enlarged, was published in 1794. Religion is the sublimest form of morality. It consists in doing all righteousness, in loving obedience to the divine commands. Ethics concern themselves with our duty to ourselves and to one another, without taking in the idea of a Supreme Being as a regulating Agent. He seeks, therefore, to give a moral interpretation to the records, doctrines, and ordinances of Christianity, and so to make them a course of moral instruction and guidance over and above and independent of their real and primary historic meaning. He makes the practical reason the supreme judge of positive religion, and does not inquire whether Christianity has been revealed, but whether it is reasonable. The former fact he leaves undecided, but he adjudicates upon its possibility, and affirms that the only true and final proof of the fitness of Christianity to regenerate the world is to be found in its harmony with reason and conscience. Kant appears, therefore, in this work, as a moral rationalist, more, even, than as a rational theologist. This work is not, as some have supposed, a consequence of the sneering Voltaireism prevalent in Prussia under Frederick the Great. It is a serious and philosophical work, reverential to Christianity, full of glowing poetic thought, and one intended to prove that the moral worth of Christianity is independent altogether of the decision which may be come to regarding the historical data on which sceptics were making their attacks during the preparatory era of the French Revolution.

The purpose of this work, however, was misconceived; and under the terror inspired by the great French Revolution, whose origin was eagerly traced to criticism, which holds nothing-thrones, policies, or religion-sacred from its inquisitive eye, the Censor of Berlin called the attention of King Frederick William to this book, and on October 12th, 1794, Kant received a letter from that Sovereign, charging him with disparaging many capital and fundamental doctrines of Holy Writ and Christianity, calling upon him to give "no cause for fault-finding on that score in future," and threatening unpleasant consequences in case of persevering opposition." Kant promised to offend the king, who had been his friend, no more, but reserved to himself the right of teaching in the same way farther when the commands of the king were withdrawn. He refused to retract what was written.* He kept silence on this subject till the king's death released him from his promise, and in 1797 issued his "Metaphysical Elements of the Doctrine of Virtue," in which he more positively brought out his theory of the dominion of the practical reason over historic religion. This work

66

28

* Let us here remark that the account given of this work and its consequences, in a paper of De Quincey's (not republished), entitled, "Kant in his Miscellaneous Essays," in Blackwood's Magazine, August, 1830, is very misleading. De Quincey says, in his "Last Days of Kant," that the philosopher's words were sacred as other men's oaths;" but there he represents him as a snivelling, lying hypocrite, and misrepresents the nature and style of the book. That part of the aforementioned paper is not trustworthy.

66

66

66

Lecture

Te

the

ar

st out

only

ted

Criti

mirab

in

Kant

asm

ad be

had been preceded in 1796 by a treatise on the " Metaphysical) Elements of Jurisprudence," in which, while writing under the I influence of the French Revolution, which he had early welcomed as the advent of the reign of freedom and right, he condemns the Convention for putting Louis XVI. to death. Schlosser, the friend of Goethe, having attacked the "Critical Philosophy" with great vigour and venom, Kant, in 1795, replied in a tractate entitled, An Announcement of an Approaching Conclusion of a Perpetual Peace in Philosophy," a work which was followed by an Essay towards Realizing a Perpetual Peace"* in the world, in 1796, which forms not only a separate thesis, but may be read as a sequel to his "Elements of Jurisprudence.' As Kant's literary labours were by this time drawing to a close, we shall here note a few other minor writings, left unnoticed in our hurried sketch, with their dates, as nearly as we can find them. "On Enthusiasm and its Remedies," 1790; "On the Influence of the Moon upon Time,"c 1794; "On the Haughty Tone which has recently arisen in Philo-a sophical Discussions," 1794, chiefly directed against Jacobi, who for wished to constitute philosophy upon feeling and enthusiasm, rather Reinh than on reason and reflection. In 1795 he issued an essay "On tor the End of all Things," and a letter to Sömmering on “The Organ of the Soul." In 1791 he debated the question, Is Man constantly Improving?" in a pamphlet; wrote a paper on The Power of the Mind to overcome Morbid Sensations by Will;" and "On the oth Pretended Right of Men to Lie," when it appeared to be politic. In 1798 he wrote to C. F. Nicolai (1733-1811), Director of the "Universal German Library," two letters on "Books and Bookmaking.' "The Strife of the Academic Faculties" is a work of some interest, belonging to this year; for in the preface to it Kant published the letter of King Frederick William II. to him, with his reply; and in the body of the work resumes the thesis of the subordination of religion to philosophy, which he had begun in his "Religion in Harmony with Reason," and which had led to the only disquietude in his calm life; for it had compelled him to say to his Sovereign, "No power on earth can control my thoughts, or has a right to compel me to withdraw, or to deny, or even to conceal, a single thought which flows from my reason, and which I believe to th be the truth." In the same year he resigned the chair which he had so long and so honourably filled, and closed his connection as a teacher with that university in which he had laboured continuously and unfailingly for more than forty-three years. At the same time, in a work on Pragmatical Anthropology," he took his farewell of the public, in a note to the Preface, assigning his advanced age and his on-coming infirmities as reasons for resigning into other hands the production of such of his other works as might be considered likely to be beneficial to the world. Professor Jaesche edited his "Logic, as we have said before, in 1800; Professor Rink his " * The substance of this essay will be found in De Quincey's article, Blackwood, August, 1830.

