Obrazy na stronie
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]






In the phrase History of Dogmas, the two ideas Dogma and History should be carefully distinguished.

The word Dogma dóyua, according to its etymology signifies an opinion, a notion. That this is its meaning appears from an expression in the Cratylus of Plato, τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων dóyuara: so also, the Sceptic Sextus Empiricus in his Hypotyposes distinguishes the different meanings of the word, and says that it denotes an assent to that which is not perfectly clear to the mind. He contrasts the σκεπτικοί, the ἀπορητικοί and especially the ἐμπειρικοὶ among medical practitioners who make experience their sole guide, with the doyuarixol who proceed on certain fixed principles. In the New Testament the word never occurs in the sense of a Christian doctrine, but only in that of a Statute or Decree. Thus δόγμα τοῦ Καίσαρος Luke ii. 1. Acts xvii. 7. τῶν άooróλav Acts xvi. 4. It is true that Eusebius of Cæsarea and others understand the words in the Epistle to the Ephesians, νόμος ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν (compare Coloss. ii. 14) as relating to doctrine, but incorrectly.

The different meaning of the word in all other passages is a presumption against such an interpretation. Moreover, it is no New Testament idea, least of all a Pauline one, that Christ effected the abrogation of the Law by his doctrine; for

* Th. Kliefoth, Einleitung in die Dogmengeschichte. Parchim, 1839. -Niedner, das Recht der Dogmen, s. dess. Zeitscht. f. histor. Theolog. 1851. 4.

Christ's efficiency is attributed in the New Testament not to his teaching, but to his doing and his suffering. This passage is therefore not against us; doyuara is here equivalent to statutes, commandments, that is, of the Mosaic Law, and is of cognate signification to vroλaí. The Apostles were conscious that they imparted not subjective human knowledge but the contents of a Divine Revelation, and therefore made use not of diyua, but λóyos, to designate Christian doctrine. This distinction has been pointed out by Marcellus of Ancyra, in a sentence preserved to us in a work written against him by Eusebius of Casarea; τὸ τοῦ δόγματος ὄνομα ἀνθρωπίνης ἔχει τι βουλῆς τε καὶ γνώμης (“ The term dogma has in it something of human purpose and opinion"). There were two standpoints by which the distinction was not recognised; namely, that of a harsh supranaturalism and the one diametrically opposed to it, a rationalism which could find in the New Testament nothing but what was purely human. On the former standpoint, the phrase dóyuara Jela was used at an early period by the Fathers of the Church for λόγος θεῖος. They confounded the peculiarly human apprehension of divine truth with divine truth as it is in itself, so that each person recognised that truth only in the form that suited his own individuality. Rightly understood, the word doyua is peculiarly fitted to mark the human side in the development of divine truth.

History is a thing purely human. No sooner does human culture begin to germinate, than we behold attempts at historical composition. Its office is to impart unity to the consciousness of Mankind when it has been divided by Time. It originates in the effort to connect the Present and the Past, and in the conviction that the vicissitudes of Time are a revelation of what is eternal and divine. Everything lies within its province which, though in itself unchangeable and exalted above Time, can be presented in the succession of events everything which, although divine, can be propagated and developed by human agency. But such development can only be rendered intelligible by tracing the connexion of one age with another, and the conjunction of each individual phenomenon with all the rest. Such is the office of History. It forms the connecting link between two worlds, the changeable and the unchangeable; hence it has a strict relation to practical life, inasmuch as we belong to a higher order of



things, and yet in our development are subject to the vicissitudes of time. It is the highest aim of mankind to advance from the human to the divine, and to this the function of History corresponds, leading us to recognise the revelation of a higher government of the world.

To use the words of Diodorus Siculus, the Historian is the Prophet of Divine Providence (góvora).

But does that hold good of Christianity which may be affirmed of every other idea that developes itself among men, that it can be understood only by studying the connexion of one age to another in relation to it?

Attempts have been made to trace the origin of Christianity to a mixture of the spiritual or mental tendencies that belonged to the age in which it appeared. But an enlarged unprejudiced contemplation of History will show that it cannot be explained either by any single tendency or by any combination of tendencies. The announcement of Redemption to a race burdened with sin constitutes the essence of Christianity, and consequently points to a fact which could not proceed from History, but must be of higher origin. The very idea of Redemption indicates this, and not less so the life of Christ which cannot be understood in the same way as that of any other man; but as he is to be conceived of only as the Redeemer of Humanity, so his life must be viewed as a new creation in Humanity. But though we are thus led to contemplate Christianity as something supernatural, yet, on the other hand, its appearance in the world stands in connexion with human development, and its connexion with every other development must be so much more intimate because it is the final aim of all development, and to be understood requires to be viewed in that light. The Apostle in saying that "God sent forth His Son when the fulness of time came," Gal. iv. 4 (rò rλńgwμa Toũ Xgávov), indicates that all ages were made to cooperate for the appearance of Christianity. Although it entered into the world as a higher element of transformation, yet it was not designed to be propagated solely by miracles, but was subjected to the same laws of development as all other things, and is distinguished from them only by the spirit with which it developes itself according to these laws.

If we now inquire into the relation of Dogma to Christianity, it is evident that Dogma does not form an original part

« PoprzedniaDalej »