countries. This explains, why it is, that in the writings of those days you meet with such a determination, such an energy of thought, such a comprehensive view of life. I even venture to say, that in the memoirs of noble women of that century, and in the correspondence of the uulettered, an unity of w t o rid and lifeview is manifest, which impressed a scientific stamp on their wdiole existence. Intimately connected with this is also the fact that they never favored the so-called primacy of the will. They demanded, in their practical life, the bridle of a clear consciousness, and in this consciousness the leadership could not be entrusted to humor or whim, to fancy or chance, but only to the majesty of the highest principle, wherein they found the explanation of their existence and to which their whole life was consecrated.

Faith in such a unity, stability and order of things, personally, as predestination, cosmically, as the counsel of God’s decree, could not but awaken as with a loud voice, and vigorously foster love for science. Without a deep conviction of this unity, this stability and this order, science is unable to go beyond mere conjectures, and only when there is faith in the organic interconnection of the Universe, will there be also a possibility for science to ascend from the empirical investigation of the special phenomena to the general, and from the general to the law which rules over it, and from that law to the principle, which is dominant over all. The data, which are absolutely indispensable for all higher science, are at hand only under this supposition. Remember the fact that in those days when Calvinism cleared for itself a path in life, tottering semipelagianism had blunted this conviction of unity, stability and order to such an extent that even Thomas Aquinas lost a great deal of his influence, while Scotists, Mystics and Epicureans vied with one another in their endeavors to deprive the human mind of its steady course. And who is there who does not perceive what entirely new impulse to undertake scientific investigations had to grow out of the new-born Calvinism, which with one powerful grasp brought order out of chaos, putting under discipline so dangerous a spiritual licentiousness, making an end to that halting between two or more 152 opinions, and showing us instead of rising and falling mists, the picture of a powerfully-rushing mountain stream, taking its course through a well-regulated bed towards an ocean which waits to receive it. Calvinism has gone through many fierce struggles on account of its clinging to the counsel of God’s decree. Again and again it seemed to be near the brink of destruction. Calvinism has been reviled and slandered on account of it, and when it refused to exclude even our sinful action from God’s plan, because without it the programme of the order of the world would again be rent to pieces, our opponents did not shrink from accusing us of making God the author of sin. They knew not what they did. Through evil report and good report Calvinism has firmly maintained its confession. It has not allowed itself to be deprived by scoff and scorn of the firm conviction that our entire life must be under the sway of unity, solidity and order, established by God himself. This accounts for its need of unity of insight, firmness of knowledge, order in its world-view, fostered among us, even in the wide circles of the common people, and this manifest need is the reason that a thirst for knowledge was quickened, which in those days was nowhere satisfied in a more abundant measure than in Calvinistic countries. This explains why it is that in the writings of those days you meet with such a determination, such an energy of thought, such a comprehensive view of life. I even venture to say, that in the memoirs of noble women of that century and in the correspondence of the unlettered, a unity of world-view and life-view is manifest, which impressed 153 a scientific stamp on their whole existence. Intimately connected with this is also the fact that they never favored the so-called primacy of the will. They demanded, in their practical life, the bridle of a clear conscienceness, and in this consciousness the leadership could not be entrusted to humor or whim, to fancy or chance, but only to the majesty of the highest principle, wherein they found the explanation of their existence and to which their whole life was consecrated.

Fé numa unidade, estabilidade e ordem de coisas como esta, pessoalmente como predestinação, cosmicamente como o conselho do decreto de Deus, não poderia senão despertar aos brados e vigorosamente encorajar o amor pela ciência. Sem uma profunda convicção desta unidade, estabilidade e ordem, a ciência é incapaz de ir além de meras conjecturas. Somente quando há fé na conexão orgânica do Universo, haverá também a possibilidade para a ciência subir da investigação empírica dos fenômenos especiais para o geral, e do geral para a lei que governa acima dele, e desta lei para o princípio que domina sobre tudo. Os dados, que são absolutamente indispensáveis para toda ciência superior, estão à mão somente sob esta suposição. Lembre-se do fato de que naqueles dias, quando o Calvinismo abria para si um caminho na vida, o cambaleante semipelagianismo tinha embotado esta convicção de unidade, estabilidade e ordem a tal ponto que até mesmo Tomás de Aquino perdera uma grande parcela de sua influência, enquanto que os Escotistas, os Místicos e os Epicureus disputavam uns com os outros em seus esforços para privar a mente humana de seu curso estável. E quem há que não perceba que um impulso inteiramente novo para empreender investigações científicas se originou do Calvinismo recém-nascido, que com um poderoso controle trouxe ordem ao caos, colocando sob disciplina uma licenciosidade espiritual tão perigosa, pondo um fim a esta hesitação entre duas ou mais opiniões, e mostrando-nos em vez de neblinas subindo e descendo, o quadro de um rio da montanha, com fortes corredeiras, traçando seu curso através de um bem regulado leito para um oceano que espera para recebê-lo.

O Calvinismo passou por muitas lutas ferozes, por causa de seu apego ao conselho do decreto de Deus. Muitas vezes pareceu que estava à beira da destruição. O Calvinismo foi ultrajado e caluniado por causa disso, e quando se recusou a excluir até mesmo nossa ação pecaminosa do plano de Deus, porque sem isso o programa de ordem do mundo novamente seria rasgado em pedaços, nossos oponentes não evitaram acusar-nos de fazer de Deus o autor do pecado. Eles não sabiam o que faziam. Em meio a más e boas notícias o Calvinismo mantém firmemente sua confissão. Não tem permitido a si mesmo ser privado, pelo escárnio e desprezo, da firme convicção de que toda nossa vida deve estar sob a influência da unidade, solidez e ordem estabelecidas pelo próprio Deus. Isto é responsável por sua necessidade de unidade de discernimento, firmeza de conhecimento, ordem em sua cosmovisão encorajado entre nós, até mesmo nos círculos distantes do povo comum, e esta evidente necessidade é a razão pela qual uma sede por conhecimento foi estimulada, a qual, naqueles dias, em parte alguma foi satisfeita numa medida mais abundante do que nos países calvinistas. Isto explica porque é que nos escritos daqueles dias vocês encontram uma determinação, uma energia de pensamento, uma concepção de vida compreensiva como estes. Eu até mesmo me aventuro a dizer, que nas memórias de mulheres nobres daquele século e na correspondência do analfabeto, é evidente uma unidade de cosmovisão e de concepção de vida, que imprimiu uma marca científica sobre toda sua existência. Intimamente ligado a isto também está o fato que nunca favoreceram a assim chamada primazia da vontade. Eles exigiram, em sua vida prática, o freio de uma consciência clara, e nesta consciência a liderança não poderia ser confiada ao humor ou ao capricho, a fantasia ou ao acaso, mas somente à majestade do mais elevado princípio, no qual eles encontraram a explicação de sua existência e ao qual toda sua vida foi consagrada.

Вера в такое единство, стабильность и порядок, относящиеся к личности как предопределение, или к мирозданию — как установление Божие, разбудила, словно колокол, любовь к науке. Без глубокого убеждения в таком единстве, такой стабильности и таком порядке наука не способна пойти дальше чистых предположений. Только вера в органическую взаимосвязанность вселенной дает возможность науке подняться от эмпирических исследований отдельных явлений к чему-то общему, от общего — к закону, управляющему этим общим, а от этого закона — к принципу, доминирующему над всем. Данные, абсолютно необходимые для каждой науки, могут появиться лишь при этом предположении. Вспомните, что в те дни, когда кальвинизм расчищал себе дорогу, шаткое полупелагианство настолько притупило убежденность в единстве, стабильности и порядке, что даже Фома Аквинский в немалой мере утратил свое влияние, а скоттисты, мистики и эпикурейцы наперебой пытались сбить человеческий разум с его устойчивого пути. Нетрудно понять, какой совершенно новый импульс научным исследованиям дал новорожденный кальвинизм, когда одним могучим движением образовал порядок из хаоса, обуздав дисциплиной духовную распущенность, положив конец колебаниям между различными мнениями и вместо зыбкого тумана явил нам картину горного потока, несущегося по упорядоченному руслу к океану.

Из-за своей приверженности божественным установлениям кальвинизм выдержал много яростных битв. Снова и снова казалось, что он вот-вот исчезнет. Его поносили, на него клеветали, а когда он отказался исключить из Божиего замысла даже наши греховные дела, поскольку без них план всемирного порядка опять бы рассыпался на части, оппоненты обвинили нас в том, что мы приписываем Богу сотворение греха. Они не ведали, что творили. Через злую и добрую славу кальвинизм прочно утвердил свое исповедание. Он не позволил себе, убоявшись насмешки и презрения, отказаться от твердой убежденности в том, что вся наша жизнь охвачена единством, прочностью и порядком, которые установил Сам Бог. Вот почему ему так нужны единство понимания, твердость знаний, порядок в мировоззрении. Потребность эту испытывали даже самые обычные люди, и она пробудила ту жажду знания, которую нигде не утоляли лучше, чем в кальвинистских странах. Этим объясняется и то, почему в сочинениях того времени вы встретите такую твердую определенность, такую энергию мысли, такой всеобъемлющий взгляд на жизнь. Я даже рискну сказать, что в мемуарах знатных женщин и переписке необразованных людей проявляется то единство мировоззрения, которое наложило на все их бытие какой-то научный отпечаток. Тесно связано с этим и то, что они никогда не исповедовали так называемого примата воли. В практической жизни они стремились обуздать свое сознание и руководящую роль доверяли не юмору или прихоти, не фантазии или случаю, а только величию высшего принципа, в котором они видели объяснение своего существования и которому посвящали всю свою жизнь.

Van mijn eerste stelling, dat het Calvinisme zin voor wetenschap kweekte, stap ik nu af, om over te gaan op deze tweede, dat het Calvinisme aan de wetenschap haar gebied herschonk. Ik bedoel hiermede dat in de Grieksch-Romeinsche wereld aanvankelijk kosmische wetenschap ontlook; dat in de middeneeuwen de kosmos achter den horizont wegdook, om aller aandacht vrij te laten voor het vergezicht van het toekomende leven; en dat juist het Calvinisme weer tot juiste waardeering ook van het kosmische leven geleid heeft. Dit wordt niet gezegd om de classiciteit ten koste van de middeneeuwen te verheffen. Als de keuze gesteld wordt tusschen den schoonen kosmischen zin van Griekenland met zijn blindheid voor het eeuwige, en de middeneeuwen met haar blindheid voor het kosmische, doch met haar mystieke liefde voor den 110 Christus Gods, dan looft elk kind van God op zijn sterfbed èn Bernard van Clairvaux én Thomas den Aquinaat hoog boven Heraclitus en Aristoteles. De pelgrim die deze wereld doorwandelt, zonder zich om haar behoud en lot te bekreunen, is altoos idealer figuur dan het Grieksche wereldkind dat in Venus-dienst religie, in Bacchus-dienst de eere des levens zoekt, en zich vleit in heroënaanbidding, zich wegwerpt in hetaerenvereering, en zich ten slotte verdierlijkt in paederastie. Alle misverstand, als zou ik de classieke wereld overschatten, bij onderschatting van den hemelschen glans, die door alle nevelen der middeneeuwen heenspeelde, zij dus afgesneden. Maar wat ik desniettemin beweer en handhaaf is dat de ééne Aristoteles mer van den kosmos verstaan heeft, dan alle kerkvaders saam; dat onder den Islâm op Bagdads scholen beter kosmische wetenschap bloeide dan in Europa’s dom- en kloosterscholen; dat eerst door het terugvinden van Aristoteles weer ernstige kosmische studie opwaakte, maar zonder ook zoo nog tot degelijke uitkomst te leiden; en dat eerst, dan zij het Calvinistisch beginsel, om steeds van het Kruis op de Schepping terug te gaan, en nader, dank zij het Calvinistisch leerstuk van de Algemeene genade, het breede kosmische erf weer voor de wetenschap ontsloten werd; maar nu beschenen door die Zonne der gerechtigheid, van wien de Schrift getuigt, dat “in hem alle schatten der wijsheid en der kennisse verborgen zijn”. Staan we dan én bij dat algemeene beginsel van het Calvinisme én bij dit dogma van de gemeene gratie afzonderlijk stil.

10 I now leave my first point, that Calvinism fostered love for science, in order to proceed to the second, that Calvinism restored to science its domain. I mean to say that cosmical science originated in the Graeco-Roman world ; that in the middle ages the cosmos vanished behind the horizon to draw the attention of all to the distant sights of future life, and that it was Calvinism which, without losing sight of the spiritual, led to a rehabilitation of the cosmic sciences. If we were forced to choose between the beautiful cosmic taste of Greece with its blindness for things eternal, and the middle ages with their blindness for cosmical things, but with their mystic love for Christ, then certainly every child of God on his death-bed would tender the palm to Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas rather than to Heraclitus and Aristotle. The pilgrim, who wanders through the world without concerning himself about its preservation and destiny, presents to us a more ideal figure than the Greek worldling, who sought religion in the worship of Venus, or Bacchus, and who flattered himself in heroworship, debased his honour as a man in the veneration of prostitutes, and at last sank lower than the brutes in pederasty. Let it be quite understood therefore that 1 do not in an} r way over-rate the classical world, to the detraction of the heavenly lustre which sparkled through all the mists of the middle ages. But notwithstanding all this I assert and maintain, that the one Aristotle knew more of the cosmos than all the churchfathers, taken together ; that under the dominion of Islam, better cosmic science flourished than in the cathedral- and monastic-schools of Europe ; that the recovery of the writings of Aristotle was the first incentive to renewed, though rather deficient cosmic study, and that Calvinism alone, by means of its dominating principle, which constantly urges us to go back from the Cross to creation, and no less by means of its doctrine of common grace, threw open again to science the vast field of the cosmos, now illumined by the Sun of 11 righteousness, of whom the Scriptures testify, that in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Let us pause then to consider first that general principle of Calvinism and afterwards the dogma of common grace.

I now leave my first point, that Calvinism fostered love for science, in order to proceed to the second, that Calvinism restored to science its domain. I mean to say that cosmical science originated in the Graeco-Roman world; that in the middle ages the cosmos vanished behind the horizon to draw the attention of all to the distant sights of future life, and that it was Calvinism which, without losing sight of the spiritual, led to a rehabilitation of the cosmic sciences. If we were forced to choose between the beautiful cosmic taste of Greece with its blindness for things eternal, and the middle ages with their blindness for cosmical things, but with their mystic love for Christ, then certainly every child of God on his death-bed would tender the palm to Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas rather than to Heraclitus and Aristotle. The pilgrim who wanders through the world without concerning himself about its preservation and destiny, presents to us a more ideal figure than the Greek worldling who sought religion in the worship of Venus, or Bacchus, 154 and who flattered himself in hero-worship, debased his honor as a man in the veneration of prostitutes, and at last sank lower than the brutes in pederasty. Let it be quite understood therefore that I do not in any way over-rate the classical world, to the detraction of the heavenly lustre which sparkled through all the haze of the middle ages. But notwithstanding all this I assert and maintain that the one Aristotle knew more of the cosmos than all the church-fathers taken together; that under the dominion of Islam, better cosmic science flourished than in the cathedral- and monastic-schools of Europe; that the recovery of the writings of Aristotle was the first incentive to renewed though rather deficient study; and that Calvinism alone, by means of its dominating principle, which constantly urges us to go back from the Cross to Creation, and no less by means of its doctrine of common grace, threw open again to science the vast field of the cosmos, now illumined by the Sun of Righteousness, of Whom the Scriptures testify that in Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Let us pause then to consider first that general principle of Calvinism and afterwards the dogma of “common grace”.

Deixo agora meu primeiro ponto, de que o Calvinismo encorajou o amor pela ciência, a fim de prosseguir para o segundo, de que o Calvinismo restaurou para a ciência seu domínio.

Quero dizer que ciência cósmica originou-se no mundo greco-romano; que na Idade Média o cosmos desapareceu atrás do horizonte para atrair a atenção de todos às visões distantes da vida futura, e que foi o Calvinismo que, sem perder a visão do espiritual, conduziu a uma reabilitação das ciências cósmicas. Se fossemos forçados a escolher entre a bela inclinação cósmica dos gregos com sua cegueira das coisas eternas, e a Idade Média com sua cegueira das coisas cósmicas, mas com seu amor místico por Cristo, certamente, então, cada filho de Deus em seu leito de morte ofereceria a vitória a Bernardo de Claraval e a Tomás de Aquino em vez de a Herácleto e Aristóteles. O peregrino que vagueia pelo mundo sem inquietar-se acerca de sua preservação e destino, apresenta-nos uma figura mais ideal do que o grego mundano que procurava a religião na adoração de Vênus, ou Baco, e que se satisfazia no culto a heróis, degradava sua honra como homem na veneração de prostitutas, e finalmente afundava-se em pederastia mais baixa do que os bárbaros. Por isso, deve ser completamente entendido que de modo algum superestimo o mundo clássico em depreciação do esplendor celestial que brilhou através de toda a neblina da Idade Média.

Mas apesar de tudo isso, afirmo e sustento que um único Aristóteles conhecia mais do cosmos do que todos os pais da igreja juntos; que melhor ciência cósmica prosperou sob o domínio do Islamismo do que nas catedrais e escolas monásticas da Europa; que a recuperação dos escritos de Aristóteles foi o primeiro incentivo para a renovação do estudo antes deficiente; e que somente o Calvinismo, por meio deste princípio dominante que constantemente impele-nos a voltar da cruz para a criação, e não menos por meio de sua doutrina da graça comum, novamente abriu para a ciência o vasto campo do cosmos, agora iluminada pelo Sol da Justiça, de quem as Escrituras testificam que nele estão escondidos todos os tesouros de sabedoria e conhecimento. Vamos, então, fazer uma pausa para considerar primeiro o princípio geral do Calvinismo e posteriormente o dogma da “graça comum”.

Теперь от первого пункта, то есть от любви кальвинизма к науке, перейду ко второму, гласящему, что кальвинизм восстановил для науки сферу ее влияния. Наука о космосе возникла в греко-римском мире; в средние века внимание к космосу ослабело, чтобы мы думали только о будущей жизни, и лишь один кальвинизм, не теряя из виду духовного, воскресил естественные науки. Если бы нас заставили выбирать между прекрасным космическим вкусом Греции с ее слепотой к вечному и средними веками с их мистической любовью к Христу и слепотой к миру, то, конечно, каждое дитя Божие на своем смертном одре скорее потянулось бы к Бернару Клервоскому и Фоме Аквинскому, чем к Гераклиту и Аристотелю. Пилигрим, странствующий по миру, не заботясь о его сохранении и судьбе, кажется нам более идеальной личностью, чем грек, который поклоняется Афродите или Дионису, льстит самому себе в поклонении героям, унижает свое достоинство с блудницами и в конце концов опускается ниже животных в содомии.

Поймите меня правильно, я ни в коей мере не возвышаю классический мир, чтобы как-то умалить свет небесный, сияющий сквозь мглу средних веков; и все-таки утверждаю, что один Аристотель знал больше о мире, чем все отцы Церкви, вместе взятые; что под господством ислама наука процветала больше, чем в кафедральных и монастырских школах Европы; что повторное обретение произведений Аристотеля было первым толчком к обновленному, хотя и довольно ущербному, изучению природы; и, наконец, что только кальвинизм благодаря своему доминирующему принципу, который постоянно побуждает нас возвращаться от креста к творению, и, в не меньшей степени, своей доктриной об общей благодати, снова открывает для науки просторы мироздания, теперь уже озаренные Солнцем Праведности, в Котором, согласно Писанию, сокрыты все сокровища премудрости. Сделаем паузу, чтобы рассмотреть, во-первых, этот общий принцип кальвинизма, а потом — и догму об «общей благодати».

De Christelijke religie is, gelijk ieder toestemt, in haar hoofdstrekking Soteriologisch. Wat moet ik doen om zalig te worden? is de angstige vraag, die ze vóór alle ding beantwoordt. Die vraag is onverstaanbaar voor een iegelijk, die weigert het heden uit het eeuwige te bezien en die zich deze aarde gereedelijk denken kan, zonder organisch en zedelijk verband met het leven des hemels. Maar natuurlijk, waar ook immer twee elementen optraden, gelijk hier de zondaar en de gezaligde, het tijdelijke en het eeuwige, het aardsche en het hemelsche leven, lag altoos het gevaar voor de hand, dat men het juiste verband tusschen beide uit het oog verloor en door dwaling of eenzijdigheid beide vervalschte. Welnu, hieraan 111 is, helaas, ook de Christenheid niet ontkomen. Ze heeft, door de dualistische opvatting van de wedergeboorte den band tusschen het genadeleven en het natuurlijke leven verbroken. Ze heeft, door te uitsluitend op den hemel te staren, verzuimd haar aandacht aan de wereld als schepping Gods te schenken. Ze is, door het eeuwige eeniglijk te minnen te kort geschoten in plichtsbetrachting op tijdelijk gebied. Ze heeft, uit zorge voor de ziel, de zorge voor het lichaam verwaarloosd. En deze eenzijdige onharmonische opvatting, heeft er ten slotte, bij meer dan ééne sekte toe geleid, om in de aanbidding van den Christus op te gaan, en de aanbidding van God den Vader, den Almachtige, den Schepper der hemels en der aarde, te vergeten. Dit nu kan men kortelijk noemen: Het Christendom uitsluitend soteriologisch opvatten, en zijn kosmologische beteekenis doen teloor gaan.

All agree that the Christian religion is substantially soteriological. "What must I do to be saved?*' remains throughout all the ages the question of the anxious inquirer, to which above all else an answer must be given. This question is unintelligble for those who refuse to view time in the light of eternity, and who are accustomed to think of this earth without organic and moral connection with the life to come. But of course, wherever two elements appear, as in this case the sinner and the saint, the temporal and the eternal, the terrestrial and the heavenly life, there is always danger of losing sight of their interconnection and of falsifying both by error or onesidedness. Christendom, it must be confessed, did not escape this error. A dualistic conception of regeneration was the cause of the rupture between the life of nature and the life of grace. It has, on account of its too intense contemplation of heavenly things, neglected to give its attention to the world of God's creation. It has, on account of its exclusive love of things eternal, been backward in the fulfilment of its temporal duties. It has neglected the care of the body, because it cared too exclusively for the soul. And this one-sided, inharmonious conception in the course of time has led more than one sect to a mystic worshipping of Christ alone, to the exclusion of God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. Christ was conceived exclusively as the Savior, and his cosmological significance was lost out of sight.

All agree that the Christian religion is substantially soteriological. “What must I do to be saved?” remains throughout all the ages the question of the anxious inquirer, to which above all else an answer must be given. This question is unintelligible for those who refuse to view time in the light of eternity, and who are accustomed to think of this earth without organic and moral connection with the life to come. But of 155 course, wherever two elements appear, as in this case the sinner and the saint, the temporal and the eternal, the terrestrial and the heavenly life, there is always danger of losing sight of their interconnection and of falsifying both by error or one-sidedness. Christendom, it must be confessed, did not escape this error. A dualistic conception of regeneration was the cause of the rupture between the life of nature and the life of grace. It has, on account of its too intense contemplation of celestial things, neglected to give due attention to the world of God’s creation. It has, on account of its exclusive love of things eternal, been backward in the fulfilment of its temporal duties. It has neglected the care of the body because it cared too exclusively for the soul. And this one-sided, inharmonious conception in the course of time has led more than one sect to a mystic worshipping of Christ alone, to the exclusion of God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. Christ was conceived exclusively as the Savior, and His cosmological significance was lost out of sight.

Todos concordam que a religião cristã é substancialmente soteriológica. “O que devo fazer para ser salvo?” continua sendo a pergunta do inquiridor ansioso através de todos os tempos, à qual uma resposta, acima de tudo o mais, deve ser dada. Esta questão é ininteligível para aqueles que se recusam a ver o tempo à luz da eternidade, e que estão acostumados a pensar sobre esta terra sem conexão orgânica e moral com a vida por vir. Mas certamente, onde quer que dois elementos apareçam, como neste caso o pecador e o santo, o temporal e o eterno, a vida terrena e a celestial, sempre há o perigo de perder-se a visão de sua conexão e de falsificar ambos pelo erro ou pela unilateralidade. Deve ser confessado que a cristandade não escapa desse erro. Uma concepção dualista da regeneração foi a causa dessa ruptura entre a vida da natureza e a vida da graça. Por causa de sua contemplação tão intensa das coisas celestiais ela tem negligenciado dar a devida atenção ao mundo da criação de Deus. Ela, por causa de seu amor exclusivo pelas coisas eternas, tem sido tímida no cumprimento de seus deveres temporais. Tem negligenciado cuidado do corpo porque tem cuidado exclusivamente da alma. E esta concepção unilateral, inarmônica, ao longo do tempo tem levado muitas seitas a uma adoração mística de Cristo somente, à exclusão de Deus o Pai Todo-Poderoso, Criador do céu e da terra. Cristo foi concebido exclusivamente como o Salvador, e seu significado cosmológico foi perdido de vista.

