IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 V. 
 
 
 4is 
 
 
 :/ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 ill 1-8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 M.6 
 
 == — 1 s 
 
 
 ^ 6" 
 
 ► 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 ^?^ 
 
 / 
 
 '*> s>* 
 
 7 
 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. KS80 
 
 (716) 873-4S03 
 
 L17 
 
 V 
 
 iV 
 
 \\ 
 
 <h 
 
 V 
 
 
 o^ 
 
 '^^«^ 
 #' 
 
4^ 
 
 
 <> 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 Th 
 to 
 
 The institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagie 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gAographiquas en couleur 
 
 Coloured inic (I.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 D 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombra ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intirieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas AtA filmies. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplAmentaiies: 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t* possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mithode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquAs ci-dessous. 
 
 r~~| Coloured pages/ 
 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages -estauries et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 I — I Pages damaged/ 
 
 I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages dicoiortes, tachetdes ou piquies 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach6es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality in^gale de I'lmpression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comrrend du materiel suppl^mentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont M filmAes A nouveau de fa^on A 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 Th 
 po 
 of 
 filr 
 
 Or 
 be 
 thi 
 sic 
 oti 
 fifj 
 sic 
 or 
 
 Th 
 shi 
 TIf 
 w^ 
 
 Mt 
 dif 
 eni 
 bei 
 rig 
 rec 
 mc 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film* au tau < de reduction indiqut ci-dessous 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X 
 
 
ails 
 
 du 
 
 »difier 
 
 une 
 
 nage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the yenerosity of: 
 
 Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library 
 Acadia University 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the orig'nal copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 tut reproduit grdce A la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library 
 Acadia University 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commen^ant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole — ^>signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd d partir 
 de I'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 rata 
 o 
 
 >elure, 
 Id 
 
 3 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
V V 
 
 Systematic Theology, 
 
 IN ITS RELATIONS TO MODERN THOUGHT : 
 
 A •LECTURE, 
 
 r>ELIVEIl.Er> I3V ICINOX' COLLEGE 
 
 On the Sth October, 1870, 
 
 AT THE OPENING OF THE COLLEGE SESSION, 
 
 nv 
 
 THE REV. DAVID INGLIS, 
 
 HAMILTON, ONTARIO. 
 
 -••^ 
 
 1^^ 
 
 TORONTO : 
 ADAM, STEVENSON & CO., 
 
 Priii.isHHKS ANn Book Importfrs. 
 1870. 
 
 
 A 
 
 230 
 
' ^mp^ [ - i'ipifiiiinpiRi 
 
 i 
 
A 
 X313 
 
 Systematic Theology, 
 
 l,\ ITS Ri:i..\TI().\ To MDDIKX rHUL'GlIT 
 
 A LECTURE, 
 
 t>x:m\ r^ijKi> IN itivox^* college 
 
 On the 6th October, i870, 
 
 AT THE OPENING OF THE COLLEGE SESSION, 
 
 »Y 
 
 THE REV. DAVID INGLIS, 
 
 HMVULTON, ONTARIO. 
 
 ^•> 
 
 TORONTO ; 
 ADAM, STEVENSON & CO.. 
 
 Pl.'Bl.lSHEKS AND BooK ImTORTBRS 
 1870. 
 
 i 
 
This Lecture was delivered at the opening; of th.; \)vv^cnt 
 session, and is now published by request. 
 
 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 
 
 October iph, tS-jo. 
 
SYS'l I:MA riC THKOLOCiV: 
 
 A LECTURE. 
 
 nt 
 
 ("ii:n I i,i:Mi.\. Sri!M:Ni> oi-' Knox Coi.i.ia'.k, — 
 
 llic lilcniturc of our cla\' is (loDtlcd with all 
 kinds of a-^s. lulls against Christian doctrine. Not only in 
 books professedly thcoloi^ical or ph.ilosophical, but in the 
 li;4htcr works of poetry and fiction, we find continual protests 
 against the ide.i that Christianit\- contains anv bod\- or system 
 of positive truths -the belief of which is essential to the 
 Christian f.iith — the denial of which is a ne<^atioii of Chris- 
 tianity. DoL^nia is used as a term of reproach, as though it 
 were equivalent to dogmatism in the justly offensive sense in 
 which that word is popularly used. Dogmatism signifies that 
 disposition or habit of mind which overvalues the individual's 
 own powers, depreciates the opinions of others, and seeks 
 arrogantly to force assent to personal opinions as indisputably 
 true, by a groundless assumption of authority. Dogma is to 
 be understood not as meaning merely a doctrinal notion ; it 
 signifies a positive truth positively asserted, in opposition to 
 an opinion or speculation. In theology it signifies a revealed 
 truth^ — a statement w hich truly expresses the mind of God in 
 His Word. The claim to authority does not rest upon the 
 use of dogmatic words — upon the positiveness of the state- 
 ment, but upon the proof of the authority whence it is derived. 
 A statement may in its form be dogmatic, while devoid of 
 the authority out of which alone dogma can properly spring ; 
 but every doctrine having a divine authority must have a 
 dogmatic form. We claim therefore for the truths which are 
 declared and attested by the Word of God, and which are 
 capable of definite .statement, that they are positive and 
 authoritative, not as matters of individual opinion, but as re- 
 vealed truths bearing the stamp of Divine infallibility. 
 
 37^^ (, 
 
.SVS'ri;.\I.\l IC TIll.iJLoCV : 
 
 It is ai'L;"ucd that tlic systcniatizinj,^ of truth, whctlicr for in- 
 struction or defence, us well us its technical A>rnis, are neces- 
 sarily human and tlierefore cannot be authoritative. The 
 possibility of error in the process of systenuitizinj,^ or in the 
 form of statement, we Ljnint at once, but whatever is proved 
 to be a misconception or misstatement of the Divinely reveal- 
 ed truth ceases to be do^ma, tliat is authoritative, and we arc 
 bound at once to L;ive it up. More than tliis, we are not to 
 shrink from makini;' the examination, and if necessary making 
 it again and aj^ain, but the truths which (jod has revealed are 
 to be recei\ed as authoritative. 
 
