THEOLOGICAL CABINET.

SCHOOLS OF THEOLOGY.

Rev. E. Dodge's address at the New Hampton Anniversary.

The address before the Theological Lyceum was delivered by Rev. E. Dodge, of New Hampton. His theme was-A Historical Sketch of the Schools of Theology.

The address, which was delivered without any aid from manuscript, was characterized by the free and natural style of extemporaneous efforts; while a frequent sententiousness, comprehensiveness, and precision, showed that the speaker had not spared labour in securing fulness and distinctness of conception. The following analysis presents but a meagre outline.

I. The Schools of the Christian Fathers.-Theology did not begin to assume a form to develope itself as a science as a system, till it was forced to defend itself against the attacks of heretics and infidels. The Greek speculated, the Roman acted; hence the Roman civilization has exerted a controlling influence on law, morals, and manners; while the Grecian civilization has had to do with philosophy, science, and art. In this period, therefore, which extends down to the establishment of the Papacy, we must look to the East for the schools of theology.

1. The School at Alexandria.-Here the Grecian and the Oriental spirit met. The school grew out of the attacks of philosophers on Christianity. It sought to meet them on their own ground. A grand defect, however, was that the teachers were themselves too strongly influenced by the prevalent philosophy.

The most able and celebrated teacher of this school was Origen. He was in the East what Augustine was in the West. In genius, culture, learning, and taste, the great Oriental teacher excelled the Roman ; but Augustine

was superior in depth of thought and feeling. This school followed tradition as well as Scripture; and in interthod, assigning a three-fold meaning pretation adopted the allegorical meto Scripture-a literal, a moral, and a mystical one.

2. The School at Antioch in Syria. -This flourished in the fourth century, a little later than the Alexandrian.-Its greatest teacher was Theodore, of Mopsuestia. It differed from the Alexandrian school in three points 1. It held to the Scriptures alone as the source of doctrine; the Alexandrian to Scripture and Gnostic tradition. 2. It manifested a logical, the Alexandrian a speculative tendency. 3. It followed the grammatical method in interpretation, the Alexandrian, the allegorical. The influence of the Alexandrian, however, prevailed. This influence was salutary so far as freedom of thought, opposition to crude notions of the Deity, and general culture were concerned; but many were the corruptions and errors which grew out of intermingling Christianity with philosophy.

II. The Schools of the Monks.Monasticism is founded on the ascetic element in human nature. In the West the monk was not simply a recluse, but often, also, a teacher and preacher. The convents had connected with them schools for the nobility and clergy. Their motto was Obedience, Abstinence, and Diligence. England and Ireland furnished the best specimens of these schools from the sixth to the ninth century. Twelve hundred monks were slain in one of the battles between the Saxons and the ancient Britons,-so says the venerable Bede.

The monks spent their time either in devotion, or manual labour, or in copying the Scriptures and the classics, or in writing the lives of saints, &c. By an exchange of manuscripts they collected large and valuable libraries. The schools were the grand re

positories of learning for ages. The defects in the instruction were, that it was ascetic and did not embrace a theological system. The earliest schools in Ireland followed the Scriptures to a great extent. These schools were missionary in their character, and from time to time sent forth to savage nations little colonies which formed similar schools. Many of the monks were truly pious as well as learned.

III. The Schools of the Scholastics. -The introduction of Aristotle's philosophy gave a new impulse to mind. John of Damascus was the first who applied the scholastic philosophy to theology. He wrote the first complete theological system. He lived at the close of the eighth century. The University of Paris was the great centre of the scholastic theology; and hither students flocked from almost every country in Europe. Among the theological students we find at one time twenty cardinals and fifty bishops. Here lectured Abelard, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, and Duns Scotus. Lom

bard's Book of Sentences' was the chief text book for centuries throughout Europe. The characteristic of the book was that it settled every disputed question by sentences collected from the fathers, especially from Augustine.