Все согласятся, что христианская вера по сути своей — сотериологическая. «Что мне делать, чтобы спастись?» — спрашивает прежде всего пытливый исследователь. Этот вопрос немыслим для тех, кто отказывается видеть время в свете вечности и привык думать об этой земле, не связывая ее органически и нравственно с будущей жизнью. Везде, где появляются два элемента, в данном случае — грешник и святой, временное и вечное, земная и небесная жизнь — есть опасность потерять из виду их взаимосвязь и неверно их истолковать в силу заблуждения или односторонности. Христианский мир, надо признать, не избежал этой ошибки. Дуалистическая концепция возрождения привела к разрыву между «порядком природы» и «порядком благодати». Слишком напряженно созерцая небеса, люди гнушались миром Божиего творения. Из-за пламенной любви к вечному, они пренебрегали земными обязанностями, пренебрегали и заботой о теле, заботясь только о душе. И эта односторонняя, негармоничная концепция привела не одну секту к мистическому поклонению одному Христу без Бога Отца, Творца неба и земли. Христа воспринимали исключительно как Спасителя, предав забвению Его космологическое значение.

Dit dualisme nu wordt geoordeeld door de Heilige Schrift. Als Johannes ons den Verlosser zal teekenen, begint hij met ons te zeggen, hoe die Christus is het eeuwige Woord, waardoor alle ding geschapen werd en uit wien het licht was der menschen. Zoo ook betuigt Paulus ons, “dat alle dingen door hem geschapen zijn, en te samen bestaan door hem”. Alsook dat het doel van het verlossingswerk is, niet maar enkele zondaren maar de wereld te redden en alle dingen die in hemel en op aarde zijn, weer onder één hoofd te herstellen in hun organische samenhang. Christus zelf spreekt niet enkel van de wedergeboorte van het hart, maar evenzoo van de wedergeboorte van heel de Schepping. (anakefalaiôsis) Al het schepsel zucht, verwachtende het doorbreken van de heerlijkheid der kinderen Gods. En als Johannes op Pathmos het loflied der Cherubijnen en gezaligden beluistert, geeft alles eere, lof en dankzegging aan dien God, die den hemel en de aarde geschapen heeft. De Apocalyps keert tot het uitgangspunt van Genesis I : 1 terug, tot het: „In den beginne schiep God den hemel én de aarde.” Dienovereenkomstig doelt dan ook het program van de Heilige Schrift niet op een slotbedrijf met een enkel geestelijk bestaan van gezaligde zielen, maar op een herstel van den ganschen kosmos, als eens onder een vernieuwden hemel op de vernieuwde aarde God alles in allen zal 112 zijn. Welnu, die breede, alomvattende, kosmologische beteekenis van het Evangelie, heeft eerst Calvijn weer gegrepen, en gegrepen niet door redeneering, maar door den diepen indruk waaronder hij persoonlijk leefde van de majesteit Gods.

This dualism, however, is by no means countenanced by the Holy Scriptures. When John is describing the Saviour, he first tells us that Christ is the eternal Word by whom all things are made, and who is the life of men. Paul also testifies that all things were created by Christ and consist 12 by him;" and further, that the object of the work of redemption is not limited to the salvation of individual sinners, but extends itself to the redemption of the world, and to the organic reunion of all things in heaven and on earth under Christ as their original head. Christ himself does not speak only of the regeneration of the heart, but also of creation as a whole. The whole creation groaneth waiting for the bursting forth of the glory of the children of God. And when John on Patmos listened to the hymns of the Cherubim and the Redeemed, ah honor, praise and thanks are given to Cod, " Who has created the heaven and the earth!' The Apocalypse returns to the startingpoint of Gen. I, 1.: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In keeping with this, the final outcome of the future, foreshadowed in the H. Scriptures, is not the merely spiritual existence of saved souls, but the restoration of the entire cosmos, when God will lie all in all under the renewed heaven on the renewed earth. Now this wide, comprehensive, cosmical meaning of the gospel has been apprehended by Calvin, apprehended not as a result of a dialectic process, but of the deep impression of God's majesty, which had moulded his personal life.

This dualism, however, is by no means countenanced by the Holy Scriptures. When John is describing the Savior, he first tells us that Christ is the “eternal Word, by Whom all things are made, and who is the life of men.” Paul also testifies that “all things were created by Christ and consist by Him;” and further, that the object of the work of redemption is not limited to the salvation of individual sinners, but extends itself to the redemption of the world, and to the organic reunion of all things in heaven and on earth under 156 Christ as their original head. Christ himself does not speak only of the regeneration of the earth, but also of a regeneration of the cosmos (Matth. 19 : 28). Paul declares: “The whole creation groaneth waiting for the bursting forth of the glory of the children of God.” And when John on Patmos listened to the hymns of the Cherubim and the Redeemed, all honor, praise and thanks were given to God, “Who has created the heaven and the earth.” The Apocalypse returns to the starting-point of Gen. I, 1.: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” In keeping with this, the final outcome of the future, foreshadowed in the H. Scriptures, is not the merely spiritual existence of saved souls, but the restoration of the entire cosmos, when God will be all in all under the renewed heaven on the renewed earth. Now this wide, comprehensible, cosmical meaning of the gospel has been apprehended again by Calvin, apprehended not as a result of a dialectic process, but of the deep impression of God’s majesty, which had moulded his personal life.

Esse dualismo, contudo, de modo algum é sustentado pelas Santas Escrituras. Quando João está descrevendo o Salvador, primeiro nos fala que Cristo é a “Palavra eterna, por quem todas as coisas são feitas, e que é a vida dos homens”. Paulo também testifica que “todas as coisas foram criadas por Cristo e subsistem por meio dele”; e mais, que o objetivo da obra de redenção não está limitado à salvação de pecadores individuais, mas estende-se à redenção do mundo, e à reunião orgânica de todas as coisas no céu e na terra debaixo de Cristo como seu cabeça original. O próprio Cristo não fala apenas da regeneração da terra, mas também de uma regeneração do cosmos (Mateus 19.28). Paulo declara: “Toda a criação geme esperando pela redenção do cativeiro para a glória dos filhos de Deus”. E quando João, em Patmos, escutou os hinos dos Querubins e do Redentor, toda honra, louvor e ação de graças foram dadas ao Deus, “Que criou o céu e a terra”. O Apocalipse retorna ao ponto de partida de Gênesis 1:1 – “No princípio criou Deus os céus e a terra.”

De acordo com isto, o resultado final do futuro, prenunciado nas Santas Escrituras, não é a existência meramente espiritual de almas salvas, mas a restauração do cosmos inteiro, quando Deus será tudo em todos debaixo do céu e terra renovados. Este significado amplo, compreensível e cósmico do evangelho foi novamente entendido por Calvino, compreendido não como o resultado de um processo dialético, mas da profunda impressão da majestade de Deus, que moldou sua vida pessoal.

Этот дуализм, однако, никоим образом не коренится в Писании. Иоанн Богослов прежде всего говорит нам, что Христос — вечное Слово, Которым все сотворено, и Которое есть жизнь человеков. Павел тоже свидетельствует, что все сотворено Христом и держится Им; а дело искупления не ограничено спасением отдельных грешников, но распространяется на весь мир и на органическое воссоединение всего, что на небе и на земле, под Христом как исконным Главой. Сам Христос говорит не только о возрождении земли, но и о возрождении всего мира (Мф. 19:28). Павел говорит: «Ибо знаем, что вся тварь совокупно стенает и мучится доныне; и не только она, но и мы сами, имея начаток Духа, и мы в себе стенаем, ожидая усыновления, искупления тела нашего». Когда Иоанн на Патмосе слушал песнопения херувимов и искупленных, всю честь, хвалу и благодарение они воздавали Богу, Который сотворил небо и землю. Апокалипсис возвращается к отправной точке Писания: «В начале сотворил Бог небо и землю». Согласно с этим, конечный исход, предсказанный в Св. Писании, — это не только духовное бытие спасенных душ, но и восстановление всего космоса, когда Бог будет все во всем под новым небом на новой земле. Это широкое, всеохватное, мирообъемлющее значение Евангелия вновь осознал Кальвин не в результате диалектических выкладок, а потому, что чувство Божиего величия пропитало всю его жизнь.

Zekerlijk, onze zaligheid werpt een wezenlijk gewicht in de schaal, maar veel grooter gewicht toch wordt in die schaal geworpen door de glorie onzes Gods, en die God had zijn heerlijkheid het eerst geopenbaard in zijn wondere Schepping. Die Schepping is zijn kunstwerk, en als nu de zonde dit kunstwerk Gods verstoort, dan komt er wel nóg heerlijker openbaring in de herschepping, maar herschepping is en blijft dan toch altoos de redding van wat eerst geschapen werd, de theodicee van het oorspronkelijke kunstwerk onzes Gods. Christus’ Middelaarschap is en blijft de stoffe voor het hooge loflied van menschentong en engelenstem, maar zelfs dat Middelaarschap bedoelt niet zijn eere, maar de eere des Vaders; en hoe hoog ook zijn koningschap schittere, eens zal ook dit koninkrijk door hem aan God en den Vader worden overgegeven. Nu nog “treedt hij voor ons in bij den Vader,” maar de ure komt, dat hij niet meer voor ons bidden zal, omdat we volkomenlijk bekennen zullen hoe de Vader zelf ons liefheeft. Dit doorzag Calvijn, en hiermede werd uiteraard op eenmaal aan de verachting der wereld, aan de verwaarloozing van het tijdelijke, aan de onderschatting van het kosmische paal en perk gesteld. Het kosmische leven had zijn waarde herwonnen, niet ten koste van het eeuwige, maar als schepping, als kunstwerk, als openbaring van de deugden Gods. In twee concrete feiten is u dat terstond voelbaar te maken. Bij de schrikkelijke pest, die eens Milaan verwoestte, blonk in kardinaal Borromeo de heldenmoed der liefde, waarmede deze Roomsche prelaat zich te midden der stervenden begaf, maar bij de pest die in de 16e eeuw Genève teisterde deed Calvijn meer en beter, want ook hij droeg zorg dat het den kranken niet aan vertroosting ontbrak, maar tegelijk nam hij hygiënische maatregelen, die nu nog modellen zijn en het voortwoekeren der pest stuitten. En het tweede waarop ik u wijs is het merkwaardige feit, dat de Amsterdam de Calvinistische predikant Peter Plancius welsprekend 113 sprak, als herder onovertroffen arbeidde, en bij den kerkelijken strijd voor niemand in beslistheid onderdeed, maar tegelijk de vraagbaak was voor reeders en zeekapiteins om zijn geniale geographische kunde. Het onderzoek naar de lengte- en breedtelijnen van den aardbol vormde voor hem één geheel met het onderzoek naar de lengte en breedte, die er in de liefde van Christus was. Hij stond voor twee werken Gods, het ééne in de Schepping, het andere in den Christus, en in beide aanbad hij die mogendheid des Heeren, die zijne ziel in verrukking bracht. Het is dan ook opmerkelijk, hoe onze Gereformeerde Confessie spreekt van twee middelen, waardoor wij God kennen, de natuur en de Schriftuur. En nog opmerkelijker, hoe Calvijn, wel verre van gelijk zoovelen, hierbij de natuur pro memorie uit te trekken, veeleer de Schrift niet anders dan een bril noemt, die ons in staat stelt het Goddelijk schrift der Schepping, dat verflauwd en geschonden was, weer te lezen. Zoo sleet alle bang gevoel, alsof men, met zich op de natuur te werpen, zich aan ijdelheden vergaapte, er uit. Men zag in, dat om Gods wil, onze opmerkzaamheid aan het leven van natuur en Schepping niet mocht onttrokken worden; de studie van het lichaam herkreeg naast de studie der ziel haar plaats der eere; en de aardsche samenleving der menschen maakte opnieuw den indruk even waardig voorwerp van menschelijke wetenschap te zijn als de vergadering der volmaakt rechtvaardigen daarboven. Hieruit moet dan ook de betamelijke verstandhouding tusschen het Calvinisme en het Humanisme worden verklaard. In zooverre toch het Humanisme het wereldleven voor het eeuwige wilde schuiven, heeft al wie Calvinist was den Humanist weerstaan. Maar zoodra ook de Humanist het recht van het wereldleven op waardeering bepleitte, was de Calvinist zijn bondgenoot.

Certainly our salvation is of substantial weight, but it cannot be compared with the much greater weight of the glory of our God, Who has revealed His majesty in His wondrous creation. This creation is his handiwork, and being marred by sin, the way was opened, it is true for a still more glorious revelation in its restoration, yet restoration is and ever will be the salvation of that wdiich was first created, the theodicy of the original handiwork of our God. The mediatorship of Christ is and ever will be the burden of the grand hymn of the tongues of men and the voices of angels, but even this mediatorship has for its final end the glory of the Father; and however grand the splendor of Christ's kingdom may be, He will 13 at last surrender it to God and the Father. He is still our advocate with the Father, but the hour is coining, when his prayer for us will cease, because we shall know, in that clay, that the Father loves us. Thereby of course Calvinism puts an end once and for all to contempt for the world, neglect of temporal and under-valuation of cosmical things. Cosmical life has regained its worth not at the expense of things eternal, but by virtue of its capacity as God's handiwork and as a revelation of God's attributes.

Two facts may suffice to impress you with the truth of this. During the terrible plague, which once devastated Milan, Cardinal Borromeo's heroic love shone brightly in the courage he manifested in his ministrations to the dying; but during the plague, which in the 1 6 th century tormented Geneva, Calvin acted better and more wisety, for he not only cared incessantly for the spiritual needs of the sick, but at the same time introduced hitherto unsurpassed hygienic measures, whereby the ravages of the plague were arrested. The second fact, to which I draw your attention, is not less remarkable. The Calvinistic preacher Peter Plancino of Amsterdam was an eloquent sermonizer, a pastor unrivalled in his consecration to his work, foremost in the ecclesiastical struggle of his days, but at the same time he was the oracle of shipowners and sea-captains on account of his extensive geographical knowledge. The investigation of the lines of longitude and latitude of the terrestrial globe formed in his estimation one whole with the investigation of the length and breadth of the love of Christ. He saw himself placed before two works of God, the one in creation, the other in Christ, and in both he adored that majesty of Almighty God, which transported his soul into ecstacy. In this light it is deserving of notice that our Belgic Confession speaks of two means, whereby we know God, viz. the Scriptures and Nature And still more remarkable it is, that Calvin, instead of 14 simply treating Nature as an accessorial item, as so many Theologians were inclined to do, was accustomed to compare the Scriptures to a pair of spectacles, enabling us to decipher again the divine Thoughts, written by God's Hand in the book of Nature, which had become obliterated in consequence of sin. Thus vanished, every dread possibility, that he, who occupied himself with nature, were wasting his capacities in pursuit of vain and idle things. It was perceived, on the contrary that, for God's sake, our attention may not be withdrawn from the life of nature and creation; the study of the body regained its place of honor beside the study of the soul ; and the social organization of mankind on earth was again looked upon as being as well worthy an object of human science as the congregation of the perfect saints in heaven. This also explains the close relation existing between Calvinism and Humanism. In as far as Humanism endeavored to substitute life in this world for the eternal, every Oalvinist opposed the Humanist. But in as much as the Humanist contented himself with a plea for a proper acknowledgment of secular life, the Calvinist was his ally.

Certainly our salvation is of substantial weight, but it cannot be compared with the much greater weight of the glory of our God, Who has revealed His majesty in His wondrous creation. This creation is His handiwork, and being marred by sin, the way was opened, it is true for a still more glorious revelation in its restoration, yet restoration is and ever will be the salvation of that which was first created, the theodicy of the original handiwork of our God. The mediatorship of Christ is and ever will be the burden of the grand hymn of the tongues of men and the voices of angels, 157 but even this mediatorship has for its final end the glory of the Father; and however grand the splendor of Christ’s kingdom may be, He will at last surrender it to God and the Father. He is still our Advocate with the Father, but the hour is coming when His prayer for us will cease, because we shall know in that day that the Father loves us. Thereby of course Calvinism puts an end once and for all to contempt for the world, neglect of temporal and under-valuation of cosmical things. Cosmical life has regained its worth not at the expense of things eternal, but by virtue of its capacity as God’s handiwork and as a revelation of God’s attributes.

Two facts may suffice to impress you with the truth of this. During the terrible plague which once devastated Milan, Cardinal Borromeo’s heroic love shone brightly in the courage he manifested in his ministrations to the dying; but during the plague, which in the 16th century tormented Geneva, Calvin acted better and more wisely, for he not only cared incessantly for the spiritual needs of the sick, but at the same time introduced hitherto unsurpassed hygienic measures whereby the ravages of the plague were arrested. The second fact to which I draw your attention is not less remarkable. The Calvinistic preacher Peter Plancius of Amsterdam was an eloquent sermonizer, a pastor unrivaled in his consecration to his work, foremost in the ecclesiastical struggle of his days, but at the same time he was the oracle of shipowners and sea-captains on account of his extensive geographical knowledge. The investigation of the lines of longitude and latitude 158of the terrestrial globe formed in his estimation one whole with the investigation of the length and breadth of the love of Christ. He saw himself placed before two works of God, the one in creation, the other in Christ, and in both he adored that majesty of Almighty God, which transported his soul into ecstasy. In this light it is deserving of notice that our best Calvinistic Confessions speak of two means whereby we know God, viz., the Scriptures and Nature. And still more remarkable it is that Calvin, instead of simply treating Nature as an accessorial item as so many Theologians were inclined to do, was accustomed to compare the Scriptures to a pair of spectacles, enabling us to decipher again the divine Thoughts, written by God’s Hand in the book of Nature, which had become obliterated in consequence of the curse. Thus vanished every dread possibility that he who occupied himself with nature was wasting his capacities in pursuit of vain and idle things. It was perceived, on the contrary, that for God’s sake, our attention may not be withdrawn from the life of nature and creation; the study of the body regained its place of honor beside the study of the soul; and the social organization of mankind on earth was again looked upon as being as well worthy an object of human science as the congregation of the perfect saints in heaven. This also explains the close relation existing between Calvinism and Humanism. In as far as Humanism endeavored to substitute life in this world for the eternal, every Calvinist opposed the Humanist. But in as much as the Humanist contented himself with a plea for a 159 proper acknowledgment of secular life, the Calvinist was his ally.

Certamente nossa salvação é de valor substancial, mas não pode ser comparada com o valor muito maior da glória de nosso Deus, que tem revelado sua majestade em sua maravilhosa criação. Esta criação é seu trabalho manual, e sendo desfigurada pelo pecado o caminho estava aberto, é verdade, para uma revelação ainda mais gloriosa em sua restauração. Todavia, a restauração é e sempre será a salvação daquilo que foi primeiro criado, a teodicéia do trabalho manual original de nosso Deus. A mediação de Cristo é e sempre será o estribilho do grande hino das línguas dos homens e das vozes dos anjos, mas mesmo esta mediação tem por seu objetivo final a glória do Pai; e não importa quão grande possa ser o esplendor do reino de Cristo, ele finalmente se renderá ao Deus e Pai. ele ainda é nosso Advogado junto ao Pai, mas a hora está chegando quando sua oração por nós cessará, porque saberemos naquele dia que o Pai nos ama. Com isso, certamente, o Calvinismo coloca um fim de uma vez por todas no desrespeito pelo mundo, na negligência do temporal e na depreciação das coisas cósmicas. A vida cósmica recobrou seu valor não às custas das coisas eternas, mas em virtude de sua qualidade como trabalho manual de Deus e como uma revelação dos atributos de Deus.

Dois fatos são suficientes para impressionar vocês com a veracidade disto. Durante a terrível peste bubônica que certa vez devastou Milão, o amor heróico do Cardeal Borromeo86 distinguiu-se brilhantemente na coragem que ele manifestou em suas ministrações aos moribundos; mas durante a peste bubônica, que no século 16 atormentou Genebra, Calvino agiu melhor e mais sabiamente, pois não apenas cuidou incessantemente das necessidades espirituais dos doentes, mas ao mesmo tempo introduziu medidas higiênicas até então incomparáveis, pelas quais as ruínas da praga foram interrompidas.

O segundo fato para o qual chamo sua atenção não é menos notável. O pregador calvinista Peter Plancius87 de Amsterdã era um pregador eloqüente, um pastor incomparável em sua consagração a sua obra, o primeiro na luta eclesiástica de seus dias, mas ao mesmo tempo foi o oráculo dos armadores e dos capitães do mar por causa de seu extenso conhecimento geográfico. A investigação das linhas de longitude e latitude do globo terrestre formavam, em sua opinião, um todo com a investigação do comprimento e largura do amor de Cristo. Ele viu-se colocado diante de duas obras de Deus, a primeira na criação, a outra em Cristo, e em ambas ele adorava aquela majestade do Todo-Poderoso Deus, o que transportava sua alma ao êxtase.

Neste aspecto, é digno de nota que nossas melhores Confissões calvinistas falam de dois meios pelos quais conhecemos a Deus, a saber, as Escrituras e a Natureza. E ainda mais notável é que Calvino, em vez de simplesmente tratar a Natureza como um item acessório, como tantos teólogos estavam inclinados a fazer, estava acostumado a comparar as Escrituras a um par de óculos que nos capacita a decifrar novamente o Pensamento divino, escrito pela Mão de Deus no livro da Natureza, o qual se tornou obliterado em conseqüência da maldição. Assim, desapareceu toda possibilidade de medo de que aquele que ocupava-se com a natureza estava desperdiçando suas capacidades na busca de coisas vãs e inúteis. Pelo contrário, foi percebido que por causa de Deus nossa atenção não pode ser retirada da vida da natureza e da criação; o estudo do corpo recuperou seu lugar de honra ao lado do estudo da alma; e a organização social da humanidade na terra foi novamente considerada como sendo um objeto tão valioso da ciência humana quanto a congregação dos santos perfeitos no céu. Isto também explica a íntima relação existente entre o Calvinismo e o Humanismo. Até onde o Humanismo se esforçou para substituir a vida eterna pela vida neste mundo, todo calvinista se opôs ao Humanista. Mas em tudo quanto o Humanista se contentou com um apelo pelo reconhecimento apropriado da vida secular, o calvinista foi seu aliado.

Конечно, наше спасение очень важно, но его не сравнить с весомостью Божией славы. Бог открыл Свое величие в Своем великолепном творении, оно — Его создание. Когда творение запятнал грех, открылся путь к еще более славному откровению о его восстановлении. И все же это восстановление есть и будет спасением того, что было изначально сотворено. Это теодицея изначального создания нашего Бога. И люди, и ангелы воспевают посредничество Христа, но цель этой хвалы — прославить Отца; и как ни велико сияние Христова царства, Он в конце концов отдаст его Отцу и Богу. Он — наш Ходатай перед Отцом, но приближается час, когда Его молитва за нас прекратится, ибо мы узнаем в тот день, что Отец нас любит. Тем самым кальвинизм раз и навсегда положил конец презрению к миру, пренебрежению временным, недооценке космического. Космическая жизнь обрела значение не за счет вечного, но потому, что она создана Богом и являет нам Божии атрибуты.

Чтобы убедить вас в этом, достаточно двух фактов. Во время ужасной чумы, которая некогда опустошила Милан, героическая любовь кардинала Борромео⁴ ярко сияла в том мужестве, с каким он служил умирающим; но когда в XVI столетии чума поразила Женеву, Кальвин действовал лучше и мудрее, ибо он не только постоянно заботился о духовных нуждах больных, но и принял для того времени непревзойденные гигиенические меры, посредством которых чуму удалось остановить. Второе событие, на которое я обращаю ваше внимание, не менее знаменательно. Кальвинистский проповедник Петр Планций⁵ из Амстердама был красноречивым оратором, неутомимым работником, первым в церковной борьбе своих дней, но, кроме того, он был истинным оракулом для судовладельцев и капитанов благодаря своим географическим познаниям. Линии долготы и широты соответствовали, по его мнению, широте и глубине любви Христовой. Он видел перед собой два деяния Божии — одно в творении, другое — в Христе, и в обоих он поклонялся тому величию Божиему, которое восхитило его душу. В этом свете заслуживает внимания то, что наши лучшие кальвинистские исповедания говорят о двух средствах, благодаря которым мы познаем Бога — Писании и Природе. Еще знаменательней то, что Кальвин не просто рассматривал природу как вспомогательное средство, как это делали многие теологи. Он сравнивал Писание с очками, помогающими нам прочитать божественные мысли, начертанные Божией рукой в книге Природы, которые стерло грехопадение. Так исчезает весьма неприятная возможность того, что тот, кто занимается природой, станет тратить способности на суетные и праздные цели.

Тогда и поняли, что во имя Бога не следует отвращать внимание от жизни природы и творения. Исследования тела вернули себе достойное положение подле исследований души; общественную организацию человечества на земле стали снова считать столь же достойной науки, как и общение святых, пребывающих на небе. Объясняет это и тесную связь между кальвинизмом и гуманизмом. В той степени, в какой гуманизм стремится подменить вечную жизнь жизнью в этом мире, каждый кальвинист будет ему противостоять. Но в той степени, в какой гуманист довольствуется надлежащим изучением мирской жизни, кальвинист будет ему союзником.

