but were explained much too imperfectly. In regard to the Greek, they employed their grammatical drudgery upon the New Testament, as if there were no other Greek writings in the world; and, in general, all the instruction in the ancient languages was directed solely to the grammar and the lexicon, and not to the cultivation of taste, which should always remain the principal object.* On the other hand, absurd as it may seem, a full course of instruction in the philosophy of Wolf was given under the unsuspected sanction of the Orphan house; a course which no one, even at the university, would have ventured to give, because the curse of the Hallean theologians still rested upon it.

The peculiar situation of the university at that time was well adapted to cripple and discourage both heart and mind of the young theologian. The philosophy of Leibnitz as modified by Wolf, the best at that time known, was there decried as fraught with poison for every pious soul. Ecclesiastical history was at the service of fanaticism, and, in its genuine sources, and its whole extent, was a thing unknown. Exegetical learning was regarded as superfluous, and hostile to real piety. Buxtorf's JewishChristian chimeras prevailed here, as elsewhere, with tyrannical sway. The philologist Doctor Michaelis spun out tedious etymologies, and put in requisition all his wits for the comparison of Greek and German words with Arabic and Hebrew roots, without employing his philological learning for the interpretation of the Bible, or for the improvement of theology. In didactic theology, Lange's Oeconomia Salutis was an oracle universally esteemed; and in the department of Christian morals, they gave themselves up to an overstrained piety and an extravagant fanaticism. Whoever was dissatisfied with this state of things, or manifested a desire for more profound theological learning, was regarded as fallen from his first love, inasmuch as he wished to become wiser than his Saviour. What direction could such a school afford to the young

* Life of Michaelis in Beyer's Magazine for Preachers, B. II. Art. 6, p. 2. Reiske's Life, p. 7.

theologian? What literary provision for the future life of letters? What seeds for future developement? Michaelis left this school, as was naturally to be expected, mis-educated, miserably furnished, both in mind and heart; in a state of genuine literary and moral starvation. Baumgarten, indeed, whom the Orphan house had assisted to obtain the theological professorship, that he might in this situation promulgate his faith, was at that time, to the scandal of the Christian brethren, fallen from grace, and was engaged in teaching a philosophical and synoptical theology. Michaelis however could not entirely fancy this theology, and was not yet disposed to draw from the prolific source, which soon after proved so productive for many of the greatest theologians of the present day. It was a happy circumstance for the mind of Michaelis, that his prudent father still cherished in his bosom a fondness for the ancient classics, and still further confirmed it by the instruction he was called to give in this department at the Orphan house; and also, that he placed within his hands, for his individual study, the metaphysics of Wolf, and afforded him an opportunity of receiving oral instruction in mathematics, natural philosophy, and history. The direction which Chancellor Louis communicated to his mind, in the last mentioned department, was retained by him during the whole course of his life. As a theologian, however, he terminated his course at the university with his head full of prejudices, sadly deficient in genuine, theological, and exegetical learning, and, as is very manifest from some printed letters which were written about that time, deeply tinctured with the extravagance and fanaticism before alluded to, which entwined itself with his very nature.

A man whose education has been thus perverted, must, if he would not remain for ever useless, turn himself about and form himself entirely anew. I should not be able to mention a single individual of his proper contemporaries, those, to wit, who were mis-educated as he was, who felt, as he did, the necessity of his change, (for Baumgarten was somewhat earlier ;) still less should I be able to point out an individual of this school at large,

who has actually undertaken thoroughly to reform himself. Michaelis took a direction which might afford an universal example. The prejudices of his earlier years, he succeeded, for the most part, in obliterating, at first in himself, and then in Germany. From an ignorant

disciple of ignorant instructors, he became an immensely instructive teacher of others, both in his own and in other kindred departments, in Germany, and far beyond its limits. In regard to his overstrained piety, however, his reform did not succeed so well.

