been obtained unless the principle of Rationalism had been allowed to develope itself to its natural fulness. Had the German Evangelical Church held her doctrines in the shape of an inherited dead capital (as is the case in other Churches), or had some secular or ecclesiastical power excluded Rationalism at once, the living progress, of which we speak, would have been at an end. Under such circumstances, the false conceptions of Christianity against which that power had been exerted, would have been strengthened by opposition, and instead of allowing the Controversy to elicit a body of doctrine still more purified and in stricter conformity with the living principle of Christianity, a dead notional Orthodoxy, not unfrequently fostering within itself the seeds of the Rationalism which force had apparently banished and extinguished, would have been entailed on the Church. Suppose, again, that this principle of rejection had been allowed full sway; every analogy of history shows us what would have been the result: at first, Rationalism in its grossest form would have been banished; yet it would have reappeared in some other shape. Here again we should see people applying some more decided measure to remove from the Church the very last seed of Rationalism, till, by the repeated process of purification, only that class of minds would remain in it who can press themselves into a dead, inflexible, dogmatic frame. Let us not compare Germany with those countries in which the tendency to an outward, practical,'activity predominates, and where, as soon as a lively faith obtained the victory over unbelief, Theology stept in with its scientific forms, and, without having gone through such a crisis as ours, continues to rule according to settled and unchangeable views. The German mental character absolutely requires that advancing science and practical life should be completely amalgamated: the peculiarities of other nations cannot illustrate our case let us therefore abstain from bringing England and Scotland as examples fit to guide us on this point.

"Our respected Reviewer asserts that the Faculty of Divinity has been the fountain-head from which Unbelief has overflowed Germany. It must certainly be expected that where free vehicles of the living and active spirit of each succeeding age exist, they should be the main instruments to bring forth such portions of Error and Truth, as the progressive activity of each period elicits. So it was indeed that the Faculty of Theology established the dominion of a withering Scholasticism; so it was that the Faculty of Divinity, in the beginning of the fifteenth century, produced that agitation at Prague, which roused a dead Faith into life; so it was that the Faculty of Divinity accom

plished the Reformation one hundred years later. No: we should not bring such partial accusations against any one class or profession. All are liable to similar charges. If the mass of the people were animated by a living Faith, whatever theoretical Unbelief might proceed from Divines, would find a check in the godly power of that Faith. If the people were led by a truly pious spirit, their influence would be felt by the Divines themselves, so as to help them in the development of scientific Theology. I fully agree with the Reviewer in what he says with respect to the reaction of the lately awakened Christian spirit. But by Christian Spirit, I understand no other than that which proceeds from a Faith which shows itself through Love; such as exerts itself within the limits of each man's walk of life; such as employs itself in amending whatever is amiss in that respective walk; such as fully perceiving how much Christians, of the same condition, fall short of the heavenly standard proposed to them, is too much occupied with the difficulties of its own task, to go about spying out faults in the work of others. I certainly cannot believe that this kind of Christian Spirit would be promoted by inviting the Laity to dogmatize and argue upon the present theological differences of opinion: for it is very probable that while their zeal was raging on these points, their own duties might fall into neglect. Censure of others is intimately connected with self-approbation; and, even without our knowing it, our pride may be revelling in the condemnation which we pass upon our brethren. We cannot indeed wish for the renewal of the scenes which in the fourth century took place in Constantinople; when the Arian Controversy occupied the highest and the lowest classes; when nothing else was heard in the shops of bakers, and the booths of old Clothesmen, though a general indifference to practical Christianity possessed the people in exact proportion to the controversial activity.

"Following the steps of the Review, I come now to the second point, namely the interference of the secular power with the process which unfolds the principles of Theological learning. I might indeed refer myself to several principles, directly connected with this point, as they have been stated above; but I will consider the question by itself. In the first place, I fully agree with the Reviewer as to the right and duty of every Government to see that nothing opposed to justice, or dangerous to public order, lurks in the character and principles of any Christian Society. But I cannot approve the ground on which the Reviewer asserts this right of inspection-namely the union 'which not long since the Demagogues had formed with Rationalism.' Here, first of all, I conceive it a clear duty, where a

question turns upon a particular system, or mental tendency, carefully to avoid names of such vague and various import, as Demagogue has been at all periods-a name which, from the indefiniteness of its signification, may be easily applied most unjustly. The Emperor Julian condemned Athanasius as a Demagogue: the primitive Christians appeared to the narrow-minded Proconsuls and Presidents as political demagogues of the most dangerous kind. Why? Because those who wanted the power of perceiving what it was that bound together, supported, and multiplied the members of the new sect, had recourse to external objects and interests, as explanations of these facts. So is the name RATIONALISM employed, at this moment, in various, and indefinite senses. The above charge appears therefore to me an instance of that odious art of consequence-making, which attributes to others whatever practical consequences we fancy to follow from their abstract views. Where indeed is the necessary and internal connection of the views commonly attributed to Demagogues, and those implied in Rationalism? Can such a connection be proved unless, in the most unjust and improper manner, we embrace in the idea of a Demagogue every quality which stands opposed to a servile Spirit? On that supposition the same charge would eminently apply to the Spirit of the Gospel whose principle it is-' be not ye the servants of men ;'* and well indeed might the Gospel glory in a charge which so highly ennobles it. But even if individuals, who might be called Rationalists had unduly and intrusively engaged in Politics, no man would be justified, on that ground, in asserting a general connection between the Rationalist and the Demagogue: for, in contrast with such individuals, a long, long, list of Rationalists might be brought, whose loyalty and true public spirit are unimpeachable. After all, nothing is easier than to retort such accusations. Theology, at all events, should abstain from reproaches, which are apt to connect Divinity questions with concerns and interests totally alien from its object, and to expose Christianity to that evil which at all times has been most fatal to its spirit, namely the change of Christ's Kingdom into a Kingdom of this World. "With respect to the interference of the State in matters concerning the progressive Doctrines of the Church, I must insist upon the principle already laid down-the principle which both the spirit of the Gospel and the progressive testimony of history point out-that the contest between Truth and Error, in theology, should be out of the reach of all external power. I totally dissent from the Reviewers, when, rejecting scientific conviction