Thans kom ik tot het dogma van de „algemeene genade,” uitvloeisel van het u voorgehouden algemeene beginsel, mits, in zijn bijzondere toepassing op de zonde, en die zonde verstaan als bederf onzer natuur. De zonde toch plaatst ons voor een op zichzelf onoplosbaar raadsel. Neemt ge die zonde als een doodelijk gif, als vijandschap 114 tegen God, als leidende tot eeuwige verdoemenis, en qualificeert ge den zondaar als “onbekwaam tot eenig goed en geneigd tot alle kwaad”, en deswege alleen redbaar zoo God door wedergeboorte een ander mensch van hem maakt, zou zou hieruit volgen moeten, dat ge onder ongeloovigen en onwedergeborenen niet dan booze u afstootende menschen vondt. Maar dit komt in de werkelijkheid van het leven alzoo niet uit. Integendeel, veel in de ongeloovige wereld munt uit door iets uitnemends. Veel kostelijks is uit de oude heidensche wereld tot ons gekomen. Plato heeft bladzijden die ge verslindt. Cicero boeit u en sleept u meê door edelen toon en roert in u heilige gewaarwordingen. En raadpleegt ge uw eigen omgeving, wat ge van elders hoort, en wat in de studiën en letterkundige producten van het niet-belijdend deel der menschheid thans nog tot u komt, dan is er o, zooveel dat u aantrekt, dat de sympathie van uw hart heeft ja, dat ge bewondert. Want wat uit de woorden en handelingen en uit het algemeen optreden van vele niet-geloovigen u toespreekt, is vaak niet alleen de vonk der genialiteit of de schittering van het talent, maar evenzoo het karakterschoon, hun ijver, hun toewijding, hun liefde, hun rondborstigheid, hun trouw en hun eerlijke zin. Ja het mag niet verzwegen, niet zelden bekruipt u de wensch, of menig geloovige iets meer van die aantrekkelijkheid mocht hebben, en wie onzer vond zich niet zelf meer dan eens door wat men de „deugden der heidenen” genoemd heeft, beschaamd? Zoo komt dus uw dogma van het algeheele bederf door de zonde niet uit. — Edoch, loopt ge nu den omgekeerden weg af en gaat ge van deze feiten uit, dan valt, vergeet dit niet, uw geheele Christelijke belijdenis; dan gaat ge de natuur des menschen voor goed en ongeschonden aanzien; dan zijn de crimineele booswichten niet dan ethisch-krankzinnigen; dan is er geen wedergeboorte noodig om met eere te leven; en blijkt uw inbeelding van hooger genade niets dan het spelen met een medicijn, dat vaak ganschelijk zijn werking mist. En nu kan men zich hieruit wel redden door die deugden der ongeloovigen „blinkende zonden” te noemen, en omgekeerd de ondeugden der geloovigen op rekening van den ouden Adam te stellen, maar ge gevoelt zelf dat is een uitvlucht, waaraan de ernst ontbreekt. — Rome zocht dan 115 ook degelijker uitweg in de u bekende leer van de pura naturalia. Er waren, zoo leerde men, twee levenssferen, de aardsche, de gewoon menschelijke, hier beneden, en de hemelsche, de boven het gewoon menschelijke uitgaande, extra genietingen biedende in de aanschouwing van God. Welnu, voor beide sferen had God Adam pasklaar gemaakt, voor de gewone levenssfeer door de natuur die Hij hem schonk, en voor de extra-gewone door hem de supra-natureele gave der oorspronkelijke gerechtigheid te schenken. Adam werd alzoo dubbel geïnstrumenteerd èn voor het natuurlijke, èn voor het bovennatuurlijke leven. Door den val nu verloor hij wel het laatste, niet het eerste. Zijn natuurlijke instrumenteering voor dit aardsche leven bleef ongeschonden. Wel werd ze krank aangedaan, maar ze bleef in haar geheel. Adam bleef bijna gaaf in zijn natuurlijke begiftiging. En hieruit verklaart het zich, dat de gevallen mensch in de natuurlijke levensorde zoo vaak zelfs uitmunt, en dat hetgeen hem finaal ontbreekt alleen is de zin en het talent voor het in den grond bovenmenschelijke leven des hemels. Ge ziet, dit is een stelsel; een stelsel dat het dogma van den val met de realiteit om ons heen poogt te verzoenen; en in deze merkwaardige anthropologie ligt de grondslag van heel de Roomsche religie. Wat hierin ontbreekt is alleen maar de diepe Schriftuurlijke opvatting der zonde eenerzijds en anderzijds de onderschatting waartoe het leidt van het aardsche leven. In het Carnaval komt ook dit het treffendst uit. Dan wordt de wereld nog eens volop genoten eer men aan het Caro vale toekomt, maar al het ideaal schuilt dan in de geestelijke opheffing naar de hemelsche levenssfeer. Daarom staat een clerus, die met het huwelijk den aardschen band er aan geeft, boven de massa, en een monnik, die ook van het aardsche goed en van eigen wil afziet, weer ethisch boven de geestelijkheid. En eindelijk beklimt de zuilenheilige, van al het aardsche zich afscheidend, zijn pilaar, of laat de nog stillere boeter zich metselen in zijn kluis. Horizontaal, als ik mij zoo mag uitdrukken, komt deze zelfde gedachte tot uiting in de splitsing tusschen gewijden en ongewijden bodem. Wat niet door de kerk wordt bestraald en besproeid, blijft een laagstaand karakter dragen, en het exorcisme bij den doop zegt ons, dat met dit laag staande eigenlijk iets onheiligs wordt bedoeld. En natuurlijk, op 116 dat standpunt lag er in de studie der aardsche dingen voor den Christen geen aanbeveling. Wat op zulk een standpunt boeide was alleen de studie voor de sfeer der hemelsche dingen en ten slotte de contemplatie.

Now I proceed to consider the dogma of common grace, that natural outcome of the general principle, just presented to you, but in its special application to sin, understood as corruption of our nature. Sin places before us a riddle, which in itself is insoluble. If you view sin as a deadly poison, as enmity against God, as leading to everlasting condemnation, and if you represent a sinner as being "wholly incapable of doing any good, and prone to all evil,'' and on this account salvable only, if God by regeneration changes his heart, then it seems as if of necessity all unbelievers and unregenerate persons ought to be wicked and repulsive men. But this is far from being our experience in actual life. On the contrary 15 the unbelieving world excels in many things. Precious treasures have come down to us from the old heathen civilization. In Plato you find pages which you devour. Cicero fascinates you and bears you along by his noble tone and stirs up in you holy sentiments. And if you counsel your own surroundings, that which is reported to 3 r ou, and that which you derive from the studies aud literary productions of professed infidels, how much there is which attracts you, with which you sympathize and which you admire. It is not exclusively the spark of genius or the splendor of talent, which excites your pleasure in the words and actions of unbelievers, but it is often their beauty of character, their zeal, their devotion, their love, their candor, their faithfulness and their sense of honesty. Yea, we may not pass it over in silence, not unfrequently you entertain the desire, that certain believers might have more of this attractiveness, and who among us has not himself been put to the blush occasionally b} T being confronted with what is called the virtues of the heathen? It is thus a fact, that your dogma of total depravity by sin does not always tally with your experieuce in life. Yet, if you now run to the opposite direction and proceed from these experimental facts, you must not forget, that your entire Christian confession falls to the ground, for then you look upon human nature as good and incorrupt; the criminal villains have to be pitied as ethically-insane; regeneration is entirely superfluous in order to live honorably; and your imagination of higher grace seems to be nothing else than playing with a medicine, which often proves entirely ineffectual. True, some people save themselves from this awkward position by speaking of the virtues of unbelievers as "splendid vices", and. on the other hand, by charging the sins of believers to old Adam, yet you feel, yourselves, that this is a subterfuge, which lacks earnestness. Rome tried to find a better way of escape in the well known doctrine of the pura naturalia, Romanists 16 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 17 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.

Now I proceed to consider the dogma of “common grace”, that natural outcome of the general principle, just presented to you, but in its special application to sin, understood as corruption of our nature. Sin places before us a riddle, which in itself is insoluble. If you view sin as a deadly poison, as enmity against God, as leading to everlasting condemnation, and if you represent a sinner as being “wholly incapable of doing any good, and prone to all evil,” and on this account salvable only if God by regeneration changes his heart, then it seems as if of necessity all unbelievers and unregenerate persons ought to be wicked and repulsive men. But this is far from being our experience in actual life. On the contrary the unbelieving world excels in many things. Precious treasures have come down to us from the old heathen civilization. In Plato you find pages which you devour. Cicero fascinates you and bears you along by his noble tone and stirs up in you holy sentiments. And if you consider your own surroundings, that which is reported to you, and that which you derive from the studies and literary productions of professed infidels, how much there is which attracts you, with which you sympathize and which you admire. It is not exclusively the spark of genius or the splendor of talent, which excites your pleasure in the words and actions of unbelievers, but it is often their beauty of character, their zeal, their 160 devotion, their love, their candor, their faithfulness and their sense of honesty. Yea, we may not pass it over in silence, not unfrequently you entertain the desire that certain believers might have more of this attractiveness, and who among us has not himself been put to the blush occasionally by being confronted with what is called the “virtues of the heathen”?

It is thus a fact, that your dogma of total depravity by sin does not always tally with your experience in life. Yet, if you now run to the opposite direction and proceed from these experimental facts, you must not forget that your entire Christian confession falls to the ground, for then you look upon human nature as good and incorrupt; the criminal villains have to be pitied as ethically-insane; regeneration is entirely superfluous in order to live honorably; and your imagination of higher grace seems to be nothing else than playing with a medicine, which often proves entirely ineffectual. True, some people save themselves from this awkward position by speaking of the virtues of unbelievers as “splendid vices”, and, on the other hand, by charging the sins of believers to old Adam, yet you feel, yourselves, that this is a subterfuge, which lacks earnestness.

Rome tried to find a better way of escape in the well-known doctrine of the pura naturalia. Romanists taught that there existed two spheres of life, the earthly or the merely human 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 161 by the nature He gave him, and for the extra-common by granting him the supra-natural gift of original righteousness. In this wise Adam was doubly furnished for the natural as well as the celestial life. By the fall he lost the latter, not the former. His natural equipment for his earthly life remained almost 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 to them why it is that fallen man often excels in the natural order of life, which is in fact merely human. 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 Roman 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 umdervaluation of human nature to which it leads. This is the false dualism, to which a previous 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 spheres 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 162 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 appertaining to the sphere of heavenly things and condemnation could attract those who under such a banner had mounted guard over the sanctuary of the ideal.

Prossigo agora para considerar o dogma da “graça comum”, a conseqüência natural do princípio geral como apresentei a vocês, porém, em sua aplicação especial ao pecado entendido como corrupção de nossa natureza. O pecado coloca-nos diante de um dilema que em si mesmo é insolúvel. Se você vê o pecado como um veneno mortal, como inimizade contra Deus, como levando a condenação eterna, e se você descreve um pecador como sendo “totalmente incapaz de fazer qualquer bem, e inclinado a todo mal”, e por causa disso salvável somente se Deus mudar seu coração pela regeneração, então parece que, necessariamente, todas as pessoas incrédulas e não regeneradas devem ser homens maus e repulsivos. Mas isto está longe de ser nossa experiência na vida atual. Pelo contrário, o mundo incrédulo leva vantagem em muitas coisas.

Tesouros preciosos têm vindo a nós da velha civilização pagã. Em Platão vocês encontram páginas as quais devoram. Cícero fascina vocês, os leva adiante por seu tom nobre e desperta em vocês santos sentimentos. E se considerarem seu próprio ambiente, aquilo que lhes é relatado e o que vocês deduzem do estudo e da produção literária de descrentes professos, quanto há que os atrai, com que vocês simpatizam e admiram. Não é exclusivamente o brilho do gênio ou o esplendor do talento que excita seu prazer nas palavras e ações de incrédulos, mas muitas vezes é sua beleza de caráter, seu zelo, sua devoção, seu amor, sua franqueza, sua fidelidade e seu senso de honestidade. É isso mesmo, não podemos deixar de mencionar, freqüentemente vocês nutrem o desejo de que certos crentes pudessem ter mais desta atratividade; e quem dentre nós não tem sido ocasionalmente envergonhado ao ser confrontado com as chamadas “virtudes dos pagãos”?

Desta forma, é um fato que seu dogma da depravação total por causa do pecado nem sempre combina com suas experiências na vida. Todavia, se vocês correrem para a direção oposta e seguirem estes fatos experimentais, não devem se esquecer que toda sua confissão cristã cai por terra, pois então vocês consideram a natureza humana como boa e não corrompida; assim devem ter compaixão dos vilões criminosos como eticamente insanos; a regeneração é completamente supérflua para viver honradamente; e sua concepção sobre a mais alta graça parece ser nada mais do que brincar com um medicamento, que muitas vezes prova ser completamente ineficaz. É verdade que algumas pessoas salvam-se desta posição incômoda falando das virtudes dos incrédulos como “vícios esplêndidos” e, por outro, imputando os pecados dos crentes ao velho Adão, todavia vocês mesmos sentem que isto é um subterfúgio ao qual falta seriedade.

Roma tentou encontrar uma rota de escape melhor na bem conhecida doutrina da pura naturalia. Os Romanistas ensinaram que existiam duas esferas de vida, a terrena ou meramente humana aqui em baixo, e a celestial, mais elevada do que a humana como tal; a última oferecendo deleites celestiais na visão de Deus. Adão, segundo esta teoria, estava bem preparado por Deus para ambas as esferas, para a esfera comum da vida pela natureza que Deus lhe deu, e para a esfera extraordinária concedendo-lhe o dom sobrenatural da retidão original. Deste modo Adão estava duplamente suprido, para a vida natural bem como para a celestial. Pela queda ele perdeu a última, não a primeira. Seu equipamento natural para sua vida terrena permaneceu quase inalterado. É verdade que a natureza humana foi enfraquecida, mas como um todo ela continuou com sua integridade. As dotações naturais de Adão continuaram sua possessão após a queda. Isto explica, para eles, porque é que o homem caído freqüentemente leva vantagem na ordem natural da vida, o que é um fato meramente humano.

Vocês percebem que este é um sistema que tenta reconciliar o dogma da queda com o estado real das coisas ao nosso redor, e sobre esta notável antropologia está fundamentada toda a religião Católica Romana. Apenas duas coisas são defeituosas neste sistema, por um lado falta-lhe a profunda concepção Escriturística de pecado, e por outro ele erra pela depreciação da natureza humana a qual conduz. Este é o falso dualismo do Carnaval para o qual uma palestra anterior apontou. Nesta ocasião, o mundo é mais uma vez totalmente gozado, antes entra-se no Caro vale, mas após o Carnaval, a fim de salvar o ideal, segue-se por um pouco de tempo a elevação espiritual para as esferas mais elevadas da vida. Por esta razão o clero, separando-se do laço terreno no celibato, coloca-se em posição mais alta do que o leigo, e novamente, o monge, que separando-se também das possessões terrenas e sacrificando sua própria vontade, coloca-se, considerado eticamente, num nível mais alto do que o clero. E, finalmente, a perfeição mais alta é alcançada pelo estilista, que, subindo em seu pilar, separa-se a si mesmo de todas as coisas terrenas, ou por meio do silêncio ainda mais penitente que o faz enclausurar-se em sua caverna subterrânea.

Horizontalmente, se posso usar esta expressão, o mesmo pensamento encontra encarnação na separação entre o solo sagrado e o secular. Tudo não aprovado e não apreciado pela igreja é considerado como sendo de um caráter inferior, e o exorcismo no batismo fala-nos que estas coisas inferiores realmente estão destinadas a ser profanas. É evidente que um ponto de vista como este não convida o cristão a fazer um estudo das coisas terrenas. Nada senão um estudo relativo à esfera das coisas celestiais e a contemplação poderia atrair aqueles que, sob uma bandeira como esta, montaram guarda sobre o santuário do ideal.

Теперь мы рассмотрим догму об «общей благодати», естественное следствие общего принципа, уже представленного вам, но в приложении ко греху, понимаемому как испорченность нашей природы. Грех ставит перед нами загадку, которая сама по себе неразрешима. Если вы рассматриваете грех как смертельный яд, как вражду против Бога, ведущую к вечному осуждению, и представляете, что грешник совершенно неспособен к чему-либо доброму, склонен ко всякому злу, и по этой причине может спастись, только если Бог возродит его сердце, то покажется, что все неверующие и невозрожденные — злые, неприятные люди. В жизни мы видим иное. У неверующего мира много достоинств. Древняя языческая цивилизация передала нам истинные сокровища. У Платона есть на редкость увлекательные страницы. Цицерон своим благородным тоном возбуждает в вас высокие чувства. Если вы посмотрите вокруг, вы увидите, что труды откровенных язычников принесли вам немало пользы и радости. В словах и действиях неверующих нас восхищает не только искра гения и блеск таланта, но и просто их добрый нрав, рвение, преданность, любовь, верность, чувство чести. Мало того, трудно скрыть, что часто нам хочется, чтобы некоторые верующие были бы более приятными людьми. Кто из нас не бывал смущен «добродетелями язычников»?

Словом, догма о всеобщей греховности не всегда согласуется с жизненным опытом. Однако если вы кинетесь в другую сторону и будете исходить только из опыта, всем вашим христианским убеждениям — конец; ведь вы сочтете род человеческий добрым и безгрешным. Злодеи окажутся просто нравственно больными, которых не за что наказывать, их возрождение для честной жизни будет совершенно излишним; а Божия благодать станет для вас чем-то вроде ненужного лекарства. Правда, некоторые выходят из щекотливого положения, называя добродетели неверующих «блестящими пороками», и в то же время вменяя грехи верующих ветхому Адаму, но при этом вы сами чувствуете, что это — несерьезная уловка.

Рим пытался найти выход в известном учении о pura naturalia (чисто природные явления). Католики считают, что есть две сферы жизни — земная, или чисто человеческая здесь, внизу; и небесная, которая выше человеческой и приносит небесные радости созерцания Бога. Согласно этой теории, Бог приготовил Адама для обеих сфер — для обычной природной жизни, которую Он даровал ему, и для сверхъестественной, через сверхъестественный дар первородной праведности. Таким образом, Адам был одарен и для естественной, и для небесной жизни. Когда он пал, он утратил вторую, но не первую; его природные дарования для земной жизни остались почти нетронутыми. Правда, человеческая природа ослабла, но все же сохранила свою целостность. Природные дарования Адама сохранились у него и после грехопадения. Это объясняет католикам, почему падшие люди блистают в естественном порядке жизни. Как видите, эта система стремится примирить догму о грехопадении с реальным положением вещей, и на этой примечательной антропологии основан весь католицизм. Ошибки тут только две: с одной стороны, система лишена глубокой библейской концепции греха; с другой стороны, она недооценивает человеческую природу. Это — ложный дуализм, о котором я говорил в предыдущей лекции. Мир в полной мере наслаждается карнавалом, но после него, чтобы спасти идеал, на недолгое время возносится в высшие сферы. По этой причине клир, разрывая земные узы посредством целибата, ставится выше мирян; а монах, отворачивающийся от земного имущества и жертвующий своей личной волей, стоит выше клира. А самого высшего совершенства достигает столпник, который просто отделяет себя от земли, или кающийся молчальник, который замуровывает себя в пещере и вообще не произносит ни слова. Горизонтально, если мне позволят так выразиться, та же мысль воплощена в разделении между священным и мирским. Все, что не одобряет и не опекает Церковь, считается низким, и экзорцизм во время крещения свидетельствует о том, что телесное действительно считается «поганым». Очевидно, такие взгляды не способствуют изучению земных вещей. Тех, кто под таким знаменем хранит святилище совершенства, может привлечь только изучение и созерцание небесных вещей.

Deze opvatting nu van den zedelijken toestand van den gevallen mensch, heeft het Calvinisme principieel bestreden, door eenerzijds het oordeel over de zonde absoluut streng te nemen en door anderzijds het goede in den gevallen mensch, heel anders te verklaren, t.w. uit de inwerking der gemeene gratie. De zonde, zoo spreekt het Calvinisme in overeenstemming met de Schrift, de zonde ongebreideld en ongetemperd aan zich zelve overgelaten, zou onverwijld een algeheele verwildering van het menschelijk leven tot uitkomst hebben gehad, iets waarvan vóór den Zondvloed gezien is. Maar God heeft dit, omdat het tot algeheele vernietiging van zijn Goddelijk kunstwerk zou leiden, niet geduld. Hij is in alle mensch, in heel ons geslacht, in onze natuur zelve met genade tusschenbeide getreden. Die genade doodt de kern der zonde volstrekt niet, die genade redt in niets ten eeuwigen leven, maar die genade stuit de doorwerking der zonde evenals menschelijk doorzicht de woede stuit van het wilde dier. De mensch kan het dier onschadelijk maken door traliën; hij kan het bedwingen door het te temmen; hij kan het aantrekkelijk maken door het te domesticeeren, d.i. door bijv. den uit zich zelf wilden hond en kat te maken tot zijn huisdier. Zoo nu ook bedwingt God door genade de werking der zonde in den hm, deels door hem te breken in zijn wilde kracht, deels door zijn boozen geest te temmen, deels door zijn geslacht te domesticeeren. Deze gemeene gratie kan dus tot de uitkomst leiden, dat de gevallen zondaar ons boeit en aantrekt door veel liefs en veel energie, evenals onze huisdieren het doen, en dan natuurlijk naar menschenaard; maar de natuur zelve blijft er even giftig om. Men ziet dat aan de kat, die, in het woud teruggebracht, reeds na twee generatiën, weer het oude wilde dier is. Men zag dat aan de menschelijke natuur helaas pas nog in Armenië en op Cuba. Wie in de historie leest van de gruwelen van den Bartholomeüsnacht, is licht geneigd die gruwelen op rekening te stellen van de mindere beschaafdheid dier tijden, en zie, onze negentiende eeuw heeft door de moorden 117 in Armenië die gruwelen nog overtroffen. En wie in Nederlands historie las van de tergende wreedheden, waarmeê de Spanjaarden in de 16e eeuw in de dorpen en steden van Nederland tegen weerlooze ouden, vrouwen en kinderen hebben gewoed, en nu hoorde van wat op Cuba plaats greep, kan zich kwalijk verhelen dat in de 19e eeuw zich herhaalde wat de 16e eeuw geschandvlekt had, en dat, naar Buckle’s volkomen juist beweren, de vormen van het kwaad wisselen mogen, doch dat het zedelijk kwaad in kiem en beginsel stand houdt alle eeuwen door. Waar het kwaad nietuitkomt, of niet uitkomt in die schriklijkheid, danken we dit niet daaraan dat onze natuur niet zoo diep bedorven is, maar aan God alleen die door zijn gemeene genade het uitslaan van de vlam uit het smeulend vuur belet. En vraagt ge hoe er uit aldus gestuit kwaad ooit iets te voorschijn kan treden dat u boeit, toespreekt en aantrekt, neem dan slechts het beeld van de gierpont. Die pont wordt in beweging gebracht door den stroom die hem pijlsnel stroomafwaarts en ten verderve zou voeren, maar door de ketting aan te leggen komt de pont behouden aan de overzij aan, naar die overzij door geen andere kracht geperst en gewrongen, dan die op zichzelf haar zou verbrijzeld hebben. Zoo stuit God het kwaad, en is het God, die uit het kwade het goede doet voortkomen, en onderwijl wij Calvinisten, steeds onverbiddelijk onze zondige natuur blijven aanklagen, loven en danken we dien God, die een ordelijke samenleving mogelijk maakte en ons persoonlijk afhoudt van den gruwel, en die dit doet én om wat Hij in ons geslacht aan talenten verborg te doen uitkomen, én om in geregeld proces een historie der menschheid te doen ontstaan, én om aan zijn kerke op aarde een plek te verzekeren voor het hol van haar voet.

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 18 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 16 th 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 16 th , has been repeated in the 19 th 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 19 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 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 God arrested sin in its course in order to prevent the complete annihilation of His divine handiwork, which naturally 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 163 fury of wild beasts. Man can prevent the beast from doing damage: 1°. by putting it behind bars; 2°. he can subject it to his will by taming it; and 3°. 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 God by His “common grace” restrains the operation of sin in man, partly by breaking its power, partly by taming his evil spirit, and partly by domesticating his nation or his family. Common grace has thus led to the result that an unregenerated 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. Bartholomew 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. Where evil does not come to the surface, or does not manifest itself in 164 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 in such a way out of restrained evil something may come forth which attracts, pleases and interests you, 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 restrains the evil, and it is He who brings forth good out of evil; and meanwhile we Calvinists, never remiss in accusing our sinful nature, yet 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, by 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.

