speak the sentiments of your whole audience, when I say that it
was heard with universal pleasure. It at once brought up a sub-
ject of the highest importance, of no small difficulty, and of
singular interest to our community at the present moment. It
gave promise that you would discuss the character and tendency
of opinions now prevalent in the midst of us ; that you would
meet some of the objections which have been advanced to popular
theological ideas ; that you would come directly to the great
questions that are at issue between different portions of the
audience which you addressed. But instead of this mode of pro-
' It was his habit to have these hymns printed on slips of paper and distributed
to the people at the door of liis church.
100 THE LATEST FORM OF INFIDELITY.
ceeding, you adopted one which could not have been expected
from your statement of the subject, and which I conceive to have
been singularly irrelevant to the demands of your audience, and
the nature of the occasion. Instead of meeting, face to face, the
opinions which have found favor with many of the theologians in
this country, which are publicly maintained from the pulpit and
the press, in our own immediate community, which form the
cardinal points on which speculation is divided among us, you
appear studiously to avoid all mention of them ; no one could
infer from your remarks, that any novel ideas had been broached
in our theological world, excepting such as can be traced back to
the sceptical reasonings of Spinoza and Hume, and a compara-
tively small class of the modern theologians of Grermany."^ He
then denies that the writings of Spinoza, Hume, or of the
German Rationalists, (in the limited sense of that term,) were
exerting any influence among the theologians of Boston, and
that the speculations which really prevailed, had a very different
origin.
It is clear, from all this, that a serious and wide breach has
occurred between different classes of the Unitarian divines in
New England, but the real character of the novel ideas cannot
be learned either from Mr. Norton's discourse or from the letter
of the Alumnus. It is, indeed, sufficiently plain, from the man-
ner in which the latter speaks of pantheistic writers, that the
new philosophy is the source of the difficulty. Speaking of the
system of Spinoza, which he admits to be pantheistic, in a philo-
sophical sense, inasmuch as it denies " real, substantial existence
to finite objects," he says, " no one who understands the subject,
will accuse this doctrine of an irreligious tendency. It is religious
even to mysticism ; on that account, as well as for certain philo-
sophical objections it labors under, [the Bible, it seems, has
nothing to do with the question,] I cannot adopt it as a theory
of the universe ; but, I trust, I shall never cease to venerate the
holy and exalted spirit of its author, who, in the meek simplicity
of his life, the transparent beauty of his character, and the pure
devotion with which he wooed truth, even as a bride, stands
almost ' alone, unapproached,' among men," — P. 126. Such lan-
guage, in reference to a system which denies the existence of a
personal God, the individuality of the human soul, which neces-
' Letter, &c., pp. 17 and 18.
THE LATEST FORM OF INFIDELITY. 101
sarily obliterates all distinction between right and wrong, betrays
a singular perversion of ideas, and an entire renunciation of all
scriptural views of the nature of religion. To call that obscure
and mystic sentiment religion, which arises from the contempla-
tion of the incomprehensible and infinite, is to change Christian-
ity into Buddhism. The result in fact, to which the philosophy
of the nineteenth century has brought its votaries.
In another place, however, he says of the leading school in
modern German theology, " that the impression of the powerful
genius of Schleiermacher is every where visible in its character ;
but it includes no servile disciples ; it combines men of free
minds, who respect each other's efforts, whatever may be their
individual conclusions ; and the central point at which they meet
is the acknowledgment of the divine character of Christ, the
divine origin of his religion, and its adaptation to the world,
when presented in a form corresponding with its inherent spirit,
and with the scientific culture of the present age. There are few
persons who would venture to charge such a school with the pro-
mulgation of infidelity ; there are many, I doubt not, who will
welcome its principles, as soon as they are understood, as the
vital, profound, and ennobling theology, which they have earnestly
sought for, but hitherto sought in vain." — P. 146.
It is difficult to know how this paragraph is to be understood.
If restricted to a few of the personal friends and pupils of
Schleiermacher, such as Liicke, Ullmann, Twesten, and a few
others, the description has some semblance of truth. But, in
this case, it is no longer the " leading school of modern German
theology" that the writer is describing. And if extended to the
really dominant school, the description is as foreign from the
truth as can well be imagined.
