and cannot be condemned as subject to reasonable objection. But many will prefer a single word, if such can be found; and the technical term "dogmatics," now widely used for the purpose, appears to be free from any serious objection, and is sufficiently specific to meet the requirements of a defining title. A qualifying word may be added if one desires a closer definition. Biblical dogmatics limits itself to the teachings of the canonical Scriptures, traces the genesis and progress of doctrines, and makes special note of the various types of doctrine discernible among the different biblical writers. Ecclesiastical dogmatics takes account of the creeds and confessions of Christendom and follows the history of the several dogmas. The term "Christian dogmatics" is more general, and yet sufficiently specific to denote the scientific treatment of what a writer believes to be the essential doctrines of Christianity. Ecclesiastical dogmatics belongs more properly to the department of historical theology. But Christian dogmatics must include and rest upon the real teachings of the Holy Scriptures; and there is, therefore, much less reason for distinguishing it from biblical dogmatics. It may largely appropriate philosophical and historical elements, so far as these conduce to a clearer exposition of biblical doctrine; but it must acknowledge as its primary and authoritative source the original documents of the Christian faith. We accordingly adopt the term "Christian dogmatics" as the most appropriate title for that branch of theology the scope and methods of which we proceed to consider.

II. By the legitimate scope of dogmatics we mean that range or compass of theological topics which a well-defined system of Christian dogma should attempt to cover. From this field we do not hesitate to exclude metaphysics, apologetics, and ethics. These may be treated as so many subdivisions of systematic theology, but not as departments of Christian doctrine.* may be an open question whether ethics should not be transferred to the department of practical theology. It may also be affirmed that the subject of ecclesiastical polity has no proper

...

It

*"Apologetics," says Miley, "is not of the nature of a Christian doctrine. . . . Any sufficient reason for its inclusion might properly require a treatment of all questions of canonicity, textual integrity, higher criticism, genuineness, and authenticity.... Apologetics would thus become a disproportionate magnitude in a system of doctrine. Neither is ethics, especially theoretical or philosophical ethics, of the nature of a Christian doctrine.”—Systematic Theology, vol. 1, p. 54.

place among the doctrines of revealed religion. We find no obligatory form of Church government prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. So far as the Church and the sacraments and various means of grace are to be considered as doctrines, they fall legitimately under what is technically called soteriology, or the method of salvation. After ruling out the four subjects named above, there is still left an ample field for dogmatics. Its range of subject-matter is high as heaven and deep as hell and broad as the universe of God. It must treat of angels and principalities and powers, of things present and things to come, of the nature of man, the doctrine of human sinfulness, the redemption through Christ, the revelation of God the Father and the eternal Spirit. These surely afford scope enough for the most ambitious author.

A writer on Christian dogmatics is not at liberty to inculcate, as a proper part of his subject, doctrines which have no basis in the records of divine revelation. But he need not limit his inquiries to subjects which are acknowledged by all to be fundamental or important. Not a few tenets regarded as scriptural by thousands are either not so important or not so capable of proof but that other thousands decline to accept them. But a complete treatise on Christian doctrine not only has the right, but is bound, to set forth what its author believes to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. We may accordingly conclude that the proper limits of Christian dogmatics are fairly indicated in the well-known article which declares that "the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith." Dogmatics may treat many topics of secondary importance, but must confine itself to such doctrines as are believed to have a scriptural foundation.

III. Having determined the legitimate scope of our subject, it remains to consider the methods of arranging the several doctrines in organic unity. In scientific method modern writers may reasonably be expected to surpass the ancients. Progress in any department of theology is not to be seen in the discovery of new material, but in the formulation and exposition of the great truths which the Church has possessed from the beginning. Through all the Christian centuries these truths

have been variously stated and defended, and some doctrines have naturally received much more attention than others. Origen's treatise on fundamental doctrines (De Principiis) is the nearest approach to a comprehensive system of Christian belief to be found among the early fathers; but its four books of doctrine are without any well-defined logical order. Gregory of Nyssa's Great Catechism is of much less extent, and is more of an apology for the doctrines treated than an attempt to enunciate a system. The Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, in four books and one hundred chapters, by John of Damascus, is disproportionate in the treatment of topics, and gives prominence to opinions of no value. Augustine's various treatises on Christian doctrine are monumental, but they furnish us no help in scientific method. The celebrated Loci Communes of Melanchthon, published in 1521, and Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, which appeared fifteen years later, attempt no analytic or synthetic arrangement of subject-matter. The Theological Institutes of Francis Turretin, first published 1679-1685, surpass Calvin's work in logical arrangement; but they follow the catechetical method of questions and answers, and discuss the several doctrines after the order commonly found in the creeds and confessions of the Reformation period. They all naturally begin with the doctrine of God; but the other subjects follow according to no uniform order and are treated as so many independent topics, each to be studied by itself.