O Calvinismo se opôs a esta concepção sobre a condição moral do homem caído, por um lado tomando nossa concepção de pecado no sentido mais absoluto e, por outro, explicando aquilo que é bom no homem caído por meio do dogma da graça comum. O pecado, segundo o Calvinismo, o que está em pleno acordo com as Escrituras Sagradas, o pecado desenfreado e desacorrentado, deixado a si mesmo, teria imediatamente conduzido a uma degeneração total da vida humana, como pode ser inferido do que foi visto nos dias anteriores ao dilúvio. Mas Deus interrompeu o curso do pecado a fim de evitar a completa aniquilação de Seu divino trabalho manual, o que naturalmente teria acontecido. Ele interferiu na vida do indivíduo, na vida da humanidade como um todo, e na vida da própria natureza através de sua graça comum. Esta graça, contudo, não aniquila a essência do pecado, nem a salva para a vida eterna, porém impede a execução completa do pecado, do mesmo modo como o discernimento humano impede a fúria de animais selvagens. O homem pode evitar que animais selvagens causem dano: 1º) colocando-os atrás de grades; 2º) pode sujeitá-los à sua vontade, domando-os; e 3º) pode torná-los atrativos, domesticando-os, e.g., transformando o cachorro e o gato que originalmente eram animais selvagem em animais domésticos.

De um modo similar, Deus através da sua “graça comum” restringe a operação do pecado no homem, em parte quebrando seu poder, em parte domando seu espírito mal, e em parte domesticando sua nação ou sua família. Assim, a graça comum tem levado ao resultado de que um pecador não regenerado pode cativar-nos e atrair-nos pelo que é belo e cheio de energia, exatamente como acontece com nossos animais domésticos, mas isto certamente à maneira do homem. A natureza do pecado, contudo, permanece tão venenosa quanto era. Isto é visto no gato, que, devolvido à floresta, retorna a seu estado selvagem anterior após duas gerações, e uma experiência similar com relação a natureza humana tem sido experimentado neste momento na Armênia e em Cuba.

Quem lê o relato do massacre de São Bartolomeu facilmente é inclinado a atribuir esses horrores ao baixo estado da cultura daqueles dias. Mas vejam! Nosso século 19 tem excedido esses horrores através dos massacres na Armênia. E quem leu a descrição das crueldades cometidas pelos espanhóis no século 16 nas vilas e cidades da Holanda contra idosos, mulheres e crianças indefesas, e então ouve as notícias do que ocorreu agora em Cuba, não pode deixar de reconhecer que, o que foi uma desgraça no século 16, tem se repetido no século 19. Onde o mal não vem à superfície, ou não manifesta-se em toda sua horribilidade, nós não devemos isto ao fato de que nossa natureza não é tão profundamente corrupta, mas somente a Deus, que, por sua “graça comum”, impede que as chamas da fogueira se alastrem sem controle.

E se vocês perguntam como isto é possível, que de tal modo a partir do mal restringido algo possa surgir que atrai, agrada e interessa a vocês, tomem então como uma ilustração a balsa. Este barco é colocado em movimento pela correnteza, a qual o levaria rapidamente como flecha rio abaixo e o arruinaria; mas por meio da corrente à qual ele está preso, o barco sobe seguramente para o lado oposto, compelido para frente pelo mesmo poder que de outro modo o teria destruído. Deste modo Deus restringe o mal, e é ele que extrai o bem do mal; e enquanto isso nós calvinistas nunca descuidamos em acusar nossa natureza pecaminosa, todavia louvamos e agradecemos a Deus por tornar possível aos homens habitarem juntos numa sociedade bem ordenada, e por restringir-nos pessoalmente de pecados horríveis. Além disso, nós agradecemos a ele por trazer à luz todos os talentos escondidos em nossa raça, desenvolvendo por meio de um processo regular a História da humanidade, e assegurando pela mesma graça, para sua Igreja na terra, um lugar para a sola de seu pé.

Такому учению о нравственном состоянии падшего человека противостоит кальвинизм, который, с одной стороны, принял учение о грехе в самом абсолютном смысле, а с другой стороны, объяснил добро в падшем человеке догмой об общей благодати. Согласно кальвинизму и в полном соответствии с Св. Писанием, грех, предоставленный самому себе, сразу привел бы к полному вырождению человеческого рода; это можно заключить из того, что было перед потопом. Но Бог остановил разрастание греха, чтобы помешать полному уничтожению Своего божественного творения. Он вмешался в жизнь человека, в жизнь всего человечества и в жизнь самой природы Своей общей благодатью. Эта благодать не убивает стержень греха и не спасает для вечной жизни, а приостанавливает полную поглощенность грехом, подобно тому, как мы, люди, обуздываем диких зверей. Человек может помешать зверю, который его растерзал бы, поместив его за ограду; подчинив его своей воле, то есть укротив его; и, наконец, одомашнив дикое животное, подобно тому как это произошло с собакой и кошкой. Точно так же Бог Своей «общей благодатью» сдерживает действие греха в человеке, частично разрушая силу греха, частично укрощая злой дух человека, частично приручая его народ и семью. Благодаря общей благодати невозрожденный грешник может привлекать и притягивать нас тем, что в нем достойно любви, так же, как и наши домашние животные. Тем не менее природа греха остается такой же гибельной, как раньше. Вот вам пример: когда кошку приносят в лес, она через два поколения снова становится дикой. Такой опыт ставят и с людьми сейчас в Армении и на Кубе. Тот, кто читает описание убийств в Варфоломеевскую ночь, может приписать эти ужасы низкому уровню тогдашней культуры. Да посмотрите же! В нашем столетии их превзошел геноцид в Армении. Тот, кто прочтет, что делали когда-то испанцы в Нидерландах с беззащитными людьми, а потом услышит, что творится сейчас на Кубе, поневоле признает, что позор XVI века повторился в XIX. Там, где зло не выходит на поверхность или не проявляет себя во всей своей мерзости, мы обязаны этим не тому, что наша природа не так уж глубоко испорчена, а тому, что Бог Своей «общей благодатью» препятствует тому, чтобы разгорался тлеющий огонь. Если вы спросите, как же возможно, чтобы обузданное зло породило что-то приятное и даже хорошее, посмотрите на обычный паром. Течение стремительно понесло бы его по реке и он утонул бы, но, привязанный цепью, он безопасно достигает противоположного берега, хотя толкает его вперед та же самая сила, которая могла бы уничтожить. Точно так же Бог сдерживает зло и производит из него добро. Мы, кальвинисты, неустанно обвиняем нашу грешную природу, но хвалим и благодарим Бога за то, что Он дает нам возможность жить вместе в хорошо организованном обществе, удерживая нас от ужасных грехов. Более того, мы благодарим Его за то, что Он дает проявиться всем талантам, скрытым в нашем роде, упорядоченно развивая историю человечества и той же самой благодатью обеспечивая Своей Церкви место на земле.

Maar met deze belijdenis komt de Christen dan ook heel anders tegenover het leven te staan. Dan is hem niet alleen de kerke Godes maar ook de wereldGodes, en moet in beide het kunstwerk van den Oppersten Bouwmeester en Kunstenaar worden nagespeurd. Het is dan niet voor wie God zoekt, de theologie en de contemplatie, om alle overige wetenschap, als van lager karakter, aan de ongeloovigen over te laten; maar heel anders, een iegelijk die 118 God uit zijn werk wil kennen, geroepen om, evengoed als de hemelsche dingen, óók de aardsche dingen met den ernst van zijn kennen te doorschouwen; en ook in de natuur en haar wonder karakter, ook in wat menschenkunst voortbrengt, en in het menschelijk leven, óók in de sociologie en in de historie der menschheid, én de scheppingsordinantiën én de gemeene gratie van den God zijner aanbidding bloot te kunnen leggen. Zoo gevoelt ge hoe dit dogma der gemeene gratie op eenmaal den ban ophief, waaronder het buitenkerkelijke leven gedrukt lag, op het gevaar af, om, bij reactie, soms zelfs een te eenzijdige liefde voor deze wereldsche studiën aan te wakkeren. Het werd nu verstaan hoe de gemeene gratie in oud-Griekenland en Rome schatten van wijsgeerig licht ontstoken, en schatten van kunstzin en rechtszin tot openbaring had gebracht, die uitlokten tot klassieke studiën, opdat de kennis en wetenschap van die heerlijke schatten ook voor ons haar profijt mocht afwerpen. Het werd nu ingezien hoe de historie der menschheid niet maar een schouwtooneel van bloedige hartstochten is, maar één saamhangend proces, met het Kruis tot middenpunt, waarin elk volk zijn roeping heeft en waarvan de kennis elk volk kan zegenen. Het werd begrepen dat de wetenschap van den Staat en van het Staathuishoudkundig leven de inspanning der vorschers en der doordenkers overwaardig was. Ja onmiddellijk gevat, dat er niets, hetzij in het leven der natuur om ons, hetzij in het eigen leven van den mensch was, waar de onderzoekende geest zich niet op te richten had, en waarin geen nieuwe stoffe was te vinden, om te beter het heerlijke kunstwerk van den ganschen kosmos, in zijn zichtbare verschijnselen en in zijn onzichtbare werkingen, te leeren verstaan. En waar anders bij het winnen van dege wetenschap op al zulk terrein licht hoovaardij in het hart sloop en de kennis het hart van God vervreemdde, kon, dank zij dit heerlijk dogma, in den Calvinistischen kring de man van wetenschap zich een schuldig zondaar voor zijn God blijven gevoelen, ook het licht der kennisse, waargij hij de dingen dezer wereld bezag, alleen dankende aan Godes gemeene gratie.119

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 bles- 20 sing 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.

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 worldbelongs to God and in both has to he investigated the masterpiece of the supreme Architect and Artificer.

A Calvinist 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 165 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 celestial; to open to view both the order of creation, and the “common grace” of the God he 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 laid hound, even 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 “common grace” 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 not 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 center; 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 166 might throw new light on the glories of the entire cosmos in its visible phenomena and its invisible operations. And if on a different standpoint, progress in thorough scientific knowledge on these lines often led to pride and estranged the heart from God, we owe it to this glorious dogma of common grace that in Calvinistic circles the most profound investigator never ceased 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.

Contudo, esta confissão coloca o cristão numa posição completamente diferente diante da vida. Pois então, em seu julgamento, não somente a igreja mas também o mundo pertence a Deus, e em ambos deve ser investigada a obra-prima do supremo Arquiteto e Artífice.

Um calvinista que busca a Deus, nem por um momento pensa em limitar-se a Teologia e a contemplação, abandonando as outras ciências, como sendo de um caráter inferior, nas mãos de incrédulos; mas pelo contrário, considerando a ciência como sua tarefa, a fim de conhecer Deus em todas as suas obras, está consciente de ter sido chamado para sondar, com toda a energia de seu intelecto, as coisas terrenas bem como as coisas celestiais; para abrir a observação tanto a ordem da criação quanto a “graça comum” do Deus que ele adora, na natureza e seus maravilhosos atributos, na produção da industria humana, na vida da humanidade, na sociologia e na História da raça humana. Assim, vocês percebem como este dogma da “graça comum” subitamente removeu o interdito, sob o qual a vida secular tinha colocado limite, mesmo sob o risco de chegar muito perto de uma reação em favor de um amor unilateral por estes estudos seculares.

Foi então entendido que foi a “graça comum” de Deus que produziu na antiga Grécia e Roma os tesouros da luz filosófica, e desvendou para nós os tesouros da arte e da justiça, o que despertou o amor pelos estudos clássicos, a fim de renovar para nós o benefício de uma herança tão esplêndida. Não foi claramente visto que a História da humanidade não é tanto um espetáculo aforístico de paixões cruéis quanto um processo coerente com a Cruz como seu centro; um processo no qual cada nação tem sua incumbência especial, e o conhecimento da qual pode ser uma fonte de bênção para todos os povos.

Foi apreendido que a ciência da política e da economia nacional mereciam a cuidadosa atenção dos eruditos e pensadores. Além disso, foi intuitivamente concebido que nada havia, quer na vida da natureza ao nosso redor quer na própria vida humana, que não se apresenta como um objeto digno de investigação, que poderia lançar nova luz sobre as glórias de todo o cosmos em seus fenômenos visíveis e em suas operações invisíveis. E se, de um ponto de vista diferente, o progresso no conhecimento científico completo sobre estas linhas, muitas vezes, levou ao orgulho e desviou o coração de Deus, nós devemos a este glorioso dogma da graça comum que, nos círculos calvinistas, o investigador mais profundo nunca deixou de reconhecer-se um pecador culpado diante de Deus, e de atribuir somente à misericórdia de Deus seu esplêndido entendimento das coisas do mundo.

Это исповедание тем не менее ставит христианина в совсем иное положение по отношению к жизни. Не только Церковь, но и мир принадлежит Богу. В них обоих нам надлежит исследовать мастерство Высшего Строителя и Создателя.

Ищущий Бога кальвинист ни на минуту не подумает ограничить себя теологией и созерцанием, оставляя неверующим другие науки. Он должен познать Бога во всех Его делах и знает, что призван охватить всей силой разума и земное, и небесное, обращая взор и на порядок творения, и на «общую благодать» Бога, перед Которым он преклоняется, видя Его и в природе со всеми ее чудесами, и в созданиях рук человеческих, и в жизни людей, в жизни общества, в истории человечества. Теперь вам понятно, как догма «общей благодати» сразу сняла запреты, наложенные на мирскую жизнь, понимая, конечно, всю опасность односторонней любви к мирским знаниям.

Понятно и то, что именно «общая благодать» произвела в Древней Греции и Риме сокровища философии, искусства и правосудия, которые зажгли в нас любовь к изучению классики, с тем, чтобы обновить столь блестящее наследие. Прежде не понимали, что история человечества — не столько назидательное зрелище жестоких страстей, сколько осмысленный процесс, в центре которого — Крест. В этом процессе у каждой нации — своя особая задача, знание о которой может быть источником благословения для каждого народа. Стало понятным, что разумным, думающим людям стоит заняться наукой о политике и национальной экономике. Более того, люди ощутили, что и в жизни природы, и в самой человеческой жизни все достойно исследования, которое может пролить новый свет на славу всего миропорядка в его видимых явлениях и невидимых действиях. Конечно, прогресс научных знаний часто приводил к гордыне и отчуждал сердца от Бога, но мы считаем, что благодаря славной догме об общей благодати среди кальвинистов самый серьезный исследователь никогда не переставал считать себя грешным перед Богом и приписывал только Божией милости свое понимание мира.

Heeft aldus het Calvinisme zin voor wetenschap gekweekt en op breede schaal aan de wetenschap haar gebied herschonken, gunt mij dan nu in de derde plaats u aan te toonen, hoe het de zoo onmisbare vrijheid der wetenschap bevorderd heeft. Vrijheid is voor alle echte wetenschap wat voor ons de lucht is waarin we ademen. Niet alsof daarom de wetenschap aan geen banden gebonden ware en geen wetten had te gehoorzamen. De visch, die aan niets gebonden, op het vlakke strand ligt, komt om, en alleen de visch, die door het water geheel omvangen is, schiet vrij op zijn vinnen voort. En zoo ook is er geen wetenschap of ze moet aan haar voorwerp strikt gebonden zijn en stipt den eisch van goede methode gehoorzamen, en alleen door dien band en onder die wet is de wetenschap vrij. Ook de vrijheid der wetenschap bestaat dus niet daarin, dat ze bandeloos en ongebonden zij; maar dat ze vrij zij van allen band die haar onnatuurlijk is en niet uit haar levensbeginsel voortkomt. Nu make men zich van het universitaire leven in de middeneeuwen geen verkeerde voorstelling. Staatsuniversiteiten kende men toen nog zoo niet. De unversiteiten waren vrije corporatiën en in zooverre prototypen van de meeste universiteiten in Amerika, en van wat thans in Europa, en gelukkig ook in Nederland in de Vrije Universiteit, die ik zelf dien, herleeft. Het besef leefde destijds algemeen, dat de wetenschap een respublica litterarum was, een “republiek van geleerden” in het leven roept, en dat deze op eigen geestelijk kapitaal moet teren of aan gemis aan talent en studiekracht moet sterven. De inbreuk op de vrijheid der wetenschap kwam destijds uit heel anderen hoek. Eeuwenlang had men slechts twee machten in het leven gekend, de Kerk en den Staat. Gelijk wij zelf uit lichaam en ziel bestaan, verstond men ook het leven dichotomisch. De Kerk was de ziel, de Staat het lichaam, en een derde macht kende men niet. Nu vond alle kerkelijke leven zijn centralisatie in den Paus, het politieke leven der Christen-natiën zijn vereenigingspunt in den Keizer, en het was de poging om ook deze tweeheid in hoogere eenheid op te lossen, die in de worsteling der Hohenstaufen en Welfen zoo harden strijd deed ontbranden om de suprematie van keizerskroon of pauselijke tiaar. Sinds echter was, dank zij de Renaissance, de 120 wetenschap als derde macht hier tusschen komen schuiven. Die wetenschap vond in het opkomend Universiteitsleven sinds de dertiende eeuw een eigen belichaming, en maakte aanspraak op een bestaan, dat van Paus en Keizer onafhankelijk zou zijn. Bleef alleen maar de vraag of ook deze macht een eigen hiërarchisch centrum zou zoeken, om aldus naast Paus en Keizer een Grootmogende onder de geleerden te doen optreden. Hier nu was in het afgetrokkene drieërlei mogelijkheid: 1º. dat zich zulk een zelfstandige hiërarchie der wetenschappen vormde; 2º. dat de wetenschap zonder centraalhoofd bleef, of 3º. dat Paus of Keizer zich als hoofd der wetenschap opwierp. Het eerste nu bleek onmogelijk. Veeleer eischte het republikeinsche karakter der Universiteiten, dat alle monarchaal begrip hier verre bleef. Maar even natuurlijk was het dat Paus en Keizer, die saâm het geheele gebied van het leven onder zich verdeeld hadden, dit opkomen van een derde, geheel onafhankelijke macht met leede oogen aanzagen, en beiderzijds zich opmaakten om de Universiteiten aan zich te onderwerpen. Hadden toen alle bestaande Universiteiten zich schrap gezet, zoo zou die toeleg nooit gelukt zijn. Maar gelijk het gaat onder vrije corporatiën, concurrentie verlokte om naar steun van buiten om te zien, en hoe kon dan de steun van het hoofd der Christenheid onverschillig wezen? Vandaar dat men toen vrij algemeen naar de gunst van den Paus dong en op het verkrijgen van privilegiën zijnerzijds bedacht was. Hierin nu lag het principieele kwaad. Op die wijs toch gaf de wetenschap haar zelfstandig karakter prijs. Het werd voorbij gezien dat het intellectueel in ons opnemen en uit ons denken reflecteeren van den kosmos, waarin alle wetenschap bestaat, een heel andere levenssfeer vormt dan de Religie. En het is dit kwaad nu, dat de Reformatie gestuit heeft, en dat met name door het Calvinisme is weggenomen. Formeel weggenomen doordien ook in de kerk op aarde met het monarchaal-hiërarchische denkbeeld gebroken werd en wel het monarchisch gezag van Christus in den hemel geëerd werd, maar op aarde ook voor de Kerk de republikeinsch-confederatieve levensvorm werd aanvaard. Een geestelijk hoofd, om aan de Universiteiten de wet te stellen, bestond alzoo voor den Calvinist 121niet meer. Nog wel voor de Lutherschen, die in den landsvorst tevens den Oppersten Bisschop eerden, maar niet voor de Calvinistische volkeren, die Kerk en Staat als twee sferen van eigen leven uiteen hielden. Een doctorsbul mocht noch aan het pauselijk consent, noch aan kerkelijke ordonnantiën, maar alleen aan de wetenschappelijke waardij der stichting zijn beteekenis in aller schatting ontleenen.

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, 21 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.

The first position soon proved to be impossible. On the 22 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.

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 contrary, a fish lying on dry land is perfectly free, viz., to die and to perish, while a fish, which really 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. hut in its being freed from all unnatural bonds, unnatural because they are not rooted in its vital principle. 167Now in order fully to understand the position Calvin took, we should abstain from any wrong conception of university-life 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. It was the general opinion in those days that science called into existence a respublica litterarum, “a commonwealth of learned men”, which has to 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 State. 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 dames 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 university-life 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 a hierarchial center in order 168 to unveil itself as the third great potentate at the side of the pope and the emperor.

On the 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 everything 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 so they turned for help to the Vatican. This compelled the stronger Universities to follow, and rather soon the favor of the Pope was 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 the Church. Now this evil has been checked by the Reformation, and mastered especially by Calvinism. Formally mastered, because in the Church itself the monarchical hierarchy being abandoned, and under the monarchical authority of Christ a republican and federal organization having been introduced, a spiritual Church-head, whose task it would be to rule over universities, no longer existed for our Calvinists. For Lutherans such a visible head was at hand in the ruler of the land, whom they honored as 169 “first Bishop”, but not for Calvinistic nations, which kept Church and State separate as two different 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.

Tendo provado que o Calvinismo encorajou o amor pela ciência e restaurou para a ciência seu domínio, permitam-me agora, em terceiro lugar, mostrar de que maneira ele promoveu sua indispensável liberdade. Para a genuína ciência a liberdade é o que o ar que nós respiramos é para nós. Isto não significa que a ciência está totalmente desimpedida para o uso de sua liberdade e que não precisa obedecer leis. Pelo contrário, um peixe colocado numa terra seca é perfeitamente livre, a saber, para expirar e perecer, enquanto que um peixe, que realmente é livre para viver e desenvolver-se deve estar totalmente cercado pela água e guiado por suas barbatanas. Do mesmo, modo cada ciência deve manter a mais íntima conexão com seu assunto e obedecer estritamente as reivindicações de seu próprio método; e a ciência pode mover-se livremente somente quando está estritamente limitada por este duplo laço. Pois a liberdade da ciência não consiste em licenciosidade ou ilegalidade, mas em ser liberta de todos os laços artificiais, porque não estão enraizados em seu princípio vital.

Então, a fim de entender plenamente a posição tomada por Calvino, deveríamos nos abster de qualquer concepção errônea sobre a vida universitária na Idade Média. Não eram conhecidas Universidades do Estado naqueles dias. As universidades eram corporações livres, e deste modo protótipos de muitas universidades na América. Naqueles dias era a opinião geral que a ciência chamou a existência uma republica litterarum, uma “riqueza comum de homens eruditos”, a qual deve viver de seu próprio capital espiritual ou morrer por falta de talento e energia. Naqueles dias a transgressão da liberdade da ciência não veio do Estado mas de um quartel completamente diferente. Por séculos, apenas dois poderes dominantes eram conhecidos na vida da humanidade, a Igreja e o Estado. A dicotomia do corpo e da alma era refletida nessa concepção de vida. A Igreja era a alma, o Estado o corpo; um terceiro poder era desconhecido. A vida da Igreja era centralizada no Papa, enquanto que a vida política das nações encontrou seu ponto de união no Imperador, e foi o esforço para resolver este dualismo numa unidade superior que acendeu as chamas da luta feroz pela supremacia da coroa imperial ou da tiara papal, como vista no conflito entre os Hohenstaufen e os Guelphs. Desde então, contudo, a ciência como um terceiro poder, graças a Renascença, se intrometeu entre eles. Decorridos treze séculos, a Ciência encontrou na nascente vida universitária sua própria encarnação e reivindicou uma existência independente do papa e do imperador.

A única questão remanescente era se esse novo poder também deveria criar um centro hierárquico, a fim de revelar-se como o terceiro grande potentado ao lado do papa e do imperador.

Ao contrário, o caráter republicano da universidade exigiu a exclusão de toda aspiração monárquica. Porém, era natural que o Papa e César, que tinham dividido entre si todo o domínio da vida, olhassem com suspeita o crescimento de um terceiro poder inteiramente independente, e tentassem de tudo, a fim de sujeitar as universidades a suas regras. Se todas as universidades então existentes tivessem tomado uma posição firme um plano como este nunca teria sido bem-sucedido. Mas como é freqüentemente o caso entre corporações livres, a competição seduziu a mais fraca a procurar apoio de fora e assim elas pediram ajuda ao Vaticano. Isto forçou as universidades mais fortes a fazer o mesmo, e em breve, a fim de assegurar privilégios especiais, o favor do Papa foi universalmente cobiçado. Aqui é encontrado o mal fundamental. Deste modo, a Ciência renunciou seu caráter independente. Foi omitido que a recepção intelectual e a reflexão da nossa consciência sobre o cosmos, em que consiste toda ciência, formam uma esfera inteiramente diferente da Igreja.

Atualmente, este mal tem sido refreado pela Reforma, e especialmente subjugado pelo Calvinismo. Formalmente subjugado, porque sendo a hierarquia monárquica abandonada na própria Igreja, e sendo introduzida uma república e uma organização federal sob a autoridade monárquica de Cristo, para nós calvinistas não mais existia uma cabeça espiritual da Igreja cuja tarefa seria governar sobre as universidades. Para os Luteranos tal cabeça visível estava à mão no governador da terra, a quem eles honravam como o “primeiro bispo”; mas não para as nações calvinistas, que mantinham a Igreja e o Estado separados como duas diferentes esferas de vida. Um diploma de doutor, em seu sistema, não poderia derivar seu significado da opinião pública, nem da anuência papal, nem de uma ordenança eclesiástica, mas somente do caráter científico da instituição.

