many, and the age became "the Age of Missions." And, if there be any party in the Church which systematically neglects this duty, we need no other sign to tell us, that that party cannot have any right to speak in the name of the church or clergy of England. Strangely, however, and we think most illegitimately, has such a pretension been put forward. In the midst of an assembly of the clergy of Westminster did Dean Stanley rise up to propound and to maintain the claims of a very different "Theology" from that of which we are speaking? So strange a thing is it, that we cannot venture to describe it, save in his own words. "It must be described as the theology of the nineteenth cen tury,' because it is in the close of the last century, and the first sixty years of this, that it has been gaining more or less force, and spreading right and left, till it has penetrated all the Churches of Europe, except, perhaps, those of Spain and Sweden. It is from Germany, as is well known, that the main impulse has come. As at the time of the Reformation, so now, it is the German theologians who (to use the words of Latimer) have lighted the candle which, by God's grace, shall never be put out. But the effect of this teaching would not have been what it has been had it found a less ready reception in the general literature and in the religious instincts of all Europe. The works of Goethe and Walter Scott are full of its savour. It breathes through the whole of Coleridge, prose and verse. It is still more strongly marked in the poetry of Tennyson. It has lit up all the writings of men so different from each other, and yet so important each in his place, as Arnold, Robertson, and Milman. It is that which distinguished Edward Irving from the preaching and teaching of his day in the Church of Scotland, and accounts for the increasing estimate formed of his genius and character; and it has now incontestably influenced not only the most eminent divines of the Established Church of that country, but the writers even of the narrower community of the Free Church, not excluding Dr. Candlish himself. Its effects on the successors of the Puritans in England, both in the Church and amongst Nonconformists, if not equally capable of public proof, will not be denied by any one. It has coloured very deeply Dr. Pusey's book on the Theology of Germany, and large parts of the Christian Year; and though the actual Tracts for the Times exhibit its traces very slightly, yet the general movement of which they were the expression prided itself on seeking for 'something deeper and truer than satisfied the last century,' and on reckoning Coleridge as one of its unconscious founders." A theology preached by Goethe and Walter Scott, by Coleridge and Tennyson, by Arnold, Robertson, and Milman, by Irving and Candlish, by Keble and Pusey! Such a thing is a mere dream-a senseless fiction. The last four names are improperly used. That "theology" which Dr. Stanley is about to praise, was and is abhorred by Irving, Candlish, Pusey, and Keble; and the use of their names as abettors of it is altogether unjustifiable. Yet, without those names, what a list would remain! Goethe, Walter Scott, and Tennyson, among the founders of a school of Theology! The first of these is justly described, by his countryman Schaff, as "a refined heathen, without even that desire for salvation which characterised the noblest minds of Greece and Rome; but perfectly contented with himself and the world of nature."* But Theodore Parker, a Liberal of the first water, and an enthusiastic admirer of German theology, more plainly and rudely describes the poet, saying,—" Goethe, as a man, was selfish to a very high degree, a debauchee and well-bred epicurean, who had little sympathy with what was highest in man." Is it from such a human swine as this that we are to learn our new Theology? The second name paraded in Dean Stanley's list is that of Walter Scott. Here, too, we will merely cite the judgment of another religious Liberal, Mr. Ruskin, who says,-"Nothing is more notable or sorrowful in Scott's mind than his incapacity of steady belief in anything. He is educated a Presbyterian, and remains one, because he thinks it the most sensible thing he can do, if he is to live in Edinburgh. But he thinks Romanism more picturesque, and profaneness more gentlemanly; and does not see that anything affects human life but love, courage, and destiny. Through all his works there is no evidence of any purpose, but to while away the hour. All his thoughts were, in their outcome and end, less than nothing and vanity."+ Goethe and Scott had no fixed, sincere, religious belief; yet they, forsooth, are to teach us theology! "If the blind lead the blind, shall not both fall into the ditch ?" As to Coleridge and Tennyson, they are not to be ranked. with such irreligious men as Goethe and Scott; but their religion, instead of being the joyous faith of St. Paul and St. John, never rises above doubt, vague, ungrounded hope, and obscurity. The Laureate expresses, in poetic phrase, the ignorant hope, which may be heard in every beershop or cab-stand, that " we shall all get to heaven at last”— "That nothing walks with aimless feet; but confesses his utter darkness "For what am I? An infant crying in the night: Is this the tone which a reasonable man would prefer to St. Schaff's Germany, p. 148. + Mod. Painters, vol. iii. 270-272. In Memoriam, p. 77. Vol. 64-No. 329. 3 C Paul's "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day." Shall we take those for teachers who confess that they have never learned? Let us quit, however, this strange and perplexing account of a Theology compounded of opposites, and promulgated by men who agreed in nothing, and let us ask for some description, some delineation, of this new creed. This, however, is the last thing which Dr. Stanley and his friends are likely to afford us. The truth is, that they follow and support each other in doubting and questioning, first one, then another article of the Creed; but of positive belief in anything, they seldom afford us one word. We turn over this paper of Dean Stanley's in vain for any definite statement-any intelligible description-of this new theology of which he is so fond. We must catch, therefore, where we can, such glimpses and hints of the nature of this "Theology of the Nineteenth Century" as it pleases him to vouchsafe to us. And, first of all, we find that it comes from Germany. "It is from Germany that the main influence has come." "The German theologians have lighted the candle." (p. 252.) "Without the knowledge of German theological speculation and research, no deep study of Christian doctrine may be achieved." (p. 253.) "The union of English practical