The second ground of objection of the scien tific character of theology is sufficiently met by the affirmation that arbitrary authority is an interloper in the theological domain. If it has ever installed itself there, it has been in the exercise of rank usurpation. Theology in its true character has no partnership with arbitrary authority. While it may make large account of positive revelation, it does not turn that revela tion into a fence against investigation but uses its content for what it proves itself to be under the tests of mental scrutiny and prolonged ap plication to thc exigencies of man's deeper life.
To the third objection a reply of similar tenor is to be made. The assumption of an antagonism between reason and faith, and of an obligation to sacrifice the former to the latter, is an assumption which a sane theology must emphatically repudiate. It is very true, doubt less, that reason cannot take the place of faith any more than theory can take the place of action. But it is equally true that faith cannot endure to be in known antagonism to reason. An asseat which, from the standpoint of the one rendering the same, does not appear to be sanctioned by reason, is no real assent. Only that which is competent to take captive man's rational personality is able to induce a faith that is anything more than a sham or a shadow. Quite as much as any other branch of learning theology is free to emphasize the demand for rationality in faith. The challenge to its scien tific character is thus seen to fail as respects each of the cardinal objections mentioned.
In an unbiased valuation of theology too rigid an association will not be made between substance and form. Integrity of substance is compatible with a variety of forms. Theology in no wise rebels against a poetic garb. Far as are the picturesque discourses of Jesus from the scholastic form, they are deeply based in theology. Filling all their background is one of the most pronounced conceptions of God, as well as the most beautiful that was ever set be fore the contemplation of men. All religious discourse which is to avoid the charge of empti ness and impotency must in lilte manner enclose a substantial theological content. As Phillips Brooks has said, "lio exhortation to a good life, that does not put behind it some truth as deep as eternity, can seize and hold the conscience." Even in its forrnal character theology may be rated as second in interest to no department of thought and study. The facts and truths
with which it more directly deals are the deep est in tnan's being and the highest above the human plane. It utilizes the most significant findings of a large proportion of the branches of learning. It takes into consideration the greatest treasures of past history, and gathers up the data for the farthest possible outlook into future destiny. It gives ample room for speculative acumen, but at the same time in cludes the themes that are of all the most in tensely practical.
The Organic Arrangement of Subject The best arrangement of the several divisions and branches of theology, is obviously the one which iS characterized by simplicity as well as by comprehensiveness and self-consist ency. The very subtle scheme is likely to please its inventor in a much higher degree than the theological world at large. Among plans of ar rangement which meet in good measure the combined demands of simplicity and compre hensiveness those of Heinrici and Hagenbach are worthy of special mention. The former draws a distinction between "historical)) and "normative') branches, the one being made to include the specifically biblical branches as 1.vell as the history of Christianity since biblical times, and the other comprising, as principal subdivisions, Systematic Theology and Prac tical Theology. The idea of the historical branches is to exhibit the whole deposit of religious truth and fact; the idea of the norma tive branches is to afford means of guidance in religious teaching and work. That there is a certain fitness in the distinction between the two lines of study is undeniable. Still the dis tinction is not beyond criticism. One who accredits a high degree of authority. to the Bible may well be reluctant to exclude the designation of unormativeD from one and an other biblical branch. Especially may he hesi tate to exclude that designation from Biblical Dogmatics. In view of this- ground of excep tion to Heinrici's nomenclature the plan of Hagenbach— which divides the whole theologi cal domain between Exegetical, Historical, Sys tematic and Practical Theology—may be re garded as having at least an equal claim to ap preciation. Aside from its intrinsic merits, a motive for giving this plan the preferred place in the present connection is found in the fact that it is very largely reflected in the curricula of theological institutions.