the errors of deism and naturalism, and presented a systematic theory of a supernatural revelation; wherein he endeavoured to exhibit and prove the possibility of such a revelation, its contents and criteria, and the condition upon which it could be intelligently believed. A party of Leibnitzian-Wolfian philosophers soon arose, principally in Germany, and among protestants, but not confined to them, as the influence of this philosophy was visible in other countries, and among the catholics, in the aspect and treatment of theological subjects. As Wolf himself became a martyr to his philosophy, and as the theologians of Halle, who were followers of Spener, and their numerous party, opposed themselves to the followers of Wolf, the zeal of the latter, as might be expected, was the more excited and carried to an extreme. They not only maintained the utility of their philosophy in theology, but they produced a complete system both of doctrines and of morals founded upon its principles. Its influence was even felt in pastoral theology, in sermons and catechetical exercises. Notwithstanding this philosophy had embraced the cause of revelation, it promoted in many a disposition for the opposite system. Wolf had laid more stress upon reason, in the things of religion, than was favourable for its subsequent and durable defence; and he incurred the suspicion of being only in appearance its advocate, while some of the principles of his philosophy were in direct opposition to some of the essential principles of Christianity. He had not been able to prove, that in any case we can with perfect certainty satisfy ourselves of the supernatural origin of a revelation. Subsequently some of his best disciples and followers became open deists. It was through the influence of his philosophy that more systematic connection, precision, perspicuity, and a more philosophical use of words, especially in German, were introduced into theology, and the Aristotelian scholastic philosophy discarded.

The most distinguished opposer of this system was Crussius, who opposed to it a system of philosophy, the perfect harmony of which with the orthodox Lutheran theology and Biblical morality, he endeavoured to exhi

bit. This system is unquestionably the production of a philosophical mind, but appears in itself little suited to answer the purpose of an orthodox faith; it was adopted by numerous and zealous advocates, especially among theologians; but as it maintained its standing only for a short time, as it produced no effect beyond the limits of Germany, and as the Wolfian philosophy still preserved the ascendency, it does not require any further notice.

In France, in the meantime, philosophy continued decidedly inimical, not only to all systematic theology, but to Christianity and religion in general. In Great Britain, sceptics appeared, who, whilst elegant and distinguished writers, shook the foundation of religion, morals and Christianity. In Germany, respect for the LeibnitzianWolfian philosophy gradually declined. It was found little suited to purposes of improvement, and not sufficient to answer new objections; fault was found with its method, its proof and repetitions; it was thus either neglected or rejected; men questioned its solidity, and found it more convenient, and more fashionable, to embrace the popular philosophy of the famous French and English writers. From these writers, from experience and observation, from histories and travels, a new philosophical system was formed; and various works, some profound and some elementary, were composed. Men became more and more averse to research. This period of philosophy in Germany was by no means favourable to theology. It lost its principles, its leading points, its aim, and its commanding interest. It became a mixture of empirical, weak and unfledged opinions and doctrines. It lost the spirit of investigation, of pure religion and morality.

Kant at length produced a revolution in philosophy, which is the most remarkable of the eighteenth century, which extended its influence beyond Germany, and

and still

continues its effects. He was excited to this effort he scepticism of Hume, against whom he wished to

by the the certainty of human knowledge, and especially

defere religi

fessed

on and morality. It was at the same time his proobject to refute materialism, spinozism, atheism,

and even naturalism, so far as this last would derive theology merely from nature, and endeavoured to prove the absolute impossibility of a revelation. For all these purposes he found the previous systems inadequate. He therefore created a new philosophy, in which he commenced with an accurate and rigid examination and estimate of the powers of the human mind, thence to determine what man could know, and what he had to do, believe and hope. He presented a system not derived from experience, but from the mind itself. The ideas of religion and morality he evolved from unassisted reason, which he represented as the original principle in religion and the supreme judge in matters of faith. For the existence of God he admitted no decided proof, but a strong moral ground of faith. He taught simple moral deism. He did not speak contemptuously of positive religion, but taught that it was to be judged critically and philosophically, and also that the positive and historical doctrines of Christianity could be viewed as the sensible and figurative covering of simple and universal religious and moral doctrines. This philosophy had great influence upon every department of theological knowledge, and introduced more of speculation, depth, research, life and interest into studies of this nature. By it the tendency of the eighteenth century to deism was made perfectly manifest.

