ARTICLE IX.

NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS.

THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY, OR THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS.1

THE author's aim is to discuss the fundamental ideas of Christianity, and he directs his attention to the general Christian principles, without regarding confessional differences, in order that he may aid in gaining, amidst the confusion of ecclesiastical strifes, a foundation broad and yet firm for the limits of the theological teacher's freedom. He states, at the same time, clearly his adherence to the fundamental truths of Christianity. It must be acknowledged that this effort is made to meet a deeply felt want. Let us consider the manner in which the author seeks to solve the

problem.

He first defines the office and method of dogmatical theology, and in doing so abides for a time alongside of Schleiermacher. He defines theology to be the ccclesiastical science of Christianity. Its positive subject is Christianity as it appears to us in history and experience; and its positive aim is found in the need the Christian church has of a constant and intelligent directing and purifying of her doctrine and practice. As a scientific treatment it must abide by those rules which apply to the discussion of all departments of human knowledge.

Theology is divided into four branches — historical, systematical, practical, and philosophical. Historical theology sets forth Christianity as a life of fellowship with a historical rise, developing and continuing through history. Systematical theology, again, has to do with the idea or truth which lies in Christianity. It considers this as a peculiar, separate world of inner life, always remaining the same, although appearing differently at different times and places. Practical theology discusses the application of the results of historical and systematical theology to methodical church economy. Philosophical theology, according to our author, is not an explanation of Christianity considered in its first principles, and thus a science lying at the basis of all theology, as Schleiermacher and Rothe hold it to be. Its office is rather to regulate the relations and mutual dependence between the ecclesiastical science of Christianity and universal science (philosophy). It must not, however, lose the character of

1 H. von d. Goltz, Prof. der Theologie in Basel. Die christliche Grundgedanken oder die allgemeinen Principien der christlichen Dogmatik. Gotha, bei Perthes. 1873. 8. Seiten 379.

a theological study, since it has its rise in the interests of Christianity and the church. Its office is essentially apologetic, for it includes, also, the discussion of the relations between theology and the principles and results of investigation in natural science and history.

After this general division of theology, the author undertakes a special discussion of the relations of the dogmatical system to historical and philosophical theology. He does this because the confounding of these departments most frequently occurs, and that even by our more modern writers on dogmatics. For example, Schleiermacher, Rothe, and Schweizer regard dogmatics as a historical science, while Baader, Weisse, Hase, Biedermann hold it to be speculative. Our author opposes to the first of these confusions the view that the dogmatical system is not a merely descriptive report upon the faith of an association existing at a definite time and place, whether this association be the original church, or the body of Christians who expressed their tenets in the Confessions, or the church of to-day. He says the labor of dogmatists has always been to state in settled, abstract form that which Christians hold to be the truth, and to judge concerning the purely Christian contents and ecclesiastical value of the doctrinal statements. As the office of philosophical theology, and specially of apologetics, is also to show the truth of Christianity, this latter seems to coincide in a measure with dogmatics. Our author gives as a distinction between the two, that, while dogmatical theology presupposes a common faith in the truth of Christianity on the part of teacher and taught, philosophical theology does not make this supposition, but deals rather with those who do not take this truth for granted. Further, he says, dogmatical theology labors directly for the correctness and guidance of the proclamation of the gospel; philosophical theology discusses rather the highest speculative problems, in order to obtain an adjustment between theology and philosophy. The certainty of the believer, however, concerning the truth of Christianity does not depend on this adjustment.

On a review of this division of theology and these distinctions between dogmatics and other theological studies, two points especially occur to us as requiring closer consideration, namely, the relation of dogmatics to historical and to philosophical theology.

Even if we readily agree with the author that dogmatics is not a mere reporter, but seeks to set before us the truth embodied in the Christian faith, yet the problem remains still quite untouched, whose difficulty led gifted theologians, such as Schleiermacher and Rothe, to consider dogmatics as historical theology. Only the correct solution of the problem could justify our author in departing from their view. Dogmatics, we are told, has to set forth the truth which remains the same in Christianity at all times, but the systems of dogmatics have been quite different at different times. Every system knows with certainty that it must give

way to another system in a later generation. The author sees this also, and says, that most dogmatical ideas would be useless for our age, in the form in which they have been handed down to us, and would require to be newly wrought over. Thus his view is, that the form in dogmaties may change, but the contents remain the same; that the form belongs to history, but the contents to truth, to truth ever abiding the same. This statement remains, however, a mere statement, unless it receive a more full justification. For, supposing it to be the case that the faith of the Christian church remain the same, that faith which forms the contents of the dogmatical system; still this contents must have a dogmatical expression. It must, at least, have an expression in language; and thus it is already drawn into the sphere of changing forms. Either the relation of form and contents must be more closely determined, or it is of no value in the present discussion. For example, we may say that many dogmatical questions could not be solved by the old Protestant theology, because an undue importance was attached to the Epistle to the Romans as compared with those to the Ephesians and the Colossians, and that thus the idea of the kingdom of God was unduly neglected as compared with the idea of justification. When modern dogmatics seek to correct this error by bringing the idea of the kingdom of God into the foreground, this is more than a merely formal change of the system, according to the use of language above followed. Again, we may prove that the idea of God which was presented in the old Protestant theology was an heirloom from the neo-platonic philosophy, brought down to the period of the Reformation through Dionysius the Areopagite and the Scholastics. When we then substitute in our system the Christian idea of God, instead of this erroneous view, we make more than a merely formal change in dogmatics. If this be true, then the author has not sufficiently justified his position that dogmatics is not a historical science, by saying that the contents, which it is the dogmatist's office to set forth as the truth, remains the same, and only the form changes.

