صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

INTRODUCTION.

1. Of religion and theology; and the difference between them.

I. OF RELIGION.

The ob

(a) Religion, understood subjectively and in the widest sense, is commonly defined, reverence for God or piety to him. jection which Stäudlin and some other modern writers have urged against this definition, is not important enough to require us to abandon it. We say of one who performs what he acknowledges to be agreeable to the will of God, that he reverences God or is pious (colere deum, cultus dei). Thus Kant defines religion to be, the acknowledgement of our duties as divine commands. It is clear that two things are essential to piety to God, viz. (1) The knowledge of God, as to his nature, attributes, etc; of his relation to men and ⚫ his disposition towards them; and also of his will. (2) Affections and conduct correspondent with this knowledge; or, the application. of this knowledge. The science of religion, then, is that science which comprises every thing relative to the knowledge and reverence of God. The human understanding is employed about the former, which is called the theoretic part of religion (γνώσις, πίστις, τὸ OTEVεIV). The human will is employed about the latter, which is called the practical part of religion (za čoya, tò noiïv). These two parts must coexist. One is equally essential with the other. They are therefore always connected in the discourses of Christ and the writings of the apostles. Vid. John 13: 17. Tit. 1: 1. James 1: 22-27. Vid. Morus, p. 2, biblica nomina religionis, qóßos dεov,

[ocr errors]

The correctness of this knowledge of God is very important in regard to our conduct. The human mind is compelled to conceive

[ocr errors]

of God as the great ideal of moral perfection; and consequently, to make him the pattern for imitation. False notions, therefore, respecting his nature, attributes, and commands, are in the highest degree injurious to morality.

But religion is often used in a more limited sense, denoting either the theoretic, or the practical part merely. And in either of these respects a man is called religious. Religion is a name which is also very frequently given to the external rites of divine service. And thus a man who lives devoutly, frequents public worship, and observes the ordinances, is called a religious man. But this is a perversion of the word, which has bad consequences. Vid. Morus, § 2,

not. extra.

Thus far we have considered religion subjectively, i. e. in respect to those who possess it. But

(b) The word religion is often used objectively, to designate the whole sum of doctrines respecting God and his will. But since the notions of men respecting God, and accordingly their piety to him, are very different; religion frequently signifies, in common language, the manner in which God is regarded, according to these preconceived opinions. Thus we speak of the Christian, heathen, and Mahommedan religion; i. e. the manner in which God is regarded according to the ideas of Christians, heathen, and Mahommedans. We also speak of changing, professing, denying, embracing, renouncing one's religion; using religion in the same

sense.

Note. The Latin word religio is derived from the old word religere, and from the derivative religens, synonymous with diligens, careful, strict. Cic. De Nat. Deor. II. 28, and Gell. Noct. Att. IV. 9. It signifies, literally, strictness, punctual care, conscientiousness. Those who exhibited zeal and earnestness in the service of God, as the most important concern, were, therefore, called, zar ižoziv, religiosi; and their conduct was called religio (the name of the Deity being frequently annexed) dei, or erga deum. The word religio, however, and especially the plural religiones, was most commonly used in reference to external worship, rites and ceremonies. Vid. Jerusalem, Betrachtungen über die Wahrheiten der Religion, Th. I. Vid. especially, die achte Betrachtung.

II. OF THEOLOGY.

Theology is properly, λόγος περὶ θεοῦ (like ἀστρολογία); and this is either narratio de deo, or doctrina de deo. The most ancient heathen Greeks used it in the first sense. Those who wrote the history of the gods, their works (e. g. cosmogony) and exploits;

[blocks in formation]

in short, the mythologists, were called cóλoyo. Pherecydes of Scyros, who wrote a work entitled coloɣia, was the first who was so called. Homer and Hesiod, too, were theologians, in this sense. Moses is said by Philo Deoλoyev, when he gives the history of the creation. The fathers of the church use the same word, sometimes in reference to the doctrine concerning God, as a part of all religion; and, sometimes, in reference to the doctrine of the divine nature of Christ, in opposition to oixovouía, the doctine of his human nature. Whence the phrase, θεολογεῖν Χριστόν oι πνεῦμα ἅγιον, i. e. to acknowledge Christ or the Holy Spirit as God. Vid. Suicer, Thes. Eccles. in verb.

But in the twelfth century, Peter Abelard began to employ this word to denote, particularly, learned and scientific instruction in religion. He wrote a system which he called theologia; in which respect he was followed by most of the schoolmen. This use was preserved by most of the succeeding theologians. In the seventeenth century, many in the Protestant church varied from it, and gave the name theologia to any knowledge respecting God and divine things, using the word in its etymological sense. So Musæus, Baier, and others. But in later times, Mosheim, Semler, and others, have endeavoured to revive the ancient use of the schoolmen. Accordingly, when theology is taken in abstracto, as synonymous with divinity, we understand by it, learned or scientific instruction respecting God, subtilior modus discendi doctrinam de deo. Morus, p. 11.

