had their moments of inspiration, to which they owe
much of the religious experience they have embalmed in their writings.
But inspiration was not the normal condition of their minds, nor were
their books written during the moments of such inspiration. Again, not
every part of the Bible is an equally full and intense expression of
this spiritual mind of the writer. We must assume degrees of inspiration
according with the nature of the contents, and with their nearer or
remoter bearing on the proper matter of the prophetical utterances.[78]

Passing over the names of Julius Mueller, Ebrard, Haevernick, Hundeshagen,
Umbreit, Gieseler, Olshausen, Hagenbach, and Jacobi, we pause at
Schenkel and Hengstenberg.

Schenkel has been, until lately, a recognized evangelical theologian.
The author of the _Essence of Protestantism_, he took his stand as an
able defender of orthodoxy; and there was every reason to hope that he
would be one of the chief agents in the final overthrow of Rationalism.
As a proof of the high estimate placed upon his opinions, when the Baden
government and church consistory were calling their strongest orthodox
theologians into the various posts of prominence, after the Revolution
of 1848, Schenkel was declared counselor, and director of the
theological seminary of Heidelberg. From that time almost to the present
his evangelical sentiments had not been questioned. But, when his
_Picture of the Character of Jesus_ appeared, the surprise was great
throughout Germany. It seemed incredible that he could write a work in
such direct antagonism to all his previous views. People were unwilling
to censure it at first; the Rationalists rejoicing at the great
accession, and the orthodox retaining too much respect for the author's
past services to bestow harsh criticism upon him. But a book of
importance need not wait long in Germany upon the publisher's shelf
before it is weighed and assigned its proper position in literature. In
due time the critics came forward, sifted its contents, and decided it
to be skeptical. The theological periodicals abounded in lengthy reviews
of it. Schenkel seemed as much astounded as any one else at the public
judgment. He answered the charges against his orthodoxy by stoutly
denying that he had turned Rationalist. He held that his critics were so
obtuse that they could not understand him; and that if he were accused
of heterodoxy it was their blunder and not his guilt. But it is needles