complement of the religious consciousness, and that scientific theology is the synthesis by the intellect of these two great elements.

Wesley's early reading lay among the English Arminian divines; but he did not find in them clear answers to the questions of eternal moment which his own experience suggested. How can I be saved from sin? how can I be holy? how can I be assured of salvation? these were the imperative problems for him; and to these questions the cold Churchly and semi-Pelagian Arminians had no answer to give. The Moravians were the means of leading him to Christ; and with his personal experience came his clear intellectual apprehension of the doctrines of sin, of grace, and of the work of the Spirit. No one held more thoroughly than Wesley to the maxim, Pectus est quod theologum facit; nay, he even carried it so far as to maintain that a good heart will almost necessarily lead to right opinions.

In view of these facts, superficial writers have disparaged Wesley as a theologian. As well say that Luther was no theologian. Both were men of action; but both were also men of profound insight and of speculative intellect. The central truths of Christianity-those, namely, which relate to the reality and nature of sin, the person and work of Christ, and the office of the Holy Spirit-were powerfully grasped by Wesley's intellect almost simultaneously with his obtaining a sense of personal acceptance through Christ; and he never relaxed his hold of them. In all his multitudinous controversies these central truths were his guide and law; he wrote always in view of them, and therefore always methodically. A master of logic, he brought every subject promptly under the imperative categories in which these great truths were formulated for his own mind; categories, too, that he could express in the very words of Scripture, which he always held to be not only the source but the criterion of doctrine. It would not be difficult to gather from his writings sufficient elements of Anthropology, Soteriology, and Eschatology, to form a symmetrical body of divinity in which there would be few gaps to be supplied.

The controversial labors of Wesley and Fletcher were a necessary preliminary to the origin of any work of systematic theology within the sphere of Methodism. It is no matter of marvel, therefore, but quite in the natural course of historical

development, that while Methodism took its rise in 1739, its first scientific theology appeared from the pen of Richard Watson only in 1824. A singularly superficial view of this fact is given by a writer who seems to be an authority in the Presbyterian Church, as his work* bears the imprimatur of the Presbyterian Board of Publication. In attempting to vindicate a quasi prediction of his own, that Arminianism cannot be a "permanent redeeming power upon earth," and that Methodism, if it holds fast its Arminian theology, must lose its efficiency as an evangelical Church, he proceeds as follows:

It is now only a few years over a century since Wesley began his career. A religious system matures slowly. The truths asserted may, for a long period, hold in check the serious errors with which they are combined. The errors, if not eliminated, will at last work out the dissolution of the system. It may indeed outlast many generations, but what are even ages to the life of a true, permanent theology? It is to be remembered, also, that the Arminian scheme has yet to be reduced to a systematic and logical form. Where is its whole body of divinity, from under the hand of a master, sharply defining its terms, accurately stating its belief, laying down the conclusions logically involved therein, trying these conclusions no less than their premises by the Word of God, refuting objections, and adjusting all its parts into a consistent and systematic whole?

This paragraph was written, it will be remembered, nearly thirty years after the appearance of Watson's Institutes, of which great work another Calvinistic divine, of larger and finer culture, (Dr. J. W. Alexander,) speaks as follows:+"Making due allowance for the difference of age, Watson, the Methodist, is the only systematizer within my knowledge who approaches the same eminence" [as Turretine.] In another place Dr. Alexander remarks, "I read as much in Wesley and Watson as in Turretine." One would think, from the above paragraph of Dr. Humphrey's, that he had never heard of Watson at all; but he adds in a foot-note:

Without disparaging the ability displayed in the “Theological Institutes" of the eminent Wesleyan divine, Richard Watson, we may suggest that the points at issue between the Arminian theology and our own are not discussed in that work with the thor* Humphrey, Our Theology and its Developments. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board. 1857.)

Hall, Forty Years' Letters of Dr. Alexander, pp. 181, 187.

oughness, the rigid and penetrating analysis, and the scientific order which are displayed in other parts of the book, and which are demanded at the present time.

Yet, marvelously enough, even after this grudging notice, he goes on to say that the first century of the existence of Methodism has passed by without producing an exposition of theology satisfactory to "the logical consciousness," (whatever that may be,) and adds that

Another century may demonstrate that such a production is impossible, by showing that the logical and scriptural element is not in the Arminian system; that the law of affinity and crystalization is wanting to its disjointed principles; that this theology, combining many precious truths and many capital errors, resembles a mingled mass of diamonds and fragments of broken glass and broken pottery, which no plastic skill of man or power of fire can mould into a single transparent, unclouded, many-sided, equalsided crystals, its angles all beaming, and its points all burning with light, a Koh-i-noor indeed!

