ROSE'S STATE OF PROTESTANTISM IN GERMANY.

—o—

Page 1.-The theology of the Protestant churches of Germany presented a very singular spectacle during the last half of the preceding century, and the commencement of the present. A very large majority, of the divines of these churches rejected, in a word, all belief in the divine origin of christianity, and anxiously endeavoured to instil into others the opinions which they had embraced themselves. They had possession of far the greater number of divinity professorships, in the many universities of Germany; and they had almost exclusively the direction of the literary and religious journals, a class of publications of more influence and importance in Germany than among ourselves. By the unsparing use of the means thus afforded them, and by an infinite quantity of writings, addressed to men of all classes and all ages, they succeeded in spreading their views over the surface of society. How deep the disease went among the lower orders it is not easy to ascertain. But it appears that after a time, a spirit of almost entire indifference to religion manifested itself among all classes. The churches were thinly attended, the Sabbath little honoured, the Bible much neglected. These melancholy phenomena appear to me to deserve and demand the attention of every Christian community, and I am convinced that in this country, it is very little known how far the evil extended. * *
The divines, to whom I have alluded, have, with the characteristic industry of their nation, published laborious works in almost every department of theological inquiry. Although they rejected, as I have said, all belief in the divine origin of christianity, they retained the name of christians, and the language and profession of christianity. Since our intercourse with the continent has become free, many of the works of these divines have found their way into the hands of English students in divinity. It appears to me, therefore, indispensable, that these students should have a clear conception of the principles of such writers, that they may not, by the deceptive use of christian phraseology be betrayed, at a period of life when their own judgment is not matured, into conclusions wholly subversive of christianity. * *
These are, I think, very important objects; but I have others not less important. I have shown in the introduction what is the proper province of the human reason with regard to revelation. Now the pride of the heart is perpetually tempting the reason to transgress her proper limits and go out of her proper province; and wherever the temptation is not over come, the most serious evils ensue. The recent theology of the German Protestants forms a striking proof of the truth of both these assertions. They judged of the truth of Revelation by its accordance with certain views of their own, which they falsely considered as immutable and universal principles of reason. This was their first and last and great error; and it led them to a total rejection of revelation."
Page 92.-8-"I now proceed to give some account of the tenets of this very remarkable school, with out being solicitous to enquire whether the order in which I have arranged these opinions corresponds with the order of their rise and formation. In different minds that order was probably different, and what I am concerned to shew is the object which was aimed at, and how far, that object was attained. My allegation against the German Protestant Divines then is, that (from what causes I do not determine) the peculiar and positive doctrines of Christianity had lost all value in their eyes, and that they sought to depress Christianity itself to the level of a human invention, and its doctrines, at best, to a repetition of the doctrines of natural religion. They had determined that reason was to possess not a negative, but a positive right of decision on all matters of belief; they had laid down, as I before stated, what they considered as immutable principles of reason, and by the standard of those principles they proceeded to enquire into the pretensions of Christianity. Whether they examined the general notion of a revelation, considered the nature of the Christian revelation in particular, or enquired into its record in scripture, their claims to inspiration, and to credulity, or their contents, the result of all these examinations was, (as the result of any examination conducted on these principles must be) a determination that Christianity had little or no pretence to the character of a Divine religion. * *
I shall begin with showing what were the opinions of the Rationalists with respect to the general notion of a Revelation. When these philosophers began to examine and criticise the old notion of a revelation, that is to say, information communicated by the immediate operation of God on the senses, they first expressed a doubt whether a revelation in that sense were possible, or rather, whether any possible evidence could prove it."
