Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

many of its positions were framed merely to oppose certain existing errors, or to prevent some prevailing abuses. How then is it possible for us to understand the system of theology and all its several positions, without knowing the occasions and the causes of forming the individual parts, and the many alterations and changes by which the system finally became what it is? It is not in our power, for example, to comprehend perfectly the doctrinal views of the reformers, without comparing them with the tenets of those from whom they separated, and with the dogmas of the scholastics whom they opposed. Thus dogmatic history shows us how and wherefore the several articles came to occupy their respective places in our creed; and in this way, it leads us to view them in a proper attitude. Nor is this all; it teaches us to appreciate correctly the merits of the ancient, as well as of the modern theologians. It is a common fault of this age, to undervalue the ancient writers, and to express astonishment at their supposed weakness and blunders. For instance, many a man now ridicules the subtilty of the scholastic doctors, who, had he lived in their age would scarcely have been employed by them as a transcriber. From such rash decisions dogmatic history is a preservative. It shows us just how far the ancient theologians proceeded, and why they, from the circumstances of the times and various impediments, could not effect what our age, mounted on the shoulders of preceding ages, is able to accomplish. The materials were first to be collected and severally wrought, then out of them system after system must be built up and pulled down, till finally the proper pieces were duly united in a firm and abiding system. Dogmatic history does justice to the old theologians, by showing that much of what is advanced in modern times as new, is not new.

At

the same time it makes the superiority of modern dogmatics to be clearly seen. It shows incontestibly, how much the moderns excel the ancients in clearness of definition, and strength of reasoning, in a juster separation of the important from the unimportant, and of the certain from the problematical, as well as in lucidness of method, and in the practical bearing of their discussions. Thus while dogmatic history enables us to compare more accurately and impartially the ancient divines with the modern, it teaches us to appreciate the superiority of the latter, without doing injustice to the former.

The

III. Important as this use of dogmatic history is, it is surpassed by another. For, by means of this history, we are able, more easily, to separate genuine Christianity from its spurious appendages. By the professed followers of Jesus, his doctrines have been variously obscured, disfigured, and adulterated with foreign mixtures. reformation in the sixteenth century by the protestants purged away indeed, many of the corruptions introduced by ignorance and superstition, and sanctified by spiritual despotism; and yet I dare to affirm, that since this beneficial reformation in theology, much still remains that needs amendment. Now the way to prosecute successfully further reformation, is pointed out by dogmatic history. For this discovers to us the sources and origin of many innovations in theology, and the means by which they obtained currency; and thus it enables us to judge better what to hold fast as belonging to genuine Christianity, and what to reject as useless and prejudicial.

Yet, not to overrate the value of dogmatic history, I must say, that historical investigation is rather a preparation for distinguishing between the doctrines of Jesus and foreign principles, than the full accomplishment of the object.-

Against the Catholic church indeed, it is of peculiar service; for a church which boasts of the harmony of its opinions with all Christian antiquity, which asserts that it has preserved unchanged through all ages the primitive Christian faith, can be confuted in no better way, than by showing from history that precisely the distinguishing doctrines of this church were unknown to the early Christians, and that they were first invented and became current in times of ignorance and superstition. The reformers therefore, and the polemic writers generally, could justly employ such reasoning against the Catholics. Yet dogmatic history cannot alone prove decisively that any doctrine is, or is not, a part of genuine Christianity. For, if you regard a doctrine as belonging to Christianity because it was embraced and taught by the Christians of the first centuries, you must forget that the first Christians who received their instruction from Jesus Christ and his apostles, were converts from either Judaism or paganism, and that they retained many of their former conceptions, which became blended with their new faith, and which were afterwards propagated in the Christian church as parts of its faith; in short, you must hold to a traditional creed, the entire purity of which it will be difficult to make out. On the other hand, I cannot maintain that a doctrine is always forthwith to be expunged from the list of Christ's doctrines, if it should appear that it was not known or not embraced in the first centuries after Christ. For the writers of the first centuries, whose works have reached us, do not merit the praise of being competent and happy expositors; and it is therefore not impossible, nor indeed improbable, that some declarations of Christ and his apostles were misapprehended, perhaps for centuries, till at length their true import was discovered in a

