4. § 4. Division of Dogmatics.
§ 4. Division of Dogmatics.
. As soon as dogmatics arose, a division was also needed of the material which was treated in it. That division was at the beginning extremely simple. The three principal works of Clemens Alexandrinus, viz.
Cohortatio ad gentes, Paedagogus and Stromata are indeed connected together by the idea of the education of the human race by the Logos, but nevertheless contain no proper division; and the last work does indeed develop the true philosophy of Christianity over against Heathendom and Judaism, but Clemens himself says at the beginning of the 6th and at the close of the 7th book of that work, that in it he only wrote what came into his mind, and that one therefore [32] must not be surprised at the lack of order. Origenes' work περι ἀρχων, de principiis, already attempts to bring some order into the material, and accordingly has four main concepts: God, world, freedom, revelation; the first book deals with God, the Trinity and the angels; the second with the world, the God of the O. Test., the good and evil, the incarnation and the resurrection; the third with freedom of the will, the temptations and the end of the world; and the fourth with Holy
Scripture, its inspiration and interpretation. The various loci concerning God, angel, man, Christ, etc. already come to light here, but not yet in good order and correct delimitation, and also still incomplete; the doctrine of the sacraments is lacking, that concerning Scripture comes at the end, and a principle of division is not yet to be discovered. This division of Origenes is taken over in improved form by Theodoretus in the 5th book of his
Αἱρετικης κακομυθιας ἐπιτομη, haereticarum fabularum compendium, which contains a sketch of the orthodox faith. Successively, it deals with God, world, angel and man, Christ, Scripture and sacrament, resurrection and judgment, while finally some ethical capita concerning virginity, repentance, fasting are added to it. Furthermore, this same schema underlies the Ἐκδοσις ἀκριβης της ὀρθοδοξου πιστεως of Joh. Damascenus. The division into four books was first introduced in the Middle Ages, after it had been translated into Latin by the jurist Johannes Burgundis from Pisa at the command of Eugenius III, and Petrus Lombardus had taken the lead in his
Sententiae with the division into four books. Damascenus begins with the doctrine of God, Trinity, attributes (book I), then speaks about the world, creation, angels, men and providence (book II), subsequently treats the person and the work of Christ (book III and IV, cap. 1-9), and ends with some soteriological (faith, baptism, etc.), ethical (law, sabbath, etc.) and eschatological capita (book IV, cap. 10-28).
In addition, the Apostles' Creed, in connection with the baptismal formula, already early offered another division for the dogmatic material.
The Expositio symboli of Rufinus and Augustine's book de fide et symbolo provided commentaries on it, and treated the main matters of the Christian faith on the basis of the trinitarian schema, which lay at the foundation of the apostolic symbol [33]. But Augustine was not only in this division an
example for many later writers, but in his Enchiridium ad Laurentium he treats the whole dogmatic and ethical material under the three Christian virtues faith, hope, and love; however, in a very uneven manner. After an introduction, cap. 1-8, Augustine sets forth that which must be believed from cap. 9 to cap. 113, chiefly on the basis of the apostolic symbol, but then devotes only three capita (114-116) to hope, in which he takes the Lord's Prayer as guiding thread, and the remaining capita 117-122 to love.
Faith, prayer, and commandment thus form here the schema of dogmatics, which later has often, especially in catechisms, been adopted. Isidore of Seville also, in the first book of his Sententiarum sive de summo bono libri
III, in the main follows this order of the apostolic symbol and in 30 capita treats of God, creation, world, angels and men, Christ, the H. Spirit, the church, Scripture and sacraments, resurrection and last things, and then in the second and third book treats exclusively ethical material.
2. The arrangement which Lombardus chose in the Middle Ages is more reminiscent of that of Origenes, Theodoretus, and Damascenus. His
Sententiae are divided into four books. The first treats de mysterio trinitatis; the second de rerum corporalium et spiritualium creatione et formatione: creation, angels, the hexaemeron, man, the fall, sin; the third de incarnatione verbi: the person and the work of Christ, faith, hope, love, the 4 principal virtues and other ethical subjects; the fourth book de sacramentis: on 7 sacraments, the resurrection, the judgment, heaven and hell. Here already perceptible progress is to be observed: the subjects are not only better grouped and delimited, but the whole is also split into four parts, each with its own, distinct object; the ethical material is not, as with Theodoretus, added at the end, but incorporated into the dogmatics itself; the sacraments, formerly only briefly discussed, are treated at length; on the
other hand, the arrangement leaves much to be desired in many respects, and various subjects such as Scripture, church, and especially also the soteriological, are almost not mentioned at all. Most Scholastics attached themselves to this work of Lombardus [34] and wrote commentaries on it.
Some introduced fortunate improvements in the ordering of the material.
