ed, we cannot suppose that the private worship of families will be found to flourish in vigor, or be widely practised. It does not indeed follow, that where the churches are thronged at the public services, family worship is of course habitually attended at home; but the converse of this proposition may be assumed as perhaps universally true, viz. that the latter cannot flourish when the former is neglected. The extent to which family worship had been laid aside in Germany, until a recent period, will hardly be believed in this country. The writer himself could not at first yield credit to the statements that were made to him, but supposed that they must refer to peculiar cases, from which no general inference could be drawn; until he found them repeated and confirmed by unquestionable testimony in every part of the country. As a general fact, then, throughout the whole of Germany, or at least the whole northern division of it, family worship is entirely obsolete and unknown, except among the evangelical Christians, or mystics as they are there called; and even among them, it is only within the last fifteen years, that the custom of morning and evening prayers has again been introduced.

Of course, meetings for social prayer are almost unknown. A few families in Berlin, and some of them of rank, have a private circle in their houses every week, for the purposes of religious conversation and social worship. To these circles, however, none are admitted but invited guests. In Halle there was regularly a religious meeting every Saturday evening, at the house of a mechanic, where students sometimes attended. This meeting was ever a subject of ridicule among the greater part of the citizens, and of jealousy to the magistracy; and several attempts were made to bring home upon it charges of disorder and irregularity, in order to have a pretext for putting it down.

Characteristics of the truly Pious.

Among these, we may reckon that frankness and sincerity, that open-heartedness and candor, which characterize the Christians of Germany. One might almost say, that they carry their hearts in their hands; they rush to meet a Christian brother with a full and overflowing tide of Christian affection, and pour out all their feelings and their whole hearts before him, unchecked by the embarrassments of English or American reserve, or the calculations of a cold and wary prudence. We have seen and and admired in our own land the exhibitions of religious character among the Moravian Christians. These are here mostly Germans; and it is in fact the national character that we have admired, and not the peculiarities engrafted upon them by their religious faith and discipline. The same purity and unaffected piety, the same zeal and self-devotedness, the same simplicity and godly sincerity,' constitute the distinguishing traits of the great body of German believers. It is the national frankness and affectionate, open-hearted kindness, purified and elevated and ennobled by the influence of the religion of Christ, and pouring itself out in the habitual and ardent practice of whatsoever things are pure and lovely and of good report.'

'

We might here go on to speak at large of the humility, the pa

tience, the zeal, and other virtues of the Christians of Germany. The whole however may be summed up in a few words by saying, —and it is a testimony which is deserved, and which the writer rejoices with his whole heart at being permitted thus publicly to pay, —that in no nation under heaven is the gospel, when received into good and honest hearts, more fully and faithfully carried out in practice; nowhere is the spirit of the gospel more fully exemplified, or every thought and deed brought more into captivity to the obedience of Christ.' Would that this testimony could apply to the nation at large !

But with all their excellencies of private character, our German brethren in Christ have not yet learned the grand secret of producing great public effects. They do not act in concert. They have not yet learned that united action is powerful action. There are indeed Bible societies, and missionary societies, and tract societies, some of which have long existed, and have individually done much good. But they have as yet no united plan of action. The missionary society of Berlin, for instance, which one would suppose might naturally extend its branches, at least throughout the north of Germany, has no branches. So also of Leipsic and other cities. The nearest approach to union is in the south of Germany; where the Missionary Seminary of Basle forms a nucleus, around which cluster the affections and the exertions of Christians in the neighboring states of Baden and Würtemburg.

Church and State.

We have in the case of the German churches a practical exhibition of all the benefits which can ever be expected to arise from a dependence of the church on the state; with perhaps only those evils which are inseparable from such a connexion. We see the church armed with the power of authoritatively regulating the qualifications of her pastors; and furnished with all the apparatus of schools and universities and able and learned teachers, to carry her requisitions into complete effect. We see the civil power lending its aid to enforce all these requisitions; to erect and repair churches; to augment the income of the clergy; to recommend attendance on public worship and the practice of virtue and religious duty. What more, it may be asked, can a church need, in order to go on and prosper, and grow every day in strength and influence and usefulness? Alas! these things are but the frame-work, the naked skeleton strung together with wires, which an external hand moves and regulates at will! Unless the flesh and blood, the warm vigor of life, the all pervading and directing soul, be there, then is all power and authority, all talent and learning however profound, of no avail whatever. In Germany, the governments give to the church all the aid which human power can afford; but still they are but the external hand that manages the wires. Nor can it be otherwise. How can laws infuse religious life and spirit into a body politic? How can they render this pastor Orthodox, or that one pious? They may make, indeed, such a requisition; but how can they enforce it? Laws can do no more than establish a creed; and this creed may demand of all those who take it, the fullest Orthodoxy

