the universal prejudice concerning the influence of the devil upon the earth, and who attempted in earnest to correct the prevailing notions in regard to demons. As a means of coming to a decision upon the article of grace, he put into new circulation the principal writings of the Pelagian controversy, accompanied with liberal remarks. The satisfaction of Christ he made to consist in the love of God and of Christ towards man, and not to be any satisfaction of the vindictive justice of God; and expiation he did not consider the result of any physical power, independent of ourselves, but regarded it as a moral work in man himself.

As cheerfully as one listens to Semler upon dogmatical subjects, yet he cannot but be dissatisfied with his manner. He expresses himself ambiguously, in terms too general, and in words which give no definite and precise idea; he is involv ed and obscure, particularly in nice and subtile matters, to the greater vexation of the reader, since, where it is so difficult to make himself rightly understood, one ought to labor for the most exact phraseology.

With his peculiarly liberal manner of teaching, it was impossible that Semler should regard with much solicitude the symbolical books. His decisions concerning them were the decisions of a competent judge; declared by one who had fully prepared himself by long study of ecclesiastical history, and by faithful investigations concerning the origin of creeds, and their purport. As might be expected from him, he explained the same, meagerly indeed for common Christians, but elaborately for the teachers of religion, who ought to be able, by means of intelligible theories and clear propositions, to state and properly define their theological ideas. Such theories, as appears from history, have ever been subject to great changes, and we are not to consider them fixed and invariable from what they were in the sixteenth century, unless we are disposed to favor a sectarian hatred, and check the growing disposition for the liberal acknowledgment of the truth.*

* Semleri Apparatus ad libros symbolicos ecclesiæ Lutheranæ. Hal 1775, 8vo.

Such was the boldness and vigor with which Semler pursued his way in theological subjects for thirty years, giving. himself no concern for the hatred and reproach of zealots, in hopes that all his pains would not be entirely fruitless, after he had become enervated by his exertions to break the yoke of theological slavery. He found that there was no surer way of becoming a victim to a bold and independent spirit, than by the exercise of a free and open judgment in theology. His publications were stigmatized as injurious, heretical, damnable; and who knows what sentence might not have been passed upon him, had he not fortunately lived in the times and in the empire of Frederic the second; or how much more, in a foreign country, the zealots and defenders of scholastic extravagances might not have been enraged against him, had not a theologian, respected for orthodoxy, supported him in many cases with the whole weight of his theological character. Ernesti took an active interest in Semler, so that in general, as long as he lived, without allowing himself to define very exactly, he countenanced in many things the system of the reformed theologians. He could not himself well become a reformer, since he went late to the particular pursuit of theology, and lived in a situation unfavorable to the difficult work of reformation. The only immediate service that he rendered the system was his showing by what cunning misinterpretation the doctrine concerning the three offices of Christ had its origin; and his almost universally acknowledged authority in theology was sufficient to give his work a passport into those parts of Saxony, where all changes in system were resisted with great zeal. The service that he thus ultimately rendered was great. He did not stand in the way of those ingenuous men, who with earnestness and dignity proposed improvements in the system of doctrines; and, from his acuteness in theological subjects, he knew how far to suffer the bold and liberal ideas that were advanced upon certain theological problems to pass uncensured. Had not Ernesti extolled Junkheim's work upon the operations of divine grace, it would have cost a long and obstinate warfare before he could have gained admission for

his sentiments into the system. And, on the whole, Ernesti suffered as many of the innovations of Semler to pass without opposition, as consisted with safety, in regard to his own re putation.

Still however the life of Semler was one continued warfare against the numerous adversaries of his liberal speculations. As he was by no means very sparing of his prejudices against his opponents,* so they in turn did not spare him, or his opinions; and their opposition was often mixed with malicious allusions and odious insinuations, which made his ill-humour the more restless, in proportion as he was conscious to himself of the most honest and pure intentions. From his internal consciousness of innocence, he sometimes, when a cold answer or the silence of contempt would have better answered his purpose, broke out into violent passion and railing, which illcomported with his dignity. Even the misunderstanding of his ideas, upon which the opposition of his adversaries was often founded, he should have borne more patiently; for not unfrequently the blame was to be imputed to himself. As a writer he was much too careless. He never exhausted his subject; he never strove to make himself easily comprehended; his manner, his ideas, and his language were novel, and peculiar to himself; and he paid too little regard to the customary manner of writing, and to the proper arrangement and unfolding of his thoughts. The study of his writings therefore requires great labor; and even with this, one is seldom sure that he has thoroughly penetrated his ideas.

