Remains of the dog, of Neolithic age, occur in the kitchenmiddens of Denmark, and in similar deposits in Switzerland. In Denmark the earliest known dog is followed, in the Bronze period, by a larger breed, and that by a still larger form in the succeeding or Iron period; while a somewhat similar succession occurs in Switzerland. These successive changes, however, may merely indicate the appearance in those countries of new races of prehistoric man, who brought with them their own dogs. In historic times the earliest records of the dog are to be found in the figures of these animals on Egyptian monuments from three to five thousand years old; and these show that thus early, such varieties as the hound, greyhound, watch-dog, and turnspit were cultivated on the banks of the Nile. By the ancient Egyptians the dog was worshipped under the title Anubis, as the genius of the River Nile,—the appearance of Sirius, the dog star, corresponding with the time of the annual rise of that river. The city of Cynopolis was built in its honour, and there its worship was carried on with great pomp. Certain kinds of dogs were regularly sacrificed to Anubis, their bodies being afterwards embalmed; and occasionally the mummies of these are still found. The earliest record of the dog in sacred history is in connection with the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt; and the religious homage paid to it by their oppressors may probably explain why the Jews were taught to regard it as unclean. Under Moslem law, which in many matters was founded upon Jewish practices, the dog occupies an equally degraded position; and throughout Mahometan countries at the present day, their generally wretched condition bears ample testimony to the neglect and ill-treatment to which for centuries they have been subjected. The pariah dogs of Eastern cities know no master; they prowl about the streets in troops, eating whatever garbage may come in their way, thus serving the useful purpose of scavengers, and occasionally receiving a meal from the more humane of the inhabitants. On no account, however, must even the garments of an orthodox Mahometan be defiled by their touch, and such is the intelligence and sagacity of these ownerless curs that, having become aware by painful experience of this religious prejudice, they seem to take the greatest care to avoid giving such offence. The value set upon the dog by the Egyptians seems to have been shared in by the ancient

Greeks and Romans, who possessed many breeds closely allied to still existing forms. Those early breeds, however, are remarkable for the entire absence of pendulous ears, which do not make their appearance till near the decline of the Roman empire. By both Greeks and Romans they were employed in the chase, and in war, and for the latter purpose they were armed with spiked collars, and sometimes even with a coat of mail. Corinth was said to have been saved by 50 war dogs, which attacked the enemy that had landed while the garrison slept, and which fought with unbounded courage till all were killed except one, which succeeded in rousing the garrison. Shakespeare thus put no figure of speech in the mouth of Antony when he exclaims—

“Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.”

Dogs are naturally carnivorous, preferring flesh that is slightly putrid; but they can also live on vegetable food, and in countries where the dog itself is eaten, it is generally thus fed. In drinking it laps with its tongue, and it never perspires, although when heated its tongue hangs from its mouth, and a fluid runs from it. When about to go to sleep, no matter where, it turns round and round, and scratches the ground with its forepaws as if to form a hollow couch; and in this seemingly senseless action it is no doubt continuing a habit once found useful to its wild progenitors. Its sense of smells and hearing are exceedingly acute, and many suppose that the remarkable power possessed by the dog, in common with the cat, of finding its way for great distances along unknown roads may be due to the exercise of the former sense. The differences that obtain between the various breeds of dogs are very great, the skulls, according to Cuvier, differing more from each other than they do in the different species of a natural genus. The molar teeth, which normally consist of 6 pairs above and 7 below, sometimes number 7 pairs above and below, while in the hairless dog of Egypt the teeth are sometimes reduced to a single molar on each side, incisors and canines being entirely awanting. Some varieties are six times as long as others, excluding the tail, and the number of vertebrae in the latter organ is also exceedingly various; nor is the number of mammae always uniform, there being 5 on each side in some, and 4 in others, while occasionally the number on the two sides is unequal.