Page 164.-" It will be sufficient to say, that they who wish to form a notion of the Rationalizing method of explaining the doctrines of scriptures as to a saviour, an atonement and all the consequent doctrines, need only turn to the page of ecclesiastical history for a record of the various heresies of the early ages, and that they will also find a tolerable picture of them in the most extreme notions of the most violent English Unitarians." * *
Page 170.-"Starck then makes the following remarkable statements as to the morality enforced by some of the Rationalists. ' I have actually perceived that those same divines who have placed the essence of religion so entirely in morality as to forget, or eliminate, by little and little, all the fundamental truths of faith, now attack morality itself, and attempt to shake it in every way. When the divinity of the scriptures and the necessity of a belief in its truths are denied, it is impossible but that the morality deduced from it must also suffer. What esteem can be paid for the maxims of a religion, the founder of which, according to the notions of modern Protestants, was nothing but a magician and enthusiast, giving himself a name and qualities that he did not possess, suffering his actions to be transformed into miracles, and consequently adding falsehood to fanaticism. What regard could be had for the maxims of a religion preached by men full of prejudices, who did not even understand their master, and whose writings known under their names (?) are falsely attributed to them? Read the first and third number of the second part of the magazine of the late Hencke of Helmstadt, and the third number of the first part of his Eusebia, and you will there find that " monogamy, and the prohibition of extra-matrimonial connexions, must be reckoned among the remains of monachism, that this doctrine rests upon a blind faith." Is it possible to give greater facility to every species of disorder ? One of your journalist theologians, Scherer, has not hesitated to declare, in the first number, page 6, of the preface of his ' Biblical Investigator,' that " Religion has nothing at all to do with duties." What dreadful consequences may be drawn from such a maxim ! Hear what the Superintendant Cannabich says in his Criticism of Practical Christian doctrine, p. 185. " A moderate * * [here modesty obliges us to draw a veil] out of marriage, is no more immoral than in marriage." He adds, that "it is to be avoided merely because it shocks the customs of the persons with whom we live, and that (because) the excesses committed in it are often punished by the loss of reputation and of health." * * *
I speak not here of the published dissertations which might be said to be too abstruse for the public —I speak not again merely of the popular treatises where these doctrines are propounded, though to them the appeal is just and fair—but I assert on the faith of public recorded, as well as private testimonies, that these doctrines were publicly taught from the pulpit. Nay, I have not seen any contradiction to this from any of the party themselves except as to the generality of the usage. They allow its frequency, though they attempt to show that the indifference to religion, which the all allow exists in their church, is not imputable to that cause. But this is not all—They allow too that this wretched mass of abomination was offered to the young in the shape of religious instruction. And the real fact is, that in the Gymnasia, the public instructors detailed to the tender years of childhood all that they could comprehend of it, and the lesson was repeated by the pastor, when according to the custom of the Lutheran church, the young were sent to him previously to the holy rite of Confirmation to receive from the minister of God's word those solemn lessons which were to prepare them for their first attendance at the holy Communion of their Saviour's body and blood, and for the busy scenes of worldly temptation on which they were about to enter. The most moderate of all the printed instructions for Confirmation which I have happened to see inculcate pure Unitarianism. But there are other books for the young, where the attacks upon Christianity, which I have been detailing, were too plainly stated to be misunderstood, and where a virulence truly infamous was shown in raking together all the most distorted views and false representations of the plans and purposes of our Lord and his apostles. And this was the food given to the young heart to feed on,—to nourish it up to all the duties, all the aspirations, all the hopes, all the holiness of an immortal being. I cannot but add a single word as to the persons who were conspicuous in this career of absurdity and wickedness. It must be a matter of deep regret that such a remark can be made with truth; but as I have been reproached with noticing attacks on religion in Germany, which were considered only in the same light as the attempts of Carlisle and Hone in this country, it is necessary to observe that the majority of the writers to whom I allude were in their day the first in station in the church and Universities, and obtained the greatest notice and reputation among their contemporaries. It is a little unfortunate for the remark to which I allude that the persons whom I have brought forward as the foremost of the Rationalists are precisely those whom the most considerable of the Church historians of Germany, Schroekh, produces in his history of the past and present century. I have purposely gone over a large part of Schroekh's work lately, and have given many extracts from it, in order to shew that he thought the persons whom I have noticed so considerable as to analyse their works, and give a view of their literary characters. When I recite the names of Semler, Bhahrdt, Cannabich,Henke, Bauer, Eckermann, Scmid of Jena, Paullus, Eichkhorn, Ammon, De Wette, Wegscheider, Tieftrunk, with many others, I feel at least sure that they who know anything of the history of theology in Germany for some years past will know that these men occupied the largest share of public attention in their class and time, and that they were not mere vulgar retailers of blasphemy, despised by all the decent part of mankind, I must add moreover in contradiction to another statement made with respect to these persons, that with very few exceptions they mere ministers of the Gospel, Professors of Theology, or Lecturers in Divinity.**

NOTE p. 51.-In the North American Review for July 1824,'vol. x. p. 117. ' It is the English Infidel writers, moreover, who laid the foundation not only for the school of their successors in France but for the modern German divinity, which in any common acceptation of terms, is another form of infidelity. The first lines of that scheme which was imperfectly shadowed out by Semlar, and has been filled up by Eichhorn and his followers, and which, with much variety in details, insists on denying anything supernatural to belong to Christianity, may be very clearly traced in the works of Toland and Collins. I should be inclined to think that Mr. Everett, who spent some time at Gottingen, was the author of this article.
