Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/353

335 DOGMATIC 335 knowledge of it, or because we have no means of reducing these materials to their true and natural order. If there are sufficient materials of knowledge about Christianity, and a method by which these may be reduced to a system, the conditions of a scientific dogmatic may be said to exist. sources. The sources of dogmatic have been variously enume rated by different branches of the church and schools of thought, and the determination of the genuine ones in volves the most important issues as to the whole charac ter of the system. We may begin with the lowest and most universally accepted, and then proceed to those in regard to which there is more difference of opinion, and which determine the peculiarities of the dogmatic of are. different sects or churches. First, then, we may place tlie testimony of nature to God, which is admitted by nearly all theists to be real and valuable, so far as it goes, and which is clearly recognized in Scripture. 1 The Socinians in the 16th and 17th centuries denied the possibility of any knowledge of God without revelation ; but this position, which was zealously controverted by the orthodox, has been given up by those who are the nearest modern representa tives of the Socinians, and may be said to be held now only by those who would deny all knowledge of God what ever. This natural knowledge of God has sometimes been separated from properly Christian dogmatic, and relegated for separate treatment under the title of natural theology ; but since most of the truths reached by it are also expressly taught in Scripture, it seems impossible to exclude from their consideration in the Christian system the prior light that nature throws on them. Hence the most orthodox divines admit that reason has as one of its functions in theology that of establishing or confirming some of its doc trines, which are therefore distinguished by many, especially of the Lutherans, as articuli mixti, being supported by reason and revelation together, from the articuli puri, which are known by revelation alone. This source of theological knowledge includes the manifestations of the being and character of God, and the nature and destiny of man in the phenomena of the external world, and also in the intellect, conscience, and religious affections of man. The import ance of it arises from the fact that this natural knowledge of God alone connects the doctrines of revelation with the actual realities of consciousness and experience, and gives to the whole of theology a basis in ascertainable and verifiable fact. Unless we know, on grounds as legitimate as those of any secular science, that God is, and that He is true and good, we cannot rationally receive any revelation from Him, and our whole dogmatic would be a mere castle in the air. slntion But most Christians, while recognizing the reality and hrist. importance of the manifestation of God in nature, consider that this alone is inadequate, in the present condition of mankind, to bring us into that relation to Him which is the true and perfect religion ; and all but those who deny the supernatural entirely believe that God has made a special revelation of himself in Christ. The person of Jesus of Nazareth is for all such the centre of God s saving dis covery of himself and of His will to sinners of mankind ; in His life and death we have an image of the character of God, and in His teaching, statements of religious truth that are of primary authority. On this account it may be truly said that the person and teaching of Christ is the fountain- head of revealed theology. 2 It would be quite possible to maintain that this is the only source of theological know ledge beyond the teaching of nature ; but nearly all who entertain such views of Christ also believe that we have in the writings of His disciples an authoritative record of IPs. xix. 1-6 ; Rom. i. 19-21 ; Acts xiv. 15-17, vni. 24-29. a Ooeterzee, Christian Dogmatics, sec. viii. His words and deeds, and a divinely-taught explanation of their meaning. Hence the Scriptures, at least of the New Testament, are recognized as themselves a direct source of dogmatic material. Some have limited this recognition of an inspired book to the New Testament, as Schleiermacher ; but this position virtually rests on the idea that Christ himself is really the only supernatural source of religious truth, and that the New Testament Scriptures are not a real communication from God, but only an authentic human record of the revelation He has made of Himself in Christ. When the notion of a truly divine and authoritative Scrip ture is really admitted, it is impossible, in view of the use made of the Old Testament in the New, to deny the authority of these earlier Scriptures. The coming of Christ was not a sudden isolated appearance, unprepared for and alone, like a lightning-flash in a dark night ; it was rather like the rising of the sun after a long and gradually lighten ing twilight. The way was prepared for Him by a series of historical revelations recorded in the sacred books of the Jewish people, which have from the days of the apostles onwards been regarded as divine by the Christian church. It is this continuous line of revelation, from the beginning onwards, that gives Christianity its universality in point of time, as the perfect form of the true religion that has always in some shape or other existed in the world. On this view, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as testifying of Christ, are the more immediate source of dogmatic materials ; and this is the fundamental Protestant position. The Church of Rome goes further, and maintains, not only that the Divine Spirit has inspired the writers of Scripture to convey to us an authoritative record of God s revelation in Christ, but also that the Spirit so dwells in the church as to enable her to develop that revelation, supplementing it by tradition, authenticating it by her authority, and interpreting it by decision on controverted points. Hence, for the Romanist, tradition, decrees of councils and of popes, opinions of fathers and doctors of the church, are equally with Scripture authoritative sources of doctrine. In this, however, Protestants hold that they err as much in the way of excess, as Rationalists, who deny the authority of the Bible, err in the way of defect. Those Protestants, however, who have taken the most profound and spiritual view of the subject, have been ready to allow that there is provision made in Christianity for what Romanists seek to attain by the authority of the church. They admit that something more is needed than unaided human reason for the right interpretation and application of the word of God ; but they find this, not in an infallible church, but in the work of the Divine Spirit, enlightening &quot;Work &amp;lt;&amp;gt; the mind of believers in and with the word (testimonnim the Si&amp;gt;ir Sjyiritus Sancti). The recognition of this, which was very fully and strongly made by the Reformers, not only gives to Protestant theology a firmer position as against the claims of Rome than it can have without it, but also enables us to give their due place to the elements of truth, exaggerated and distorted, in the Romish doctrines of the authority of the church, fathers, and councils. If we have the witness of the Spirit, giving us an assurance of the truth and insight into the meaning of Scripture, we must admit that our fellow Christians have the same guidance also, and that believers have had it in all ages. Hence we may reason ably allow great weight to the opinions of men who have given evidence of being guided by the Spirit, and more especially to those doctrines that have been received as scriptural by the great body of the spiritually enlight ened in different ages. Thus the teaching of fathers and theologians, and the consent of the Christian church, are important helps and guides to the Protestant theologian ; only he does not, like the Roman Catholic, attach absoluto