Chapter III: Method Of Theology

I. Requisites to the study of Theology.

The requisites to the successful study of theology have already in part been indicated in speaking of its limitations. In spite of some repetition, however, we mention the following:

(_a_) _A disciplined mind._ Only such a mind can patiently collect the facts, hold in its grasp many facts at once, educe by continuous reflection their connecting principles, suspend final judgment until its conclusions are verified by Scripture and experience.

Robert Browning, Ring and Book, 175 (Pope, 228)—“Truth nowhere
lies, yet everywhere, in these; Not absolutely in a portion, yet
Evolveable from the whole: evolved at last Painfully, held
tenaciously by me.” Teachers and students may be divided into two
classes: (1) those who know enough already; (2) those wish to
learn more than they now know. Motto of Winchester School in
England: “Disce, aut discede.” Butcher, Greek Genius, 213,
230—“The Sophists fancied that they were imparting education, when
they were only imparting results. Aristotle illustrates their
method by the example of a shoemaker who, professing to teach the
art of making painless shoes, puts into the apprentice’s hand a
large assortment of shoes ready-made. A witty Frenchman classes
together those who would make science popular, metaphysics
intelligible, and vice respectable. The word σχόλη, which first
meant ‘leisure,’ then ‘philosophical discussion,’ and finally
‘school,’ shows the pure love of learning among the Greeks.”
Robert G. Ingersoll said that the average provincial clergyman is
like the land of the upper Potomac spoken of by Tom Randolph, as
almost worthless in its original state, and rendered wholly so by
cultivation. Lotze, Metaphysics, 1:16—“the constant whetting of
the knife is tedious, if it is not proposed to cut anything with
it.” “To do their duty is their only holiday,” is the description
of Athenian character given by Thucydides. Chitty asked a father
inquiring as to his son’s qualifications for the law: “Can your
son eat sawdust without any butter?” On opportunities for culture
in the Christian ministry, see New Englander, Oct. 1875:644; A. H.
Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 273-275; Christ in Creation,
318-320.

(_b_) _An intuitional as distinguished from a merely logical habit of mind_,—or, trust in the mind’s primitive convictions, as well as in its processes of reasoning. The theologian must have insight as well as understanding. He must accustom himself to ponder spiritual facts as well as those which are sensible and material; to see things in their inner relations as well as in their outward forms; to cherish confidence in the reality and the unity of truth.

Vinet, Outlines of Philosophy, 39, 40—“If I do not feel that good
is good, who will ever prove it to me?” Pascal: “Logic, which is
an abstraction, may shake everything. A being purely intellectual
will be incurably sceptical.” Calvin: “Satan is an acute
theologian.” Some men can see a fly on a barn door a mile away,
and yet can never see the door. Zeller, Outlines of Greek
Philosophy, 93—“Gorgias the Sophist was able to show
metaphysically that nothing can exist; that what does exist cannot
be known by us; and that what is known by us cannot be imparted to
others” (quoted by Wenley, Socrates and Christ, 28). Aristotle
differed from those moderate men who thought it impossible to go
over the same river twice,—he held that it could not be done even
once (_cf._ Wordsworth, Prelude, 536). Dove, Logic of the
Christian Faith, 1-29, and especially 25, gives a demonstration of
the impossibility of motion: A thing cannot move in the place
where it is; it cannot move in the places where it is not; but the
place where it is and the places where it is not are all the
places that there are; therefore a thing cannot move at all.
Hazard, Man a Creative First Cause, 109, shows that the bottom of
a wheel does not move, since it goes backward as fast as the top
goes forward. An instantaneous photograph makes the upper part a
confused blur, while the spokes of the lower part are distinctly
visible. Abp. Whately: “Weak arguments are often thrust before my
path; but, although they are most unsubstantial, it is not easy to
destroy them. There is not a more difficult feat known than to cut
through a cushion with a sword.” _Cf.__ 1 Tim. 6:20—_“oppositions
of the knowledge which is falsely so called”; _3:2—_“the bishop
therefore must be ... sober-minded”—σώφρων = “well balanced.” The
Scripture speaks of “sound [ὑγιής = healthful] doctrine”_ (1 Tim.
1:10)_. Contrast _1 Tim. 6:4—[νοσῶν = ailing] _“diseased about
questionings and disputes of words.”

(_c_) _An acquaintance with physical, mental, and moral science._ The method of conceiving and expressing Scripture truth is so affected by our elementary notions of these sciences, and the weapons with which theology is attacked and defended are so commonly drawn from them as arsenals, that the student cannot afford to be ignorant of them.

Goethe explains his own greatness by his avoidance of metaphysics:
“Mein Kind, Ich habe es klug gemacht: Ich habe nie über’s Denken
gedacht”—“I have been wise in never thinking about thinking”; he
would have been wiser, had he pondered more deeply the fundamental
principles of his philosophy; see A. H. Strong, The Great Poets
and their Theology, 296-299, and Philosophy and Religion, 1-18;
also in Baptist Quarterly, 2:393 _sq._ Many a theological system
has fallen, like the Campanile at Venice, because its foundations
were insecure. Sir William Hamilton: “No difficulty arises in
theology which has not first emerged in philosophy.” N. W. Taylor:
“Give me a young man in metaphysics, and I care not who has him in
theology.” President Samson Talbot: “I love metaphysics, because
they have to do with realities.” The maxim “Ubi tres medici, ibi
duo athei,” witnesses to the truth of Galen’s words: ἄριστος
ἰατρὸς καὶ φιλόσοφος—“the best physician is also a philosopher.”
Theology cannot dispense with science, any more than science can
dispense with philosophy. E. G. Robinson: “Science has not
invalidated any fundamental truth of revelation, though it has
modified the statement of many.... Physical Science will
undoubtedly knock some of our crockery gods on the head, and the
sooner the better.” There is great advantage to the preacher in
taking up, as did Frederick W. Robertson, one science after
another. Chemistry entered into his mental structure, as he said,
“like iron into the blood.”

(_d_) _A knowledge of the original languages of the Bible._ This is necessary to enable us not only to determine the meaning of the fundamental terms of Scripture, such as holiness, sin, propitiation, justification, but also to interpret statements of doctrine by their connections with the context.

Emerson said that the man who reads a book in a strange tongue,
when he can have a good translation, is a fool. Dr. Behrends
replied that he is a fool who is satisfied with the substitute. E.
G. Robinson: “Language is a great organism, and no study so
disciplines the mind as the dissection of an organism.”
Chrysostom: “This is the cause of all our evils—our not knowing
the Scriptures.” Yet a modern scholar has said: “The Bible is the
most dangerous of all God’s gifts to men.” It is possible to adore
the letter, while we fail to perceive its spirit. A narrow
interpretation may contradict its meaning. Much depends upon
connecting phrases, as for example, the διὰ τοῦτο and ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in
_Rom. 5:12_. Professor Philip Lindsley of Princeton, 1813-1853,
said to his pupils: “One of the best preparations for death is a
thorough knowledge of the Greek grammar.” The youthful Erasmus:
“When I get some money, I will get me some Greek books, and, after
that, some clothes.” The dead languages are the only really living
ones—free from danger of misunderstanding from changing usage.
Divine Providence has put revelation into fixed forms in the
Hebrew and the Greek. Sir William Hamilton, Discussions, 330—“To
be a competent divine is in fact to be a scholar.” On the true
idea of a Theological Seminary Course, see A. H. Strong, Philos.
and Religion, 302-313.

