the principle of union was, that there should be no discussion of points of faith. The union consists merely in a community of churches and of ministers, and an indiscriminate reception of the sacraments at the hands of these ministers.* But when we remember how very essential

does them no injustice. When indeed I find Wegscheider saying, (p. 431.) that on the subject of absolute decrees, one party has just as good ground in Scripture as the other, though one of course is necessarily false--and presently after giving it as his own opinion, that both are so when I find him, though a Lutheran, asserting (p. 509--11.) that Luther's idea as to the communion was false, and (p. 517.) lowering that sacrament not only below the notions of his own, but below those of the reformed churches, making it only a rite for keeping up a memory of Christ, and a remembrance of his doctrine and death, and for confirming men in their resolution to lead a good life, and even die for the truth, I cannot doubt as to his indifference to the belief of his own church---and when I know that a very slight attention to the various works of his party will show, that these are very general opinions, I cannot feel that I have done injustice to them in citing this union in confirmation of my statement.

* From a book called an Autumn near the Rhine,' it appears that the method pursued is such as to amalgamate the two methods followed by the opposite parties. The Lutherans were accustomed, like the catholics, to use a small wafer, whole; the Calvinists bread, which they broke. They now use in common a large Lutheran wafer, which is broken like the Calvinistic bread, p. 412. (ed. 1818.)

It is curious however that Wegscheider, (p. 516.) though a Lutheran, recommends the use of common and esculent bread, which should be broken into bits, instead of the wafers which under a bar, barous name came into common use in the western church, in the course of the eleventh century.'

I cannot but observe that the clever author of the Autumn near the Rhine' has formed the same conclusions as myself. "The animosity of doctrinal differences,' he says, which thirty years ago denied to the reformed at Frankfort a place of worship in the townhaving now subsided into the most quiescent apathy, this amalgamation of forms was all that remained to be done.' My readers may perhaps wish to know in what part of Germany this union has been effected, Wegscheider (p. 520.) mentions parts of Prussia, the grand duchy

er.

these two professions of faith vary, it must be evident that such an union can only have been effected by an entire indifference on each side to the peculiar tenets of its foundWithout noticing the other differences, great as they were, when we remember that on the important question of the corporal presence, these two churches differ almost as widely as we do from the Romish, it is obvious, that only indifference to their own tenets on the part of the Lutherans, could have induced them to communicate with the Calvinists, and only a persuasion of that indifference could have induced the Calvinists to enter into bonds of union with those who held what was, or ought to have been, in their eyes, a very serious corruption of the purity of the Christian doctrine.

In

On the other hand, the doctrine of the naturalizing party certainly produced very strong and serious disgust. deed, it was impossible to suppose, that the mischief which such doctrines must do, should not be deeply felt and deplored by all who were yet real Christians, who were preserved by stronger principles, and wider views of truth. But, however much inclined to rally in support of the good cause, the unhappy state of the German church, its total want of any centre of union, and of any (practically) definite system of doctrine, afforded them no opportunity of union and combination of force; and each advocate of religious truth was consequently left to defend it in his own Now religion was suffering both in her objective and subjective character, both as an external theory of faith, and a practical amender of the heart. On the one hand, almost every dogma had been either altered or destroyed; and on the other, the practical part of religion was nullified by the subtilty of philosophical reasoning. In a better

way.

of Nassau, the principality of Hainau, the part of Bavaria to the west of the Rhine, the duchies or counties of Anhalt Bernberg, Waldeck and Pyrmont, grand duchies of Baden, and of Hesse-Darmstadt.

B

constituted church then the powers of theological erudition on the one hand, would have been expended in defending the orthodox system of doctrine, and on the other, an appeal would have been made to the affections of mankind, in favour of the guide of their lives, the friend of their youth, their manhood, and their age. But although some of the sounder theologians, especially Storr, certainly

* Let me again here bear my testimony to the high merits of Storr, whose school has been of the highest service in Germany, nor must I omit to mention the respectable names of Reinhardt and Staeudlin. Krummacher, again, Luecke, Tholuck (though he is somewhat enthusiastic) and Winer, have expressed their horror at the system. Meyer, Kelle, Himly, and many writers in the Magazine of Flatt and Suesskind, and the latter writer himself, have all opposed parts of it. The writer in the archives, to whom I have before referred, gives a long list of other names as opponents of the system, to some of whom I must demur. Thus he names Bretschneider, who has attempted to destroy the authenticity of St. John's gospel, and who is very frequently in his other writings any thing but orthodox.