Доказав, что кальвинизм поощрял любовь к науке и восстановил ее сферу, позвольте мне показать, каким образом он защищал необходимую ей свободу. Свобода для подлинной науки — то же, что для нас воздух. Это не значит, что наука совершенно свободна и ничему не повинуется. Рыба на суше свободна погибнуть. Если она хочет свободно жить и развиваться, она должна находиться в воде и шевелить плавниками. Точно так же наука должна сохранять теснейшую связь с предметом исследования и строго повиноваться требованиям методологии. Только когда она тесно связана этими двойными узами, наука может свободно развиваться, ибо ее свобода — не во вседозволенности или беззаконии, а в отсутствии неестественных ограничений, неестественных потому, что они не укоренены в ее жизненном принципе. Чтобы полнее осознать позицию, которую занял Кальвин, мы должны освободиться от ложных представлений об университетской жизни в средние века. Государственных университетов тогда не было. Университеты были свободными корпорациями, и в этом смысле — прототипами многих университетов Америки. В те времена считали, что наука требует respublica litterarum, «сообщества ученых людей», которое должно жить собственным духовным капиталом или умереть от недостатка таланта и энергии. На свободу науки покушалось не государство. В течение веков человечеству были известны только две господствующие силы — государство и церковь. В этом взгляде на жизнь отражалась дихотомия души и тела. Церковь была душой, государство — телом. Третьей власти не знали. Центром Церкви был Папа, политическая жизнь находила единство в императоре. Стремление превратить этот дуализм в высшее единство породило яростную борьбу между короной и тиарой, о чем свидетельствовал конфликт между гибеллинами и гвельфами. Однако наука, третья власть, вклинилась между ними благодаря Ренессансу. Еще не закончилось XII столетие, когда появление университетов позволило ей существовать независимо от папы и императора.

Оставалось решить, должна ли эта новая власть тоже создать иерархический центр, чтобы реализоваться как третья великая сила, наряду с папой и императором.

Республиканский характер университета исключал всяческие монархические притязания. Естественно, что папа и кесарь, разделившие между собой все сферы жизни, с подозрением наблюдали за ростом совершенно независимой силы, пытаясь сделать все, чтобы подчинить университеты своему правлению. Если бы все тогдашние университеты заняли твердую позицию, то подобное намерение никогда бы не реализовалось. Но, как часто случается в свободных сообществах, соперничество соблазнило более слабых искать поддержку на стороне. Они обратились за помощью к Ватикану. Более сильным университетам также пришлось последовать за ними, и довольно скоро все стали домогаться покровительства Папы, чтобы обеспечить себе особые привилегии; именно здесь и таилось основное зло. Так наука отказалась от своей независимости. Люди забыли или не поняли, что интеллектуальное восприятие и размышления о мироздании, в чем и состоит всякая наука, образуют сферу, совершенно отличную от Церкви. Это зло было остановлено Реформацией и преодолено кальвинизмом, преодолено официально, поскольку кальвинизм упразднил монархическую иерархию в самой Церкви, и под единовластием Христа ввел ее республиканскую и федеративную организацию, в результате чего Церковный глава, чьей задачей было духовное управление университетами, для кальвинистов больше не существовал. У лютеран таким видимым главой был правитель страны, которого они чтили как «первого епископа»; кальвинистские же нации сохранили разделение Церкви и государства как различные сферы жизни. Диплом доктора в их системе получал свою значимость не в силу общественного мнения или согласия папы, не по причине церковного установления, а только в соответствии с научным характером учреждения.

Hierbij kwam nog een tweede iets. Ook afgezien van de pauselijke auspiciën over de Universiteit als zoodanig, oefende de Kerk destijds pressie op de wetenschap uit, door de novaturientes ¹⁾ ter oorzake van de door hen geuite meeningen en uitgegeven geschriften te bemoeilijken, aan te klagen en te vervolgen. Zij duldde geen vrijheid van het woord. De waarheid alleen, niet de dwaling mocht zich propageeren, en de waarheid moest zich handhaven, niet door de dwaling in eerlijke kamp te overwinnen, maar door haar strafbaar te stellen. Dit nu knakte de wetenschap, doordien het ’t oordeel over studiën, waarover de Kerk als zoodanig tot oordeelen onbevoegd was, nochtans onder der kerke oordeel bracht. Wie niet in moeite wenschte te komen, zweeg of schikte zich toen, en wie, meer heroïsch aangelegd, den tegenstand trotseerde, werd te ijveriger gekortwiekt, en zoo hij ook met halve vleugelen vliegen wilde, werd hem de nek omgedraaid. Wie een geschrift uitgaf met al te afwijkende meeningen gold als misdadiger, en had ten slotte kennis te maken met de inquisitie en het schavot. Het recht van vrij onderzoek kende men niet. Vast geloovende, dat men al het weetbare en wetenswaardige reeds wist, en vast en goed wist, maakte men zich van verre geen denkbeeld van de ontzaglijke taak, die voor de pas opkomende wetenschap was weggelegd, noch van de “struggle for life”, die bij het volvoeren van die taak onmisbaar richtsnoer zou zijn. Men zag in het eerste opgloren der wetenschap geen dageraad, die het opgaan der zon aan de kimmen verkondigde, maar vonken van een smeulend vuur, dat de wereld in brand dreigde te zetten, en achtte zich tot het dooven van dat vuur, tot het blusschen van dien brand, waar hij uitsloeg, gerechtigd en verplicht. Een standpunt, dat we, teruglevend in die dagen, 122 ook al keuren we het principieel af, begrijpen kunnen, maar dat, had heel de wereld het blijven innemen, de opkomende wetenschap in de wieg zou hebben gesmoord. Welnu, dat noodlottig standpunt is het eerst, en met doortastend gevolg, door het Calvinisme prijs gegeven; eerst theoretisch door zijn ontdekking van de levenssfeer der algemeene genade, en straks in de practijk, door een veilige haven te bieden aan wie elders door storm beloopen werd. Al verstond toch het Calvinisme, gelijk dit steeds het geval is, volstrekt niet aanstonds de volle consequentie van zijn beginsel, en al liet men aanvankelijk den plicht tot uitroeiing der dwaling nog in zijn wetboek staan, toch lag in het beginsel, dat de Kerk zich terug had te trekken op het terrein der particuliere genade, en dat daarnaast het breede, vrije terrein der gemeene gratie lag, de onverwinlijke idee uitgesproken, die tot de vrijheid van het woord leiden moest en geleid heeft. Gevolg was dan ook dat de crimineele bedreiging al meer een doode letter bleef, en dat, om slechts dit ééne voorbeeld te noemen, Des Cartes, die uit het Roomsche Frankrijk wijken moest, in het Calvinistische Nederland wetenschappelijk bestrijding van Voetius, maar in den burgerstaat een veilige schuilplaats vond.

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 23 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 24 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 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 Rome did oppose, not only in the Church, what was right, but also beyond its boundaries, the freedom of the word. Truth alone, not error, had the right to propagate itself in society 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 civil Court. 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, betraying 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 170 and well, the Church in those days had no 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 she considered herself justified and in duty bound to quench this fire and to extinguish these flames wherever an outbreak occurred. This position, when we place 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 by leaving the duty to extirpate error untouched 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 171 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.

A este deve ser adicionado um segundo ponto. Sem consideração para com o patrocínio papal sobre a Universidade como tal, a Igreja exerceu pressão sobre a Ciência importunando, acusando e perseguindo os inovadores por causa de suas opiniões expressas e escritos publicados. Roma se opôs a liberdade da palavra, não somente na Igreja, o que era correto, mas também além de seus limites. Somente a verdade, não o erro, tinha o direito de propagar-se na sociedade e era esperado que a verdade mantivesse sua base, não por vencer o erro num conflito honesto, mas por processá-lo no tribunal de justiça.

Isto prejudicou a liberdade da Ciência, porque submeteu questões científicas que não poderiam ser estabelecidas pela jurisdição eclesiástica ao julgamento da Corte civil. Quem mantinha o silêncio ou submetia-se as circunstâncias evitava o conflito; e aquele que, sendo de ímpeto mais heróico, desafiasse a oposição era punido tendo suas asas cortadas; e se ele, apesar disso, tentasse voar com as asas cortadas, tinha seu pescoço torcido. Também aquele que publicasse um livro revelando opiniões audaciosas era considerado um criminoso e, finalmente, enfrentava a Inquisição e o cadafalso. O direito de livre investigação era desconhecido. Crendo firmemente que todas as coisas conhecíveis e dignas de serem conhecidas já eram conhecidas, e conhecidas bem e firmemente, a Igreja naqueles dias não tinha idéia da imensa tarefa reservada para a ciência, somente acordando de seu sono medieval, não da “luta pela vida”, que deveria ser a regra indispensável na execução de sua tarefa.

A Igreja foi incapaz de saudar, na aurora da ciência, uma manhã rósea anunciando o levantar de um novo sol no horizonte, mas antes viu em seu brilho as faíscas latentes, as quais ameaçavam colocar fogo no mundo; e por isso, ela considerou-se justificada e no dever legal de apagar este fogo e extinguir estas chamas onde quer que uma erupção ocorresse. Podemos entender esta posição quando nos colocamos de volta naqueles tempos, mas não sem condenar firmemente seu princípio latente, pois se todo o mundo tivesse persistido em favorecê-la, teria sufocado a ciência nascente em seu próprio berço.

Portanto, glória ao Calvinismo que, para começar, abandonou esta posição perniciosa com resultados eficazes; teoricamente por sua descoberta da esfera da graça comum, e a seguir, praticamente, oferecendo um abrigo seguro para todos que eram apanhados numa tempestade noutra parte. É verdade que o Calvinismo, como sempre acontece em casos como este, de modo algum entendeu imediatamente o pleno significado de sua oposição, pois começou deixando intocado o dever de extirpar o erro em seu próprio código. Todavia, o conceito invencível que estava obrigado a conduzir e no decorrer do tempo conduziu para liberdade da palavra, encontrou sua expressão absoluta no princípio de que a igreja deve retirar-se para o campo da graça particular, e que isenta de seu governo encontra-se o amplo e livre campo da “graça comum”. O resultado disso foi que as penalidades da lei criminal foram gradualmente reduzidas a uma letra morta, e que, um único caso para exemplificar, Descartes, que teve de deixar a França Católica Romana, encontrou entre os calvinistas da Holanda, em Voetius, certamente um antagonista científico, mas um abrigo seguro na república.

Это еще не все. Помимо папского надзора над университетами были гонения на науку со стороны Церкви — Церковь угрожала новаторам и преследовала их за мнения и опубликованные сочинения. Рим противостоял свободе слова, и не только в Церкви, что естественно, но и за ее пределами. Только истина имела право на распространение, и свою позицию она сохраняла, не победив заблуждение в честном бою, а обвиняя его перед судьями. Это лишало науку свободы, подчиняя научные проблемы, которые не может разрешить церковная юрисдикция, гражданскому суду. Тот, кто избегал конфликтов, хранил молчание или покорялся обстоятельствам, тот же, кто был посмелее, бросал вызов противникам. Ему подрезали крылья; и если он тем не менее пытался летать, ему ломали шею. Того, кто издавал слишком смелую книгу, считали преступником, и в конце концов он становился узником инквизиции, а там — попадал на эшафот. Права на свободное исследование не было. Твердо веруя, что все познаваемое и достойное познания уже вполне известно, Церковь ничего не знала ни о грандиозной задаче, отведенной науке, только что пробудившейся от средневекового сна, ни о «борьбе за жизнь», которая в ней неизбежна. На заре новой науки церковь не сумела приветствовать рассвет, возвещающий восход нового солнца, и видела в его проблесках тлеющие искры, способные воспламенить весь мир. Она считала своим долгом погасить этот огонь, уничтожить это пламя, где бы оно ни возгоралось. Если поставим себя на ее место, мы ее поймем, но все же осудим ее основополагающий принцип; если бы все продолжали его поддерживать, он просто задушил бы зарождающуюся науку. Слава кальвинизму, который первым пресек эту гибельную тенденцию, теоретически — утверждая сферу общей благодати, а вскоре и практически — предоставляя пристанище гонимым. Правда, как всегда бывает в таких случаях, он далеко не сразу осознал всю важность этого противостояния, потому что не сразу счел нужным убрать ошибку из своего собственного кодекса. И все же непобедимая идея, которая должна была привести, и с течением времени привела к свободе слова, нашла свое абсолютное выражение в том принципе, что Церковь должна уйти в область особой благодати, а вне ее лежит широкое и свободное поле «общей благодати». Все это привело к тому, что положения уголовного права постепенно перестали применяться в соответствующих случаях. Укажем лишь один пример: Декарт, вынужденный покинуть католическую Францию, нашел среди нидерландских кальвинистов научного противника в лице Воэция, но никаким гонениям в этой республике не подвергался.

Nog dit voeg ik er aan toe. Om de wetenschap te doen opbloeien moest er vraag naar wetenschap uit den drang van het leven opkomen, en hiertoe moest de volksgeest zelf worden vrijgemaakt. Zoolang nu de Kerk met haar velum heel het schouwspel des openbaren levens overspande, moest wel de onvrijheid aanhouden, wijl den hemel te verdienen, en voor zoover dit er meê saâmhing, de aarde te genieten, levensdoel bleef. Met sympathie, met zoekende liefde zich op den kosmos te werpen, was op dat standpunt ondenkbaar. Aller zoekende liefde ging naar het eeuwige leven uit, en wat niet verstaan werd is, dat de Christenheid, ook afgezien van de eeuwige zaligheid, hier op aarde een taak van Godswege te vervullen heeft, een grootsche taak óók aan dien kosmos. Ook die voorstelling nu brak het Calvinisme, door in den meest volstrekten zin elk denkbeeld, alsof het leven op aarde de zaligheid des hemels verdienen kon, bij den wortel zelf af te snijden. Die zaligheid komt uit de wedergeboorte op, en er is volharding 123 der heiligen. En waar op die wijs de verzekerdheid des geloofs den angst van het aflaatzoeken verving, riep het Calvinisme de Christenheid terug naar de oorspronkelijke scheppingsordonnantie: „Vervult de aarde en onderwerpt haar en hebt heerschappij over al wat op haar leeft.” Zoo bleef men pelgrim, maar een pelgrim, die op den weg naar het eeuwige vaderland nog een onmetelijke taak op aarde had te vervullen. Breed breidde zich voor en onder en boven den mensch de kosmos met alle rijken der natuur uit. Heel dit onafzienbare veld moest worden bearbeid. Op dien arbeid wierp men zich met geestdrift en veerkracht. De aarde met al wat in haar is, moest aan de menschen onderworpen worden. Zoo bloeiden als nooit in mijn toenmalig vaderland de landbouw en nijverheid, de handel en scheepvaart. Dat nieuwe leven der burgerij wekte nieuwe behoeften. Om de aarde aan zich te onderwerpen was kennis van die aarde, van haar zeeën, van haar natuur, van de eigenschappen en de wetten dier natuur noodzakelijk. En op die manier was het, dat de heerschende volksgeest, die dusver aan de wetenschap zijn prikkel onthield, plotseling dien prikkel haar diep in de lendenen dreef, haar deed opwaken uit haar eerst half sluimerend leven, en haar in dit krachtsbetoon een gevoel van vrijheid deed winnen, als ze eertijds nimmer had gekend.

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 25 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.

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 with the investigator’s love to the study of our earthly existence. 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. This new conception was first introduced by Calvinism when it cut at the root in the most absolute sense of 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 is sealed by the perseverance of the saints. Where in this manner the “certainty 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 172 Calvinist became a pilgrim, who, while on his way to our eternal home, had yet to perform on earth an important task. The cosmos, in a the wealth of the kingdom of nature, was spread out before, under, and above man. This entire limitless field had to be worked. To this labor the Calvinist 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 as never before. 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 refrained from encouraging science, by a new and sparkling energy, suddenly called it into action, spurring it on to a sense of liberty, hitherto entirely unknown.

A isso devo adicionar que, a fim de fazer a ciência prosperar, precisava ser criada uma demanda para a ciência, e para esse fim a opinião pública tinha de ser libertada. Contudo, já que a Igreja estendeu seu velum sobre todo o drama da vida pública, o estado de servidão naturalmente continuou, porque o único objetivo da vida era merecer o céu e gozar do mundo tanto quanto a Igreja considerava ser consistente com esse fim principal. Desse ponto de vista era inimaginável que qualquer um estaria disposto a devotar-se com simpatia e com o amor do investigador ao estudo de nossa existência terrena. O desejo de todos foi direcionado para a vida eterna, e não pôde ser compreendido que o Cristianismo, além de seu anseio pela salvação eterna, deve cumprir sobre a terra, por comissão divina, uma grande tarefa com relação ao cosmos.

Esta nova concepção foi primeiramente introduzida pelo Calvinismo, quando ele cortou pela raiz, no sentido mais absoluto, todo conceito de que a vida sobre a terra estava destinada a merecer sempre a bem-aventurança do céu. Esta bem-aventurança, para todo verdadeiro calvinista, origina-se na regeneração e é selada pela perseverança dos santos. Deste modo onde a “certeza de fé” suplantou o comércio de indulgências, o Calvinismo chamou a cristandade de volta para a ordem da criação: “Repovoar a terra, subjugá-la e ter domínio sobre tudo quanto vive sobre ela”. A vida cristã como uma peregrinação não foi mudada, mas o calvinista tornou-se um peregrino que, durante sua caminhada para nossa mansão eterna, ainda deve cumprir uma importante tarefa sobre a terra.

O cosmos, em toda a riqueza do reino da natureza, foi desenrolado perante, sob e acima do homem. Todo este campo ilimitado deveria ser trabalhado. A este labor, o calvinista consagrou-se com entusiasmo e energia. Pois, segundo a vontade de Deus, a terra com tudo o que está nela deveria estar sujeita ao homem. Assim, naqueles dias, em meu país natal, a agricultura e a industria, o comércio e a navegação prosperaram como nunca antes. Este novo nascimento da vida nacional despertou novas necessidades. A fim de subjugar a terra era indispensável um conhecimento da terra, conhecimento de seus oceanos, de sua natureza e dos atributos e leis desta natureza. E assim, aconteceu que o próprio povo que até então tinha se privado de encorajar a ciência, por meio de uma nova e viva energia subitamente chamou-a para a ação, incitando-a para um sentido de liberdade até agora totalmente desconhecido.

К этому я должен добавить: чтобы наука процветала, надо создать на нее спрос, а для этого общественное мнение должно стать свободным. Пока Церковь простирала свое velum (покрывало) над всеми событиями общественной жизни, рабство естественным образом продолжалось, ведь единственная цель жизни состояла в том, чтобы заслужить небо, а этим миром пользоваться в той степени, какую допустит Церковь. При таком подходе нельзя и вообразить, чтобы кто-нибудь захотел с симпатией и даже любовью изучать наше земное существование. Любовь была направлена на вечную жизнь, и люди не понимали, что христианство, помимо устремления к вечной жизни, должно осуществить доверенную Богом великую задачу по отношению к мирозданию. Эту новую концепцию впервые ввел кальвинизм, когда он в самом абсолютном смысле подрубил всякую мысль о том, что мы живем на земле только для того, чтобы заслужить блаженство на небе. Для каждого истинного кальвиниста такое блаженство вытекает из возрождения и запечатлевается неотступностью святых. Везде, где «достоверность веры» заменила торговлю индульгенциями, кальвинизм призывал христианский мир к заповеди творения: наполнять землю, покорять ее и владычествовать над всем, что на ней живет. Христианин остался странником, но кальвинисты ощущали себя обязанными осуществить важную задачу на пути к нашей вечной обители. Мир во всем богатстве природы распростерся перед, под и над человеком. Это беспредельное поле надо было обработать. Такому труду кальвинисты посвятили себя с великим пылом, ибо земля со всем, что на ней, должна по воле Божией покориться человеку. В моей родной стране в те дни невиданно расцвели сельское хозяйство и промышленность, торговля и мореплавание. Новорожденная общественная жизнь вызвала новые потребности. Чтобы покорить землю, нужно знать ее, ее природу и законы этой природы. Так и случилось, что народ, который до той поры совсем не поощрял науку, неожиданно призвал ее к активной деятельности, подстегивая ее к осознанию своей свободы, доселе совершенно неизвестной.

En nu kom ik tot mijn laatste stelling, de bewering namelijk, dat het Calvinisme bij het conflict, dat vrije wetenschap noodwendig moet doen opkomen, voor dat conflict de gereede oplossing vond. Gij verstaat, welk conflict ik bedoel. Vrij onderzoek leidt tot botsing. De een trekt op de kaart van het leven de lijnen anders dan zijn buurman. Hieruit ontstaan wat men noemt scholen en richtingen. Optimisten en pessimisten. Een school van Kant en een school van Hegel. Onder de juristen staan de deterministen en de moralisten, onder de medici de homoeopathen en de allopathen tegen elkander over. Plutonisten en Neptunisten, Darwinisten en soort-verdedigers bestrijden elkaâr in de natuurkundige wetenschappen. Von Humboldt, Grimm en Max Müller vormen op taalgebied elk een afzonderlijke school. 124 Vormvereerders en realisten vliegen elkander in het haar binnen de klassieke wanden van den philologischen tempel. Overal strijd, kamp, worsteling, soms fel en vinnig, niet zelden met persoonlijke bitterheid gemengd. Maar toch, ook al schuilt achter deze verschillen de energie van beginselverschil, toch worden deze ondergeschikte conflicten geheel in de schaduw gesteld door het conflict van eerste orde, dat in alle landen het heftigst de geesten beroert, het machtig conflict tusschen hen, die aan de belijdenis van God Drie-eenig en zijn Woord blijven vasthouden, en die anderen, die in Deïsme, Pantheïsme of Naturalisme de oplossing zoeken van het wereldprobleem.

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 26 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.

And now I approach my last point, viz., the assertion, that the emancipation of Science must inevitably lead to a sharp conflict of principles, 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 173 the moralists. Among medical men the homoeopaths oppose the allopaths. Plutonists 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 Linguistics. 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.

E agora abordarei meu último ponto, a saber, a afirmação de que a emancipação da Ciência deve inevitavelmente levar a um claro conflito de princípios, e que também para este conflito, somente o Calvinismo ofereceu a pronta solução. Vocês entendem qual conflito tenho em vista. A livre investigação conduz a colisões. Uma pessoa traça as linhas sobre o mapa da vida de modo diferente de seu próximo. O resultado é a origem de escolas e tendências. Otimistas e Pessimistas. Uma escola de Kant e uma escola de Hegel.

Entre os juristas os Deterministas se opõem aos Moralistas. Entre os médicos os Homeopatas se opõem aos Alopatas. Plutonistas e Netunistas, Darwinistas e anti-Darwinistas competem um com o outro nas ciências naturais. Wilhelm van Humboldt, Jacob Grimm e Max Mueller formam diferentes escolas no campo da lingüistica. Formalistas e Realistas brigam uns com os outros dentro dos muros clássicos do templo filosófico. Por toda há parte contenda, conflito, luta, às vezes veemente e intensa, não raramente mescladas com aspereza pessoal. E, todavia, embora a energia da diferença de princípio encontre-se na raiz de todas estas disputas, estes conflitos secundários são colocados completamente à sombra pelo conflito principal, o qual em todos os países confunde veementemente as mentes, o poderoso conflito entre aqueles que aderem à confissão do Deus Triuno e sua Palavra, e aqueles que procuram a solução do problema do mundo no Deísmo, no Panteísmo e no Naturalismo.

А теперь я подхожу к последнему пункту — к тому, что эмансипация науки неизбежно приводит к острому конфликту принципов, и применительно к этому конфликту только кальвинизм предложил готовое решение. Вы понимаете, о каком конфликте я веду речь. Свободное исследование ведет к столкновениям. Один проводит линии на карте жизни не так, как другой. Возникают школы и направления, оптимисты и пессимисты, последователи Канта и последователи Гегеля. Среди юристов детерминисты спорят с моралистами, среди медиков — гомеопаты с аллопатами. Плутонисты и нептунисты, дарвинисты и антидарвинисты соперничают друг с другом в естественных науках. Вильгельм Гумбольдт, Якоб Гримм и Макс Мюллер образовали различные лингвистические школы. Формалисты и реалисты ссорятся друг с другом в храме классической филологии. Везде споры, конфликты, борьба, иногда — яростная и умелая, нередко смешанная с личной неприязнью. В основе всех этих споров лежит конфликт принципов, но все конфликты меркнут перед лицом главного конфликта, который яростно вторгается в сферу человеческого разума. Идет непримиримая борьба между теми, кто верит в Триединого Бога и Его Слово, и теми, кто ищет решения мировой проблемы в деизме, пантеизме и натурализме.