 The questions between those who arrot^antly assume to be 
 the advanced thinkers of the nineteenth century, and those 
 who hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints, are not 
 such as affect merely the accuracy or inaccuracy of ♦^he sys- 
 tems or formulas of truth, but such as affect the existence or 
 certainty of the truths themselves, questions affecting not the 
 form but the substance. The disciples of this modern school 
 do not contend fcronc system of truth as against another, but 
 they deny the authority of all systems, of all positive religious 
 beliefs. Their theory carried fully out amounts to this, that 
 it does not matter what a man believes, there is no certain 
 belief — no one form of religious belief is more true than an- 
 other, therefore the nearest approach to truth is to reject all 
 dogma — to sweep away all authoritative religious teaching. 
 
 It would, however, be unjust to place all the opponents of 
 dogma in the same category, and an attempt to classify them 
 is important to a full and candid discussion of the question. 
 
 1st. There are those who repudiate the truths of God's word 
 from an intense aversion to the doctrines of grace — skeptics, 
 who would retain the name of Christians, while they reject 
 the inspired authority of the Hible. They profe.ssto accept the 
 pure and lofty morality of the Bible, so far as it comnnMids 
 it.self to their consciousness, but they contemptuously reject 
 the facts and doctrines of Christianity. 
 
 {a) Under this class we find a large number of men who. 
 through the lighter literature of our day, aspire to be the 
 leaders of public opinion — men of letters, who are for the most 
 part ignorant alike of theology and philosophy, and who yet 
 
A LF.CTl'RK. 
 
 5 
 
 her for in- 
 arc ncccs- 
 Live. Tlic 
 or in the 
 is proved 
 jly reveal - 
 md we are 
 ire not to 
 ly making 
 ;vealed are 
 
 unie to be 
 and those 
 its, are not 
 i)f the sys- 
 cistence or 
 in^ not tlie 
 lern school 
 nother, but 
 ve religious 
 ) this, that 
 
 no certain 
 e than an- 
 o reject all 
 teaching. 
 )ponents of 
 assify them 
 question. 
 God's word 
 2 — skeptics, 
 they reject 
 o accept the 
 
 comnicnds 
 ously reject 
 
 )f men who. 
 e to be the 
 for the most 
 nd who yet 
 
 f 
 
 in a flippant and supercilious tone deal with questions of the 
 most momentous interest. They persistently teach that if 
 men were freed from Scriptural creeds and dogmatic beliefs 
 they would become the subjects of higher impulses, which 
 woukl lead to purer forms of life. They misrepresent and cari- 
 cature those types of character which have been formed under 
 the influences of a genuine and earnest belief, and sneer com- 
 placently at the characters whom they portray as the repre- 
 senlali\ es of religious men and women. These Transcendent- 
 alists would put in the room of Christian doctrine a theory of 
 the perfectability of human nature, and its self-sufficiency in 
 all things. The true answer to this is an appeal to the facts 
 of human life — to their own pictures of individual life and 
 character, e\en when what the\' call the superstitious beliefs 
 of Christiaiiit)' are wanting, which are black w ith the shadows 
 of moral as well as ph)sical evil. At this point they take re- 
 fuge in the theory which sinks the indivitlual in the mass, and 
 maintain that what is not true of the single man is true 
 of the aggregate of mankind. Here all is confusion, for 
 who can ct)nceive of a whole without parts, an aggregate with- 
 out individuals, or if \-ou will, a perfect whole made up of im- 
 perfect part.s — a perfect humanity made up of individuals who 
 are singly bad and degraded. 
 
 Let the question be asked. Whether among those wlu) have 
 accepted the Christian creed or among those who have not 
 accepted it, the highest types of character have been found ? 
 The answer must be in favour of Christian doctrine ; and it is 
 surely unphilosophical, to say the least of it, to exclude those 
 religious beliefs from having had any share in the formation 
 of character. 
 
 Those men who speak of Christian creeds with contemptu- 
 ous pity yet claim to be Christians upon the plea that Chris- 
 tianity is not a doctrine but a life. Their favourite motto is— 
 
 " Fi)V modi's of f'aitli let f,'riircl(',ss zciilots fif^lit — ■ 
 Hi.s can't be wrong who.sc lilr is in the right." 
 
 As if a Christian life were a negation of Christian doctrine, or 
 could exist in ignorance, hatred, rejection of or non-conformity 
 to Christian truth. 
 
(> SN ^ I I'.MA IK I! 1 1 .( <l.< »( ;\' : 
 
 (/') UitVcriiij; froiu these ii(»\clisl.s ami (:ssa)-i-its, \ct cImscI\- 
 allied l<» tliem in their opjjosition to all Llisliticli\c L'hrisliaii 
 truth, we h.uc a school of scientific thinkers uhobrin;^' to their 
 task a niiiltif.irioiis il" not accnrati' knouledvie, and who are 
 
 essentia'I)' polemic. il rather than sentinuiital 
 
 We refer m 
 
 the small but increasing school of philosophical histoi-ians and 
 critics who have named their system I'osi l'l\ ism. Amon;^ 
 those who ha\c exerted themselves to trans|)lanl the ideas of 
 Coinpte into Mnidish soil we niav mention Lewes and Buckle 
 as represeiitiiiL; the critical historians, and John .Stuart Mill, 
 Herbert .Spencer and Alex.mder Uain as representiu'.; the 
 philosophical critics. ThesL' philosophers ma)- mdeed be I'e- 
 j^arded as simply atheists, but it is impossjljle to overloi)k their 
 influence <is indic.itin^' the drift of modern speculation in phi- 
 losophy, which is ever coming;- into contact with thi-oloi^^y, .and 
 which, under the t^uise of liberal thou_L;ht and philosophical 
 criticism, is continu.ill)' pressed ujion our attention, 'I'his 
 l)ositivisni claims to supersede all previous s}-stems of philos. 
 oph)', to bo the fin.il result and climax of all previous specu- 
 lations, and to subject every branch of human learning;" and 
 activit}' to the criticism of its remorseless ])osili\ity. Thor- 
 out;hl\- materialistic iii its character, it formulates results and 
 calls them laws ; iK-yond this it discards all kno\vlcd<j[e and 
 repudiates its [)ossibilit\'. It professes onl)- to know phenom- 
 ena and lliL-e not full)- --their essential nature and their 
 ultimate cause are alike unknown and inscrutable. It is a 
 rigid system of secularism, restricting human thoughts to the 
 interests of the present life, and accounting all doctrinal reli- 
 gion superstition. These philosophers sometimes call Chris- 
 tianity divine, but by this they mean nothing more than that 
 it is a portion of the great mundane evoL. "du, divine in the 
 sense that all things arc divine. They exclude from tlie do- 
 main of possible knowledge the doctrine alike of efficient and 
 final causes; the idea of God the Creator is by them banished 
 from the field of science ; Providence is to them an absurd 
 dogma ; the true conception of history is a thing of cold alge- 
 braical laws and sequences from which we must exclude all 
 idea of a divine and ever working purpose. These extreme, 
 reckless and desperate conclusions are evolved from assumed 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
A I. It, 1 1 Ki:. 
 
