in insisting that freedom of error applies to the external and human only so far as it stands in essential connection with spiritual truth. Inspiration in purely historical, chronological, and topographical matters could only take place internally in the form of vision. But visions could not exhibit things in their empirical reality, since these, by their very nature, must be apprehended by means of external experience. Were mere vision enough, the empirical reality would be meaningless, and this would border on the Docetic. What, therefore, inspired men learned as to such things in an empirical way, and only could thus learn, was not imparted to them by Inspiration. To this is to be added, that were the Spirit of God to impart just as immediate, original illumination respecting the contingent and purely empirical as respecting spiritual and divine things, the essential and non-essential would be mingled together to the detriment of religion and the burdening of such faith as is endowed with a fine sense of truth. But no doubt there are historical matters which stand in essential connection with the meaning and spirit of revelation, nay, are its expression and visible embodiment; and in this case, without doubt, Inspiration does not apply merely to non-historic eternal truths. There are eternal things destined to become historic, and historic which, although taking place but once, have undying significance. Where this is the case in the region of Revelation, there of necessity error, even in historical matters, will be excluded. But there is also a multitude of such matters, not having such connection with revelation itself. The possibility of what is erroneous or inaccurate in non-spiritual things is even part of the complete historic character of religion, because holy men only could and only needed to be raised as to physical, geographical, and similar matters above those con

System der christl. Lehre, opposes a mechanical separation of contents and form, but says, p. 242: Inspiration extends "merely to the mysteries of the divine kingdom, to spiritual truth; to the external and human only so far as it stands in essential connection with the former; herein it elevates its organs to a knowledge far surpassing all human wisdom and into the full light of truth, but it does not instruct them and preserve them from mistakes altogether immaterial to this spiritual truth, and falling within the province of common inquiry and knowledge, such as chronological, topographical, purely world-historical circumstances." Cf. Tholuck, ut supra, p. 699.

ceptions of their days, from which no danger to the pure knowledge of the divine was to be feared, on the supposition of their entire exemption from the circumstances of their historical situation being admissible. Such inaccuracies must even be of service to the purpose of revelation. They form an important ferment, preventing man from resting in literalities, teaching him to distinguish the pith and substance of revelation from the secondary, and impelling him to hold by the former. The fact of the bearers of revelation not being raised by absolute miracle above all possibility of error only need awaken anxiety, if the truth of revelation depended in the last resort upon the mere authority of its human organs, if therefore the only possible kind of certainty respecting the truth were faith in the universal and absolute freedom from error of its organs. But the Introductory Part has rather shown, that the direct way to falsify the truth would be to attempt to derive it from the divine form of the mode of tradition, from the inspiration of the bearers of revelation. Fides historica is not sufficient; fides divina cannot need to be supplemented by it. Thus, by means of the still remaining imperfection of the human instruments, the divine economy has brought it about, that we are unable to rest in men, and that longing after God Himself is unable to find its full satisfaction in them, that real security must be sought in the contents which are independent of the inspired organs of revelation, and which have power to impart certainty respecting themselves. And this security is not imperilled by the supposition, that in matters respecting which certainty, so far from being necessary, is of no religious moment, holy men might err. It is enough for them to apprehend and transmit without adulteration the unerring spiritual truth, of which they are constituted witnesses, leaving it to the inherent force of this truth to bear witness concerning itself.3

5. Within the limits specified, then, a real union of the

1 §§ 7, 7b.

2 Gal. i. 8.

3 With the above principles, maintained by Luther, many modern Reformed theologians also agree; so Sack, Ebrard, Lange, E. de Pressensé, Godet; also the noteworthy work of F. W. Farrar, The Life of Christ, 20th ed. i. 398, ii. 181, 484.

