Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/358

340 DOGMATIC of dogmatic propositions in his work aKpiftrp txSoo-i? r&amp;gt;}9 6p8o86gov Trio-Tew?, which remained for the Eastern Church the chief authority in theology for a thousand years after. There has been, however, no living onward movement in the comprehension of Christian doctrine in the Greek Church ; and if on this account that great section of Christendom has escaped the rigid formulating of the many corruptions in doctrine, government, and life that took place in the Western Church, it has been at the expense of resting in a system of mere dead orthodoxy that could neither hinder nor heal practical corruption. In the West, however, there was a powerful intellectual life, even in what are generally called the Dark Ages ; and that being directed towards the doctrines of the church gave a con tinual progress and a new epoch to theology, though in a peculiar and not the most healthy form. lolastic HI. The third period in the history of dogmatic, extend- iod. ing from the 8th century to the beginning of the 1 6th, may be called in general, from its most remarkable development, the scholastic age ; though scholasticism, strictly so called, is usually reckoned to extend only from the llth century to the middle of the 15th. But the times before and after these narrower limits were characterized, only in less degree, by the same general tendency of thought. The doctrines of the church were established as of indisputable authority, and had begun to be collected in the form of books of sentences (Sententiarum Libri) from the fathers, by Isidore of Seville, and others ; and by means of such compilatory labours the learning and theology of former ages were preserved through the devastating flood of the barbarian immigrations. Any fresh theological discussions in this age were few and unimportant, tending for the most part in the direction of sacerdotalism, as in the formation of the dogma of transub- stantiation. But by and by a mighty intellectual force took hold of the whole collected dogmatic material, and roared out of it the great scholastic systems, which have been compared to the grand Gothic cathedrals that were the work of the same ages. The character of these systems of dogmatic may be understood by bearing in mind the two leading principles of the scholastic thinking. One was the acceptance as of absolute authority of whatever had been decided in Scripture or by the church ; and the other was the application of the notions and syllogisms of formal logic to these doctrines, for the purpose of demonstrating their truth to the understanding. 1 With such principles, it was natural that the systems constructed should be lacking in unity and a real grasp of the essence of Christianity. They attempted, indeed, the harmonizing of philosophy and theology, of reason and faith, but they could only do so in a mechanical way, and by a kind of compromise. On the one hand, reason was entirely sub jected to faith in the acceptance of all the doctrines of the church as so many decisions or sentences that were not to be criticised or called in question. This made it impossible to grapple with the fundamental and general principles underlying the particular opinions that were received as authoritative ; and it was only in regard to their details and application that free inquiry was allowed. Hence in the scholastic works we find a series of doctrines or ques tions on different subjects following one after another, but not connected in any natural way as parts of one organic whole. On the other hand, however, reason was allowed such full scope in deducing consequences from the established doctrines, and that by purely formal processes, that a rationalistic character was imparted to a large extent to the whole body of the scholastic theology. At the same 1 See Hampden s Hampton Lectures, p. 46, 347; Schwegler s History f Philosophy, sect. xxii. ; Baur, Versohnungslekre,f. 147, foil.; Hagen- bach, Dog-mengeschichtc, sect. 149. time, as reason was excluded from the great questions of principle, by the absolute authority accorded to the church s decisions, it could only find scope in questions of detail, and the more intellectual vigour was applied to theology the more minute, subtle, and unprofitable did its results become. The scholastic age produced no system of Christian doctrine that has, as a whole, retained any value in after ages ; though in it some doctrines were more dis tinctly articulated than before, particularly that of the atonement, by Anselm ; and the keen and subtle analysis to which all doctrines and conceptions were subjected has produced many distinctions that have been found useful in later times as conducing to clearness of thought. The decline and fall of scholasticism was due to the gradually awakening consciousness of the unsoundness of the principles on which it rested. The nominalistic con troversy shook men s faith in the absolute identity of thought and being, reason and authority ; and the identification of theology and philosophy came to an end. The latter refused to be any longer the mere handmaid of the church ; and from the assertion of its freedom the history of modern philosophy dates. This was necessarily a fatal blow to the scholastic theology ; and at the same time the great religious movement of the Reformation made a reconstruction of the system of church doctrine necessary. IV. The age of the Reformation, occupying the greater Refonr part of the 16th century, may be said to form by itself a tion P e fourth period in the history of dogmatic, for it was animated by a spirit that distinguishes it both from the preceding and from the following time. The Reformation was a movement too full of spiritual life and activity in many directions to be adequately described by any single phrase ; but for the present purpose it may comprehen sively enough be said to be the reassertion of the principle of the direct and personal relation of the believer to God. This involved the sweeping away of all ecclesiastical autho rity and mediation, and the assertion of the sole authority of God s word and of justification by faith, which have been called the formal and material principles of Protestantism, This also necessarily brought with it a new conception of theology. Christianity was no longer a new law, and saving faith was no longer the intellectual assent to certain doc trines ; Christianity was a new life, offered in the gospel and received by the soul s trust (fiducia) in Christ. Hence, when the Reformers came, as some of the greatest of them did, to give a systematic statement of Christian doctrine, they not only rejected those tenets which had been held in the mediaeval church on no higher authority than that of tradition and ecclesiastical decisions, but they also fouad that they could exhibit a much more organic unity in the body of Christian doctrine, because they regarded it not as a necessary means or step towards spiritual life, but as the outcome and systematic presentation of that life which is obtained and preserved directly by faith in Christ. The great theological works of the Reformation age were not for the most part written purely in the interest of science or system, but for more practical purposes, for the defence of the new doctrines against attacks made upon them, or for the guidance of ministers in the practical teaching of the people. But it is nevertheless true that in these ways were produced works which had more of the symmetry and unity of a complete system than any that had previously appeared. This can only be accounted for by assuming that the Reformers had laid hold of the right principle of theology, and that the new life of the Reformation had carried them above and beyond the mistaken view of Christianity that had long hindered a right construction of dogmatic. The Loci Communes Theologici of Melanch- thon (1st ed. 1521, final form 1550), and the Institutio