 ChrisUan 
 i;4 to llu'ir 
 1 who ai'i' 
 I' rrlcr I') 
 )i"i:ms and 
 Am<>n;4 
 i; iiK'as 1)1 
 11(1 lUicklc 
 uart Mill, 
 •ntiii'.; the 
 
 JCll 1)1.' I'C- 
 
 rlook their 
 ii)ii in plii- 
 nlo^y, and 
 ilosophical 
 ion. ihis 
 
 of ;)hilos- 
 Dus spccii- 
 ifninj^" ami 
 t)-. 'I'hor- 
 csults and 
 'Icd^c and 
 V phcnoni- 
 
 and tlicir 
 c. It is a 
 jhts to the 
 trinal reli- 
 call Chris- 
 ; than that 
 
 ine in the 
 ini the do- 
 fficicnt and 
 n banished 
 
 an absurd 
 ' cold algc- 
 ;xcludc all 
 se extreme, 
 m assumed 
 
 1 
 
 principles which are either wli(ill\- false, or pirliall}- false be- 
 cause they i)\erl()ok other truths material to the subject. They 
 make the limits of their own reason the boimds of the universe, 
 and every individual man not onl)- the measure but the sum 
 iif all thint^s. The highest climax of positivism is ilu' recoi;- 
 iiilion .uid systemali/iuL; of its own i^novance. What h.is 
 theoloL;)' to j^ain from thi> [)liiIosopli\- which claims to lift us 
 i)v tlie workin''s of reason into the enfranchisement of thoutiht ? 
 lis last result is ,i pure nei4ati\e, inconceivable and impossible, 
 a hideous j^ailph of absurd' What a result fir a the'or)- ])ut 
 lortli w ilh such an air of superior insif^lit anel ostentatious pro- 
 . ii-.i' ^>l freeinL,f metaphysics and theoloL;\- fi-om the per])le.vities 
 ol previous speculations, ami placiii;.; tliem on tlieii'ouii ])roper 
 and immutable basis I 
 
 ('ill ii!l lliiit Sii;,'", Saint, S(i[i1ii>l i-vri' w lit. 
 
 II' IMliM thi,~ t'l\M't, this li'll-'ilM'Ilt i.lit ' 
 
 2\u\. \\ e liave another lar 'c cla:-.s of men of a t itan\diiVer.^,a 
 stamp, whom it woe!'' le unjust to rank with tho.-e ilread}- 
 described, but who are, perhaps vithout knowin.;- it, phiyin- 
 into their hand ., and who desiL,niate themselves as th • school of 
 Liberal Theolo<(ians. Writers of this school pervert and over- 
 strain the contrast between letter and spirit, tiie\- maint,-iin 
 that the Bible is not as a whole a Revelation from (iod, but 
 that it contains a Revelation ; or they change the way of putting- 
 it and declare that individual passaj^es of Scripture have no 
 authority, we must take their whole spirit. 
 
 This theory admits of many different modifications. There 
 is a large class of theologians who refer the contents of Scripture 
 to the natural revelation — they are the embodiment of the 
 religious consciousness of their various writers. The authors 
 of the books of the Bible were in a certain sense inspired ; but 
 the inspiration which its writers possessed did not differ in 
 principle from the inspiration of Homer or Dante or Shake- 
 speare. The inspiration might differ in degree, and it did differ 
 in that the writings themselves refer to a different class of sub- 
 jects, but in principle it was the same as the inspiration of 
 genius through which the loftier spirits of our race have in all 
 ages thrown out great and noble ideas — sparks of heavenly 
 
8 
 
 SVSTKNrATIC THKOI.or.V 
 
 li.i^ht rcctM\cil \vc know not liow. Another school rL'<;anl ui- 
 spiratioii as the result, not of the natiiial, but of the i;racious 
 iiL^enc)' of Ciod, iliuminatiii^- the spiritual consciousness of tlu- 
 writers, so that i>ut of the fulness of tiieir own understanding 
 and feelini;- they wrote the product of their own relij^nous lives 
 and beliefs. 'I'he writers of the New Testament tliffer froiir 
 ordinary 'Christian authors on!)- in this, that the>- stootl nearer 
 to Christ personall}-. While recoL;iii/.ini; the difference between 
 W'euschneider and liaur, between r.ukerand Maurice, between 
 Schleierniacher and Neander, )'et that ilifference is to be found 
 ratherinthedevoutness of the spirit witlnvhich such men ;isNean- 
 tlerand Mauriceapproachthe Scriptures than in thefumlamental 
 theory of inspiration. The inspiration which tliey all contend 
 for is purely a subjecti\e one ; the one assii^ii inspiration to 
 the natiu-al and the other to the gracious aL;enc\' of Cod ; but 
 both dell)' the presentation of supernatural truth frt)m with- 
 out ; both reduce the Scriptures to the level of the reliL;ious 
 authorship of ordinary men ; both reject the itlea of a super- 
 natural revelation or of infallible truth, and thus reduce all 
 theolot;ical entpiiry to the same level with philosopliical spec- 
 ulation. On such a theor\- iloL;niatic truth is an impossibility. 
 There is no authoritative or infallible system of relit;ious teach- 
 ing. The logical conclusion of this theory is that conscious- 
 ness is the ultimate and absolute revelation of God in man, 
 and that we could for ourselves have attained all that is re- 
 vealed in the Scriptures, thou<;h, but for the Scriptures, we 
 might have been slower in attaining it. 
 
