ification of his confreres:

The _first_ class consider Revelation a superstition, and Jesus either
an enthusiast or a deceiver. To this class belong Wuensch and Paalzow,
but no divine. The second class do not allow that there was any divine
operation in Christianity in any way, and refer the origin of
Christianity to mere natural causes. They make the life of Christ a mere
romance, and himself a member of secret associations; and consider the
Scriptures as only human writings in which the word of God is not to be
found. To this class belong Bahrdt, Reimarus, and Venturini (the last
two not divines), and Brennecke. The third class comprise the persons
usually called Rationalists. They acknowledge in Christianity an
institution divine, beneficent, and for the good of the world; and Jesus
as a messenger of God; and they think that in Scripture is found a true
and eternal word of God,--only they deny _any supernatural and
miraculous_ working of God, and make the object of Christianity to be
the introduction of religion into the world, its preservation, and
extension. They distinguish between what is essential and non-essential
in Christianity, between what is local and temporal, and what is
universal. That is to say, they allow that there is good in
Christianity--that all that is good comes from God; but miracles,
inspiration, everything _immediately_ coming from God, they wholly
disbelieve. Among this class are Kant, Steinbart, Krug, as philosophers;
and, as divines, W. A. Teller, Loeffler, Thiess, Henke, J. E. C.
Schmidt, De Wette, Paulus, Wegscheider, and Roehr. The _fourth_ class go
a little higher. They consider the Bible and Christianity as a divine
revelation in a higher sense than the Rationalists. They assume a
revealing operation of God distinguishable from his common providence;
carefully distinguish the periods of this divine direction; found the
divinity of Christianity more on its internal evidence than on miracles;
but especially separate church belief from the doctrines of Scripture;
reform it according to the sentiments of the Divine Word; and require
that Reason should try Revelation, and that Revelation should contain
nothing against, though it may well have much above, Reason. Doederlein,
Morus, Reinhard, Ammon, Schott, Niemeyer, Bretschneider, and others,
belong to this class.

The only objection to this classification is the one urged by Rose;
namely, that only a few of the theological writers would