of the middle ages, as his work, "The Reformers before the Reformation," shows; and much of this spirit, which besides is the tone of his own mind, is reflected in this journal. The element of union to Christ and of Christ in us, which occupies so large a place in this peculiar theology, is a precious complement to the more objective way of viewing doctrines common to other theological schools. It has little of Christ FOR US, but much of Christ IN US. It is like all the Schleiermacher school, partly erroneous, partly defective, in those doctrines bearing on the objective part of the Redeemer's work and of our acceptance; but on the life within, and on that union whereby Christ abides in us and we in him, it lays an emphasis from which other schools should not disdain to learn.

We can only now add an outline of the contents of the Studien und Kritiken for 1852, in as condensed a form as possible. In future Numbers we hope to sketch the contents of the other journals as they come to hand.

The opening paper, with the title Zeitbetrachtung, from the pen of Ullman, gives us his reflections on the times, with particular reference to principles at work before and since the explosion of 1848. He shows that without religion as the life-root, there can be no political regeneration, and that neither of the two things on which the age lays stress-law and institution on the one side, culture and civilization on the other have force to heal society; not law, for it can only repress evil and give a rule for what is good; not culture, for it only refines the natural man, employing his powers, not in the service of self-denying love to God and man, but in the service of self-love. A new principle must be implanted to touch life in its inmost centre and over its entire extent; and that power we find in Christianity alone. He delineates with great beauty that it is the part of every man to offer himself as an instrument to introduce these new-creative powers into all the relations of life, and that this task, imposed on every condition, age, and sex, falls in an eminent degree to theology, which must set forth Christ as the centre of the moral world. He calls attention to the fact, that the church now particularly needs minds morally steeled, fearless, and indefatigable-in a word, characters. He mentions, among the good effects resulting from the Revolution, that many have broken with revolutions, that it has taught sobriety to theology, that its great sermon has been "mit unsrer macht ist nichts gethan," and that now no one thinks of the rehabilitation of the flesh or of the worship of Genius. Among the advantages won for theology, be mentions that the over estimation of the institutional as against the personal has been corrected, and that the Revolution has thrown them back upon the importance of the latter. He gives with great effect an admonition against intermingling the religious element with political theories and interests, adding, that during the Revolution the positively Christian and the churchly theology was regarded as inimical to freedom; and at that trying hour, when left alone with none to stand by her, she learned to turn away her eye from all that is human to the everlasting Lord of the church. Again, to a larger extent than for a long period, men's hearts are made susceptible to the gospel; but, he adds, they will receive it only from the hands of a theology which

preserves itself free from secular aims, and from men who, for devotedness and integrity, have their types in a Luther and a Spener, while they will shut their hearts from a theology which makes flesh its arm.The next paper, with the title Die Aufgabe der Biblischen Theologie, was originally an inaugural address delivered by Dr Daniel Schenkel in becoming Ordinary Professor of Theology at Heidelberg. Dividing his subject into two parts, he gives a cursory survey of what biblical theology has already performed, and then inquires what theological science in its present state has to hope and to expect from it. He sets forth that biblical theology could find its origin only on the ground of Protestantism, which had restored the authority of Scripture to its rights, and that in this respect there was not the smallest essential difference between Luther, Zuingle, and Calvin. He shows that from the gold veins of Scripture, a wholly new view of divine and human things was opened to the Reformers; that the confessional writings of Protestantism, the first dogmatical labours of its champions, Melancthon's loci, Zuingle's fidei ratio, Calvin's Institutes, are in the proper sense of the word biblical theology; and that if Protestantism had continued to advance on these original paths, many a painful experience would have been spared. But with the Formula Concordia on the Lutheran side, and the Helvetic Confession on the side of the Reformed, the Bible, he alleges, always ceased more and more to be the substantial life-principle of Protestantism; the dogmatical divines lapsed into a scholastic method, and while adducing whole batteries of proof. texts, did not draw dogmas fresh from Scripture. The pietism o Spener gave the first impulse to the conviction that a return to the biblical foundation was necessary. The attempts to supply a biblica theology made by Zachariä, Kaiser, De Wette, Vatke, Cölln, were indeed failures, but awoke a consciousness that the biblical foundation had been forsaken. The account of what biblical theology has already performed, is then wound up in the announcement that it has taught men a humble return to Scripture as bearing its principle in itself. After noticing the works of Lutz and Beck, and quoting Rothe's remark that the fundamental ideas of different schools are worn out, and that the discovery of new ones is necessary, he names his own idea, which is, that Christ is the principle of Scripture. Why, he asks, are our schoolnotions worn out? Why does no breath of life proceed any more from our dogmatic compends to our times? Why have all the restorative experiments of our orthodox scholasticism hitherto been put to shame? Why are we so strong in destroying, and so weak in building up? The answer is given in the above remarks:-We have forsaken the sources of life which flow in inexhaustible riches from the living, PERSONAL HEAD OF HUMANITY, Jesus Christ, and our systems, as if the apostle had foreseen them in prophetic vision, are "clouds without water." His second principle is, that Scripture is a connected organism in constant increase, consisting of living members. He thinks that the main problem of biblical theology in the nearest future, is to set forth this position with all its consequences, that its solution will be a great service to theological science, and that it will throw light on the position of the Old Testament to the New, on the types of the Jewish ceremonial law, and on the relation of the prophetical element to the legal. But the application which he makes of this principle in un