NOTE p. 100.--The following particulars of the parts of both Testaments, which have been attacked by the German divines, may be convenient though I fear it is defective. With respect to the Old Testament, we find many of them rejecting it altogether as a source of religious knowledge. * *
Wegscheider, (Instit. Theol. Christ. p.118), and others accede to Aben Ezra's notion of the Pentateuch not being the work of Moses. Wegschiedar says that Eichhorn, Jahn, and Rosenmuller, think that the greatest part was the work of Moses * *
These writers do not agree to what age to refer the Pentateuch; some say to Esra, others to a far earlier age. The notion as to Esra's age, which Rosenmuller adopts on the ground of the exact similarity of the style to that of Esra and Nehemiah, is positively rejected, and with contempt, by Doderlain on the ground of their difference (Inst. Theol. Christ. I. p. 132, chap. ii. tom. 11. § 88.) Doderlein, however, and others, who think the Pentateuch the work of Moses, allow only the law to be divine. The rest they think, made up of mythi, family pedigrees, rhapsodies; in memory of illustrious men and things, and note books or memoirs of the religion of the founders of the nation. This they think clear from' Numbers xxi. 26, 57, and from the diversity of style,&e. See Doderlein ubi supra, p. 141. §39, and Bauer's edition of Glass's Philogia Sacra, tom. II. Sect. 2. p. 867. The reader, who has patience end curiosity, may refer to Eichhorn's Repertorium, Parts IV. and V. for some articles on the books of Moses, especially one called Urgeschicte. He will find there too a pleasing speculation of Rosenmuller's on the Fall. He says that it is only a sort of translation of an ancient historical painting (such an were in use before the invention of letters) into language, (Part V. p. 168-185). Professor Herbst of Tubingen adopts a middle theory, conceiving that the law and the greater part of the history were written by Moses, but its fragments, and that the Pentateuch was arranged by Esra. His proofs are derived from the repetitions both in the law and historical part, and the alleged contradictions between parts of the history. * *
Generally, the authors of all the historical books and of Job are unknown (Wegscheider, p. 117). and they were compiled from public monuments, and acts and memoirs, so that it would be absurd to speak of their being inspired. (Doderlein, p. 132. Bauer, p. 367.) The principal aim of their authors was to insist on the external observation of the law, and to trace every misfortune to some neglect of it, (Bauer, p. 3869) ' That the historical credit of the books of Chronicles is very doubtful,' says Wegscheider (p; 119) with great coolness, ' has been lately demonstrated by Gramberg (Die Chronik nach ihrem Gesch. Charakter und ihrer Glaubwur digkeit gepruft. Hall. 1823) after De Wette (Beitrage sur Einleitung in das A. T. 1.) ; they have been defended by Dahler (De Libror. Paraleip. auctor. et fide Histor. Argent. 1819.) Vogel of Halle, as I learn from Schroekh, vol. VIII. p. 390, rejected Esther, the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the nine last chapters of Ezekiel, principally because they are not referred to in the New Testament. For Michaelis's suspicions see the Orienta liseche Bibliothek. P. 11. p. 1. With regard to the prophecies, it will be seen from Rossenmuller's commentary on Isaiah, (Part Ill. vol. 1, p. 4, and p. 459), that he considers that book as made up by one writer out of the minor works of several, which is also the opinion of Eichhorn and many others. See also Gesenius Commentar. 'inerd. Jesaia, vol. 1. Leips. 