And on this strange scene of mingled human emotions the Eternal Father looked down from heaven, His dwelling-place, and the cry of His children came into ears that are not deaf to the most unorthodox of prayers. Swiftly came the answer. How? Did the revolving earth accelerate its speed to bring the day some hours too soon? Did an angel of light glide from the darkness and reveal the shore in a blaze of unearthly glory? Did a voice sound above the wind and waves, bidding them cease their fury? No. So imperceptible was the Divine answer, that most of us read the inspired narrative without seeing where it comes in. What did God send? He sent a man with his wits about him, and to his shipmates the inclination to listen to him.

Now, Paul had been among those men for weeks, and he had spoken out at the first about the danger he foresaw. The centurion greatly respected him; but it is hardly wonderful that he listened rather to the nautical experts. Later on, Paul justified his prescience by the event, and tried to reanimate the despairing men by unveiling the future again. There is no hint that they listened to him then. But now comes our crisis verse. The prayer-for such we may really call it—is heard, and from this moment Paul becomes practically master of the ship. It is he who checkmates the heartless selfishness of the sailors, which the captain and the centurion had failed to fathom. And it is his cheery example that at last encourages the weary, hopeless men to take the food which was needed to give them strength for what had yet to be done. Any one with his wits about him could have taken either of those steps which saved their lives. Exactly; but it was trust in God that nerved Paul with this coolness in the hour of danger, as it has nerved thousands of humbler heroes since; and it was the unconscious result of prayer, however ignorant, that gave the helpless company the power to recognize and accept common-sense guidance when it was given.

The bearing of all this on the theory and practice of prayer need scarcely be developed. Some men expect an angel from heaven to appear when they have asked for guidance, and if they are helped out of perplexity by the sensible advice of some friend whom they have not attended to before, they fail to recognize God's messenger because they see no wings. The twenty-seventh of Acts will be not the least practical chapter in the Bible, if it teaches us that God answers prayer for light in difficult places by simply bracing our faculties to their highest pitch, and by giving that confidence and coolness of head which must always accompany a heart that abides in the shadow of the Most High.

39

THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT.

THE PRELIMINARIES OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY.

I. THE POSSIBILITY OF RELIGIOUS DOGMA.

BY REV. W. S. SWAYNE, M.A.

BEFORE the study of dogmatic theology, in however elementary a form, is approached, it is necessary to deal with the question whether religious dogma be, after all, possible. It can hardly be questioned that at the present day, while there is among the few a genuine and growing desire that the matter of their faith should be presented to them in a clear, precise, and intelligible form, there is among the many a very real impatience and dislike of dogmatic statements. Here, as ever, may be noticed that conflict and opposition between the spirit of the Church and the spirit of the world, which is inevitable from the very nature of the case, and will continue to the end of time. Nor is this spirit only to be found in the members of those religious bodies which make it their boast that they have dispensed with dogmatic statements, and are free from the trammels of Creeds; it is a general and characteristic feature of the religious speculation of our time. Within the Anglican Church, no less than in the ranks of Nonconformity, there are to be found those who will admit that the Christian life is the highest and purest which has ever been proposed to the world for its imitation, but who, when brought to a point, are not willing to express their unqualified belief in such statements as those, for example, of the Athanasian Creed. There are others who are willing to regard the Christian faith as a beautiful poem, enshrining, somehow and somewhere, truths which are worthy of the consideration of rational men, but who could not honestly admit that they believed the statements of the Creeds to be literally true. The popular prejudice against dogmatic statement is shown by that most trustworthy indication-the ordinary usage of language. To call a man a dogmatist is unquestionably, in the minds of the many, to imply, if not to express, disapproval and reproach.

Now, what is this dogmatic statement, this dogmatic theology, of which the world so generally disapproves? Dogmatic theology is the science of God, of His characteristics and attributes, and of the relations between God and man. A dogma is a religious statement thrown into a clear and precise form. "There is but one God" is a religious dogma. To declare that God will certainly punish the wicked and impenitent, or that man is or possesses an immortal spirit, is to put forward statements which are properly dogmatic. To assert the simplest article of religious faith is to be so far a dogmatist.

If the objection to dogmatic statements be probed and analyzed, it is generally found to spring from the conviction that dogma fetters

thought. Thought should be free-free to inquire, to examine, to progress. But dogma, it is asserted, is the negation of inquiry, of examination, of intellectual progress. It is an utterance of irrational authority, warning the human mind off fields of inquiry where it might legitimately find scope for the exercise of its powers. But what, after all, is the object of intellectual inquiry? It is certainly truth. The mind of man does not exercise itself in examination and inquiry for the sake of the process, but for the sake of the result. Man is studious of truth. And the truth does not fetter-it liberates. "The truth shall make you free." Such a statement is axiomatic. It is acquiesced in as soon as stated. It is ever so; truth liberates, enlarges, stimulates. It is, and always has been, error that paralyzes and fetters. If, then, dogma be true, it cannot fetter thought. It will form rather a basis, a firm standing-ground, for future inquiry. The axioms or propositions of science and geometry do not fetter thought. They form the secure platform from which the mind reaches out to secure new conquests.

It is, then, absurd to object to dogmatic statements because they are dogmatic-that is, precise and defined. If they are to be deprecated at all, it must be on the ground that they are not true. If they are true, then, in the interests of the progress and liberty of the human mind, the more clearly defined they are, the better.

