was a laboured mixture of religion and philosophy; and here the materials for the examiner of the opinions of the church in a manner commence. From this period Semler devoted his particular attention to the leaders of different parties. As, to mention one instance, from the time of Cyprian, all Africa was imbued with the peculiarities of Tertullian, so almost every where one may proceed geographically in the history of theological opinions and language, since the clergy of a whole country almost always adhered, both in doctrine, and in the ⚫ manner of exhibiting it, to one leader, whom they blindly followed. And when his language and manner is described and illustrated, the same thing is done for a long period, and an extensive country.

In these investigations Semler had the desired opportunity of placing in a distinct contrast-theology and religion-provincial theology and universal christianity-learned dogmas and feeble catechisms; of representing the influence of the version of the Latin-church upon the origin, formation, and nature of doctrines, and of shewing how these doctrines were rather obtruded one by one, through the power of the church, than received from conviction.

In this part of theological learning, however, Semler has only collected the materials for a future, more ample history of our doctrines, and thrown them together without regard to arrangement. He has not provided in the least degree for convenience in consulting his selections. The gradual changes of doctrine to be found in the fathers are not disposed in chronological order, as they should be to give a clear view of the origin of the articles of belief in the church.

Semler therefore has left much in this field to be gathered by active and learned theologians. If a work should be written, which should dispose in order those parts of the history of doctrines already examined, together with their results, out of the various writings where they are now scattered in fragments; and which should also excite learned theologians, who felt the inclination and the call for such severe labor, to share the remaining part, we might at length acquire upon

this important part of theological learning an entire, and, as far as possible, a perfect history. Thus young theologians would be conducted to the best field for the exercise of their minds, where they might accustom themselves to estimate the ideas, expressions, and representations of systems according to their deserts. They would thence learn what writings of the fathers were to be read, and how they were to read them; and would become acquainted beforehand with the contents of the most respectable. They would thence also acquire very different conceptions of the prevailing doctrines, from those received through the common books of instruction on this subjeet, written without knowledge of the peculiar language of the fathers, and would early accustom themselves to the wayering opinions of the church.

To the middle of the present [eighteenth] century two theological schools in Germany contended with each other for preeminence; that of Spener,* and that of Wolf. The first, whose centre was at Halle, from a love of the practical part of Christianity, had gradually become a foe to respectable theological learning founded in history, language, and philosophy; and, to complete the misfortune, attributed a sort of magical efficacy to certain words and figures of the sacred writings. Those of the other party enlisted in their aid all

* [Philip James Spener, a Lutheran divine, born in 1635. He was at the head of those mentioned above called the Pietists. They maintained that only such as are inspired by the Holy Ghost can understand the scriptures. He held some ecclesiastical dignities at Berlin. He died in 1705. Ed.]

We presume the celebrated German philosopher Christian Wolf, a disciple of the philosophy of Leibnitz. He was born in 1679. In 1707 he was appointed professor of mathematics at Halle. Here he became obnoxious from his opinions concerning necessity, and particularly from an extravagant and hyperbolical oration which he delivered on the morality of the Chinese, in consequence of which he was obliged to leave his professorship. He retired to Cassel, but was in 1741 recalled by the king of Prussia, made professor of the law of nature and nations at Halle, and afterwards chancellor of the University. He was created likewise a Baron of the Roman Empire. He died in 1754. Ed.]

of Wolf's philosophy and manner of teaching, and, full of insolent confidence in their demonstrations, despised all the helps of interpretation and history. Baumgarten, nurtur ed in the lap of the pietists, and led afterwards, through a concurrence of fortunate circumstances, into the arms of the Wolfian philosophy, embraced from the first a love for the use of the bible, and afterward a deeper habit of thinking, and united with them a regard for history. Thus he originated an intermediate state of theology, that afforded hope of imimprovement. But his use of the bible was defective; for he was not supported and guided by enlightened philology and criticism. His speculations did not lead him to an independent manner of thinking, because he had been too much accustomed in his early years to words and forms, and to a sort of register of doctrines, which received nothing but what corresponded to its purpose; and his knowledge of history, as far as it is subsidiary to theology, was not drawn sufficiently from original authorities. But his school was an excellent preparation for the new theology. One was first exercised in the helps to knowledge, in which Baumgarten could pass for little more than a beginner; yet the reflections excited by this means in his scholars led to greater freedom of investigation and of judgment. He attempted to demonstrate every thing to his scholars; but the basis of his demonstrations was shaken by philology, history, and criticism. Here then is the beginning of our new, independent manner of teaching in theology.