The scholastics were men of great capacity. They pushed their investigations to the farthest limits. On the nature of Deity, and on the mystery of the Trinity, they show an unsurpassed depth. Theology became a science under them. The freedom which they allowed themselves promoted intellectual freedom, and thus tended to overthrow the Roman faith One great defect, however, was that they loved to think more than to know, and yet they helped to prepare the way for the great epoch in modern history the Reformation.

IV. The Schools of the Reformers. -The reformers built their system on the simple facts and truths of the gospel. The most important school of this period was that at Geneva. Calvin was the theologian of his agehe has had equals only in Paul and Jonathan Edwards. Theology was taught by lectures. Each student every Sabbath composed his thesis'

in Latin which was read and criticised. In the afternoon of the same day one read a sermon in French, or Latin, which was criticised by the others. The only great defect in this school was a faulty interpretation, which led them to support their views by many irrelavent proof-texts.

V. The Schools of the nineteenth Century. The speaker here confined his attention to the German schools, notices of which may be found in the Biblical Repository, Bibliotheca Sacra, and Christian Review. These are characterized by freedom of thought, and among the evangelical party and a portion of the rationalists, by a correct interpretation. But a large portion of the rationalists avow an independence of revelation.

This system of the rationalists, the speaker showed to be irrational, for, 1. It assumes the impossibility of anything supernatural. But this is neither an axiom, nor can it be proved. 2. It fails to account for Christianity on the supposition of its human origin.

No man could originate it,-since there is in it nothing partial-localpeculiar to one age, or to one set of opinions.

It is not an eclectic system. None of the philosophers furnish the requi

site materials.

3. It fails to account for the effects of Christianity on the supposition of its human origin.

The speaker closed with two practical remarks, suggested by the subject,-first, the utility of Christian schools of theology,-second, the necessity of following neither Plato nor Aristotle, but the one Master-Christ.

PREDESTINATION.

From Dr. Burns' 'Doctrinal Conversations.'

Inquirer. What are we to understand by the doctrine of Predestination?

Minister. It is the determination of God's mind in reference to things to come.

In. Does God then infallibly know all future events?

Min. Unquestionably; or he would not be an infinitely perfect Being-or able to govern the world.

In. But can nothing counteract or prevent what God has foreknown and predetermined ?

Min. No; for God's knowledge being unerring, he cannot possibly be

mistaken.

In. But has God predestinated every thing that comes to pass ?

Min. No; for then God would have been the Author of sin, or moral evil. As the Father of light there can be no darkness in him, nor can moral evil possibly proceed from him.

Nay, more; if God had predestinated what we call sin, it would be no longer sin-seeing that it would be the result of God's purposes, and therefore agreeable to his own mind and will; while we invariably understand sin to be utterly opposed to God's mind, and rebellion against his will.

In. How then could sin exist, if God did not predestinate it?

Min. God resolved to permit its entrance into the universe. And thus he acted in harmony with another department of his work, in creating angels and men, responsible creatures -able to stand or capable of falling.

In. Then is there a real distinction between God's foreknowledge and predestination ?

Min. Certainly for foreknowledge does not involve the idea of influence being exerted; but simply facts being perceived and apprehended.

In. Has God predestinated or foredetermined in reference to man's final destiny; so as necessarily to include the final condition of all that will be lost, and of all that will be saved?

Min. He has; but God's predestination has invariably reference to the moral character and state of men. He has predestinated that all obstinate impenitent sinners shall perish. That all repentant and believing sinners shall be saved.

In. But is not predestination with God absolute ?

Min. It is as absolute and irrevocable, as his immutable throne and holy laws. So much so, that no incorrigible sinner will ever be saved, and no contrite believer will ever be lost.

In. But this view of predestination seems to be mixed up with conditions and contingencies.

Min. So it is; and thus it differs from foreknowledge. For thus-when God placed our first parents in Eden, their state was one of conditions and

contingency. So it was also after the fall. So also God declares in reference to Cain and Abel; Gen iv. 7. So through the whole of the Scriptures in reference to every dispensation and people. As to contingency, there is none in reference to God himself, as he knows all things, and infallibly discerns the course that all men will pursue.