+

and the holiest feelings. But can it excite or produce them? Can it reach the heart and conscience and bring them into subjection? The example of every nation, where a creed is thus enforced, proclaims the negative; and proclaims, moreover, that wherever law thus undertakes to regulate religious belief, there the latter droops and dies; and that wherever religion has flourished and shone with the greatest splendor, it has been in spite of such laws, and often against the influence and power of civil government.

INEPT INTERPRETATION.

Among other valuable articles in the last number of the Biblical Repository is one on the "Causes of forced Interpretations of the New Testament," by J. A. H. Tittman.

We call that a forced interpretation, says Tittman, which, although it may be contained in the words taken by themselves, nevertheless expresses a sense foreign to the intention of the writer; inasmuch as it is repugnant either to the usuS LOQUENDI of the writer, or to TIME and PLACE, or finally to the CONTEXT.

There are two species of interpretations of this sort. The one by a certain violence put upon the words, is calculated to displease the learned; while the other, by a certain appearance of art and refinement, allures the unlearned. The former species may be termed inept, and is exhibited when a sentiment is obtruded upon a writer, which is alike foreign both to his constant manner of thinking and speaking, and to his intention and object. As if one should say that Paul, in Eph. 1: 7, had in mind the system of Christian doctrine; and he should go on to interpret "redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins," of a deliverance from sin, which is effected by this doctrine, confirmed by the death of Christ. Such an interpretation is supported neither by the manner in which the apostle is accustomed to speak of the death of Christ, nor by the object of the writer and the method of the whole discussion, nor by the mode of thinking among the Christians to whom the apostle wrote; unless the utmost violence be put upon the words.

Our readers are aware, that this is precisely the interpretation put by American Unitarians on all those passages which speak of forgiveness or redemption by the blood of Christ ;-" a deliverance from sin effected by the doctrine of Christ, confirmed by his death." This is cited by Professor Tittman, and justly too, as a striking example of forced, INEPT interpretation.

CHRISTIAN EXAMINER FOR JULY 1831.

Articles on German Rationalism,' and on Whitman and his

Reviewers.'

The Article on German Rationalism in the last Examiner strikes us as a curious specimen of that sort of writing, which aims to accomplish a given purpose without saying any thing that is really either true or false.

In the Biblical Repository, No. I. (p. 122) an Article from the pen of Professor

Hahn contains some developements of the principles of Rationalism, extracted from the writings of Dr. Roehr, a distinguished leader of the sect. Respecting these disclosures the Examiner says: "Now Professor Hahn knows, and the editor of the Biblical Repository knows, and every body knows, that knows any thing about the matter, that this statement is incorrect." Whether the statement be incorrect or not, it is certain that neither Professor Hahn, nor the editor of the Repository is responsible for it, but Dr. Roehr; and if the Rationalists are misrepresented, they are misrepresented by one of their own leaders. But the statement, says the Examiner, " is made up of passages taken out from their connexion, in order to convey a false notion of the author's opinions." When the Examiner has given us the passages in their connexion,' so as to convey a right notion of the author's opinions,' we shall be better able to judge whether the Biblical Repository is to be relied upon.

The Examiner gives, from the Allgemeine Literatur Zeitung, a description of the Evangelical party in Germany, and a definition of Rationalism, from which an estimate may be made of the character of the Article on which we are remarking. The following is the description of the 'Evangelicals.'

"This party distinguishes itself as the only faithful, the true evangelical church; beyond its own circle, the church is laid waste; its servants are priests of Baal. They insist upon the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures; on adherence to the various confessions of faith; and on unity of opinion in the church. They surpass Flacius in their extravagant notions of the depravity of human nature, and hold Schwenkfeldt's theory of the "inner" or "internal word.” Add to this the rejection of all cheerful views of life, and even of the most refined and cultivated enjoyments. The watchword of the party, however, is a glowing hatred and an unwearied persecution of Rationalism. They look upon it as Infidelity, and as an attempt to undermine the church, and overthrow all

true faith."

The Examiner allows that this sketch is 'somewhat exaggerated,' or applicable only to the most violent.' A truly liberal concession, for which we are under great obligations to the candid writer!