subsequent age. But, granting all this to be true, if we cannot regard dogmatic history as the infallible touchstone of what is and what is not genuine Christianity, still it is a valuable help to come at this object, For if any particular doctrine can be shown to have first made its ap pearance in later times, if the sus picious source from which it flowed can be pointed out, and also the cause which gave it currency as a Christian doctrine, there is good ground to suspect that it was ori ginally no part of the religion of Christ. I grant that this amounts only to a suspicion. For a doctrine of real Christianity may have been long buried in obscurity, and at length have come to light;-it may have been brought forward too in a very unsatisfactory manner, and have been maintained by very unlawful means; and after all, upon an impartial examination, be found to be true and useful. How often does a person or an age, by mere chance, stumble upon a discovery, which could not have been expected! Still, such a suspicion should admonish us to be cautious, to go into a more full examination, and it can be set at rest only by exegetical and critical investigations.

IV. But were all the advantages now mentioned of less importance than they truly are, yet dogmatic history would be valuable, because it is suited to bring a theologian into precisely that state of mind which he most needs, in order to success in his vocation. From what source has theology hitherto received greater injury than from the bigotry and enthusiasm which have caused men to engage in controversy with unbending obstinacy, and to attack or defend an opinion with the fury of a warrior determined to conquer or die in the battle? This has ever been followed by the never-failing consequence, that the contested points were discussed on one side only, and all opposing arguments were disregarded. The

calm and unbiased state of mind so necessary to the careful weigh ing of arguments and objections, and which alone can secure a man from precipitate and rash judgment, is wholly lost. Now the best preservative against this bigotry and blind zeal, is the study of dogmatic history. Whoever has there traced the revolutions in opinion, which were often as sudden as those in the fashion of garments,--whoever has there learned, that what one age held for incontrovertible truth, a following age rejected as error, will begin modestly to distrust the judgments of men, and of course his own also. He will not suffer himself, without examination, to be borne along the current of an age whose faith is bigotry. The authority of venerated names will not fetter him, for he has learned from history how little value to attach even to the decrees of vast synods of bishops. Nor will the brilliancy of novelty dazzle him; for he has often noticed, that what was brought forward as new, was not so; and that what pleased all, while new, soon became discarded.

A recent occurrence in the theological world may confirm these observations. When the great philosopher of Konigsberg subjected to a more rigorous criticism the prevailing systems of philosophy, and began to lay the foundation for a new one, as soon as application was made of his principles to theology, that enthusiasm of which I have spoken, was strikingly manifest. Some, transported with admiration at the critical philosophy and its founder, could discover Kantian ideas all through the New Testament; and they looked upon no public discourses as solid and sound, unless the new terminology glittered along its periods; and whoever doubted any principle of the new philosophy, was regarded with contempt, as if he lacked common sense. Others were equally zealous against this philosophy,

which they found to be dangerous to religion, and leading evidently to scepticism, or to some worse evil. Now a person conversant with history will see nothing strange in these occurrences. For he well knows that men have ever mingled philosophy with religion; and that every attempt at a new combination produced at first a great ferment. He also knows, that as well the patrons of the new systems, as the adherents of the old ones, have always gone to extremes, in the beginning of their conflict; but when the heat of the battle subsided a little, both parties began slowly to come nearer to each other. And in the present instance, as an impartial looker on, he will cherish the single wish, that theologians would be grateful for the important hints and illustrations which Kant has given them; but without allowing their respect for a great man to shackle their minds and make them blind copyists, without marring their interpretations by philosophical subtilties, and without burdening their public discourses with unintelligible words; for the history of the Wolfian philosophy proves that such things will not meet the applause, but the censure of succeeding ages. I would therefore recommend dogmatic history to the young theologian, for the purpose of guarding him against a bigoted zeal for any opinions or sects, and of making him capable of enlightened and just views in theology. For it will be one of the best preservatives against that shortsighted bigotry which infallibly attends a theorizing divine, who, ignorant of what has been said and done by others, thinks he can accomplish every thing merely by his own sagacity, or what is still worse-by following out the system of his master.