* 1 Cor. vii. 23.

as the central point which the IDEA of an Evangelical Church, -and the very notion of Christianity,-demands, they contend for one empirically given. Now this can never be allowed in subjects with which our Reason is concerned; else we should expose ourselves to the consequence, that if anything absurd, if anything inconsistent with the very essence of Christianity, had crept by mistake among the externals of a Church, it must remain as an inviolable law for ever. It is, on the contrary, to be expected that, in proportion to the progress of knowledge, all that is implied in the original conception will more and more assert its power, and gradually change what is external, so as to correspond more nearly to the spiritual model. It would be a monstrous thing if, when progressive development were inviting us to advance, we should consider ourselves in duty bound to fall back, and practically to return to the antiquated errors of past ages. According to such a principle every degree of spiritual despotism, and even the terrors of the Inquisition, must have acquired legitimacy wherever they have been once established.

66

Concerning the point before us, it must be acknowledged that the spirit of the Reformation failed originally to form a clear conception of its work. Hence it was that many errors of the Canon Law were unconsciously transferred into the discipline of the Protestant Churches. One portion of the Reformed Divines entertained, in addition to this, the notion that the Theocracy of the Old Testament and the economy of the New are identical, and that the two religious systems should be combined together. Luther, a man who on many points was far above his age, had originally arrived at the principle that Faith should unfold itself out of the intimate perception of the Gospel, by the free activity of its own spirit; but the troubles and commotions produced by the controversy on the Lord's Supper, and by the Bohemian War obscured his mind, and made him lose sight of that principle. At a subsequent period the false, controversial zeal of Divines, who identified their subjective conviction with the essence of Christianity, implored the assistance of the secular arm, as it had been done in earlier ages. The gradual development of Theology (a development which as it accompanies the course of events may be called the historical development) has, in our own times, exerted a salutary activity, in Germany; and we may well attribute this beneficial result to its having exerted itself negatively, i. e. in the removal of obstacles which obstructed the internal and creative progress of the Christian Spirit, and in snapping asunder the yoke of old forms. Wherever it has been attempted to check this Theological crisis by means external to the working minds which produce it, the

result was such an exposure of the impotence of those means, as only provoked a more violent reaction. The German Governments, and especially our own, have shown, by the regulations through which they have rendered the Universities the means of raising our youth to a well grounded feeling of mental independence, that they are animated by the improved spirit of our times, and far from wishing to revive the old errors, which so long cramped the progress of the Church. Thanks be to God, we have not for our King a Constantine, a Justinian, a Louis the Fourteenth we are not under a prince who wishes to intrude himself upon the spiritual body of Christ, as King and Lawgiver, usurping the place of Him to whom alone the dignity of King and Lawgiver of his church belongs, and who alone can exercise that office through the agency of his spirit. Thanks be to God, we have a king who thinks it the highest honour to be a servant of Christ in the midst of his brother Christians, and who, through the power of his example, undoubtedly contributes more to the enlightenment and benefit of his people than all the edicts and proclamations which ever were published on Theological Controversies.

"Consistently with the main principle of the Evangelical Church-that all revelation of God to man must always be obscured and disturbed by the sinfulness which clings to our nature, consistently, I say, with this principle the Evangelical Church cannot wish for a dead, unchangeable Unity in her traditional doctrines: for the direct consequence of the principle just mentioned is a constant necessity of purification and improvement through the activity of the spirit of Christ. The Evangelical Church must be far from wishing to stop and fetter the progress and development of her doctrine for the sake of a work, which though a glorious manifestation, in modern times, of the power of the Christian Spirit, was nevertheless the work of men, and as such necessarily imperfect. Luther nobly declared himself against such a wish, in the Preface to the first document which in 1527 appeared from the pen of Melanchthon, in the character of a profession of Faith of the Evangelical Church. It was called the Visitation Articles. We cannot,' says Luther, 'allow this document to appear as a binding injunction, lest we should be setting up a new collection of Popish Decretals: we give it only as an account or history, as well as a testimony and confession of our belief.' In every human profession of Faith we should distinguish the immutable essence of the Evangelical truth, from the varying forms which belong to its progressive development;—we should not confound the pure work of the Spirit (to use the language of Scripture) with the obscuring VOL. VI. No. 23.-New Series.

F