 It is contended that there is a religious sentiment or instinct 
 in man, and that this is the only essential and eternal reality 
 In religion. The existence of a religious sentiment in man, is 
 undeniable. lUit for this religious sentiment there could be 
 no conception of God — and consequently no belief in a revela- 
 tion from God. When however we conic to ask what this 
 religious sentiment amounts to, we find that it has in itself no 
 power to deliver us from endless contradictions and monstrous 
 errors, atheistic, polytheistic and pantheistic. A subjective 
 emotion with no objective reality to answer to it must be un- 
 substantial and unreal, and can never be the religion of rational 
 beings. Wc grant that emotions are often so subtle that wc 
 
 1 
 
 * 1. 
 
rt.'<;anl ill- 
 
 ness of tlu- 
 Icrstaiulinj; 
 i<;i()iis lives 
 iliffcr fi'Diir 
 L(H)tl nearer 
 ice between 
 ce, between 
 ti) be fi)uiul 
 enrisNean- 
 uulainental 
 all contend 
 piralion to 
 (iod ; but 
 from witli- 
 le religions 
 of a super- 
 reduce all 
 )hical spcc- 
 I possibility. 
 ;ious teach- 
 conscious- 
 od in man, 
 that is re- 
 iptures, we 
 
 tor instinct 
 'nal reality 
 t in man, is 
 e could be 
 in a revela- 
 
 what this 
 in itself no 
 : monstrous 
 
 subjective 
 lust be un- 
 
 of rational 
 :le that we 
 
 i 
 
 A l.lA irKK. 9 
 
 cannot analw.c them but soniewliere or other there must 
 exist rctdilies to which the emotions correspond, and in the 
 absence of the knouledt;e of these realities the feelini^s them- 
 selws must die. If then tiiese re.dities e.xisl an' are known 
 to exist, we arc at once led out of our own consciousness, li 
 the)- do not exist it follows that tiie sentiment is unreal— a 
 creation of the imagination. /Avav ///r iit\issi/y of ii char ob- 
 jective nilc of faith aiul lijr. Kelii^ion never has existeil, and 
 cannot exist witlu)Ut a creed. Hut it is arj^ued th.it there is a 
 natural iiisii;ht into divine things which, were the doj;mas of 
 C'hristianit)- swept away, would L;ive to m.in a freer, purer ami 
 nobler creed. What then h.is this natural insight actuall}' 
 gi\en .'' Rationalism has not ^i\en us a sini;le truth which is 
 not found in the Hil)le. It has no reliL;ious creeil of its own. 
 Uj) to a certain point the rationalist affirms, and then he begins 
 to deny ; but so lar as he aftirms, he only slates what the 
 Scriptures teach ; it is at the point at which he begins to den\- 
 that his teachings ililfer from those of the Hible. ICven his 
 affirmations are for the most part loose and one-sided, but Svi 
 far as the)' ha\e .my positive element in them they .ire cun- 
 taineil in the W'oril of tiod. Take as an example the views 
 of the Pantheist, lie maintains that a tlivine life antl energy 
 pervades the universe. In every atom of matter, in every or- 
 ganized existence, in every throb of life, (iod is to be found. 
 All this the Hible expresses in a single sentence, when it says, 
 " In Him we live and move and have our being." When the 
 Hible goes on to refer this univers.d perv.isiveness t)f life to 
 God — a spirit, intinite, eternal and unchangeable, conscious, 
 intelligent and self-existent— then the Rationalist comes with 
 his denial, and substitutes an unsubstantial abstraction, fearful 
 in its very negation of personality. Intuitions have not lead 
 men into the knowleiige of the true (lod. Heme the necessity 
 of a revelation. Ihat which belongs to man and to this crea- 
 tion may be known thrc-ugh the senses, through reasoning, or 
 through the testimony of man ^ but the things of God — divine 
 truths and thoughts, God alone can make known, consequent- 
 ly man must be ignorant of them unless God reveal them. 
 
 It is argued that God has implanted in us a con.science, and 
 has enthroned it as absolute judge and arbiter of truth, by 
 
r 
 
 lO 
 
 SNSTKMA'IK IHF.OI.OC V : 
 
 which .ill doctrines must be tested. Lecky in his history of 
 Rationalism puts it thus, "Men have come instinctively and 
 almost unconsciously to judt;e all doctrines by their intuitive 
 sense of ri^ht, and to reject or explain away, or throw into 
 the background those that will not bear the test, no matter 
 how imposing; may be the authority that authenticates them." 
 Thus the moral laculty is made supreme over all other author- 
 ity. The conscience is made the supreme judge of religiou.s 
 truth, and no tloctrine can be admitted which the individual 
 con.science does not sanction, however plainlj'it may be taught 
 in the Word of (iod. Some for example object to the doc- 
 trine of atonement because it teaches the imputation of the 
 guilt incurred by sinners to the Holy Jesus of Nazareth ; 
 this offends their sense of right and wrong, and they mu.st 
 cither find some explanation of it or reject the professed 
 ■"evelation which contains it. Here without doing more 
 than notice the fact that this representation of the doctrine is 
 false because only partially stated ; we remark that to say 
 that God is not to be or do .so and .so is a priori reasoning 
 of the most objectionable kind, it measures what God 
 ought to be or do by the standard of human thought. 
 " Thou thoughtest," saith God, " that I was altogether 
 such a one as thyself" The argument proceeds on a total 
 misconception of the nature of conscience ; it is not an active 
 energy that gives exi.stence to views and beliefs, and in- 
 vests them with authority ; it is a regulative faculty, which 
 decides on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of our actions and 
 affections and instantly approves or condemns them. Through- 
 out the entire Scriptures there is the recognition of the indi- 
 vidual conscience, existing prior to a positive revelation, which 
 is the supreme moral guide within the soul ; but it is not inde- 
 pendent and infallible — " like other parts of the human soul it 
 exhibits the weakness of a dependent and corrupt creature." 
 The imperfections and perversions of the natural conscience 
 are undeniable — it needs to be quickened and enlightened 
 and educated ; and to make it the judge of truth, the measure 
 and arbiter of faith, is to transfer it out of its proper sphere, 
 and to ascribe to it powers which it 's quite incompetent to 
 exercise. Hence the necessity of an authoritative rule of faith 
 
 
i 
 
 A LKCriRK. 
 