Thomas, e.g., develops in the prologue to his commentary on the Sententiae in a fine way, that first God, and then his works: creation, restoration and consummation are the subjects of the 4 books. But a place of honor is also occupied, from a formal point of view, by the Breviloquium of Bonaventura. First, Bonaventura has a prooemium precede his work and in it gives in 7 paragraphs a fine overview of the doctrine of Scripture, especially of its content, which he briefly unfolds in its length and breadth, depth and height. And then he gives in 7 partes a sketch of the truth of faith; pars 1 treats de trinitate, pars 2 de creatura mundi, pars 3 de corruptela peccati, pars 4 de incarnatione verbi, pars 5 de gratia Spiritus Sancti, pars 6 de medicina sacramentali, and pars 7 de statu finalis judicii. Here there is a firm, methodical course, a complete mastery of the material, a pure delimitation of the subjects, and also a consciously chosen principle of division; for in pars 1 cap. 1 Bonaventura says that, although theology treats all those seven subjects, it is nevertheless scientia una, for God is not only rerum primum principium et exemplar effectivum in creatione, sed etiam refectivum in redemptione et perfectivum in retributione. Entirely different is the division of Thomas in his Summa. This work has three partes, the partes are divided into quaestiones, and these again into articuli. Pars I treats in 119 quaestiones of God and his creation, before and outside sin:
God as principium and exemplar of all things. Pars II speaks of man as his imago, and again falls apart into a prima and secunda; the prima comprises
114 quaestiones, begins with the final end of man, namely blessedness, and develops with a view to that the will qu. 6-17, the good and sinful quality of human acts, passions and habits qu. 18-54, the virtues in general qu. 55-70, the sins in their division, seat, cause and consequences, qu. 71-89, then the external and internal motives that spur man to the good, the law, the gospel, grace and merit, qu. 90-114. The secunda of this second part then treats in 189 quaestiones of the sins and virtues in particular, especially according to the order of the three theological and the four cardinal [35] virtues. After thus the final end of man has been determined and his virtues and sins have been set in the light, Pars III describes the way by which we can come to the blessedness of immortal life, that is, Christ and the sacraments. In 90 quaestiones the person and the work of Christ and then the concept of sacrament, baptism, confirmation, eucharist and poenitentia are described.
Here the work of Thomas ends; at his death he left it unfinished. The supplementum, which has been added to it from his other writings, contains
99 quaestiones, continues the sacraments, and treats in qu. 69-99 the state of souls after death, the resurrection, the judgment, blessedness and damnation. An appendix speaks in 3 quaestiones still about purgatory. The division of Thomas deviates from that of Bonaventura not only, but in many respects also lags behind it. To be sure, in Pars I qu. 1, an extensive development is given of the essence of theology, but over against that the doctrine of Scripture remains entirely undiscussed. Further, Thomas at the beginning of the second part at once leaps to the final end of human life, and is thereby compelled often to anticipate what can only be treated later.
The Christian virtues, the gospel, the law, the grace, which Thomas includes in this second part, presuppose the person and the work of Christ. The division of Thomas is already connected with the Roman doctrine of the
ordo supernaturalis, to which man must be elevated. After the first part has treated of God, the second part speaks of man, who as the image of God is destined for the gratia supernaturalis but cannot attain it, and the third then points out in the person of Christ and the sacraments the way by which man can reach this his destination. God, man, Christ are thus the subjects of the three parts, Werner, Der h. Thomas v. Aq., Regensburg 1858 I, 801 f.;
Kleutgen, Theol. der Vorzeit, 2e Aufl. V, 60-70; Kling, Descriptio Summae theol. Th. Aq., Bonn 1846. Finally, the quaestionary form of treatment is also not without objection, Pierson, Studiën over Joh. Calvijn, I 228 v.
Thomas sets forth each truth of faith in the form of a question, and brings forward all that opponents have raised against it. With an appeal to one or another authority, Scripture, church fathers, [36] Aristotle, however, he proves the truth of what is asked and draws up the conclusio. This is then elucidated and finally defended against the objections that have been raised.
