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

Systems of Theology.
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. Thie 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,
174