Prince of Orange, the descendant of that heroic leader of the Netherlands in their long struggle to throw off the yoke of Catholic Spain-the first ruler in modern history who was.statesman enough and Christian enough to incorporate the principle of religious liberty into his country's laws. Thanks to William III, the Act of Toleration was passed in 1689, which, though a mass of absurdities and inconsistencies when carefully analyzed,* was yet a measure of practical justice to the majority and of great relief to all. Even then Catholics and Jews were exempted from its provisions, and so enlightened and liberal-minded men as Tillotson † and Locke‡ protested against granting toleration to them. But from that day the grosser forms of persecution ceased forever as regarded all Protestant bodies, though the principle of complete religious liberty has never yet found general acceptance in England.

It is the glory of Baptists that they were the first to advocate religious liberty for all men, and that at no period of their history have they ceased to advocate it. Their clear vision of this great truth was due, first of all, to their acceptance of the Scriptures as the only and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. The corollary of this doctrine was the rejection of all human authority and the assertion of the right of every man to interpret the Scriptures for himself, as enlightened by the Spirit of God. That they were persecuted for these views only strengthened their convictions, which, in the end, have become the truisms of every civilized community. Magna est veritas, et prævalebit.

*See Macaulay's scathing criticism in his History, IV, p. 232. (River side edition.)

† Works. Sermon preached before House of Commons November 5, 1678.

See first letter "On Toleration."

ARTICLE VII.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY-ITS NATURE, PRESUPPOSITIONS, METHODS, AND PERILS.

BY PROFESSOR ALBERT H. NEWMAN, LL. D.

Theology of the Old Testament. By Dr. GUSTAV FRIEDRICH OEHLER. A Revision of the Translation in Clark's Foreign Theological Library, with the Additions of the Second German Edition, an Introduction and Notes by GEORGE E. DAY. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. 1883. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. By Dr. BERNHARD Weiss. Translated from the Third Revised Edition by Rev. DAVID EATON, M. A. 2 Vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1882-3.

Biblical Study; Its Principles, Methods, and History. By CHARLES A.

BRIGGS. PP. 367-405. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1883. Handbuch der Theologischen Wissenschaften in Encyklopädischer Darstellung. Herausgegeben von Dr. OTTO ZöCKLER. Vol. I, pp. 289-327, 549617. Nördlingen. 1883.

Theologik oder Encyklopädie der Theologie. Von Dr. J. F. RÄBIGER. Pp. 286-292. Leipzig. 1880.

Encyklopädie und Methodologie der Theologischen Wissenschaften. Von K. R. HAGENBACH, herausgegeben von E. KAUTZSCH. Leipzig. 1880.

THE publication of English translations of the great German treatises on the Biblical Theology of the Old and the New Testaments by Oehler and Weiss, respectively, the latter for the first time, the former in a greatly improved edition, furnishes sufficient occasion for a review article on this most important, but in this country, at least, little known, department of theological science.

DEFINITION.

What is Biblical Theology and what are its claims upon our attention? What place does it occupy in the circle of the theological disciplines which together make up the great science of theology? This question is more easily asked than answered, the cultivators of Biblical Theology

being themselves far from agreement as to its most essential feature. The two general divisions of theological science that dispute the maternity of this infant discipline are Exegetical Theology and Historical Theology. Does it belong to the one or the other, or to both? The following statements may be taken as fairly representative of the opposing views:

Says Weiss: "Inasmuch as our science has to do only with the objective representation of the religious ideas and doctrines which are to be found in the New Testament, excluding all subjective criticism, it is a purely historical discipline." In this opinion Weiss follows Schleiermacher, Danz, Hagenbach, Oehler, and others.

Says Hagenbach: "As is Bible history, so also is Bible doctrine a result of Exegesis. Inasmuch, however, as the content of this discipline is itself of a systematic didactic nature, it is intrenched upon by the borders of exegetical, historical, and systematic theology, but in such a way that the historical is to be regarded as its proper sphere."

