and blind as was his undiscriminating violence, and actuated as he was by human passions, he regarded himself as engaged in the cause of God. He laboured only for a present purpose. He saw not that some would raise from the ruins which he had made, a fairer edifice; nor that others would employ the weapons of which he had taught the use, in assailing Christianity. But though we may acquit him of deliberate mischief, his name must remain inseparably connected with what we shall have most to deplore in the succeeding period. His violent attack broke the spell, which as yet had bound the great body of Protestants to antiquity. The Lutherans had hitherto, from what some will call superstition, and others Christian feeling, uniformly entertained a deep respect for the ancient Church. This feeling was now violated. A principle so subtle and delicate was easily destroyed; and when there was no filial reverence to aid the sense of duty, Church-history was soon divested of its sacredness, and degraded into a branch of merely human knowledge.

In the mean time, in another part of Europe, a more celebrated scholar was exercising a more direct, and, at the time at least, a still more noxious influence on the study of Christian antiquity. Gottfried Arnold, though a rash enthusiast, was, after all, a serious and well-intentioned man: JEAN LE CLERC was a heartless sceptic. Born and educated

at Geneva, he proceeded through every degree of the descending scale of religious opinion. Connected, during the greater part of his life, by profession and office with the Remonstrants of Holland, he scarcely disguised his real Socinianism or infidelity. The dangerous nature of his theological views is well known. For an estimate of his scholarship, I need only refer to Bishop Monk', and for an exposure of his anti-patristic principles to Muratori 2. His various information, and his lively, confident manner, procured him a reputation much higher than was due to his actual learning and talents ; and the influence which he exercised upon the republic of letters, by means of his intimate connexion with the periodical works of his day, was almost incalculable. That influence he unhappily exerted in one long and consistent attempt to undermine the foundations of orthodoxy, and to diffuse universal uncertainty and doubt. His writings on Church-history breathe the same spirit

3

1 Life of Bentley, vol. i. p. 267, et seq. Edit. 1833.

2 Lud. Ant. Muratorii de Ingeniorum Moderatione in Religionis negotio libri tres, ubi, quæ jura, quæ fræna sint homini Christiano in inquirenda, et tradenda veritate ostenditur, et S. Augustini Doctrina a multiplici censura Joannis Phereponi vindicatur. First published under the assumed name of Lamindus Pritanius in 1714, in reply to the Appendix of the Amsterdam reprint of the Benedictine edition of St. Augustine, which was written by Le Clerc under the name of Joannes Phereponus. See Walch. Bibl. Patrist. p. 121.

3

The principal of them were the lives of Clement of Alex

N

as his theological works. Though they had little real merit, they had a plausibility which caused them to be regarded as impartial and philosophical. They greatly contributed to make the students of Ecclesiastical history familiar with sceptical views; and it is not too much to say that they tended to degrade it from its high and holy office, and pervert it into an instrument of sophistry and error.

In concluding the section, I may remark, that sound criticism, and correct and enlightened views had, during this period, made a rapid progress. Many prejudices had been abandoned, many new truths had been brought to light, and the whole subject had been divested in a great measure of scholastic peculiarities, and made a branch of polite learning. Much indeed remained to be done: many facts required fresh examination, much was yet to undergo the ordeal of controversy, and there was still great deficiency of real liberality and impartiality. But, upon the whole, a very decided improvement had been effected in the treatment of this department of history. At the same time, however, we have to regret that in some quarters a bad spirit had already become apparent. If old prejudices had been given up, new ones, not less

andria and Eusebius, and other articles of a similar nature, in the Bibliothèque Universelle et Historique, between 1686 and 1693; and Historia Ecclesiastica duorum primorum a Christo nato seculorum, e veteribus monumentis depromta. Amstelodami, 1716, 4to.

contrary to the truth, had been adopted in their stead; free inquiry had been already perverted into licentious speculation; and we are by no means unprepared for the unhappy spectacle which will demand so much of our attention in the next section.

SECTION III.

FROM A.D. 1715 TO THE PRESENT TIME.

NEW CONDITION OF LITERATURE-DECLINE OF THE GALLICAN SCHOOL OF CHURCH-HISTORY -EFFORTS OF THE ITALIAN SCHOLARS-FRENCH PROTESTANTS-PROGRESS OF CHURCHHISTORY IN GERMANY-WEISMANN MOSHEIM -STATE OF

ECCLESIASTICAL LEARNING IN ENGLAND-NEW GERMAN SCHOOL

-SEMLER-SCHRÖCKH-THE RATIONALISTS-HENKE―J. E. C. SCHMIDT-GERMAN ROMAN CATHOLIC WRITERS-PRESENT STATE OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY IN GERMANY-IN ENGLAND -HOPES AND PROSPECTS.

THE progress of Church-history was greatly affected by the important changes, the result of causes now in active operation, which about this time took place in the condition of European literature. From the triumph of Christianity over Paganism till the latter part of the seventeenth century, the literature of the West had been universally pervaded by the influence of religion. Though the ardent study of the philosophical and æsthetical works of antiquity since the general revival of classical learning, had tended to give currency to principles and feelings N 2

altogether alien to the spirit of the Gospel, still the writers who had least claim to be regarded as religious men, treated it with respect, and professed to acknowledge its obligation. But as literature was more cultivated, it became more secular. It gradually threw off the restraints of religion, too often those of morality and decency; and from the beginning of the eighteenth century, the writers who attained the greatest celebrity distinguished themselves by an avowed hostility to Christianity. This, however, was not all. The very objects and materials of literature were changed. The modern languages were now enriched by translations and imitations of the ancients, as well as original works. It had become possible to acquire information, and gratify a literary taste, without the painful study which had been exercised by the men of letters of earlier times. A new race arose who employed in mischievous speculations, or idle dissipation, the energy which had been hitherto more profitably devoted to the acquirement of a critical acquaintance with the classical tongues, and the patient accumulation of materials. With minds unused to salutary discipline of

labour, unexercised by the logic and philology, and often enfeebled by habitual intercourse with circles in which every thing like learning and lofty feeling was treated as pedantic and visionary, they attempted to substitute superficial information and flimsy sophistry for solid