3. These divisions were mostly adopted by the later Roman theologians, not only in the commentaries which, e.g., were produced by many medieval theologians and also later still by Estius e. a. on the Sententiae of Lombardus, or by Suarez, Valentia, Vasquez, Billuart, Daelman etc. on the Summa of Thomas; but also in independent dogmatic works. Thus the division of Thomas was adopted by Mart. Becanus in his theologia scholastica, Mogunt. 1619, the local method of Theodoretus, Damascenus,
Lombardus by Petavius, Opus de theol. Dogm. Paris 1644. Proleg cap. I § 4. But scholasticism had yet another influence on the division of the material. Bonaventura had already included the doctrine of Scripture in the prooemium; Thomas treated beforehand the essence of theology: the development of scholasticism led to the distinction of articuli mixti and puri, to the doctrine of the praeambula fidei and motiva credibilitatis. Thus
the material for the prolegomena became more and more extensive. And when the Reformation soon appeared with the exclusive authority of Scripture, it became necessary for the Roman theologians also to give an account of the principia of theology. Melchior Canus especially, in his loci theologici 1563, developed the doctrine of the loci, i.e. of the sources of Theology. This work is not a dogmatics, but a topica, in Cicero's sense (see above, p. 2). He treats in 12 books ten sources of theology, namely
Scripture, tradition, Pope, concilium, church, church fathers, scholastici, reason, philosophy and history, of which the first seven are reducible to two, Scripture and tradition, and the last three are only ministerialiter theological. In this way, gradually, before dogmatics proper a broad introduction has become necessary, which, also through the principled contestation of theology on the part of philosophy etc., has grown into an entire fundamental dogmatics. Most Roman dogmatics accordingly treat in a first part the essence or concept of theology, the praeambula fidei (theol. naturalis), the motiva credibilitatis (religion, revelation, prophecy, miracles, wondrous spread of the [37] christ., martyrs etc.), faith, the sources
(Scripture and church), theology and philosophy (faith and reason), concept of dogmatics. Thus in Klee, Heinrich, Jansen, Scheeben, Liebermann,
Perrone e. a. Perrone's work, e.g., treats vol. I de vera religione, and in the two last parts VIII and IX on the loci theologici; these two indeed appeared later after dogmatics proper, but belong, according to the author's own declaration, vol. VIII, praef., in substance to follow the first part. In these loci Perrone deliberately, in distinction from Canus, places the church before Scripture. And thus is the arrangement with most Roman dogmaticians of more recent times. The church presses more and more into the foreground; it is the principium fidei. The course of dogmatics is then
usually that of the local method. One begins with God, considered in himself as one and triune; and then proceeds to God, considered in His relation to the creatures, and indeed first as Deus Creator, then as Deus
Redemptor, thereafter as Deus Sanctificator and finally as Deus Consummator.
4. Dogmatics among the Reformers was, from the outset, anti-scholastic and was at first presented in a very simple and practical form.
Melanchthon's Loci, published in 1521, arose from lectures on Paul's Epistle to the Romans. They are thoroughly practical, treat only anthropological and soteriological capita, especially those of sin and grace, law and gospel, and leave the objective dogmata of God, Trinity, creation, incarnation, satisfaction entirely undiscussed. But the edition of 1535 was greatly expanded by Melanchthon and introduced the secunda aetas of the Loci; it was dedicated in a preface to Henry VIII, began with 5 new capita on God, unity, Trinity, creation, and the cause of sin, was further enriched in the middle with some chapters, and expanded the last three ethical capita into ten chapters of ethical, ecclesiological, and eschatological content, together 39 capita or articles. In 1543 the Loci entered their tertia aetas: a preface was added pio lectori; the number of loci declines, owing to simplification, from 39 to 24; but the content has nevertheless increased significantly. The last edition prepared by Melanchthon himself is that of 1559. The successive editions [38] show an ever greater approach to the synthetic division, which begins with God and descends to his works in nature and grace; but in this connection it is noteworthy that the prolegomena are entirely lacking, that Christology comes off too short because Christ's person and work are not treated separately, that the dogmatic and ethical remains most closely connected and the whole is
concluded not with the eschatological dogmata but with some ethical capita, Phil. Melanchtonis Loci Theol. ed. Augusti 1821 p. 167 f. Die Loci C. des
Ph. M. in ihrer Urgestalt nach G. L. Plitt. 2e Aufl. von Dr. Th. Kolde, Erlangen. Deichert 1890. Herzog2 9, 503 f. Zöckler Handb. der Theol.
Wiss. II 622 f. and the edition of the Loci in the Corpus Reformatorum.
Zwingli's Commentarius de vera et falsa religione, Opera ed. Schuler et Schulthess III 153 and his Fidei Christianae Expositio ib. IV 45, also treat some dogmatic loci, but were soon put in the shadow by Calvin's
Christianae Religionis Institutio. The first edition appeared in Latin at Basel in March 1536 and contained a praefatio of Aug. 1535 to Francis I, and thereafter six chapters on the law, faith, prayer, the sacraments, the Roman sacraments, and freedom. It was expanded three times in 1539, 1543 and 1559. The last edition was about five times larger than the first, and indeed contained increase and expansion, but no change. Melanchthon had in the later editions become synergistic and crypto-Calvinistic; Calvin remained the same. Melanchthon's Loci became more synthetic in form, but retained the character of a series of loci; Calvin's Institutio more and more acquired a systematic form. The edition of 1559 contains four books, on the knowledge of God as Creator, as Redeemer, as Sanctifier, and a last book on the external means of grace. The division is thus not purely Trinitarian but is derived from the apostol. creed; hence a fourth part comes at the end, dealing chiefly with church and sacraments. The first book gives much more than the title promises, also treats the sources of the knowledge of God and the doctrine of the Trinity. Cosmology and anthropology are distributed over the first and second book. The third book contains, besides soteriological, also many ethical chapters, together with the doctrine [39] of election and of the resurrection. The point of departure of the Institutio is
theological, but Calvin does not proceed from an abstract concept of God, but from God as he is known by man from nature and Scripture, Köstlin,
Calvins Instit. nach Form und Inhalt in ihrer geschichl. Entw. Stud. u. Kr.
