how controversies, with the Catholics, the Reformed, the Socinians, the Jews, Sceptics and Atheists should be conducted. As to sermonizing, he thought that the directions could be contained in a very few rules. Ecclesiastical history he regarded as essentially important, and directed that it should be studied from the original fountains. Besides these directions his book contained a compendious view of the literature of the various departments of theology.

The opposers of the followers of Spener controverted their principle respecting the theology of those who were regenerated, they regarded much as an essential part of Christianity which the former considered as Scholasticism, they held firmly to the literal doctrines of Luther, accused the pietists of hypocrisy and heresy, aud represented their opposition to learning as arising from the fact that they could make no pretensions to it themselves. The last accusation was refuted by the character of the authors and disciples of this school, and especially by the writings of J. F. BUDDEUS, his Historical and Theological Introduction to Theology and its several branches. In this work the principles of Spener are plainly manifested, although it is a production of the most profound and extensive erudition; and it shows how many branches of learning are connected with theology, and to a greater or less degree important to the theologian. The introductory sections on the object of theological studies, on the talents and mental qualifications of the theological student and upon the means of attaining the end proposed, clearly evince the disciple of Spener. The investigation which follows, concerning preparatory theological studies, exhibits a man, who had cultivated the literature of his own age, who was familiar with every branch of knowledge, and who knew how to exhibit the advantage which theology could derive from each, and yet who was careful not to apply any branch to the detriment of his subject.

The ancient languages, philology generally, criticism, grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history in all its branches, the natural sciences, mathematics, and medicine are here all reviewed for this purpose. The several branches of theology to which introductions are given, are thus divided and arranged, doctrinal, symbolical, patristical, moral, with mystical and pastoral, theology, church government, ecclesiastical history, polemics, and exegesis. In this work the history of these branches occupies the greatest space, which not only in itself, but as facilitating the investigation of these subjects, is exceedingly instructing and interesting. This work greatly excelled all that preceded it, and forms an epoch in writings of this nature, it shows that some change had already taken place in theology, and contains grounds for anticipating a still more important revolution. If it be too learned and extensive for most beginners, it has a greater value to those who wish to enter more thoroughly into studies of this nature. Besides the richness and variety of its erudition, it is greatly recommended by its spirit of moderation, modesty and piety.

J. G. WALCH followed in his Introduction to theological knowledge the principles and writings of Buddeus. This work was properly an epitome from the Prolegomena or preparatory course, for the use of his lectures. With respect to each branch, he treated first of its nature, contents and object, its importance, sources, and method, and then of the means with which it should be studied; where we always find the reading of certain works, which are here quoted in great numbers, and meditation and prayer recommended. J. C. ROECHER had before this published a short introduction to the study of theology, in which he treated not only the preparatory subjects, but also of the several branches of theology itself. Among the latter we find, besides the common divisions, propethical, typical, paracletical, irenical, comparative, mathematical and foederal theology.

The numerous and diversified changes which occurred during this period, in theological opinions and in the mode of presenting them, had naturally a great influence upon the class of writing, we are now considering. New principles were introduced, new questions arose, new demands were to be satisfied; attention was to be paid to new philosophical systems, new objections, new difficulties, and new helps. These books of directions, therefore, differed considerably from each other. The work of MOSHEIM belonging to this class, was a posthumous production; and would not have been published by him, in its present state; yet his spirit is clearly manifested in it; and the simplicity of its plan, its perspicuity, the comprehensive view which it takes of the whole compass of theology, and the characteristic remarks with which it abounds, leave no doubt of its having actually proceeded from him. He considered the proper object of such a work to be, to exhibit the means, whereby a student could obtain a facility and skill in discharging the duties which would devolve upon him as a teacher and pastor. He distinguished it from pastoral theology, which is the knowledge of the official duty of one who is already a preacher; but the work in question is designed to point out the means of preparing for the office, and is principally concerned with what belongs to clerical learning. He considered it impossible to form a work of this kind, which would be alike suitable to all times, and that it was necessary that its peculiar character should be adapted to the age in which its author lived. He found that it was only since the reformation, that such works were composed, or that men began to prescribe so particularly the course of theological education. He very properly introduced a short history of theological seminaries. Luther's aphorism: oratio, meditatio, tentatio, faciunt theologum, which has been so often regarded as a direction for the study of theology, and which has as frequently been made

E E

the foundation of works intended to prescribe the course to be pursued in these studies, he shewed was only to be understood of those who were already in the sacred office, and that even with respect to them it did not include every thing. He remarked that most authors of works of this nature, recommended particularly the department with which they were themselves most familiar; that they did not make a sufficient distinction between the theologian and the pastor; and that they took for granted the time, ability, and opportunity of the student to attend to all their rules. In his own work he distinguished the preacher from the theologian, although he admitted that there were subjects to which they should attend in common. The studies and exercises which prepared the way for prosecuting theology, he represented as equally serviceable to the pastor and the theologian; desiring the latter, however, to enter into them more thoroughly. He treats at length those departments, which it is requisite for the clergyman, particularly the pastor to cultivate. It may be worth while to quote some of his directions. It is in his opinion, better not to delay attention to didactic theology, but to gain a general view of it before entering very deeply into the study of the Bible; it would be well to take a short course of theology, that some foundation may be laid, and the connexion, and aim of theology be preserved. Ecclesiastical history cannot be thoroughly studied, before we are acquainted with theology; and it would be improper to commence with the study of morals, because, constant reference must be had to doctrines, whence these moral duties flow: to begin with deep and extensive study of the Sacred Scriptures, would be a very circuitous way, requiring many years. The study of didactic theology should be connected with the study of the Bible, and in theology, the philosophical and Biblical method should be united; the system for beginners should be a philosophical catechism, so short as to be easily learned. To his directions for the edu

cation of a learned theologian, Mosheim prefixes the title; "Of the Theologian of our time." He distinguishes the theologian from the pastor, principally in this, that the former has no particular congregation, but has to labour for the whole church and train up proper teachers for it; should the church of the Lord be disturbed by false doctrines and mischievous abuses, it is his business to stand in the breach and endeavour to repress every thing likely to prove injurious. He is, as it were, an eye over the whole church, which should have the perspicacity easily to discover any thing inimical to true religion: a theologian of our time, worthy of this name, is a very difficult character to sustain; his influence depends upon no external support, but he must form himself, and have something about him, which will secure the respect, affection, and esteem of men.

Soon after the appearance of this work of Mosheim, SEMLER presented himself as an author in this department, at first in a work written in German, and afterwards in one written in Latin. In the former, he insisted so strongly upon the necessity of thorough and extensive erudition, that it was objected to him, that he attributed to it too much importance, that he made piety only a secondary concern, and that he wished to set his method in opposition to that of Franke. He was also accused of preferring the scholastic theology to that which was purely Biblical. Semler found it necessary to defend himself against these charges, and especially to show that a thorough theological education promoted the interests of religion, advanced pure piety, and preserved it from errors, superstition, and fanaticism. The second of these books was written while he had the duty to discharge, of lecturing upon the extent, the nature, and the aids of theological learning. It was generally the case with him, when he was about to write, that he did not take a general and systematic view of his subject, formed no plan suited to its nature, collected no sufficient quantity of materials, and wrote in a desultory manner, and under