 1 1 
 
 his historj- of 
 tinctively and 
 their intuitive 
 or throw into 
 .■St. no matter 
 iticates them." 
 I other author- 
 L" of reunions 
 ;he individual 
 nay be tau<^ht 
 t to the doc- 
 itation of the 
 of Nazareth ; 
 d tliey must 
 the professed 
 
 doing more 
 he doctrine is 
 k that to say 
 iori reasoning 
 s what God 
 nan thought, 
 is altogether 
 is on a total 
 not an active 
 iefs, and in- 
 aculty, which 
 ■ actions and 
 n. Through- 
 I of the indi- 
 L'lation, which 
 it is not inde- 
 luman soul it 
 jpt creature." 
 il conscience 
 1 enlightened 
 
 the measure 
 roper sphere, 
 ;ompetent to 
 ? rule of faith 
 
 and life. Such a rule is found in the Scriptures so long as 
 they are accepted as the infallible revelation of God's truth ; 
 but' once leave openings for tiualifications and exceptions, and 
 their whole force is weakened, with the necessary result of 
 plunging us either into the cold negative scepticism of the 
 ritionalist. or into the wild mysticism of the fanatic 
 whose faith is guided and directed by the perverted shadows 
 of his own mind. \Vc may indeed in such an awful extremity 
 vield ourselves unconditionally to the authority and throw 
 ourselves into the arms of an infallible Church. But here again 
 extremes meet, and we find ourselves however unexpectedly 
 among the rationali.sts once more; for the papist depreciates the 
 authority of the Bible, declaring that the Church does not derive 
 authority from the Scriptures, but gives authority to them. 
 For all this she can claim no proofs beyond her own existence, 
 her own experiences, and her own affirmation ; her arguments 
 like those of the pantheist are purely subjective. " That the 
 Church is the infallible oracle of truth is the fundamental dogma 
 of the (Roman) Catholic religion"— but when asked for the 
 proofs of this it resolves itself into a mere human speculation. 
 It is true that Rationalism and Poper>- are apparently antag- 
 i)nistic, but they are not opposed to each other in the radical 
 ()rinciples from which the\- spring, or in the results to which 
 they tend. Like the adverse .systems of the Pharisees and 
 Sacldueees of old tliey may be traced to the same source, an 
 evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, and 
 they tend mutual!)' rather to develope than to destroy one 
 another. 
 
 We are not however to ignore reason, or even to depreciate 
 it in the supposed interest of faith, but we maintain that the in- 
 disputable authority of Holy Scripture, and this alone, presents 
 us with the constituents of a faith which satisfies the conscience, 
 elevates the affections, and assumes authoritativelytogovernthe 
 life and temper. If we deny that the sacred writings are en- 
 titled to exercise a determinative authority, we must be con- 
 tent to remain without any settled religious opinions, or we 
 must frame a creed for ourselves ; and if we try to do this, it 
 will end, not in a creed that meets our wants, and satisfies our 
 spiritual nature, but in blank dreary negations and endless con- 
 
13 
 
 S V S'l" M MAT I C T III: () I .OC. V. 
 
 tradictions and cold iiidiffcrciitisni. If Christianity be a reve- 
 lation at all, then the sacred writers were di\inely commis- 
 sioned to reveal it, and it must be authoritative, therefore it is 
 our duty ingenuously and fearlessly to submit ourselves to the 
 guidance of the liible. We know (lod as he reveals himself 
 to us tliroutrh his works, his acts, his words. True there are 
 limitations to our knowled<^e of divine things, but these limi- 
 tations lie eitlier in the subjects themselves, which are inacces- 
 sible to us, as in the mode of the divine subsistence ; or in the 
 discoveries which God has been pleased to make of himself 
 which fall below what he might if he pleased reveal to us ; or 
 in the narrowness of our powers which are unable to grasp all 
 that he has revealed. There is no contradictoriness in the 
 ■great facts and truths of natural and revealed religion ; for as 
 all truths are self-consistent and consistent with each other if 
 they are truly known, a seeming self-subversion, or mutual 
 contradiction, can only be the effect of misapprehension on 
 our part. Many truths of natural and revealed religion are 
 within our grasp, others are inaccessible to us. To discriminate 
 these from each other, and to ascertain thenatureofthose truths 
 which lie within the sphere of our understanding, are e.\ercises 
 which demand impartial, earnest, and thorough investigation, 
 and these investigations must be conducted, not on a priori 
 grounds of assumed or imagined reason, but by the inductive and 
 deductive processes which we employ in other branches of 
 knowledge in the use of the powers with which God has en- 
 dowed us, and of all the light which he has vouch.safed us in 
 his word and through his works. 
 
 The place and functions of reason must be defined. If no 
 doctrine can stand upon the testimony of revelation alone, 
 unless it is supported or corroborated b)- the independent testi- 
 mony of reason, then reason becomes the ultimate basis of our 
 faith in revelation, and every doctrine of revelation must rest 
 ultimately upon reason otherwise it has no basis at all. So 
 that when a truth is accepted it is accepted, not because God 
 has revealed it, but because man has concurred in it— rea.son 
 must be able to understand it, to see the ground and reasons 
 of it, and to stamp it with its approval before it can be accept- 
 ed as true. Christian faith is exchanged for common convic- 
 
A LECTURE. 
 