In. Then have we no instance in Scripture where God has predestinated men to eternal life, irrespective of character ?

Min. Not one. Such an instance would be contrary to God's holy nature. A violation of his holy government. And would shake the confidence of all holy beings as to the moral rectitude of the divine character. God essentially hates iniquity, and as essentially loves righteousness. He must therefore punish the one, and reward the other.

In. But does not the apostle speak of some persons being predestinated?

Min. He does. In writing to the Romans, chapter viii, and verse 29. And you will observe he there states, that they were predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son.' That is, to be holy persons. And he further states, that such predestinated persons were foreknown. For whom he did foreknow them he also did predestinate.' Thus putting his foreknowledge before his predestination. God, foreknowing their repentance and faith, determined or fore-appointed them to a holy resemblance to their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Such is the predestination of God's wordwhich is alike in harmony with the equity and goodness of God, and the free agency and responsibility of man.

In. Have you any other reasons in favour of that view of predestination ?

Min. Yes, for it accords with God's solemn declaration, that as he liveth, he takes no pleasure in the death of a sinner. But if he had predestinated all events, and had not acted on the ground of the foreknowledge of character; then it must be manifest, that either God had changed, or that the declaration I have referred to in the Scriptures, was not true. If sinners do perish, and God has no pleasure in it-then surely he did not foreappoint and predetermine it. But if God re

*

solved that the impenitent should perish, and predestinated that only-then the sinner's ruin is his own act, and it remains a truth honourable alike to God's equity and truth, that he has no delight therein.

Moreover, predestination as it is generally taught, is but another name for necessity; and cannot be effectually separated from the doctrine of fatalism, in which all human responsibility and agency are entirely destroyed.

In. But are you not thus reasoning because you are unable to understand it, or reconcile it with human reason; while you admit most truths on the ground that God has declared them, and not because human reason can perceive their fitness or propriety?

Min. Predestination, as we have explained it, is easily understood. Is in perfect harmony with the justice of God. Obviously commends itself to our minds as reasonable and accountable beings. And is supported by all the weight of Scriptural authority. The other view, that God has absolutely predetermined men's destiny, and yet the asseveration that he has no pleasure in the death of the ungodly, is indeed not so much a profound mystery, as a most palpable contradiction ; and therefore in the very nature of things must be untrue. But we shall perceive the truth of this doctrine more and more, as we contemplate the other subjects before us. In. I confess that what you have stated as to the Divine foreknowledge, being distinct from predestination; and also that in Scripture it precedes it, has opened quite a new moral scene before me. I begin to think, that one of the difficulties which I viously deemed insuperable, is almost, if not entirely, removed.

pre

Min. I rejoice to hear it, and have no doubt if you will humbly hearken to the Divine oracles, that you will happily perceive that the Divine word is never inconsistent with sound reason, and much less can it ever be opposed to man's responsibility.

FAMILY CIRCLE.

AN INCIDENT, WITH A MORAL.

A MINISTER of the gospel, in one of our Northern cities, some years ago,

He

became deeply impressed with a desire for increased usefulness. He thought much upon the most probable means for the accomplishment of this object. The ordinary opportunities of access to his people, by pulpit ministration and customary pastoral visitings, did not satisfy his soul. longed to lead his flock directly to Christ to witness a greater degree of spirituality among them. At length, he resolved to visit every family, and, as far as practicable, to ascertain the spiritual condition of each of its members, by personal conversation upon religious experience. At an appointed time, he entered upon his labours of love. He called on one and another of the families of his people-had every household gathered-and with much affectionate concern, spoke to them of the necessity of living each day for God and for eternity. His own soul was comforted, and he felt that his labours were not in vain in the Lord.

A day or two after he had commenced this heavenly employment, he called at the house of one of his most pious and influential members-a man of wealth. The father was absent at his place of business, but the mother, an amiable and pious woman, was at home. On making known to the latter his desire that she should summon her family to the parlor, and acquainting her with his design to speak personally to them-to admonish, exhort, or encourage, as they might needthe mother thanked him with tears of gratitude, but said:

sir.'

