ARTICLE VII.

GERMAN LITERATURE;-ITS RELIGIOUS CHARACTER AND

INFLUENCE.

THE questions, "How far is German literature destined to influence our own?" and, "How far is such a result desirable?" are, at the present time, deeply interesting to reflecting minds. But they must not be confounded. Our power is limited, and Providence has made some decisions, which, though unwelcome to us, it is useless for us to oppose. The present relations of civilized nations to each other are fixed; we may investigate them historically, we may reflect upon them philosophically, but we may not deliberate upon their expediency, in order to settle the question of their existence.

The interest felt in these inquiries is very different in its character in different classes of men. In some, they inspire pleasure and hope; in others, sullenness and dread. Some are so alarmed as nearly to lose their self-possession, and give the subject over to their passions rather than to their reason; others, with folded arms, look calmly on, without any serious apprehension that the heavenly bodies will be much disturbed by the cloud of dust that is flying below.

It is to be regretted, that so many persons allow themselves to pass a judgment, before taking the trouble to ascertain the facts in the case. They discover a weakness in the German mind, a stain on the tablet of its history, a failure in a certain class of its literary productions, and at once cast out the whole body of German literature as impure and imbecile, and consign all those who speak the language to ignominy, a summary mode of administering justice, as profoundly philosophical and as truly magnanimous and noble, as that of certain German politicians who exhibit the more disgraceful scenes in our presidential elections, and hold them perpetually before their countrymen as a fair sample of American character and American institutions. Another class of men among

VOL. VI.-NO. XXII.

35

us, the clair-voyans of our philosophers, who discover as veritable a paradise in the new worlds successively created at Königsberg, Jena, Munich and Berlin as the young German emigrant does on the banks of the Missouri, only add to the general confusion of the public mind on this subject, by strengthening existing prejudices.

What, it is natural here to ask, is the moral character of the body of German literature, taken as a whole? We answer, it is as pure as the body of English literature, taken as a whole. There are, as all will confess, many productions of the popular German writers which are stained with moral pollution and impiety; would that there were none such among the works of our popular English authors. Were this the place, we might make out a black catalogue of pernicious works in our own literature, sufficiently formidable, one would think, to hold up for the warning of those nations which are beginning to cultivate an acquaintance with the English language. It is truly surprising, that men, who are so justly sensitive in regard to the corruptions of foreign literature, are so forgetful of the poison infused into their own; and that they should, for a moment, suppose that there was any safeguard provided for a young man, by excluding him from the former and leaving him to revel in the latter. The evil is admitted by us, but we deny that there is any great efficacy in the remedy. We maintain, that there is just as much cause to tremble for India, in view of the flood of immoral books which the British residents are pouring in upon those young natives who are nobly struggling to emerge from a state of barbarism, as for any class of men in our country who are opening their eyes upon the fresh productions of the German intellect. In order to exhibit the religious character of German literature more clearly, it will be necessary to direct the attention of the reader to two or three other classes of productions.

We will next mention the scientific works of the GerWe think we hazard nothing in the assertion, that the German philosophers, from the time of the Reformation to the present day, have, in general, been more under the influence of the Bible than the English philosophers. Never did pure deism prevail among the former, as it did among the latter before the French revolution. Never were the standard works of the one so deeply dyed

with a total infidelity, as those of the other at a certain period in English history. The atheistical doctrines of the French philosophers never found a permanent home in Germany; the flippant Illuminati of the age of Frederic the Great could not retain their hold on the contemplative mind of the German philosophers. During the triumph of Rationalism, only a modified deism found general currency; and even the system-makers in speculative philosophy, who, in recent times, have shown themselves the most daring in their speculations, have found by actual experiment, that no philosophy which abjures Christianity can maintain an existence in Germany. In thus pointing out the limit beyond which infidelity has not gone, we have no wish to palliate its enormity in the forms in which it has actually existed.

Whatever Rationalistic elements can be found in many German historical productions,-and these, we admit, are widely disseminated, it may be safely affirmed, that no modern nation has such a proportion of standard works in history written by Christian men and in a Christian spirit, as the German. While England boasts of her infidel Humes, and her Gibbons, Germany has her von Müllers, von Hammers, and Heerens, her Ritters, von Raumers, Niebuhrs, Leos and Rankes. Few German historians of the highest character have written in the manner of Gibbon, and none with the sentiments of Hume. We regret to say, that one of the most exceptionable in this respect has recently been selected for translation; we refer to von Rotteck.

