DOGMATIC 333 study, but the manner of it ; and thus it would fall under the general head of philosophical or systematic theology. This was the older view, and is held in modern times by Julius Miiller l and Hagenbach. 2 If, however, it be held, as is held by many moderns, that scientia is the substantive understood with dogmatica, then the term means the science of doctrines, and has for its object not the Christian realities themselves, but the doctrines that have been formed about them ; and as such it must be an histori cal science. This is the view adopted by Schleiermacher, 3 Rothe, 4 Martensen, Oosterzee, and others; though the particular form and development of the general idea differs according to the different views of these writers as to the nature and formation of doctrines. There can be no doubt that an historical and critical study of the doctrines that have been held in the Christian Church or its several branches is a legitimate, and in its own place, not unim portant pursuit, and whether such study should be called dogmatic is a mere question of nomenclature and usage. But it can be as little doubted that this study does not occupy that central place in the theological sciences that has usually been assigned to dogmatic, and is not fitted to supersede that direct study of Christian truth that has long borne the name of theology by way of eminence. Hence some of those who make dogmatic a merely historical science hold that there is required besides that a science of speculative theology, dealing directly in a philosophical way with the objects of Christian faith ; while Al. Schweizer thinks that dogmatic, as a science of dogmas, should be discarded as essentially un-Protestant, and that in its stead should be placed what he calls Glaulenslekre. It is clear that we must have some name to express the former con ception of dogmatic, and there is no other name so con venient or so generally used as this. On the other hand, all are not agreed on the necessity and importance of a separate science of dogmatic in the historical conception of it ; and it is not easy to draw a line of distinction between it and symbolical theology, or the study of the creeds and confessions of the different churches. It seems therefore convenient to regard dogmatic as a branch, not of histo rical, but of systematic or philosophical theology. In this view it is the study which endeavours to under stand the facts and truths of Christianity in their true nature, causes, and mutual relations. This study presup poses the reality of Christianity, as the divinely-revealed and perfect religion, and on that basis proceeds to in vestigate what is contained in it with a view to its scientific comprehension. It is thus distinct from, and posterior in the order of nature to, apologetic, which is another branch of philosophical theology, and has for its function the scientific exhibition of the grounds of religion in general and of Christianity in particular. Apologetic has accomplished its task, when it has established and vindicated against attacks that Christianity is truly divine, and the final form of revealed religion. Dogmatic accepts this conclusion as its starting-point, and proceeds to inquire what are the facts that constitute Christianity, how they are to be accounted for, and what is their mutual relation. In this process it must needs generalize and determine the conceptions suggested by the facts by means of definitions, and combine these in the form of definite propositions, which are what are called doctrines, and which are again arranged and framed into a system of doctrine. Doctrines, as usually understood, have reference simply to truths to be believed ; and they correspond to the 1 Art. " Dogmatik" in Herzog s.KeaZ EncyclopadiefurProtestantische Theologie u. Kirche. 2 Encyclopadie u. Methodologie der Theologischen IVissenschaften. 3 Knrze Darstettung de? theologischen Studiums.
- Zuar Dogmatik.
laws of nature discovered and formulated by science. The leading theological doctrines are thus attempts to ex plain in a scientific way certain religious phenomena that belong to Christianity. In dealing simply with facts as distinct from laws, with what is as distinct from what ought to be, dogmatic is distinguished from ethic or moral theology, which is another branch of the same general division of theological studies. For Christianity is more than a revelation of truths ; it is also a body of practical precepts ; and the meaning, principles, and application of these afford a wide and important field of inquiry. There have indeed been some weighty and earnest protests raised against the separation of ethic from dog matic j 5 and there is a certain advantage in the two subjects being treated together, as they usually were by the older theologians, under the heads of fides and olservantia, or the like. Christian doctrine and Christian duty can never be separated in reality without the loss of the life of both, and this should be kept in mind in their discussion. But each of these subjects has grown to such an extent that convenience almost necessitates the plan that has become usual in academic teaching and books, of giving them a separate treatment, and restricting the province of dogmatic to the truths of Christianity that are objects of belief, as distinct from its precepts as matters of duty. Polemic and irenic are branches of theology that have also a very close connection with dogmatic, the former having for its object the exclusion from the system of Christian doctrine of ideas and opinions that are essentially alien to its principles, and the latter the harmonizing or bringing into a relation of mutual toleration views of doctrine which differ in some particulars, and yet are neither of them essentially un-Christian or anti-Christian. These may be regarded as appendices to dogmatic, being the application of its principles to the varieties of belief that exist among Christians. There are two other studies, of recent origin, whose rela tion to dogmatic should be defined, as they have sometimes been thought capable of superseding it biblical theology and the science of religion. The former of these is a development of Scripture exegesis, and seeks, in dealing with the sacred writings, not merely to understand their direct meaning, but to enter into the conceptions of their several writers on the whole subject of religious truth, to find out from their writings the theology of Paul, or Peter, or John, just as the historian of doctrine endeavours to ex hibit the theology of Athanasius, Augustine, or Luther. Then, taking a wider view, it groups all the inspired writers of a period together, and seeks to present the theology of the New Testament, or of the Old, just as one may do with the Nicene or the Reformation theology. This is a most in teresting and useful study, and much valuable work has been done by it ; but it is clearly an historical study, and as such belongs to a different department from dogmatic, if that is placed in philosophical theology. It furnishes important materials for dogmatic, and gives us the power of using Scripture in a more historical way than would be possible without it ; but as it cannot be assumed that any one inspired man, or any one age of the history of revela tion, saw the entire system of divine truth as it is in itself, even the most perfect results of biblical theology will only be materials for dogmatic, not dogmatic itself. The science of religion, again, investigates the various forms of religion among mankind, and by the comparative study of these seeks to discover their origin and mutual re lations. It is probably too soon yet to judge what the results of this young and promising study may be, but they should certainly not be despised by the Christian theologian. They may have an important bearing on apologetic, and
5 By Schleiennacher, Nitzseh, and Beck.