While man has thus bestowed great attention on the physical development of the dog, and availing himself of natural variations has, by careful selection and intercrossing, moulded the dog into an almost infinite variety of forms, he has also, by education, developed its moral and intellectual capabilities, so that the dog may, in this respect, be said to have, within its own limits, kept pace with its master’s advancement; and it is undoubtedly owing to a certain community of feeling existing between dog and man that this domestic animal has, since the earliest times, been regarded as the companion as well as the humble servant of mankind. There are few human passions not shared in by the dog. It is, like him, subject to anger, jealousy, envy, love, hatred, and grief; it shows gratitude, pride, generosity, and fear. It sympathizes with man in his troubles, and there are numerous instances on record of its showing sympathy for the distressed of its own kind. It remembers, and is evidently assisted thereto, as man is, by the association of ideas; that it is not devoid of imagination may be assumed from the fact that it dreams, pursuing in its sleep imaginary game. Its judgment is often singularly correct; while it may almost be said to have a religion, in which man is its god, and his will its rule of conduct, disobedience to which produces an evident feeling of shame and a quiet submission to punishment. It shares with man in awe of the unknown, and the most courageous dog will often tremble at the sudden rustle of a leaf. While the possession of such faculties has rendered him fit above all other animals for the companionship of man, the physical and intellectual qualities characteristic of the various breeds have been seized upon and developed to their utmost by man, so as to enable him to use the dog for a great variety of purposes; what these are will appear in the following necessarily brief account of the more important breeds of dogs.

According to Professor Fitzinger, there are at least 189 distinct varieties of the domestic dog, and when it is considered that the origin of many if not most of these is uncertain, it is not surprising that considerable difference of opinion should exist as to the most natural mode of grouping them together. Their arrangement into the following six races, founded to a certain extent on the form and development of the ears, probably affords an approximation to a natural classification, viz., Wolf-dogs, Greyhounds, Spaniels, Hounds, Mastiffs, and Terriers.

I. Wolf-dogs. —Throughout the northern regions of both hemispheres there are several breeds of semi-domesticated wolf-like dogs having nearly erect ears, and long woolly hair; these include among others the dogs of the Esquimaux and the Kamtchadales. The Esquimaux Dog is usually of a black and white colour, nearly as large as a mastiff, with a fine bushy tail, and sharp pointed muzzle. It is of the greatest value to the inhabitants of the boreal regions of America in hunting the seal, bear, and reindeer; while it is equally useful as a beast of burden, carrying loads on its back—a kind of work for which dogs are by no means well suited—and drawing sledges over the snow. On a good road half a dozen of these dogs will draw, it is said, from 8 to 10 cwts., at the rate of 7 miles an hour; and Kane, the Arctic traveller, tells how that number of dogs, well worn by previous travel, carried him with a fully burdened sledge, between seven and eight hundred miles during the first fortnight after leaving his ship—a mean rate of 57 miles a day. According to the same authority, the training of these dogs is of the most ungracious sort. “I never neard,” he says, “a kind accent from the Esquimaux to his dog. The driver’s whip of walrus hide, some 20 feet long, a stone or a lump of ice skilfully directed, an imprecation loud and sharp, made emphatic by the fist or foot, and a grudged ration of seal’s meat, make up the winter’s entertainment of an Esquimaux team.” Owing to the ill-treatment to which they are thus habitually subjected, they are highly irritable and difficult to manage, and in sleighing it is necessary to have a well-trained dog as leader, to whom the driver speaks, and by whom the other dogs in the team are guided. They readily relapse into the wild state, and have been known thus to hunt the reindeer in packs like wolves. These dogs have borne a prominent part in Arctic exploration, and much of the difficult work done in this field would have been well-nigh impossible without them. The Kamtchatka dogs are also used for sledging, and are famed for their swiftness and endurance. During summer they run at large and cater for themselves, returning in winter to their masters, who feed them principally with the heads of dried fish.