1861 S. 7-62, 410-486. Godgel. Bijdr. 1868 bl. 861 v. 1869 bl. 483 v. Gass, Gesch. der prot. Dogm. I 99 v. Pierson, Studien over J. Kalvijn I 127 v. and the edition in the Corpus Reform.
5. Lutheran and Reformed theologians at first almost generally followed this synthetic division of Melanchthon and Calvin. For various reasons it was held to be the best. Not only Reformed theologians such as Hyperius,
Methodus Theol. 1574 p. 11-16, Alsted Theol. schol. didact, in de praefatio, Ursinus, Opera, Heidelb. 1612 I 417, H. Alting, Oratio inauguralis de methodo loc. comm. Heidelb. 1613, Leydecker, de Verit. Rel. Christ. 1690 p. 77; but also Lutherans, such as Flacius, Clavis Scripturae Sacrae, vol. II, tract. I p. 54, Declaratio tabulae trium methodorum theologiae, bij Gass,
Gesch. der prot. Dogm. I 46, gave preference to the synthetic method, because in it, as Hyperius says, a primis principiis per formas ac differentias ad finem usque fit progressus. This division was therefore preferred, because it followed that same historical course which God had delineated in His revelation; because it offered the least occasion for a priori speculation and best preserved the positive character of theology; and because it was analogous to the method in the other sciences, which also begin with the simplest elements or principia and then proceed to the composite. This division accordingly remained dominant in the Lutheran church up to Calixtus; one finds it in the main in Strigel, Selneccer, Heerbrand, Chemniz,
Hutter, Gerhard, etc. In Reformed theology it is followed up to Coccejus, by Sohnius, Musculus, Hyperius, Ursinus, Martyr, Wollebius, Polanus,
Amesius, etc. But nevertheless it is importantly modified in some points.
Already soon an introduction was prefixed to dogmatics proper, in which the concept of theology, the doctrine of Scripture, and on a single occasion also, e.g. in Amesius and Maestricht, the essence of faith was treated.
Dogmatics [40] was thus divided into two parts, de principiis theologiae and de articulis fidei, Polanus, Syntagma Theol. p. 133. In the corpus itself there came better distinction and delimitation, and also more systematic ordering of the loci: election, treated by Calvin in the third book, came forward in the doctrine of the decrees; the doctrine of world, man, Christ, etc. each received its own place; the conclusion of dogmatics was not taken up by some ethical capita, but by the consummatio seculi; the ethical material was either discussed in soteriology or also in a second part, de operibus, in distinction from the first de fide, or with Danaeus and Calixtus separated entirely from dogmatics. The treatment of the individual loci in the 17th century became ever more scholastic; the connection with the life of faith was felt ever less and less.
6. The reaction against this scholasticism could in the long run not fail to appear. It began in the Luth. church with Calixtus, in the Geref. with Coccejus. Calixtus conceived theology as a practical science and in his
Epitome theologiae 1619 followed the analytical division. This was not new insofar as Thomas too, after the doctrine of God, in the second part proceeds to the destiny of man and in the third part describes the way that in Christ leads thither. But Calixtus begins at once with the end, the destiny of man. Part I treats de fine, d. i. de immortalitate animae, resurrectione et extremo judicio. Part II speaks de subjecto, d. i. about God, angel, man, sin.
Part III treats de mediis, d. i. about praedestinatie, incarnatie, Christus, justification, word, sacrament, etc. These three parts form the pars communis, which concerns all believers; but after that there still follows a
pars propria, which especially treats of the church and is in particular of importance for the office-bearers. Even if there was much good in it, to emphasize, over against the scholastic treatment of theology, its practical character, nevertheless this division is burdened by many objections. Apart from the fact that the doctrine of the church treated in the pars propria is a truth of importance for all believers; it makes a strange impression that dogmatics begins with the end, immortality, etc.; [41] the second part must treat of the subject of theology, man, but also contains the whole doctrine about God; the third part corresponds best to its title, but does the soteriology come up short alongside the soteriology, Gass, Gesch. der prot.
Dogm. I, 304 f. Yet this analytical method was followed by the later Lutheran theologians, Calovius, Quenstedt, König, Baier, Scherzer. And also among the Reformed it found acceptance. Barth. Keckermann at Dantzig had already before Calixtus in 1603 brought to light a systema S.