'I have one request to make of you,

'What is that ?' said the minister.

It is, that you will say nothing to my eldest daughter, Mary, on the subject of religion. I have prayed for that child for years. I have talked to her again and again. But her heart is set upon vanity. Fashion and the world are predominant in her affections. She has become, of late, exceedingly sensitive to reproof or admonition. Respectful in every other relation, she will not permit me to speak to her on religious subjects, without returning a violence of language entirely unbecoming a daughter.

I have determined, therefore, to refrain from any direct appeal to her,

until she shall give evidence of greater docility. You will please, therefore, say nothing to Mary, whatever you may say to the others. I should be very sorry to have your feelings injured, as well as my own, by the manner in which I am but too confident, she would respond. May God bless your admonition to the rest.'

In a few moments the family were gathered in the presence of the minister. Mary sat among them. She had entered with a respectful courtesy, and taken her position at a window looking upon the street, apparently more interested in what was going on without, than attentive to the conversation within. The minister spoke first to the mother, of her responsibilities and duties; then to a son, a youth of intellect and promise; then to a younger daughter, and so on, until he had administered his kind and fatherly instruction to all. I mean all except Mary. To her he said nothing.-He seemed to be unconscious of her pre

sence.

As the tears of tenderness flowed freely from all who participated in the delightful interview, Mary sat at the window playing idly with the tasselling at the silken curtains, her proud spirit refusing the first intimations of sympathetic feeling. The brightness of her eye was undimmed by any gathering tear; the loftiness of her carriage was not for a moment relaxed by the affecting scene before her; and when the minister said, 'Let us pray!' she arose not from her seat to bow with the rest, but remained still in her position of scornful unconcern, her delicate fingers toying with the silken fringes of the drapery before her. The minister poured out his soul in a fervent prayer to the throne of grace. Oh! how earnestly committed he that family to the guardianship of Heaven, referring to them in his supplication individually, and appropriately presenting them to the mercy of the Father through the merit of the Son. But he offered no prayer for Mary. Unconcernedly and proudly, she still played with the silken toys. The prayer ceased-the good man arose. Taking each by the hand, he affectionately gave a parting admonition and invocation; and bowing coldly to Mary, who as coldly returned his civility, he left the room, VOL. 11.-N.S.

D

and made his way to the entrance of the building.

He had scarcely passed the threshhold when the words of the Redeemer, 'I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,' flashed upon his mind. Suddenly pausing, he said to himself, Shall I refuse exertion for any soul to save which my Master came down from Heaven? NayGod being my helper, I will return!'

Again he stood in the parlour. The family sat just as he had left them, musing upon the things he had spoken. Mary was, to all appearance, still cold and unmoved.

With a courage imparted by the Holy Spirit, he walked to where she sat, and taking her hand in his, said, 'It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. Shall he save you ?'

The rock was smitten! The waters

gushed forth freely, and fully! Mary, proud and scornful as she seemed to be, needed only the word of invitation to bow, and weep, and pray. Then was heard the bitter cry of God be merciful to me, a sinner!' Angels hovered over that little assembly, and ere the descending sun gave place to the gathering twilight, the shout of conversion ascended to the throne, and there was joy in heaven over the sinner that had repented.

It has been years since the above was related to us; and we do not know that it has ever been in print before Its moral-which is twofold-is borne upon its very face. Mothers may learn from it never to despair, and ministers may learn from it never to falter.American Methodist Protestant.

INJUDICIOUS EDUCATION. (From the Power of the Soul over the Body considered in Relation to Health and

Morals, by George Moore, M. D.) THE government of fear and force is the plan of every imaginable hell, where each evil begets a greater, and terror and hatred ever torment each other. If then, we would know how to manage a little child, let us imagine how Jesus would have treated it. Would he not have engaged its happiest feelings and affections, won its heart, and blessed it? While sitting on his knee, would not