From this species of deism, various others arose, which agreed in nothing, but in entirely rejecting miracles, properly so called, as the foundation or any essential part of religion. During this century almost every system of philosophical religion or natural theology which had formerly prevailed among the Greeks and Romans, was waked up and found its advocates, who have disputed with as much warmth as the most zealous theologians could have done. All these systems were of course set in opposition to any supernatural revelation. Every attempt, however, to make rational or natural religion the public and acknowledged form of religion, failed. The Bible was retained as the public standard of religion and morals, the historical foundation of the church, and the ancient

symbols were not rejected; but men endeavoured to derive as much of simple deism from the Bible as possible, and introduced it as far as they could into positive religion and church creeds. The later philosophical systems which have arisen in Germany, ascribe much more philosophical truth to Christianity, and even to church theology, than the previous systems had done, although in their definitions and explanations they differ much from each other. Kant explained the philosophical sense of Christianity differently from Schelling; both, however, wished to honour Christianity as the public religion, and to unite it with reason, with which, from its origin, it was congenial. The French nation had great influence in a variety of ways upon European literature, and upon theology, during the eighteenth century. This has already been alluded to, but it deserves to be presented in a different light. Among the Hugonots, whom Lewis XIV. expelled from France, and who settled in Holland, Germany, England, and other parts of Europe, were many learned men, who carried with them the refinement to which the French language and literature had then attained; and imparted much from this source to the literature of the several countries in which they settled. Among these were many learned theologians, who wrote upon the subjects of religion, with more taste, with greater knowledge of men, with more ease, grace and eloquence than were then usual, and which were united in most cases with erudition and research. These men laboured and were imitated in foreign lands. Bayle, Saurin, Beausobre, Lenfant, and others, are illustrious names in the history of theological literature. From France the custom spread itself still further, of writing upon learned subjects in vernacular tongues. This, especially in theological knowledge, produced a great revolution. With the old Latin terminology, which the public generally could not understand, and which scarcely admitted of translation, many old doctrines and opinions passed away. In living languages much could be expressed, for which no proper term was to be found in those that are dead. By thus writing in vernacular tongues, religious and theological doctrines

came before the public generally, which they could not only learn, but upon which they also could sit in judgment, and thus they could to a certain degree control the learned theological order. Theology became more popular and practical, though less profound.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a polemical spirit prevaded all departments of theology. As the different Christian parties persecuted and combated each other, thus also the learned theologians acted in presenting and promoting their opinions. But as by degrees toleration, justice, equity and forbearance towards those who held a different faith, and professed a different system of Christianity, made greater progress, so a more peaceful spirit extended itself in all theological matters. Polemics themselves fell into disuse, and what still remained of them was very different from what they had previously been; they were a mere critique and comparison of different systems. Men sought, in their theological opinions and principles, to understand and coincide with each other; whilst before almost every discussion of the kind was undertaken with the view to destroy the opposite party, to cover it with obloquy, and widen the existing breach. The zealous controversy became more and more assimilated to the mild discussion; and even this refrained from less important subjects, and concerned itself more with things than with persons. Men attended to theology more for their own improvement, than for the injury of their adversaries. Deism, which had gradually pervaded all branches of theology, was a kind of centrepoint for the different parties. It promoted toleration; because it was itself benefited by its prevalence.

But with the increasing spirit of toleration, a coldness and indifference towards religion, Christianity, church order, and unity, gradually extended itself; resulting from causes which it is not my present business to unfold. This disposition has by degrees mingled itself with theology. Upon the whole, the earnestness, the attention, the zeal, the diligence, the strong religious interest with which, formerly, this species of knowledge was cultivated, have declined. In both the previous centuries, the sources