Theologiae, in which he, with appeal to Ursinus in his Catechesis, defines theology not as a scientia contemplatrix but as a disciplina operatrix, or better still as a prudentia religiosa ad salutem perveniendi, cap. 1. Therefore he chooses with decisiveness the analytical method, for the synthetic method is proper to the sciences, but the analytical suits the disciplinae operatrices. And thus he then divides his theology into three parts. In the first part he treats of the principia of theology, namely God, the principium essendi, and his Word, the principium cognoscendi. From these two alone the end and the means leading thereto become known to us. In the second part he then says with a single word that the end of Theology is vita, salus aeterna, just as Ursinus in his catechism question 1 places this at the head.
The means to reach this end are twofold: knowledge of our misery, and deliverance from that misery, lib. II, cap. 1. Book II thus treats of man and
his sin, and Book III of the media salutis, election, Christ, church, justification, sacraments. Remarkable further is that Keckermann with preference compares theology with medical science and even borrows from it the names for the different parts of his theology. Bonaventura Brevil. Pars
I, cap. 1, had already done this before him. Following him and others, Keckermann speaks of a pars pathologica, therapeutica, diaetetica of theology, p. 214, 295, cf. Kuyper, Encycl. I, 40.
Likewise, by Coccejus the theological standpoint was exchanged for the anthropological. The new element in his Systema doctrinae de foedere et testamento Dei 1648 did not consist in the concept of the covenant as such, which already occurs in Zwingli and Calvin and had been developed by Bullinger, Olevianus, Cloppenburg. [42] But it lay herein, that Coccejus for the first time arranged the whole dogmatic material from out of this concept, and thereby intended to give a more biblical-theological, antischolastic dogmatics; further, that in the arrangement of the material he followed the historical order of the dispensations of the covenant, distinguished these dispensations so sharply, that their unity was lost and could be preserved only by arbitrary typical exegesis; and finally, that he considers the whole history of the covenant of grace from the beginning to the end as an abolition of the covenant of works; sin, Christ, New
Covenant, bodily death and resurrection are the five turning points, through which successively the covenant of works is deprived of all its power and operation, cap. III § 68. This division is burdened by many objections; it does not take its standpoint theologically in God, but in the covenant of God and man and thus cannot treat the doctrine concerning God and man otherwise than beforehand in an introduction, by way of presupposition; by its historical course it effaces the boundary between the history of
revelation and dogmatics and thereby undermines the latter; it falls into manifold repetitions and of itself comes to it, on the one hand, to exaggerate the analogies and on the other hand the distinctions in the different dispensations of the covenant. Yet it found imitation with many, e.g. with Momma, Heydanus, Vitringa, Braun, Witsius, and also with Lutherans, such as W. Jäger, 1702. And even Leydecker, a follower of Voetius and opponent of Coccejus, attempted to connect the trinitarian division with the federalistic in such a way, that the successive economies of grace were brought into connection with the three persons and the threefold activity in the Trinity, Schweizer, Gl. der ev. ref. k. I 115 f.
7. But an even greater change came in the form of dogmatics through the influence of philosophy. This is expressed especially in the fact that dogmatics proper in its material content becomes poorer and poorer, and the pars formalis continually gains in size and breadth. Up to this point it had been quite otherwise; the prolegomena were entirely lacking, or were small in scope and dealt at most with theology and Scripture; all strength was devoted to the elaboration and defense of the particular dogmas. The foundation lay so firm that it was not investigated at all; all [43] labor was spent on the building that was erected upon that foundation. This changed through philosophy, through the rights that reason gradually arrogated to itself over against revelation. It was no longer satisfied with the modest role of handmaiden, and demanded a voice in the chapter. In the pars materialis this had as a consequence that all scholastic elaboration of the dogmas was avoided as much as possible; one goes back from the confession to Scripture and embraces the historical, biblical method; the dogmas are simplified and worn down and lose what is distinctive; all deeper reflection on the dogmas is banished; simplicity becomes superficiality. But the
influence on the formal part of dogmatics was even greater. Here one abandoned the Reformation starting point of faith and returned to that of Roman theology. First, one thought that human reason, even outside faith, could produce from itself all the truths of the theol. naturalis; the theol. naturalis preceded the theol. revelata as praeambula fidei, reason was emancipated from faith, from revelation, both stood independently alongside each other. S. van Til treated them both separately in his
Theologiae utriusque compendium, cum naturalis tum revelatae 1706.
Subsequently that reason not only received its own domain alongside revelation, but also extended its power over that revelation itself. To it was granted the right to investigate the truth of revelation. In the theologia naturalis one stood on a firm foundation, on a purely scientific basis; from this standpoint revelation too was investigated, and if then reason by all manner of rational and historical proofs, as so many motiva credibilitatis, had demonstrated the truth of revelation, then it was surely reasonable to believe that revelation and to submit to it. Thus the prolegomena became ever more extensive. First one deals with religion as distinguished from theology; then with the theol. naturalis and the natural or rational truths; next with revelation, whose possibility, necessity, and actuality are demonstrated at length; and finally with Holy Scripture, whose truth is supported by all manner of historical, critical, rational proofs. And only after that long road does one arrive at dogmatics proper, which looks as sober and as simple as possible. The whole [44] standpoint has changed; the starting point is no longer faith but reason. What wonder that this in deism and rationalism denies all revelation, a revelation that after all gives nothing new and is wholly superfluous. This order of treatment is essentially proper to scholastic and Roman theology. The Socinians have never risen above
this rationalistic standpoint, Fock, Der Socin. 291 f. And the Remonstrants have returned again to this method. Limborch, Theol. Christ. speaks in cap.