 >3 
 
 ani'ty be a rcvc- 
 vincly commis- 
 L\ therefore it is 
 (Mirselves to the 
 reve;ils liimself 
 True there are 
 but these Hini- 
 ich are inacces- 
 ence ; or in the 
 lake of himself 
 L:vcal to us ; or 
 ble to j^rasp all 
 toriness in the 
 eligion ; for a.s 
 h eaeh other if 
 ion, or mutual 
 )prehension on 
 ed reli!4ion are 
 lo discriminate 
 :ofthose truths 
 -^, are exercises 
 I investiifation, 
 lot on a prion' 
 le inductive and 
 cr branches of 
 ;h God has en- 
 Lichsafed us in 
 
 defined. If no 
 velation alone, 
 ependent testi- 
 ate basis of our 
 tion must rest 
 sis at all. So 
 t because God 
 I in it — reason 
 d and reasons 
 can be acccpt- 
 mmon convic- 
 
 tion, and man believes only himself when he is professing to 
 believe God. On the other hand we must give to reason its 
 true place. In the language of Locke, " He that takes away 
 reason to make way f(jr revelation puts out the light of both, 
 and docs much the same as if he would persuade a man to put 
 out his eyes, the better ro receive the remote light of an in- 
 visible star by a telescope." But reason is out of its true 
 place w hen it demands of us to surrender a genuine doctrine 
 of revelation. Here we are called to distinguish well and 
 warily between (iod's truth and man's interpretation, between 
 divine verities and human oi)inions — -we may willingly part 
 with opinions, but it is the highest office of reason to grasp 
 firmly the truth divine. 
 
 3rd. There is still anotlier school of theologians who grant 
 the fact of a revelation, but who object to Christian dogmas, 
 and who represent a plain statement of the doctrines of the 
 Bible as opposed to a devotional faith. Christianity we are 
 1(j1(1 must abandon the pretension to offer a fixed, sharply de- 
 fined body of truth to the acceptance or rejection of the mind 
 of man. Thus one writes, " Any one who has ever read his 
 Bible in the hope of learning something of the divine lessons 
 which it teaches, necessarily and uncon.sciously abstracts his 
 !uind from the mere words, and still more from the outlines of 
 facts, in order to fix it on the sacred meaning which underlies 
 them. Devotional reading is a thing apart from and incompat- 
 ible with historical study. The absorption of the spirit of the 
 liible, is nut consistent with the absorption of the facts into 
 the menicTy."* Here we concede at once that the devotional 
 reading of the Bible is one thing, and the historical or doc- 
 trinal study of the Bible is another ; but to say that they are 
 things inconsistent and incomjKitible is to sweep away not 
 only all the^jlogy but also all study of the Bible. However 
 such sentiments may be exi)ressed, there is at the foundation 
 of this opposition to dogma, the feeling that however beauti- 
 ful Christianity may be it does not contain settled and fixed 
 truths ; as a poem, " its utterances fiowing in a ceaseless 
 rhythm of antitheses," such men will study it, and love it and 
 learn from it, and it will " breathe upon the character 
 
 1{. F. Chiike, M. A., us (iiiutcd by Arclideiicoii .loiies. 
 
'4 
 
 SV.STKMATIC TIIKOLOCV : 
 
 a soft and clcvatiuL;- iiitUicncc," but it must not rxacl intellec- 
 tual homage. To value do.Ljma is contrasted with settinj4- a 
 value on Christian character and Christian liU'. l-'roni the 
 very nature of the case these objections to dogma are unfound- 
 ed. Those who believe that a divine revelation has been 
 ijiven must believe that it contains facts and doctrines which 
 can be stated in langua;4e — and the truths thus stated cannot 
 be contrasted with nioralit)-. as if moralit}- were antagonistic 
 to truth. 
 
 Another writer of the same .school sa\-s, "Wc are not the 
 apologists of your old systems of theology — your ilogiriatic 
 teachings, \'our stereotyped theology. This is lo give up the 
 spirit for the letter, it is to go back to form. We must get 
 away from everjthing so narrow and confined, and .seek for 
 the glorious liberty of tlie spiritual world."* Again the same 
 writer sa)'s, "Hy truth we mean not the mere letter of 
 Scripture, not an\' set form of words, no particular dogma, of 
 creed, or article of faitli. This hitherto has been tlie grand 
 mi.stake." Such writers repudiate the idea of assailing any of 
 the fundamental principles of revealed religion, but their senti- 
 ments carried out to their logical conclusions empt)- revelation 
 of all positive value. The error lies in losing sight of the in* 
 timate and inseparable connection between the letter and the 
 spirit. "The words which I speak unto xou," said our Lord, 
 " they are spirit and they are life." True we must get beneath 
 the mere letter, that wc may get at the spirit and realit\- which 
 the written word expresses. In doing this we get at the very 
 doctrines and articles of faith which are stigmatized as the 
 stereotyped letter in opposition to the s])irit. The historical 
 and critical stud)- of the J^ible must e\er be conducted in view 
 of the fact that it is God's truth we are stud\'ing — that the 
 Holy Spirit speaking through the Holy Scriptures is the real 
 author of the doctrines. These truths are the instruments 
 through which the same divine spirit quickens the soul, and 
 then carries on the work of sanctification. Nor can we con- 
 ceive how an intelligent and moral being such as man, in his 
 known moral condition, can be wrought upon .save through his 
 powers of thought and reflection, of impression and feelinL"- 
 Dr. FtTgusou'.s Siic'iiid Studies. 
 
A LECTURK. 
 
 15 
 
 Nact intcllec- 
 \ith .scttin<4- a 
 V. I-'roni tlie 
 I arc iiiifound- 
 iou lias been 
 ctriiics uliicli 
 stated cannot 
 antai4()nistic 
 
 c arc not the 
 >ur cl()L,niiatic 
 ' .i,n\c ii|) the 
 ^\ c must ^ct 
 anil seek for 
 ain the same 
 •re letter of 
 ;ir do<^nia. or 
 -■n the <,n-and 
 ailinj^- any of 
 lit theu-senti- 
 it)' revelation 
 ht of the in- 
 ■tter and the 
 ill our Lord, 
 t yet beneatii 
 eality which 
 t at the very 
 tized as the 
 he historical 
 icted in view 
 U—that the 
 ■s is the real 
 instruments 
 le soul, and 
 can we con- 
 inan, in his 
 through his 
 d feeling. 
 