But, as a matter of fact, it will generally be found that the man who objects to dogmatic statements does so not so much in the interests of the dignity and liberty of the human mind, as because, either confessedly or unconsciously, he is doubtful of their truth. He who believes heartily that there is but one Supreme Personal Creator and Governor of the universe, has no objections to confessing, "I believe in one God." To this statement, no doubt, many of the opponents of dogmatic theology would assent. They would, however, urge-This is precisely the difficulty. No one would object to dogmatic statements if we could be sure of their truth. No one objects to stating that twice two makes four, though that very statement denies that you are free to assert that twice two makes five, or any other number except four. But no man can be sure of the statements of dogmatic theology. We do object to the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Sacraments, just because they are uncertain. Something, no doubt, may be said for them; they may or they may not be true, but they are not necessary truths like the axioms of geometry, or ascertained facts like many of the truths of science. They are statements with regard to subjects which are confessedly mysterious and beyond the power of the human mind fully to grasp and understand. Such doctrines must necessarily be subject to revision as the powers and scope of the human mind become more ample.

In this argument, two very sweeping statements are really implied. It is implied, first of all, that God has given no clear revelation of 1 Cf. Liddon's University Sermons, 1st series, p. 183.

Himself to man; and secondly, that, from the very nature of the case, man can know nothing of God-at least, nothing that is precise and definite.

It would be generally admitted that if God has granted to man a revelation, then dogmatic theology is not only possible, but necessary. A revelation which is incapable of being stated in an intelligible form is a contradiction in terms. If God has granted a revelation, it must be such as the human mind can deal with and embrace. On certain subjects it may be silent; on many points it may give us far less information than we could wish; but on those subjects on which it does speak, if it is to be a revelation at all, its statements must be sufficiently clear to be thrown into logical and definite form. Thus it will be generally found that opponents of dogmatic theology are bound finally to confess that they do not admit a revelation in any other sense than that revelation which is continually growing and shaping itself through the consciousness of mankind.

The question whether, as a matter of fact, God has revealed Himself to man or not-whether by sign, or miracle, or the special inspiration of chosen men, or, as Christians hold, by the coming in the flesh of the Second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity-is a question of evidence. It will be generally granted that if Jesus of Nazareth did rise from the dead the third day, and did ascend into heaven in the presence and sight of His disciples, then it would be futile to deny that God has given a revelation of Himself of most tremendous import. Similarly, if Moses did lead the children of Israel through the Red Sea, if the plagues of Egypt took place substantially as narrated, if the record of the journeyings of the children of Israel in the wilderness be historical and veracious, it would be an excess of scepticism to deny that Moses was chosen and inspired by God to make known His will in a special measure to his nation.

The question of fact falls within the sphere of Christian evidences. It is sufficient now to point out that it is a question of evidence whether a revelation has been given, and that, granted a revelation, the possibility and the necessity of a dogmatic theology can hardly be denied.

But there remains the still more sweeping statement to be dealt with, that from the very nature of the case man can know nothing of God; that the statements of theology deal with a subject which is indeed interesting, but so entirely outside and beyond the powers of the human mind, that it is presumption in a very marked degree for any man to presume to be certain on any theological question. This is the position of the religious agnostic. An attitude of reverent doubt is that which, he holds, best befits the human mind.

The Christian faith must, however, be judged as a whole. It is altogether beside the mark to take the unbeliever's idea of God and the unbeliever's idea of man, and to argue that any communication from

such a God to such a man is unlikely or impossible. The argument would probably be sound enough, but it would not touch the Christian position. If God be mere Force, or merely a First Cause, and be so conceived of; if man's destiny be limited by this life; if he be only a superior animal ;-then, no doubt, it is true that any precise knowledge of such a God by such a man is impossible, unless it be held that the law of gravitation or of the conservation of energy must be pressed into the class of theological statements.

The Christian faith, however, begins by asserting that God is not mere Force, mere Power, but that He is a living, loving Personal Being; that He is, in His inmost nature, Love; and that all His other attributes are the attributes of Love. He is an All-holy Love, an All-wise Love, an Almighty Love. The Christian faith asserts, further, that God called man into being, compelled by no external necessity, to satisfy no felt need, but simply out of His abounding love and condescension, that He might impart the gift of conscious personal life and free-will to other beings. Again, it is a fundamental Christian doctrine that man is made in God's image, after His likeness; that there is in man something theomorphic; and that man can therefore know God because there is something in man's nature akin to God.

Obviously, between such beings, infinitely far removed from one another though they be, as the Christian faith supposes the Most High God, and man His creature to be, there will be, not only the possibility, but even the necessity, of communication.1 The Divine Love will utter a word to man, and it will be man's highest happiness, his chiefest good fortune, to receive and embrace such a word.2

All this, however, it might be said, rests on pure assertion; it is not supported by argument or evidence. To begin by asserting that God is of such and such a nature, and that He has made man in such and such a way and for a certain end, and then on this basis of mere assertion to raise a complicated structure of dogmatic theology, is surely to build on the most sandy and insecure of foundations. But the Church is not really guilty of so great a piece of simplicity. There remains, of course, the question which conception of God-that inculcated by the Church, or that vaguely held by the world-best corresponds with the observed facts of life and being, and, above all, best responds to the imperious soulhunger of man's inner being. If man by experience finds that the fundamental doctrines of the Church with regard to the Divine Being satisfy the needs of his own nature, and give him a sense of satisfaction, of

1 Cf. Ewald, Revelation, its Nature and Record, p. 27, "The whole question respecting the necessity and truth of revelation resolves itself, in the last issue, into a question concerning the existence and truth of God Himself. He who does not acknowledge God in His full verity and His distinctness from man, cannot believe in a Divine revelation."

2 Ewald, ibid., p. 3, "To perceive a clear voice from Him, a direction for the life, is the purest happiness and good fortune."