Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/355

337 Chalmers, 1 Julius M tiller, 2 Hodge ; 3 and it has been prac tically followed by most evangelical divines. They have indeed sometimes disguised the real nature of their method by the arrangement of topics adopted, for the almost uni versal practice has been to begin the systematic exhibition of Christian doctrine with the loftiest and most recondite part of the subject, which would come first in a really de ductive treatment, and to descend from them to those that are more immediately verified by experience. This has tended to produce the impression that these systems are properly chains of logical demonstration, especially as doc trines once held to be established are often appealed to as forming part of the proof of other doctrines. In many cases, however, this appearance is deceptive ; and the system, though wearing a deductive garb, is not really of that nature. Each of the doctrines is established on its own proper basis of Scripture testimony and Christian ex perience ; and the order of progress, from above downward, does not show the order in which the doctrines have been ascertained, either by the church in general or by the individual theologian, but only the order in which it is thought best that they should be exhibited and taught. Besides these two distinct methods, the speculative or de ductive, and the empiric or inductive, a third is recommended by Beck, and approved also by Oosterzee, called by the former the real-genetic. This proceeds on the assumption that the object of theological knowledge is faith, i.e., accord ing to Beck s use of the term, spiritual life in the soul appre hending as its object God in Christ. This faith or spiritual life has, he points out, a principle of development and growth ; and theology grows by following the growth of faith in the soul. But the life of faith in us is not perfect ; it is liable to hindrances and abnormal development ; hence this by itself is not a safe guide for theology. There is, how ever, a perfect archetype ( Urbild) of the true and normal de velopment of faith in the soul, and that is to be found in revelation. The revelation of which we find the record in Scripture has the same course of development as the sub jective life of faith is the soul ; and the growth of revelation is the perfect pattern of what the growth of faith within us should be. In order, therefore, to be a representation of the faith or spiritual life of the Christian in its ideal con dition, theology has to follow the development of revelation as presented to us in Scripture, and must first go back to its primary source, and trace from thence its growth and development. Hence the designation of the true dogmatic method as real-genetic. Now whether or not the results of theological inquiry will come out in this parti cular form depends on the truth or falsehood of a number of positions, and these can only be established by the examination of facts and evidence bearing on the case. This method, therefore, does not in principle differ from the inductive or empiric one ; it is only a special form which that method will assume, if the views of Beck as to the relation of revelation to the life of faith in the soul are true and borne out by evidence. It does not, therefore, seem proper to regard this as a distinct kind of method, and we may legitimately claim those who follow it as dis ciples in general of the inductive school. On the whole, there appears no reason why the principles of inductive philosophy, which have been so fruitful in their application to the sciences of external nature, should not be applied to materials, bearing on the relation of man and the world to their Author, that are furnished by the phenomena of nature, the dictates of conscience, the facts of revelation, and the experience of the Christian life. Surely, too, the endeavour to do this is neither a hopeless nor an impossible one. Those who have objected most 1 Institutes of Theology, bk. iii. ch. 10. 337 strongly to the application of logic to theology, such as Isaac Taylor 4 and Bishop Hampden, 5 will be found at bottom to object chiefly to the use of a merely verbal and deductive system of logic, and not to that inductive method which is the mighty instrument of the progress of modern science. But it must be admitted that the processes of theologians have too often been, and too often still are, of that merely formal and logical kind that cannot really increase our store of knowledge. If dogmatic is to hold its ground as a true science at all, it must frankly and consistently adopt the inductive method ; and it must take as the objects of its analysis, classification, and induction, not merely the statements of Scripture, but the religious realities which those statements, as well as our own experience, make known to us. Further, if a scientific character is to be vindicated for Progress^ dogmatic, it must also accept the position of a variable and nat rc of progressive study. This does not imply that nothing is certain within its domain, or that there must be a constant flux and reflux of opinions about its contents. It is as much characteristic of science that it has certain well- established principles and results, which are not to be overthrown by any future inquiries, as that it is constantly advancing to further acquirements and discoveries. Those who claim an absolutely fixed and unprogressive character for theology, though they may seem to do honour to its divine authority, really degrade it from the rank of a science ; and if they retain any reverence for it at all, can only do so on the principles and in the spirit of Roman Catholicism. Thus Macaulay s brilliant statements to that effect, 6 which are sometimes quoted by those who defend an immobile orthodox theology, imply as their basis either a contemptuous dismissal of theology altogether as a tissue of uncertainties, or a lurking belief that the one unchang ing system is to be found in the faith of the Church of Rome. What has tended, and still tends very powerfully, to obscure the idea of progress in dogmatic theology is the want of a clear apprehension of the distinction between religion and theology, and the notion that the Bible is directly a revelation of theological dogmas, which need only to be correctly interpreted and arranged in logical order. If this were so, then we should be able at once to construct a complete system of theology, by simply applying the laws of grammar and logic to Scripture ; and this could be done as correctly and well in the 2d century as in the 16th or 19th. There would be no room, or the very narrowest conceivable, for progress. In that case, then, if it were found that students dealing thus with Scripture came to widely different conclusions as to the system of doctrine to be drawn from it, we should be obliged to conclude that the revelation was not complete or unambiguous, and therefore that it must either be supplemented and checked by a living authority in the church to determine its true meaning, or that no certain knowledge in regard to doctrine can be attained. The former is the Roman Catholic, the latter the sceptical or anti-dogmatic alternative ; but both alike proceed from the same premises, and indicate the impossibility of carrying them out without either giving up the practicability of dogmatic, or seeking it in an infallible church. But this difficulty disappears when the Bible is regarded as a revelation, not solely or directly of doctrine, but of religion. On this view, it is the inspired record of the great historical events by means of which the religious fellowship of man with God has been established, and gradually elevated to its perfect form in Christianity, and 4 Logic in Theology. 5 &quot;Scholastic Philosophy in Relation to Christian Theology,&quot; Bamp- ton Lectures for 1832. 8 Essay on Ranke s History of the Popes. VII. 43
 * Ubi supra. 3 Syst. Theol, Introd. ch. i.