It thus becomes proper to speak of Lutheran, Reformed, or Roman Catholic dogmatics, whose results may be brought Ecclesiastical into the light of objective history. Such objective de- Dogmatics. scription has also been denominated Ecclesiastical Dogmatics, in distinction from Biblical Dogmatics. But neither the latter nor the former is dogmatics in the strictest sense. Both are merely introductory in their character; and ecclesiastical dogmatics results from symbolism, and is a further historical basis for dogmatics proper, just as biblical dogmatics results from biblical exegesis, and is the basis for the history of doctrines. The object object of dogof dogmatics proper is not simply to record historical matics. matter, but also to express the conviction entertained by the writer who presents the system to our notice in word and print."

It is, therefore, for adequate reasons that systematic theology is taken from the soil of history, into which it has struck its roots, and is made a separate branch of study,' the very centre of the theological sanctuary and the heart of theological life. It takes the exegetical and historical material, and out of it constructs for the

1 Dogmatics should always be ecclesiastical; that is, be linked to the Church to which it owes its birth. But we understand by ecclesiastical what has been ecclesiastically fixed and authorized, the symbolically statutory, or, as it has been termed, the socially established. See J. P. Lange, Christl. Dogm., i. The attempt has been made, of late, to limit the term dogmatics to this statutory, symbolical, and traditional branch, while the German phrase "Glaubenslehre "-System of the Faith-has been applied, as alone appropriate, to what we would characterize as dogmatics proper. This is done, for example, by Alex, Schweizer, who, in his Christliche Glaubenslehre, follows in the track of Rothe. But it is impossible to understand, in view of the elastic meaning of the word dóyua, why the term dogmas may not be used with reference to the theology of the present day. This usage is further recommended by the ease with which the adjective "dogmatic," and the verb "to dogmatize," may be formed from the noun. Comp. Krauss on 1 Cor. xv, pp. v and vi. Von der Goltz (ubi supra, p. 688) likewise declares that he is unable to attach the importance to the difference between dogmatics and the term advanced by Schweizer which that writer urges, and continues: "The mere stating of the doctrines held by the fathers is no dogmatics, but a cross section taken from the history of doctrines."

Qualified, of course, by the feature that such personal conviction claims to have discovered the true expression of ideas that now live in the Church, and have earned the right to make themselves heard. Only upon this ground does the work deserve the name of dogmatics. The mere statement of subjective views, sometimes having no reference to the Church, and even designed to antagonize the Church, and break down its teaching, reducing it to a mere zero, deserves to pass by any other name rather than that of dogmatics, or a system of the faith.

Lücke, Stud. u. Krit., 1834, No. 4, p. 775: "I am of the opinion that the scientific interest which gives birth to systematic theology is predominantly unlike the historical, even though it include the critical element. It is simply the systematic, and not merely the subordinate, interest, in an orderly arrangement of a given historical material, but at the same time a desire to state scientifically the doctrines of Christian

present time that doctrine which, in its turn, yields the governing principles for practical theology. In this work it may also appropriate to itself the name of theology, кar' ¿žóxη.

Ethical charac

doctrine.

Christian doctrine is not, however, simply a doctrine of the faith, in the sense that the faith is merely turned in the directer of Christian tion of religious perception and apprehension. But it is, to an equal extent, ethical doctrine, or, more precisely, a doctrine of the life. Disposition and the life are embraced as one under Christianity. It preaches both faith and repentance, —a change of disposition-and its thoroughly practical character even causes the regeneration of the soul to be of primary importance, while thought upon it, or reflection, has but a derived value. Christianity is, first of all, a religion, and not a theology. While it has been observed that religion, in its essence, is neither a form of knowledge nor of action, though it necessarily leads to both, it follows that the doctrinal system of a religion will need to develop in the two directions of knowing and doing. This is generally conceded with reference to the practical department. It would not be desired that either the doctrinal or the moral element should be wanting in a catechism of Christian teaching. The same is true of those sermons in which the two factors of doctrine and ethics are presented in combination. These, as in the case of Wesley and Dwight, are justly regarded as superior to homiletical literature in general.

Predominance

ic interest.