Oehler designates Biblical Theology "a special historical science," and says: "The theology of the Old Testament is the historical exhibition of the development of the religion contained in the canonical books of the Old Testament." Oehler never wearies of emphasizing the historical nature of our science.

Professor Briggs, on the other hand, follows Räbiger, Schultz, and others in emphasizing the exegetical element: "Biblical Theology belongs to the department of exegetical theology as a higher exegesis completing the exegetical process, and presenting the essential materials and principles of the other departments of theology." Says Räbiger, in his excellent work on "Theologik," soon to appear in English: "As hermeneutics and the whole body of derivative disciplines are mere auxiliary sciences for exegesis; so, in turn, is exegesis itself an auxiliary science for that discipline in which exegetical science issues, Biblical Theology." Again, "Exegetical science in its last discipline, so-called

Biblical Theology, satisfies the highest aim which theology in its first part [that is, exegetical theology] pursues, the attainment of a historical understanding of primitive Christianity. Since Biblical Theology has to draw its material chiefly from the Holy Scriptures, the most accurate understanding must precede, and the securing of this result is the service which exegesis, with all its auxiliary sciences, has to perform." Yet even Räbiger prefers to designate the science known as Biblical Theology, "History of the Religion of the Old and New Testaments," and asserts that "Biblical Theology comes into the closest connection with philosophical history of religion without, however, being able to pass into this."

While Räbiger thus treats of Biblical Theology under the head of exegetical theology, and regards it as “the last discipline" of exegetical science, yet he so qualifies his statements in this behalf as practically to put himself side by side with Hagenbach, Oehler, and Weiss.

Schultz (in Zöckler's "Handbuch "), while classifying Biblical Theology among the exegetical disciplines, yet defines it as a "history of the Biblical religion." "It proceeds historico-genetically." The view of Grau, expressed in the same work, is of like tenor. The task of Biblical Theology is declared to be "to give a purely historical representation of the doctrinal contents of the Biblical books." He further declares New Testament history and theology to correspond, as regards their scientific character, with Church history and doctrine history.

What conclusion are we to draw from these representations so divergent and yet, in sense, so accordant? Certainly Biblical Theology is very closely related to exegesis. The meaning of the term exegesis may possibly be so extended as to include not simply the detailed exposition of individual books of the Bible, but the classification of the books of the Bible into periods, and the tracing of the development of the various doctrines through these periods. Yet such has not been the ordinary use of the term, and

its meaning is not at all likely to be made so comprehensive by future usage. Biblical Theology certainly represents the most immediate use of the results of exegesis, and is content to use the results of exegesis alone. Systematic theology, or dogmatics, makes use of the results of exegesis, but these it combines to a greater or less extent with the results of Church history and doctrine history, and shapes them in accordance with the philosophical conceptions of the writer. The subjective element comes largely into play. Biblical Theology attempts, in a purely objective way, to trace historico-genetically the development of doctrine through its various stages from the beginning of the period of revelation until its completion in Christ. Just as doctrine history is founded on an exegesis of the doctrinal documents that have been handed down from the past (writings of Christian Fathers and of heretics, canons of councils, etc.), so is Biblical Theology founded on an exegesis of the Bible. Biblical Theology is, therefore, nothing more nor less than the Doctrine History of the Bible. Why should we not take the license which the Germans so fully enjoy of designating the position of Biblical Theology by a compound expression, exegetico-historical or historico-exegetical? It is historical as to form and method, and so essentially historical; it utilizes fully and exclusively the results of exegesis, and is so, in a sense, exegetical.

Biblical Theology has already, doubtless, been sufficiently defined in the effort to give it its proper place among the theological sciences. But Oehler's elaborate definition may help to a better understanding of the aim and scope of the discipline: "As a historical science Biblical Theology is distinguished from the systematic statement of Biblical doctrine by this, that while the latter investigates the unity of divine truth, as seen in the whole course of revelation, and the aggregate of its manifestations, the former has the task of exhibiting the religion of the Bible, according to its progressive development and the variety of the forms in which it appears. The theology of the Old Testament has, there