view of the Bible became more and more abandoned, until in later times Hengstenberg, Hahn, Tholuck, and others of their party returned to the biblical theory of the Reformers, and sought anew to promulgate the letter of the Bible as Revelation.

At first sight this theory is the simplest, easiest, and most consistent. But it can by no means be maintained or followed out, since the Bible itself contradicts very strongly the supposition that God was a composer, and that it is word for word a divine writing; for not only is the Theology of its different books, viz., those of the Old and New Testaments, very inconsistent with itself, but the authors of the biblical Books followed (as they could hardly avoid doing) the defective views of the world of their times, as to Heaven, the Earth, the Stars, Mankind, Nature, and History. These defective views afforded the chief handle for the English, French, and German Freethinkers, in their attacks on the Bible and Christianity; properly, however, not on the Bible, but on the previously developed theories of theologians and the Church concerning the Bible.

Hence theologians were obliged to take another step, and proceed to Relative Supernaturalism, and assign limits to Absolute Supernaturalism, which they placed partly on the letter, partly on the contents. With respect to the words, it was conceded first, that the Holy Ghost accommodated himself to the style of the writer, (as Baier, 1686); next, that the Holy Ghost spoke, in physical and mathematical matters, according to the prevailing ideas, (as Carpov, 1737); next, that the Holy Ghost left the writers of the Bible to themselves with respect to the mode of statement, (as Baumgarten, 1759, and Töllner, 1771); next, that the Holy Ghost only acted in preventing negative errors, (as Reinhard). With respect to the contents, moreover, a limit was assigned to the theory of Inspiration by Reinhard, Storr, Döderlein, and Morus, thus far, that the Inspiration referred only to the religious part; that thus the Bible contained Revelation only in matters of Religion, but not in its geographical, historical, and other doctrines, in which the writers rather followed their own opinions, and the ideas of their times. The Revelation was thus limited to religious matters; and instead of the dogma,-The Bible itself is the Revelation,-this principle was promulgated: the Revelation is in the Bible. By these means many difficulties were avoided, and the Freethinkers especially, who had attacked the Bible on account of its historical, geographical, and astronomical doctrines, found their weapons drop from their hands: and yet this theory could not be carried out through all its consequences. For since all Theology

is ever dependent on the view entertained of the world, it was very difficult to determine what doctrines among those contained in the Bible should belong to religion, and what should not. For example, the biblical representation of Heaven as a vault covering the Earth, is so intimately interwoven with its representations of God, the angels, and the government of earthly affairs, that they can only be separated from one another arbitrarily. Just as little could a distinct opinion be formed as to what in the History of the Bible should belong to Profane and Religious History; thus, as to whether the Mosaic account of the creation, paradise, the fall of man, the Mosaic giving of the law, &c., should be considered as revelation or not. Further, the difficulty became insurmountable from this circumstance, that the Bible, with the spirit of its times, takes a completely Theological view of nature, and in the history of the Jewish nation, upholds the theocratical point of view, in which God brings everything to pass by his own immediate agency.

Hence it was resolved to go one step further, to abandon entirely the theory of inspiration of former times. And while it was still maintained that the Bible contained particular revelations, to concede that the writers of the Biblical books followed entirely their own judgment in the composition of their writings, and delivered the revealed truths as they themselves in their own minds comprehended them.

Yet even this view showed in its application, great and insuperable difficulties, and required, in order to raise it at all above arbitrary choice, the solution of a host of preliminary questions, the decision of which made apparent to every one the impossibility of founding a consistent theology on this basis.

For instance; it was asked,-is Revelation to be sought in the Old Testament also, and in all its books? Supposing that Moses and the prophets had revelations, is a like supposition admissible with respect to the authors of the historical books, the writings of Solomon, the book of Job, and others? With respect to the New Testament, have the gospels of Mark and Luke, who were not disciples of Jesus, equal authority with those of Matthew and John? And have the declarations of the Apostles equal weight with those of Jesus? Might not each comprehend the instructions of Jesus in his own peculiar manner, and modify them accordingly? Was Paul of equal dogmatical authority with the other apostles, since he did not himself hear Jesus, and must not we presuppose in him the influence of the Rabbinical theology which he had previously studied? And, since we only know the precepts of Jesus through the ac

counts of the evangelists, are these accounts literally true? Have not the narrators probably intermixed their own opinions and views? Above all, by what rule are we to judge, whether a doctrine expressed by a sacred writer is to be looked upon as a really divine truth, or as an opinion formed by the writer's own judgment? All these questions arose, and indeed naturally increased in number, in proportion as Biblical Theology (i. e. the inquiry, what theological ideas, apart from the system of the church, are to be found in the Bible) was carried on, sometimes as a whole, sometimes in parts; and as the doctrinal ideas of particular writers, such as John and Paul, were sought to be developed. Nay, even in the expressions of Jesus himself it could not be denied that he was guided, in speaking to his contemporaries, by the religious ideas, which they had not first received from him, but had had long before; for example,—of the Inspiration of the Old Testament, the resurrection of the Dead, the last judgment, the Devil, and demoniacal possessions, &c; and hence it was asked, whether these ideas, since Jesus and his apostles made use of them, were to be considered divinely revealed truths or not? It was no solution, but rather an evasion of these questions, when many Theologians endeavoured to explain away all in the discourses of Jesus and his apostles which they did not wish them to say and teach; an endeavour which for a long time rendered exegesis a display of mere caprice. Nor were the difficulties surmounted, when others maintained that Jesus and his apostles accommodated themselves intentionally to the ideas of those around them; i. e. spoke as if they had considered the ideas of the Jews correct; for this was too often contradicted by the New Testament, and such accommodation seemed neither necessary nor admissible in an ambassador from God, who came to bring light into darkness.