In general, therefore, theology is the knowledge of God carried to the highest degree of perfection in respect to correctness, clearness, and evidence of which it is susceptible in this world. And a theologian or divine is one, who not only understands himself the doctrines of religion, but is able thoroughly to explain, prove, and defend them, and teach them to others.

There is nothing in itself objectionable, in using theology and divinity (Gottesgelehrsamkeit) as synonymous. But, as Morus observes, p. 11, § 1, it is inconvenient, to say the least, to oppose theology to religion, and to understand by the latter, as many modern writers do, a knowledge of God which is not learned and scientific. Theology is employed about religion, and has the truths of religion for its object. Theology then should not be opposed to religion; but theological instruction and the theological knowledge of religion, to the popular or catechetical instruction and knowledge of religion.

The latter is suited to men at large; the former, only to the learned or those wishing to become so.

What we call divinity, was frequently called by the fathers, voois, who accordingly called divines, prootizoi. Morus, p. 11, n. 2. Divinity is also called theologia scholastica, because it is designed for the school, or for learned instruction; also, theologia ac· roamatica or academica, in opposition to popularis and catechetica, religious instruction suited to the comprehension of common people. In the latter, the language of the school and of the science must be avoided; but it cannot be, in the former, without the sacrifice of thoroughness and distinctness. The terminology of this science and the mode of treating it, has always been influenced by the prevailing character of the age, and the current philosophy. Vid. § 9. In the present state of the church, a systematic knowledge of religion is indispensable even to the popular teacher. Morus, p. 12, § 2, and Præf. ad Mori Epit. especially p. XIV. sq. He needs it, as an educated man, for the establishment and confirmation of his own faith, and for the instruction of others. He should only be careful to avoid the systematic or scientific tone in the instruction of the common people and of the young, and to speak in an intelligible, catechetical, and popular manner. The various abuses of the scientific language of theology do not disprove its utility, or decide against its proper use. Vid. Steinbart, Gründe für die gänzliche Abschaffung der Schulsprache in der Theologie, 1776, 8vo; and the answer, Brackmann, Apologie der theologischen Systemsprache, Braunschweig, 1778, 8vo.

Theological or scientific religion, consists, as well as popular religion, of two principal parts, viz. (1) The theoretic part, or theoretic theology (Glaubenslehre); because it proposes dogmas, coonuara, theses, propositiones de religione, which are discovered and established by reflection and investigation. Vid. Morus, Præf. p. V. sq. It is also called theologia dogmatica (Dogmatik). For the explanation of this term, let it be observed that doyua has various significations: viz. a resolve, decree, determination, ordinance; then, in the philosophic sense, (a) an opinion which we have respecting any doctrine or principle, Coloss. 2:14; (b) the principle or doctrine (doctrina) itself. Hence Pliny expresses it by placitum, and Cicero, by decretum; as, decreta philosophorum, Acad. II. 9. Many of the old fathers, as Origen, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, employed doyua in this sense, viz. to designate not merely an opin

2. OF RELIGION AS THE MEANS, etc.

29

ion respecting certain principles and theoretic doctrines; but these principles and doctrines themselves. Used in the former sense, theologia dogmatica is properly, theologia historica, a relation or exhibition of the opinions of theologians respecting particular doctrines. So, for the most part, it was used in the Romish church. Thus we have Petavii opus de DOGMATIBUS theologorum, i. e. concerning the opinions of the fathers, etc. In this sense too, it was commonly employed by Protestants until the commencement of the eighteenth century. Employed in the latter sense, theologia dogmatica is the same as theoretic, in opposition to practical or moral theology. In the same way, Seneca, Ep. 95, and others of the ancient Stoics, divided philosophy into theoretic (dogmatica) and practical (parænetica). This name of the theoretic part of theology was introduced into the Protestant church principally by Pfaff and Buddeus, who, in 1721-23, published their manuals under the title, Theologia dogmatica et moralis. Vid. Stange, Symmicta, I. 156. (2) The practical part, morals, ethics. This was formerly always united, even in scientific instruction, with the theoretic part of religion. So it was in Melancthon (Loc. Theol.), in Chemnitz, and in all the systems of the sixteenth century. These two connected sciences were called theologia thetica, and the doctrines contained in them, theses; in opposition to theologia antithetica* or polemica (critical theology). Calixtus of Helmstadt, in the seventeenth century, was the first who undertook to separate doctrinal from moral theology, in scientific instruction. Since his time, this division has

remained.

Cf. Morus, Epitome Theologiæ Christianæ, pp. 1-3. §§ 1—4.

2. Of religion, as the means of the moral improvement and perfection of men.

1. It is an established point that men can become morally better than they actually are. Each individual must acknowledge, that he himself can become morally better than he actually is. He thus

* Refutation (Antithetik) is called in the Scriptures exos, 2 Tim. 3: 16. Tit. 1: 9. Hence the phrase theologia elenctica, iżɛyzτızń (Elenktik), which. Turretin uses. Friedmann Bechmann, a theologian of Jena, in the seventeenth century, first used the phrase, theologia polemica, and wrote a book under that title. Stange, ubi supra, p. 161.

« السابقةمتابعة »