In this revolution, which affected his whole nature, his residence, during one year, in England, must claim the first share. On his return to Halle, in the year 1742, he prosecuted his lectures, as private teacher, with greater openness than formerly. The awakened soon discovered the great change that had been wrought in him, and rendered thanks to God, in secret ejaculations, that, by his call to Göttingen, they were rid of an apostate, from whom they had no new concessions to hope.*

What was begun in England was consummated in Göttingen, through the influence of the distinguished men into whose society he was thrown, in the year 1745; especially, if I correctly understand many passages of his writings, through the influence of Mosheim, Haller and Gesner. After a few years, (from about the year 1750,) he became what he continued to be through his whole life, a scholar, towards whom the eyes of half the world were directed. Ordinary men require a long time to reach their moderate elevation: great men rise always rapidly, formed, as it were, in the twinkling of an eye.

In no department did he deviate less from the direction he received at Halle, than in that of history; he advanced however further, with a manifest improvement. Through the influence of Chancellor Louis, of whom he spake, even in his latest years, with manifest pleasure, he had apprehended this department from a statistical point of view. But Louis certainly never had introduced him to the critical appreciation and discrimination of the ori

* Semler's Life, Part I. p. 86.

ginal sources; for he himself had scarcely dreamt as yet of historical criticism. But Michaelis advanced continually, resting on this sure support, from the time that he employed himself in his writings with historical investigations; and he had, undoubtedly, at an earlier period, in his oral instructions, exercised this salutary criticism, at a time when it was much less frequent in Germany than it afterwards became; for he manifests, from the very commencement, a decided familiarity with it in his writings. Whether he took the hint from earlier German works, which exhibit traces of a critical investigation of historical truth-from Gundling, for example, Mascov, Kohler, or even from its genuine originator, Peter Bayle; or whether his own philosophical taste, entirely of itself, or perhaps from the most trivial suggestion of others, attained to this point of perfection, I am unable to decide.

It was during the first years of his public and active life, (in the year 1744,) that the Universal History appeared, by means of which, the name of Baumgarten, at that time universally revered, awakened an interest in this department throughout our country; and gradually prepared the way for the revolution which, about twentyfive years afterwards, affected the study of history in Germany. It is manifest that by it Michaelis was led to extend his views from the history of individual kingdoms and states, to universal history; that from the influence of this work, and from the observation of its gross offences against established truth, he arrived at that copiousness of ideas concerning history, which, through the medium of a school of oriental and exegetical learning, contributed to the earliest formation of some of the most eminent historical scholars of Germany.

Had it been his fate to labour principally in this department, he certainly would have formed, of himself, that epoch in the study of history, to which, as it was, he contributed only at a distance; and would have united, in a close and amicable manner, inquiries after historical truth with a pragmatical mode of presenting them. His notions on this subject were, to say the least, perfectly correct, pure, and manly; equally averse from the affec

tations of many modern, reputed writers of this class, and from the coarseness, stiffness, and pedantry with which most of our earlier historians have disgraced this noble department. But in regard to the merit of the ancient classical historians, in this respect, he was unjust in his decision, when he derided their interwoven orations. In our times, and in Germany, this pragmatical manner of presenting historical truths, would be, decidedly, a ridiculous affectation; but was it so in its own times, and in its origin? Eloquent statesmen were at that time the writers of history. Was it not natural, that in the midst of simple narration, they should be carried away into debate? Did they not describe revolutions which originated under the constant influence of this political eloquence? It is universally acknowledged to be a masterstroke of historical composition, to convert the readers into contemporaries of the delineated events, by means of the plan and copiousness of the narration; and to place the objects before them, in such a manner, that every thing may unfold itself before their eyes in its actual progress. Could better means have been devised for effecting this delusion, than the machinery of political eloquence? Had the ancient classical historians even the choice left of another form adapted to their nearest readers?

It is to be attributed solely to accident, under whose tyranny the scholar so often sighs, that Michaelis did not devote his life principally to history. His inclination and his talents were early determined that way. With it he had commenced his career as an university teacher; and he would have prosecuted the study uninterruptedly and with delight. But Münchausen drew him aside from these pursuits, in order to reform, by means of him, the theology of Germany. Still, even in old age, he did not desert the friend of his youth. As a lover of history, he continued to range, without restraint, through her immeasurable fields; but as a profound inquirer, he limited himself solely to those districts which bordered the nearest on his own department; especially to the most ancient genealogy of nations-the most difficult point in