A YOUNG STUDENT OF THEOLOGY AND CHURCH

· HISTORY.

A

LFRED resolved that before he began his ministry he would form for himself, as far as possible, a clear and consistent Biblical theology, so that he might himself know what it was that he was about to teach others, and that his teaching might be so coherent and precise and firm that he could say to his hearers : 'As God is faithful, our word toward you is not yea and nay' (2 Corinthians i. 18). Besides, it was with him a necessity that his avowed adhesion to the doctrinal system of any church, whose ministry he sought to enter, should be intelligent, free, honest, and unhesitating. The form in which the question as to agreement with the standards of Wesleyan-Methodist doctrine is put to candidates for the ministry seemed to require this: Do you believe that the doctrines contained in Mr. Wesley's Notes on the New Testament and his first fifty-two sermons are in accordance with the Scriptures?' He saw that the absolute authority of Holy Scripture, as the sole source of Christian doctrine, is the fundamental presupposition of Wesleyan-Methodist Divinity. He therefore felt that he must know for himself what the theology of Scripture really is before he could give to that preliminary question a frank and intelligent answer. He went straight to the original Scriptures, and wrought out for himself, and by himself, of course with the best help within his reach, a purely Biblical theology, drawn directly from Holy Writ.

But it was not less a necessity of his mental structure and habits that any theology which he might construct should be scientific, in its method and its form. But the truth to which he strove to give a scientific expression and arrangement was

revealed truth truth, not excogitated by the mind of man, but elicited from the word of God.

During his residence in Manchester, as a tutor at the Grammar School, he set himself to draw up such a system of theology. This remains under the title Skeleton of Theology.

He had a strong conviction, often expressed to me and his intimate friends, that Theology must be recast, by the employment of a more scientific method than had been usual heretofore. He held that scientific unbelief must be fought with its own weapons, and that consequently theology must be made an arm of precision. As the French musketeers and pikemen, on the field of Stienkirk, flung away their own inferior weapons and seized the more effective arms of the fallen foe, so now, in fighting 'the good fight of faith,' we must not be worse-weaponed than the enemy. He saw clearly that the providential purpose

of the irruption of destructive criticism and scientific and speculative scepticism is to compel the disciples of Christ to a more searching study of the Scriptures, a more intelligent and individual, and therefore more assured and effective grasp of the truth.

And, because his theology was strictly Biblical, it was broad and balanced. He was an absolutely independent thinker within the limits of Revelation. He called no man master, on earth. Hence his doctrinal system was as free from narrowness as from looseness. There was nothing conventionally Wesleyan in its tone. It did not bear any denominational brand.

His notion of the scope of theology and its relations with philosophy and the wide realm of thought, as well as his close and thoroughly fearless way of dealing with a subject, is seen in his Prolegomena. He starts with a definition of

'Theology is the statement of the principles of Religion in a scientific form, in conjunction with the reasons for believing the truth of what is asserted.

'Without this we have only a Creed.

""Religion" may be defined as: The consciousness of concerning and permanent relations to something immeasurably greater than one's self.

'I. This is all that is common to the various claimants to the title of Religion, e.g. (1) in the sense in which the word is used when it is disputed whether there be savage tribes destitute of all religion. (2) The conception in the mind of Comte when he wrote La Religion Positive.

"II. "Permanent" and "concerning" relations. A transient relation to what, in certain respects only, is greater than one's self, does not answer to religion, e.g., a man powerless before a wild beast.

'Lucretius, though he admits gods, destroys religion, by maintaining that the gods do not concern us. On the same ground it may be doubted whether the opinion of Comte be included in the definition of religion. But, at any rate, he is seeking a substitute for Religion as generally understood.

'III. Superstition is the imagining of such a relation where it does not exist.

'Theism.

'Excepting those who have à priori rejected belief in God, men universally add to the above definition of Religion: a persuasion that the Power on our relation to which our religion is based is not inanimate or unconscious; but, on the contrary, one or more personal beings deliberately controlling human life and the inanimate world.

'Religion has respect to God or gods.

'A God may be defined as:

'A personal being immeasurably greater than Man.

"I. "Personal." Pantheism and similar systems deny this; but they are all reactions from the belief in a Personal God, which may be considered, at any rate as far as they are concerned, as primary.

II. "Immeasurably." Angels, demons, etc., are not gods, because the difference between them and man is finite.

III. Spirituality; i.e.: incognoscibility by human senses, is a frequent, but not universal, predicate of a god. In early ages the gods are represented as becoming visible to men, or even as permanently perceived by the senses of certain favoured individuals.

'IV. Immortality (not eternity a parte ante) is an almost universal predicate of a God.

'The primary elements of all religion, then, are two :

'I. A belief in the existence of (at least one) God.

'II. In the supreme importance of men's relations to Him, i.e., that the interests of individuals, families, etc., are seriousiy affected by men's behaviour to Tò cîov. See Hebrews xi. 6.

'The best known definitions of God would be accepted only by Monotheists; e.g., Descartes's :

""By the name of God I understand a Substance infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, all-knowing, all-powerful, by Which I myself and every other thing that exists, whatever such there be, were created" (Med. III.).

'Descartes even goes so far as to say that a Polytheist has no idea of God.

'Secondary Division of Religions:

'Those which claim, and those which do not claim, to possess a revelation of God's will to man in a definite written form. 'Sacred books, e.g., the Vedas or the writings of Confucius, do not necessarily pass for a revelation. It may be doubted whether revelation, strictly so called, is claimed by any religions except Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism.

'The books of Mani and of Mormon are unimportant exceptions.

́Christianity differs from all other Religions in maintaining that, through Jesus Christ and His immediate apostles, the complete and final revelation has come.

"Natural Religion," which used to be opposed to "Revealed Religion," is not so much a Religion that has ever had a historical existence, as a name for the postulates of Christianity. "Natural Religion" coincides at different points with the beliefs of heathen and of non-Christian people. Its con

tents and limits are mainly conjectural. Theologians are generally agreed upon little more than the following points as contained in "Natural Theology": (1) The existence of one God, the Creator of the universe and a Being of infinite and eternal perfection; (2) the Immortality of the Soul; (3) a Future State.

Tillotson states them thus (Sermon ccxix.).

MONOTHEISM.

'The existence of God: Why believed?

'The principal answers that have been given are :

315

'I. The idea of God is innate : Anselm, Descartes, etc. But there is no reason to believe any idea innate.

'II. The knowledge was originally imparted by revelation, and has been handed down, in spite of all corruptions: Watson, etc.

'III. It is the result of an irresistible, almost unconscious induction from everywhere present facts.

'The existing belief is almost certainly produced by reasons II. and III. combined.

'Monotheism.

'Apart from Scripture, it is not easy to say whether Monotheism or Polytheism was the earlier belief. But the science of Mythology seems to show that at least an enormous multiplication of gods is due to linguistic corruption: what were originally names or titles of one God becoming names of distinct personalities.

'On the Origin of the Belief in God, the Bible

'I. Gives no countenance to the innate idea theory.

'II. Teaches a primitive knowledge of God; but does not deny the possibility of the extinction of that knowledge.

'The Immortality of the Soul-A Conscious Life of the Individual after Death.

Commonly, if not universally believed in primitive religions. Reasons probably

'I. The impossibility of picturing to one's self the cessation of existence.

'II. Natural unwillingness to regard the dead as nonexistent.

'The belief in "ghosts" is a form of the belief in immortality. Soon doubted or even denied; defended, on various grounds.

'The Authority of Scripture.

'The Bible was written under Divine influence, exerted with the distinct purpose of providing men with a thoroughly