 It WDiiM 1)0 perhaps unfair to charge those writers with 
 iisin.L; tlu 'cant' of the day, that they may appear to be 
 abreast . .f the so-called advanced tliought. We may there- 
 fore regard them as honestlj- attempting to fashion Christian- 
 it\- intt^ conformity with the notions and tastes which dis- 
 tinguish this modern thought, but this cannot be done by de- 
 preciating the truth which cndurcth from generation to gen- 
 eration. Such a course is like that of a man who destroys 
 tlic sie])s of the ladder by which he proposes to climb. They 
 ma\- sa)' that it is to the formulas of theology, to the dogmatic 
 expression of truth, or to technical theological terms, they 
 object, not to the truth itself. To this we say, if the 
 word of God does mean something, it is surely right to say 
 what it means, so to express it that it may reach the under- 
 standing and the heart. Doctrines to be authoritative must 
 rest on the direct and positive assertions of God's word, or 
 they must be clear and unmistakable deductions from such 
 direct assertions. This alone renders doctrine binding on the 
 conscience. Theology originates no doctrines, it is not a specu- 
 lative science. We receive the divine declarations as the ulti- 
 mate facts of theology, in the same way in which the ultimate 
 facts of nature become the basis of natural philosophy. In 
 theology the recorded facts are contained in the Bible, the 
 data rest on tlie authority of inspiration. A statement may be 
 questioned as to whether it is scriptural or not, but if scrip- 
 tural it acquires the force of certain and demonstrated truth. 
 The man who denies the authority of the Bible may indeed 
 raise a thousand other questions, but the doctrines, so far as 
 they represent the truths of the Scriptures, stand or fall with 
 the Scriptures themselves. The Jifficultics of sincere doubt- 
 ers can thus be met only by bringing them back to the divine 
 authority of the word of God — set that aside and faith is 
 impossible, doubt is inevitable. 
 
 Here the objector may ask, Why generalise and systematise 
 these divine truths at all, why not rest content with the Scrip- 
 tures as you find them ? To this wc a.nswerthat, as in nature 
 soin revelation, God has given us the data and left it to us to 
 formulate and methodise them. We do not object to Geology 
 because the facts relative to the strata must be gathered by 
 
i6 
 
 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY: 
 
 observation and compared and tested by corrcspondintj results 
 of other observers, before these can be classified. So while 
 man could never have discovered the doctrines of Christianity 
 without a revelation, man can gather them and arrange them 
 in scientific order, and the very form in which they are given 
 serves to direct and stimulate us in this the highest exercise . 
 of our powers. As for theological terms, these are simply 
 used for clearness and brevity, and so far as they express the 
 truths of God's word, and no better words can be found to do 
 the same office, it is sheer nonsense to object to them. But it 
 is objected that "by these doctrines, dogmatically expressed 
 and systematically arranged, we overlay the truths of Chris- 
 tianity and interfere with intellectual freedom." Here the doc- 
 trines are assumed, though not stated in terms, to be untrue, 
 for truth cannot "overlay" truth. If you admit that the re- 
 vealed doctrines are true, why. not state them dogmatically ? 
 It is replied that in this form they check independence of 
 thought. This is true so far, for if we admit the truth of a 
 doctrine, we are certainly not at liberty to deny it, or even to 
 ignore it. Independence in the sense of owing allegiance to 
 no fixed truth is a dream. The revelations of Scripture claim 
 to be God's truth ; they are this, or they are falsehoods. We 
 protest against the method of discrediting them beforehand by 
 denouncing their dogmatic form as opposed to freedom. If 
 true, loyalty to truth demands that we bow reverently before 
 them. We are not upholding the cause of a narrow mechan- 
 ical orthodoxy, we believe that the Church may be the reci- 
 pient of all that is really valuable in the higher criticism of 
 the age, and that there is range enough in her for the highest 
 culture which man can attain. A definite standard of truth and 
 a definite system of theology stimulates thought and gives a 
 firm foundation by which thought can rise. Inquiry in order 
 to be effective must have some rule or standard by which it is 
 to be directed and determined, and certainly there is larger 
 room for all that is worthy of the name of freedom within 
 the limits of a loving submission to the revealed will of God, 
 than in the bondage to human philosophies which would strip 
 theology alike of vital strength and distinctive meaning, and 
 leave no room for any radical distinction between truth and 
 error. 
 
A i,i:cruRF.. 
 
 17 
 
 iding results 
 I. So while 
 Christianity 
 rrangc thcni 
 ;y are given 
 lest exercise 
 I are simply 
 express the 
 found to do 
 leni. But it 
 ly expressed 
 :hs of Chris- 
 [ere the doc- 
 
 be untrue, 
 that the re- 
 )gmatically ? 
 pendence of 
 e truth of a 
 t, or even to 
 illegiance to 
 ripture claim 
 ihoods. We 
 iforehand by 
 •eedom. If 
 ently before 
 ow mechan- 
 be the reci- 
 
 ■ criticism of 
 r the highest 
 
 1 of truth and 
 and gives a 
 
 uiry in order 
 »y which it is 
 ere is larger 
 ;dom within 
 will of God, 
 1 would strip 
 leaning, and 
 en truth and 
 