With the last mentioned advan tage of dogmatic history, the following is closely connected, namely, that it reproves a contentious

spirit, and disposes us to be tolerant towards those who differ from us. Whoever has carefully studied the ever varying conceptions of men, and their causes, is sensible how much men's judgments and opinions depend on particular circumstances, and on the attitude in which objects are presented to their minds. It will be clear to

him, from abundant experience, that it is next to impossible that men differing in talents, degrees of education, and rank in society, should have precisely the same views; and that it is unreasonable to require of others, that they should see with our eyes, and exchange their own modes of thinking for ours. Thus dogmatic history leads to amicable feelings and a discreet forbearance towards others, even though their opinions, according to our conceptions, are very ill founded. The examples it affords, of the melancholy effects resulting

from a dominion over men's faith, and from attempts to dictate to men what they must believe, inculcate more forcibly than any precepts can, the apostolic exhortation, andɛve ev ayaяn, to hold the truth in love.

Without fear that he will be disappointed, therefore, we can assure the young theologian, that the study of dogmatic history will well reward his toil; and that it will enable him to come much nearer to his object, if he wishes to obtain not a superficial, but a thorough knowledge of his profession.

For the Christian Spectator.

MINSTERIAL PARITY. It is worthy of note that the earlier Episcopal divines, in their strenuous reasonings against the pope's supremacy, frequently take ground which is equally conclusive against lower degrees of prelacy. Take for example the following passages from Barrow ;

others which have a similar bearing might be added from the same author. S. R.

"As to a primacy, importing superiority in power, command, or jurisdiction; this by the Roman party is asserted to St. Peter, but we have great reason to deny it, upon the following considerations.

For such a power (being of so great importance) it was needful that a commission from God, its Founder, should be granted in downright and perspicuous terms; that no man concerned in duty grounded thereon, might have any doubt of it, or excuse for boggling at it; it was necessary not only for the apostles, to bind and warrant their obedience, but also for us, because it is made the sole foundation of a like duty incumbent on us, which we cannot heartily discharge without being assured of our obligation thereto, by clear revelation, or promulgation of God's will in the Holy Scripture; for it was of old a current, and ever will be a true rule, which St. Austin in one case thus expresseth, "I do believe that also on this side there would

be most clear authority of the divine oracles, if a man could not be ignorant of it without damage of his salvation;" and Lactantius thus, "Those things can have no foundation or firmness, which are not sustained by any oracle of God's word."

sion is extant in scripture; the alBut apparently no such commislegations for it being as we shall hereafter show, nowise clear, nor probably expressive of any such authority granted by God;

[blocks in formation]

There was (saith St. Luke, among the twelve, at the participation of the holy supper) "a strife among them who of them should be accompted the greatest," or who had the best pretence to superiority; this strife our Lord presently did check and quash; but how? not by telling them, that he already had decided the case in appointing them a superior, but rather by assuring them, that he did intend none such to be; that he would have no monarchy, no exercise of any dominion or authority by one among them over the rest; but that notwithstanding any advantages one might have before the other, (as greater in gifts, or as preceding in any respect,) they should be one as another, all humbly condescending to one another, each being ready to yield help and service to one another; "The Kings" said he, "of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them; and they that exercise authority over them, are called benefactors, but ye shall not be so; but he that is greater among you let him be as the younger; and he that is leader, as he that doth minister;" that is, whatever privilege any of you obtaineth, let it not be employed in way of command, but rather of compliance and subserviency, as occasion shall require; let him not pretend to be a superior, but rather behave himself as an inferior; thus our Lord did smother the debate, by removing from among them, whatever greatness any of them did affect or pretend to; forbidding that any of them should, xupisús, or iάew, exercise any dominion or authority over the rest, as worldly princes did over their subjects.

[blocks in formation]

temporal grandeur, wealth, and honour, by undergoing persecution, and undertaking conformity to our Lord (being baptized with the baptism, with which he was baptized) to propagate the faith of a crucified Master; to seek, or take on them authoritative dignity; for among them there could not well be any need of commanding or being commanded; it was more fit, that all of them should conspire to help and serve one another, in promoting the common design and service of their Lord, with mutual condescension and compliance; which was the best way of recommending themselves to his acceptance, and obtaining from him an answerable reward.

Such was the drift of our Lord's discourse; whereunto (as in the other case) he did annex the prohibition of exercising dominion: "Ye know," saith he, "that the Princes of nations exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you ; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be first among you, let him be your servant; "Os sav denn whoever among you hath a mind to special grandeur and pre-eminence, let him understand that there is none other to be attained, beside that which resulteth from the humble performance of charitable offices to his brethren; the which whoever shall best discharge, he alone will become greatest and highest in the eye of God.

[blocks in formation]
« VorigeDoorgaan »