The question is, however, whether the same rule shall apply in the scientific field as well. At the first, while the sciof the dogmat- ence itself was being developed out of the practical elements at hand, the two features were interwoven with each other. We see an illustration of this in Augustine's Christian Doctrine. The dogmatic interest, however, has, upon the whole, always overbalanced the ethical in religious controversies. The Reformation seemed to spring primarily from moral, not directly doctrinal, causes. But a change of relations soon took place, which resulted in the attaching of greater weight to the definition of doctrinal points. It might be said that attention was, with entire propriety, directed chiefly to the settling of the truths belonging to the faith, since works spring from faith. But the faulty

faith and action with absolute truthfulness, in such a way that all doubt and opposition, and all want of congruity in Christian thought, may be removed. This is wholly unlike the historical object." Lange, p. 49: "The importance of dogmatics is materially obscured when it is treated, as it was by Schleiermacher, simply as a branch of historical theology. The immediate object of historical theology is to make dogmatics possible, but not to absorb it."

treatment.

principle consisted in this fact, that the faith was too little apprehended from the dynamical, and too greatly from the merely theoretical, side, the apprehending of the faith being confounded with tendencies of belief, and the understanding of the faith with its power. In this way, Christian ethics long failed to receive just It was a mere tenant on the premises of dogmatics, sparingly introduced in connexion with the teaching of the divine law; and a practical application (usus practicus) was appended to the several dogmas as occasion might require. It is not Calixtus sepastrange, therefore, that Calixtus should fall the upon idea of emancipating ethics from dogmatics, and assign- ics. ing to it a separate field.'

ethics

rating
from dogmat-

But the idea of emancipation should never have been entertained. Christian ethics must ever be grounded, and at home, in Christian dogmatics, if it is not to renounce the Christian character, and degenerate into a general or philosophical morality. The latter event actually came to pass; and there was even a time when morality spread itself over the practical field so broadly that dogmatics was shrivelled into a narrow extract. The separation of the two became an error as soon as it extended to principles, and assumed an internal independence of ethics from dogmatics. In this regard the recalling to mind of their original unity and connexion has been of advantage. It is a different question, however, whether their fusion into a single science must be the result. Science Difference bemust often separate elements which are combined in tween dogmatlife, and theology may distinguish between dogmatics ics and ethics. and ethics with the same propriety as philosophy discriminates between the philosophy of religion and ethics. The one has to do with things to be believed, the other with things to be done. The one moves upon the ground of conception and recognition, the other upon that of modes of disposition and conduct based upon such recognition. In other words, "Dogmatics represents life in its transcendent relations to God, the eternal basis of its being; ethics according to its immanent relation to the world of man. Dogmatics regards it in its specifically ecclesiastical character, ethics in its general human character. Dogmatics describes the organ, ethics indicates the tasks that await its energy. Dogmatics teaches how man derives his Christian life from God, ethics how he is to give proof of it in the world of men, by human methods and in that exercise of incarnated power which we call virtue."" The

1 The Reformed theologian Danæus attempted this even earlier than Calixtus. Comp. Nitzsch, ubi supra.

2 Lange, ubi supra, pp. 46, 47.

reference of the one to the other should, therefore, never be forgotten, and a really Christian dogmatics will always guide into morality, while Christian ethics will point back to dogmatics.

2

It may be noted, moreover, that Schleiermacher already deemed it "desirable that the undivided treatment should be employed from time to time,"1 and this desire has been responded to in recent times by two theologians, Nitzsch and Beck, although in diverse ways. The method has also been tried, finally, by Rothe, of including the substance of the doctrines of belief in ethics as being, in effect, the determining influence of the latter, and of regarding only the historical residuum as dogmatics. But it is not to be sup posed that the usage has been thereby settled for all time.

3

1 Schleiermacher, § 231. J. C. v. Hofmann allows no other excuse for the sepa ration of dogmatics from ethics than that of convenience. "Both branches have been at times considered historical, and at other times systematic, or dogmatics has been assigned to historical theology, while a special treatment has been demanded for ethics. The writer who distinguishes between the science of the kingdom of God in itself and the science of its actualization in man, or who designates dogmatics a history of the dealings of the redeeming God in their development, and ethics a history of development in the men redeemed by him, will be compelled to treat the same material twice, wholly or in part, and this without any appreciable profit, but simply from different points of view. For it is impossible to describe God's dealings with man without discussing at the same time man's action toward God, or to describe the attitude of the Christian without preceding the description with a direct or implied reference to the attitude of God, to which the former corresponds. If the relation sustained by God be presumed, it is admitted that ethics is simply the part of a greater whole. If it be stated, ethics is thereby made such a part, nothing remains but the admission that Christian ethics, as the science relating to Christian conductnot that of men in general-toward God, is indeed a separable, but not for that reason an independent, part of the one body of teachings which has its origin in the publication of that relation existing between God and man which has been established through the mediation of Christ."-Schriftbeweis i, pp. 14, 15.

