i8 7 o] A THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 141 



lectically. We cannot even say that the other parts of 

 theology are dialectical ; for it is the characteristic of a 

 dialectical progress that all parts advance together, 

 and no one part can be perfect before the others. But, 

 in fact, we have seen reason to assert that the organism 

 of theology is such that no one part can be mastered till 

 the whole is known. We have been able to appeal to 

 experience as establishing the fact that a serious con 

 sideration of any vexed theological question invariably 

 drives us to ask for clearer principles, and surely till these 

 are supplied systematic theology is not complete and 

 not impeccable. I may in illustration refer to a familiar 

 instance. So soon as we pass from the merely gram 

 matical to the real interpretation of Old Testament 

 prophecy, we find a series of difficulties arise which may 

 ultimately be shown to depend in great measure on the 

 true theory of the Hebrew theocracy ; and that again 

 is a problem which goes far beyond the sphere of exegesis 

 and can only be resolved from the general principles 

 of God s historical dealings with man. And this is clearly 

 a question for systematic theology, but one which the 

 orthodox dogmatic has no means of solving. If now 

 our dogmatic is not a loose collection of doctrines, but 

 an organic unity, the existence of such a defect neces 

 sarily implies a positive faultiness in the system. But, 

 indeed, the same thing will appear without going beyond 

 the limits of systematic theology itself. &quot; The orthodox 

 Confessions of the Reformed Churches,&quot; which embody, 

 we are told, the true system of dogmatic theology, are 

 themselves not absolutely alone. Even if we assume 

 an entire unity between the Calvinistic Confessions an 

 assumption that will hardly be made out what are we 

 to say to the articles of the Lutheran Church ? Are we 

 justified in excluding these articles from the number of 

 the orthodox confessions wherever they disagree with 

 us ? True, the Lutherans and Calvinists are in principle 

 at one. The differences are minor differences ; but these 