66

inten

apt

had

Physical

ce

Aant

passe

Geography," in 1802, and his "Treatise on the Art of Teaching," 1803. In 1817, C. H. L. Poelitz (1772-1840) published from the sage's notes "Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion," and in 1821, "Lectures on Metaphysics."

66

We are desirous here of noticing the connection between Kant and Fichte (1762-1814). In 1790 the latter began the serious study of the Königsberg philosophy while he was a tutor at Leipsic. Here he wrote an abridgment of the "Critique of Judgment," then "just out." This has not been published. After passing a year in Warsaw, in the same labour, Fichte, while returning from Poland with only enough to live on for a fortnight, sought to see Kant, and presented to his notice a work composed in eight days, entitled, "A Critique of every possible Revelation." Kant thought it "admirably written," and advised its sale to Hartung. Through Kant's influence Fichte was appointed tutor to Count Crocow, in Dantzic. This "Critique" was published in the Literary Gazette, at Jena; was at first mistaken for Kant's, and, when acknowledged, gained for Fichte the chair of philosophy, vacant by the transference of Reinhold to Kiel. Fichte began his professorial career as an expositor of Kant, but soon took a new departure" in philosophy for himself-in his famous "Doctrine of Science," 1794. The writings of Schulze and Maimon were the effective instruments in leading Fichte to seek a deeper and less fluctuating foundation for philosophy. One of the last, and to us the least pleasing, of the acts of Kant's literary life was the composition of a condemnatory criticism of the system of the illustrious thinker and patriot whom he had before encouraged, but whom he now repudiated in a public This paper is neither generous nor able; it misconceives the intent of Fichte, and argues beside the question: for the attempt of Fichte was logically and philosophically legitimate. Kant had given a full Critique of the operations of the Mind on the matter of its thoughts. Fichte determined on a criticism of the act of thought itself. Kant had taken Logic for granted, and founded his system upon Aristotelianism. Fichte insisted on probing the scholastic Logic more deeply, and called Consciousness into his presence to undergo an inquisition of the severest rigour which a great thinker could apply to it. The aim was legitimate; and though, perhaps, Kant may have been justified by the event (for the Kantian Critique is yet powerful, while the Fichtean Doctrine has passed out of power), yet we cannot believe that he was right in opposing the free activity of a great thinker and an heroic spirit. We have to recollect, however, that long labour had worn out the quick, the pith and marrow of Kant's mind, that his health was shattered, and that he was suffering from that temper and thoughtdestroying malady, the "atony of the digestive organs," and was already the prey of marasmus. His memory began to hesitate, weakness assailed him, and restlessness beset him. Appetite, sight, voice, teeth, flesh, sleep showed symptoms of failure, and made the remark of a friend from Berlin painfully truthful:-"This is not

manner.