But as the chief objection to the study of the literature. of Germany relates to its theology, we will direct our attention to that point. There is, indeed, an unholy boldness in the biblical researches and criticisms of the modern Rationalists, and a recklessness of consequences in regard to doctrines, which render their productions an object of dread. Let this evil stand out in all its prominence, and the just considerations drawn from it be laid to heart. But let us not hastily come to conclusions which, upon maturer reflection, or after unsuccessful experiments, must be abandoned. We may in various ways counteract this evil, but we can neither annihilate it nor avoid it. It exists, and exists under such circumstances, and in such connections, that we cannot dispose

of it by neglect. A parallel case may be found in the Greek and Roman classics. Much has been said, from the time of Tertullian to the present, of the unchristian character and tendency of these ancient productions. At one time, the Christian fathers were recommended as a substitute; at another, in the age of Cassiodorus and Isidore, new Latin classics were fabricated, as rivals of those heathen immortals; at a later period, learned Jesuits expurgated and published in their own edifying way the ancient Greek and Ronan authors; and last of all, attempts have been made to abolish the study of the classics, and to seek out a new and better mode of disciplining the youthful mind. And what is the result of all this effort, and all these experiments? A deeper conviction than ever of the indispensable necessity of a thorough study of the classics. Without them, no one can be a learned man. They are the basis of modern culture, and stand inseparably connected with the learned professions. The same result, at least for the present age, will follow all the projects and artifices for ridding ourselves of German literature. Although it is not to be compared with ancient literature, it still has, with reference to us, a preeminence which renders it impossible for us to dispense with it. The fact, that both England and America depend mainly on Germany for their critical aids in the study of the Old and New Testaments, for their Hebrew and Greek grammars, lexicons, concordances, antiquities, commentaries, &c., is conclusive evidence on this point. He who will not study a German book cannot be a critical student of the original Scriptures. The experiment has been tried over and over again. All the teachers in our theological seminaries can bear witness to the truth of our remark.

But it is too often forgotten that the early theological literature of Germany, from the time of Luther to that of Mosheim and Michaelis, is as thorough and as sound as that of England in her palmiest days.* Where did the

*The following are the representatives of this period, viz., Luther, Melancthon Oecolampadius, Brentz, Bucer, Bullinger, Chemnitz, Chytraeus, Andreae, Hutter, Tarnov, Gerhard, E. Schmidt, Calixtus, Glassius, Calov, S. Schmidt, Geyer, Kortholt, Quenstädt, Spener, Seckendorf, Franke, Carpzov, Sagittarius, Ittig, Arnold, Jablonsky, Hollaz, Löscher, Fabricius, J. C. Wolf, Buddeus, Pfaff, Cyprian, Iken, Bengel and Walch.

English Reformers and the earlier English translators of the Scriptures resort for aid? To Wittenberg. Have the men who so unhesitatingly condemn all the German theologians, ever examined the works of the writers mentioned in the note? It has always been supposed, that a good theological library could not be made up without the German theologians and critics. Our older scholars have always been accustomed to place the Latin productions of the Germans side by side with those of the Genevans and Dutch. It is altogether a modern idea, that the literary labors of the old German divines are nothing but chaff; and it is high time that this loud talking at random be put to silence.

We hear it often said,-so often that some begin to believe it is true, that there are no men of sound sense among the Germans. Was not Luther a man of sound sense? Were not Buddeus and Fabricius men of sound sense? Were not Michaelis and Mosheim; were not Leibnitz and Lessing, Herder and Schiller, Heyne and Planck; are not Gesenius and Heeren, Gauss and Savigny, Humbolt and Ritter, Hermann and Böckh, men of sound sense? Is not Prince Metternich a man of sound sense? Can England or America show men of superior practical talent to the Austrian statesman? Has any one man done for education in either of these countries what von Altenstein has done for Prussia, or what Münchhausen did for Göttingen? One would be led to suppose, from the declamation that has become current among us, that a man must necessarily be a weak and silly enthusiast, if born in Germany. Not one in a hundred who assume such consequential airs and sit in judgment on the most highly cultivated nation of Europe, has even the semblance of an acquaintance with the facts sufficient to qualify him to judge in such matters.

There is another fact of which many seem to be ignorant. It is, that the English nation has never turned its attention to the subject of Christianity to the extent that Germany has. Theology has always, if we except the middle ages, been subordinate to other studies in England, whereas it has always held the first rank among the sciences in Germany. There are probably not less than twice as many thorough expositions of the nature and genius of Christianity in the German language, as there