  The young Rehberg too was drawn into the vortex of the pantheism controversy.  Although his skepticism began in the late 1770s, he formulated much of his philosophy in response to the issues it raised. His contribution to the controversy were his reviews of Jacobi and Herder in the Allgemeine Literatur Zeitung, and his 1787 tract Über das Verhältnis der Metaphysik zu der  Religion.[19]  In these writings Rehberg continues to develop his skepticism, which now became his settled position.  In this task he was greatly assisted by his close study of Kant's critical philosophy.  Rehberg agreed with some of Kant's central critical teachings: that pure reason cannot know anything without the aid of sense experience, and that it is impossible for the senses to know anything beyond appearances.  He found Kant's critique of dogmatic metaphysics compelling, and even defended Kant against Eberhard and the old dogmatic  Wolffians.[20]  He rejected, however, Kant's solution to the pantheism controversy: the concept of practical faith, the defense of religious belief on the basis of practical reason.  While Rehberg agreed with Kant that the only justification of religion is  practical,[21]  he could not accept that a practical justification has its basis in reason alone. The only practical justification of religion was political: its utility in maintaining order among the people.  A more educated man, however, did not need religious faith to love virtue and do his duty. Rehberg affirmed an austere stoic ethic, which demanded acting on duty alone, regardless of personal happiness.  Like many of his contemporaries, he held that the doctrine of moral faith violated Kant's own strictures about the autonomy of morals.  The moral law demands acting for the sake of duty alone, regardless of supernatural rewards and punishments.  