(_e_) _A holy affection toward God._ Only the renewed heart can properly feel its need of divine revelation, or understand that revelation when given.

_Ps. 25:14—_“The secret of Jehovah is with them that fear him”;
_Rom. 12:2—_“prove what is the ... will of God”; _cf._ _Ps.
36:1—_“the transgression of the wicked speaks in his heart like an
oracle.” “It is the heart and not the brain That to the highest
doth attain.” To “learn by heart” is something more than to learn
by mind, or by head. All heterodoxy is preceded by heteropraxy. In
Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, Faithful does not go through the
Slough of Despond, as Christian did; and it is by getting over the
fence to find an easier road, that Christian and Hopeful get into
Doubting Castle and the hands of Giant Despair. “Great thoughts
come from the heart,” said Vauvenargues. The preacher cannot, like
Dr. Kane, kindle fire with a lens of ice. Aristotle: “The power of
attaining moral truth is dependent upon our acting rightly.”
Pascal: “We know truth, not only by the reason, but by the
heart.... The heart has its reasons, which the reason knows
nothing of.” Hobbes: “Even the axioms of geometry would be
disputed, if men’s passions were concerned in them.” Macaulay:
“The law of gravitation would still be controverted, if it
interfered with vested interests.” Nordau, Degeneracy:
“Philosophic systems simply furnish the excuses reason demands for
the unconscious impulses of the race during a given period of
time.”

Lord Bacon: “A tortoise on the right path will beat a racer on the
wrong path.” Goethe: “As are the inclinations, so also are the
opinions.... A work of art can be comprehended by the head only
with the assistance of the heart.... Only law can give us
liberty.” Fichte: “Our system of thought is very often only the
history of our heart.... Truth is descended from conscience....
Men do not will according to their reason, but they reason
according to their will.” Neander’s motto was: “Pectus est quod
theologum facit”—“It is the heart that makes the theologian.” John
Stirling: “That is a dreadful eye which can be divided from a
living human heavenly heart, and still retain its all-penetrating
vision,—such was the eye of the Gorgons.” But such an eye, we add,
is not all-penetrating. E. G. Robinson: “Never study theology in
cold blood.” W. C. Wilkinson: “The head is a magnetic needle with
truth for its pole. But the heart is a hidden mass of magnetic
iron. The head is drawn somewhat toward its natural pole, the
truth; but more it is drawn by that nearer magnetism.” See an
affecting instance of Thomas Carlyle’s enlightenment, after the
death of his wife, as to the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer, in
Fisher, Nat. and Meth. of Revelation, 165. On the importance of
feeling, in association of ideas, see Dewey, Psychology, 106, 107.

(_f_) _The enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit._ As only the Spirit fathoms the things of God, so only he can illuminate our minds to apprehend them.

_1 Cor. 2:11, 12—_“the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit
of God. But we received ... the Spirit which is from God; that we
might know.” Cicero, Nat. Deorum, 66—“Nemo igitur vir magnus sine
aliquo adfiatu divino unquam fuit.” Professor Beck of Tübingen:
“For the student, there is no privileged path leading to the
truth; the only one which leads to it is also that of the
unlearned; it is that of regeneration and of gradual illumination
by the Holy Spirit; and without the Holy Spirit, theology is not
only a cold stone, it is a deadly poison.” As all the truths of
the differential and integral calculus are wrapped up in the
simplest mathematical axiom, so all theology is wrapped up in the
declaration that God is holiness and love, or in the
protevangelium uttered at the gates of Eden. But dull minds cannot
of themselves evolve the calculus from the axiom, nor can sinful
hearts evolve theology from the first prophecy. Teachers are
needed to demonstrate geometrical theorems, and the Holy Spirit is
needed to show us that the “new commandment” illustrated by the
death of Christ is only an “old commandment which ye had from the
beginning”_ (1 John 2:7)_. The Principia of Newton is a revelation
of Christ, and so are the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit enables us
to enter into the meaning of Christ’s revelations in both
Scripture and nature; to interpret the one by the other; and so to
work out original demonstrations and applications of the truth;
_Mat. 13:52—_“Therefore every scribe who hath been made a disciple
of the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder,
who bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.” See
Adolph Monod’s sermons on Christ’s Temptation, addressed to the
theological students of Montauban, in Select Sermons from the
French and German, 117-179.

II. Divisions of Theology.

Theology is commonly divided into Biblical, Historical, Systematic, and Practical.

1. _Biblical Theology_ aims to arrange and classify the facts of revelation, confining itself to the Scriptures for its material, and treating of doctrine only so far as it was developed at the close of the apostolic age.

Instance DeWette, Biblische Theologie; Hofmann, Schriftbeweis;
Nitzsch, System of Christian Doctrine. The last, however, has more
of the philosophical element than properly belongs to Biblical
Theology. The third volume of Ritschl’s Justification and
Reconciliation is intended as a system of Biblical Theology, the
first and second volumes being little more than an historical
introduction. But metaphysics, of a Kantian relativity and
phenomenalism, enter so largely into Ritschl’s estimates and
interpretations, as to render his conclusions both partial and
rationalistic. Notice a questionable use of the term Biblical
Theology to designate the theology of a part of Scripture severed
from the rest, as Steudel’s Biblical Theology of the Old
Testament; Schmidt’s Biblical Theology of the New Testament; and
in the common phrases: Biblical Theology of Christ, or of Paul.
These phrases are objectionable as intimating that the books of
Scripture have only a human origin. Upon the assumption that there
is no common divine authorship of Scripture, Biblical Theology is
conceived of as a series of fragments, corresponding to the
differing teachings of the various prophets and apostles, and the
theology of Paul is held to be an unwarranted and incongruous
addition to the theology of Jesus. See Reuss, History of Christian
Theology in the Apostolic Age.

2. _Historical Theology_ traces the development of the Biblical doctrines from the time of the apostles to the present day, and gives account of the results of this development in the life of the church.

