ARTICLE IV.-THE NEW THEOLOGY.

THE writer of this article is well aware that its very title is likely to arouse antagonistic feeling in many readers. Of those in whom the feeling of antagonism will, it is likely, be aroused, two classes are especially to be noted. To one class the noun employed in this phrase will be repugnant; for they have come to a condition of weariness and almost despair respecting all theologic inquiry. Among this class some, who are Christians and even teachers before the people of theologic opinion, have, because they suppose that superior advantages to the cause of Christianity lie in that direction, turned themselves deliberately and persistently away from the study of theology as a science. Others of this class have a cold and infidel contempt for the whole subject. So little chance for gathering any fruit seems to them connected with theologic research that they would gladly see all attempts at such research banished from the realm of human endeavor. From these latter, however, the following thoughts will obtain no reading whatever. To the second class belong those who, while they highly regard the noble science designated by the noun theology, find very objectionable the adjective which is here attached to the noun. Frankly to admit that we may strive for, hope for, and obtain a new theology, seems to them like a total surrender of the truths of Christianity. In the very term "the new theology" they detect neologic heresies.

The history of the Church shows us that there is always danger of a combination of the forces wielded by these two classes against the free, scientific and so salutary, unfolding of theology. Not infrequently has it even happened that the most openly infidel and the most stiffly orthodox have joined hands to repress the growth of the science of God and divine things. Theology is a plant which does not thrive best either under the frosts of neglect or the excessive coddling of too timorous cultivators. Like all the other sciences it thrives

best when it is ardently and boldly, but humbly and devoutly, cultivated.

The meaning and justification of our term, in the use here made of it, will best appear during the progress of the discussion. We wish only to secure a certain temporary deference to the real truth which the term suggests, until time is gained for impartial and fraternal examination. This granted by the reader, we will at once proceed to consider:

I. THE POSSIBILITY OF A NEW THEOLOGY.

That those who oppose the distinct and self-conscious effort to investigate with a view to establishing such changes as are needed in the science of theology, recognize this possibility, is shown by the opposition itself. This opposition is based upon the assumption that a more or less new, and for that very reason undesirable, theology is not only possible, but even highly probable. This objective possibility, which the signs of the times are, as some fear, fast erecting into a probability, is not, however, the consideration to which we wish to call attention. Such a possibility or probability will of course give either alarm or joy, according as the changes contemplated seem likely to turn out changes for the worse or for the better. The possibility of "breakers ahead" and the need of the warning voice of Cassandra will always attend human research, whether into theologic or other questions.

There is another sort of possibility which is quite too likely to be overlooked altogether or thrown into the background. This is that possibility, nay, that certainty, of new and great developments, which lies inherent in the very nature of theology, as well as in the nature of man, the investigator and recipient of theologic truth. Theology, however some of its elements may be considered as directly and divinely communicated, must always remain liable to change. It must be at times liable to such considerable changes as warrant the use of the adjective "new," though in that cautious and limited way in which alone we can speak of our apprehension of any system of truths as The make of theology and the make of theologians are such as to show this inherent possibility of great changes.

new.

For, let us consider that theology is a science with all the

characteristics which belong to the conception of a science. We are indeed always firmly to maintain for it the dignity which belongs to its true place as the most comprehensive and elevating of all the sciences; we are also to claim for its facts and laws the same undoubted force and integrity which belong to any facts and laws of the other sciences. At the same time we are forced, as the reverse of this position, to concede that theology is very incomplete and fragmentary in its knowledge of facts and laws, very uncertain and liable to change in its speculations and theories.