We have so recently exhibited at considerable length, the
nature of the prevalent system of German theology and philoso-
phy,' that we may well be excused from entering again at large
upon the subject. As, however, it is a subject of constantly
increasing interest, it may not be amiss to give a few additional
proofs of the true character of the Latest Form of Infidelity. In
doing this, we shall avail ourselves of the authority of such men
as Leo, Hengstenberg, and Tholuck, men of the highest rank in
their own country for talents, learning and integrity. We shall let
' Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, January, 1839.
102 THE LATEST FOEM OF INFIDELITY.
them describe this new form of philosophy, which is turning the
heads of our American scholars, inflating some and dementing
others ; and we shall leave it to our transcendental countrymen,
if they see cause, to accuse these German scholars and Christians
of ignorance and misrepresentation.
It is well known to all who have paid the least attention to
the subject, that the prevalent system of philosophy in Germany
is that of Hegel ; and that this system has, to a remarkable
degree, diffused itself among all classes of educated men. It is
not confined to recluse professors or speculative theologians, but
finds its warmest advocates among statesmen and men of the
world. It has its poets, its popular as well as its scientific
journals. It is, in short, the form in which the German mind
now exists and exhibits itself to surrounding nations, just as
Deism or Atheism was characteristic of France during the reign
of terror. That a system thus widely diffused should present
difl'erent phases might be naturally anticipated. But still it is
one system, called by one name, and, despite of occasional
recriminations among its advocates, recognised by themselves as
one whole. The general characteristic of this school is Panthe-
ism. This, as has been said, is " the public secret of Germany;"
and " we must," says Hengstenberg, " designedly close our own
eyes on all that occurs around us, if we would deny the truth of
this assertion,"" And on the following page, he says, tliat though
there are a few of tlie followers of Hegel who endeavor to recon-
cile his principles with Christianity, yet they are spoken of with
contempt by their associates, who, as a body, are "with the
clearest consciousness, and as logically as possible devoted to
Pantheism." They are, moreover, he adds, hailed as brothers by
the advocates of popular Pantheism, who denounce, under the
name of pietism, at once Christianity, Judaism and Deism. This
was written four years ago, along period in the history of modern
philosophy, and since that time, the character of the school has
developed itself with constantly increasing clearness.
In allusion to the French Chamber of Dej)uties, this school is
divided into two parts, the right and the left. The former teach
the principles of the philosophy in an abstruse form, as a philos-
ophy ; the other gives them a more popular and intelligible fonn.
This latter division again, is divided into the centre left and ex-
1 Kirchen-Zeitung, January, 1836, p. 19.
THE LATEST FORM OF INFIDELITY. 103
treme left. The one preserving some decorum and regard to
public morals in their statements; and the other recklessly carry-
ing out their principles to the extreme of licentiousness. To the
extreme left belong the class which is designated " Young
Germany," of which Heine is one of the most prominent lead-
ers. This class profess themselves the true disciples of the
extreme right ; the extreme right acknowledge their fellowship
with the centre left, and the centre left with the extreme left.
The respectable portion of the party of course express themselves
with disapprobation of the coarseness of some of their associates,
but they speak of them only as the unworthy advocates of the truth.
Thus says Heugstenberg, " Professor Vischer, one of the most
gifted of the party, expresses himself with an energy against the
' young Germans/ which shows that his better feelings are not
yet obliterated, and yet acknowledges their principles with a
decision and plainness which prove how deep those principles
enter into the very essence of the system, so that the better
portion of the party cannot, with any consistency reject them.
In the Halle Jahrbuch, page 1118, he speaks of the Rehabilita-
tionists' as the ' unworthy " prophets of what, in its properly
understood principle, is perfectly true and good.' He says, 'It is
well, if in opposition to the morality of Kant and Schiller, the
rights of our sensual nature should, from time to time, be boldly
asserted.' He complains, page 507, of the pedantry of his coun-
try, where the want of chastity is placed on a level with drunk-
enness, gluttony, or theft, and so expresses himself that every one
sees that he considers incontinence a vhtue under certain circum-
stances, and conjugal fidelity a sin."" Though this dominant
party, therefore, has its divisions, its outwardly decent, and its
openly indecent members, it is one school, and is liable to the
general charges which have been brought against it as a whole.