By doctrinal development we mean the progressive unfolding and
apprehension, by the church, of the truth explicitly or implicitly
contained in Scripture. As giving account of the shaping of the
Christian faith into doctrinal statements, Historical Theology is
called the History of Doctrine. As describing the resulting and
accompanying changes in the life of the church, outward and
inward, Historical Theology is called Church History. Instance
Cunningham’s Historical Theology; Hagenbach’s and Shedd’s
Histories of Doctrine; Neander’s Church History. There is always a
danger that the historian will see his own views too clearly
reflected in the history of the church. Shedd’s History of
Christian Doctrine has been called “The History of Dr. Shedd’s
Christian Doctrine.” But if Dr. Shedd’s Augustinianism colors his
History, Dr. Sheldon’s Arminianism also colors his. G. P. Fisher’s
History of Christian Doctrine is unusually lucid and impartial.
See Neander’s Introduction and Shedd’s Philosophy of History.

3. _Systematic Theology_ takes the material furnished by Biblical and by Historical Theology, and with this material seeks to build up into an organic and consistent whole all our knowledge of God and of the relations between God and the universe, whether this knowledge be originally derived from nature or from the Scriptures.

Systematic Theology is therefore theology proper, of which
Biblical and Historical Theology are the incomplete and
preparatory stages. Systematic Theology is to be clearly
distinguished from Dogmatic Theology. Dogmatic Theology is, in
strict usage, the systematizing of the doctrines as expressed in
the symbols of the church, together with the grounding of these in
the Scriptures, and the exhibition, so far as may be, of their
rational necessity. Systematic Theology begins, on the other hand,
not with the symbols, but with the Scriptures. It asks first, not
what the church has believed, but what is the truth of God’s
revealed word. It examines that word with all the aids which
nature and the Spirit have given it, using Biblical and Historical
Theology as its servants and helpers, but not as its masters.
Notice here the technical use of the word “symbol,” from συμβάλλω,
= a brief throwing together, or condensed statement of the
essentials of Christian doctrine. Synonyms are: Confession, creed,
consensus, declaration, formulary, canons, articles of faith.

Dogmatism argues to foregone conclusions. The word is not,
however, derived from “dog,” as Douglas Jerrold facetiously
suggested, when he said that “dogmatism is puppyism full grown,”
but from δοκέω to think, to opine. Dogmatic Theology has two
principles: (1) The absolute authority of creeds, as decisions of
the church: (2) The application to these creeds of formal logic,
for the purpose of demonstrating their truth to the understanding.
In the Roman Catholic Church, not the Scripture but the church,
and the dogma given by it, is the decisive authority. The
Protestant principle, on the contrary, is that Scripture decides,
and that dogma is to be judged by it. Following Schleiermacher,
Al. Schweizer thinks that the term “Dogmatik” should be discarded
as essentially unprotestant, and that “Glaubenslehre” should take
its place; and Harnack, Hist. Dogma, 6, remarks that “dogma has
ever, in the progress of history, devoured its own progenitors.”
While it is true that every new and advanced thinker in theology
has been counted a heretic, there has always been a common
faith—“the faith which was once for all delivered unto the
saints”_ (Jude 3)_—and the study of Systematic Theology has been
one of the chief means of preserving this faith in the world.
_Mat. 15:13, 14—_“Every plant which my heavenly Father planted
not, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind guides” =
there is truth planted by God, and it has permanent divine life.
Human errors have no permanent vitality and they perish of
themselves. See Kaftan, Dogmatik, 2, 3.

4. _Practical Theology_ is the system of truth considered as a means of renewing and sanctifying men, or, in other words, theology in its publication and enforcement.

To this department of theology belong Homiletics and Pastoral
Theology, since these are but scientific presentations of the
right methods of unfolding Christian truth, and of bringing it to
bear upon men individually and in the church. See Van Oosterzee,
Practical Theology; T. Harwood Pattison, The Making of the Sermon,
and Public Prayer; Yale Lectures on Preaching by H. W. Beecher, R.
W. Dale, Phillips Brooks, E. G. Robinson, A. J. F. Behrends, John
Watson, and others; and the work on Pastoral Theology, by Harvey.

It is sometimes asserted that there are other departments of
theology not included in those above mentioned. But most of these,
if not all, belong to other spheres of research, and cannot
properly be classed under theology at all. Moral Theology, so
called, or the science of Christian morals, ethics, or theological
ethics, is indeed the proper result of theology, but is not to be
confounded with it. Speculative theology, so called, respecting,
as it does, such truth as is mere matter of opinion, is either
extra-scriptural, and so belongs to the province of the philosophy
of religion, or is an attempt to explain truth already revealed,
and so falls within the province of Systematic Theology.
“Speculative theology starts from certain _a priori_ principles,
and from them undertakes to determine what is and must be. It
deduces its scheme of doctrine from the laws of mind or from
axioms supposed to be inwrought into its constitution.” Bib. Sac.,
1852:376—“Speculative theology tries to show that the dogmas agree
with the laws of thought, while the philosophy of religion tries
to show that the laws of thought agree with the dogmas.”
Theological Encyclopædia (the word signifies “instruction in a
circle”) is a general introduction to all the divisions of
Theology, together with an account of the relations between them.
Hegel’s Encyclopædia was an attempted exhibition of the principles
and connections of all the sciences. See Crooks and Hurst,
Theological Encyclopædia and Methodology; Zöckler, Handb. der
theol. Wissenschaften, 2:606-769.

The relations of theology to science and philosophy have been
variously stated, but by none better than by H. B. Smith, Faith
and Philosophy, 18—“Philosophy is a mode of human knowledge—not
the whole of that knowledge, but a mode of it—the knowing of
things rationally.” Science asks: “What _do_ I know?” Philosophy
asks: “What _can_ I know?” William James, Psychology,
1:145—“Metaphysics means nothing but an unusually obstinate effort
to think clearly.” Aristotle: “The particular sciences are toiling
workmen, while philosophy is the architect. The workmen are
slaves, existing for the free master. So philosophy rules the
sciences.” With regard to philosophy and science Lord Bacon
remarks: “Those who have handled knowledge have been too much
either men of mere observation or abstract reasoners. The former
are like the ant: they only collect material and put it to
immediate use. The abstract reasoners are like spiders, who make
cobwebs out of their own substance. But the bee takes a middle
course: it gathers its material from the flowers of the garden and
the field, while it transforms and digests what it gathers by a
power of its own. Not unlike this is the work of the philosopher.”
Novalis: “Philosophy can bake no bread; but it can give us God,
freedom and immortality.” Prof. DeWitt of Princeton: “Science,
philosophy, and theology are the three great modes of organizing
the universe into an intellectual system. Science never goes below
second causes; if it does, it is no longer science,—it becomes
philosophy. Philosophy views the universe as a unity, and the goal
it is always seeking to reach is the source and centre of this
unity—the Absolute, the First Cause. This goal of philosophy is
the point of departure for theology. What philosophy is striving
to find, theology asserts has been found. Theology therefore
starts with the Absolute, the First Cause.” W. N. Clarke,
Christian Theology, 48—“Science examines and classifies facts;
philosophy inquires concerning spiritual meanings. Science seeks
to know the universe; philosophy to understand it.”

Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 7—“Natural science has for its
subject matter things and events. Philosophy is the systematic
exhibition of the grounds of our knowledge. Metaphysics is our
knowledge respecting realities which are not phenomenal, _e. g._,
God and the soul.” Knight, Essays in Philosophy, 81—“The aim of
the sciences is increase of knowledge, by the discovery of laws
within which all phenomena may be embraced and by means of which
they may be explained. The aim of philosophy, on the other hand,
is to explain the sciences, by at once including and transcending
them. Its sphere is substance and essence.” Bowne, Theory of
Thought and Knowledge, 3-5—“Philosophy = _doctrine of knowledge_
(is mind passive or active in knowing?—Epistemology) + _doctrine
of being_ (is fundamental being mechanical and unintelligent, or
purposive and intelligent?—Metaphysics). The systems of Locke,
Hume, and Kant are preëminently theories of knowing; the systems
of Spinoza and Leibnitz are preëminently theories of being.
Historically theories of being come first, because the object is
the only determinant for reflective thought. But the instrument of
philosophy is thought itself. First then, we must study Logic, or
the theory of thought; secondly, Epistemology, or the theory of
knowledge; thirdly, Metaphysics, or the theory of being.”

Professor George M. Forbes on the New Psychology: “Locke and Kant
represent the two tendencies in philosophy—the empirical,
physical, scientific, on the one hand, and the rational,
metaphysical, logical, on the other. Locke furnishes the basis for
the associational schemes of Hartley, the Mills, and Bain; Kant
for the idealistic scheme of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. The two
are not contradictory, but complementary, and the Scotch Reid and
Hamilton combine them both, reacting against the extreme
empiricism and scepticism of Hume. Hickok, Porter, and McCosh
represented the Scotch school in America. It was exclusively
_analytical_; its psychology was the faculty-psychology; it
represented the mind as a bundle of faculties. The unitary
philosophy of T. H. Green, Edward Caird, in Great Britain, and in
America, of W. T. Harris, George S. Morris, and John Dewey, was a
reaction against this faculty-psychology, under the influence of
Hegel. A second reaction under the influence of the Herbartian
doctrine of apperception substituted function for faculty, making
all processes phases of apperception. G. F. Stout and J. Mark
Baldwin represent this psychology. A third reaction comes from the
influence of physical science. All attempts to unify are relegated
to a metaphysical Hades. There is nothing but states and
processes. The only unity is the laws of their coëxistence and
succession. There is nothing _a priori_. Wundt identifies
apperception with will, and regards it as the unitary principle.
Külpe and Titchener find no self, or will, or soul, but treat
these as inferences little warranted. Their psychology is
psychology without a soul. The old psychology was exclusively
_static_, while the new emphasizes the genetic point of view.
Growth and development are the leading ideas of Herbert Spencer,
Preyer, Tracy and Stanley Hall. William James is explanatory,
while George T. Ladd is descriptive. Cattell, Scripture, and
Münsterberg apply the methods of Fechner, and the Psychological
Review is their organ. Their error is in their negative attitude.
The old psychology is needed to supplement the new. It has greater
scope and more practical significance.” On the relation of
theology to philosophy and to science, see Luthardt, Compend. der
Dogmatik, 4; Hagenbach, Encyclopädie, 109.

III. History of Systematic Theology.

1. _In the Eastern Church_, Systematic Theology may be said to have had its beginning and end in John of Damascus (700-760).

Ignatius († 115—Ad Trall., c. 9) gives us “the first distinct
statement of the faith drawn up in a series of propositions. This
systematizing formed the basis of all later efforts” (Prof. A. H.
Newman). Origen of Alexandria (186-254) wrote his Περὶ Ἀρχῶν;
Athanasius of Alexandria (300-373) his Treatises on the Trinity
and the Deity of Christ; and Gregory of Nyssa in Cappadocia
(332-398) his Λόγος κατηχητικὸς ὁ μέγας. Hatch, Hibbert Lectures,
323, regards the “De Principiis” of Origen as the “first complete
system of dogma,” and speaks of Origen as “the disciple of Clement
of Alexandria, the first great teacher of philosophical
Christianity.” But while the Fathers just mentioned seem to have
conceived the plan of expounding the doctrines in order and of
showing their relation to one another, it was John of Damascus
(700-760) who first actually carried out such a plan. His Ἔκδοσις
ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου Πίστεως, or Summary of the Orthodox Faith,
may be considered the earliest work of Systematic Theology.
Neander calls it “the most important doctrinal text-book of the
Greek Church.” John, like the Greek Church in general, was
speculative, theological, semi-pelagian, sacramentarian. The
Apostles’ Creed, so called, is, in its present form, not earlier
than the fifth century; see Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 1:19.
Mr. Gladstone suggested that the Apostles’ Creed was a development
of the baptismal formula. McGiffert, Apostles’ Creed, assigns to
the meagre original form a date of the third quarter of the second
century, and regards the Roman origin of the symbol as proved. It
was framed as a baptismal formula, but specifically in opposition
to the teachings of Marcion, which were at that time causing much
trouble at Rome. Harnack however dates the original Apostles’
Creed at 150, and Zahn places it at 120. See also J. C. Long, in
Bap. Quar. Rev., Jan. 1892: 89-101.

2. _In the Western Church_, we may (with Hagenbach) distinguish three periods:

(_a_) The period of Scholasticism,—introduced by Peter Lombard (1100-1160), and reaching its culmination in Thomas Aquinas (1221-1274) and Duns Scotus (1265-1308).

Though Systematic Theology had its beginning in the Eastern
Church, its development has been confined almost wholly to the
Western. Augustine (353-430) wrote his “Encheiridion ad
Laurentium” and his “De Civitate Dei,” and John Scotus Erigena (†
850), Roscelin (1092-1122), and Abelard (1079-1142), in their
attempts at the rational explanation of the Christian doctrine
foreshadowed the works of the great scholastic teachers. Anselm of
Canterbury (1034-1109), with his “Proslogion de Dei Existentia”
and his “Cur Deus Homo,” has sometimes, but wrongly, been called
the founder of Scholasticism. Allen, in his Continuity of
Christian Thought, represents the transcendence of God as the
controlling principle of the Augustinian and of the Western
theology. The Eastern Church, he maintains, had founded its
theology on God’s immanence. Paine, in his Evolution of
Trinitarianism, shows that this is erroneous. Augustine was a
theistic monist. He declares that “Dei voluntas rerum natura est,”
and regards God’s upholding as a continuous creation. Western
theology recognized the immanence of God as well as his
transcendence.

