ART. III.-ON THE USE AND ABUSE OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

A SYSTEM of theology is a methodical disposition of scriptural doctrines, with due connexion and arrangement, so far as they are susceptible of a scientific form. Such a work may contain either a simple enunciation of truths under appropriate topics, or the body of proof by which these are sustained. But within the latitude of our definition are comprised, not only the volumes of professed theologians, but even confessions, catechisms, and other symbolical books of churches.

The origin of systems is to be sought in the laws of the human mind. The Scriptures present us with divine truth, not in logical or scientific order, but dispersed irregularly under the various forms of history, precepts, promises, threatenings, exhortations, and prophecies. It is scarcely left to the option of the reader whether he will classify these truths in his own mind; for this classification begins and is pursued, spontaneously, with regard to all departments of human knowledge. Every man, whose reasoning faculty rises above that of the idiot, is conscious of an attempt to refer each successive acquisition of knowledge to its proper place in the general fund of his recollections, and to connect it with its like among that which is already known.

It is very evident that the order of truths as they are presented in the Scripture is not intended to be the only order in which they shall be entertained in the mind. If this were the case, all meditation would be useless, since this exercise does not reveal new doctrines, but, by giving rise to comparison of those already known, in various connexions, discovers the relations and dependencies of all. The illustration of Lord Bacon is well known: the water of life as contained in the fountain of the Scriptures, is thence drawn and set before us, very much in the same manner as natural water is taken from wells. For when the latter is drawn, it is either first received into a reservoir, whence, by divers pipes it may conveniently be conducted abroad for general use; or it is at once poured into vessels for immediate service. The former methodical way, adds this philosopher, gives origin to systems of theology, by

which scriptural doctrine is collected in scientific form, and thence distributed, by the conduits of axioms and propositions, to every part.

*

No primitive Christian could have answered the question, What is Christianity? without proceeding to systematize its truths in a greater or less degree: and every reader of the Holy Scriptures undesignedly pursues the same method. For instance, the various attributes of God are revealed in Scripture, not in theological order, nor consecutively, but in various places, by means of scattered examples, sometimes figuratively, sometimes by implication, and never all at once. Now it is manifestly desirable that every man should have a connected idea of the perfections of Jehovah; and the reader of the Bible will necessarily lay together the various representations, and thus conclude that God is spiritual, eternal, infinite, immutable, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, most true, most holy, most wise, and most good. This aggregation of truths is, in fact, a system, and it is precisely thus that systematic theology has its origin. No man can converse with a Scottish mechanic, who happens to be a good textuary, without discerning that he has his heads and topics to which he refers all his scriptural knowledge, and that the doctrines which he believes are reduced to a classification more or less exact. deed, each of us may bring the matter to a speedy test by looking within and inquiring whether such an arrangement of our religious tenets is not constantly going forward, with the gradual increase of our settled opinions. This will be clear or obscure, logical or confused, according to the correctness and extent of our knowledge, and the sagacity and vigour of our intellect. It may be vitiated by the addition of that which is extraneous, or by false expositions of Scripture; but such a syllabus of divine truth is possessed, in memory, if not in writing, by every Christian, whether wise or simple.

In

The association of ideas affords a natural ground for classification; though by no means the sole ground. Mere similarity of particulars may serve as a basis for technical arrangement, as in the Linnæan system of botany, but this is scarcely a philosophical method. The more any department of knowledge partakes of the character of a pure science, the greater is its susceptibility of being systematized; and this is eminently the character of divine truth. There was a time, indeed,

* De Augm. Scient. lib. lx. c. i. § 3.

when the question was mooted, whether theology is a science, but that time has gone by, and with it should have vanished the occasion of the present argument.

There is danger, however, that we shall be charged with disrespect to the understanding of our readers, in offering serious proof of a position so tenable, and which, but for party zeal, would never have been controverted. For what are all theological discussions, but so many systems? Every didactic sermon is a systematized chapter of the great book of revelation. Every essay or discourse upon any scriptural truth is an attempt to arrange, under certain topics, and with conclusive arguments, the scattered testimony of inspiration in favour of that truth. The only effect of banishing professed systems would therefore be, to repress all endeavours to present the subject as a harmonious whole, and to leave us in possession of schemes characterized by undigested crudity. The logical and systematic arrangement of a science has It affords aid to the memory; since various important uses. a thousand insulated and disjointed truths can scarcely be kept in remembrance, while, in their regular connexion and mutual dependency, they may be tenaciously retained, and clearly communicated. The knowledge of a subject may be said to be adequate, only when it is thus known. The heterogeneous mass is clarified and reduced to order, by being ranged under topics according to the inherent differences of the several species, and set off into departments, with reference to the distinction of elementary, secondary, and inferential positions. Thus, in the study of natural history, although the classification of the received systems is in a measure arbitrary, (that is, independent of the philosophical connexion of cause and effects) those things which are homogeneous are placed together, and the mind is enabled to comprehend what would otherwise be "a mighty maze, and all without a plan." In the progress of study, as knowledge is augmented, it is highly advantageous to have a predisposed scheme, to some niche of which every new acquisition may immediately be referred, as to its proper place in the system. This is true, even when the scheme is framed in a merely technical and arbitrary manner. Such was the classification of minerals, as practised before the late discoveries in crystallography; and such the science of chemistry continues to be in many of its departments. But the advantage is immensely greater, when, as is true of theology, the subject admits of a natural, exact, and philosophical dispo

