quoque canone dignum."* In the Reformed Church, we need not remind the reader of the compendious works of Zwingle and the Institutes of Calvin. The latter work has passed through innumerable editions, and has appeared in the Latin, French, Spanish, English, German, Dutch, Hungarian and Greek languages. In the Lutheran Church might be mentioned the leading names of Calixtus, Chemnitz, Striegel, Gerhard, Horneius, Henichius, Hulsemann, Calvius, and Koenig; in the Reformed Church, Beza, Bullinger, Musculus, Aretius, Heidegger, Turretine and Pictet. It would be unjust to the memory of the divines of Holland, who more than all others cultivated this field, to omit the names of Rivet, Maresius, Hoornbeeck, and the Spanheims, all of whom followed the philosophical school of Voet; and Burmann, Heidan, Wittichius, Braunius, Witsius, Leydecker and Hulsius, who pursued the system of the covenants, as marked out by Cocceius.

But time would fail us in following down the stream of systematic writers. This was the age of systems, and a lifetime would scarcely suffice to study those which it produced. Most of these last mentioned were free, to a remarkable degree, from the technical distinctions of the schools, and may be used with profit. It is at least desirable that every theologian should be acquainted with the history of religious opinion. We have fallen upon days in which works of this nature are little prized, and in which essays, pamphlets, and periodicals, are almost the only vehicles of theological discussion. Of this it is needless to complain, yet it is mortifying that so much unmerited contempt should be cast upon the learned labours of other days. There are few eminent scholars, it is true, who join in this cant; yet scarcely a week passes in which our attention is not drawn to some ignorant and captious disparagement of all productions of this kind. There are persons who never deign to mention systematic theology without a sneer, and whose purposes seem to demand that they should represent all books in this department as assuming a rivalship with the sacred Scriptures. We disavow the wish to attribute these sentiments and objections to any particular school, or to connect them with any doctrinal opinions held by our brethren; except so far as this, that they are usually avowed by those who contend for greater latitude in speculation, and who protest against any interference with their innovating projects. No very distinguished writer has presented himself as their advocate, and they are usually heard to proceed from youthful and hasty declaimers, yet the arguments even of these demand a refutation when they spread their contagion among the inexperienced; and we would gladly contribute towards a disentanglement of the question.

It would be an unwarrantable hardihood to deny that, among the volumes of past ages, there are systems which lie open to valid objections; but the faults of some are not to be attributed to the

*Luth. Op., ii., 241, Wittemb.

whole class. Thus, for instance, it is common to charge the whole of the continental theologians with the scholastic subtleties of the middle age. The systems of the schoolmen are, indeed, notoriously chargeable with dialectic refinements, and it is not strange that some of the same leaven should betray itself in the writings of the early reformers, just emerging as they were from the dreary night of barbarism. The objection lies against most of the Romish systems. Revelation is here confounded with philosophy; the Scriptures are perverted into accordance with traditions and the schools; and the questions which perpetually arise are, in a majority of instances, frivolous and ridiculous, or knotty and ostentatious. Such, however, are not the faults of our received works, and the only trait which they have in common with the former, is that they profess to communicate the doctrines of the faith, in regular connexion, with scientific order and method, and sometimes with the technical language of the then predominant philosophy. The terminology of the reformers and their immediate successors is a dialect of which no literary antiquary will consent to remain ignorant; it is a source of alarm to students who consult their ease, and even grave divines among us have been sadly disconcerted with the materialiter, formaliter, &c., of the seventeenth century. Yet the history of theological opinion can never be learned, in its sources, without some knowledge of this peculiar phraseology.

The plan or schedule according to which a system is arranged may be artificial, unnatural, arbitrary, or otherwise inconvenient. It is not every mind which can be satisfied with the method pursued by so many eminent divines, especially in Holland, in arranging the whole circle of truth with reference to the covenants. Others are as much displeased with a historical or chronological plan which has been attempted. Or the whole work may labour under a fault of an opposite character, namely, the want of method, and under the title of a system may be an unsystematized farrago. Yet in all such cases, though the objection is granted to be valid, yet the excellence of systems, as such, is no whit disparaged by the failure of special attempts; and indeed it is not upon these grounds that the exception is usually taken.