Let wel, ik zeg niet het conflict tusschen geloof en wetenschap. Dat bestaat niet. Alle wetenschap gaat van geloof uit, en omgekeerd geloof, waaruit geen wetenschap opkomt, is wangeloof of bijgeloof, maar geloof is het niet. Alle wetenschap onderstelt geloof aan ons ik, in ons zelfbewustzijn; onderstelt het geloof aan de zuivere werking onzer zintuigen; onderstelt het geloof aan de juistheid der denkwet; onderstelt het geloof aan het generale in de speciale verschijnselen; onderstelt het geloof aan het leven; en onderstelt bovenal geloof in de beginselen waarvan men uitgaat. Wat zeggen wil, dat alle deze onmisbare uitgangspunten voor vruchtbaar wetenschappelijk onderzoek ons niet door bewijs toekomen, maar voor ons vaststaan krachtens ons innerlijk besef en met ons zelfbewustzijn zijn gegeven. En omgekeerd, alle geloof heeft den drang in zich om zich uit te spreken. Om dit te kunnen doen heeft het woorden, termen, uitdrukkingen noodig. In die woorden moet zich een gedachte belichamen. Die gedachten moeten onderling en met zichzelf en met het leven om ons heen, moeten met tijd en eeuwigheid saamhangen, en zoodra het geloof aldus uitstraalt in het bewustzijn, ontstaat de behoefte aan wetenschap en rekenschap. Neen het conflict bestaat niet tusschen geloof en wetenschap, maar heel anders tusschen de bewering dat de bestaande kosmos een normale of een abnormale is. Is hij normaal, dan beweegt hij zich door een eeuwig proces uit zijn potenzen naar zijn ideaal. Maar is de thans bestaande kosmos abnormaal, dan 125 greep er storing plaats en kan alleen een herscheppende macht hem de bereiking van zijn bestemming waarborgen. Deze en geen andere is de grondtegenstelling, die op wetenschappelijk gebied de denkende geesten in twee slagorden tegenover elkander stelt.

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 demon- 27 stration 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.

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 selfconsciousness; 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, 174 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 today, is either in a normal or abnormal condition. If it is normal, then it moves by means of an eternal evolution from its potencies to its ideal. But if the cosmos in its present condition is abnormal, then a disturbance has taken place in the past, 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.

Note que eu não falo de um conflito entre a fé e a ciência. Um conflito como este não existe. Toda ciência num certo grau parte da fé, e ao contrário, a fé que não leva à ciência é fé equivocada ou superstição, mas não é fé real, genuína. Toda ciência pressupõe fé em si, em nossa autoconsciência; pressupõe fé no trabalho acurado de nossos sentidos; pressupõe fé no corretismo das leis do pensamento; pressupõe fé em algo universal escondido atrás dos fenômenos especiais; pressupõe fé na vida; e especialmente pressupõe fé nos princípios dos quais nós procedemos; o que significa que todos estes axiomas indispensáveis, necessários a uma investigação científica produtiva, não vêem a nós pela prova mas são estabelecidos em nosso julgamento por nossa concepção interior e dados com nossa autoconsciência. Por outro lado, todo tipo de fé tem em si mesmo um impulso para manifestar-se livremente. A fim de fazer isto ela precisa de palavras, termos e expressões. Estas palavras devem ser a encarnação de pensamentos.

Estes pensamentos devem estar conectados reciprocamente, não somente com eles mesmos, mas também com nosso ambiente, com o tempo e a eternidade, e tão logo a fé refulge deste modo em nossa consciência, nasce a necessidade da ciência e da demonstração. Daqui segue-se que o conflito não é entre a fé e a ciência, mas entre a afirmação de que o cosmos, como existe hoje, está numa condição normal ou anormal. Se ele é normal, então ele se move por meio de uma evolução eterna de suas potências até seu ideal. Mas se o cosmos em sua presente condição é anormal, então um distúrbio aconteceu no passado, e somente um poder regenerador pode garantir o alcance final de seu alvo. Esta, e não outra, é a antítese principal que separa as mentes pensantes no campo da Ciência nas duas formações de combate opostas.

Заметьте, я не говорю о конфликте между верой и наукой. Такого конфликта не существует. Всякая наука в определенной степени начинается с веры, а вера, не ведущая к науке, — просто ошибочная вера или суеверие, подделка, а не подлинная вера. Всякая наука предполагает веру в «я», в наше самосознание; она предполагает веру в достоверность наших чувств; веру в правильность законов мышления; веру в то, что за отдельными явлениями скрыто нечто всеобщее; веру в жизнь; в особенной мере наука предполагает веру в исходные принципы, а это значит, что все аксиомы, необходимые в плодотворном научном исследовании, возникают не через доказательство, а устанавливаются посредством внутреннего постижения и даются нам вместе с нашим самосознанием. В то же время всякая вера требует самовыражения. Чтобы выразить себя, ей необходимы слова, термины, воплощающие мысли. Мысли же должны соединяться не только друг с другом, но и с нашим окружением, со временем и вечностью, и поскольку вера, таким образом, проясняется в нашем сознании, возникает нужда в науке и доказательстве. Отсюда следует, что конфликт существует не между верой и наукой, а между утверждением о том, что мироздание, каким оно предстает сегодня, находится в нормальном состоянии, и утверждением о том, что оно находится в ненормальном состоянии. Если мироздание нормально, оно развивается, непрестанная эволюция ведет его от его возможностей к идеалу. Если же оно в его нынешнем состоянии ненормально, что-то испортилось в нем когда-то, то только возрождающая сила поможет ему достигнуть конечной цели. Это и ничто иное — принципиальная антитеза, которая разделяет мыслящих ученых на два противоположных лагеря.

De Normalisten weigeren te rekenen met andere dan de natuurlijke gegevens, rusten niet eer ze voor alle verschijnselen eenzelfde grondverklaring hebben gevonden, en verzetten zich met hand en tand tegen al wat de logische consequentiën van oorzaak en gevolg, op welk punt van de lijn ook, breken of stuiten zou. Daarom formeel wel geloof, maar alleen in de gegevens van het algemeen bewustzijn, en deze als normaal beschouwd. En materieel geen schepping, maar een evolutie, die zich in het oneindige verliest. Geen soort, ook niet het species Homo sapiens, zelfstandig ontstaan, maar binnen den kring der natuurlijke gegevens uit lagere en voorafgaande soorten ontwikkeld. Vooral geen wonder, maar de natuurwet onverbiddelijk heerschend. Geen zonde, maar ontwikkeling van lager naar hooger zedelijk standpunt. Een Schrift, het zij zoo, maar dan na uitsnijding van al wat niet logisch uit het menschelijke te verklaren is. Een Christus, desnoods, maar geen andere dan die product van het menschelijke in Israël zal zijn. En zoo ook een God, of liever nog een Oneindig Wezen, maar dan agnosticistisch achter al het zichtbare verscholen, of pantheïstisch in al het bestaande schuilende, en niet anders verstaan dan als de ideale reflectie van onzen menschelijken geest.

The normalists 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, 28 and conceived of as the ideal reflection of the human mind.

The Normalists 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 honor faith in a formal sense but only as far as it remains in harmony with the general data of the human consciousness 175 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, but 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.

Os Normalistas se recusam a levar em conta outros dados senão os naturais, não descansam até encontrarem uma interpretação idêntica para todos os fenômenos, e se opõem com o máximo vigor, a cada momento, a todas as tentativas de quebrar ou de checar as inferências lógicas de causa e efeito. Portanto, eles também honram a fé num sentido formal, mas somente na medida em que ela se mantém em harmonia com os dados gerais da consciência humana, e esta sendo considerada como normal. Materialmente, contudo, eles rejeitam a própria idéia de criação e só podem aceitar a evolução, - uma evolução sem um ponto de partida no passado e eternamente evoluindo-se no futuro até perder-se infinito ilimitado. Nenhuma espécie, nem mesmo a espécie Homo sapiens, originou-se como tal, mas dentro do círculo dos dados naturais desenvolveu-se de formas de vida inferiores e precedentes. Principalmente nem milagres, mas em vez deles a lei natural dominando de um modo inexorável. Nem pecado, mas evolução de uma posição moral inferior para uma superior. Se eles toleram as Escrituras Sagradas no todo, o fazem na condição de que todas aquelas partes que não podem ser explicadas logicamente são uma produção humana a ser cortada fora. Um Cristo, se necessário, mas alguém que seja o produto do desenvolvimento humano de Israel. E do mesmo modo um Deus, ou melhor um Ser Supremo, mas segundo o modo dos Agnósticos, oculto atrás do Universo visível, ou panteisticamente escondido em todas as coisas existentes e concebido como o reflexo ideal da mente humana.

Сторонники «нормальности» или «нормалисты» считаются только с природными данными, и не успокоятся, пока не найдут идентичное истолкование всем явлениям, они противоборствуют на каждом шагу всем попыткам нарушить или поставить под сомнение логическую связь причин и следствий. Поэтому они чтят и веру в формальный смысл, но лишь постольку, поскольку она согласуется с их общей идеей человеческого сознания, которое также рассматривается как нормальное. С содержательной точки зрения, однако, они отвергают саму идею творения и могут принять лишь эволюцию, у которой нет начала, зато длится она вечно, пока не затеряется в бескрайней бесконечности. Никакой вид, даже Homo Sapiens, не произошел таким, каким он присутствует сейчас; в соответствии с естественнонаучными данными, всякий вид развился из низших, предшествующих форм жизни. Особенно они настаивают на том, что чудес не бывает, вместо них неумолимо господствует естественный закон. Нет греха, есть только эволюция от низшего нравственного состояния к высшему. Священное Писание признают только в том случае, если из него удалены все части, которые нельзя логически объяснить как результат человеческой деятельности. Пускай Христос существует, если надо, но такой, который возник в результате естественного развития Израильского народа. Пусть будет и Бог или, скорее, Высшее Существо, но скрытый, в угоду агностикам, за видимой вселенной или, в угоду пантеистам, прячущийся во всем, что есть, и мыслимый как идеальное отражение человеческого разума.

En hiertegen staan nu de Abnormalisten over, die, aan betrekkelijke evolutie alle recht doen wedervaren, maar tegenover het begrip van een evolutio in infinitum aan schepping vasthouden; het zelfstandig soortbegrip van mensch onverbiddelijk handhaven, omdat in hem het beeld van God zich afspiegelt; zonde als verstoring van het onzondig menschelijk herkomen en dus als vergrijp tegen God verstaan, en daarom postuleeren en aanvaarden wat, herscheppend alleen het abnormale herstellen kan: d.w.z. het wonder; het wonder in de wedergeboorte; het wonder in de Schrift; het wonder in den Christus als God-zelf uit zijn eigen leven in ons leven 126 indalend; en die, dank zij deze herschepping van het abnormale, de ideale norma vinden blijven, niet in het natuurlijke maar in God-Drieëenig.

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.

The Abnormalists, on the other hand, who do justice to relative evolution, but adhere to primordial 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 alone is reflected the image of God; they conceive of sin as the destruction of our original nature, and consequently as rebellion against God; and for that reason they postulate and maintain the miraculous as the only means to restore 176 the abnormal; the miracle of regeneration; the miracle of 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.

Os Anormalistas, por outro lado, que fazem justiça a evolução relativa, mas aderem a criação primordial em oposição a uma evolutio in infinitum, se opõem a posição dos Normalistas com toda sua força; sustentam inexoravelmente a concepção do homem como uma espécie independente, porque somente nele é refletida a imagem de Deus; concebem o pecado como a destruição de nossa natureza original e, conseqüentemente, como rebelião contra Deus. E por esta razão eles postulam e sustentam o milagre como o único meio para restaurar o anormal; o milagre da regeneração; o milagre das Escrituras; o milagre no Cristo descendo como Deus com sua própria vida na nossa; e assim, devido a esta regeneração do anormal, eles continuam a descobrir a norma ideal não na natureza mas no Deus Triuno.

Поборники «ненормальности» воздают должное относительной эволюции. Они верят не в бесконечность эволюции, а в первоначальное творение, непримиримо споря с «нормалистами». Сторонники «ненормальности» считают, что человек — независимый вид, ибо только в нем одном отражен образ Божий. Кроме того, они считают, что грех испортил нашу первоначальную природу и, следовательно, означал бунт против Бога; а потому утверждают, что только чудо исправит ненормальный порядок вещей — чудо возрождения, чудо Писания, чудо Христа, сошедшего как Бог в нашу жизнь. Поскольку нужно возродить испорченное, они ищут идеальную норму не в природе, а в Триедином Боге.

Niet dus geloof en wetenschap maar twee wetenschappelijke stelsels of wilt ge twee wetenschappelijke uitwerkingen zijn het, die elk met een eigen gelooftegenover elkander staan. En evenmin mag gezegd, dat het hier de wetenschap is die staat tegenover de Theologie, want het zijn twee absolute vormen van wetenschap, die beide heel het veld van menschelijke kennis bestrijken, en die beide in hun wereldbeschouwing een eigen Theologie hebben opgenomen. Ook toch het Pantheïsme, ook het Deïsme is een Theologisch stelsel, en zonder voorbehoud behoort heel de Moderne theologie thuis bij de wetenschap der Normalisten. En eindelijk, het zijn geen twee relatieve tegenstanders, die half weg saâm gaan, en voorts elkander met vrede laten, al slaan ze verder ook verschillende paden in, maar over en weer betwisten ze elkander het gansche terrein des levens, en kunnen ze niet aflaten van het volhardend pogen om geheel het gebouw van elkanders strijdige beweringen, met de steunpunten onder die beweringen, tot den grond toe af te breken. Als ze dit niet poogden zouden ze over en weer toonen niet in hun uitgangspunt te gelooven, zou het geen wetenschappelijke ernst zijn, die hen dreef en bezielde, en zouden ze den primordialen eisch van alle wetenschap, die eenheid van conceptie vraagt, niet verstaan. Een Normalist, die nog iets ook maar van de schepping, van het beeld Gods in den mensch, van zonde als val, van een Christus als boven het menschelijke uitgaande, van een wedergeboorte, die iets anders dan ontwikkeling zou zijn, of van een Schrift, die ons werkelijk orakels brengt, staan laat, is halfslachtig studieman en verbeurt den wetenschappelijken naam. Maar zoo ook, wie als Abnormalist de schepping ook maar halverwege in evolutie doet opgaan; in het dier geen creatuur naar het beeld van den mensch geschapen, maar ’s menschen oorsprong ziet; en de schepping van den mensch in oorspronkelijke gerechtigheid loslaat; maar voorts nog meewerkt om de wedergeboorte, om den Christus, om de Schrift uit het motief van louter menschelijke krachten te verklaren en niet 127 met hand en tand vasthoudt aan het Goddelijke motief, dat alle menschelijke gegevens ten deze beheerscht, moet even beslist onzerzijds als halfslachtig en onwetenschappelijk man uit onzen kring worden teruggewezen. Normaal en Abnormaal zijn twee absolute uitgangspunten, die geen vergelijk dulden. Evenwijdige lijnen kennen geen kruispunt. Ge moet óf het eene óf het andere kiezen, maar wat ge ook kiest, wat ge zijt, moet ge als wetenschappelijk man geheel zijn; niet in één faculteit maar in alle faculteiten; in heel uw wereld- en levensbeschouwing; in de volle terugkaatsing van het gansche wereldbeeld, uit den spiegel van uw menschelijk bewustzijn.

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 29 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.

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 suggestion about the supreme Being of their own as the point of departure for their world-view. Pantheism as well as Deism is a system about God, and without reserve the entire modern theology finds its home in the science of the Normalists. And finally, these two scientific systems of the Normalists and the Abnormalists 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 entire 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 point of departure, that they were no serious combatants, and that they did not understand the primordial demand of science, which of course claims unity of conception. 177

A Normalist, 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 protoplastic creature, made in the image of man, but man’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 starting-points, 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.

Portanto, nem a fé nem a ciência, mas dois sistemas científicos ou se vocês preferirem, duas elaborações científicas são opostas uma a outra, cada uma tendo sua própria fé. Nem pode ser dito que é aqui que a ciência que se opõe a Teologia, pois temos de tratar com duas formas absolutas de ciência, ambas as quais reivindicam o domínio completo do conhecimento humano, e ambas as quais têm uma sugestão acerca de seu próprio Ser supremo como o ponto de partida para sua cosmovisão. O Panteísmo, bem como o Deísmo, é um sistema acerca de Deus, e sem reservas a Teologia moderna toda encontra seu lar na ciência dos Normalistas. E finalmente, estes dois sistemas científicos, dos Normalistas e dos Anormalistas, não são oponentes relativos andando juntos metade do caminho, e depois disso, suportando pacificamente um ao outro por escolherem diferentes caminhos. Ao contrário, ambos estão disputando com perseverança um com o outro todo o domínio da vida, e eles não podem desistir do esforço constante para derrubar ao chão todo o edifício das afirmações de seus respectivos adversários, inclusive todo o fundamento sobre o qual suas afirmações repousam. Se não tentassem isto, eles mostrariam, em ambos os lados, que honestamente não crêem em seus pontos de partida, que não são combatentes sérios, e que não entenderam a exigência primordial da ciência, que certamente reivindica unidade de concepção.

Um Normalista, que mantém em seu sistema a mais leve possibilidade da criação, de uma imagem de Deus específica no homem, do pecado como uma queda, de Cristo na medida em que ele transcende o humano, da regeneração como diferente de evolução, da Escritura como trazendo-nos os verdadeiros oráculos de Deus, - é um erudito anfíbio e perdeu o direito ao nome de cientista. Mas por outro lado, aquele que como um Anormalista transforma a criação, numa certa extensão, em evolução; que não vê no animal uma criatura protoplástica feita a imagem do homem, mas originada do homem; que rejeita a criação do homem em justiça original; e que além disso tenta por todos os meios explicar a Regeneração, Cristo e as Escrituras como o resultado de causas meramente humanas, em vez de aderir com toda energia de sua alma à causa Divina, como dominando em tudo isto acima de todos os dados humanos, igualmente deve ser decididamente banido de nossas fileiras como um homem anfíbio e não científico. O normal e o anormal são dois pontos de vista absolutamente diferentes que nada têm em comum na sua origem. Linhas paralelas nunca se cruzam. Vocês devem escolher ou um ou outro. Mas o que quer que escolham, o que quer que vocês sejam como homens de ciência, devem sê-lo consistentemente, não somente na docência de Teologia, mas em todas as docências; em toda sua biocosmovisão; na imagem completa do mundo refletida no espelho de sua autoconsciência enquanto ser humano.

Словом, не вера и наука, а две научные системы или, если хотите, два научных предположения противостоят друг другу, и у обоих — своя собственная вера. Нельзя сказать, что наука противостоит теологии; мы имеем дело с двумя абсолютными формами науки, каждая из которых претендует на всецелое господство, исходя из собственного представления о Высшем Существе. Пантеизм, как и деизм, — теория о Боге, и, безусловно, вся модернистская теология обитает сейчас в жилище «нормалистов». Эти две научные системы — не относительные противники, которые проходят вместе первую половину пути, а затем мирно дают спутнику выбрать свою собственную дорогу. Каждая серьезно спорит с другой обо всей жизни, постоянно пытаясь уничтожить утверждения противника, включая основания этих утверждений. Если бы они этого не делали, они показали бы, что сами не верят в свои исходные принципы и не понимают изначального требования любой науки, единства концепции.

Если сторонник «нормальности» оставит в своей системе хоть малейшую возможность творения; образа Божиего в человеке; греха как падения; Христа-Бога, возрождения, отличного от эволюции; Писания, возвещающего нам действительные слова Божии, то он отстаивает двойственные позиции и утрачивает право называться ученым. Со своей стороны, если сторонник «ненормальности» хоть в какой-то степени подменяет творение эволюцией; видит в животном не первозданное творение, соделанное по образу человека, а человеческого предка; признает, что человек безгрешен; и, более того, пытается объяснить возрождение, Христа и Писание как результат чисто человеческих действий, вместо того, чтобы всей душой защищать дело Божие, чтобы Он господствовал над всей человеческой жизнью, то его столь же решительно надо изгнать из наших рядов, как человека, придерживающегося двойственных позиций, и потому не являющегося ученым. Перед нами две совершенно различные отправные точки, у которых нет ничего общего. Параллельные линии не пересекаются. Вы должны выбрать или одно, или другое. Что бы вы ни выбрали, кем бы ни стали, как ученый вы должны быть последовательны, не только в теологии, но и во всех ваших делах, в вашем взгляде на мир, в том, как вы отражаете картину мира в зеркале вашего сознания.

Naar tijdsorde nu zijn wij, Abnormalisten, heel een reeks van eeuwen achter elkander schier onbetwist aan het woord geweest zonder dat onze tegenstanders principieel konden optreden. Met het wegsterven der oud-Heidensche en het opkomen der Christelijke wereldbeschouwing, staat het al spoedig in de algemeene overtuiging vast, dat alle ding ontstaan is door de schepping Gods, dat de soorten van wezens aan afzonderlijke schepping hun ontstaan danken, en dat onder deze wezens-soorten de mensch als beelddrager Gods geschapen is in oorspronkelijke gerechtigheid; dat de inkomende zonde deze oorspronkelijke harmonie der schepping verbroken heeft, en dat tot herstel van dat abnormale, d.i. tot herschepping, alsnu de abnormale middelen intraden van wedergeboorte, van den Christus en van de Heilige Schrift. Natuurlijk waren er, alle eeuwen door, in grooten getale zelfs, spotters, die met deze feiten den draak staken, en onverschilligen, die er zich niet om bekreunden; maar de zeer enkelen, die wetenschappelijk deze algemeene overtuiging bestreden, telt ge voor zes eeuwen tegelijk op uw vingers. De Renaissance deed ongetwijfeld een ongeloovige strooming opkomen, die zelfs tot het Vaticaan doordrong, en het Humanisme wekte geestdrift voor Grieksch-Romeinsche idealen; maar al dient erkend dat na de middeneeuwen het principieel verzet der Normalisten een aanvang neemt, toch blijft het een feit, dat de breede heirscharen der philologen, juristen, medici en physici nog eeuwen daarna de grondstukken der aloude overtuiging onaangetast alten. Eerst in de vorige eeuw heeft de tegenstand zich uit den omtrek 128 naar het middenpunt teruggetrokken en maakte de nieuwere philosophie zich op, om de grondstellingen der Christelijke levensbeschouwing voor onhoudbaar te verklaren. Zoo eerst raakten de Normalisten tot het vermoeden eerst, toen tot het bewustzijn van hun principieele tegenstelling. Alle denkbare positie, die men bij dit verzet tegen de dusver gangbare overtuiging kon innemen, werd toen beurtelings in een eigen philosophisch stelsel ontwikkeld, stelsels die, hoe ook uiteenloopend, in hun loochening van het abnormale volledig overeenstemden. En toen deze wijsgeerige stelsels zich van de overtuiging in de toongevende kringen hadden meester gemaakt, heeft straks elke afzonderlijke wetenschap zich beijverd, om op juridisch, medisch, natuurkundig en geschiedkundig terrein, de hypothese van het eindeloos normaal verloop aller dingen als uitgangspunt van alle onderzoek te aanvaarden. Een oogenblik schrikte de publieke opinie toen op, maar overmits de massa geen persoonlijk geloof bezat, was die eerste huivering slechts van korten duur, en heeft de levensbeschouwing der Normalisten in het vierde eener eeuw in letterlijken zin de toonaangevende wereld veroverd. Alleen wie Abnormalist krachtens persoonlijk geloof was, weigerde in dit koor van „the modern thought” meê te zingen, en voelde zich een oogenblik geneigd den ban op alle wetenschap te leggen, vluchtende in de tente der mystiek. Want wel was er een oogenblik van theologische zijde apologetisch verweer, maar een verweer dat knutselde om een scheef gezakt kozijn weer in het lood te zetten, en er zelfs geen vermoeden van had, dat de fundamenten zelven van het gebouw waren losgewrikt. Van daar dat met name in Duitschland de kundigste theologen waanden niet beter te kunnen doen, dan een dier philosophische stelsels als standmuur te gebruiken, waartegen het Christendom zou kunnen aanleunen. Dit gaf eerst de vermenging van Philosophie en Theologie bij de dusgenaamde Vermittelungs-theologen, totdat in deze mixtuur het Theologisch bestanddeel al armer, het philosophische al rijker werd, tot ten slotte de Moderne theologie het hoofd opstak, die er haar eere in zocht, om met eigen hand het abnormale én in den Christus én in de Heilige Schrift zoo volstandig uit te zuiveren, tot de Rabbi van Nazareth een zelfs niet 129 meer onzondig mensch en de Schrift een bundel meest pseudepigraphische, op allerlei wijs vervalschte, met mythen, sagen en verzinsels opgevulde schrifturen was geworden. Wat de Psalmist zong: „Wij zien onze teekenen niet meer, zij hebben hun teekenen als teekenen gesteld”, werd zoo ten slotte door hen vervuld; tot in den Christus en in de Schrift moest alle teeken van het abnormale uitgebannen en het teeken van het normale verloop als eenig proefhoudend kenmerk van waarheid gehuldigd. Een uitkomst, waarbij ik herhaal, wat ik zoo straks reeds uitsprak: in dit verloop is niets dat ons verbazen kan. Wie subjectief zijn eigen rede en objectief de wereld voor normaal aanziet, moet zoo spreken, kan tot geen andere slotsom komen, zou onoprecht in zijn wetenschap zijn door het anders voor te stellen, en mits wie zoo dacht, maar den moed had zich vrijwillig van de Christelijke kerk, in al haar vertakkingen af te scheiden, zou er, zijn verantwoording aan God nu daargelaten, uit zedelijk oogpunt niets op zijn houding zijn aan te merken.

