Информация за книгата
Моята библиотека
Книги в Google Play
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGES
INTRODUCTION
Definition of Doctrinal Theology, 1.
Distinction of Doctrinal from Dogmatic Theology, 1-5: Meaning
of dogma, 1-2; of a Creed, and of a Confession, 2; dogma
not necessary for religious societies, 2-3; definitions of Dog-
matics, 3-4; objection to Dogmatics, 4; inevitable pre-
judgments, 5.
Agreement of method with that in other branches of study, 5.
Aim of the work, 6.
1-6
PART I
SOURCES OF DOCTRINE
CHAPTER I
DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT
The primary question relates to sources and method, 7. Pro-
testant, Roman, and Greek view, 7. A preliminary question
relates to the human mind, 7-8.
7-8
I.
CHAPTER II
THE HUMAN MIND
The Rights and Limitations of the Intellect
The rights of the intellect not destroyed by an infallible dog-
matic revelation, 9-12 for (1) The infallibility can be
established only by reason, and (2) The evidence depends
partly on the contents of the revelation, 10. Examples, 10–11.
But there may be doctrines beyond the range of our faculties,
II. Statement of principles, 11-12.
9-81
9-14
2.
Limitations of the rational and critical powers, 12-14: two
kinds of temperament, and of theological questions, 12-13.
Inalienable rights of the intellect, 13. Danger of one-sided
intellectualism, 13-14.
The Moral Nature and Revelation
Connexion of the moral nature with theology, 14-15.
Revelation and Ethics, 15-19: (1) There might be authoritative
rules before the knowledge of higher motives, 15-16. (2)
There might be rules relating to a single motive, 17-18.
(3) Higher motives might be made known, 18-19.
But Christian Ethics not to be included in Dogmatics, 19-20.
3. The Religious Element
Questions relating to it, 20.
(a) The existence of the Religious Element, 20-32: Proposition,
20-21. Sense in which Religion is used, 21; Definitions
to be avoided, 21-23. The evidence-1. Our consciousness,
23-24. 2. Universality, 24-31. Objections to the argument
(a) religion may be an invention, 25-26; (b) it may be due to
traditional beliefs, 26-27. Answers (1) that only can be
developed which exists in germ, 27; (2) our judgment of
religious motives, 27-28; (3) not probable that accidental
transmission could secure universality, 28-29; (4) when
religion has been discarded, it has always revived, 29;
distinction from religious prejudices, 29-30. (c) Religious
knowledge may be derived from other knowledge, 30; but
religion includes emotion, 30-31. 3. Special phenomena
in the manifestation of religion, 31-32.
(b) The Religious Element points to an Object or Objects
answering to it, 32-37: Nature of the inquiry, 32. Religious
feelings exist only in relation to an object, and tend to
create a belief in the existence of the object, 33. Objections:
emotions lead to delusions; but delusions are temporary,
34-35; the thing to be proved is assumed; but there must
be an ultimate assumption, 35–36. The conclusion confirmed
by the whole analogy of our nature, 36-37.
(c) Testimony of the Religious Element to doctrines, 37-45:
Proposition stated, 37. The satisfaction of an inward want
an evidence of truth, 37-38; for (1) it follows from what
has been said about the Religious Element; and (2) the
proposition is supported by the facts of consciousness, 38-41.
Objections (1) beliefs maintaining themselves in this way
may be mere prejudices, 41; but (a) they are more persistent,
(b) they tend to recur, (c) they are felt to have a divine claim
12-14
14-20
20-81
upon us, (d) they are often opposed to our prejudices, 41-43; 41-81
(2) many such beliefs have been mere errors, 43; but these
errors may be partially true (instance, the idea of sacrifice),
43-44; (3) We have the same tendency to believe what
satisfies a prejudice; this undoubtedly shows liability to
error and need of care, 44-45.
(d) Nature of the Religious Element, 45-51: to be learned by
an examination of facts, 45-47. It includes feeling, knowing,
and doing, 47-49. Resulting classification of the kinds of
religion, 49-51.
(e) Catholic self-knowledge, 51-61: two modes of regarding
the capacity of the religious nature, 51-54: recognition of
spiritual truth, 51-53; discovery and construction, 53-54.
Source of knowledge, our own consciousness, 54-55; difficulty
arising from this, 55-56; self-knowledge must be catholic,
56-57. Lines of tendency described, 57–61.
(f) Sources of error, 61-74: (1) incapacity for intellectual
formulation, 61-62; (2) failures in the religious consciousness,
(a) want of proper balance in its contents, 62-64; (b) absence
of some of its constituents, 64-65; (c) reliance on a prejudice
or idiosyncrasy, 65-66, nevertheless an idiosyncrasy may
anticipate the universal, 66-68. Hence spiritual discernment
has various degrees, and is susceptible of cultivation and
growth, 68-74. Examples: belief in the existence of God,
68-69; in his attributes, 69-70; knowledge of the human
soul 70-71; recognition of spiritual relations, 71-73. Two
resulting facts, 73-74.