Again, the system may be objectionable, as being incautiously and hastily framed, upon insufficient testimony of the Scriptures. Every methodized body of theological doctrine may be considered as a general theory of the whole sphere of divine truth. As such, it should be deduced directly from the Scriptures, after a most careful survey and impartial comparison of all its doctrines. The work of the theologian here resembles that of the philosopher who reasons from natural phenomena. There is, indeed, this important difference, that the philosopher is mainly employed in observing the sequence of cause and effect, and in assigning all the changes in natural objects to their true causes, and to as few causes as possible; thus by induction arriving at general laws-whereas

the theologian is called to arrange isolated truths, already revealed in the form of propositions, and by reducing these to order, to discover the plan and harmony of religious science. In both cases, however, there is the same process to be observed; facts or propositions must be ascertained, generalized, placed in the same category with analogous truths, and reserved until new light enables us to refer them to more comprehensive laws or principles. Now, if in physical science it is so highly important that caution should be used in this process, so as to avoid leaping to a conclusion without a sufficient induction, how great should be the patience, self-distrust, and hesitancy of one who undertakes to pronounce upon the great mysteries of revelation. "The liberty of speculation which we possess in the domains of theory is not like that of the slave broke loose from his fetters, but rather like that of the freeman who has learned the lessons of self-restraint in the school of just subordination."* This is the dictate of sound philosophy in every investigation; it teaches us not to reject system, but to systematize wisely. It is the neglect of this rule which has given occasion to the scores of heresies with which the Church has been rent. Doctrines taken up from the superficial and apparent meaning of a few texts, have been made the foundation of theories which have possessed scarcely a trait of genuine Christianity. Yet even when a system is absolutely false, the objection prostrates only that particular scheme which is proved to be erroneous. And the question still remains open, how far systematic arrangement is conducive to the progress of sound theology.

The favourite argument of many is this: The Scriptures do not admit of being systematized. This cannot be more impressively stated than in the words of Cecil: "The Bible scorns to be treated scientifically. After all your accurate statements, it will leave you aground. The Bible does not come round and ask your opinion of its contents. It proposes to us a Constitution of Grace, which we are to receive, though we do not wholly comprehend it."† In this argument the premises are stated with sufficient clearness, but we confess ourselves unable to make the necessary deduction of the conclusion. This was the position of the Anabaptists and the Quakers. It may mean either that divine truth is in its own nature insusceptible of a regular scientific arrangement, or that it is impracticable for human minds so to arrange it. We contend that so long as it is granted that the propositions contained in Scripture are so many truths, that these are harmonious and accordant, and that some flow by necessary inference from others, it follows that the doctrines of revelation may be topically arranged, exhibited, and discussed. Some religious truths do, indeed, surpass our reason, but it is a mere sophism to argue that they are therefore thrown beyond the limits of any conceivable system; for this very cha

Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, §201.

† Remains, p. 118. Barclay's Apology, Orig. Thes. x., § 21. Van Mastricht., lib. 1, c. i., § 6.

racteristic may designate their place among ultimate propositions. If it is asserted that the imbecility of human minds is such that they cannot arrange and classify the whole of divine truths, inasmuch as these are absolutely intractable, and refuse to arrange themselves under any of our general topics, we reply that this would put an end to physical philosophy itself, for the same remark holds good in nature. There are exempt cases, extreme phenomena, which are as yet explicable by no laws of science, and which must remain beyond the range of all systems as elementary facts. Such are the attraction of gravitation and the principle of animated life. Still, there are a thousand truths which continue to be free from these difficulties, and which may be methodized with profit.