2 Nitzsch, System der Lehre fur akadem. Vorlesungen. Bonn, 1829, 6th ed., 1851. Tob. Beck, Einl. in d. System der christl. Lehre, oder propædentische Entwicklung der christl., Lehrwissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1838. Die christl. Lehrwissenschaft nach den bibl. Urkunden, Stuttgart, 1840.

3 Theol. Ethik i, p. 38. In opposition see Lange, supra, p. 49, and Julius Müller in Herzog's Encykl., iii, p. 439, and also Dorner in ibid., iv, p. 187: "Dogmatics and ethics are as certainly separate departments as God and man are really different from each other. . . . Dogmatics is engaged upon the being, thoughts, and actions of God, which... have for their object an ethical world; Christian ethics has to do with the good that comes into actual being in the form of man's free-will, and under the actualized purpose of the love of God." Comp. also Schenkel's Dogmatik i̟, p. 13.

SECTION II.

DOGMATICS.

Baumgarten-Crusius, Einleitung in das Studium der Dogmatik, Lpz., 1820; F. Fischer, zur Einleitung in die Dogmatik der evangelisch-protestantischen Kirche, Tüb., 1828; Mynster, über den Begriff der christlichen Dogmatik (theol. Stud. u. Krit., Jahrg., 1831, No. 3); Rust, Rede über christliche Dogmatik, Frankf., 1830; Kling, über die Gestalt der evangel. Dogmatik (Tüb., theol. Zeitschrift, 1834, 4); F. H. Th. Alihn, Einl. in das Studium der Dogmatik nach den Ergebnissen der neuesten wissenschaftl. Forschungen, Lpz., 1837; Beck a. a. O. J. P. Lange, christl. Dogmatik, 1st part, Heidelb., 1849; Th. A. Liebner, introductio in dogmaticam christianam, Lips., 1854; J. Müller, in Herzog's Realencykl. III, p. 433 f.; Rothe, Begriff der evangelischen Dogmatik (Zur Dogmatik I.); Wiedermann, christl. Dogmatik. Einl., p. 1-20; Von der Goltz, ubi supra, and his Dogmatik, mentioned below.

The best English and American treatment of Introductory Systematic Theology is found at the beginnings of the works, and not in separate volumes. For the older works, see Lowndes, The British Librarian, pp. 682-814. Hodge and Van Oosterzee, of later writers, furnish the best introductory discussion.

Christian Dogmatics forms the central point of all theology. The reason is, that the results obtained by exegetical and historical inquiry, in so far as they touch upon the Christian faith, are wrought over, and impressed upon, the consciousness of the present time, and are combined into that scientific whole from which the principles underlying ethics and practical theology are to be deduced. Dogmatics is neither a mere philosophy of religion nor a mere history of doctrines, but a science including both historical Dogmatics deand philosophical elements. It is the science which fined. presents to our notice the material obtained by exegesis and history in an organized and systematic form, representing the sum of the truths of the Christian faith in organic connexion with the facts of the religious consciousness. It, therefore, demands preparatory training in exegesis and history, as well as in philosophy.

What has been said of systematic theology in general applies more especially to dogmatics, as constituting the centre of gravity in this matter. For ethics, which is connected with it, depends upon it in the last analysis. Hence Augusti is justified in the remark, that the old and generally adopted usage, which conceives dogmatics and theology as being synonymes, is evidence of the high importance which has always been attached to this first of all the departments of theology.' It is, to use Lange's expression, “in a specific sense the theology of the Church." But there is, nevertheless, no universal agreement respecting the extent and importance of this science, some regarding it as being simply historical in its nature, and others making it merely philosophical or speculative. Again, they who admit that it combines within itself both historical and philosophical elements, yet differ greatly with regard to the relations sustained by the one to the other.

1 System der christl. Dogmatik, § 1.