purely historical examination of Scripture,-a way which about the same time the pioneer labours of Semler had opened from another side. The conception of biblical theology as historical science, as the historical presentation of the doctrinal contents of the Bible, was found.

In this sense Lorenz Bauer of Altorf first produced a Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (1796-1800), with the addition of a Biblical Ethic (1804). According to him biblical theology is "a simple representation, purged from all foreign notions, of the religious theories of the Jews before Christ, and of Jesus and His apostles, deduced from their writings according to the different periods and views of the writers." By distinguishing not only Old and New Testament, but also the theology of the different authors, he already in point of form carries out the historical view. This indeed leaves much to be wished as regards the subjectmatter, as the author, looking through rationalistic spectacles, makes arbitrary distinctions between doctrinal contents of universal validity and mere ideas of the time, or accommodations. Kaisers' Biblical Theology, or Judaism and Christianity (Erlangen, 1813), does not go much beyond Bauer. The author, from a philosophical standpoint of the time (afterwards abandoned), wished to treat the religion of the Bible as a special chapter of a critical history of comparative religions. On the other hand, de Wette's Biblical Dogmatic of the Old and New Testaments (1813; 2nd ed. 1830), marks a real advance in the impartial estimate of what is properly biblical. By undertaking to represent the Christian religion in its relation to the Jewish culture of the time, just as the dogmatic of the Church represents it in relation to the culture of to-day, de Wette, notwithstanding the title dogmatic, rather gave a history of dogma within the Bible. It treats separ

ately of Old and New Testament, dividing the former into Hebraism and Judaism, and the latter into the teaching of Jesus and that of His apostles; the idea of religion which is thereby set up is at least more in harmony with the biblical than the old rationalistic idea. De Wette's successors, Baumgarten-Crusius and v. Cölln, start from a similar standpoint. The former, indeed (Outlines of Biblical Theology, 1828), by failing to distinguish any period, not even keeping Old and

New Testament apart, reverts to the standpoint of biblical dogmatic. The latter (Biblical Theology, edited by D. Schulz, 1836) adheres to the division of de Wette, and supports it with a more abundant learning. The influence of Schleiermacher, the great renovator of our theology, which is from this time perceptible, is at first only indirect within our province, as a fresh and biblical dogmatic was sought on the new footing in religion and theology with far better results than in the transition time of the eighteenth century. Among a series of works of that kind stands out the really biblical System of Christian Doctrine, by C. I. Nitzsch. But this greatest of Schleiermacher's successors has also directly fostered biblical theology, by introducing it into the circle of his academic lectures. His thoughtful sketch distinguishes in the Old Testament the patriarchal, the Mosaic, the prophetic, and the Judaistic stage; in the New Testament, the teaching of Jesus and that of His apostles. Each stage has a historical introduction, and is divided into ontology, doctrine of salvation, and ethics. The separate consideration of the several apostolic modes of teaching, which is still wanting here, was in the meantime commenced in the treatment in monographs of a Pauline or Johannine system of doctrine (the former by Usteri and Dähne, 1832 and 1838; the latter by Frommann, 1839), and was advanced by Neander in particular, who in his Apostolic Age attempted to present the teaching of James, Peter, Paul, and John according to psychological differences in their character. From a similar standpoint-besides lesser works of the school of Neander-is the much-used Biblical Theology of the New Testament, by Chr. F. Schmid, of Tübingen (edited by Weizsäcker, 1853), a work which also treats of the history of Jesus and of the apostles, and methodically treats the doctrinal systems of the latter according to their different position to the law and the prophets.

Henceforth the development of New Testament theology is mainly affected by the impulse given by Chr. F. Baur. Whatever objections may be taken to his constructive conception of the early Christian situation, Baur has opposed to the merely individual distinctions of Neander great historical contrasts and stages of development, and carried out even wrong views with such ability and acuteness, that partly by