If it should be urged that the simple method in which God has been pleased to arrange truth in the Bible is the only proper method, and that this beautiful simplicity is vitiated by the artifice of systems, we reverently acknowledge that the order of divine revelation in the Scripture is the best conceivable for the immediate end proposed. Yet the nature of truth is not altered by a change in the arrangement of propositions; nor is its simplicity taken away by scientific disposition. Moreover, the argument destroys itself by proving too much. For, by parity of reason, all discourses and essays on theology, all sermons and exhortations of a religious kind, must equally violate this divinely prescribed order, since they cull and dispose the passages of Scripture, not in the method observed in the sacred volume, but with reference to some truth or truths attempted to be established. No one can fail to perceive the frivolity of an argument which would restrict all theology to the regular consecution of chapters and verses in the Bible.

It has been alleged, that the use of systems has had a tendency to restrict the belief of the theologian within certain prescribed limits, and thus to arm the mind against conviction from passages which, to an unsophisticated reader, would be clear and decisive; and that what is called the Analogy of Faith is a barrier against independent investigation. The application of any such analogy to the exposition of Scripture has been strenuously opposed in modern times. That the principle may be abused, is too evident to admit of denial. Yet, unless the interpreter pursues the course of neological commentators, utterly careless whether the sacred penmen contradicted themselves or not, this rule, or something tantamount, must be applied. It is the dictate of reason that—a revelation from God being admitted-all real contradictions are impossible. Hence, when a class of truths is satisfactorily deduced, all those which do not quadrate with these, in their obvious meaning, must be interpreted with such latitude as may bring them into unison with the whole. In all interpretation of works, sacred and profane, single passages must be understood in accordance with. the general tenor of the discourse. Indeed, so plainly is this a principle of hermeneutics, that we should never have heard the objec

tion, if certain unwelcome doctrinal positions had not been involved. There are truths which lie upon the very surface of the Scriptures, and are repeated in almost every page: these taken together give origin to the analogy or canon of faith. The force of reasoning from such an analogy must vary with the extent of the reader's scriptural knowledge, and the strength of his convictions. Every man, however, whether imbued or not with human systems, reasons in this manner. It is by the analogy of faith that we pronounce the literal interpretation untenable in all those cases which represent God as the author of moral evil, or which attribute to him human members and passions. So long, therefore, as God "cannot deny himself," we must resort to this very principle.

The simple inquiry appears then to be, whether the use of a judicious system opens the door for the abuse of the analogy of faith. It is contended that it necessarily does so by expanding this analogy so far as to make the whole of a certain theological system a canon of faith, which nothing is suffered to contravene. There are slavish minds in which this effect will doubtless be produced; but the result in such cases would be the same if, instead of a written system, the learner availed himself of the oral effusions of some idolized errorist. And in this whole controversy, let it be observed, the choice is at last between the dead and the living, between the tried systems of the ancients and the ill-compacted schemes of contemporaries. We forget the place which has been assigned to the theological system when we hold it responsible for excesses of this kind. It is by no means a rule of faith, else were it needless to refer to the Bible. It may be compared to the map of a country over which a geographer travels, and which affords convenient direction, while at the same time the traveller does not hold it to be perfect, but proceeds to amend it by actual survey. Without it he might lose his way, yet he is unwilling to give implicit faith to its representations.

There are many problems in analytic mathematics in which the unknown quantity is to be sought by successive approximations. In these cases it is necessary to assume some result as true, and to correct it by comparison with the data. Not unlike this is the process by which we arrive at certain conclusions in the other sciences, and in theology among the rest. If in the course of our investigation we are met by scriptural statements which positively contradict any position of the system which is assumed as approximating to the truth, the consequence will be a doubt, or an abandonment of the system itself. Precisely in this way every independent thinker knows that he has been affected by the difficulties of Scripture. The case would not be rendered more favourable if he had in his hand no system. As it is manifestly impossible for any one to come to the study of the Word of God without entertaining some general scheme of divine truth as substantially correct, we can see no reason why the student should not avail him