It may well be supposed that a system so repugnant to every
principle of true religion and sound morals, could not be openly
advocated, without exciting the most decided opposition. This
opposition has come from various quarters ; from professed phi-
losophers and theologians, and from popular writers, who have
attacked the system in a manner adapted to the common mind.
' The name assumed by those who plead for the rehabilitation of the flesh, i. e., for
the restoration of the sensual part of our nature to its rights, of which Christianity
has so long deprived it. ~ Preface to Kirchen-Zeitung, for 1839, p. 30.
104 THE LATEST FORM OF INFIDELITY.
Professor Leo, of Halle, has adopted this latter method of assault.
He is one of the most distinguished historians of Germany ; and,
until within a few years, himself belonged to the general class of
Rationalists. His History of the Jews was written in accordance
with the infidel opinions which he then entertained. Having, how-
ever, become a Christian, he has publicly expressed his sorrow
for having given to the history just mentioned, the character
which it now bears, and has, with great boldness and vigor,
attacked the writings of the leading German school in theology.
This step has excited a virulent controversy, and produced an
excitement, particularly at Halle, such as has not been known for
many years. Hengstenberg says, that Leo has not been sustained
in this conflict, by the friends of truth, as he had a right to
expect. "One principal reason," he adds, " of this reserve, is no
doubt, in many cases, the reckless vulgarity of many of his oppo-
nents. When they see what Leo has had to sustain, they tremble
and exclaim, Vestigia me torrent ! A decorous controversy with
opponents who have something to lose, they do not dread, but
they are unwilling to allow themselves to be covered with
filth.'" Hengstenberg, however, is not the man to desert the
truth or its advocates, let what will happen. He stands like a
rock, despite the violent assault of open enemies and the coolness
of timid friends, the firmest and the most efficient defender of
Christianity in Germany.
Leo entitled his book against the latest form of infidelity,
" Hegelingen ;" that is, Hegelians of the left, in allusion to the
division of the school into a right and left side. It is presumed,
he gave it this title, because it was intended to be a popular
work, designed to exhibit the principles of the school in a manner
suited to the apprehensions of the ordinary class of educated
people. It was, therefore, directed, not against that division of
the school which wrapped up its doctrines in the impenetrable
folds of philosophical language, but against that division which
have spoken somewhat more intelligibly.
With regard to the charges which Leo brings against this
school, Hengstenberg says, " No one at all familiar witli the
literature of the day, needs evidence of their truth. Instead of
doubting, he may rather wonder that an abomination advocated
for years past, should now first, as though it were something new,
* Kircben-Zeitung, p. 21.
THE LATEST FORM OF INFIDELITY. 105
be thus vehemently assaulted, and that the charges should be
directed against comparatively few and unimportant writers."
This latter circumstance he adds, however, is accounted for, as
Leo professed to confine himself to the productions of the year
preceding the publication of his own book.
Leo's first charge is this : " This party denies the existence of
a personal God. They understand by God, an unconscious
power which pervades all persons, and wliich arrives to self-con-
sciousness only in the personality of men. That is, this party
teaches Atheism without reserve." With regard to this charge,
Hengstenberg remarks : " Whoever has read Strauss's Life of
Jesus, and Vatke's Biblical Theology, where Pantheism, which
every Christian must regard as only one form of Atheism, is
clearly avowed, cannot ask whether the party in general hold
these doctrines, but simply whether the particular persons men-
tioned by Leo, belong, as to this point, to the party. About this,
who can doubt, when he hears Professor Michelet say, beside
many other things of like import, ' God is the eternal movement
of the universal principle, constantly manifesting itself in individ-
ual existences, and which has no true objective existence but in
these individuals, which pass away again into the infinite.' [In
other words, God is but the name given to the ceaseless flow of
being.] When he hears him denouncing as unworthy of the name,
' the theistical Hegelians, wlio believe in a personal God, in
another world ?' " — P. 22. " Professor Vischer," adds Hengsten-
berg, "is so far from being ashamed of Pantheism, that he glories
in his shame, and represents it as the greatest honor of his friend
Strauss, that he has ' logically carried out the j)rinciple of the
immanence of God in the world.' That the Professors Gans
and Benary agree with him and with Strauss, not only in gen-
eral, but in this particular point, Michelet, ' certain of their
assent,' has openly declared. According to Dr. Kuhne, Hegel's
God ' is not Jehovah,' he is, ' the ever streaming immanence of
spirit in matter.' To this representation, Dr. Meyen agrees, and
says, ' I make no secret, that I belong to the extreme left of
Hegel's school. I agree with Strauss perfectly, and consider him
(seine Tendenz) as in perfect harmony with Hegel.' Another
writer, the anonymous author of the book ' Leo vor Gcricht,'
