On the Use and Abuse of Systematic Theology [pp. 171-190]

Systems of Theology.
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. Indeed, 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.
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 Linnaman 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 Augrm. Scient. lib. lx. c. i. ~ 3.
172