Peter Lombard, however, (1100-1160), the “magister sententiarum,”
was the first great systematizer of the Western Church, and his
“Libri Sententiarum Quatuor” was the theological text-book of the
Middle Ages. Teachers lectured on the “Sentences” (_Sententia_ =
sentence, _Satz_, _locus_, point, article of faith), as they did
on the books of Aristotle, who furnished to Scholasticism its
impulse and guide. Every doctrine was treated in the order of
Aristotle’s four causes: the material, the formal, the efficient,
the final. (“Cause” here = requisite: (1) matter of which a thing
consists, _e. g._, bricks and mortar; (2) form it assumes, _e.
g._, plan or design; (3) producing agent, _e. g._, builder; (4)
end for which made, _e. g._, house.) The organization of physical
as well as of theological science was due to Aristotle. Dante
called him “the master of those who know.” James Ten Broeke, Bap.
Quar. Rev., Jan. 1892:1-26—“The Revival of Learning showed the
world that the real Aristotle was much broader than the Scholastic
Aristotle—information very unwelcome to the Roman Church.” For the
influence of Scholasticism, compare the literary methods of
Augustine and of Calvin,—the former giving us his materials in
disorder, like soldiers bivouacked for the night; the latter
arranging them like those same soldiers drawn up in battle array;
see A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 4, and Christ in
Creation, 188, 189.

Candlish, art.: Dogmatic, in Encycl. Brit., 7:340—“By and by a
mighty intellectual force took hold of the whole collected
dogmatic material, and reared out of it the great scholastic
systems, which have been compared to the grand Gothic cathedrals
that were the work of the same ages.” Thomas Aquinas (1221-1274),
the Dominican, “doctor angelicus,” Augustinian and Realist,—and
Duns Scotus (1265-1308), the Franciscan, “doctor
subtilis,”—wrought out the scholastic theology more fully, and
left behind them, in their _Summæ_, gigantic monuments of
intellectual industry and acumen. Scholasticism aimed at the proof
and systematizing of the doctrines of the Church by means of
Aristotle’s philosophy. It became at last an illimitable morass of
useless subtilities and abstractions, and it finally ended in the
nominalistic scepticism of William of Occam (1270-1347). See
Townsend, The Great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages.

(_b_) The period of Symbolism,—represented by the Lutheran theology of Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), and the Reformed theology of John Calvin (1509-1564); the former connecting itself with the Analytic theology of Calixtus (1585-1656), and the latter with the Federal theology of Cocceius (1603-1669).

_The Lutheran Theology._—Preachers precede theologians, and Luther
(1485-1546) was preacher rather than theologian. But Melanchthon
(1497-1560), “the preceptor of Germany,” as he was called,
embodied the theology of the Lutheran church in his “Loci
Communes” = points of doctrine common to believers (first edition
Augustinian, afterwards substantially Arminian; grew out of
lectures on the Epistle to the Romans). He was followed by
Chemnitz (1522-1586), “clear and accurate,” the most learned of
the disciples of Melanchthon. Leonhard Hutter (1563-1616), called
“Lutherus redivivus,” and John Gerhard (1582-1637) followed Luther
rather than Melanchthon. “Fifty years after the death of
Melanchthon, Leonhard Hutter, his successor in the chair of
theology at Wittenberg, on an occasion when the authority of
Melanchthon was appealed to, tore down from the wall the portrait
of the great Reformer, and trampled it under foot in the presence
of the assemblage” (E. D. Morris, paper at the 60th Anniversary of
Lane Seminary). George Calixtus (1586-1656) followed Melanchthon
rather than Luther. He taught a theology which recognized the good
element in both the Reformed and the Romanist doctrine and which
was called “Syncretism.” He separated Ethics from Systematic
Theology, and applied the analytical method of investigation to
the latter, beginning with the end, or final cause, of all things,
viz.: blessedness. He was followed in his analytic method by
Dannhauer (1603-1666), who treated theology allegorically,
Calovius (1612-1686), “the most uncompromising defender of
Lutheran orthodoxy and the most drastic polemicist against
Calixtus,” Quenstedt (1617-1688), whom Hovey calls “learned,
comprehensive and logical,” and Hollaz († 1730). The Lutheran
theology aimed to purify the _existing_ church, maintaining that
what is not against the gospel is for it. It emphasized the
material principle of the Reformation, justification by faith; but
it retained many Romanist customs not expressly forbidden in
Scripture. Kaftan, Am. Jour. Theol., 1900:716—“Because the
mediæval school-philosophy mainly held sway, the Protestant
theology representing the new faith was meanwhile necessarily
accommodated to forms of knowledge thereby conditioned, that is,
to forms essentially Catholic.”

_The Reformed Theology._—The word “Reformed” is here used in its
technical sense, as designating that phase of the new theology
which originated in Switzerland. Zwingle, the Swiss reformer
(1484-1531), differing from Luther as to the Lord’s Supper and as
to Scripture, was more than Luther entitled to the name of
systematic theologian. Certain writings of his may be considered
the beginning of Reformed theology. But it was left to John Calvin
(1509-1564), after the death of Zwingle, to arrange the principles
of that theology in systematic form. Calvin dug channels for
Zwingle’s flood to flow in, as Melanchthon did for Luther’s. His
Institutes (“Institutio Religionis Christianæ”), is one of the
great works in theology (superior as a systematic work to
Melanchthon’s “Loci”). Calvin was followed by Peter Martyr
(1500-1562), Chamier (1565-1621), and Theodore Beza (1519-1605).
Beza carried Calvin’s doctrine of predestination to an extreme
supralapsarianism, which is hyper-Calvinistic rather than
Calvinistic. Cocceius (1603-1669), and after him Witsius
(1626-1708), made theology centre about the idea of the covenants,
and founded the Federal theology. Leydecker (1642-1721) treated
theology in the order of the persons of the Trinity. Amyraldus
(1596-1664) and Placeus of Saumur (1596-1632) modified the
Calvinistic doctrine, the latter by his theory of mediate
imputation, and the former by advocating the hypothetic
universalism of divine grace. Turretin (1671-1737), a clear and
strong theologian whose work is still a text-book at Princeton,
and Pictet (1655-1725), both of them Federalists, showed the
influence of the Cartesian philosophy. The Reformed theology aimed
to build a _new_ church, affirming that what is not derived from
the Bible is against it. It emphasized the formal principle of the
Reformation, the sole authority of Scripture.

In general, while the line between Catholic and Protestant in
Europe runs from west to east, the line between Lutheran and
Reformed runs from south to north, the Reformed theology flowing
with the current of the Rhine northward from Switzerland to
Holland and to England, in which latter country the Thirty-nine
Articles represent the Reformed faith, while the Prayer-book of
the English Church is substantially Arminian; see Dorner, Gesch.
prot. Theologie, Einleit., 9. On the difference between Lutheran
and Reformed doctrine, see Schaff, Germany, its Universities,
Theology and Religion, 167-177. On the Reformed Churches of Europe
and America, see H. B. Smith, Faith and Philosophy, 87-124.