1 de theologia ac religione, in cap. 2 de existentia Dei and then in cap. 3 v. about the H. Scripture. Episcopius in his Instit. Theol. expands this introductory material still further, speaks first even about the requirements of the theologian, and then about the practical character of theology, the theol. naturalis, religion, revelation, and the H. Scripture. Gradually this expansion of the prolegomena also penetrated into orthodox dogmatics. The division of dogmatics into two parts: de fide and de operibus leads Amesius and Maestricht, at the beginning after theology and Scripture, also to discuss the nature of faith; Marck and Moor speak in the third chapter about religion; Brakel begins with a chapter about the theol. naturalis. There is thus much difference and confusion about what belongs in the introduction.
But gradually in the 18th century a series of subjects for the introduction begins to become fixed, such as theology, natural knowledge of God, revelation, Scripture; e.g. in J. A. Turretinus, Werenfels, Osterwald, Buurt and all theologians of rationalistic and supranaturalistic direction.
8. Now it was indeed by Kant that the rationalistic foundation of dogmatics was undermined, and Schleiermacher did indeed try to save faith and doctrine of faith, by restricting them to feeling and the description thereof. But in fact no change has come about in this order of dogmatics.
The attacks on the Christian religion in this century are directed in the first place against the foundations themselves. In earlier centuries faith was more powerful and the question: why do I believe, hardly arose. The foundations seemed so firm that an investigation of them was entirely unnecessary; all strength was devoted to erecting the building. But now dogmatics is contested precisely in its philosophical presuppositions; not this or that
doctrine [45] in dogmatics, but the possibility of dogmatics is denied, Pierson, Ter uitvaart 1870. Human cognitive capacity is limited to visible things; revelation is deemed impossible; Holy Scripture is deprived of its divine authority by historical criticism and even the right and the value of religion is seriously disputed. By and in part through all this the religious life has been strongly diminished; there is indeed much movement in the religious sphere, but there is little truly religious life. Faith no longer feels sure; even among believers there is much doubt and instability. The childlike and at the same time heroic: I believe, is seldom heard and has made room for critical doubting. Perhaps one still believes his confession, but one no longer confesses his faith (Schweizer). In times of awakened religious life one speaks as one having authority, and not as the scribe; then the words: I know in whom I believe, sound from the lips. But in a critical time like ours there is uncertainty precisely about the principia, about source of knowledge, method, proof, etc. The pars formalis is therefore still the most important part of dogmatics. A whole apologetics precedes dogmatics, Hoekstra, Godgel. Bijdr. 1864 bl. 2 v. Schleiermacher did indeed make dogmatics into a positive, historical science and tried to free it from all apologetics. But he had philosophy precede historical theology, to which dogmatics belongs, which had to take its point of departure über dem
Christenthum, in religious communal life in general, and from there critically had to determine the essence of Christianity, Kurze Darstellung des theol. Stud. 2e Ausg. § 32 f. In fact he thus did not free theology from philosophy, but made it as dependent on it as possible. This also appears in that in his Glaubenslehre he has a broad introduction precede it with all kinds of Lehnsätze from ethics, the philosophy of religion and apologetics.
Now the example of Schleiermacher, to have philosophical theology
precede historical theology in an encyclopaedic way, has indeed found imitation only among a few; but in connection with him it has nevertheless become customary to begin dogmatics with an apologetic part. Thus Voigt wrote a Fundamentaldogmatik, Lange a [46] philosophical dogmatics, which preceded the positive, Van Oosterzee laid an apologetic foundation,
Dorner has a more fundamental part or Apologetik precede, Biedermann a prinzipieller Theil, Lipsius and Nitzsch a Principienlehre, etc. The advice of Liebner, Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1856 I 196 f. to develop in the introduction only the concept of dogmatics, since otherwise a whole dogmatics comes before dogmatics, and the concepts of religion, revelation already presuppose the doctrine of God and man, has been little followed. The subjects that are treated in this Principienlehre are not the same with all, but nevertheless mostly run over the concepts: nature of our knowledge in religious matters, religion, revelation, Holy Scripture and church. The chapter theology, formerly often included, has been moved to the Encyclopaedie. The division of material dogmatics is very different. Some follow the trinitarian division, such as Martensen, Lange, Kahnis, Ebrard, Schweizer. Others proceed from Christ and treat the presuppositions, the person and the work of Christ, such as Liebner, Thomasius, Lange. The contrast of sin and grace, with the presupposition preceding it of the relation of God and world, lies at the basis of the division of Schleiermacher and Rothe, zur Dogm. 29.