sition. It is only under such a form of arrangement that we can be in the highest degree made sensible of the admirable and divine harmony of all religious truth, which necessarily escapes us in the examination of detached and dissociated fragments. The system, however brief or imperfect, affords a convenient test of propositions which might otherwise pass unsuspected, and a guide in applying the analogy of faith to interpretation.

But it is as affording a special facility for communicating instruction to others, that we wish to be considered as recommending the systematic arrangement of theology. The history of catechetical instruction, in every age, furnishes a commentary upon this remark. In applying ourselves to the study of any science, we have our choice between two discrepant methods. By the one, we make a commencement, indifferently, with any separate fact or proposition, without reference to its place in the general scheme; and travelling onward from this point, through the whole, we attempt to acquire the knowledge of all the parts; traversing in succession departments the most remote and unconnected. As if, for example, one should attempt to acquire the science of astronomy, by commencing with observations on the ring of Saturn, thence passing to the milky way, or the moon's libration, and then assailing the obliquity of the ecliptic. By the other method, we commence with simple, acknowledged, and fundamental principles, proceed to the demonstration of elementary propositions, and thence by regular deduction to the ramifications of the subject. The latter is the systematic method, and cause is yet to be shown why it should not hold good in theology, as well as in other sciences. The history of the Church, shows us that from the earliest ages it has been deemed advisable to abstract the truths of revelation in a systematic form, for the convenience of instructers and pupils, for the aid of memory, and for the purpose of displaying the completeness and coherence of the entire plan of scriptural knowledge. In certain periods, it is true, flagrant abuses have been connected with these methods, especially during the reign of the Peripatetic philosophy; yet there has been an entire unity of opinion as to the general expediency of the plan. It may not be inappropriate here to advert to some of the predominant schools of systematic theology.

Omitting any particular notice of the patristical systems,

we shall name a few of those writers who contributed to the mass of doctrinal theology before the Reformation. There are those who trace the origin of the scholastic divinity to as high an epoch as the monophysitic controversy in the fifth and sixth centuries; yet it is more usual to consider John Scotus Erigena, a theologian of the ninth century as the founder of this method. It was, however, the Platonic philosophy, by which he endeavoured to elucidate divine truth. He signalized himself as an antagonist of the predestinarians, in the court of Charles the Bold. The Schoolmen, or Scholastics are supposed to have been so called from their training in the theological schools of Charlemagne. This training was little else than regular instruction in the Latin version of Aristotle, the writings of Boethius and Porphyry, and the Peripapatetic dialectics. Three periods are noted by Buhle: the first ends with Roscellinus (A. D. 1089), or the contest between 'the Realists and Nominalists; the second with Albertus Magnus (ob. 1280), at which time the metaphysics of Aristotle were generally known and expounded; the third extends to the revival of letters in the fifteenth century.* The renowned Englishman Alexander de Hales, holds an eminent rank among the ancient scholastics, as is commonly cited as Doctor Irrefragabilis: until the time of Aquinas, his commentary on Lombard was a universal text-book. Thomas Aquinas, Doc tor Angelicus, and a saint of the calendar, was the pupil of Albertus Magnus, and so close an adherent of Aristotle that he left fifty-two commentaries upon the works of the latter. It is unnecessary to advert to the estimation in which he has ever been held by the Romanists; although it has been satisfactorily shown by Protestants that this truly great man, diverged in a multitude of instances from the doctrines of the Catholic faith, as they are now defined.† Next in eminence was his great competitor, John Duns Scotus, whose dialectic acumen was proverbial, and who is denominated Doctor Subtilis. From this rivalry of sects, arose the familiar distinctions of Thomists and Scotists. During the third period, flourished the celebrated Durand, called, on account of his independent boldness, Doctor Resolutissimus. This remarkable man was bishop of Meaux, and died about the year 1333. He went out from

Brockhaus Real-Worterb. vol. ix. p. 835. Buddei Isagoge, p. 326. Hornii hist. Phil. 1. vi. cii. p. 297.

DORSCHAEUS. Aquinas Confessor Veritatis.