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 30 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 ow T n consciousness. He tells us, that our self- consciousness must needs be uniform with his own, and that every thing else w r e 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. 31 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 32 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.

Chronologically, it is true, we Abnormalists, for many ages in succession, have been the speakers, hardly ever having been challenged, while our opponents had scarcely any opportunity to dispute our principles. With 178 the decay of the old heathen, and the rise of the Christian world-view, the general conviction soon took deep root among all students that everything has been created by God, that the species of beings have been brought into existence by 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 harmony has been broken by intervening sin; and that, in order to restore this abnormal state of affairs to its primitive condition, God introduced the abnormal means of Regeneration, of Christ as our Mediator and of the Holy Scriptures. There were of course through all ages, even in large numbers, scoffers who derided these facts, and indifferent people who took no interest in them; but the very few who during ten centuries scientifically opposed this universal conviction, you may count at once on your fingers’ ends. The Renaissance doubtless favored the rise of an infidel tendency, which was felt even in the Vatican, and Humanism created enthusiasm for Graeco-Roman ideals; but granted, that after the close of the middle ages, the opposition of the Normalists made a beginning, it yet remains a fact, that the large host of philologians, jurists, physicians and physicists, for centuries afterwards left untouched these foundations, on which the very old conviction rested it was during the eighteenth century that the opposition made a change of front by leaving the circumference and taking up a position at the center; and it was the newer philosophy which, for the first time, on a general scale, set out with the declaration that the principles of the 179 Christian world-view were utterly untenable. In this manner the Normalists first began to suspect, and then became conscious of their fundamental opposition. Every possible position, available in this reaction against the hitherto prevalent conviction, has been since that time by turn developed into a special philosophical system. These systems, divergent, if compared with each other, were however in perfect agreement in their denial of the abnormal. After these philosophical systems had secured the assent of the leading men, the several sciences followed, and were immediately solicitous to introduce the new hypothesis of an infinite normal process as the starting-point of their special investigations in the domains of jurisprudence, medicine, natural science and history.

Then 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 center. And only he who adhered to the abnormalist view by virtue of his personal faith 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 itself is tottering on its foundations. 180

This is the reason why 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 compound 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, and 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, 181 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.

É verdade que cronologicamente, por muitos séculos seguidos, nós Anormalistas fomos os oradores, poucas vezes fomos desafiados, enquanto que nossos oponentes mal tiveram qualquer oportunidade para contestar nossos princípios. Com o declínio da velha cosmovisão pagã e o surgimento da cosmovisão cristã, a convicção geral de que tudo foi criado por Deus, que as espécies de seres foram trazidas à existência por atos criativos especiais, e que entre estas espécies de seres o homem foi criado como portador da imagem de Deus em justiça original; além disso, que a harmonia original foi quebrada pela intermédio do pecado; e que, a fim de restaurar este estado anormal das coisas a sua condição primitiva, Deus introduziu os meios anormais de Regeneração, de Cristo como nosso Mediador e da Santa Escritura, logo tornou-se profundamente enraizada entre todos os estudantes. Certamente houve, em de todos os tempos, zombadores que escarneceram destes fatos, e pessoas indiferentes que não tiveram nenhum interesse por eles, até mesmo em grande número; mas vocês podem contar de uma só vez nas pontas dos dedos os poucos que durante dez séculos se opuseram cientificamente a esta convicção universal.

A Renascença, sem dúvida, favoreceu o surgimento de uma tendência infiel, a qual foi sentida até mesmo no Vaticano, e o Humanismo criou o entusiasmo pelos ideais greco-romanos; também permitiu que, após o fim da Idade Média, a oposição dos Normalistas tivesse início. Todavia, permanece a realidade de que a grande multidão de filólogos, juristas, médicos e físicos, séculos depois deixem intocados estes fundamentos sobre os quais a velha convicção repousou. Foi durante o século 18 que a oposição fez uma mudança de fronte, deixando a circunferência e tomando uma posição no centro; e foi a mais nova Filosofia que, pela primeira vez numa escala geral, expôs a declaração de que os princípios da cosmovisão cristã eram completamente insustentáveis. Deste modo, os Normalistas primeiro começaram a suspeitar e então tornaram-se conscientes de sua oposição fundamental. Toda posição possível, viável, nesta reação contra a convicção até então prevalecente, desde aquele tempo tem sido desenvolvida uma após a outra num sistema filosófico especial. Esses sistemas, divergentes se comparados uns aos outros, estavam contudo em perfeito acordo em sua negação do anormal. Após esses sistemas filosóficos terem assegurado a anuência da liderança, as diversas ciências seguiram e estavam prontas para introduzir as novas hipóteses de um processo normal infinito como o ponto de partida de suas investigações especiais nos campos da jurisprudência, medicina, ciência natural e História.

Então por um momento certamente a opinião pública foi assombrada com súbito pavor, mas visto que a maioria das pessoas carecia de fé pessoal, esta relutância superficial foi de curta duração. Dentro de um quarto de século a concepção de vida dos Normalistas num sentido literal conquistou o mundo em seu centro diretor. E somente aquele que tinha aderido ao conceito anormalista em virtude de sua fé pessoal se recusou a unir-se ao coro daqueles que cantavam os louvores da “mentalidade moderna”, e ao primeiro impacto sentiu-se inclinado a anatematizar toda ciência, retirou-se para a tenda do misticismo. É verdade que por algum tempo os teólogos tentaram defender sua causa apologeticamente, mas esta defesa poderia ser comparada a um homem que tenta ajustar uma moldura de janela torta, enquanto está inconsciente do fato que o próprio edifício está vacilando em suas fundações.

Esta é a razão porque os mais hábeis teólogos, especialmente na Alemanha, imaginaram que a melhor coisa a fazer seria aproveitarem-se de um ou de outro destes sistemas filosóficos como uma escora para sustentar o Cristianismo. O primeiro resultado desta combinação de Filosofia e Teologia foi a assim chamada Teologia da mediação, a qual gradualmente tornou-se mais e mais pobre em sua parte teológica, e mais e mais rica em sua parte filosófica, até que finalmente a moderna Teologia levantou sua cabeça e encontrou sua glória na tentativa de purificar a Teologia de seu caráter anormal. E fez isto de um modo tão completo que Cristo foi transformado num homem, nascido como nós nascemos, que nem mesmo era inteiramente livre do pecado; as Santas Escrituras numa coleção de escritos, em sua maior parte pseudopigrafica e de todas as maneiras possíveis interpolada e cheia de mitos, lendas e fábulas. O cântico do salmista: “Nós não vemos nossos sinais; eles têm levantado seus estandartes por sinais”, tem sido literalmente cumprido por eles. Cristo e as Escrituras, cada sinal do anormal foi arrancado pela raiz, e o sinal do processo normal abraçado como o único critério genuíno da verdade. Neste resultado, repito o que já tenho declarado, nada há para surpreender-nos. Aquele que olha subjetivamente para seu ser interior e objetivamente para o mundo a sua volta como normal, não pode senão falar como eles falam, não pode alcançar um resultado diferente, e seria insincero em sua posição como um homem de ciência se ele apresentasse as coisas numa compreensão diferente. E portanto, de um ponto de vista moral, nem por um momento pensando sobre a responsabilidade do homem no julgamento de Deus, nada pode ser dito contra seu ponto de vista pessoal, contanto que, pensando como ele pensa, ele mostre a coragem para deixar voluntariamente a igreja Cristã em todas as suas denominações.

Да, хронологически мы, «анормалисты», много столетий были главными и нам крайне редко бросали вызов, поскольку наши оппоненты почти никогда не могли обсуждать наши принципы публично. С распадом древнего язычества и возникновением христианства среди ученых вскоре пустило корни глубокое убеждение в том, что все создано Богом, все виды возникли в результате отдельного творческого акта; что среди этих видов человек сотворен по образу Божиему в первоначальной праведности, а потом гармония была нарушена грехом; и чтобы исправить это ненормальное положение и восстановить все в первоначальном состоянии, Бог употребил «ненормальные» средства, послав Христа как Посредника и дав Священное Писание. Конечно, во все века было немало людей, которые все это высмеивали, и людей, не проявлявших к этому никакого интереса; но нетрудно сосчитать на пальцах тех, кто за десять веков осмелился противостоять всеобщему убеждению. Ренессанс, несомненно, благоприятствовал неверию, оно проникло даже в Ватикан, а гуманизм создал стремление к античным идеалам; словом, с окончанием средних веков появилась оппозиция, но все же множество филологов, юристов, врачей и физиков оставляли нетронутыми те основания, на которых покоилось указанное древнее убеждение. Однако в XVIII веке оппозиции удалось, заняв позицию в центре, изменить линию фронта. Новая философия впервые заявила на весь мир, что христианское миропонимание абсолютно несостоятельно. «Нормалисты» вначале ощутили, а затем осознали свою фундаментальную оппозицию. Всякая мысль, которую можно было применить в борьбе против еще недавно преобладавшего убеждения, развилась с тех пор в особую философскую систему. Вполне различные системы в совершенном согласии отрицали былую веру. Заручившись поддержкой передовых людей, по их стопам последовали отдельные науки, сразу же попытавшиеся исходить повсюду — в юриспруденции, в медицине, в естественных науках, в истории — из новой гипотезы о бесконечном нормальном процессе.

Общественное мнение оторопело, конечно — только на минуту; поскольку народ верил не слишком пылко, поверхностное сопротивление продолжалось недолго. За четверть столетия взгляды «нормалистов» завоевали в буквальном смысле весь мир. Только те, кто был привержен былым взглядам из-за личной веры, не присоединились к хвале «современной мысли», и при первом же ударе им захотелось отвергнуть всю науку и найти убежище в мистицизме. Правда, какое-то время теологи пытались защищаться, но эту защиту можно сравнить с усилиями человека, который старается починить покосившуюся оконную раму, не зная, что дом вот-вот обрушится.

Поэтому самые способные теологи, особенно в Германии, вообразили, что лучше бы подпереть христианство какой-нибудь из таких философских систем. Первым плодом этого скрещения философии и теологии стала так называемая теология опосредования, которая постепенно становилась все беднее в теологической и все богаче в философской части, пока, наконец, не подняла голову современная теология, снискавшая себе славу в попытках избавить теологию от ее «ненормального» характера столь основательно, что Христос преобразился в человека, рожденного так же, как мы, и даже не был совершенно безгрешным, а Священное Писание преобразилось в собрание сочинений, по большей части — поддельных, полных всяческих интерполяций и мифов, легенд и басен. Песнь псалмопевца «...поставили знаки свои вместо знамений» они поняли буквально. Всякий признак «анормального» был искоренен, включая Христа и Писание, и признак «нормального» процесса стал единственным критерием истины. В том, что произошло, повторяю, нет ничего удивительного для нас. Тот, кто считает «нормальными» и свою внутреннюю жизнь, и внешний мир, может говорить только так, как он говорит; и, как ученый, он был бы неискренним, если бы представлял все иначе. С нравственной точки зрения, если отвлечься от ответственности такого человека на суде Божием, нельзя возразить против его личных убеждений, при условии, что он не боится добровольно покинуть христианскую Церковь, о какой бы деноминации ни шла речь.

Maar staat zoo en niet anders het scherpe, niet te ontwijken conflict, ziehier dan hoe het Calvinisme ons, bij de spanning en worsteling, uit dit conflict geboren, een onverwinlijk standpunt aanwijst. Het verliest zich daartoe niet in doellooze apologetiek; het leidt den strijd niet af naar een gevecht om een der buitenwerken, maar gaat aanstonds terug op het menschelijk bewustzijn waarvan ook de man van wetenschap als zijn bewustzijn heeft uit te gaan. Dat bewustzijn is, juist tengevolge van het abnormaal karakter der dingen, niet in allen hetzelfde. Ware het normale niet verbroken, alle bewustzijn zou een zelfden klank geven; maar feitelijk is dit niet zoo. In den een spreekt krachtig en sterk het zondebewustzijn, in den ander spreekt het óf zeer flauwelijk, óf ganschelijk niet. In den een spreekt beslist en klaar de geloofszekerheid, als vrucht van wedergeboorte, in den ander ontbreekt zelfs het besef hiervan geheel. En zoo ook in den een weerklinkt luid en op vasten toon het Testimonium Spiritus Sancti, terwijl de ander verklaart hiervan niets te ontwaren. Deze drie, dat zondebesef, deze geloofsverzekerdheid en dit getuigenis des Heiligen Geestes, zijn voor den Calvinist met zijn bewustzijn zelf gegeven. Ze vormen er den onmiddellijken inhoud van. Zonder die drie bestaat 130 zijn zelfbewustzijn niet. Dat wraakt nu de Normalist, dringt zijn bewustzijn aan óns op, en eischt dat we een bewustzijn hebben zullen, aan het zijne gelijk. Iets wat op zijn standpunt niet anders kan. Gaf hij toch toe, dat ons bewustzijn en het zijne kon verschillen, zoo had hij de breuke in het normale erkend. Wij daarentegen dringen hun ons bewustzijn niet op. Want wel houdt Calvijn staande, dat er een zaad der religie in aller hart schuilt, en dat de sensus divinitatis, beleden of onbeleden, in oogenblikken van spanning aller ziel doet beven, maar overigens is het juist zijn stelsel dat het menschelijk bewustzijn in den man die geloof en in den man die niet gelooft, niet kan overeenstemmen, maar moet verschillen. Wie niet wedergeboren is, kan geen wezenlijke kennisse van zonde hebben, en wie niet bekeerd is, kan geen geloofszekerheid bezitten; wie het Testimonium Spiritus Sancti mist, kan niet gelooven in de Heilige Schrift; en dit alles naar de snijdende uitspraak van den Christus zelven: “Wie niet wedergeboren is uit water en geest, kan het Koninkrijk Gods niet zien” zelfs; of ook naar die andere uitspraak van den apostel: „de natuurlijke mensch kan niet verstaan de dingen die des Geestes Gods zijn.” Calvijn verontschuldigt daarom de anderen niet. Eens zullen ze in hun eigen consciëntie overtuigd worden van ongelijk. Maar voor het feitelijke van den toestand hebben we dan toch met tweeërlei menschelijk bewustzijn te doen: dat van den wedergeborene en den niet-wedergeborene; en die twee zijn niet hetzelfde. In het eene is, wat in het andere ontbreekt. De eene kent geen breuke en houdt daarom vast aan het normale, de ander ervoer breuke en omzetting, en heeft alzoo het besef van het abnormale met zijn bewustzijn zelf gegeven. Is nu zijn eigen bewustzijn het primum-verum waarvan elk man van wetenschap noodzakelijkerwijs uitgaat, en moet uitgaan, zoo volgt hieruit dat overeenstemming tusschen beiden niet kan gevonden worden, dat elke poging daartoe vooruit met onvruchtbaarheid is geslagen, en dat beiden niet anders kunnen noch als eerlijke mannen anders mogen, dan elk voor zich een wetenschap van heel den kosmos optrekken die past bij den grondslag die onwrikbaar vastligt in hun eigen zelfbewustzijn.

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 33 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 starting- 34 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.

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 every 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 certainty 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, certainty of faith and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, are constituent elements in the consciousness of every Calvinist. They form its immediate contents. Without these 182 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 own. 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 certainty 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 God”; and also according to the saying of the apostle: “The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God”. 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 acknowledge two kinds of human 183 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 starting-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.

Se o caráter do intenso e inevitável conflito é assim e não de outro modo, vejam então a posição invencível que o Calvinismo aponta para nós no esforço e luta resultante desse conflito. Ele não se mantém ocupado com apologética inútil; não retorna a grande batalha numa escaramuça ao redor de uma defesa externa, mas volta-se imediatamente para a consciência humana, da qual cada homem de ciência deve seguir como sua consciência. Esta consciência, exatamente por causa do caráter anormal das coisas, não é a mesma em todos. Se a condição normal das coisas não tivesse sido quebrada, a consciência de todos emitiria o mesmo som; mas na verdade, este não é o caso. Em um a consciência de pecado é muito poderosa e forte, em outro ela é fraca ou completamente deficiente. Em um a certeza da fé fala com decisão e clareza como resultado da regeneração, outro nem mesmo entende o que ela é. Assim também em um o Testemonium Spiritus Sancti proclama ruidosamente e em tons firmes e fortes, enquanto que o outro declara que nunca ouviu seu testemunho.

Estes três: a consciência de pecado, a certeza da fé e o testemunho do Espírito Santo, são elementos constituintes da consciência de cada calvinista. Eles formam seu conteúdo imediato. Sem estes três a autoconsciência não existe nele. Isto o Normalista rejeita, por isso tenta forçar sua consciência sobre nós e reivindica que nossa consciência deve ser idêntica a sua. Nada mais poderia ser esperado de seu ponto de vista. Pois se ele admitisse que poderia haver uma diferença real entre a sua consciência e a nossa, teria que admitir com isso uma quebra na condição normal das coisas. Nós, pelo contrário, não reivindicamos que nossa consciência seja encontrada nele.

É verdade que Calvino afirma que existe escondido no coração de cada homem uma “semente religiosa”, - semem religionis, e que o “sentimento de Deus”, - sensus divinitatis, confessado ou não, em momentos de intenso esforço mental faz a alma temer. Porém, não é menos verdade que é exatamente seu sistema que ensina que a consciência humana em um homem que crê e num homem que não crê não podem concordar, mas que, pelo contrário, a discordância é inevitável. Aquele que não é nascido de novo não pode ter um conhecimento substancial do pecado e aquele que não é convertido não pode possuir a certeza da fé; aquele que carece do Testimonium Spiritus Sancti não pode crer nas Santas Escrituras, e tudo isto segundo o dizer penetrante do próprio Cristo: “Se alguém não nascer de novo, não pode ver o reino de Deus”; e também segundo o dizer do apóstolo: “O homem natural não aceita as cousas do Espírito de Deus”. Calvino, contudo, não desculpa os incrédulos por causa disso. Virá o dia em que eles serão convencidos em suas próprias consciências.

Mas com relação à presente condição das coisas nós, certamente, devemos reconhecer dois tipos de consciência humana: a do regenerado e a do não regenerado; e estas duas não podem ser idênticas. Em uma é encontrado o que falta na outra. Uma está inconsciente da quebra e conseqüentemente apega-se ao normal; a outra tem uma experiência tanto da quebra como de uma mudança e assim possui em sua consciência o conhecimento do anormal. Portanto, se é verdade que a própria consciência do homem é seu primumverum e por isso deve também ser o ponto de partida para todo cientista, então a conclusão lógica é que é uma impossibilidade que ambos deveriam concordar e que todo esforço para fazê-los concordar está destinado ao fracasso. Ambos, como homens honestos, sentirão o dever de limitar-se a erigir um edifício científico como este para todo o cosmos, o qual esteja em harmonia com os dados fundamentais concedidos em sua própria autoconsciência.

Если рассмотренный конфликт носит столь острый и неизбежный характер, то в возникающей борьбе кальвинизм предлагает занять следующую несокрушимую позицию. Эта позиция не означает занятия бесполезной апологетикой; она не превращает великую битву в пограничную стычку, а сразу же возвращается к человеческому сознанию, из которого каждый человек науки должен исходить. Сознание у всех людей разное. Если бы не было нарушено нормальное состояние вещей, то сознание у всех говорило бы одно и то же; на самом деле это не так. Один человек осознает грех очень ясно и сильно, другой — слабо или совсем не осознает. В одном его вера, плод возрождения, говорит решительно и ясно; другой даже не понимает, что это такое. В одном testimonium spiritus sancti (Свидетельство Святого Духа) звучит громко, а другой заявляет, что он его и не слышал. Так вот, эти три вещи — осознание греха, достоверность веры и свидетельство Святого Духа — существуют в сознании каждого кальвиниста. Они составляют непосредственное содержание его сознания. Без этих трех вещей самосознания просто нет. Это и отвергает «нормалист» и пытается навязать свое сознание нам, заявляя, что наше сознание должно быть таким же, как у него. От него, с его точкой зрения, ничего другого нельзя и ожидать. Если бы он допустил, что возможно реальное различие между его и нашим сознанием, он тем самым допустил бы какой-то определенный разрыв в нормальном состоянии вещей. Мы же не претендуем на то, чтобы думать и чувствовать, как он. Кальвин утверждает, что «семя религии», semen religionis, сокрыто в сердце каждого, а что «чувство Бога», sensus divinitatis, явное или непризнаваемое, при сильном ментальном напряжении заставляет трепетать душу. Но именно система Кальвина учила, что сознание верующего и неверующего не может быть одинаковым, расхождение между ними неизбежно. Тот, кто не рожден заново, не может знать о грехе; тот, кто не обратился, не может обладать определенностью веры; тот, кто лишен свидетельства Духа, не может верить Св. Писанию. Все это соответствует поразительным словам Христа: «Если кто не родится свыше, не может увидеть Царствия Божия», и словам апостола: «Душевный человек не принимает того, что от Духа Божия». Кальвин на этом основании не снимает вины с неверующих. Придет день, когда они убедятся в своей неправоте. Но в настоящий момент мы, конечно, должны признать, что есть два вида человеческого сознания — со-

знание человека возрожденного и сознание невозрожденного человека. Эти два вида сознания никак нельзя отождествить. В одном есть то, что отсутствует в другом. Один не осознает разрыва в естественном ходе вещей и, соответственно, верит в нормальность мира; другой знает по опыту и разрывы, и перемены, а тем самым обладает знанием о «ненормальном». Если сознание человека — действительно его primum verum (первая истина) и, следовательно, должно быть отправной точкой для всякого ученого, то отсюда логически следует, что эти два вида людей не могут прийти к согласию, и попытка примирить их обречена на неудачу. Оба искренне будут считать, что должны создать научную картину мироздания, которая была бы в согласии с фундаментальными данными их сознания.

Ge voelt aanstonds hoe radicaal en principieel deze Calvinistische 131 oplossing van het zoo ingewikkeld en anders licht verbijsterend probleem is. De wetenschap wordt niet onderschat of op zij gedrongen, maar voor heel den kosmos en voor elk deel van dien kosmos gepostuleerd. De eisch wordt gehandhaafd, dat uw wetenschap één geheel vorme. En het verschil tusschen de wetenschap der Normalisten en der Abnormalisten wordt niet gefundeerd op eenig uiteenloopend resultaat van onderzoek, maar op het onloochenbaar verschil, dat het zelfbewustzijn des eenen van dat des anderen onderscheidt. Wat verdedigd wordt is alleen de vrije wetenschap tegenover haar tyrannieke tweeling-zuster. De Normalist poogt ons geweld aan te doen tot in ons eigen bewustzijn. Hij houdt ons voor dat ons zelfbewustzijn aan het zijne gelijkvormig moet wezen, en dat wat er anders en meer in het onze is, zichzelf oordeelt als zelfbedrog. Met andere woorden, juist wat ons, in ons zelfbewustzijn, het hoogst en het heiligst is, en waarvoor ons nooit eindigende dank aan onzen God uit de ziel ontvloeit; dat wat ons kostelijker en zekerder is dan ons leven, wil de Normalist ons ontrooven en leugen in onze eigene ziel heeten. En daartegen nu waakt met koninklijke fierheid het geloofsbewustzijn en de verontwaardiging in ons eigen hart op. Laat men ons in de wereld achteruitzetten en benauwen, maar voor het minst in het heiligdom van ons hart zullen we ons door geen ander de wet laten voorschrijven. De vrijheid van den Normalist, om uit de praemisse van zijn eigen bewustzijn een wel ineensluitende wetenschap op te bouwen, zullen wij niet aanranden, maar ons recht en onze vrijheid om desgelijks te doen, zullen we, als het moet ten koste van elken prijs, verdedigen.

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.

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 everything else we imagine we 184 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 anyone 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.

Vocês percebem imediatamente quão radical e fundamental é esta solução calvinista ao complicado problema; a Ciência não é desprezada ou deixada de lado, mas postulada para o cosmos como um todo e para todas as suas partes. É mantida a reivindicação de que sua ciência deve formar um todo completo. E a diferença entre a ciência dos Normalistas e a dos Anormalistas não está baseada sobre algum resultado diferente da investigação, mas sobre a diferença inegável que distingue a autoconsciência de um da do outro. Ciência livre é a fortaleza que nós defendemos contra o ataque de sua tirânica irmã gêmea. O Normalista tenta violentar-nos até mesmo em nossa própria consciência. Ele nos fala que nossa autoconsciência precisa ser uniforme com a sua e que tudo o mais que imaginamos encontrar em nossas posições está condenado como auto-ilusão.