Thus there remained nothing for Theology but Critical Supernaturalism; i. e. that mode of reasoning, which holds fast the truth of a supernatural revelation given at successive times through the prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus, and believes the history of it, as they give it in the Bible; but, at the same time, maintains, that the aim of such revelation could only be to awaken, purify, and spread among the nations the religious ideas which were contained in the universal and original Revelation, and to secure their duration, and establish their value by the outward institution of a church. So Nitzsch (1808) regarded the revelation as a divine and miraculous promulgation of religious ideas, established by sacred history, carried forward in the course of time, and intended as the outwardly and openly professed word of God, to awaken and confirm the inward word

of God. This view has been lately developed most completely by Bretschneider; and Ammon, in his "Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion," ("The gradual formation of Christianity as a Religion for the World;") has endeavoured to prove it historically, by the history of the Christian articles of Faith. According to Bretschneider, the following conclusions are to be drawn from it :-The Divine revelation can only extend to the development, purification, protection, and application of the religious ideas in the mind, since all that is not included in these ideas is foreign to religion. Since the development of the religious ideas must inwardly be closely connected with the cultivation of the human mind, and its constantly-extending and improving views of the world, and outwardly is dependent for its increase on the increase of population, and on the civilization and intercourse of nations,-the Revelation can be no other than PROGRESSIVE; subject to this twofold contingency and the religious ideas could not at first be comprehended by the understanding of Man in their full clearness and purity; but under such forms of transition as the capacity of comprehension of the human mind at that time required.

These forms of transition are, therefore, only for their own times, not for all ages; they rather disappear, as the ideas themselves grow into full purity and clearness. The holy Scriptures contain the history of this progressive development, which, as the history of religion, is at once the proof of the reality of such a development, and sets before us the outward forms by which God has produced and secured the comprehension and extension of religious ideas.

Jesus himself not only exhibited the "Ideal" of a religious Man in his life, by which he was the Son and Image of God, and makes all who resemble him Children of God, but he also completed in his instructions the development of the religious ideas, or prepared them beforehand, both as to compass and contents. But the Form, in which these ideas were clothed by him and his apostles, was, and must have been, temporary; i. e. one which was intelligible to the then existing state of civilization and philosophy, and could connect itself with the notions of the age, as the necessary stepping stones, as it were, to a higher degree of knowledge. But the essential and abiding part of Christianity is the pure religious ideas themselves, which were incorporated and made manifest in the person and life of Christ, and have their outward means of promulgation among the nations and influence on the conduct, in the Christian Church. Since this theological view allows an immediate influence of God on the Spirit of Man, finds the history of this influence in the

Bible, acknowledges the fullest measure of it to have fallen on Christ, and Christ to be the person called and prepared by God to be the interpreter of true religion for the whole race of Man, and thus adheres to the "Mystical Element" of Christianity, it is Supernaturalism. But since, at the same time, it points out an invariable criterion of what is to be considered Revelation in the Biblical account of Revelation, it is CRITICAL Supernaturalism. Since it employs the original, universal Revelation of God, which took place at the creation of the world, as the standard for the succeeding revelations, this standard is not arbitrary, but necessary; not human, but divinely given.

From this mode of Theological reasoning, RATIONALISTIC Theology differs. The distinguishing characteristic of Rationalism is, that it completely renounces the idea of an immediate divine enlightenment of the mind of Man; consequently, it lays entirely aside the "Mystical Element;" and that the Reason of Man, awakened to reflection by the contemplation of the world, raises itself by its own power to the knowledge of religious ideas. Rationalism has improperly been supposed the same as NATURALISM, which considers all religions, Christianity included, as belonging to Religion, as being researches of the human mind. But Rationalism is Christian, in as far as it acknowledges that God, in his government of the world, so prepared Jesus Christ by distinguished power of mind, and so favoured him by circumstances, that he could, not only himself perceive the universal truths of religion, but, by instruction, and laying the foundation of a Church, he was enabled to spread abroad the knowledge and appreciation of them among the nations. This view, which was formerly brought forward by Löffler, Henke, Eckermann, &c., has in more recent times found its chief defenders in Röhr and Wegscheider. Its weak side, in a philosophical point of view, is, that it denies all continued immediate influence of God on the human mind, and considers that His direct agency ceased with the primary act of creating the world. In a Theological view, however, it fails, in that the personality of Jesus, as the Son of God, is thrown by it too much into the back ground, and Christ appears chiefly as the Teacher of a system of religion; so that the belief of the truth of his doctrine must rest on the previous supposition that the train of thought, (consisting of Idea, Judgment, and Conclusion,) by which he sought and arrived at Truth, was in all respects perfectly correct, and did lead to Truth: a supposition for which there are no adequate grounds in the principles of Rationalism. Lastly, we have to consider the PHILOSOPHICALLY—ALLEGORIZING, OF SYMBOLICAL Theology, which arose from the appli