divine and human takes place. How are we more precisely to define this union? A modern view in reference to the O. T. is this: To one nation-Israel, perpetuated in Christianity, God gave from the time of its forefathers a substantially pneumatic basis, so that its deliberation upon itself or its self-consciousness, such as is apparent in the elect spirits of the nation, is nothing else than the reflection of the union of the divine and human life, established in the beginning and unfolding itself in the history of Israel, a reflection which, because faithful, is itself again divine-human. This view is unable duly to discriminate between the Old and New Testament, forestalls the Incarnation, and has in it a one-sided physical character. Akin to it is another view: Inspiration is indeed, in the first instance, a communication to individuals, not to a nation, although for a nation, yea for mankind; but it is a communication not to their persons, but to their nature. But with this the spiritual purport of revelation is inconsistent. This leads to a transformation of the spiritual into a physical process, unless by nature is meant a divinelywrought spiritual state, which would be out of keeping with the O. T., because of the merely momentary character of its spiritual effects. Finally, in so far as the nature, not the person, is to be the recipient of the illumination, this view threatens to revert to the old theory which ignores the person. The only right point of view is, to conceive the divine and the human personality as co-operative in Inspiration, and this in harmony with the fundamental law, by which the human side is receptive to and capable of assimilating the divine. At the same time, of course human receptiveness is not to be conceived as an empty vessel, in which the divine contents are merely deposited, man meanwhile remaining passive. But man is receptive, even as he is filled, in respect of his consciousness of self, of the world, and of God. For this reason man's individuality and historical situation can least of all be regarded as immaterial. This specific character of the human spirit may therefore on one hand be considered as the plastic material upon which the Spirit of God comes in order to bring light and life to man. On the other hand, in the human spirit there exists already a longing for 1 Analogously with Gen. i. 2.

the blessing to be imparted, and the Spirit of God conditions Himself in His working by this specific character of the man, for the purpose of making him a living bearer and organ of the divine Word destined to come to mankind. By the insight thus vouchsafed to the inspired man into divine things, order, light, truth, are brought into the chaos of human consciousness; and even what the inspired one knew before he now knows differently in its inner significance and order, so far as is requisite at the time, but at any rate knows in the sense that the real purport of every revelation is actually made over and becomes a pure, communicable, human possession. Thus, what takes place is not a mechanical division between the divine and human, but a reconciliation of the two with each other, a union, so far as this is required by the end of revelation. This mode of conception1 shows with special vividness, both how that material of natural self-consciousness, which is incidental and non-essential in reference to revelation, neither is nor can be appropriated by the Spirit of God, and also no less, that this need awaken no anxiety in regard to the work of the divine Spirit in man, but that everything which is touched and illumined by the Holy Spirit may be at once divine and human. Moreover, different degrees of inspiration are at the same time naturally implied, in proportion to the extent to which, in accordance with each stage of revelation, appropriation on the part of human consciousness takes place.

THIRD SUBDIVISION.

CONTENTS OF REVELATION.

$ 60.

The content of Revelation is in general God Himself, its end the effecting of a living, reciprocal communion both of God with individuals, and of individuals with each other. Religion being essentially creative of communion, the content of revelation is necessarily directed to the creation of a religious community (§ 49).

' With it Von Rougemont is for the most part in agreement.

1. Many, with too intellectual a tendency, regard instruction as the only purpose of Revelation, the end in view being either the contents, the truth (which is then usually described as a body of supra-rational propositions, "mysteries "), or certainty. If the former sum up revelation in the repletion of the intelligence with higher truth, the latter sum it up in proof, and both classes honour in Revelation the means by which certain propositions, known or unknown, are proved. Both, in a one-sided way, put knowledge first.-Others just as one-sidedly fix their attention in Revelation on the satisfaction of the

interests of the practical reason. Revelation is supposed by its positive character to confirm, or by practical commands savingly to regulate, the voice of conscience. But morality is not religion.-Others, finally, only expect Revelation to impart happiness. But unless knowledge and will are also assumed and claimed by it, this would be eudæmonistic.

2. For us it is a result of the idea of religion,' that just as no aspect of the spirit can be absent from religion, so knowledge, will, feeling, must be taken into account by Revelation. Knowledge, then, as the product of Revelation, we call illumination. Its content is God as regards the different elements of His idea; therefore God as regards His omnipotence, God as the principle of measure, order, beauty, holiness and right, of wisdom and love. But to illumination in the full sense belongs not merely the revelation of a body of truth, but also the imparting of certainty concerning the same. God's objective testimony must become light in man himself, testifying concerning itself, and rendering its truth evident. In conformity with the importance of the will also for the origin and exercise of religion, Revelation must possess power by its contents to inspire and intensify the will; and under this aspect it is quickening. Nowhere and never is the illumination imparted by revelation void of effect. It would have the knowledge communicated reduced to practice. But since, finally, its aim is the elevation of the entire person, the entire spiritual consciousness of self or life is enhanced in freedom and blessedness. Thus by means of these three-divine illumination, quickening, elevation-man becomes more and more a partaker of the blessings of religion, of the divine life in wisdom,

1 §§ 46-48.