Each of the divisions in the fourfold scheme of Hagenbach contains a somewhat indetermin ate number of specific branches. A measurably complete list for Exegetical .Theology may be given as follows: (1) Biblical Philology or Linguistics, which treats not only of the biblical languages, but also of languages so far cognate with the biblical as to be able to furnish means of understanding the peculiarities of the latter. (2) Biblical Archaeology or the science of Bibli cal Antiquities. (3) Canonics, or the branch which gives the history of the canon, or col lection of sacred books, and also the principles which enter into the determination of the proper'compass of that collection. (4) Biblical Criticism, which in one division is textual, and in another literary and historical. The former seeks to ascertain the true and original text; the latter is occupied with the investigation of the biblical books for the purpose of ascertain ing their authorship, their date, their relation to other writings, canonical or uncanonical, the degree of their historical trustworthiness and the special stage which any one of them may represent in the developnient of the biblical religion. The two forms of criticism are fre quently distinguished as the Lower and the Higher. (5) Biblical Introduction, in which the fruits of criticism are utilized for a more or less detailed characterization of each of the two Testaments and also of the individual books which they contain. (6) Hermeneutics, or the science of biblical interpretation. (7) Exegesis, or the presentation in detail of the results of an examination into the meaning of biblical texts.
Historical Theology includes in its biblical part the following divisions: (1) Old Testa ment History; (2) the Life of Christ; (3) the History of the Apostolic Age; (4) Biblical Theology of the Old Testament; (5) Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Etymologi cally considered Biblical Theology might denote other than a historical branch, being taken as the equivalent of Biblical Dogmatics. But as actually treated it is a historical discipline, its object being to set forth the genesis of doctrine and its movements through the various stages which may be discerned in the Old and the New Testament respectively. In its post-biblical part Historical Theology falls into two main divi sions, General Church History, and the History of Christian Doctrine. The former admits of a great number of subdivisions, it being possi ble to award a monographic treatment to such themes as missions, polity, discipline, worship, and art. In its earlier section General Church History includes in particular Patristics and Christian Archwology, of which the former gives an account of the lives and writings of the fathers (usually of the first six centuries), and the latter furnishes a systematic presenta tion of monumental and documentary evidence on the art, institutions, rites, customs and char acteristic modes of thought and feeling in the early Christian community. To the History of Doctrine the most important subsidiary branch is Symbolics, or that which treats of the creeds. As an auxiliary branch the History of Philosophy takes the first rank.
Systematic Theology, which has, in its Chris tian character, the office of furnishing an or derly presentation and justification of the whole body of teachings or beliefs which belong to the Christian religion, includes three principal branches, namely, Apologetics, Christian Dog matics and Christian Ethics. It may. also in clude Biblical Dogmatics, Polemics and Irenics, though the subject matter covered by these titles can conveniently be appropriated within other branches. An auxiliary to Systematic
Theology of special significance is found in the Philosophy of Religion. Of the several branches named, Christian Dogmatics is so far central and prominent as often to be styled Systematic Theology. Being free to gather its evidence from every field, and aiming to present in organic form the whole doctrinal content of the true religion, it commands in the field of theology the maximum intellectual interest.
In Practical Theology the leading branches are Liturgics, Homiletics and Pastoral The ology. The last-named is of wide compass, in cluding besides the general theme of pastoral care such subsidiary branches as Catechetics, Ecclesiastical Polity, Ecclesiastical Discipline, and Theory of Missionary Work. Recently the interest in sociological study has created a motive to subjoin a branch which might be en titled Christian Sociology.
Prominent Stages and Representatives.— In the broad view three great epochs in the progress of theology are distinguishable, namely, the Greek, the Latin and the Modern. The last might also be called with relative propriety the Protestant, since the motive-power for its developments has been supplied in large part from within the domain which bears that title. The development of the Latin type was in part contemporary with the shaping and manifestation of the Greek type; still the former appears clearly second in order, since its initial stages were synchronous with the culminating stages of the latter. Greek theology bad run its course and come essentially to a standstill before the more characteristic sys tems of Latin theology were elaborated by the medimval scholastics. The two undoubtedly had very much in common. The same great creeds were acknowledged in the Latin as ob tained in the Greek division of Christendom, and the dogmatic grounds which were alleged ultimately for the severance of fellowship were of subordinate import. Still Greek theology stood in measurable contrast with Latin. It took on the whole a more genial view of the divine relation to the non-Christian world. It was less inclined to a sombre conception of man's native guilt and moral impotency. It ac centuated to a special degree the thought of a divine incarnation and of the intimate connec tion between God and man provided for by means of the incarnation. The same thought was by no means foreign to Latin theology, but in its domain it was given, relatively speak ing, lessprominence, since it was made to share the field with the greatly emphasized con ception of divine rulership. The standpoint of the one affiliated with a mystical theory of an interior life; the standpoint of the other was more legal and governmental. Both admitted the ideas of priestly mediation and sacramental efficacy, at least after the initial stage; but it accorded with the genius of Latin theology to work out the most consummate expression of these ideas in a thoroughly elaborated hierarchi cal and sacramental system. In the one au thority came to be regarded as specially resi dent in the creeds and formularies of the past, in the other great prominence came to be as signed to the hierarchy, and especially to its head, as the perpetual embodiment of infallible authority. While this line of contrasts may legitimately be affirmed, it is to be understood that one and another point of difference cannot be taken too strictly, since in neither the Latin nor the Greek domain was theological thinking entirely uniform or homogeneous.