Semler was of the number of those choice persons, who labored with unremitted activity in this new creation. Yet he was prepared only by gradual and severe labor for the reformation of dogmatic theology; according to his opportunities from time to time of possessing himself of the necessary helps to the knowledge of it, and his acquaintance with the bold theologians of earlier times. Fortunately, in the study of dogmatic theology, he fell into the hands of excellent guides. The great Calixtus was his pattern in boldness of thinking, and in distinguishing between theology and religion; Pfaff in

the illustration of doctrines by means of history, and in liberality and frankness of judgment; Weismann in sound theological inquiry, and in condemning affected demonstrations: the Arminians, Episcopius and Curcellæus in a love for the simplicity of the scriptures, in sound interpretation of these writings, and in bold unshackeled judgment; Simon and Le Clerc in impartial examination of the text of our bible, and in the banishing of Rabbinnical-Christian prejudices. In the year 1765 Semler commenced with vigorous steps his new course, and pursued it with spirit and ability to the last ten years of his life.

Yet Semler was never perfectly systematic in this department; nor could he become so. Although he was more perfectly skilled in two branches of knowledge, interpretation and history, which are the foundation of dogmatic theology, than the most systematic theologians; yet, on the other hand, he failed almost entirely in systematic philosophy, and in exact and definite expression. He was satisfied therefore with certain peculiar, and for the most part excellent observations in this department, which will furnish very valuable materials to one who may hereafter pursue the subject systematieally.

In his books of instruction upon dogmatic theology he refers to Latin and German works in particular, as is necessary in the instruction of young theologians, who must know the system of the church, as Hutter, Calov, Quenstedt, Gerard, and others have exhibited it. Thence he provides for a liberal judgment concerning the system. He traces the gradual progress of the doctrines of the present time, and examines for the purpose of finding how strongly or feebly each is supported by the bible itself; and enlarges as well upon the relation it bears to real Christianity, as upon its intrinsic importance.* Thus in regard to dogmatic theology he opened a free range for liberal minds.

Still however he produced more that was excellent upon this

* Semleri institutio ad doctrinam Christianam liberaliter discendam. Hal. 1774, 8vo. [This work has lately been added to the library of the college in this place. Ed.]

branch of knowledge in his historical, critical, and exegetical writings, in which he never lost sight of the system of the church; delivered boldly and without disguise his judgment concerning; it here and there, according to circumstances, improved, corrected, illustrated, limited, or rejected the same; and produced a rich treasure of theological ideas. This without doubt was the safest method. A book of theological in

struction is not the place for bold assertions, unless one is willing to risk the danger of making too great changes at once, or of bringing on himself the accusation of rashness.

His

Semler adopted many of his apparent innovations from the ancient heretics. The Gnostics and the disciples of Marcion attempted the annihilation of the Jewish spirit in Christianity. Wholly in their spirit Semler was jealous lest too much stress should be laid upon the support adduced from the Old Testament in favor of the system of doctrines in the New, the value of which has been extremely exaggerated, and of which Christianity, so distinct in its spirit, stands in no need. system concerning the temporal and local garb of the New Testament led him to distinguish between the different periods of those writings from which the proof passages for any doctrine were drawn. Christ may have spoken one passage in an earlier, and another in a later period of his office as a teacher. Now John may have spoken before, and again after his full views of the religion; and the apostles may here have uttered themselves before, and there after the effusion of the Holy Spirit. If Semler ever taught the same dogma with the church, still his proofs in its support were never the common ones; and he imposed on the teachers of theology a liberal change in the manner of coming at their proofs.

He has either given himself, or adopted from others among his contemporaries, the most novel views of dogmatic theology. In the improvements of the article concerning saered writ, in the departments relating to the canon, to inspiration, and to the estimate of miracles, as proofs for the truth of Christianity, Semler was conspicuously preeminent. He was the first among the German theologians, who dared to contend against