lowing article. Since that time, Hahn has published a Manual of Systematic Theology,* and is now engaged in superintending a beautiful edition of the Hebrew Bible from the press of Tauchniz, for which he furnishes a revision of the text.

Emanuel Kant, the extraordinary man whose labours have caused an entire revolution in the philosophical systems and speculations of Germany, and whose name occurs so often in the following pages, was the son of a saddler, and born at Königsberg in 1724. In 1740 he entered upon the study of theology, which he abandoned for classical and polite literature; and after spending several years as a tutor in private families, he became in 1755 a private teacher in the university of his native place. In this station he remained fifteen years without salary, receiving only fees from his hearers, until 1770, when he was appointed to the chair of Logic and Metaphysics in the same university. In this capacity he remained active until 1794, during which period he composed and published most of his philosophical works. The decays of age compelled him afterwards to retire from his more active duties; and he died in 1804, at the age of 80 years, having never in his life been out of Königsberg farther than to Pillau, a distance of about thirty-three English miles.

His person and character are thus described by Reichart (Urania, Taschenbuch für 1812). "Kant was both in body and soul a perfectly dry man. Leaner and thinner than his diminutive body, had perhaps none ever existed; colder and more shut up in himself, a sage had never lived. A high and serene forehead, fine nose, and clear sparkling eyes, were very advantageous features in his countenance. But the lower part of the face, on the contrary, was the most perfect expression of gross sensuality; which manifested itself in him immoderately, especially in eating and drinking.-He loved a good table in cheerful society; and was himself a pleasing companion, who knew how to put every company in the best humour by his genuine wit, exhibited in the happiest retorts and remarks, and through his vast reading and exhaustless store of entertaining anecdotes, which he related in the driest possible manner, without himself ever joining in the laugh. Kant's society was so much the more welcome in the best houses and most respectable families, because, through his perfect integrity and that genuine

"Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, Leips. 1828.

dignity which became him, not only as the most intellectual man of the city, but also as one of the deepest thinkers of the human race, he knew how to secure every where to himself the most entire respect and esteem. In his external appearance he was not only always neat, but elegant. Kant was also the better suited both for large and small parties, in that he was fond of cards, and rarely passed an evening without a party at ombre. He regarded this as the only entirely sure means of relieving and quieting his head, after severe thinking. The fine arts he neither practised, nor particularly admired. It seemed rather as if he was all deep intellect; along with which, it is rare to find so boundless a memory as Kant possessed. His lectures were, on this account, in the highest degree interesting and instructive. He read the greater part of the forenoon; seldom in the afternoon; and left himself twenty minutes between the lectures, to prepare for the following one. Logic and metaphysics he commonly read publicly; and then alternately natural law, morals, anthropology, physics, and physical geography. This last was a particularly pleasing and instructive course for young people, through his immeasurable reading in history, travels, biography, romances, and in every branch, which can in any way furnish materials for enriching or illustrating that science. His memory shewed itself here in its full strength; for although he had his papers before him, he yet seldom looked at them, and often repeated long rows of names and dates, entirely from recollection. His lectures also on abstract philosophy, received great clearness and perspicuity from the treasure of illustrations and examples which his memory presented; and his writings have probably so long remained difficult and obscure to many, merely because he thought it unnecessary to subjoin to them those illustrations, which he was accustomed to give in the lecture

room."

This is not the place to give a view of the philosophical principles of Kant. His system lies in ruins in the land which gave it birth; other systems have rolled onward over it, and crushed it into comparative oblivion. These again have yielded in their turn; and of those that are now predominant, who shall say that they are founded on principles more consonant to truth, or will endure longer than that of Kant; who supposed that his own system was, like truth, indestructible and everlasting; and who was blasphemously compared, by some of his disciples, to Jesus Christ? At present there would scarcely be found an

intelligent man in Germany, who would call himself a follower of Kant; and the highest praise now assigned to him as a thinker is, that he was scharfsinnig, aber nicht tiefsinnig, sagacious but not profound.

The principal works of Kant, in which his system and the various applications of it are developed, are the Critique of pure Reason, Riga 1781. Leips. 1799. 5th ed. Critique of practical Reason, Riga 1787. Critique of Judgement, Berlin 1790. 3d ed. 1799. Religion within the bounds of Reason, Königsb. 1792. 2d ed. 1794. etc. The English reader who wishes to obtain a view of Kant's philosophy, may be referred to an article by Sir James Macintosh in the first volume of the Edinburgh Review; to the articles Kant and Kantism in the several Encyclopædias, especially to that in the forthcoming Encyclopædia Americana; and to a biographical account of Kant by Prof. Stapfer of Paris, translated from the "Biographie universelle" by Prof. Hodge, and published in the Biblical Repertory for July 1828. The best German works on the biography and philosophy of Kant, are given in the note below.*

It is somewhat singular that the system of Kant should have been regarded, both by friends and foes, as tending to establish the orthodox faith. In this respect the view given by Prof. Stapfer is too favourable. The developements of the following article shew, that whatever sentiments Kant may have intended ostensibly to convey, his heart at least knew nothing of a revelation. This is confirmed too by the accounts of Hasse, the orientalist, referred to in the note below. About a year before Kant's death, Hasse asked him what he promised himself in regard to a future life? after reflecting he replied: Nothing certain.' In answer to a previous question of the same kind he said: 'I have no conception of a future state.' See Hasse, p. 28 f. and comp. Borowski, p. 195–202, who is also positive as to his repugnance to admit the supernatural origin of Christianity.