The definition of Rationalism is in the following terms:

"Rationalism is nothing more nor less than the necessary consequence of the intellectual and scientific developement of the times. It is the attempt to reconcile with theology the results of the progress which the last few years have seen in all the departments of knowledge, and thus make it acceptable to those, whose minds are so constituted, that they cannot believe except on conviction."

This definition, says the Examiner, "will strike many as the only fair one." After contrasting these two pictures, who can doubt but the writer in the Christian Examiner is the proper person to give a fair representation of the questions at issue between the Evangelical and the Rationalist parties in Germany? There is such an air of fairness and candor, such an evident impartiality on the very face of the statements above quoted, that he must be blind indeed, who cannot see that the writer has no particular bias in favor of the one or against the other! But the Examiner would seem to suppose that the above definition of Rationalism must be correct, because it is given by Dr. Bretschneider, a man of 'high character and great learning,' and 'not a Rationalist.' What? The above Dr. Bretschneider's definition of Rationalism, and himself not a Rationalist! Read the definition again: "Rationalism is nothing more nor less" &c. as above. Does Dr. Bretschneider, then, profess to be indifferent or opposed to "the necessary consequence of the intellectual and scientific developement of the times?" Or does Dr. Bretschneider publicly declare, that he does not wish to make theology "acceptable to those, whose minds are so constitų

ted that they cannot believe, except on conviction?" We have too good an opinion of Dr. B.'s 'high character and great learning, to admit the inference which would seem necessary from the statements in the Examiner. Dr. Bretschneider, perhaps, is not willing to be called a Rationalist ;—and we have lately been informed that President Quincy, of Harvard University, does not allow himself to be called a Unitarian. Dr. Bretschneider, no doubt, is as far from being a Rationalist, as President Quincy is from being a Unitarian; and the difference in both cases is about as important as that between a Mahometan and a Mussulman.

Dr. Bretschneider, we know, professes to believe in the supernatural origin of Christianity, and in this he would seem to differ from Wegscheider and Roehr; but his views of the inspiration of the Scriptures, as stated in the last edition of his great work on theology, and the whole spirit and tendency of his various and learned writings, show that he regards the Bible merely as the human record of a divine revelation, and 'distinguishes between the Bible and the Word of God therein contained.' This we suppose to be the fundamental principle of Rationalism, and that which essentially distinguishes it from Evangelism, (or Orthodoxy as we say in this country;)-the one subjects every doctrine and precept of the Bible to the amendments of reason before it will receive it as a part of the Word of God; the other receives every doctrine and precept of the Bible as the Word of God, exactly as stated in the Bible, and simply on the authority of the Bible. To the one, human reason is the ultimate standard of truth; to the other, the Scriptures are the ultimate standard. The Rationalist can appeal from the Bible to reason; the Evangelical Christian makes the Bible the sole judge of what is reasonable and true, and allows of no appeal from its decisions. The Evangelical Christian does not receive unreasonable doctrines, any more than the Rationalist; but he supposes that God is more competent than man, to decide what is reasonable, and that the decisions of God are contained in the Scriptures, the whole of which was given by inspiration of God, and not in the human understanding, depraved as it is by the consequences of the apostacy. The distinction, it appears to us, is perfectly obvious, and of easy application. According to this distinction, Unitarians are generally Rationalists, in their views of inspiration. Unitarians differ from Rationalists of the class of Wegscheider and Roehr in allowing that the Christian religion was established by the evidence of miracles, and this is the only difference; and we strongly suspect that if the two parties were to define their notion of what constitutes a miracle, this difference would appear very small. The Christian Register, a few months since, in reply to some remarks in the Boston Recorder, contended very strenuously that American Unitarianism has nothing in common with German Rationalism; but we are confident that the Article in the Examiner, on which we have been remarking, will convince every one, that Unitarians and Rationalists have the same views of the inspiration of the Scriptures, (the most important, and indeed the fundamental point, on which they are at issue with the Orthodox or Evangelical,) and that if there is any real difference between them it consists in this, that the one admits, and the other rejects, the evidence of miracles. Let us attend to Dr. Bretschneider's description of the Rationalists, as translated in the Christian Examiner; and we may see whether the difference between Rationalism and Unitarianism is so very important as the Register pretended.

"They" [the Rationalists] says Dr. Bretschneider, " acknowledge in Christianity an institution of divine benevolence, meant for the salvation of mankind. VOL. IV.NO. VIII.

57