sion, that our reason has an amount of religious truth within itself, theologians and philosophers, believing in a revelation, imagined that they were able to make, since they expressly declared that this natural light was not sufficient for salvation. "Should"-so Töllner now asks"should this natural light, which enlightens every man, not be sufficient for salvation?" He answers, in two works,1 courageously in the affirmative, But then, surely revelation in nature supersedes the revelation of Scripture?' "The revelation in Scripture," Töllner answers, " is a greater and more perfect means of salvation. Both the natural light, and revelation lead the man who follows them to salvation, Scripture only more so." If Töllner had thus, on one hand, raised, as much as possible, natural religion to revelation, he, on the other hand, lowered Scripture to the level of natural light. According to orthodox doctrinal theology, Scripture is the word of God, not as modern theologians interpret, because Scripture contains the word of God, but because God is the real author (auctor primarius) of Scripture. The Spirit of God has written Scripture by the inspired holy writers. As soon as they are no longer viewed as the mere organs of God, but co-operate independently, and add of their own, the proposition, "God is the author of Scripture," can no longer be maintained. However, even those theologians who, in other points, in opposition to the inroads of Theism, adhered with absolute submission to the word of Scripture, had felt the difficulties of the old doctrine of inspiration. Bengel distinguished degrees of inspiration. Crusius 1 "Wahre Gründe warum Gott die Offenbarung nicht mit augenscheinlichen Beweisen versehen hat" (True reasons why God has not furnished revelation with evident proofs, 1764); and “Beweis, dass Gott die Menschen bereits durch seine Offenbarung in der Natur zur Seligkeit führe" (Proof that God leads men to salvation, even by His revelation in nature-1776). supposed an independent co-operation of the holy writers; Pfaff would not even have excluded every error.1 As free was the position of the Wolffian theologians to the doctrine of inspiration. Carpov would have it applied only to the objects of faith, not to human affairs mentioned in Scripture. Baumgarten reduced it to an influence which God exercises on the mental faculties of the holy writers. In the doctrine of Inspiration, the main stress, which once was laid on God, had thus fallen on the writers. According to the former view, man had a subordinate position only; according to the latter, God. This result, Töllner, without the slightest hesitation, expressed in his work Die göttliche Eingebung (1771): "God"-so he says " has in no way, either inwardly or outwardly, dictated the sacred books. The writers were the real authors, and, by applying their natural mental faculties, they produced the thoughts and words which they wrote. was employed in it directly (?), but it is impossible for us to determine where, and how far He was employed in it." We easily conceive that, in opposition to a theology so thoroughly infected by Illuminism, the popular philosophers of Wolff's school could consider themselves as the only rightful heirs of the master. God A third school may be comprehended under the designation of the historical school. After the zeal for confessions had been extinguished, and the impulse for doctrinal formation dried up, in the second half of the seventeenth century, it was natural that the position towards the matter of theology should become more historical. The precise, comprehensive, calm representation, which we meet with in Hollaz, can be accounted for only by the circumstance, 1 Bengel: Burk, S. 242, ff; Crusius: Delitzsch, S. 69; Pfaff, De Praejudicatis opinionibus in Religione dijudicanda fugiendis, Hag, 1. 1716. that he was less of a contributor than an editor. The more that the tendency of the period was towards subjective piety, the more does the historical point of view commend itself for all the objective formations of faith. In the doctrinal writings of Buddeus and Pfaff, the historical material drowns the already weakened thetical contents. The study of Church History was zealously cultivated by Ittig, Deyling, Korthold, Löscher, Weismann, and others, although very much with a regard to the matter. Who does not think of the historical masses which Walch, in his industry, has collected? It was Mosheim's task to give shape and form to this chaos of matter. In him, the former Helmstadt divine, the spirit of the great Helmstadtian Calixt was revived. Having emancipated and enlarged his mind by classical studies, philosophy, and a knowledge of the world, Mosheim, as a historian, displayed an unprejudiced sympathy with facts, a refined