dermining plenary inspiration, is, we take leave to add, not only illogical, but a championship on the side of error which deserves rebuke. Granting that he has lighted on a truth in reference to the organic growth and connection of Scripture, does that warrant him to turn it against the authority of Scripture itself, which God gave, indeed, at sundry times, and in diverse manners, and with increasing light, but with divine and supreme authority? Such a termination to his paper is like a rocket going out in darkness. It tastes of Schleiermacher, who makes Scripture the utterance of the Christian consciousness, not authoritative revelation.-Another paper, with the title, "Einige Bemerkungen zu der Schrift von J. H. Kurtz die Einheit der Genesis,"" is from the pen of Tiele, who himself published a learned commentary on Genesis in 1836, and here canvasses the work of Kurtz with much ability. Acknowledging the excellence of Kurtz's work, and the refutation given in it to various objections made to the unity of Genesis, he proceeds to strike down two untenable positions by which Kurtz has sought to establish his point. The two positions which Kurtz laid down, were that there is a difference in idea between the names Jehovah and Elohim, and the alleged division of Genesis into ten Tiele impugns them both, and expresses himself as constrained by his exegetical conscience to enter his protest against both. With regard to the first position, that such a distinction obtains between Jehovah and Elohim, that where one stands the other could not stand without altering the sense, he says that since Ewald's exposition of Genesis, and Hengstenberg's Essay on the Names of God, this idea has found so great consent that it appears almost a heresy to contradict it. He admits that there is a difference, but so subtle and so evanescent that it only seldom comes out. Though Hengstenberg and Kurtz set out on the principle that a difference can be discovered, they come to conclusions directly opposite to one another; and Tiele maintains that the words are used promiscuously. As to the other position, it is shown to be incorrect, far-fetched, only marring a simple view of the unity of Genesis. There follow papers on the date of the composition of the Epistle of James; on the life of Friedrich Perthes, the well-known publisher of Hamburg; on the allowableness of the Christian oath; and a review of Thenius on the Books of Kings. A paper, however, with the title, "über die dermalige Gleichgültigkeit gegen alles philosophische Streben und über die im werk begriffene Gesammtausgabe der Schriften von Franz Baader," demands our notice, because it announces that there never was a period when philosophy was exposed to such indifference as at present. The theologian, the jurist, the physician, contemptuously turn their back upon it. It is well-known, says the writer, that at one time the logical enthusiasm was so great, that the productions of Goethe and Schiller were not so joyfully hailed as the writings of Fichte. Such a complete reaction has set in, that at present only one philosophical journal exists, and drags out a sorry existence. Men have with one consent turned away from mere strawthreshing; and the writer, Dr Hamberger of Munich, is afraid that the contempt may go too far, and disregard every thing ideal. He says that in the present state of things no systems can be regarded as satisfactory to which attaches the character of mere formalism, and which, instead of entering into the essence of things and into their inner con

nection, move in bare schemes, in bald abstractions. A second requirement is that any system which is to deserve a more general respect, must not belong to the mere school, but follow one into life and not stand in cutting contrast to it. A third mark of true philosophy is that it not only stands at no point in contradiction to outward and inward experience, but partly solves the enigma of existence, partly satisfies the want of the human mind, and consequently is not merely penetrated by a moral spirit, but places us on no lower standing-point than Christianity presents. The writer finds these criteria or conditions fulfilled in the philosophical writings of Francis Baader, which are being published in a collected form. Baader, who was born at Munich in 1765, and died at the same place in 1841, was not, as has been often said, a scholar of Schelling. He assumed a philosophical standing-point essentially different, and maintained it to the end of his life; while Schelling towards the close only approximated towards it, without ever reaching it. Baader appeared as a writer about ten years earlier than Schelling, but could not succeed during his lifetime in obtaining the recognition of his system. One reason of this was, that the world was not prepared for the reception of his views, and besides, he wanted the gift of eloquence and of outward systematic development. Yet he won for himself in all countries of Europe no insignificant number of grateful pupils and adherents. Schelling, Hegel, Goethe, Schlegel, all testified their admiration and respect. His writings not only range over the departments of metaphysics, anthropology, ethics, political economy, religious philosophy, but over many other fields, and supply elucidations of Thomas Aquinas, Eckart, Tauler, Jacob Böhme, and are wholly of a conservative, not destructive kind.

