the new
coinage "dogmatic theology"; and though the same or kindred phrases had
been used repeatedly by writers of less influence since Reinhard and
Essenius, F. Buddeus (_Institutiones theol. dogmat._, 1723;
_Compendium_, 1728) is held to have given the expression its supremacy.
Noel Alexandre, the Gallican divine, possibly introduced it in the Roman
Catholic Church (1693; _Theologia dogmatica et moralis_). Both Roman
Catholic and Protestant authorities agree that the expression was
connected with the new habit of distinguishing dogmatics from Christian
ethics or moral theology, though A. Schweizer denies this of Reinhard.
In another direction dogmas and dogmatic theology were also contrasted
with truths of reason and natural theology.[1] F. E. D. Schleiermacher,
in his _Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums_, and again in his
great System, _Der christliche Glaube ... dargestellt_, ingeniously
proposed to treat dogmatic as an historical statement, or report, of
beliefs held in the writer's communion at the time of writing. He also
insisted, however, upon personal conviction in writers on dogmatic. The
expression _Glaubenslehre_--doctrine of faith--which he did much to
bring into a wider currency, and which Schweizer, the most loyal of all
his disciples, holds to be alone fitted for Protestant use, emphasizes
the latter requirement. But "dogmatic" has also continued in use among
Protestant theologians of the Left no less than among the orthodox. When
we consider the different attitude towards dogma of Roman Catholicism,
we feel constrained to question whether the expression "dogmatic
theology" can be equally suitable for both communions. Roman theologians
may properly define dogmatic as the scientific study of dogmas;
Protestant scholars have come to use "dogma" in ways which make that
impossible. Indeed, many of them bid us regard "dogmatic" as falling
under the history of _theology_ and not of dogma (see DOGMA). Still,
usage is decisive. It will be impossible to uproot the phrase "dogmatic
theology" among Protestants. When A. Harnack[2] praises Schleiermacher's
description of dogmatic as "historical," he rather strains the meaning
of the remark, and creates fresh confusion. Harnack's point is that
"dogmatic theology" ought to be used in a sense corresponding to what he
regards as the true meaning of "dogma"--Christian belief in its main
traditional outlines. This claim is an innovation, and finds no
precedent i