[Image]  [Hi-Res Image]

Page 288

tical, and purely Biblical in character, was repentance. He championed the cause of Sabbath observance in his De rusttijdt ofte tractaet van d'onderhoudinge des christelijken rushdachs, die men ghemeynlyck den Sondach noemt (Rotterdam, 1662), and he was the first Reformed pastor in Holland to advocate foreign missions, as shown in his Ecce Homo, ofte ooghen-salve voor die noch Bitten in blintheydt des ghemoedts (Middelburg, 1622) and Davids danckbaerheyt voor Gods xoeldadicheyt (Amsterdam, 1624). Some of his sermons, etc., were translated into English, such as his Paulus klacht over zijne natuurlijke verdorvenheid (Middelburg, 1653; Eng. transl., Paul's Complaint against his Naturall Corruption," by C. Harman London, 1621). He exercised an influence far beyond Holland, and with his brother Eewoud may be styled the forerunner of the Dutch pietists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

3. Maximiliaan Teellinck: Eldest son of the preceding; b, at Angers (190 m. s.w. of Paris) 1606; d. at Middelburg Nov. 26, 1653. At the age of twenty he was made minister of the English congregation at Flushing, whence he was called in the following year (1628) to Zierikzee, while from 1640 until his death he was Reformed minister at Middelburg. He published many of his father's works, among them De worstelinghe eenes bekeerden sondoers (Flushing, 1631; with a dedication valuable for its biographical material) and Laetste predikatien (Amsterdam, 1647). He himself was best known for his political and polemic writings, although mention should be made of his Verclaringhe ende toeeygheninge over de thien gheboden ende het ghebedt des .Herren (in the second edition of his father's Huys ~boeck, Middelburg, 1650) and Christelicke onderwijsinge in de leerstukken des geloofs (1652).

4. Jan Teellinck: Youngest brother of the preceding; b. at Middelburg; d. at Leeuwarden (70 m. n.e. of Amsterdam) May 7, 1674. He resided for a considerable time in England, being minister at Maidstone, and in 1641 was called to the church at Wemeldinge, Zeeland. In 16468 he was supply to the English congregation at Middelburg, and in 1649 he was called from Wemeldinge to Flushing, where he remained until 1654, when he became minister at Utrecht. Here he, so stubbornly resisted the right of secular authorities to interfere with church affairs, especially in the controversy over benefices, that in 1660 he was forbidden to remain in the city or province of Utrecht. He at once became minister in Arnemuiden, near Middelburg, and in the following year was called to Kampen, whence he went as minister to Leeuwarden in Apr., 1674, a month before his death. Together with his brother Theodorus (d. 1660), he began an edition of his father's works, of which three volumes appeared between 1659 and 1664, and wrote, besides a sermon, Den vrugtbaermakenden wynstok Christus (3 parts, Kampen, 1666-67). His spirit and tendency were essentially identical with those of his father and

Teeldinck, Amsterdam, 1898; H. Heppe, Geschichte des Pietirmua wnd des Mysticismua . . . der Niederlande, pp. 108 sqq., Leyden, 1879; Ritachl, ut sup., pp. 124 aqq.; F. Nagtglas, Levensberichten van Zeeuwen, vol. ii., Middleburg, 1893. And on 4: G. Brolikhert, Vlistinpsche %erkhemd, pp. 123-130, Vlissingen, 1758.

TELEOLOGY: The term expressing the doctrine that the activity in nature is with reference to ends. Its interest for the religious consciousness lies in its bearing on the theistic proof-the teleological argument. This, the most ancient of all the theistic proofs, received classic expression in Paley's Natural Theology, and the Bridgewater Treatises (see PALSY, WILLIAM; and BRIDGEWATER TREATISES). The argument to be valid would have to run as follows (cf. I. Kant, Critique of the Pure Reason, pp. 536-539, London, 1897): (1) the universe is full of adjustment of parts and of adaptation of means to ends unspeakably rich in content and infinite in extent; (2) the various elements so coordinated and adjusted have in themselves no tendency to the results described, but are related and arranged by a rational (external) disposing principle according to certain ideals and aims; (3) this arrangement can be explained only by reference to an (external) intelligent cause acting freely; (4) the unity of the cause can be certainly inferred from the unity of the reciprocal relations involved in experience and analogy. This argument presupposes that the genera and species of all living beings were created with complete organs and fixed functions, as, e.g., eye and ear. In Christian theology it has been accepted as the teaching of the Scriptures and hence final for rational thought. The effort was made to verify the argument by appeal to existing world facts. While the principle of this proof has never been invalidated, yet in its classical form it has been found liable to serious if not fatal objections. (1) From the changed interpretation of the Genesis story. (2) At best it proves not a creator, but an external and arbitrary contriver (cf. J. Caird, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, pp. 139-153, London, 1880). (3) Since every individual end is an integral part of the final end, and the final end is hidden from thought, a perfect teleology is impossible (cf. F. Paulsen, Introduction to Philosophy, pp. 158180, New York, 1898). (4) The existence of sin has never been reconciled with a teleological view of the world. The theory of evolution has invalidated the traditional form of the argument, but it has reinstated it in a far more significant and impressive form. It has infinitely increased the evidence of ends and adaptations in nature; it has proposed a new theory of the way in which these ends are realized; it has indefinitely lengthened the processes of this adaptive activity; it has transferred the scene of the activity from that of externality to that of immanence-the teleology is essential and is best illustrated in the animal organism. Whether the cause thus active is infinitely self-conscious

with purposeful forethought, can not be fully ascertained by the teleological argument alone. Its task is far more modest. It is not demonstrative but indicative. It first inquires if there is evidence of cosmic activity toward ends, and