SYSTEMATIC theology has had a wider range of marketable value, of late years, than most similar articles. Some have held that there can be no intelligent knowledge of scripture without it, while others have deemed it useless or worse, regarding it as a remnant of the scholastic habits of the dark ages. Within this nineteenth century to teach theology, otherwise than by system, was reckoned, in some quarters, impossible, and in others, to teach it systematically was publicly condemned. We rejoice to find that the study of systematic theology is reviving, but it is doubly important that the whole science should be prosecuted in an improved, teachable such laws as are embodied in the very nature of a divine revelation. There is nothing in the present aspect of European affairs that should lead to wavering from any opinions which a few months ago it was reasonable to entertain. They are on the point of settlement;-so they have been again and again. "We would have healed Babylon," may kings, emperors, and presidents say, "We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed." It is in accordance with the general plan of the infinitely wise Ruler to leave a de-spirit, and that it should be subject to gree of mystery around the immediate issue of his dispensations. It is not perhaps his intention that we should be able to ascertain with perfect certainty the precise line on the chart over which we are at the present moment passing; yet it is our duty to study it, to be wakeful, and to hold ourselves prepared for the sudden development of his purposes. Certainty would perhaps be inconsistent with that state of vigilance and submission which is most becoming, and most conducive to our welfare; yet probability it may be possible to attain by comparing the signs of the times with inspired intimations. Of this we may be sure, that it behoves us to hold ourselves in readiness both to labour and to suffer. To this frame of mind nothing will be more conducive than the well regulated study of prophecy. It is on the eve of the effusion of the seventh vial that the voice of the Master cries, "Behold I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments." System of Christian Doctrine. By Dr. Man's first business as an inquirer after truth is to interpret the bible, in its individual passages, and to ascertain their meaning. In such efforts he needs a knowledge of scripture language, of eastern customs, and generally of biblical archæology. Even without this knowledge, however, a good man will often gather from the bible a comprehensive and sound system; the tendency of the human mind to compare and generalize its knowledge is so strong, and the summaries of truth given in scripture are so clear and full.* But generally, the inquirer who repudiates system is less successful. He is either compelled to confine himself to scripture language, or is exposed to the risk of misrepresenting one doctrine in stating another, or more commonly still, he is tempted to overlook the due proportion and connexion of doctrines-an error the more seductive that it is founded on truth, every item of his creed being true, but having the effect of falsehood through distortion or unscriptural enlargement. Systematic See for example Tit. ii. 11-14, Eph. ii. 20, and the Epistle to the Romans. theology, so far as it is scriptural, helps us to avoid these mistakes. It supposes that the phraseology of scripture has been examined and explained. It begins its processes by classifying scripture statements under their forms-preceptive, promissory, doctrinal; or under their truths, or blending the two systems of classification under both. It ends by assigning to every truth and duty such a place, both as to its order and importance, as properly belongs to it. When every truth and duty has thus its proper place, each honouring the rest, and all appearing to full advantage, we have framed a true, a divine system. It is clear from this view that systematic theology differs from interpretation or exegesis. The one is concerned only with the meaning of individual passages, the other classifies those passages and considers them in their relation to one another and ourselves. It is equally clear that systematic theology differs from mere speculation. It may attempt to explain and harmonize apparent difficulties; but if the explanation be not revealed, it is conjecture only, and may be regarded as probable or doubtful according to its intrinsic merits. It is not the business at all events of theology systematically considered to pronounce upon it. It is true that this department of inquiry has been in every age the arena of metaphysical and religious discussion, and many have in consequence deserted it as unfruitful and exhausting. But this has been the fault of the theologian and not of the ology, and it must be corrected not by neglect but by more assiduous and devout cultivation. If men will but regard systematic theology as that arrangement of scripture truth and duty, in its close connexions and nice dependencies, which most nearly agrees with the view of it entertained by the Great Teacher, it will become honoured amongst us again, and even the inter pretation of scripture will come to be regarded but as a means to higher knowledge and a nobler end. The proper place of this science, in relation to biblical exegesis, may be illustrated by a reference to kindred investigations. In nature, the objects of creation are scattered in endless variety. There is really unity and order among them, but it is more or less concealed. A knowledge of those objects or of the facts connected with them is the science of natural history. A knowledge of the connexion of those facts and of their mutual relation, or of their laws as we phrase it, is natural philosophy. Now the texts of scripture form the materials of theology as the facts of nature do of philosophy. Interpretation ascertains the meaning of the first, as natural history ascertains the second. General comprehensive laws and a sound theological system are the respective results. Natural facts: the knowledge of them, or natural history and their connexion and relation, or natural philosophy, is