Some of the metaphysical writers have lately also enlisted themselves on the side of Christianity. Koeppen, in his Philosophie des Christenthums, (Leips. 1813.) vol. II. p. 30. has attempted to show the truth of the doctrine of Original Sin on philosophical grounds. A celebrated physician of Leipsic, Dr. Heinroth, has annoyed the rationalists dreadfully, (see the Allg. Lit. Zeit. for Oct. 1823. No. 270.) by a treatise on Anthropology, in which his views of the intellectual and moral part of man are entirely at variance with them, and in unison with the orthodox notions. The masterly nature of the work, and the high reputation of the author, were equally subjects of annoyance with the Rationalists.

There is a work called

Revelation und Theologie by Bochshammer, and one called Die Religion und die Theologie by C. G. Schmid (Stutg. 1822.) of which the writer in the archives speaks very highly.

It is so common to find Rationalist writers oppose one another even on points of importance, that one must not be hasty in ascribing orthodoxy to a writer merely because he is violent on particular occasions against anti-orthodox principles. Thus Gabber, who is at times quite as offensive as any of these writers, is furious in the Neuestes Theol. Journal, vol. IX. p. 285.] against Paulus's method of explaining away some of the miracles.

maintained the old and orthodox principles, with great zeal, the greater number of those who opposed the Rationalists, appear to have considered some parts of the ancient system incapable of defence, and in others, to have dreaded the evils of protracted controversy. Dismayed by the actual evils which surrounded them, they desired to obviate them by any means; and as they were aware that in Semler's school, the commencement of this change of theoretical views had arisen from a desire of assisting the cause, and establishing the superiority of practical religion, they judged, it seems, that the same road should be pursued in defending the ancient faith, which had been followed in attacking it. They, therefore, made their appeal to the feelings and the heart; and such an appeal in such a cause, can never be in vain. But then, the feelings of an individual in favor of neglected religion, may act with respect to others, or to himself. They may rouse him like the Baptist to pour forth the fervor of his indignation on them who had forgotten their God, and attempt the restoration of his neglected worship; or they may impel him in despair at the sight of all around him, to retire within his own bosom, and in the indulgence of mystic meditation to enjoy, at least within, the religious excitement which he seeks in vain without.

The latter was the course of many of the Germans. They resigned themselves to religious meditation, and to that fascinating dream of the mystics in all ages, the notion of an union with God, and an immediate perception of the truths of religion. In truth, as I ob served in my first discourse, the open denial of all value of the reason is the constant, and from the very construction of the human mind, the necessary consequence of the reason's asserting her authority out of her own sphere. History, in fact, testifies to this great truth. The age which produced the scholastic philosophy, produced also one of the earlier schools of mystical theology. And so when the cold and scientific school of Wolf had perhaps sown the

first seeds of the rationalizing philosophy which sprung up afterwards, and the fruit was an attempt to tear away all religion by heartless reasonings, the heart and feelings were effectually roused, and the aversion from these proceedings showed itself in an entire resignation of the whole being, to the dominion of the feelings and senses, in short, to absolute mysticism. And this feeling was nourished in the less-informed class of society, by the constant circulation of enthusiastic tracts,* either original or translated: in the higher class, by the reigning systems of philosophy of the age. Any general inquiry into those schemes of philosophy would be a subject of far too difficult and extended a

Many of these were translations from the trash circulated in this country, by the enthusiasts in and out of the church. Borger says, (De Mysticismo, p. 82.) with some wonder, that the society of Basle in 1814 published 34000 copies of these tracts. What would he have said of our proceeding in England?

I had resolved to give here a compressed sketch of the three systems of philosophy prevalent in Germany as far as they regard religion, such as might have at least done somewhat less injustice to them than the very brief notice in the Discourses, but after entering on it, I found it must extend to such a length as is not consistent with the limits of a note. I am however persuaded that they who will take the trouble of perusing Professor Borger's treatise De Mysticismo, or at least the chapters in Madm. de Stael's works on this subject, will be convinced that although it was assuredly not the design of the two first systems to promote mysticism, there were many elements in them which favoured it. Of the third, it is unnecessary to speak. But I must here mention some views both of Kant and Schelling, which, beyond all doubt, tended to foster the spirit of innovation and rash proceedings with scripture.

In Kant's book on Religion, he takes up the cause of Scripture, and expresses himself in terms of respect and anxiety for the ancient and orthodox belief. But it must be evident to any one who attends to it, that when he speaks of original sin, of redemption, and the other parts of the Christian scheme. he merely retains the words and attaches quite new meanings to them. Then, to make his theology agree with Scripture, he recommends an entirely new system of moral