In the subsequent Numbers, one paper is a very learned essay by Bleek, on the age of Zech. chap. ix. xiv., in which he maintains that that whole passage, which, in connection with Matt. xxvii. 9, has given such trouble to commentators, belongs to a period before the captivity. Another paper, of a very spiritual cast, breathing much communion with Christ, though somewhat too subjective, is an essay on the ἔργον τοῦ Θεοῦ and πίστις in their mutual relation, by Luthart, Repetent at Erlangen. Then follows a review, by Professor Shoeberlein of Heidelberg, of Martensen's Christian Dogmatics, full of calm, spiritual religion, and of deep love to Christ; but with all its beauty, and full delineation of Christ within, partly defective and partly erroneous on all the objective doctrines connected with divine justice and the atonement. follows an account of the fourth Kirchentag. Then we have Lange on the Contemplation of Nature, from the Christological point of view; Rinck on the Origin of Evil; Gumpach on the Taxing or Census, with reference to Strauss; Dörtenbach on the Method of Dogmengeschichte, or history of doctrines; Staib on the Act of Creation and the Image of God; Ullmann on the Reformatory Character of the Author of the German Theology, one of the mystic writers much admired by Luther; Köster on Inspiration, which is lax and dangerous; and Süskind on the demand of Private Confession before the Supper.

Then

But we notice only further, Ullmann's paper on the Essence of Christianity and Mystik. A French translation of Ullmann's well-known

VOL. 11.-NO. I.

R

essay on the Essence of Christianity, recently published, had been noticed in all the Protestant periodicals of France with different measures of approbation, but was attacked by Gasparin with great severity. Ullmann defends himself in this paper with much mildness, and deprecates these attacks on German views. The tone, at least, of his reply is a model; but whether he has kept his ground against the weighty objections of the zealous and devoted French count, is another question. Gasparin charges him with mysticism, and Ullmann here replies, that in Germany such a name is not one of reproach; that in this department their historical studies had taught them to separate the healthy from the morbid; and that they were only so far mystics as the ground of this lies in certain elements of Christianity which proceeded from Christ and his apostles. It is, he proceeds to say, otherwise in France. In this point, there is in general a very remarkable difference between the Germanic and the Romanic spirit. While the latter has a tendency to dissipate itself in the things of outward life, the former is disposed to recollection in itself, and turns to the inner life. This, he adds, expresses itself historically in those great formation-periods of the Christian life and thought, in which nationality discovers itself as a co-operating factor. Already in the middle ages the two main tendencies of theology were so divided, that the exclusively Latinspeaking scholasticism, which had its chief seat in Paris, may be regarded as a product of the Romanic spirit; while mystik, on the other hand, which spoke directly to the people's heart in the language of the people, and which had its cradle chiefly in the great valley of the German Rhine, must be regarded as a product of the German spirit. The same relation, though differently formed, meets us in the Reformation, and from its leaders has passed over to the churches founded by them. Indeed, there were not wanting, as may be proved by abundance of examples, mystic elements in Calvin, and, on the other side, Luther is not to be called a mystic in the narrow sense. But this, however, is certain, Luther grew up decidedly from the root of mystik— Tauler, Gerson, German theology, Staupitz-and has richly fostered the mystic element in his theology; while Calvin did not form himself under the influence of mystik, and laid at the foundation of his whole theology rather the view of man's absolute dependence on God than the union of man with God. This has naturally continued to work in the doctrinal development of the two churches. Ullmann then shows what is Gasparin's idea of mysticism, and draws a distinction between mystik and mysticism. Gasparin lays down these five marks by which mysticism may be known:-1. Mysticism raises an opposition between dogma and love. 2. It accords to all religious doctrines, without regard to their Scripture truth, a sort of right. 3. Particularly it applies to the questions of the church this principle of indifferentism and neglect of the biblical rule. 4. It more or less puts in the place of the atonement by the blood of Christ the unity of God and man in the person of Christ. 5. It subordinates in all things the authority of Scripture, and will have men to rely more on what they feel than on what they read. To all these criteria in order, Ullmann alludes in an apologetic qualifying manner, without being able altogether to deny their correctness, but, at the same time, it must be added, with a learning which his intimate acquaintance with this particular school of writers enables him to wield at will.