eludes the statements of doctrine made in the creeds tian faith and life in its finished form, as set forth by
the apostles, finally and for all time; while the latter ought to take note of the development of revelation, in its various stages, from the time of Abraham to that of the apostles." He therefore makes Biblical theol- ogy bear the same relation to the "system of Chris- tian doctrine" that the History of Dogmas bears to dogmatics. The work of S. Lutz (Bibl. Dogmatik, 1847) is valuable for systematic method no less than for a thorough understanding of the contents of the Bible.
Biblical theolo jy, in the narrower sense, has been again subdivided into the theology of the Old and the theology of the New Testament. Works on the former have been published by Vatke (Die Rili<iii>n des A. T. 1st vol. Berl. 1835) and Bruno Bauer (Die Religion des A.T.2 vols. 1S38). Both are strongly influenced by Hegel's Philosophy of Religion. A better work is Hilvernick, Vorlesungen fiber d. The- ologie des Alten Bundes (posthumous ; Frankf. 1863).
and formulas of the Church, must yet rest ultimately upon the authorit}' of the Scriptures.
The beginning of Biblical theology may be said to he coeval with theology itself, for Scripture proofs were always needed and made use of against heathens, her- etics, and Jews. But when tradition came to be rec- ognised as a rule of faith, equally important as the Scripture, and the Church claimed for her doctrinal decisions and her interpretations of the Bible the same infallibility as for the authority of the Bible itself, the cultivation of strictly Biblical theology fell into dis- credit. The Reformation of the 16th century under- took to purify the Church by the restoration of the Christianity of the Bible, and the catechisms and con- fessions of the Reformed churches may therefore be regarded as attempts to arrange the doctrines of the Bible into a system. The early Protestant works on systematic theology sought to prove the doctrines of the several churches bv Biblical texts; at the head of
each article of doctrine a Biblical text was placed and j From the Roman Catholic side we have Scholz, Hand thoroughly explained. Zacharia? (f 1777), professor of theology in the University of Kiel, wrote Biblische Theolog'e, oder Uiitersnchiing des hiblischen Grundes der vornehmsten theologischen Lehrcn (Gott. u. Kiel, 1771-75; last part edited by Vollborth, 1786). Zacharia; under- stood by Biblical Theology, "not that theology the sub- stance of which is taken from Scripture, for in this sense every theological system must be biblical, but more generally a precise definition of all the doctrines
buch d. Theologie des Alten Bundes (Regensb. 1862, vols. 8vo). On the theology of the New Testament we have works from C. F. Schmidt (Bibl. Theol. des X. T. Erlang. 1853; 2d edit. publ. by Weizs&cker, 1859), G. L. Hahn (Die Theologie des N. T. Leipz. 1854, 1st vol.), and a posthumous work by F. C. Baur (Vorle- nmgen after JV. Testament&che Theolcgie, Leipz. 1864). The teachings of the different writers of the N. T. have been made the subjects of special works. The Pauline
treated of in systematic theology, the correct meaning | system has been treated of by Usteri (Entwiclxlungdes
PUBLICISTS
810
BIBLIOTHECA PATRUM
^Zurich, 1824, 1829, 3831, 1832) and Dahne (Entrvich '■■ ng des paid. Lekrbegriffs, Leipz. 1886); theJohannean by Kostlin (Lehrb( griff vnd Brief e Johamds, Berl. 1843) and Frtmuiann (Joh. Lehrbrgriff, Halle, L839).- Hagenbach, Kwyclopadie (7th edition, i 365); Mercersburg Review, 1862; Knapp, Theol-
slator'a Preface); Herzog, Real-Encyk.i, 222. Sec Theology.
Biblicists, or Bible Doctors, "an appellation given by some writers of the Church of Home to those who profess to adhere to the Holy Scriptures as the sole rule of faith and practice. Toward the close of the twelfth century the Christian doctors were divided into two parties, the Biblici, or Bible doctors, and the Scholastit i. The former interpreted the sacred volume in their schools, though for the most part very misera- bly; they explained religious doctrines nakedly and artlessly, without calling reason and philosophy to their aid, and confirmed them by the testimonies of Scripture and tradition. The latter, or Scholastics, did in. thing but explain the Master of the Sentences, or Peter Lombard ; and thej- brought all the doctrines of faith, as well as the principles and precepts of practical religion, under the dominion of philosophy. And as these philosophical or scholastic theologians were deemed superior to the others in acumen and ingenui- ty, young men admired them, and listened to them with the greatest attention ; while the Biblical doc- tors, or doctors of the sacred page (as they were call- ed i, had very few, and sometimes no pupils. Several persons of eminent piety, and even some Roman pon- tiff's, in the thirteenth century, seriously admonished the scholastic theologians, more especially those of 1'aris, to teach the doctrines of salvation according to the Scriptures, Avith simplicity and purity; but their admonitions were fruitless. The Holy Scriptures, to- gether with those who studied them, fell into neglect and contempt ; and the scholastic) or schoolmen, who taught the schola; tic theology with all its trifling suh- tleties, prevailed in all the colleges and universities of Europe down to the time of Luther (Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., by Murdoch, bk. iii, cent, xii, pt. ii, ch.iii, § 8, and cent, xiii, pt. ii, ch. ii, § 7)." — Eadie, Eccl. Cyclop, s. v.