7‰ Sheep-dog.— In Eastern countries where the sheep follow the shepherd, the duties that fall upon the dog are simpler, and require less intelligence, than those performed by the European breeds. Their task is chiefly to defend the flocks and herds from wild beasts and robbers, and for this purpose the wolf-like Turkoman Watch-dog and the Sheep-dog of Natolia are, by their great strength and courage, eminently fitted. The former is described by Sir J. M ’ Neill as a shaggy animal, nearly as large as the Newfoundland dog, and very fierce and powerful, the dam of the specimen he describes having killed a full-grown wolf without assistance. The sheep-dog of Europe is generally classed among the wolf-like dogs, owing to the erect or semi-erect character of its ears, its pointed nose, and shaggy covering; and Buffon, for such reasons, regarded it as nearest to the primitive type of the domestic dog. It is more reasonable to suppose with Martin (History of the Dog) that those points “only indicate purity of breed unalloyed by admixture with other varieties.” The fact that its life is spent almost entirely out of doors, and that it has little or no opportunity of mixing with dogs other than of its own kind, would tend to preserve uniformity in external appearance; while its high cerebral development and intelligence prove beyond a doubt that the breed of sheep-dogs is one of the most highly improved, and in this respect remotest from the primitive type. Its whole intellect is devoted to the one duty of tending its master’s flocks, and in the performance of this it is equally sagacious, vigilant, and patient. At a word, or even a look, from its master, it will gather the sheep, scattered for miles around, to one place. During and after the snowstorms to which highland districts are so frequently exposed, the sheep-dog is invaluable in saving its master’s property from almost total destruction. Without it the Highlands of Scotland would be almost useless for sheep-farming purposes. “It would require,” says the Ettrick Shepherd, “more hands to manage a stock of sheep, gather them from the hills, force them into houses and folds, and drive them to markets, than the profits of the whole stock would be capable of maintaining.” The sheep-dog stands about

15 inches high, is covered with long shaggy hair of a black colour varied with dark grey or fulvous brown, and its tail is of moderate length, slightly recurved and bushy. In disposition it is quiet; and although not quarrelsome, it shows great courage in defending its charge. It will not wantonly attack a stranger, but evidently regards him with suspicion, and rejects all friendly advances. There are three varieties of the sheep dog found in Great Britain, viz.—the Scottish Collie, standing only from 12 to 14 inches high, and regarded as the purest and most intelligent; the Southern Sheep-dog, of larger size, but with shorter fur, and having the tail often very short—a peculiarity which, according to Bell, “appears to be perpetuated from parents whose tails have been cut;” and the Drover’s Dog or Cur, generally black and white in colour, and taller in its limbs than the others. It is employed in driving sheep and cattle to the city markets, and in the discharge of this duty shows intelligence quite equal to that of the other varieties; although in the treatment of the herds under its charge, it often displays a more savage disposition. The sheep-dogs of South America are so trained as to unite in themselves the duties of dog and shepherd. “When riding,” says Darwin, “it is a common thing to meet a large flock of sheep, guarded by one or two dogs, at the distance of some miles from...

The dog was held sacred by the Egyptians. This fact we learn from Juvenal, who complains, in his fifteenth satire, _Oppida tota canem vencrantur, nemo Dianam._ “Thousands regard the hound with holy fear, Not one, Diana.” GIFFORD. The testimony of the Latin poet is confirmed by Diodorus, who, in his first book, assures us that the Egyptians highly venerate some animals, both during their life and after their death; and expressly mentions the dog as one object of this absurd adoration. To these witnesses may be added Herodotus, who says, that when a dog expires, all the members of the family to which he belonged worship the carcass; and that, in every part of the kingdom, the carcasses of their dogs are embalmed, and deposited in consecrated ground. The idolatrous veneration of the dog by the Egyptians is shown in the worship of their dog-god Anubis, to whom temples and priests were consecrated, and whose image was borne in all religious ceremonies. Cynopolis, the present Minieh, situated in the lower Thebais, was built in honour of Anubis. The priests celebrated his festivals there with great pomp. “Anubis,” says Strabo, “is the city of dogs, the capital of the Cynopolitan prefecture. These animals are fed there on sacred aliments, and religion has decreed them a worship.” An event, however, related by Plutarch, brought them into considerable discredit with the people. Cambyses, having slain the god Apis, and thrown his body into the field, all animals respected it except the dogs, which alone ate of his flesh. This impiety diminished the popular veneration. Cynopolis was not the only city where incense was burned on the altars of Anubis. He had chapels in almost all the temples. On solemnities, his image always accompanied those of Isis and Osiris. Rome, having adopted the ceremonies of Egypt, the emperor Commodus, to celebrate the Isiac feasts, shaved his head, and himself carried the dog Anubis.