*Hasse, Letzte Aeusserungen Kants, von einem seiner Tischgenossen, Königsb. 1804.-Borowski, Darstellung des Lebens und Characters Kants, ib. 1805.-Wasianski, Imm. Kant in seinem letzten Lebensjahre, ib. 1805.-Jachmann, Imm. Kant, geschildert in Briefen, etc. ib. 1805.-Kiesewetter, Darstellung der wichtigsten Wahrheiten der kritischen Philosophie, 4te. Aufl. von Flittner, Berlin 1824.

The name of John Frederick Röhr occurs also in the following pages. He was born in 1777, studied theology at the university of Leipsic, was then settled as a pastor near Zeitz, and since 1820 occupies the former station of the celebrated Herder, as general superintendant and first court-preacher at Weimar. He is regarded as one of the boldest and most intolerant leaders of the rationalists. His 'Letters on Rationalism' were published in 1813; and for many years he has conducted a Preacher's Journal,' which is of course the organ of his rationalist views. He has also published a small popular 'Geography of Palestine, which is necessarily superficial. ED.

HAHN ON INTERPRETATION.

The assertion has often been made within the last ten years, and especially in the latter part of this period, that the modern rationalism, which may be referred to Emanuel Kant as its founder, has a character entirely different from the earlier rationalism. It has been asserted to be decidedly evangelical, or at least far more evangelical than the older system, which is also called naturalism, inasmuch as it declares the belief in a divine revelation to be an illusion, and rejects the Holy Scriptures, because it esteems them merely as human productions. Kant himself also wished to establish this distinction between rationalism and naturalism.* But history affords no ground for such a separation of

In his treatise entitled Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, 2nd ed. Königsb. 1794 p. 230 ff. "That (religion) in which I must know that any thing is a divine command, in order to acknowledge it as my duty, is a revealed religion (or one which needs a revelation). On the contrary, that in which I must first know that any thing is my duty, before I can acknowledge it a divine command, is natural religion. He who holds only natural religion to be morally necessary, i. e. to be duty, may be also called a rationalist. If he denies the reality of all supernatural divine revelation, he is called a naturalist. If now he admits the possibility of a revelation, but aserts, that to be acquainted with it and to adopt it as real, is not necessary to religion, he may be called a pure rationalist. If, however, he holds a belief in a revelation to be necessary to religion in general, he may be termed a pure supernaturalist. The rationalist, by virtue of his very name, must of course confine himself within the limits of human knowledge. Hence, he will never as naturalist de

the two, as is now conceded even by opposers, who respect her frequent testimonies for near two hundred years, and just as little would there seem to be room for such a distinction, if we regard the declarations of the founder of modern rationalism himself.

In Pt. III. Sect. 5 of his work entitled "Religion within the bounds of Reason," where he is endeavouring to show "that the constitution of every church always arises out of some historical (revealed) system of belief, which may be called the ecclesiastical faith; and that this is best founded upon sacred records;" he goes on among other things to say: "Since then it is not now to be avoided, that an authoritative ecclesiastical faith should thus be connected with a pure religious belief, as the vehicle and means of publicly uniting men for the advancement of the latter; it must also be conceded, that the permanent support of this ecclesiastical faith, the gradual and general spread of it, and even the proper respect for the revelation incorporated in it, can hardly be sufficiently provided for by tradition, but only by written documents; and these again must, as a revelation, be an object of reverence both to contemporaries and to posterity. This is necessary for mankind, in order that they may have some certainty in regard to their religious duties. A holy book acquires for itself the highest respect with those-and with such indeed most of all-who cannot read it, or at least cannot gain from it any connected idea of religion (!); and no reasoning

ny, nor call in question, either the intrinsic possibility of revela tion in general, nor the necessity of a revelation as a divine means for the introduction of true religion; for on such points no one can decide any thing by reason. Consequently, the question in dispute can only be as to the mutual claims of the pure rationalist and the supernaturalist; or, it can concern only that, which the one looks upon as necessary and sufficient for the only true religion, while the other regards it as only accidental." That Kant himself doubted the reality of any actual revelation, and held that of the Bible to be only professed and imaginary, (poetic fiction, Dichtung,) is wholly undeniable from many declarations, some of which will be given in the sequel. See e. g. p. 150 ff. 160 ff. of the work above cited.

*This and the other passages are here quoted in extenso, partly in order to refer to them afterwards, and partly for the sake of avoiding the reproach of misconception.