The broad-minded and irenical George Calixtus, in his Epit ome of Theology, published in 1619, attempted a philosophical arrangement of the essential doctrines by reducing them to three fundamental inquiries. First, he asks after the object, or aim, of theological science, and finds the answer in all those topics which relate to the salvation and ultimate glory of man. Secondly, he finds the subject and necessity of his doctrines in the facts of creation and of human sinfulness. His third inquiry is into the means of securing the salvation and ultimate blessedness of man; and under this head he presents the mediation of Christ and the means of grace. This has been called the analytic method of procedure, and has some attractive features. It moves partly in the line of that dogmatic method which first propounds the great subject of salvation, and then inquires after "the

13-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XI.

efficient cause," "the meritorious cause," "the instrumental cause," and "the final cause." Much of its substance may be traced back to Peter Lombard's Four Books of Sentences. The chief objection to Calixtus's method is not its analytical form, but the order of his inquiries. To begin a treatise of such scope with the subject of salvation and future blessedness is obviously awkward and unnatural.

The so-called "federal theology" produced a method of arranging all the doctrines of Christianity under the two great covenants of nature and of grace. But the system compelled its advocates to follow an historical, rather than a logical, order, involved no little repetition and confusion of thought, and may be considered obsolete for dogmatic purposes. Leydecker, in 1682, cast the federal theology in a trinitarian form by grouping all Christian doctrine under the three headings of "Father," "Son," and "Spirit." He has been followed in recent times by Marheineke and Martensen. This trinitarian method is attractive for its simplicity, but is incompatible with a proper use of defining terms, and leaves too much room for arbitrary fancies. Martensen, for example, treats the fall of man, human depravity, and guilt under the head of "The Doctrine of the Father;" and Marheineke discusses these same topics under the main caption "Of God the Son." A methodology which allows such looseness of construction can hardly commend itself to the logical mind.

As we come down to the more recent period we observe the increasing attention paid to the method of dogmatics. But the English and Scotch divines have, so far, produced comparatively little in the way of systematizing the doctrines of the Christian faith. They have furnished valuable expositions in such works as those of Burnet and Browne on the Thirty-nine Articles, Hill's Lectures in Divinity, and Dick's Lectures on Theology. Thomas Ridgley's Body of Divinity is a very comprehensive work, but consists of a series of lectures on the Westminster Catechism, and follows its order of questions and answers. None of these writers make any considerable improvement on the old topical method of Melanchthon and Calvin. The Wesleyans have the credit, so far as I know, of producing the only two English works on dogmatics which exhibit careful attention to scientific method. The first of these is the well

known work of Richard Watson, completed in 1823. Under the general title of Theological Institutes he treats, in four parts, of "the evidences, doctrines, morals, and institutions of Christianity." The second division is given exclusively to doctrines, and constitutes more than one half of the entire work. We could wish that this section had been published as an independent volume. Its method is as follows:

This is a simple and admirable arrangement of the doctrines of Christianity; but too large space is given to polemical issues now obsolete, and the great topics of eschatology are passed over in a superficial manner. There is no formal discussion of final judgment and retribution, and one may fairly criticise the position of the section on the "Extent of the Atonement," thrown in between two coordinate sections on "Benefits of the Atonement" and "Further Benefits of Redemption." All that is embraced under benefits of the atonement ought to have been brought under one heading, and the chapter on the extent of the atonement might, with slight changes, have been made to follow immediately after the discussion of the principles of God's moral government.

The other English work above referred to is A Compendium of Christian Theology, by William Burt Pope. After thirty pages of 66 Preliminaries" and two hundred pages more on