which internal moral religion is promoted, in those who are. capable of its exercise.

.

How these three sorts of religion are so completely disjoined, that each can subsist by itself; how a more pure and reformed mode of teaching should have no influence upon doctrines, and no connexion with them; how the internal moral religion should be peculiar only to Christians of greater capacity, and historical religion should suffice for the great mass of Christians;-all this is more difficult to apprehend, than all the bold and liberal notions, which Semler in former years had diffused through the public. The historical faith which the common Christian acquires from the church, must have an influence upon his mind, greater or less in proportion to his abilities, no less than the faith drawn from the scriptures themselves. No sort of knowledge remains wholly unfruitful, although the degree of its fruitfulness necessarily differs, according to the difference of the powers of the individual. Now the question occurs, whether religion shall be made more difficult to the weak, and more easy to the strong; and whether the system of doctrines shall be presented to the former in the old, unintelligible, platonic and scholastic style and manner, or in the language of the bible, more simple and intelligible, more easy for profitable examination, and more adapted to moral improvement: whether one should not, after a formula has been approved by the different sects of the church, exhibit the same in a more plain and exact manner, if a learned theologian should find such a method. Is it not of consequence what are the first principles, in which a scholar is grounded; since these are liable to give a direction to his mind, which will last through his life? Is it not also of much consequence by what means intrinsic, moral religion is produced; whether they be good or bad, whether they be true, partially true, or false; whether moral operations in man are facilitated or obstructed; whether they are promoted by direct or circuitous ways, and whether they are advanced or suffered to decline? Shall not one labor, with discretion indeed, to bring social religion into a more intimate connexion with genuine Chris

tianity? Shall one hide the light, which reflection upon the doctrines of Christ has produced, under that bushel—the rule of church instruction? Shall one think for himself concerning what is best, and most pure, and therefore most adapted to moral direction and improvement, and apply it to his own heart, and yet if he is publicly set apart for forming the morals of the people, must he not adopt the best and purest instructions in pursuit of his end, because they do not agree with the language of social religion, which has been spoken for many hundred years? Shall duty towards God give way to this notion of social duty; or shall the laws of morality be subordinate to the laws of the church? According to such reasoning, Christ and the apostles did extremely wrong to prescribe a system of doctrines to the Jews, without the authority of their nation. We protestants also should be rebels to the church, which professes to be the only church in which salvation is to be obtained; and Luther would be the leader of rebels, and a perjured teacher, or at least unmindful of his oath or his obligations, in proposing his antipapal theses at Wittenburg. Upon this ground no changes ought ever to have been contemplated in the Romish church, and the catholics ought to have forever continued slaves to the doctrines of their communion, although their understandings were convinced, that some were unintelligible, and others false. For what have the protestants studied almost three hundred years? Why have they sought with so much pains to bring the helps of theological learning the knowledge of language, of criticism, of interpretation, of philosophy, of the history of the church and of doctrines, to their present perfection? Why especially do they still pursue the study of theology? Is it so unfruitful and useless a study; has theory no influence upon doctrine; have the reformers accomplished and perfected every thing, and put their seal to truths, which are to be bind- ' ing to the end of time? Yet their formula was wholly opposed to the will of the hitherto dominant church, and accounted nothing better than unlawful innovation. Let us, protestants, hasten again into the lap of the mother-church! Then

will all controversy be at an end; then will there be one flock and one shepherd. Then will every thing be taught and preached and sung in the old way, in the good old church dialect. Every one shall then also think and believe in his heart, what he pleases; have his own internal views of private religion, and provide for his own moral necessities. The church requires neither in teachers nor in the laity truth and sincerity in words and works.

Thus abundant in hardy and dangerous speculations, subversive of protestant principles, was the system which Semler supported, either from the weakness of old age, or, as some suppose, in order to justify his peculiarly inconsiderate step, in answering Bahrdt's confession of faith. It would have been better in the last case rather to have confessed too much haste, or to have returned wholly to the old system of the church, than to have struck out so unfortunate a middle course. He now however undertook to defend the system of church doctrines. But what thanks could he deserve from the party to which he thus stooped? He still did not defend the system in its true and genuine sénse: he said nothing of the efficacious obedience of Christ, of his vicarious sufferings, of atonement and redemption, in the way in which these doctrines are set forth in the rules of doctrine.