(_c_) The period of Criticism and Speculation,—in its three divisions: the Rationalistic, represented by Semler (1725-1791); the Transitional, by Schleiermacher (1768-1834); the Evangelical, by Nitzsch, Müller, Tholuck and Dorner.

_First Division._ Rationalistic theologies: Though the Reformation
had freed theology in great part from the bonds of scholasticism,
other philosophies after a time took its place. The Leibnitz-
(1646-1754) Wolffian (1679-1754) exaggeration of the powers of
natural religion prepared the way for rationalistic systems of
theology. Buddeus (1667-1729) combated the new principles, but
Semler’s (1725-1791) theology was built upon them, and represented
the Scriptures as having a merely local and temporary character.
Michaelis (1716-1784) and Doederlein (1714-1789) followed Semler,
and the tendency toward rationalism was greatly assisted by the
critical philosophy of Kant (1724-1804), to whom “revelation was
problematical, and positive religion merely the medium through
which the practical truths of reason are communicated” (Hagenbach,
Hist. Doct., 2:397). Ammon (1766-1850) and Wegscheider (1771-1848)
were representatives of this philosophy. Daub, Marheinecke and
Strauss (1808-1874) were the Hegelian dogmatists. The system of
Strauss resembled “Christian theology as a cemetery resembles a
town.” Storr (1746-1805), Reinhard (1753-1812), and Knapp
(1753-1825), in the main evangelical, endeavored to reconcile
revelation with reason, but were more or less influenced by this
rationalizing spirit. Bretschneider (1776-1828) and De Wette
(1780-1849) may be said to have held middle ground.

_Second Division._ Transition to a more Scriptural theology.
Herder (1744-1803) and Jacobi (1743-1819), by their more spiritual
philosophy, prepared the way for Schleiermacher’s (1768-1834)
grounding of doctrine in the facts of Christian experience. The
writings of Schleiermacher constituted an epoch, and had great
influence in delivering Germany from the rationalistic toils into
which it had fallen. We may now speak of a

_Third Division_—and in this division we may put the names of
Neander and Tholuck, Twesten and Nitzsch, Müller and Luthardt,
Dorner and Philippi, Ebrard and Thomasius, Lange and Kahnis, all
of them exponents of a far more pure and evangelical theology than
was common in Germany a century ago. Two new forms of rationalism,
however, have appeared in Germany, the one based upon the
philosophy of Hegel, and numbering among its adherents Strauss and
Baur, Biedermann, Lipsius and Pfleiderer; the other based upon the
philosophy of Kant, and advocated by Ritschl and his followers,
Harnack, Hermann and Kaftan; the former emphasizing the ideal
Christ, the latter emphasizing the historical Christ; but neither
of the two fully recognizing the living Christ present in every
believer (see Johnson’s Cyclopædia, art.: Theology, by A. H.
Strong).

3. _Among theologians of views diverse from the prevailing Protestant faith_, may be mentioned:

(_a_) Bellarmine (1542-1621), the Roman Catholic.

Besides Bellarmine, “the best controversial writer of his age”
(Bayle), the Roman Catholic Church numbers among its noted modern
theologians:—Petavius (1583-1652), whose dogmatic theology Gibbon
calls “a work of incredible labor and compass”; Melchior Canus
(1523-1560), an opponent of the Jesuits and their scholastic
method; Bossuet (1627-1704), who idealized Catholicism in his
Exposition of Doctrine, and attacked Protestantism in his History
of Variations of Protestant Churches; Jansen (1585-1638), who
attempted, in opposition to the Jesuits, to reproduce the theology
of Augustine, and who had in this the powerful assistance of
Pascal (1623-1662). Jansenism, so far as the doctrines of grace
are concerned, but not as respects the sacraments, is virtual
Protestantism within the Roman Catholic Church. Moehler’s
Symbolism, Perrone’s “Prelectiones Theologicæ,” and Hurter’s
“Compendium Theologiæ Dogmaticæ” are the latest and most approved
expositions of Roman Catholic doctrine.

(_b_) Arminius (1560-1609), the opponent of predestination.

Among the followers of Arminius (1560-1609) must be reckoned
Episcopius (1583-1643), who carried Arminianism to almost Pelagian
extremes; Hugo Grotius (1553-1645), the jurist and statesman,
author of the governmental theory of the atonement; and Limborch
(1633-1712), the most thorough expositor of the Arminian doctrine.

(_c_) Laelius Socinus (1525-1562), and Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), the leaders of the modern Unitarian movement.

The works of Laelius Socinus (1525-1562) and his nephew, Faustus
Socinus (1539-1604) constituted the beginnings of modern
Unitarianism. Laelius Socinus was the preacher and reformer, as
Faustus Socinus was the theologian; or, as Baumgarten Crusius
expresses it: “the former was the spiritual founder of
Socinianism, and the latter the founder of the sect.” Their
writings are collected in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum. The
Racovian Catechism, taking its name from the Polish town Racow,
contains the most succinct exposition of their views. In 1660, the
Unitarian church of the Socini in Poland was destroyed by
persecution, but its Hungarian offshoot has still more than a
hundred congregations.

4. _British Theology_, represented by:

(_a_) The Baptists, John Bunyan (1628-1688), John Gill (1697-1771), and Andrew Fuller (1754-1815).

Some of the best British theology is Baptist. Among John Bunyan’s
works we may mention his “Gospel Truths Opened,” though his
“Pilgrim’s Progress” and “Holy War” are theological treatises in
allegorical form. Macaulay calls Milton and Bunyan the two great
creative minds of England during the latter part of the 17th
century. John Gill’s “Body of Practical Divinity” shows much
ability, although the Rabbinical learning of the author
occasionally displays itself in a curious exegesis, as when on the
word “Abba” he remarks: “You see that this word which means
’Father’ reads the same whether we read forward or backward; which
suggests that God is the same whichever way we look at him.”
Andrew Fuller’s “Letters on Systematic Divinity” is a brief
compend of theology. His treatises upon special doctrines are
marked by sound judgment and clear insight. They were the most
influential factor in rescuing the evangelical churches of England
from antinomianism. They justify the epithets which Robert Hall,
one of the greatest of Baptist preachers, gives him: “sagacious,”
“luminous,” “powerful.”

(_b_) The Puritans, John Owen (1616-1683), Richard Baxter (1615-1691), John Howe (1630-1705), and Thomas Ridgeley (1666-1734).

Owen was the most rigid, as Baxter was the most liberal, of the
Puritans. The Encyclopædia Britannica remarks: “As a theological
thinker and writer, John Owen holds his own distinctly defined
place among those titanic intellects with which the age abounded.
Surpassed by Baxter in point and pathos, by Howe in imagination
and the higher philosophy, he is unrivaled in his power of
unfolding the rich meanings of Scripture. In his writings he was
preëminently the great theologian.” Baxter wrote a “Methodus
Theologiæ,” and a “Catholic Theology”; John Howe is chiefly known
by his “Living Temple”; Thomas Ridgeley by his “Body of Divinity.”
Charles H. Spurgeon never ceased to urge his students to become
familiar with the Puritan Adams, Ambrose, Bowden, Manton and
Sibbes.