In Matt. vii, 6, we have this direction of our Saviour: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they,” the swine, “trample them under their feet, and,” the dogs, “turn again and tear you.” It was customary, not only with the writers of Greece and Rome, but also with the eastern sages, to denote certain classes of men by animals supposed to resemble them among the brutes. Our Saviour was naturally led to adopt the same concise and energetic method. By _dogs_, which were held in great detestation by the Jews, he intends men of odious character and violent temper; by _swine_, the usual emblem of moral filth, he means the sensual and profligate; and the purport of his admonition is, that as it is a maxim with the priests not to give any part of the sacrifices to dogs, so it should be a maxim with you not to impart the holy instruction with which you are favoured, to those who are likely to blaspheme and to be only excited by it to rage and persecution. It is, however, a maxim of _prudence_ not of _cowardice_; and is to be taken along with other precepts of our Lord, which enjoin the publication of truth, at the expense of ease and even life.

But it was not till long afterwards that the adjective, “dogmatic,” was used to distinguish a particular branch of theological study; for in early times the need of subdivision in the scientific study of Christian truth was not felt, and the name theology was sufficient to describe all works dealing with that subject in any way. The progress of thought and inquiry in the history of the Church has, however, made it possible and necessary to treat the truths of Christianity in various different ways, from distinct points of view; and hence different kinds and departments of theology have come to be distinguished. In the 17th century the divines who wrote systems of theology gave different titles to their works, indicating the special manner of their treatment; e.g., Mastricht, Theologia Theoretico-Practica; F. Turretin, Theol. Elenctica; Marckius, Compendium Theol. Didactico-Elencticum; Quenstedt, Theól. Didactico-Polemica; Baier, Theol. Positiva.

The title Theologia Dogmatica was first adopted by John Francis Buddaeus, a Lutheran divine, in 1724. This terminology was followed by J. H. Michaelis, Seiler, and others, and from it the word Dogmatik as a substantive came into common use in Germany. In England and America, in so far as any specific designation of the general term theology or divinity has been thought necessary, the title “systematic” has been until recently more current than “dogmatic.” As, however, the division and mutual relations of the various theological studies have been very thoroughly discussed in recent times, especially by German theologians, and as the name “dogmatic” has been used by them to denote one principal department of these, there is good reason for its adoption by English writers. Some prefer the form “dogmatics,” after the analogy of “mathematics,’ “physics,” &c.; but this seems awkward and needless.