Hofmann, Philippi, Lutbardt, have taken the foedus concept, i.e. the communion of God, as point of departure and treat the origin, the disturbance, the objective restoration, the subjective realization and the completion of that communion. The kingdom of God is chosen as principium dividendi by Van Oosterzee; the concept of love by Schoeberlein; that of life by Oetinger, Reiff, etc., while finally many follow
the usual order of theology, anthropology etc., such as Vilmar, Hodge, Shedd, Böhl et al.
9. As regards, first of all, the division of dogmatics into a general and a special part, this has not only become necessary through the principled opposition to dogmatics, but is also in itself useful and good. Already early on a need was felt, in order, before the dogmas proper, to set forth the essence of theology and its principles in the light. Polanus already made a distinction between the principia and the articuli fidei. And gradually it has become an urgent need for the believer, not only [47] to know what, but also why he believes. But to that end the task of the first, general part of dogmatics is also determined. This first part must not concern itself with all kinds of encyclopaedic questions, such as the essence, the history, the division of theology, as Gretillat, Exposé de théol. system. I 1885, p. 199 s., still does. Formerly that happened, because theology was identified with dogmatics, and because theological encyclopaedia was not yet practised as a separate discipline. Now, however, the development of the essence of theology must be left to encyclopaedia; in dogmatics there belongs only the exposition of the name, concept, method, division and history of dogmatics itself, as happens in the introduction. But also in another way must the principled part of dogmatics be limited. The method, which already arose with Scholasticism and then later also found acceptance among the Protestants, namely, first to treat the natural knowledge of God (praeambula fidei) and thereafter all the historical and rational proofs (motiva credibilitatis) for revelation, deserves disapproval, because it at the beginning and in principle gives up the standpoint of faith, fails to recognize the positive character of dogmatics, passes over onto the terrain of the opponent, and thus in fact is rationalistic and makes dogmatics
dependent on philosophy. To that also belongs the attempt to identify the theologia or religio naturalis with the foedus operum and then to treat it as a preparation for the theologia revelata, which in substance is one with the foedus gratiae, Schweizer, Gl. der. ev. ref. K. I, 107-115, II 1 f. and Scholten
L. H. K. I 304 v. Cf. Dr. van Dijk, Studiën, VI 1880, 1e stuk blz. 11 v. Both make natural religion (foedus operum, status integritatis), the religion of law (foedus gratiae ante legem en sub lege) and the Erlösungsreligion
(foedus gratiae post legem) into three moments in the religious process.
Thereby revelation is not only deprived of its supernatural character, but also use is made of the Reformed division against its intention. The foedus operum, before the fall, is no preparation of but forms an antithesis with the foedus gratiae, which first appears in history after the breach of the foedus operum by sin. The distinction of theol. naturalis and relevata, on the other hand, is a wholly different one, not a historical but one which [48] still always exists and continues in theology. Over against such a rationalizing of religion and theology, with Schleiermacher, Rothe, Frank, Ritschl, etc., the positive character must be maintained. The principia fidei are also articuli fidei, which rest not on human reasonings and proofs but on divine authority. The recognition of revelation, of Scripture as God's Word, is a fruit and act of faith. In dogmatics from beginning to end the believer has the floor, both in the principia and in the articuli fidei; he confesses and gives account of his faith, of its ground and of its content. In the first part, therefore, only the principia fidei are developed. These are twofold, principium externum and internum, objectivum and formale, Voetius, Disp.
I 2. Alting, Theol. Schol. didact. p. 10, just as the religio objectiva and subjectiva must be distinguished. And in these two the whole first part of dogmatics is dealt with.
In the arrangement of the material in the second part, the trinitarian division is to be rejected, because it naturally cannot include the treatment of the Trinity itself in one of the three oeconomies and therefore, by way of supposition, must let it precede in a chapter. Furthermore, with this division there is the danger that the opera ad extra are far too much conceived as opera personalia and are too little regarded as opera essentialia, as common works of the three persons, or, on the other hand, that, with the maintenance of unity, the Trinity is taken only oeconomically and is misunderstood in its ontological character. Finally, to this division there is still connected the shadow-side, that the loci concerning creation, angel, man, sin, church, etc., distributed under the persons of the Trinity, cannot come into their own. But far more objections exist against the christological division. However much that is attractive it may have at the first glance, it is nevertheless unusable.