ridicules the charge of Atheism as thou!2:h it were a trifle. He
represents the public as saying to the charge, ' What does it
106 THE LATEST FOEM OF INFIDELITY.
mean ? Mr. Professor Leo is beyond our compreliension : Wodan,
heathenism, Hegel's God, Atheism ! ha ! ha ! ha [' "
That Thokick looks on the doctrine of Strauss, with whom
these other writers profess agreement, and who is an avowed
disciple of Hegel, in the same light, is clear from his language in
his Anzeiger, for May, 1836 : " Strauss/' he says, "is a man who
knows no other Grod than him who, in the human race, is con-
stantly becoming man. He knows no Christ but the Jewish
Eabbi, who made his confession of sin to John the Baptist ; and
no heaven but that which speculative philosophy reveals for our
enjoyment on the little planet we now inhabit."
Nothing, however, can be plainer than Strauss's own language :
''As man, considered as a mere finite spirit, and restricted to him-
self, has no reality ; so God, considered as an infinite spirit,
restricting himself to his infinity, has no reality. The infinite
spirit has reality only so far as he unites himself to finite spirits,
(or manifests himself in them,) and the finite spirit has reality
only so far as he sinks himself in the infinite."' How does this
differ, except in the jargon of terms, from le peuple-dieu, of
Anarcharsis Clootz, the worthy forerunner of these modern
Atheists ?'
" If," says another writer in Hengstenberg's Journal, " man-
kind is the incarnate Godhead, and, beside this incarnate divine
spirit, there is no God, then we have a most perfect Atheism,
which removes us from Christianity far beyond the limits of
Mohammedanism, the heathenism of the Indians and Chinese, or
of our Pagan ancestors." " Hegel, and his school, maintain that
God is not an individual person, as opposed to other individuals,
since individuality is of necessity exclusive, limited and finite.
Since God is a trinity, wdierein the outwardness of number is
merged in substantial unity, so God is an universal person ;
because the comprehension of individuals in unity is universality.
This is what is meant by the expression : ' God is personality
itself The simple question, whether they believe in the God
whom Christians are bound to honor and love," continues this
writer, " is here complicated with an obscure definition of the
' Leben Jesu, p. 730.
2 "Jo prechai hantement," said Clootz in the French Convention, "qu'il n'y a pas
d'autre Dieu que la nature, d'autre souvcrain que le genre humain, le penple-dieu."
Thiers : Histoirc de la Revolution Fran., Vol. Y., p. 197.
THE LATEST FOKM OF INFIDELITY. 107
Trinity, which no man can think removes the mystery of the sub-
ject, by saying Die Ausserhchkeit der Zahl zu einer substantiel-
len Einheit umgebogen ist (the outwardness of number is merged
in substantial unity). The charge of denying the true Grod
remains in full force, this justification of themselves to the con-
trary notwithstanding." And on the following page, he adds,
" that this school, to be honest, when asked, ' Do you deny God
and Christianity T ought to answer, ' Certainly, what you Chris-
tians of the old school call God and Christianity ; we would
teach you a better doctrine.""
We have seen how that portion of this dominant school, which
retain some respect for themselves, and for the opinion of others?
veil their God-denying doctrines in philosophical formulas unin-
telligible to the common people, and mysterious and mystical to
themselves. Stripped of its verbiage, the doctrine is, that men
are God ; there is no other God than the ever-flowing race of
man ; or that the universal principle arrives to self-consciousness
only in the human race, and therefore the highest state of God
is man. The extreme left of the school trouble themselves but
little with words without meaning. They speak out boldly, so
that all the world may understand. " We are free," says Heine,
" and need no thundering tyrant. We are of age, and need no
fatherly care. We are not the hand-work of any great mechanic.