Em outras palavras, o Normalista deseja arrancar de nós o próprio objeto que em nossa autoconsciência é o mais alto e mais santo dom do qual um rio contínuo de gratidão jorra de nossos corações para Deus. Ele considera uma mentira em nossas almas aquilo que é mais precioso e certo para nós do que nossa vida. Com nobre orgulho nossa consciência de fé e a indignação de nosso coração erguem-se contra tudo isso. Nós nos resignamos ao destino de sermos desrespeitados e oprimidos no mundo, mas nos recusamos a ser forçados por qualquer um no santuário de nosso coração. Nós não criticamos a liberdade do Normalista de edificar uma ciência bem construída a partir das premissas de sua própria consciência, mas estamos determinados a defender nosso direito e liberdade de fazer o mesmo, se necessário for, a qualquer custo.

Теперь вы понимаете, как радикально и существенно решает кальвинизм эту сложную проблему. Он не обесценивает и не отвергает науку, а постулирует ее для постижения мироздания и всех его частей. На его взгляд, наша наука должна образовывать завершенное целое. Различия между науками «нормалистов» и «анормалистов» основаны не на различных результатах исследования, а на неоспоримом различии, которое отличает один вид сознания от другого. Твердыню свободной науки мы защищаем от нападений ее тиранической сестры. «Нормалист» пытается совершить насилие по отношению к нашему сознанию. Он говорит нам, что мы должны думать как он, а все остальное нам просто мерещится и надо осудить этот самообман. Другими словами, «нормалист» хочет похитить у нас то самое, что можно считать наивысшим и священнейшим даром, за который мы непрестанно благодарим Бога. Он называет ложью то, что для нас дороже и бесспорней жизни. Наше сознание этому противится, сердце негодует. Мы согласны на изгойство и гонения, но не допустим, чтобы кто-то диктовал нам условия в святилище нашего сердца. Мы признаем право «нормалистов» созидать хорошо слаженную науку на основе предпосылок их собственного сознания, но и наше право готовы защищать, если нужно любой ценой.

De rollen, en doordringt u hiervan wel, zijn thans omgekeerd. Voor nog niet zoo lange dagen golden de hoofdstellingen van het Abnormalisme voor alle wetenschappen aan schier alle Universiteiten, en de enkele Normalisten die toen reeds principieel hiertegenover stonden, hadden het hard te verantwoorden, om een plek te vinden voor het hol van hun voet. Eerst heeft men ze vervolgd, toen vogelvrij verklaard, daarna hoogstens geduld. Maar thans zijn zij meester van het terrein, beschikken over allen invloed, bezetten negentig procent van alle Katheders, en zoo heeft de 132 Abnormalist, die uit het officieele huis verdrongen is, thans zijnerzijds de plek te zoeken, waar hij het hoofd nederlegge. Vroeger hebben wij hun de deur gewezen, en thans wreekt zich deze aanranding van de vrijheid daarmeê dat zij ons op straat zetten, en de vraag is nu maar of de moed, de volharding, de veerkracht, die hen hun pleit in ’t eind deed winnen, God geve het, in nog verhoogde mate ook bij de wetenschappelijke Christenen zal gevonden worden. Gij kunt, ik zeg meer, gij moogt er zelfs niet aan denken, om aan wie uit een ander bewustzijn leeft de vrijheid van de gedachte, van het woord en van de drukpers te ontnemen. Dat ze van hun standpunt al het u heilige afbreken is onvermijdelijk, en dit juist moet u den scherpen prikkel in de lendenen drijven om ook uwerzijds niet in moedelooze klacht of in mystiek gevoel of in practische veelbezigheid een ontlasting voor uw wetenschappelijk gemoed te zoeken, maar om ook zelf principieel door te denken, ook zelf het woord der wetenschap op te nemen, en ook zelf de drukpers onder den last uwer studiën te doen zweeten. Thans nog te denken: Als wij de Theologie maar redden, geven we willig de profane wetenschap aan onze tegenstanders prijs, is struisvogelpolitiek. U tot redding van uw bidcel te bepalen als heel het overige van uw huis in brand staat, is het werk van dwazen. Reeds Calvijn zag het anders en beter in, toen hij riep om een Philosophia Christiana, en ten slotte is er niet ééne faculteit en in geen der faculteiten één enkele wetenschap, die niet, op wat afstand ook, met uw beginsel saamhangt, en daarom ook niet door ons beginsel moet doordrongen worden. En evenmin moogt ge uw heil zoeken in dat ziende-blind zijn, waarin zoo tal van Christenen een veilig schild achten te vinden. Wat astronomen of geologen, wat physici of chemici, wat zoölogen en bacteriologen, wat historici of archeologen aan het licht brengen, moet, mits losgemaakt van de hypothese die zij er achter schoven, en van de conclusiën, die ze eruit getrokken hebben, als feit door u gecontroleerd, na controleering vastgesteld en in het geheel van uw wetenschap worden opgenomen.

35 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, 36 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.

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 Normalists, who at that time opposed the principle of their antagonists, found it difficult to find a chair. 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, fill ninety per cent of all professorial chairs, and the result is that the Abnormalist, 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 185 the question, if the courage, 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 himself also to go back to his own 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 Philosophia 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 186 archaeologists 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.

Os papeis estão agora trocados. Até não muito tempo atrás as principais posições do Anormalismo eram consideradas como axiomas por todas as ciências, em quase todas as universidades, e os poucos Normalistas, que naquele tempo se opunham ao princípio de seus antagonistas, encontravam dificuldade para achar uma cadeira professoral. Primeiramente, eles foram perseguidos, então declarados ilegais, depois disto quando muito, tolerados. Mas, atualmente, são os mestres da situação, controlam toda influência, preenchem noventa por cento de todas as cadeiras e a conseqüência é que o Anormalista, que foi arrancado da casa oficial, é agora obrigado a procurar por um lugar onde possa depositar sua cabeça. A princípio nós mostramos para eles a porta e agora este assalto pecaminoso sobre sua liberdade é vingado pelo justo julgamento de Deus pelo fato deles nos colocarem no olho da rua.

E assim, a questão é se a coragem, a perseverança e a energia que os habilitou a finalmente vencer seu litígio, serão encontradas agora num grau mais alto com os eruditos cristãos. Que Deus o permita! Vocês não podem privar da liberdade de pensamento, de expressão e de imprensa àquele cuja consciência difere das suas, mais ainda, vocês não podem nem mesmo pensar nisto. É inevitável que eles, a partir de seu ponto de vista, derrubem tudo quanto em sua opinião é santo. Em vez de buscar auxílio para sua consciência científica em queixas deprimidas, ou em sentimentos místicos, ou em trabalho não confessional, a energia e o cuidado de nossos antagonistas deve ser sentida por todo erudito cristão como um claro incentivo a si mesmo para também voltar-se para seus próprios princípios em sua reflexão, para renovar toda investigação científica sobre as linhas desses princípios e para saturar a imprensa com a carga de seus estudos convincentes. Se nós nos consolamos com o pensamento de que podemos sem perigo deixar a ciência secular nas mãos de nossos oponentes, se somos bem-sucedidos apenas em salvar a Teologia, nossas táticas serão as do avestruz. É realmente insensato limitar-se à salvação de seu quarto superior, enquanto o resto da casa está em chamas.

Calvino muito tempo antes já possuía uma convicção melhor, quando cobrou uma Fhilosophia Christiana, e afinal cada faculdade, e nestas faculdades cada ciência em particular, está mais ou menos conectada com a antíteses de princípios, e conseqüentemente deveria estar impregnada por ela. Tão pouco podem vocês procurar sua segurança fechando seus olhos para a atual condição das coisas, naquilo que tantos cristãos imaginam encontrar uma proteção segura. Tudo que os astrônomos ou geólogos, físicos ou químicos, zoólogos ou bacteriologistas, historiadores ou arqueólogos trazem à luz deve ser registrado, -certamente separado das hipóteses que eles têm introduzido por trás e das conclusões que têm tirado, - mas cada fato deve ser registrado por vocês, igualmente, como um fato e como um fato que deve ser incorporado tanto em sua ciência como na deles.

Теперь роли поменялись. Не так давно позицию «анормалистов» считали почти во всех университетах аксиомой для всех наук, а немногих «нормалистов», которые противостояли принципу своих оппонентов, на кафедры почти не брали. Сперва их преследовали, потом просто отвергали, еще позже — в лучшем случае терпели. В настоящее время «нормалисты» — хозяева положения, обладают огромным влиянием и занимают девяносто процентов всех почетных должностей, а «анормалисты», изгнанные из университетов, не знают, где приклонить голову. Прежде мы указывали им на дверь; теперь греховное покушение на их свободу отомщено Божиим праведным судом, и они выгоняют нас на улицу. Найдется ли сейчас среди христианских ученых то мужество, та стойкость и энергия, которые в конце концов привели «нормалистов» к победе? Дай-то Бог! Вы не можете, мало того — вы не вправе и помыслить о том, чтобы отнять у того, чье сознание отлично от вашего, свободу мысли, слова и печати. Исходя из своих взглядов, они низвергают все, что для вас бесспорно, иначе и быть не может. Вместо того чтобы искать облегчения в малодушных жалобах, или в мистических экстазах, или во внеконфессиональной работе, христианскому ученому лучше бы понять, что энергия и деятельность наших противников побуждают его самого вернуться к своим исходным принципам, чтобы обновить в их свете свои научные исследования и наводнить печать потоком основательных исследований. Если мы готовы оставить светскую науку в руках наших противников, лишь бы удалось спасти теологию, то мы прибегаем к тактике страуса. Глупо спасать верхнюю комнату, когда весь остальной дом в огне. Кальвин в давние времена видел глубже, когда обращался к Philosophia Christiana (Христианской философии). В конце концов каждый факультет, а на самих факультетах — каждая отдельная наука, более или менее связаны с противостоянием принципов и, следовательно, пропитаются им. Так же нелепо искать спокойствия, закрывая глаза на действительное положение дел, хотя многие христиане мечтают обрести таким образом надежное убежище. Все, что открывают астрономы и геологи, физики и химики, зоологи и бактериологи, историки и археологи, нужно принимать во внимание, отвлекаясь при этом, конечно, от той гипотезы, на которой они строят свои рассуждения, а также от тех выводов, которые они делают. Всякий факт должен учитываться в качестве факта, который надо встроить и в вашу науку так же, как и в их науку.

Maar juist om dit mogelijk te maken moet het universitaire leven dan ook een radicale verandering ondergaan. Dusver onderstelde het universitaire leven, dat de wetenschap slechts uit 133 één gelijksoortig menschelijk bewustzijn opkomt, en dat alleen kunde en knapheid besliste voor uw aanspraak op een katheder. Aan twee reeksen van universiteiten, die elk met een eigen beginsel van wetenschap tegenover elkander stonden, dacht men langen tijd niet. Sinds echter het wereldbeheerschend conflict tusschen de Normalisten en Abnormalisten principieel doorbrak, begon over een weer de behoefte aan splitsing van het universitaire leven, al naar gelang men wetenschap uit het eene of uit het andere beginsel bedoelde, meer algemeen gevoeld te worden; de heroieke gedachte van Willem de Zwijger toen hij Leiden tegenover Leuven plaatste ²⁾. Het eerst traden te dien einde, ik spreek nu alleen van Europa, de ongeloovige Normalisten op door de stichting van de Université Libre te Brussel. Reeds vroeger was in hetzelfde België de Roomsche universiteit te Leuven, krachtens oude traditiën, tegenover de neutrale universiteiten van Gent en Luik komen te staan. In Zwitserland verrees te Freiburg een universiteit, die nu reeds naam maakte, als belichaming van het Roomsche beginsel. In Engeland volgt men te Dublin hetzelfde stelsel. In Frankrijk staan Roomsche faculteiten tegen de Staatsfaculteiten over. En ook in Nederland verrees te Amsterdam de 134 Vrije Universiteit, ter beoefening van de wetenschappen op den grondslag der Calvinistische beginselen. Trekt nu, naar eisch van het Calvinisme, én Kerk én Overheid, ik zeg niet haar milde hand, maar haar hoog gezag uit het universitaire leven terug, om de universiteit op eigen wortel te laten bloeien, dan zal die begonnen splitsing vanzelf en ongestoord doorwerken, en ook op dit terrein blijken, hoe alleen in vreedzaam uiteengaan van wat in beginsel anti-thetisch is, de waarborg ligt voor bloei, eerlijke positie en goede verstandhouding.

Romes keizers joegen het valsche ideaal na van den éénen Staat, en eerst de splitsing van hun ééne wereldrijk in een veelheid van zelfstandige volken heeft Europa tot hooger ontwikkeling gebracht. Toen geraakte Europa onder de bekoring van de ééne Wereldkerk, tot de Reformatie ook die illusie brak, en sinds het Christelijk levens nergens tot hooger bloei kwam dan in Amerika’s Staten, waar de veelvormigheid een eigen belichaming schonk aan elk afwijkend beginsel. Alleen in de ééne Wetenschap handhaaft zich thans nog de oude vloek der eenvormigheid; maar ook van haar mag geprofeteerd, dat de dagen van haar gekunstelde eenheid geteld zijn, en ook hier zal ten slotte èn het Roomsche èn het Calvinistische èn het Evolutionistische beginsel een eigen wetenschappelijk leven doen ontstaan, en doen bloeien in veelvormigheid van universiteiten.

Er moet systeem in elke wetenschap, samenhang in elk onderwijs, eenheid in elke opleiding wezen. Vrij is alleen wat streng aan zijn eigen beginsel gebonden, alle onnatuurlijke banden kan afwerpen. En zoo zal, dank zij den weg ons door het Calvinisme ontsloten, ook de vrijheid der wetenschap ten slotte daarin triumpheeren, dat elk beginsel de macht erlangt om eigen wetenschap uit zijn wortel te doen opbloeien, maar ook, dat geen wetenschap het hoofd met eere zal kunnen opheffen, zonder voor aller oog het vizier te ontsluiten, en met gulden letters op haar schild het beginsel te doen schitteren, waaraan ze haar kracht ontleent en waarvoor ze leeft.

1) Verkondigers van nieuwe denkbeelden.

2) Dat het stellen van Universiteit tegenover Universiteit ter belichaming van eigen levensbeginsel reeds in de 16e eeuw door de Gereformeerden in practijk werd gebracht, wordt ook opgemerkt door Albert Hallez, zie Studiën en Bijdragen van Moll en De Hoop Scheffer, III, p. 153: Heutzutage wo die Confessionsunterschiede etwas abgeblasst sind, werden auch die Hochschulen und Theologischen Facultäten, an denen die Theologen ihre Bildung suchen, nicht mehr so genau nach Confessionsangehörigkeit ausgewählt. Grosse, geistvolle Lehrer ziehen, oft bestimmt die Nähe oder die Lage an den grossen Communicationswegen, zum Besuch einer Hochschule. Eine Universität „nebenaus” hat dadurch schon eine weniger allgemeine, mehr locale Bedeutung. So war es früher nicht, noch im Anfang unseres Jahrhunderts nicht, noch viel weniger in der Reformationszeit, wo Confession gegen Confession stand; und auf die Unterschiede derselbe nicht wenig Gewicht gelegt wurde, wo darum alle die kleinen Universitäten Altorf, Marburg, Wittenberg, Helmstadt, Rinteln, Duisburg, Frankfort a./O., Herborn u.s.f. florirten um der Richtung willen, welche sie vertraten. Man suchte die Hochschulen auf, welche im Dienste derjenigen Confession standen, welcher man selbst angehörte, wo nämlich entweder die reine Lutherische oder die reine Reformirte Lehre gelehrt wurde; und wo eine Aenderung des Confessionellen Lehrcharacters einer Universität eintrat, da verlor dieselbe ihre Anziehungskraft für ihre bisherige Besucher.

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 37 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 worldChurch, 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 38 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 order, however, to make this possible, university-life has to be subjected again, just as in the days when Calvinism began its splendid career, to a radical change. Of late, university life all over the world 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, like William the Silent when he founded the Leyden University over against that of Louvain, 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 again to be felt more generally on both sides. The first in the field were, (I speak only of Europe), the unbelieving Normalists themselves, who founded the Université 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 neutral-universities of Liege and Ghent. In Switzerland a university arose at Freiburg, renowned, although yet young, as an embodiment of the Roman Catholic 187 principle. In Great Britain the same principle is followed in Dublin. In France, Roman Catholic faculties are pitted against the faculties of the State institutions. And also in the Netherlands, Amsterdam saw the birth of the Free University, 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 be 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 political 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 differentiation 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, that it will 188 split up, and that in this domain also at least the Roman 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 life-system to reap a scientific harvest from its own principle; — and secondly, by refusing the scientific name to whatsoever investigator dare not unroll the colors 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.

Contudo, a fim de tornar isto possível, a vida universitária deve ser novamente submetida à mudança, exatamente como nos dias quando o Calvinismo começou sua esplêndida carreira. Ultimamente, com a vida universitária por toda parte, o mundo presumiu que a ciência cresceu apenas de uma consciência humana homogênea, e que nada exceto a erudição e habilidade determinam se vocês podem reivindicar uma cadeira professoral ou não. Ninguém pensou, como Willian o Silencioso quando fundou a Universidade de Leyden em oposição a de Louvain, em duas linhas de universidades, opostas uma a outra por causa da diferença radical de princípio. Desde então, contudo, o amplo conflito mundial entre os Normalistas e os Anormalistas brotou em plena força, a necessidade de uma divisão da vida universitária começou novamente a ser sentida mais amplamente em ambos os lados.

Os primeiros no campo foram (falo da Europa somente) os próprios incrédulos Normalistas, que fundaram a Universidade Livre de Bruxelas. Antes disso, na própria Bélgica, a Universidade Católica Romana de Louvain, em virtude de velhas tradições, foi colocada em oposição às universidades neutras de Liege e Ghent. Na Suíça uma universidade surgiu em Freiburg, renomada embora ainda jovem, como uma encarnação do princípio Católico Romano. Na Grã-Bretanha, o mesmo princípio foi seguido em Dublin. Na França, as faculdades Católicas Romanas estão competindo com as faculdades de instituições do Estado. E também na Holanda, Amsterdã viu o nascimento da Universidade Livre para o cultivo geral das ciências sobre o fundamento do princípio calvinista.

Se agora, segundo a exigência do Calvinismo, a Igreja e o Estado retiram-se da vida universitária, não digo seus dons liberais mas sua alta autoridade, a fim de que seja permitido a universidade criar raiz e desenvolver-se em seu próprio solo, então certamente a divisão, que já está começando, será consumada por si mesma e sem distúrbio, e neste campo também será visto que somente uma separação pacífica dos adeptos de princípios antitéticos garante o progresso, -progresso honesto, - e entendimento mútuo. Aqui chamamos a História como nossa testemunha. Primeiramente, os imperadores de Roma tentaram concretizar a falsa idéia do Estado único, mas a divisão de sua monarquia universal numa multidão de nações independentes foi necessária para desenvolver os poderes políticos ocultos da Europa. Após a queda do Império Romano, a Europa cedeu ao encantamento da Igreja mundial única, até que a Reforma também dispersou esta ilusão, abrindo assim o caminho para um desenvolvimento superior da vida cristã.

Em parte alguma isto é visto mais claramente do que nos Estados Unidos da América, onde a multiformidade denominacional deu uma incorporação eclesiástica separada para cada diferença de princípio. No conceito de uma Ciência única, a velha maldição da uniformidade ainda é mantida. Mas sobre isto também pode ser profetizado que os dias desta unidade artificial estão contados, que ela se romperá e que ao menos neste campo os princípios Católicos romanos, calvinistas e Evolucionistas farão surgir diferentes esferas da vida científica que prosperarão numa multidão de universidades.

Devemos ter sistemas na ciência, coerência na instrução, unidade na educação. Só é realmente livre a ciência que, enquanto está estritamente limitada a seu próprio princípio, tem o poder de livrar-se de todos os laços artificiais. O resultado final, portanto, será, graças ao Calvinismo que abriu para nós o caminho, que esta liberdade da ciência também triunfará finalmente; primeiramente garantindo pleno poder para cada sistema de vida dominante fazer uma colheita científica de seu próprio princípio; - e em segundo lugar, rejeitando o nome de científico a qualquer investigador que ousar não expor as cores de sua própria bandeira, e não mostrar, adornado sobre seu escudo em letras de ouro, o próprio princípio pelo qual ele vive, e do qual suas conclusões derivam seu poder.

Чтобы это стало возможным, университеты нужно радикально изменить, как и в ту эпоху, когда кальвинизм начал свой блистательный путь. В последнее время университетская жизнь во всем мире базируется на посылке о том, что наука возникает лишь из однородного человеческого сознания, и только от учености и природного дарования зависит, займете ли вы профессорскую кафедру или нет. Даже Вильгельм Молчаливый, основывая Лейденский университет в противовес Лувенскому, не думал о двух ориентациях университетов, противостоящих друг другу в силу коренных различий в принципах. Однако с тех пор всемирный конфликт между «нормалистами» и «анормалистами» разразился в полную силу, и обе стороны снова начали остро ощущать нужду в разделении университетской жизни. Первыми выступили (я говорю о Европе) неверующие «нормалисты», которые основали Свободный Университет в Брюсселе. До этого в той же Бельгии католический Лувенский университет, в силу давних традиций, стал в оппозицию нейтральным университетам Льежа и Гента. В Швейцарии возник Фрибурский университет, прославленный как воплощение принципов католицизма. В Великобритании этому же принципу следуют в Дублине. Во Франции католические факультеты противостоят факультетам государственных учреждений. Амстердам в Нидерландах видел рождение Свободного университета, призванного культивировать науки на основе кальвинистского принципа.

Если, в соответствии с требованиями кальвинизма, Церковь и государство уйдут из университетской жизни (я говорю не об их щедрых дарах, а об их власти), чтобы университет мог развиваться на своей собственной основе, разделение, которое уже началось, будет совершаться само собой и беспрепятственно. И станет очевидным, что только мирное разделение приверженцев противоположных принципов обеспечивает прогресс, подлинный прогресс, и взаимное понимание. Мы призываем историю в свидетели. Сначала римские императоры пытались осуществить ложную идею одного государства, но их вселенская монархия неизбежно распалась на множество независимых наций, чтобы в Европе развились скрытые в ней политические силы. После падения Римской Империи Европа поддалась чарам одной всемирной Церкви, пока Реформация не рассеяла и это заблуждение, открыв путь для более высокой стадии развития христианской жизни. Нигде это не заметно так ясно, как в Соединенных Штатах Америки, где многообразие деноминаций дало каждому различию в принципах отдельную Церковь. Но в идее одной науки давнее проклятие единообразия все еще сохраняется. Однако можно смело сказать, что дни ее искусственного единства сочтены, она распадется, и в этой сфере по крайней мере католический, кальвинистский и эволюционный принципы породят в мире науки различные сферы, которые выразятся в многообразии университетов. Нужны разные системы в науке, согласованность в обучении, единство в образовании. По-настоящему свободно только то, что, строго придерживаясь своего исходного принципа, может освободиться от всех неестественных связей с остальным. Благодаря открывшему нам путь кальвинизму мы придем к тому, что свобода науки в конце концов восторжествует; сначала гарантируя каждой системе полную возможность пожинать научные плоды, исходя из собственного принципа, а затем — отказывая в имени ученого любому исследователю, который не посмел развернуть свое собственное знамя и не написал на своем щите свой девиз, ради которого он живет и из которого его заключения черпают свою силу.

1 Юст Липсий (1547–1606) — лингвист, критик и гуманист. Он стал лютеранином, реформатом и вернулся в католицизм. К концу жизни был историком испанского короля. Тиберий Хемстерхейз (1685–1766), филолог; Ф. Хемстерхейз (1721–1790), племянник Тиберия, философ, моралист. Херман Бурхаве (1668–1738), знаменитый врач.

2 Изобретение телескопа приписывается Липперхею Миддельбургскому около 1600 г.; микроскопа — З. Янсену (1590); термометра, как и барометра — Ц. Дреббелю. Дреббель в 1619 г. представил сложный микроскоп Янсена Иакову I. Антони ван Левенгук (1632–1723) был одним из ученых, успешнее всего освоивших микроскоп.

3 В своей Encyclopedia of Theology, 2, р. 29, д-р Кайпер определяет науку как побуждение, существующее в человеческом духе, к тому, чтобы мир, к которому он органически относится, был пластически отражен в нас, причем так, чтобы это произошло в соответствии с его основными моментами (причинами, порождающими вещами) и логически постигнут в своих отношениях. Ср. с. 168.

4 Фредерик Борромео (1564–1631) кардинал, архиепископ Миланский. Во время голода и мора в Милане он кормил 2000 бедных каждый день.

5 Петр Планций, 1622, св. Стефан называл его «le tres-docte geograph» (очень ученым географом).