But there is among the best authorities on the subject ] a considerable difference as to the proper nature and place 1 in the theological sciences of dogmatic. There are two dis- ‘ tinct conceptions of its, nature, each supported by eminent names, according to one of which it is an historical, and according to the other a philosophical study. The difference may be said to turn on what substantive is to be understood along with the adjective dogmatica. If, accord* ing to what was undoubtedly the older usage, we supply theologia, then the name “dogmatic theology” would denote the study of God and divine things in a doctrinal manner, or so as to exhibit its results in a series of doctrines. The epithet dogmatic would indicate, not the subject of the study, but the manner of it; and thus it would fall under the general head of philosophical or systematic theology. This was the older view, and is held in modern times by Julius Müller and Hagenbach. If, however, it be held, as is held by many moderns, that scientia is the substantive understood with dogmatica, then the term means the science of doctrines, and has for its object not the Christian realities themselves, but the doctrines that have been formed about them; and as such it must be an historical science. This is the view adopted by Schleiermacher, Rothe, Martensen, Oosterzee, and others; though the particular form and development of the general idea differs according to the different views of these writers as to the nature and formation of doctrines. There can be no doubt that an historical and critical study of the doctrines that have been held in the Christian Church or its several branches is a legitimate, and in its own place, not unimportant pursuit, and whether such study should be called dogmatic is a mere question of nomenclature and usage. But it can be as little doubted that this study does not occupy that central place in the theological sciences that has usually been assigned to dogmatic, and is not fitted to supersede that direct study of Christian truth that has long borne the name of theology by way of eminence. Hence some of those who make dogmatic a merely historical science hold that there is required besides that a science of speculative theology, dealing directly in a philosophical way with the objects of Christian faith; while Al. Schweizer thinks that dogmatic, as a science of dogmas, should be discarded as essentially un-Protestant, and that in its stead should be placed what he calls Glaubenslehre. It is clear that we must have some name to express the former conception of dogmatic, and there is no other name so convenient or so generally used as this. On the other hand, all are not agreed on the necessity and importance of a separate science of dogmatic in the historical conception of it; and it is not easy to draw a line of distinction between it and symbolical theology, or the study of the creeds and confessions of the different churches. It seems therefore convenient to regard dogmatic as a branch, not of historical, but of systematic or philosophical theology. In this view it is the study which endeavours to understand the facts and truths of Christianity in their true nature, causes, and mutual relations. This study presupposes the reality of Christianity, as the divinely-revealed and perfect religion, and on that basis proceeds to investigate what is contained in it with a view to its scientific comprehension. It is thus distinct from, and posterior in the order of nature to, apologetic, which is another branch of philosophical theology, and has for its function the scientific exhibition of the grounds of religion in general and of Christianity in particular. Apologetic has accomplished its task, when it has established and vindicated against attacks that Christianity is truly divine, and the final form of revealed religion. Dogmatic accepts this conclusion as its starting-point, and proceeds to inquire what are the facts that constitute Christianity, how they are to be accounted for, and what is their mutual relation. In this process it must needs generalize and determine the conceptions suggested by the facts by means of definitions, and combine these in the form of definite propositions, which are what are called doctrines, and which are again arranged and framed into a system of doctrine. Doctrines, as usually understood, have reference simply to truths to be believed; and they correspond to the laws of nature discovered and formulated by science. The leading theological doctrines are thus attempts to explain in a scientific way certain religious phenomena that belong to Christianity. In dealing simply with facts as distinct from laws, with what is as distinct from what ought to be, dogmatic is distinguished from ethic or moral theology, which is another branch of the same general division of theological studies. For Christianity is more than a revelation of truths; it is also a body of practical precepts; and the meaning, principles, and application of these afford a wide and important field of inquiry. There have indeed been some weighty and earnest protests raised against the separation of ethic from dogmatic; and there is a certain advantage in the two subjects being treated together, as they usually were by the older theologians, under the heads of fides and observantia, or the like. Christian doctrine and Christian duty can never be separated in reality without the loss of the life of both, and this should be kept in mind in their discussion. But each of these subjects has grown to such an extent that convenience almost necessitates the plan that has become usual in academic teaching and books, of giving them a separate treatment, and restricting the province of dogmatic to the truths of Christianity that are objects of belief, as distinct from its precepts as matters of duty. Polemic and irenic are branches of theology that have also a very close connection with dogmatic,—the former having for its object the exclusion from the system of Christian doctrine of ideas and opinions that are essentially alien to its principles, and the latter the harmonizing or bringing into a relation of mutual toleration views of doctrine which differ in some particulars, and yet are neither of them essentially un-Christian or anti-Christian. These may be regarded as appendices to dogmatic, being the application of its principles to the varieties of belief that exist among Christians.