the order in the first case. Scripture texts, the knowledge of their meaning or interpretation, and the connexion of those texts, or systematic theology, is the order in the second. The sacred scripture may be studied systematically for a double purpose; either to ascertain its doctrines or to determine its rules of morality and holiness. The system of doctrine thus framed is called dogmatic or doctrinal theology, and the system of duty moral or practical theology; both being most closely interwoven in scripture as they | are in human experience. So far all treatises on systematic theology agree. This distinction is uniformly acknowledged, and the two branches of inquiry are traced in their ramifications by all writers in this natural order. When they come to discuss the doc trines of scripture, there is, for the most part, the same agreement as to the order of investigation. They begin with the Godhead, and proceed chronologically through a history which commences with the original purposes of the Father, and terminates in the glory given at the consummation of all things to the Son, and in this order the student of nearly all our systems (including the various confessions and catechisms of Europe) must proceed. The whole process, however, is objectionable. It introduces the student first to the abstrusest doctrines of scripture. It attempts to place him at the top of the ladder and bids him descend. It gives him the air and feeling of possessing in himself the key to all knowledge instead of putting him in the attitude of childlike inquiry. It treats theology as a science of mathematical demonstration, whereas it is, above all others, one of investigation, revealing itself by partial disclosures and not always unveiling, even to the humblest, the connexions that exist between its clearest truths. A sounder and more scriptural system seeks to reverse this order or to modify it. The bible reveals truth historically, tells us in its earlier parts but little of the nature of God, and in its whole tenor suggests a more modest order of research. When it teaches on system, as in the Epistle to the Romans, it begins with man as guilty and fallen, points out the glorious provisions of the gospel to cancel our guilt, renew our hearts, and fit us for heaven-forgiving mercy, sanctifying grace—and as it proceeds in its discussion, touches but lightly on abstruser truth, and seeks rather to connect it with the cross and our salvation than to exhibit it in its own independent significance. And this is the order in which, we have long thought, theology should be studied; and though it may seem at first unim portant what order is taken, yet it is deserving of consideration whether the old systems may not have obscured the truth, discouraged exertion, and infected the minds of many with a presumptuous and a priori spirit of investigation. This suggestion is confirmed by the practice of one of the profoundest of the puritan theologians— John Howe, whose "Living Temple " begins by setting forth man as apostate from God, as restored by Emmanuel, and as made the temple of the Holy Spirit. Andrew Fuller seems to have had a similar conviction, and had resolved to frame a system of divinity that should begin with the cross as its centre and have other doctrines gathered round it; though it is questionable whether the fragment of a system which he prepared embodies this conviction with perfect accuracy. The whole spirit of that fragment is, however, a beautiful illustration of the true temper of a Christian inquirer. In the posthumous lectures of Dr. Chalmers, we find this order adopted throughout; and if the volumes had contained nothing more of value, the illustration they supply of what we deem the scriptural method of studying scripture would alone have made them worthy of an honoured place among modern contributions to theology. These remarks will prepare the reader for the opinion we form of the book placed at the head of this article. It belongs in the order of its arrangement to the first and large class of treatises indicated in the preceding paragraphs; though in some of the departments of inquiry, especially toward the close, the order is sounder. It begins with revelation, its evidence and rules of interpretation; it then discusses "the Good" (God and man as unfallen), "the Bad," or sin and its consequences, and lastly, "Salvation," in its nature, discipline, external manifestations, and results. Each section begins with what the writer deems the scriptural view of the point to be considered, and this is followed by remarks, either on particular passages, or on theological writers in relation to it. These views, however, are too often statements on the scripture doctrine or on parts of it, and not exhibitions of the doctrine itself. The author rather beautifies or unveils an angle of the thought than gives the whole thought itself—a serious defect, where completeness of view is essential. The English reader will find the style remarkably repulsive and obscure, often unintelligible. The translators think they have done justice to the matter of the original, and blame the author; but we are sure that they have not done justice to their mother-tongue. We are sadly disappointed, too, to find that the author knows nothing of English divines, a school pre-eminently adapted, by strong sense, largeness of view, and evangelical sentiment, to correct the literary and theological tendencies of the German mind. So far as we have seen, Whitby and Thomas Burnet are the only English writers quoted in a volume of more than four hundred pages, and neither of these writers represents even a class of English authors. A specimen or two of the writer's views will give a better idea of his work than any further description. § 146. JUSTIFICATION. "Upon this boundary line of condition man is delivered partly from the dominion of the guilt of sin, and partly from the power of sin itself. The former is justification and is, indeed, distinct from conversion and sanctification, as an act of judgment, yet at the same time is communicative (?) act, and as such is to be perceived in our peace of conscience, in the spirit of adoption, in intercessory prayer which we enjoy from this spirit, and is experienced also in our open access unto God, as well as in the consciousness of our being co-heirs with Christ, and participating in his glory, Rom. viii. 15-30. Hence divine justification is the perfect abolition of a penal state as a justification of life. . . . In a negative aspect it is the pardon of sin, in a positive one it is the adoption and appropriation of an eternal inheritance." § 192. BAPTISM. "As a pledge and seal that man may be reChrist our Lord, in conformity with natural ceived into the fellowship of the new life in prophetical symbolism (Ezekiel xxxvi. 