It rests, in the first place, often on the incorrect representation, as if not Scripture but specifically the person of Christ were the principium and the source of knowledge of dogmatics, and yet we know nothing of Christ except from and through Scripture. Furthermore, Christ is very certainly the center and the main content of Holy Scripture, but precisely because he is the center, he is not the point of departure; he presupposes God and man, just as he also did not appear immediately, [49] but only many centuries after the promise in history. Next, it is beyond doubt that Christ has revealed the Father to us, but this speaking of God through the Son does not nullify the speaking of God in many ways through the prophets; not the New Testament alone, nor also the words of Jesus alone, but the whole of Scripture is a Word of God, which comes to us through Christ. Finally, it is clear that the christological division can treat the loci concerning God, creation, world, man only by way of suppositions and postulates and thus
cannot develop them in their rich significance. The other divisions, derived from the three virtues faith, hope, love, faith, prayer and commandment, from the destination and the final end of man, from the covenant or the communion of God and man, from the kingdom of God, from the concepts of life, love, spirit, etc., may have much in their favor practically and may be in their place in a catechism; they cannot be considered for a dogmatics, which is the system of the knowledge of God. They are for that purpose not central and general enough. They are therefore either brought in from outside and do not govern the system, as with Van Oosterzee; or they are strictly maintained as a principle of division but do short to various loci.
10. The content of dogmatics is the knowledge of God, as He has revealed Himself in Christ, through His Word. The distinctive character of the believer's knowledge consists in this, that he views everything religiously, theologically, that he considers everything in the light of God, sub specie aeternitatis. That is the difference between his and a philosophical or scientific worldview. In dogmatics it is always the believer, the Christian, who speaks. He does not speculate about God, he does not proceed from an abstract, philosophical concept of God, and does not come by way of theologia naturalis to theologia revelata. He does not reason about God, as He exists in Himself, for this knowledge is completely unattainable. He describes only that knowledge of God which has been revealed to him in Christ. Thus, even when in the first part of dogmatics he treats of God, His attributes, the Trinity, he speaks and thinks as a believer, as a Christian, as a theologian and not as a philosopher. In every dogma, therefore, the heart of religion beats. Dogmatics is no philosophical system, dogmatics [50] is theology. But for that very reason the dogmatician in his system of the knowledge of God does not describe how he came to faith and through faith
subjectively and successively obtained insight into the various truths of faith. That would be an analytical method, which is excellent in a catechism but does not fit in a dogmatics. But he explicates the content of his faith, as it is objectively, in revelation, spread out by God Himself before his eye of faith. He derives the principle of division and the arrangement of the material not from his own life of faith, but from the object itself, which he has to describe in his dogmatics; not from the believing subject, but from the object of faith. Even if, therefore, we wholeheartedly agree with it, that in dogmatics always and everywhere, from the beginning to the end, the believer thinks and speaks; yet this is something entirely different from his also deriving the ordering of the dogmatic material from his own experience. Thereby dogmatics would be misunderstood in its character, pass over into anthropology, and cease to be theological. It remains this only if the system of dogmatics is derived from its own material and content.
If this point of departure has been well chosen, there are only two divisions that recommend themselves for it. The first is the already discussed trinitarian division. There is much that is attractive in it; hence it repeatedly found acceptance and also exercised great influence in philosophy. It recommends itself by its purely theological character. God is beginning and end, alpha and omega. Nature and history are subsumed under Him. All things are from God and unto God. The trinitarian guards against uniformity and guarantees life, development, process. But thereby at the same time its danger is indicated. It is too speculative, it sacrifices history to the system, it so readily takes up cosmogony into the trinitarian life of God and then becomes theogony. The philosophy of Erigena, Böhme,
Baader, Schelling, Hegel serves as proof. Therefore that division deserves
preference which is theological and at the same time bears a historicalgenetic character. It too takes its point of departure in God and considers all creatures only in relation to Him. But, proceeding from God, it descends to His works, in order then through these to climb up again to Him and to end in Him. Also in this division, therefore, God is the beginning, the [51] middle and the end. From Him, through Him, and unto Him are all things.
But God is not here dragged down into the process of history, and history here comes better into its own. Between God and His works a distinction is made. In those works He appears as Creator, Restorer, and Perfecter. He is exemplar effectivum in creatione, refectivum in redemptione, perfectivum in retributione. Dogmatics is the system of the knowledge of God as He has revealed Himself in Christ; it is the system of the Christian religion. And the essence of the Christian religion consists in this, that the creation of the Father, destroyed by sin, is restored again in the death of the Son of God and by the grace of the H. Spirit is re-created into a kingdom of God.
Dogmatics shows us how God, the All-sufficient in Himself, nevertheless glorifies Himself in His creation, which, even when it is shattered by sin, is nevertheless gathered together again in Christ Eph. 1:10. It describes to us
God, always God, from the beginning to the end, God in His being, God in His creation, God over against sin, God in Christ, God through the H. Spirit breaking all resistance, and leading the whole creation to the goal determined by Him, the glory of His name. Dogmatics is therefore no dry science. It is a theodicy, a hymn of praise on all God's virtues and perfections, a song of adoration and of thanksgiving, a δοξα ἐν ὑψιστοις θεῳ.