There are two other studies, of recent origin, whose relation to dogmatic should be defined, as they have sometimes been thought capable of superseding it—biblical theology and the science of religion. The former of these is a development of Scripture exegesis, and seeks, in dealing with the sacred writings, not merely to understand their direct meaning, but to enter into the conceptions of their several writers on the whole subject of religious truth,—to find out from their writings the theology of Paul, or Peter, or John, just as the historian of doctrine endeavours to exhibit the theology of Athanasius, Augustine, or Luther. Then, taking a wider view, it groups all the inspired writers of a period together, and seeks to present the theology of the New Testament, or of the Old, just as one may do with the Nicene or the Reformation theology. This is a most interesting and useful study, and much valuable work has been done by it; but it is clearly an historical study, and as such belongs to a different department from dogmatic, if that is placed in philosophical theology. It furnishes important materials for dogmatic, and gives us the power of using Scripture in a more historical way than would be possible without it; but as it cannot be assumed that any one inspired man, or any one age of the history of revelation, saw the entire system of divine truth as it is in itself, even the most perfect results of biblical theology will only be materials for dogmatic, not dogmatic itself.

The science of religion, again, investigates the various forms of religion among mankind, and by the comparative study of these seeks to discover their origin and mutual relations. It is probably too soon yet to judge what the results of this young and promising study may be, but they should certainly not be despised by the Christian theologian. They may have an important bearing on apologetic, and through that may possibly affect the form, and even in some points the substance, of dogmatic. But the science of religion is itself entirely distinct from dogmatic; for it takes as its subject all religious beliefs, and treats them simply as psychological phenomena, without considering, in the first instance, whether any, or which of them, have objective reality, whereas dogmatic is a science of faith, and proceeds upon the assumption of the truth of Christianity and the Christian view of the universe.