In what casket the Koh-i-noor of Calvinism is enshrined Dr. Humphrey does not tell us. Moreover, we have never heard before of the "plastic skill" or "power of fire" that could make a Koh-i-noor out of separate diamonds, much less out of a "mingled mass of diamonds and pottery." But this is the way in which some Calvinistic divines are accustomed to speak of all theology except that which accepts the Genevan form of Augustinism !

In keeping with the law of development to which we have referred, American Methodism, whose birth was some forty years later than that of English Methodism, has waited as many years after the publication of Watson's great work for the appearance of its first work of systematic theology. Not that she has produced nothing in the field of theological literature; on the contrary, the practical and controversial demands of this period of her development have been most ably met in the writings of Bangs, Emory, Fisk, Olin and others, now among the dead; and of Elliott, Whedon, Peck, Porter, Foster, and many others of the living. But an original and complete work on systematic theology has not yet been brought out in American Methodism.* The work in our rubric, by Dr. Warren, forms the introduction to such a work; but, as yet, it is only a

*We have seen an announcement of Ralston's New Body of Divinity; but the work itself has not come under our notice.

noble beginning. We trust that he may live to finish the great task to which he has set himself.

Dr. Warren, as is known to our readers, is Professor of Theology in our Biblical School at Bremen, Germany. His whole course of training has tended admirably to fit him for the great task which he has undertaken. Bred in Methodism, he passed not only through one of our own universities, but also compassed the course of one of the best schools of New England theology. He had there the opportunity of studying the Calvinistic system in its own home, and as taught by its most refined and refining expounders, and freed, moreover, from some of its least defensible forms of doctrine. The larger culture of Berlin and Halle, where Dr. Warren spent several years, gave breadth to his mode of thinking, while at the same time it strengthened, instead of unsettling, his faith in the supernatural origin of Christianity, and in the truth of its evangelical doctrines. How widely his studies have since extended, is attested by his able contributions to the pages of this journal, and also to those of the Bibliotheca Sacra.

The last fruit of his ripe studies is before us in this first part of his "Systematic Theology," containing the "General Introduction." The preface modestly states that the writer has chiefly had in view, in the preparation of the work, the wants of his own pupils and of younger ministers; while at the same time he hopes that the book may serve to show, especially to Germans, the true nature and historical importance of Methodist theology. If the whole work be executed with the skill and breadth which mark this Introduction, it will indeed serve as a manual for students, and for a light to German theologians, but it will also take its place as the second in order of the Methodist "Bodies of Divinity," and, it may be, as the first in rank. Watson's great work has served its generation nobly; and it will be long before its discussions, especially of the Socinian and Calvinistic controversies will lose their value. But Dr. Warren's opportunities have been far beyond any which Watson ever enjoyed; and he has used them conscientiously and thoroughly. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that his work should be far more learned than that of his great predecessor. Moreover, since Watson's time, theology has not been an unprogressive science; while philosophy and heresy have both been

in full activity of progress. To state and vindicate the Methodist system of doctrines, with reference to the theological and philosophical relations of the time, is a task that must have fallen to some one; and we are thankful it has fallen to one so well qualified to accomplish it.

This Introduction is divided into three parts. The first treats (pp. 1-7) of the Scope of Systematic Theology, and its place in the organism of the theological sciences; the second sets forth the Contents or Object of Systematic Theology, (pp. 8-27 ;) the third treats of its Form, (pp. 29-140.)

Under the first head, Dr. Warren adopts the old division of theology into Exegetical, Historical, Systematic and Practical. Schleiermacher and others have sought to make new classifications, chiefly on subjective grounds; but the attempt has not succeeded. Hagenbach (Theologische Encyclopædie, § 34,) adopts this fourfold division, and vindicates it, both for scientific and practical reasons. Exegetical Theology includes all branches of science relating to the study of Scripture. Historical Theology includes all which relate to the history of Christian life and doctrine. Systematic Theology is the scientific setting forth of the Christian doctrine concerning (1) God, (2) Man, and the (3) Reciprocal Relations between God and Man. It therefore includes Dogmatics, or the Christian doctrine of the relations of God to man; and Ethics, or the Christian doctrine of the relations of man to God. Practical Theology treats of the working and functions of the Church, for example, Catechetics, Homiletics, the Cure of Souls, Church Polity, etc. According to this classification, Systematic Theology is the third chief division of Christian theology, including within its sphere both doctrine and morals. It is necessarily the third; for as Scripture is the source of doctrine, its study must come first; as History shows the development of doctrine, its study must follow that of Exegesis; as Systematic Theology is the scientific setting forth of doctrine, in the light of Scripture and History, it must follow both the others. In this view of the relations of the branches of theological science, Dr. Warren agrees with Hagenbach, who remarks, (Encyclopædie, p. 105,) that "to begin the study of theology with Dogmatics is to fly without wings."

The second part, as we have said, treats of the Contents or Object of Systematic Theology. This has already been implicitly