66

Kant that I have seen, but only the husk of Kant!" "Decay's effacing fingers" were busy on mind and body. In De Quincey's Last Days of Kant," compiled from "Wasianski's Memorials, checked and supported by the Collateral Testimonies of Jachmann, Rink, Borowski, and others." a full detail of the progress of his decrepitude may be read. We have no heart to reproduce the doleful narrative, which is minute and long drawn out as a report for a coroner's inquest. Kant died slowly. For nearly four years death was beaten off by assiduous care and watchfulness. But the end came; and in February, on the 12th of that month-of which he had once written, in allusion to its shortcoming of days, "Oh, happy February! in which man has least to bear, least pain, least sorrow, least self-reproach"-having exclaimed, "Sufficit!" (it is enough), he died at eleven o'clock a.m. A cast of his head was taken by Professor Knorr, for Dr. Gall, the craniologist. "On the 28th of February, at two p.m., all the dignitaries of Church and State, not only those resident in Königsberg, but from the remotest parts of Prussia, assembled in the church of the castle. Hence they were escorted by the whole body of the University, splendidly dressed for the occasion, and by many military officers of rank, with whom Kant had always been a great favourite, to the house of the deceased Professor; from which the corpse was carried by torchlight, the bells of every church in Königsberg tolling, to the cathedral, which was lit up by innumerable wax-lights. A never-ending train of people (who had put on mourning as for a parent) followed it on foot. In the cathedral, after the usual burial rites, accompanied with every possible expression of national veneration for the deceased, there was a grand musical service, most admirably performed; at the close of which Kant's mortal remains were lowered into the academic vault; and there he now rests among the patriarchs of the University." A reunion of his friends, pupils, and admirers took place in one of the chambers of the University, on 22nd April, 1811, to celebrate the memory of the illustrious logician. Since then, the place has been named Kant's Hall. A medal was struck to his memory by M. Abramson, of Berlin, on one side of which there is a likeness of the sage, with the date of his birth; on the other Minerva is seated, holding an owl in her right hand, which she restrains from flying, and the legend around it is, “Altius

volantem arcuit.”

So passes mortal thought and mortal life. Sufficit!—Is it enough? Do we not want more? Not the verdict of self, nor of the world, nor of posterity, but of the Father, gives the true Sufficit to human life. If, indeed, He says, “It sufficeth!" all is well; for He is the all-knowing Critic of humanity-He not only knows and possesses, but He is the truth. If we are found truly in Him, then may our last word be, with unreserved confidence, that of Kant-Sufficit! S. N.

[N.B.-It may be as well to say that the writer has not seen the paper on KANT, by Dr. Cairns, in the Encyclopædia Britannica.]

ARE THE PREVALENT FORMS OF WORSHIP EFFECTIVE? 177

Religion.

ARE THE PREVALENT FORMS OF WORSHIP IN
BRITAIN EFFECTIVE?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III.

THE question under discussion seems to be somewhat loosely stated. Before we can decide whether the forms of worship are effective, we ought first to inquire what is meant by being effective; then, whether any form whatever, in any age or country, has attained to the required effectiveness, and compare that with the existing forms of worship prevalent in Great Britain. It is presumed that all classes of Christians are agreed that the end of worship (or its effect) is to be drawn into closer communion with the Triune Godhead; they worship in obedience to the summons, "Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you;" and this is done in three different ways-privately, socially, publicly. Of these three, by far the most important is his public appearance in the places set apart for him and his fellow-worshippers, where they may fall "low on their knees before His footstool," knowing that "where two or three are met together, there" is He "in the midst of them." They come to praise and pray, and to have their share in the service prepared for them. This, however,-and here, it appears, is where the whole of the question hinges-this is only for those who come prepared. It is a lamentable fact, but only too true, that there are numbers of people who "profess and call themselves Christians," but there they stop; they go to church or chapel, but then it is just as they would go to a ball or concert; they go because their neighbours do, and because it is respectable. If it were insinuated to them that they had no religion, they would resent it as an insult; and yet, for any spiritual benefit they have received, they might as well keep away. To derive benefit from the sacred services of the sanctuary, it is absolutely necessary to approach "with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart," "when we assemble and meet together to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at His hands, to set forth His most worthy praise, to hear His most holy word, and to ask those things that are requisite and necessary as well for the body as the soul." This being the required end of worship, we next proceed to inquire how far this is assisted by the forms used by various denominations of worshippers. It will be sufficient for present purposes if we divide them into two large classes-first, 1863.

N