(g) Confirmatory facts, 74-78: (1) diversity of theological belief,
74-75; (2) men have a power of seeing the truth of a doctrine
which they could not have discovered, 75-76; (3) dependence
on authority, 76; (4) revolts against authority, 76-77; (5)
men cling to a creed after they have ceased to believe in it
literally, 77.
(h) Revelation, 78-81: (1) might be given of truths which the
human mind normally could not have discovered, 78-79;
(2) might be given of truths which the mind normally reaches
only by a tedious process, 79; (3) might be given of the
spirit which is the ground of doctrinal truth, 79-81.
CHAPTER III
THE BIBLE
Traditional view, 82-89: Catholic dogma, 82-83; doctrine of
the Church of England, 83-84; doctrine of the Westminster
82-97
Confession, 84. Source of ecclesiastical dogma, 84-87. Early 84-97
Protestant definitions, 87-88. Change in modern times, 88-89.
The Bible not infallible, 89-93: Infallibility not justly inferred
from religious experience, 89-90. A statement in the Bible
itself could not prove it, 90; but no such statement to be
found, 90-91. The onus probandi does not rest on those who
deny infallibility, 91. Evidence of fallibility, 91-92. Magni-
tude of the change of view, 92-93.
Importance of the Bible in the construction of doctrine, 93-97 :
Man needs religious help, and the Bible supplies this by its
appeal to the religious nature, 93-95; other religious books
have a similar effect, but the Bible has a unique position, 95.
Its highest value consists in making known the mind of Christ,
95-97. It is a primary source of doctrine, 97.
CHAPTER IV
THE CHURCH
Greek and Roman reliance on tradition, 98. Dogma of papal
infallibility, 98-101 Statement of the dogma, 98-99. View
of tradition on which it rests, 100-101. Defect in the evidence
(1) Jesus did not make a dogmatic revelation, 101; (2) there
are different types of thought in the New Testament, 101-102;
(3) not proved by Matthew xvi. 18, 19; (4) nothing said about
transmission to Peter's successors; (5) nothing said about
Rome, 102. Objections to the dogma (1) the leading dogmas
of the Church are absent from Christ's teaching, 103-104;
(2) the history of doctrine shows uncertain growth, 104–105 ;
(3) Catholics themselves have erred, 105.
The views of Protestants, 105-107.
The value of dogmas, 107-108. Natural and supernatural
authority, 108-109.
Educative influence of the Church, 109.
PART II
DOCTRINE OF GOD
PRIMARY CONCEPTIONS OF GOD
Philosophical arguments assumed, and attention confined to
religious aspects of the subject, 110-111.
The reality of God implied by the religious nature, III.
98-109
110-118
God must be regarded as personal, 111-115: some phases of III-118
religion satisfied without personality, 112; but others have
no meaning apart from personality, 112-113; plea that he is
suprapersonal, 113-114; plea of agnosticism, 114; but he is
not a person, 114-115.
God is incomprehensible, 115–116.
Unity of God, 117-118.
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
General aspects of the subject; usually thought to be beyond
the range of our faculties, though recently said to be alone
satisfactory to reason, 119-121.
Starting-point of the doctrine, 121-122.
Statement of the dogma, 122-127.
Arguments in connexion with the dogma, 127-159.
The Biblical argument, 127-136:—
(1) Passages where God, Christ, and the Spirit are mentioned
together, 127-129. (2) Passages where God and Christ
are mentioned together, 129-132. (3) General adverse
considerations, 132-136: (a) The doctrine had no name
for one hundred and fifty years after the death of Christ,
133-134; (b) It is nowhere stated in the Bible, 134; (c) Its
characteristic propositions are nowhere laid down, 134-135;
(d) Several passages are apparently inconsistent with it, 135;
(e) Many scholars are satisfied that the doctrine is not in
the Bible, 135-136. Conclusion, 136.
II. Arguments based on history, 136-144 :-
Two possible explanations of the slow formation of dogma:
(1) No pronouncement was required till the doctrine was
challenged, 136-137; (2) germs of thought may have un-
folded themselves as fresh problems arose, 137-138. Con-
siderations which favour the latter hypothesis, 138-142:
Catholics admit the imperfection of early statements, 138;
there is an advance in the complexity of successive creeds,
138-139; particular testimonies of early writers, 139-142.
The evidence seems to show that the doctrine was no part
of primitive Christianity, but was gradually formed through
the exercise of thought, 142–144.
III. Philosophical Arguments, 144-156:—
(1) It is said that those who deny the dogma represent God
as an abstract and solitary unit, 144-145. (2) God must
119-162