The possibility and the need of such a science as dogmatic rest upon the specific nature of Christianity as the perfect form of a divinely given religion. Religion in general is a relation between man and Qod, and it may be either natural or supernatural. In the former case, it is the relation of man to the divine Being as manifested in the world, and as long as men have no other knowledge of God than this, their religion is apt to degenerate into unworthy ideas and practices; and thus natural religion, in the present state of mankind, tends to become false religion, as is seen in the various forms of heathenism. But the fundamental assumption of Christianity is, that God has, in addition to the manifestation of Himself that nature affords, also come forth in history by a divine work, leading men from the errors of false religion to the true knowledge and pure service of Himself. This work of grace has always dealt with men in a way suitable to their nature as intelligent beings, and hence has included a discovery of truth that they could not have found out for themselves, which is the idea of revelation. But while supernatural religion must include revelation as an essential part of it, this is not the whole, nor even the most vital and important element in it. The divine religion is essentially the establishment of aright relation between man and God, a fellowship between earth and heaven; and it only includes the communication of new truths, because that fellowship must be an intelligent one, brought about in an intelligent way. This work has also been a gradual one, and has had its several successive stages. Scripture represents the call of Abraham, the exodus of Israel from Egypt and covenant of Sinai, the establishment of the kingship and temple worship in Israel, and the messages of the prophets, as so many stages in the history and progress of religion; and the coming of Christ and the foundation of the Christian church is the final stage of its development. Now, like all the earlier stages, Christianity, while it implies the communication of new truth, is essentially a fact or work of history—the establishment of the perfect fellowship of man with God, which is that mediated by Jesus Christ, and the reconciliation effected by His death. It is this conception of Christianity that makes possible a scientific exhibition of it in the form of a system of doctrines as distinct from the simple interpretation of its records. If, according to a notion that early entered and long pervaded the church, Christianity is merely a new law, a revelation of hitherto unknown truths to be believed, precepts to be obeyed, and promises to be hoped for, then the theologian has nothing to do but to expound the revelation, ascertaining the meaning of its several statements, and classifying them according to their subjects or character. Any attempt to gain a scientific knowledge of the realities with which these statements have to do must proceed on general philosophical principles, and not on a specifically Christian foundation. Now this conception of Christianity was the prevailing one up to the time of the Reformation; and consequently the pre-Reformation theology, and much of later theology too, consists either of the mere exposition of certain dicta of authority, biblical or ecclesiastical, or of purely logical ratiocination, applying to these the principles of the philosophy current at the time. Only when the Reformers brought out the principle that Christianity is not a new law, but a work of God’s grace, reconciling men to himself in Christ, and that as such it must come before theology, was the construction of a system of Christian doctrine on right principles possible. On the basis of the direct experience of reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ, it is possible to raise and investigate the question— What is the nature, the cause, the various parts and relations, of this great work, this new relation into which I as a believer am brought to God î Now this is just the question that dogmatic seeks to answer; for it is, as before said, a scientific treatment of Christianity as the perfect form of supernatural religion. On this view the existence of dogmatic is not due to a primary, but to a secondary necessity of Christian life. The primary necessity for the Christian is a fellowship with God, including a sense of His favour, of His guidance in practical life, and protection against all hostile influence. To this religious fellowship it is not necessary that a complete system of divine truth be known or believed; according to the Pauline and Protestant doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, it is secured at once by the direct exercise of trust in Christ; and there must be this before there can be any right understanding of the truths contained and implied in Christianity. But there is a secondary need and impulse that forms a motive to dogmatic,—the desire of knowing as much as possible of the way in which we have been brought into that relation to God which is designated a state of grace or salvation. Christ and His apostles fully recognize the importance of knowledge, understanding, wisdom; while they teach that the only true knowledge of divine things must be preceded by direct experience of them, through faith in Christ. They speak wisdom among them that are perfect, though it is a heavenly wisdom, that needs spiritual enlightenment to know; and they exhort their converts to strive to be perfect or mature Christians, not children but men in understanding,—to add to their faith knowledge, and to grow in it. It is this craving for understanding of their new relation to God, which forms, though not the first, yet an important secondary necessity of healthy religious life, that affords the motive for the construction of theology in general, and of dogmatic in particular. Some amount of such knowledge seems to be indispensable to qualify one for teaching others; and so, if the church or Christian community is to exercise the function of teaching, there must be, beyond the faith that is the primary and essential quality of true Christians, the higher stage of Christian progress that is attained by those who add to their faith knowledge. Theology is thus not essential to the bare existence of the church; yet it is the natural and necessary form and means of her development in one department of her functions, the intellectual; just as in the department of practical morality a system of ecclesiastical discipline is an indispensable development, and in that of social devotion, ordinances of w orship. Every living and thriving branch of the church of Christ must, in proportion to its health and vigour, cultivate scientific theology, as well as earnest conscientious discipline and warm spiritual devotion.

This motive prompts equally to all the branches of theological study—exegetical, historical, practical, as well as systematic or philosophical; but that which is designated dogmatic, as falling under the last head, may well be esteemed the highest of them all, and that which is most to be desired, if only it can be attained. As, however, some have doubted whether such a science is possible, we must not take this for granted, but indicate the grounds on which we believe it is. Now, if a scientific knowledge of any subject is impossible, this must be either because we do not possess materials enough to give us a thorough knowledge of it, or because we have no means of reducing these materials to their true and natural order. If there are sufficient materials of knowledge about Christianity, and a method by which these may be reduced to a system, the conditions of a scientific dogmatic may be said to exist.

The sources of dogmatic have been variously enumerated by different branches of the church and schools of thought, and the determination of the genuine ones involves the most important issues as to the whole character of the system. We may begin with the lowest and most universally accepted, and then proceed to those in regard to which there is more difference of opinion, and which determine the peculiarities of the dogmatic of different sects or churches. First, then, we may place the testimony of nature to God, which is admitted by nearly all theists to be real and valuable, so far as it goes, and which is clearly recognized in Scripture. The Socinians in the 16th and 17 th centuries denied the possibility of any knowledge of God without revelation; but this position, which was zealously controverted by the orthodox, has been given...