life with German speculation is likely to be of much benefit to both.” (p. 260.) "This new impulse has been given from Germany, with all its faults, the most laborious, conscientious, truth-seeking of continental nations." (p. 264.) Such is the estimation in which German theology is held by one who claims to be a pupil of Arnold. But what said Arnold himself? In his 2nd volume of Sermons, p. 480, we thus read" It is said that the Hebrew philologists are deeply infected with that same spirit which has characterized so many of the German theologians; and if so, no devout man can use their works habitually in his study of the Scriptures without great pain, or, possibly, without great danger. . . . . There is in the Rationalists a coldness and irreverence of tone, and so apparent an absence of all feeling of their own personal relations to God, as men and as sinners, that their intellectual fault is greatly aggravated by these moral defects." Another prominent Liberal, Dr. Samuel Davidson, concurs in these views, attributing "the miserable character of the German interpretations to the neglect of Divine teaching, and an undue confidence in human wisdom." He adds-"The mind of the German delights to feed, as it were, upon husks, neglecting the nutritious aliment of the Father of Spirits."* * Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 8. In fact, in whole sections of Germany, Christianity has virtually become extinct. So remarked Mr. Palmer, more than twenty years ago, observing that, "Overrun by the audacious impiety of Neologianism, Lutheranism and Calvinism, as religious systems, seem to have nearly perished in the countries where they arose."* This, however, it may be said, is merely the arrogant judgment of a foreigner. Let us hear the confessions, then, of Germans themselves. "Throughout Germany," says Dr. Schaff,. "the Lutheran Church is become a mere name to the people; and as to the educated classes, it has with them been cut down to the root." "The Church has disappeared, almost to its very name, both amongst the educated classes and with the multitude, in Germany." And again, "In no country has infidelity clothed itself in such an array of learning, assumed such a serious aspect, spread more generally among the professional and higher classes, than on the native soil of Protestantism." In the like tone speaks Beckendorf: "There is now no Church, but merely parties-the old Church is in ruins." And Superintendent Schlegel: "The greatest part of the Evangelical Churches may be asked if they can make any pretence to the name of a Christian Church." More recently, Kuntze, at the meeting of the Evangelical Alliance at Berlin, said, "The Church has not the slightest influence on the feelings or consciences of the population." And Dollinger adds, "The Church has disappeared, even almost to its very name, both among the educated classes, and with the multitude in Germany."‡ Strange, surely, is it, that a country like England, which is now covering the earth with its missions, should be sent to Germany, sunk in religious death, to learn what Christianity is! The most revolting part of the whole case is, that men who have, substantially, deserted the Christian faith, and fallen back into Deism, should now coolly set up for Christian teachers. Forty years ago, Mr. H. J. Rose expressed, in his sermons at Cambridge, his anger and his wonder that, "Although these divines rejected all belief in the Divine origin of Christianity, they still retained the name of Christians." And even Bunsen himself was scandalised at "Germans who seemed to be seized with a peculiar mania of overturning Christianity, without openly and frankly saying they had given it up, or at least its records."§ Our own Pye Smith, however, more fitly characterized this gross dishonesty, exclaiming against "The perfidious hypocrisy of wearing the names and titles of Christian profession, while they are labouring to undermine it! Their object is to make * Treatise on the Church, vol. i. p. 389. Christianity the latest term in a series of progressive systems of moral science and religious worship, whose origin is hid in the depths of unknown antiquity, which has been elaborated successively in India, China, Chaldea, Egypt, Judea, and Greece, and which is itself to be superseded by some coming system of Pantheism, or Atheism, or no man knows what."* It is this new scheme of belief, originating, in modern times, in Germany, to which Dean Stanley would give the title of "The Theology of the Ninteenth Century." Its claim to such a title is utterly baseless. The pretended "theology" of Germany begins its teaching by a bold denial of the authority of the Christian records. It may try to conceal its hostility by an affectation of respect-placing Moses on a level with Homer, and St. Paul with Thucydides-but when the Divine authority of the Scriptures is denied, Christianity itself is, in effect, reduced to the level of Mohammedism or Buddhism. The critic who takes this ground has no more right to style himself a Christian, than he has to profess himself a priest of Buddhu or of Brahma. The pretence is utterly hypocritical. Dean Stanley, however, may try to evade this censure by remarking that "German theology" is an indefinite phrase, since there are Hengstenbergs and Neanders, as well as De Wettes and Ewalds. But he is scarcely free, to use this device; for he has defined "German theology" by a frequent reference to Ewald as its brightest ornament. Thus, at pp. 255 and 256, he four times refers to this author as his chief exemplar; and in p. 263 he alludes even to the "Life of Christ" of the same author with a fond and apologetical tone. We are entitled, then, to assume that, when he speaks of "German theology," it is not of Neander or Tholuck that he is thinking, but of such writers as Ewald and De Wette, which latter writer he styles "the most honest, critical, and keen-sighted of commentators." (p. 268.) 66 Now, to come to plain fact and truth, Ewald and De Wette can only be described as a couple of Deists. They were two of the very men whom Bunsen described as having a mania for overturning Christianity, without openly and frankly saying that they had given it up." Ewald was but the precursor of Rénan. Both of them disbelieve one half of the Gospels, and describe Christ as "a young Jewish peasant," who was filled with "a noble enthusiasm,' and had treasured up in his mind certain old traditions of a Messiah, which gradually moulded him into a prophet and a teacher. Ewald deems prophecy to have been common to all nations in old time, and regards the prophecies of the Old Testament to be only better than others, as Homer may be a *On the Person of Christ, vol. i. p. 203. |