The art of philosophical explanation in particular is not to be looked for in Semler; for he had never, through the study of any philosophical system, given his mind a direction towards a clear manner of reasoning. He never proceeded from any general principles, under which he should have disposed his remarks; but presented certain insulated observations, which his reader, who would make further use of them, must reduce to such principles. In every subject he followed the method of sifting the different opinions of his predecessors,

* See Semler's writings against Schröpfer, Gässner, &c.

to which his extensive reading led him, and of intermixing his own ideas. But he did not build his criticism upon any fundamental maxims, nor present separately his peculiar opinions, with their proofs. Thus his remarks were extremely vague and defective, and his opinions were so imperfectly represented, that they were collected only by a few select readers, who took upon themselves the severe task of searching here and there for the detached fragments, and of binding them into a whole. In fine, as vast as his knowledge was, he could not easily present any subject in its full extent; he was generally seduced by a predilection for some of its parts: and it is often difficult to ascertain the reasons, why he has done so much, without doing more. In none of his writings therefore, was he more unfortunate, than in compendiums, which ought to give a whole outline of a department of knowledge. He soon lost himself in surveying certain parts of inconsiderable consequence towards a view of the whole; and in making particular remarks, peculiar to himself, which indeed were acceptable to the master in that department, but of little use to the beginner, and unsuitable to the intention of the book.

In the manner hitherto described, with great boldness and impartiality, had Semler written and taught for more than thirty years, when suddenly, in the year 1779, he changed his whole theological character. In answer to Bahrdt's* confession of faith (which no one will approve) he gave a defence of the system of the church, in which we no longer find the bold theologian, who had labored so much for the advancement of a liberal mode of thinking in theology, in his exegeti* [Charles Frederic Bahrdt, who was born in Germany in 1741. After being the author of various theological works, offensive in their sentiments, he became a professed deist, and formed the design of being the founder of an avowed deistical sect in Prussia. His life was unsettled, and he was engaged in various projects, none of which seem to have been successful. In his conduct he was unprincipled and profligate. He drove his wife from his house by his ill-treatment, and lived in adultery with his maid-servant. Toward the close of his life he settled near Halle as a farmer and innkeeper. His works on religion and morality and other subjects were very numerous. He died in 1792. Ed.]

cal and historical writings; who had changed in many particulars the mode of theological instruction; and who had contended with such manly resolution for tolerance and freedom of conscience. He thus made claim to a well deserved place among the orthodox theologians of our church, and, tempted by the opposition of his contemporaries, he denied that he had ever departed from its orthodox doctrines. He represented that whatever was novel and bold in his works, concerned only the manner of teaching; that his reformation extended only to the field of theological literature, in which he had met with many prejudices and false opinions, and much defective knowledge, where he attempted to expose and rectify what was false, and to supply what was imperfect; but that theological learning has no close connexion with theoretical and practical christianity, nor bare theory with doctrine; and that he never proposed that the instruction of the people in catechisms and books of devotion, should be differently ordered, according to more perfect and clear ideas.

In defence of what came thus unexpectedly from Semler, he insisted upon the great distinction between historical, social, and moral religion, and acknowledged no close connexion between them. Historical religion embraces only the history and the doctrines of Jesus in their literal sense, without any application to the Christian, and to his individual moral situation; social religion consists in principles embraced by the church as set forth in confessions and formularies, and prescribed for the instruction and belief of the church, to preserve external order, unity and peace, among the Christians of a country, and the members of a church; and moral religion proceeds from each individual's unfolding doctrines drawn from the New Testament, and applying them to his heart, and is displayed in the sentiments and conduct of men. The great mass of Christians are satisfied with historical belief, and the interpretations of the church; Christians of greateṛ capacity receive religion in its proper spirit, form themselves upon it, and apply it to the various circumstances of their moral condition; social religion is but the instrument, by