1821, and De Weote's Emleitung, p. 286. From Rosenmuller also, on chap. ix. of Zechariah, or Bertholdt's Isag. Histor. Orit, in Vet. Test. Part IV. p. 1707, No. 1, or De Wette ubi supra, p. 337, it it appears that many maintain that all of that book after chap, viii. is not the work of Zechariah. Jonah, which Rosenmuller takes to be the mere repetition of the Mythus of Hercules swallowed by the sea monster, he says was not written by Jonah, but by some one who was contemporary with Jeremiah. See. Ro., Part VII. vol 1I. 359. I see by Weigscheider that the book of Daniel is not ascribed to that prophet. He refers to Bertholdt's 'Daniel sus dem Hebr. araemischen neu ubersetzt] 2 Parts, Erlan. gen., 1806. The rest of the prophecies are, I believe, allowed to be the work of those whose names they bear. But many after Eichhorn deny that the Prophets enjoyed any supernatural revelation, and say that they were very clever and experienced men, likely from their abilities to foresee future events, and that from their purity of manners they were used as instruments of Providence to check a guilty age. See Doderlein I. p. 146. Eichhorn Ein. leitung in des A. T. Part III.
NOTE p. 151.-Scherer represents the prophets of the old testament as so many Indian jugglers, who made use of the pretended inspiration of Moses, and the revelations of the prophets, to deceive the people, He treats those who have still any regard for the prophecies of the New Testament as enthusiasts and simpletons, calls all the predictions respecting the person of the Messiah nonsense, accuses the prophets of being cunning deceivers, and says that the belief of those prophets brought, and has preserved incredulity on earth. This precious work is praised by the Allgem. Deutsche Bibliothek. LXIX, p. 228) and 238, as a very commendable book, inasmuch as it contributes to dissipate the shades of ignorance, blindness, and folly. But there is a book called Moses and Jesus, by Buchhols, published at Berlin in 1803, in which Moses especially is abused, and accused first of deceit, and then of terrorism. Janisch also (Univers, liberblick der Estwlcklung der Menschengeschlechts) makes the same charge, and says that the Levities were the satelites and executioners of Moses, whom he used for the purpose of establishing his power. This man was a preacher at Berlin.
NOTE, p. 166,—Cannabich, who was a superintendent (one of the highest dignities in the Lutheran Church) attacked the doctrines of the Trinity, Original Sin, Justification, the Satisfaction of Christ, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, as taught in his own church. * * *
For the opinions of Plank and others on original sin, and other doctrines, see this latter work, p. 145--148. Wegscheider (p. 274 et seq.) says, that the Trinity, Incarnation, and Descent of the Spirit are positively absurd, and p. 277 and 370--2) that Christ was a mere man. The doctrine of the Trinity was not established for nearly the three first ages. (So Cannabich says that it is a new doctrine without foundation, and contrary to reason, and that it may be removed. The doctrine of the Fall, and of Original Sin, is set aside by Wagscheider (p. 850), entirely; one reason is given, which is curious. Except St. Paul, no sacred writer clearly makes mention of it.
NOTE, p. 174.-The Rationalist principles were taught in the pulpit, while some of the Rationalists (in compliance by the way with their recorded opinions) preached upon the useful topics of agriculture, &c. &c. So we find in Denmark, that during the Rationalist period there, the pulpits resounded with these wretched doctrines. The history of Rationalism in Denmark is most curious, as an illustration of what happened in Germany. It will be found in a series of papers in the Evangelische Kirchen Zeitung for Dec. 1827, July 1828, and August 1828.

 Morning Chronicle 3 August 1844, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article31743304