Alike questionable are the grounds upon which the author holds it necessary to make a distinction between philosophical theology and dogmatics. In our opinion, his effort to give a satisfactory solution of this difficult problem is unsuccessful. The distinctions which he finds between the two are either simply quantitative, or they throw doubt on the theological value of philosophical theology. If dogmatics and philosophical theology have this in common, that they work in the service of the church and seek to show the truth of Christianity, then we cannot base an essential difference between them on the fact that philosophical theology makes a greater use of historical material for her purposes. She does so always in order to show the truth of Christianity, and dogmatics uses also historical material to the same end. The appearance that a deeper ground of distinction lies here arises in the author's discussion only through an inexact

mode of expression. When he says (p. 12), "The work (of philosophical or of apologetic theology) lies at least in the same degree on historical ground, as on systematical," the expression "historical ground" is quite inexact; for if it mean "historical theology" as distinguished from "systematical theology," as it seems to do, then the work of philosophical theology cannot lie at all on historical ground. Philosophical theology is no more historical theology, according to the definitions originally given, than systematical theology is. Although philosophical theology uses historical material, yet it does so for the purpose of showing the truth of Christianity, just as systematical theology uses such historical material. In this sentence, therefore, lies no deeper ground for distinction than a merely quantitative one. If our author means in particular that philosophical theology cannot avoid entering into minute historical criticism, the confirmation of the historical credibility of Christianity and its documents, then it appears that he would include New Test. Introduction in philosophical theology. What an odd medley would this give us! The most he ought to say is, that philosophical theology, in attesting the truth of Christianity against any particular attacks, refers to the results of New Test. Introduction. For philosophical theology may certainly follow no other method than New Test. Introduction does in proving the credibility of a New Test. book. If this be the case, then philosophical theology either absorbs Introduction or uses it exactly as dogmatics does. Dogmatics, according to the author's own view, summons the scriptures as witness, since they are the documentary record of the sacred history out of which Christianity has gone forth.

Further, an essential distinction between philosophical theology and dogmatics is found in the view that the former enters into relations with the other sciences without making Christianity a common starting-point, while dogmatical theology makes Christian faith a common basis for teachers and learners. Although it may be that an essential distinction between the offices of the two branches does lie here, yet it does not exist in the form in which our author states it. Philosophical theology must also have as its basis throughout a Christian faith; it matters not with what science it enters into relations. As a theological study it can only start from this point in seeking a proper understanding of non-theological scientific positions. Therefore this starting-point is common to philosophical and dogmatical theology, and the author has no right to find here a distinction between the two branches. However, in what respect a distinction is to be found here, if we examine the matter more closely, we will not now proceed to investigate, as we hope to treat of this in another Article in this Journal, in reviewing Baumstark's Christian Apologetics.

Our author holds it to be another and final ground of distinction between the two branches that the certainty of the believer concerning the truth of Christianity does not depend on the efforts which philosophical

theology makes to solve speculative problems. Granted the independence, have we here a specific ground of distinction from dogmatical theology? The author cannot possibly mean that the believer's certainty of the truth of Christianity depends on the success of the dogmatical task. Then the way to faith for every man would lie through dogmatics.

THE ORIGIN OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. By Hippolyte Rodrigues.1

M. Rodrigues (p. 1) declares the object of this work to be: "To demonstrate scientifically to the eyes of all, except such as avoid the light, that what is called Christian morality is nothing else than Jewish morality; and that there is no moral precept that has been adopted by civilized people that had not its origin in the Old Testament." Whether or not the author has succeeded in proving all this is not for us here to decide. But aside from this point we can speak of the importance of the work itself. Chapters v.-vii. of Matthew are given in order on the left hand page, one verse or more to a page as the case may require; and on the opposite pages are given passages from the Old Testament, and also from the Talmud and the other oldest Jewish writings; thus "demonstrating to the eyes" that the point the author wishes to make is a fair one. The statement is constantly reappearing in different quarters that a certain precept of Christ, namely: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Mat. vii. 12), is found somehere in Confucius but in a negative form; namely: "Do not to another that which you would not have another do to you." Some Christian people have thought that they were saying a great deal when they said, "Ah, the precept of Confucius is negative, that of Christ is positive!" This is equivalent to saying almost nothing. Does one suppose that such an answer explains the difference between Christianity and other systems of religion? Even the sincere Christian minister who sets forth this precept of Christ as distinctive of Christianity in contrast with Judaism, does what the words of Christ forbid him to do. Christ himself says in the same breath," This is the law and the prophets," i.e. this is the sentiment of the Old Testament throughout. If the world needed moral precepts, they abounded in the Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese, and Assyrian literatures, as well as in that of the Jews. What the world needed was a spiritualizing, vitalizing life. Christ was that life; and this "life was the light of men." We think the careful perusal of such a book as the one before us would enable many Christians to appreciate the fact that Christ is to be estimated as a spiritual power in the world, and not as an enunciator of moral precepts. About one half of the book, or a little more than one hundred pages, is occupied with a comparison of the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount, and those

1 Les Origines du Sermon de la Montagne. Par Hippolyte Rodrigues. 8vo. 1 vol. Paris: Michel Lévy Frères. 1868.