(_c_) The Scotch Presbyterians, Thomas Boston (1676-1732), John Dick (1764-1833), and Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847).

Of the Scotch Presbyterians, Boston is the most voluminous, Dick
the most calm and fair, Chalmers the most fervid and popular.

(_d_) The Methodists, John Wesley (1703-1791), and Richard Watson (1781-1833).

Of the Methodists, John Wesley’s doctrine is presented in
“Christian Theology,” collected from his writings by the Rev.
Thornley Smith. The great Methodist text-book, however, is the
“Institutes” of Watson, who systematized and expounded the
Wesleyan theology. Pope, a recent English theologian, follows
Watson’s modified and improved Arminianism, while Whedon and
Raymond, recent American writers, hold rather to a radical and
extreme Arminianism.

(_e_) The Quakers, George Fox (1624-1691), and Robert Barclay (1648-1690).

As Jesus, the preacher and reformer, preceded Paul the theologian;
as Luther preceded Melanchthon; as Zwingle preceded Calvin; as
Laelius Socinus preceded Faustus Socinus; as Wesley preceded
Watson; so Fox preceded Barclay. Barclay wrote an “Apology for the
true Christian Divinity,” which Dr. E. G. Robinson described as
“not a formal treatise of Systematic Theology, but the ablest
exposition of the views of the Quakers.” George Fox was the
reformer, William Penn the social founder, Robert Barclay the
theologian, of Quakerism.

(_f_) The English Churchmen, Richard Hooker (1553-1600), Gilbert Burnet (1643-1715), and John Pearson (1613-1686).

The English church has produced no great systematic theologian
(see reasons assigned in Dorner, Gesch. prot. Theologie, 470). The
“judicious” Hooker is still its greatest theological writer,
although his work is only on “Ecclesiastical Polity.” Bishop
Burnet is the author of the “Exposition of the XXXIX Articles,”
and Bishop Pearson of the “Exposition of the Creed.” Both these
are common English text-books. A recent “Compendium of Dogmatic
Theology,” by Litton, shows a tendency to return from the usual
Arminianism of the Anglican church to the old Augustinianism; so
also Bishop Moule’s “Outlines of Christian Doctrine,” and Mason’s
“Faith of the Gospel.”

5. _American theology_, running in two lines:

(_a_) The Reformed system of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), modified successively by Joseph Bellamy (1719-1790), Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), Timothy Dwight (1752-1817), Nathanael Emmons (1745-1840), Leonard Woods (1774-1854), Charles G. Finney (1792-1875), Nathaniel W. Taylor (1786-1858), and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). Calvinism, as thus modified, is often called the New England, or New School, theology.

Jonathan Edwards, one of the greatest of metaphysicians and
theologians, was an idealist who held that God is the only real
cause, either in the realm of matter or in the realm of mind. He
regarded the chief good as happiness—a form of sensibility. Virtue
was voluntary choice of this good. Hence union with Adam in acts
and exercises was sufficient. Thus God’s will made identity of
being with Adam. This led to the exercise-system of Hopkins and
Emmons, on the one hand, and to Bellamy’s and Dwight’s denial of
any imputation of Adam’s sin or of inborn depravity, on the
other—in which last denial agree many other New England
theologians who reject the exercise-scheme, as for example,
Strong, Tyler, Smalley, Burton, Woods, and Park. Dr. N. W. Taylor
added a more distinctly Arminian element, the power of contrary
choice—and with this tenet of the New Haven theology, Charles G.
Finney, of Oberlin, substantially agreed. Horace Bushnell held to
a practically Sabellian view of the Trinity, and to a
moral-influence theory of the atonement. Thus from certain
principles admitted by Edwards, who held in the main to an Old
School theology, the New School theology has been gradually
developed.

Robert Hall called Edwards “the greatest of the sons of men.” Dr.
Chalmers regarded him as the “greatest of theologians.” Dr.
Fairbairn says: “He is not only the greatest of all the thinkers
that America has produced, but also the highest speculative genius
of the eighteenth century. In a far higher degree than Spinoza, he
was a ’God-intoxicated man.’” His fundamental notion that there is
no causality except the divine was made the basis of a theory of
necessity which played into the hands of the deists whom he
opposed and was alien not only to Christianity but even to theism.
Edwards could not have gotten his idealism from Berkeley; it may
have been suggested to him by the writings of Locke or Newton,
Cudworth or Descartes, John Norris or Arthur Collier. See Prof. H.
N. Gardiner, in Philos. Rev., Nov. 1900:573-596; Prof. E. C.
Smyth, in Am. Jour. Theol., Oct. 1897:956; Allen, Jonathan
Edwards, 16, 308-310, and in Atlantic Monthly, Dec. 1891:767;
Sanborn, in Jour. Spec. Philos., Oct. 1883:401-420; G. P. Fisher,
Edwards on the Trinity, 18, 19.

(_b_) The older Calvinism, represented by Charles Hodge the father (1797-1878) and A. A. Hodge the son (1823-1886), together with Henry B. Smith (1815-1877), Robert J. Breckinridge (1800-1871), Samuel J. Baird, and William G. T. Shedd (1820-1894). All these, although with minor differences, hold to views of human depravity and divine grace more nearly conformed to the doctrine of Augustine and Calvin, and are for this reason distinguished from the New England theologians and their followers by the popular title of Old School.

Old School theology, in its view of predestination, exalts God;
New School theology, by emphasizing the freedom of the will,
exalts man. It is yet more important to notice that Old School
theology has for its characteristic tenet the guilt of inborn
depravity. But among those who hold this view, some are
federalists and creationists, and justify God’s condemnation of
all men upon the ground that Adam represented his posterity. Such
are the Princeton theologians generally, including Charles Hodge,
A. A. Hodge, and the brothers Alexander. Among those who hold to
the Old School doctrine of the guilt of inborn depravity, however,
there are others who are traducians, and who explain the
imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity upon the ground of the
natural union between him and them. Baird’s “Elohim Revealed” and
Shedd’s essay on “Original Sin” (Sin a Nature and that Nature
Guilt) represent this realistic conception of the relation of the
race to its first father. R. J. Breckinridge, R. L. Dabney, and J.
H. Thornwell assert the fact of inherent corruption and guilt, but
refuse to assign any _rationale_ for it, though they tend to
realism. H. B. Smith holds guardedly to the theory of mediate
imputation.