the successors whom he inspired, partly by the contradiction he evoked, the investigation of biblical theology has been lifted to a new height, and, in particular, the perception of the actual state of things has been rendered more acute. The separate investigation either of definite systems or special heads of doctrine, has increased beyond all reckoning since Baur's time. The biblico-theological development of his view of history fell at first to prominent disciples: Schwegler in his post-apostolic age, Hilgenfeld and K. R. Köstlin in their writings on the Johannine system of doctrine, Holsten in his Gospel of Peter and Paul, etc. The lectures of the master on New Testament theology, delivered from 1852-1860, only appeared after his death (1864). They will always be memorable as the practical manifesto of a historical and literary criticism which made the picture of Jesus a wavering shadow, the primitive apostles Jewish refiners of the law, and the Apostle Paul the real creator of Christianity. Eduard Reuss, in his Histoire de la théologie chrétienne au siècle apostolique, perhaps the ablest discussion of the subject we possess, though it be somewhat sketchy, has shown, on the other hand, how far the opinions advanced by Baur may be modified by an impartial estimate of their elements of truth in favour of a standpoint which is both more religious and more historical. Apart from the healthy development into which Reuss has guided back our science, there remain the contemporary works of Lutterbeck and von Hofmann. Lutterbeck's New Testament System of Doctrine, 1852, only illustrates how incapable a pupil of Catholic theology is, though scholarly and intellectually free, of finding his way in this Protestant problem and discussion. And von Hofmann's Biblical Theology of the New Testament (edited by Volk, 1886), the fragment with which he closed his well-planned but perverse Bible Studies, suffers from the delusion that it is possible to write a history of the New Testament revelation in its pure divine objectivity, instead of a history of the New Testament religion of revelation, an undertaking which could only result in a greater display of the human and subjective. The merit of having freed our science from Baur's scheme of history has been earned by Albrecht Ritschl in the second edition of his book on the Old Catholic Church, 1857. His own positive theology

was not derived from biblical principles, but only sought to put itself in agreement with the teaching of Scripture, with scholarly though sometimes violent acuteness (in the second volume of his Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung). The New Testament Theology, by Immer (1875), and the works of Pfleiderer (Paulinism, 1873, and Das Urchristenthum, seine Schriften und Lehren, 1874), move, so far as the intervening change of the scientific situation permits, on the lines of Baur, yet variously modifying Baur's position, and, as is specially the case with Pfleiderer's Paulinism, taking an independent view. H. Cremer, in his painstaking Biblical Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek [Trans. T. & T. Clark], has furnished a very valuable aid for the examination of details, strongly influenced, of course, by orthodox tradition. But the most important recent appearance in our province is the Biblical Theology of Weiss [Trans. T. & T. Clark], which has run through five editions since 1865. In extensive knowledge of the literature, carefulness, and thoroughness in the preparatory exegetical work, in the completeness and distinctness with which the material is set forth, this meritorious work will be difficult to surpass, and he who undertakes to confront it with a new treatment of the subject will have to give a satisfactory account of the reasons which have moved him to do so.

§ 4. QUESTIONS OF METHOD

The impulse to this undertaking lies for us, not merely in the distinction of a free historical presentation from the rigid form of a manual composed in paragraphs with their elucidations, nor even merely in a considerable number of details in which our judgment about the actual teaching of the New Testament, sometimes in the most important articles of doctrine, differs from that of Weiss, but especially in a somewhat different conception of the task itself, which compels us to differ entirely, both as to arrangement and execution, from that manual which at present rules our subject. We may therefore be allowed to begin our preliminary observations on that task.

The problem of working out a historical presentation of the New Testament religion from those definite canonical sources,

requires a union, as far as possible, of the historic and literary treatment. In Weiss' Manual the historical treatment of the material seems to us to be unduly subordinated to the literary. In his paragraphs and elucidations the raw material furnished by exegesis is indeed set forth with great completeness and in good order, but it is not combined into great living forms. And yet it is the highest task of writing history to set forth the results obtained from an investigation of the sources, not merely as a well-arranged collection of raw material, but to restore from that the living image itself, the fragmentary evidence of which lies before us in these results. I know, indeed, that the application of this highest historical duty to New Testament theology creates the danger and temptation of importing something of one's own into the doctrinal system that is to be described. But not only is this danger in no way excluded by that literary treatment-it is a risk that must be incurred in the writing of history. Hence it follows that we have rights and duties which are not recognised in the Manual of Weiss. In the first place, history is, and remains, according to its nature, the subjective reproduction of what is in itself objective and alien to us. But how is this extraneous matter to become intelligible to me, and become my own, unless I somehow translate it into the mode of thought and speech of the present day? Even the religious doctrines of the New Testament which grew up on the soil of a foreign nationality, and are parted from us by eighteen. centuries, must be translated certainly with the utmost possible care not to subtract or add anything to them-into the thought and speech of the present day, if they are not to remain for us obscure oracles with a strange sound. Further, it seems to me to be closely connected with this, that there must be a part taken in biblical theology by two powers, which, as far as I can see, Dr. Weiss excludes from it, the powers of criticism and divination. Criticism, not, of course, ? in the sense of asking whether or how far the doctrinal contents of the New Testament can hold good, even for us to-day, as dogmatic truth, but in the sense of examining the question as to what value a definite view has for the biblical preacher himself; whether it is an outcome of his own spiritual life, or a traditional heritage; whether it is for him kernel or

BEYSCHLAG.-I.

2