That there is a science of theology we need not stop long to argue. "Against the intolerable assumption of a certain school, who are continually talking in lofty terms of 'science,' but who actually speak of primary religious conceptions as 'unscientific,' it is always in place to protest with Mr. Mivart. It can scarcely be doubted that there is abundance of material, and has been these thousands of years, for forming a science of theology. There is no vaster array of indisputable facts upon any topic of human knowledge, than that which can be marshalled at the call of him who wishes to study God and divine things. Indeed all facts are parts of his material; for, they all have their divine side. There are facts of history to be studied; such as are brought forward by comparative theology, by the Bible considered simply as a historical product, in brief, by the entire records of what men have thought and done religiously in the past. There are the facts of sensuous observation; all of the very facts with which the scientists of the present are dealing, and which in no case fail to reveal something of significance regarding their origin and laws of relation. There are also the facts of consciousness, especially so far as they lie within the spheres which have been designated as the consciousness of the ought, the God-consciousness, the Christian consciousness. There is surely no lack of facts upon which to build a science of theology. Nor can there be any doubt that the human mind has so gathered, compared, classified and denominated these facts, so discovered their connection and causes, as to form them into a science, or at least into the beginnings of a science. To have enough correlated facts, and to apply the mind to discovering their correlation, are sure to

result in the founding of the science appropriate to the facts. The product of handling thus any set of facts is science.

There may be, no doubt, much strong contempt thrown upon. this claim which is set up for theology. It may be said: theology is inevitably rendered unscientific by the fact that the very existence of its subject of investigation is a vast assumption. God is the subject of research in theology. But the existence of God is not capable of scientific demonstration, nor his nature of scientific inspection and proof. But we may speak just as boldly of the enormous "assumption" which underlies all the sciences of matter, viz., that matter, the subject of investigation, exists; or of that other enormous and incredible assumption, which is, however, indispensable to the modern science of force, viz., that there is an all-pervading ether. And if any opponent of the claim of theology to be reckoned among the sciences goes forward to point out the disagreements of the theologians, their absurd and contradictory statements, the general incomprehensibility and unsatisfactoriness of the entire subject, we may confidently expect to meet him, thrust after thrust, by a parry which shall be at the same time a blow at his favorite science. Of all which fencing the inevitable conclusion will be the raising of a cloud of dust, and perhaps the infliction of a few skin wounds upon each of the contestants.

We believe that the skilled theologian may proceed to enunciate and prove the laws of his science, to unfold and illustrate the hidden connections of his material, as calmly and confidently, because as scientifically, as the student of any of the mixed sciences of matter. No doubt the theologians have often been inflammable enough to lead their opponents into the conclusion, that their cause was not a good one, and their alleged scientific knowledge either conjecture or fraud. Events, however, seem to indicate that we have only to give the advocates of other sciences as completely the upper hand as the theologians had it for several hundred years, in order to make them equally impatient of contradiction.

To say that theology rests upon vast assumptions, calling upon its devotees to begin by receiving that which they should rather end by proving, that it makes enormous and irregular

use of a certain unscientific faculty or process, called faithfaculty and believing, that it has few definitions and laws universally accepted-to say these things is by no means to disprove the claim of theology to a high rank among the sciences. The vastest and most important verities in all human science are postulates; the faculty of faith and the act of believing are indispensable to knowledge; and the circle of indisputable truth upon any subject is not large. Abuses of the necessity for postulates, of the faculty and process of faith, and of the obligation to adequate induction, are great and frequent in all the sciences. These abuses give a warning exhibition of the intellectual and moral risk which attaches itself to the growth of human knowledge. If the moral risk is greater in theology, it is not peculiar to theology. And there may be an advantage in recognizing the increased risk, and thus escaping in theology that rock upon which not a few scientists wreck themselves by immoral prosecution of their favorite science. We do not say that theologians have hitherto largely reaped this advantage; the advantage, however, lies closely connected with the risk.

Nor do we think that this just claim of theology to a place at the head of the sciences would have been so much disputed, had it not been put forth in connection with a false claim. Theology is the most comprehensive and lofty of the sciences. But theology has no just claim to exemption from any of the weaknesses which characterize the other sciences. If it is a science at all, it is a progressive science. If it can show any ascertained and systematized truths, it must also admit its pervad ing liability to error and constant need of readjustment. There are no completed sciences, no infallible systems of propositions. Every one of the sciences, by its very generic characteristics as science, is impelled to constant research, review of old opinions and alleged facts, re-examination of objections, restatement of law, retraction of error. Every one of the sciences is bound perpetually to renew its youth, and is also promised in the effort at renewal, constant growth, sometimes in the form of a general and uniform development, sometimes in great epochs of sudden unfolding. It is because we rejoice in the promise of an epoch for our science corresponding to that which many