On the history of Systematic Theology in general, see Hagenbach,
History of Doctrine (from which many of the facts above given are
taken), and Shedd, History of Doctrine; also, Ebrard, Dogmatik,
1:44-100; Kahnis, Dogmatik, 1:15-128; Hase, Hutterus Redivivus,
24-52. Gretillat, Théologie Systématique, 3:24-120, has given an
excellent history of theology, brought down to the present time.
On the history of New England theology, see Fisher, Discussions
and Essays, 285-354.

IV. Order of Treatment in Systematic Theology.

1. _Various methods of arranging the topics of a theological system._

(_a_) The Analytical method of Calixtus begins with the assumed end of all things, blessedness, and thence passes to the means by which it is secured. (_b_) The Trinitarian method of Leydecker and Martensen regards Christian doctrine as a manifestation successively of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (_c_) The Federal method of Cocceius, Witsius, and Boston treats theology under the two covenants. (_d_) The Anthropological method of Chalmers and Rothe; the former beginning with the Disease of Man and passing to the Remedy; the latter dividing his Dogmatik into the Consciousness of Sin and the Consciousness of Redemption. (_e_) The Christological method of Hase, Thomasius and Andrew Fuller treats of God, man, and sin, as presuppositions of the person and work of Christ. Mention may also be made of (_f_) The Historical method, followed by Ursinus, and adopted in Jonathan Edwards’s History of Redemption; and (_g_) The Allegorical method of Dannhauer, in which man is described as a wanderer, life as a road, the Holy Spirit as a light, the church as a candlestick, God as the end, and heaven as the home; so Bunyan’s Holy War, and Howe’s Living Temple.

See Calixtus, Epitome Theologiæ; Leydecker, De Œconomia trium
Personarum in Negotio Salutis humanæ; Martensen (1808-1884),
Christian Dogmatics; Cocceius, Summa Theologiæ, and Summa Doctrinæ
de Fœdere et Testamento Dei, in Works, vol. vi; Witsius, The
Economy of the Covenants; Boston, A Complete Body of Divinity (in
Works, vol. 1 and 2), Questions in Divinity (vol. 6), Human Nature
in its Fourfold State (vol. 8); Chalmers, Institutes of Theology;
Rothe (1799-1867), Dogmatik, and Theologische Ethik; Hase
(1800-1890), Evangelische Dogmatik; Thomasius (1802-1875), Christi
Person und Werk; Fuller, Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation (in
Works, 2:328-416), and Letters on Systematic Divinity (1:684-711);
Ursinus (1534-1583), Loci Theologici (in Works, 1:426-909);
Dannhauer (1603-1666) Hodosophia Christiana, seu Theologia
Positiva in Methodum redacta. Jonathan Edwards’s so-called History
of Redemption was in reality a system of theology in historical
form. It “was to begin and end with eternity, all great events and
epochs in time being viewed ‘sub specie eternitatis.’ The three
worlds—heaven, earth and hell—were to be the scenes of this grand
drama. It was to include the topics of theology as living factors,
each in its own place,” and all forming a complete and harmonious
whole; see Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 379, 380.

2. _The Synthetic Method_, which we adopt in this compendium, is both the most common and the most logical method of arranging the topics of theology. This method proceeds from causes to effects, or, in the language of Hagenbach (Hist. Doctrine, 2:152), “starts from the highest principle, God, and proceeds to man, Christ, redemption, and finally to the end of all things.” In such a treatment of theology we may best arrange our topics in the following order:

1st. The existence of God. 2d. The Scriptures a revelation from God. 3d. The nature, decrees and works of God. 4th. Man, in his original likeness to God and subsequent apostasy. 5th. Redemption, through the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. 6th. The nature and laws of the Christian church. 7th. The end of the present system of things.

V. Text-Books in Theology.

1. _Confessions_: Schaff, Creeds of Christendom.

2. _Compendiums_: H. B. Smith, System of Christian Theology; A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology; E. H. Johnson, Outline of Systematic Theology; Hovey, Manual of Theology and Ethics; W. N. Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology; Hase, Hutterus Redivivus; Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik; Kurtz, Religionslehre.

3. _Extended Treatises_: Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine; Shedd, Dogmatic Theology; Calvin, Institutes; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology; Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics; Baird, Elohim Revealed; Luthardt, Fundamental, Saving, and Moral Truths; Phillippi, Glaubenslehre; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk.

4. _Collected Works_: Jonathan Edwards; Andrew Fuller.

5. _Histories of Doctrine_: Harnack; Hagenbach; Shedd; Fisher; Sheldon; Orr, Progress of Dogma.

6. _Monographs_: Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin; Shedd, Discourses and Essays; Liddon, Our Lord’s Divinity; Dorner, History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ; Dale, Atonement; Strong, Christ in Creation; Upton, Hibbert Lectures.

7. _Theism_: Martineau, Study of Religion; Harris, Philosophical Basis of Theism; Strong, Philosophy and Religion; Bruce, Apologetics; Drummond, Ascent of Man; Griffith-Jones, Ascent through Christ.

8. _Christian Evidences_: Butler, Analogy of Natural and Revealed Religion; Fisher, Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief; Row, Bampton Lectures for 1877; Peabody, Evidences of Christianity; Mair, Christian Evidences; Fairbairn, Philosophy of the Christian Religion; Matheson, Spiritual Development of St. Paul.

9. _Intellectual Philosophy_: Stout, Handbook of Psychology; Bowne, Metaphysics; Porter, Human Intellect; Hill, Elements of Psychology; Dewey, Psychology.

10. _Moral Philosophy_: Robinson, Principles and Practice of Morality; Smyth, Christian Ethics; Porter, Elements of Moral Science; Calderwood, Moral Philosophy; Alexander, Moral Science; Robins, Ethics of the Christian Life.

11. _General Science_: Todd, Astronomy; Wentworth and Hill, Physics; Remsen, Chemistry; Brigham, Geology; Parker, Biology; Martin, Physiology; Ward, Fairbanks, or West, Sociology; Walker, Political Economy.

12. _Theological Encyclopædias_: Schaff-Herzog (English); McClintock and Strong; Herzog (Second German Edition).

13. _Bible Dictionaries_: Hastings; Davis; Cheyne; Smith (edited by Hackett).

14. _Commentaries_: Meyer, on the New Testament; Philippi, Lange, Shedd, Sanday, on the Epistle to the Romans; Godet, on John’s Gospel; Lightfoot, on Philippians and Colossians; Expositor’s Bible, on the Old Testament books.

15. _Bibles_: American Revision (standard edition); Revised Greek-English New Testament (published by Harper & Brothers); Annotated Paragraph Bible (published by the London Religious Tract Society) Stier and Theile, Polyglotten-Bibel.

An attempt has been made, in the list of text-books given above,
to put first in each class the book best worth purchasing by the
average theological student, and to arrange the books that follow
this first one in the order of their value. German books, however,
when they are not yet accessible in an English translation, are
put last, simply because they are less likely to be used as books
of reference by the average student.