By this sudden change, Semler in a manner annihilated the labor of a whole literary life, filled with exertion. The system which he had already changed for the best, he was obliged in one place to alter, and in another to consider in a new light. In his novae observationes he had reproached the old church, inasmuch as the ruling party, through its public ordinances concerning religion, had suppressed the right of private judgment; and he uttered many offensive opinions, as well concerning councils and synods, with their orders and statutes, as concerning rules of doctrine, and books of confessions. Now he retracted all this, and became animated, as if with holy zeal, to vindicate the impaired honor of councils and their decrees, and the discredited usefulness of public rules of doctrine. He assumed, that, in ecclesiastical assem

blies, a difference has always been supposed between the language of the church as settled by them for teachers, and the private opinions of the teachers themselves, and the peculiar religious ideas of the laity; that in the compiling of the decrees of councils and public rules of doctrine, there was no arrogating an unlawful authority over the conscience; that the formulas were not intended to prescribe what the Christian or teacher should think and believe in order to be saved, but what instructions in religion should be publicly imparted by the teacher, in order to declare himself and his hearers to be members of a particular communion, connected and held together by public rules of doctrine; that these rules of doctrine, however, were not intended to have any influence upon inward dispositions and moral improvement, but that, in short, they were designed merely, through the introduction of a common church language, to furnish Christians of various opinions a common ground, in their public religious assemblies, and to prevent disunion and disturbance in the society.

If a teacher is to use the contents of the creed only as. watch-words, and the church is to agree with him in feeling no obligation to believe the whole that he teaches, and to expect from him no real conviction of the truth of what he utters, the yoke of a creed is indeed very light: but such levity in religion, the most important concern of mankind, would be intolerable; such indifference to truth and error in regard to God, and our relation to him, unpardonable; "and such a violation of conscience, publicly authorized by the church itself, inexcusable. Such probably was never the opinion and design of the church. It is much more probable, that in the most ancient churches, it was prescribed to the teachers, not only what they should publicly utter, but also what they and the laity, as obedient children of the church, should believe, in order to obtain salvation. The church, since she first felt her power, has manifested a disposition to rule with unlimited sway the faith of her members; and hence has armed herself with damning clauses and the threatened torments of another life against every act of disobedience in her children. This is amply verified in the Athanasian creed.

The church indeed, as things now stand, is in lamentable danger; but entirely through the fault of her principal servants. She holds her creeds inviolable; yet for a space of some hundred years, they have continued without the least improvement, and their contrast with present views of religion throws contempt not merely upon her rules of doctrine, but even upon religion itself; because it is only a few wise men who properly distinguish between them. It is absurd in manhood to feel, and think, and speak like a child; it is criminal so to invade the rights of intellectual man, either in regard to individuals or communities, as to set limits to his improvement. But every obstacle to the enlightening of the understanding, will eventually be broken through. At the present day it is dangerous to give to every teacher the power of communicating the full measure of truth. The ultimate end of truth concerns the whole, not each individual; and religion is necessary to be explained for the mass, not for every one in particular! that portion of truth only is important to be imparted to every one, which promotes his individual happiness; and only that degree of illumination, which bears some proportion to his previous knowledge, can be useful. Prudence and benevolence must settle the limits, within which the teachers of the people ought to keep, in explaining religion. None therefore but the most wise and discreet, the most gentle and enlightened of every age, should sit at the fountain of truth, and dispense to every one according to his necessities. But can the consistories appeal to their consciences in this case? Have they proved the spirit of their chosen teachers? Have they excluded men destitute of theological illumination, and without prudence and benevolence? Have they excluded children and babes in religious knowledge from offices in the church? Have they performed the duties which they owe to their country, to the present age, and to posterity; or have they drank nothing but the milk of catechisms, and hated those adults in religion who have learned the art of preparing stronger food for their fellow men? Or have they been seduced by fear of man, or unseasonable compassion, or any other mean causes,