Theism is a religion for slaves, for children, for Genevese, for
watch-makers."
" Leo," says Hengstenberg, " charges this party with denying
the incarnation of God in Christ, and with turning the gospel
into a mythology. If the previous chaise is substantiated, this
requires no special proof. If the existence of God, in the Christian
sense of the terms, be denied, we must cease to speak of an
incarnation in the Christian sense of the word. The doctrine of
the immanence of God in the world, says Professor Vischer,
(Halle Jahrbuch, s. 1102,) forbids us to honor ' God in the letter,
or in single events, or individuals.' It regards, ^ as a breach in
the concatenation of the universe, that an individual should be
the Absolute.' According to this view, there is no other incarna-
tion than that which Professor Michelet, in harmony wath the
Chinese philosophers, teaches, tliat ' God must constantly appear
here on earth in a form which affects our senses, (als siunlicher,)
' Kirchcn-Zeitung, February, 1839.
108 THE LATEST FOKM OF INFIDELITY.
though constantly changing that form (als ein sich aufgeheben-
der und aufgehohener), and in this statement, if I mistake not,
the whole school will recognize the eternal incarnation of God.'
The Absolute attains consciousness in a series of individuals, no
one of which fully represents liim, but each has significance only
as a member of the whole. This incarnation of God is eternal,
but all individuals are perishing and transitory ; the Absolute
constantly fashions for itself new individuals, and rejects the
former as soon as they have answered their end. These form 'the
Golgotha of the Absolute Spirit ;' they surround, like bloodless
ghosts, the throne of the monster that devours his own children ;
that, void of love, strides through ages, trampling and destroying
all that lies in his way." Such is the awful language in which
Hengstenberg describes the God of the Hegelians.
The incarnation of God, then, according to this school, did not
occur in Christ, but is constantly occurring in the endless succes-
sion of the human race. Mankind is the Christ of tlie new
system, and all the gospel teaches of the Son of God is true only
as it is understood of mankind. Strauss teaches this doctrine
with a clearness veiy unusual in a philosopher. " The key," says
he, " of the whole doctrine of Christ, is tliat the predicates which
the church have affirmed of Christ, as an individual, belong to an
Idea, to a real, not to a Kantian unreal idea. In an individual,
in one Godman, the attributes and functions which the church
attribute to Christ, are incompatible and contradictory ; in the
idea of the race they all unite. Mankind is the union of the two
natures, the incarnate God, the Infinite revealed in the Finite,
and the Finite conscious of its infinity. The race is the child of
the visible mother and of the invisible Father, of the Spirit, and
of nature ; it is the true worker of miracles, in so far as in course
of its history, it constantly attains more complete mastery over
nature, which sinks into the powerless material of human activity.
It is sinless, so far as the course of its development is blameless ;
impurity cleaves only to the individual, but in the race, and its
history, it is removed. The race dies, rises again, and ascends to
heaven, in so far as by the negation of its natural element
(Natiirlichkeit) a higher spiritual life is produced, and as by the
negation of its finitude as a personal, national, worldly spirit, its
unity with the infinite spirit of heaven is manifested. By faith
in this Christ, is man justified before God ; that is, by the
THE LATEST FOKM OF INFIDELITY. 109
awakening the idea of the nature of man in him, especially as
the negation of the natural element, which is itself a negation of
the spirit, and thus a negation of a negation, is the only way to
true spiritual life for man, the individual becomes a partaker of
the theanthropical life of the race. This alone is the real import
of the doctrine of Christ ; that it appears connected with the
person and history of an individual, has only the subjective
ground, that his personality and fate were the occasion of awaken-
ing this general truth in the consciousness of men, and that at
that period the culture of the world, and indeed the culture of
the mass at all periods, allowed of their contemplating the Idea
of the race, only in the concrete form of an individual.'"
Tholuck, whose charity for philosophical aberrations is very wide,
remarks on this passage, "As the incarnation of God occurred not
in an individual, but comes to pass only in the constant progress of