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

Systems of Theology.
tion. 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 ob served in the sacred volume, but with reference to some truth
or truths attempted to be established. No one can fail to per ceive 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 objection, 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
181