and ingeniously combining pragmaticism, and an elegant, able, and classical style. The dark side of this talent-as regards the style-was a certain elegant superficiality. He has a very superficial view of the nature of the Church; she is, according to him, a kind of State, whose development must therefore be represented like the history of a State.1 His pragmaticism gives the impression of the elegance of a man of the world, rather than of a statement of motives out of the depths of Christian experience. How mechanically, in his ethics, are the Christian and humanistic elements connected with one another! His impartiality, his enlarged views, his liberalism, were, no doubt, connected with his views on the symbolical books of the Church, which he began already to regard in the light of a tradition. 1 Baur, Die Epochen der Kirchlichen Geschichtsschreibung, S. 126: "The general defect of Mosheim's historiography is the externalization and secularization, or the generalization of the pea of the Church." What Mosheim was as a church historian, Ernesti became as an expositor of the New Testament. He was already a mature philologist when he was called to be a teacher of theology. In this, his theological character is expressed; he was a theological philologist; and hence Ernesti's importance is expressed in the principle that Scripture must be explained purely philologically. This principle was not announced by Ernesti for the first time; Wetstein had advanced it much more distinctly, and carried it out with much greater power. Wetstein's New Testament— that storehouse so incredibly drawn upon-was to prove, not only the formal, but also the material likeness of Scripture and profane literature. But from Ernesti, who held so elegant a middle ground between orthodoxy and neology, the age would rather receive the principles of the so-called grammatico-historical exposition, than from the Arminian, who, according to the average measure of that time, went rather too far. Crusius and Ernesti were now teaching together in Leipzig; they could not fail to come in contact with each other, and between this opposition their hearers could not but divide themselves. Against Crusius' exposition, deep indeed, but yet mixed up with his own thoughts, Ernesti maintained the right of objectivity, while Crusius was not wrong in viewing this objectivity in connection with humanistic superficiality. "This conflict of learned opinions," says Teller, in his work "On Ernesti's Merits (S. 13)," "has certainly some advantage, were it not that the sparks flying about too easily kindle the fire of human passions. Crusius groaned with a touching earnestness, or mocked with a cutting smile, quite peculiar to him, over the profanity and deistical evils. Ernesti scolded in a contemptuous manner, and mocked with bitter humour, over ignorance and visionary tendencies. Thus both of them poured upon their numerous hearers the spirit of discord and sectarian zeal." Ernesti was animated by the spirit of the age, which was rapidly tending towards Illuminism; but Illuminism soon went beyond him. When he died (1781), his school, too, was dissolved. "The school of Crusius, writes Jean Paul, who at that time studied at Leipzig, "has almost died with its founder. People are, in 1781, too much embued with the spirit of Illuminism to be able to be out and out Crusites; at least they are too wise to tell it. Not altogether, but nearly the same, is the case with Ernesti's school. Ernesti spoke Ciceronian Latin, but wanted Cicero's eloquence. He had good Latin words, but not very bright thoughts. With poor faculties of mind, he was astonishingly learned; but he owed his glory more to his industry than to his genius, more to his memory than to his depth. He was a great philologist, but not a great philosopher. The information which you want me to give you about the holy orthodoxy of Leipzig, will be very short. Most, almost all, the students, incline towards the side of Heterodoxy. Morus is evidently not orthodox; he has already suffered many persecutions (?); and it is just this which makes him cautious. Wherever he can explain away a miracle, the devil, etc., or can change an allegory from the Old Testament into an accommodation, he does so. In his systematic theology, on which he lectures exceedingly well, he brings the disputed points, the opinions of opposite parties, in such a manner before his hearers, that he leaves the decision to them; and who would, from the strength of his arguments on the one side, not infer which is his real opinion?" Those principles of a grammatico-historical interpretation, which Ernesti represented on the New Testament territory, were in a more thorough going manner applied to the Old Testament territory by J. D. Michaelis. Being the son |