25, Zech, xiii. 1), instituted baptism, which even by his express word, by the apostolical practice, and by other incidental allusions, is declared to be an external surety of regeneration by the Spirit. Grace does not require baptism in order to justify men, but man, as associated with the church on earth, needs the fellowship of Christian institutions." He thinks that it becomes the theo logian to "defend infant baptism, partly from the analogies of Mark x. 14, 1 Cor. vii. 14, and by the facts of nature and experience, and partly to concede its defectiveness and need of completion." As may be supposed, he finds it difficult to discover the "evangelical stand-point" which excludes "a magical or merely legal appropriation of salvation," and yet secures to an infant the "communications of Christ." He thinks the church "may have reason to believe," &c., and "may perceive no obstacle," &c. Here Dr. Nitzsch has "done no worse than others what no man can do well." On the whole, we deem the book a valuable contribution to theology; though it will prove of most service to the student, and especially to such as can give it a place among other volumes on the same themes. Essay on Christian Baptism. By BAPTIST W. NOEL, M.A. London: James Nisbet and Co. Foolscap 8vo., pp. viii., 321. THIS work having left the press just time enough to allow us to take a cursory view of it before the conclusion of our labours for the month, we hasten to any "During my ministry in the establishment, an indefinite fear of the conclusions at which I might arrive, led me to avoid the study of the question of baptism; but I felt obliged to examine honestly each passage of scripture upon the subject which came in my way, and the evidence thus obtained convinced me that repentance and faith ought to precede baptism, The reasons assigned by the Anglican catechism why an infant should be baptized without repentance and faith are very unsatisfactory. As soon, then, as I had settled my mind upon the union of the churches with the state, I turned my attention to this question. Aware how many are disposed to attribute opinion which contradicts their own to such a partial, one-sided investigation as they practise themselves, I determined to form my judgment entirely by the study of the scriptures, and of such authors as advocate the baptism of infants. To that determination I have adhered. And not having read a single baptist book or tract, I publish the following work as an independent testimony to the exclusive right of believers to Christian baptism. Undoubtedly I might have enriched its pages by an examination of the able and excellent authors who have written on the same side; and by the use of their reasonings and researches might have escaped some of the errors of detail into which it is possible that, in the discussion of a question so extensive and so complicated, I may have fallen but then I should have lessened its value as an independent testimony. Several of the works with which I have the misfortune to differ are written with ability and with calmness, especially those of Wardlaw and Leonard Woods, of Halley and Godwin. Nothing can be better than the spirit which pervades the volumes of Budd and Bickersteth: if I dissent from their conclusions, I gladly express my conviction of their honesty; and, while contending against one of the opinions of pious pædo-baptists, I earnestly hope that nothing may ever diminish the cordiality with which we may act together in promoting the cause of the Redeemer. "I assume in the following essay that the word baptism means immersion, and that to baptize is to immerse; the evidence of which fact I hope to adduce in a separate volume." pp. v-vii. In the introduction Mr. Noel assigns reasons for believing, that Christian baptism was instituted by our Lord, after his resurrection from the dead, as recorded in the twenty-eighth chapter of Matthew's gospel; that the command to the ministers of Christ to baptize is to baptize in water; and that it is the will of Christ that disciples or believers in him should be baptized in water in all successive generations. These preliminary points being disposed of he proceeds to show, in the first chapter, that baptism, as a profession of repentance, faith, and consecration to the Triune God, must be preceded by faith and by discipleship to Christ. The second chapter is devoted to the examination of New Testament baptisms and New Testament language respecting the nature and effects of baptism, the object being to prove "that no one who does not make a consistent profession of faith ought to be baptized." "Infant Baptism" is the title of the third chapter, and it begins with "General Considerations to show the Unlawfulness of Infant Baptism." Here we shall neither be just to the author, nor kind to the reader, unless we furnish a specimen. "Infant baptism differs essentially from the baptism of believers. The believer is active in his reception of baptism, but the infant is passive; the believer asks for it as a privilege, the infant receives it without its consent; the one by it professes his faith, the other professes nothing. The baptism of the believer and the baptism of the infant are, therefore, two different baptisms, with different significations and different consequences; and both, therefore, to be lawful, must have a separate warrant from the Lord. Since they are quite different institutions, the precept which enjoins the one rather by inference forbids the other. Since Christ has commanded a baptismal profession, |