 4th. T.;istly we notice ^ciy briefly the theological writcis be- 
 lon.'inL^ to the various schools of Separatists who object to 
 wli.it the\' call lull nan doj^mas and confessions and systems. 
 In reference to the Independents of lingland and the Con- 
 L^rei^ationalists of this countr)', froin anion;^^ whom have arisen 
 manv of our wisi,-st, noblest, and most Scriptural theologians, 
 thev object to confessions orsubordinate church standardsonthc 
 follow iiu;- grounds, (a) That all confessions proceed on the 
 sui<p.)sition that the Bible is not sufficient. (l>) That they 
 repress or interfere with the free and full study of the Bible 
 b/ d .■.:lariii.-j beforehand what a man must believe, (c-) That 
 they eiiL;en'ler disputes and produce divisions. We reply 
 tint our confession, and indeed all Protestant confessions, 
 declare as a funtlamental doctrine that the Bible is the only 
 infal'.ible rule of faith and jiractice, and that the Supreme Judge 
 by which all controversies in religion are to be determined is 
 the Holy Scriptures. Scripture is at once the only source of our 
 co.ife-ision, and the only standard by which it is to be tried and 
 measured. In the confession itself we have the clear statement 
 of the rightful sui)remacy of the Scriptures. The need for creeds 
 and confessions grows out of the duty of the church to bear 
 testimony to the truth as against prevailing errors. I'ractically 
 cN'cn those denominations who protest agaiuht them, ha\e 
 understood if not written confessions, so that for e.x'ample 
 no minister wIkj denies the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity 
 can remain in their communion. Without a standard or confes- 
 sion in some shape, discipline would be impossible. Our con- 
 fessions do not come saying to a man f/iou vitist believe, but 
 rather asking him ' dcst thou belic\e.'' Nor is it true that con- 
 fessions produce divisions, though they sometimes manifest 
 their existence. But we refer rather to other bodies of Se- 
 paratists who strongly denounce creeds, confessions and .sj-s- 
 tems as merely human traditions, preparatory to a vigorous 
 effort to make their own narrow and one-sided views domin- 
 ant over the minds of men. We of course do not object to 
 the fact that they have a positive bod)- of truths as really .sy.s- 
 tematized as Calvin's Institutes; but we do protest against their 
 habit of condemning the evaiij^elical systems of truth as schol- 
 astic and philosophical and human theories, in.stead of bring- 
 
l8 
 
 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY : 
 
 iti": thcni to the acknowlcd'axl statuliird ofCiod's word. Their 
 inconsistency consists in this, that while they use the cant of 
 the day against what they call human doctrine and doctrinal 
 systems, the}' take a position in reference to their ow n views 
 at once polemical and pro[)agandist ; while crjinj,^ out against 
 sects they are of all men the most sectarian ; while deprecia- 
 ting so-called sectarian creeds, they announce with a fierce dog- 
 matism a system of their own, which differs from the otlier 
 evangelical creeds mainly in this, that they maintain and de- 
 vclope certain favourite dogmas until other doctrines are cast 
 into the shade, fcjrgotten, and virtually if not actuall}' denied ; 
 so contrasting most unfaxourably with the catholicity of 
 thought and feeling, the earnestness and depth, the strength 
 and breadth of that great evangelical system which is embo- 
 died in the subordinate standards of our Church. We protest 
 again.st the demand to lay aside the embodiment of the theo- 
 logical and scriptural learning of the past only to give place 
 to the tyrann\' of men of loose and one-sided \iews. which are 
 worthless save in so far as they gras[) the principles of the 
 very theology which they professedly seek to subvert, and 
 which alike in practical scope and spiritual tcndenc}' are nar- 
 row, exclusive, and intolerant. 
 
 I would now seek in a very few words to gather up the posi- 
 tive results of our enquiry. 
 
 I. There is no consistent medium between the reception 
 of the l^ible as the word of God, and therefore of infallible au- 
 thority, and the rationalism of Morrell and others, who regard 
 themselves as being as much inspired, especially in their mo- 
 ments of superior illumination, as Isaiah or Paul were. We can- 
 not of course enter here on the evidences of the divinity of 
 Christianity as a whole, but we simply .state that the historical 
 facts and documents of Christianity are proved with an amount 
 of evidence such as no other universally believed fact and uni- 
 versally acknowledged book has any evidence to compare with, 
 and if they are proved they .show that the Bible is divine. The 
 antagonistic will of man has ever been in opposition to the 
 claims of a holy God which it presents ; it has met with op- 
 position from hostile heathens and unbelieving Jews, from 
 philosophical adversaries and heretical corrupters, and it has 
 
A I.I.C! iKi:. 
 
 »9 
 
 LI 
 
 ivord. Their 
 ihc cant of 
 111(1 doctrinal 
 ir ovn views 
 out aj^ainst 
 Ic dcprecia- 
 a fierce doj^- 
 m the other 
 tain .md de- 
 nes are cast 
 all\- denied ; 
 :ath(jlicity of 
 the strength 
 lich is cmbo- 
 W'e protest 
 t of the theo- 
 to give place 
 \vs. which are 
 iciples of the 
 sub\'ert, and 
 cnc}- are nar- 
 
 r up the posi- 
 
 the reception 
 infallible au- 
 s, who regard 
 ' in their nio- 
 /erc. We can- 
 he divinity of 
 the historical 
 th an amount 
 1 fact and uni- 
 :omparc with, 
 1 divine. The 
 osition to the 
 net with op- 
 j Jews, from 
 rs, and it has 
 
 been tested no less b\' the absurdities of foolish acKocates ; 
 every docunicnl and fact has bi'en scrutinised, and \ (..'t its his- 
 tory and its doctrines have been established even by those op- 
 posing tluin. \or (.loes the authority of Scripture depend 
 u|)on what human learning and industry h.ive accomplished. 
 As we distinguish the products of human art from the works 
 ofCiod in which his eternal power and (iodhead are manifest, 
 so the word of (iod bears i)roofs that it is Ills, in marked dis- 
 tinction from every utterance of human thought. It is im- 
 jjossible to suppose that man invented the ideas of (iod glor- 
 ious in His holiness, of a Law which Hashes condemnation on 
 his sin, and of a Gosjoel which laj-s his pride in the dust. Yet 
 the fiospel as revealed by God gives glory to (iod in the highest, 
 while it saves men to the uttermost. It comes with its own 
 evidence in perfect atl.iptation to the wants of man, like light 
 in its perfect adaptation to the e\e. What then do the Scrip- 
 tures claim to be.' What do they demand of us .' What do 
 tluy teach regariling inspiration.' "All Scripture is given by 
 inspiration of (iod." " I certify )-(ni, brethren," sa\-s the Apostle 
 r.uil, "that the (iospel which was preached of me is not after 
 man, for 1 neither received it of man neither was I taught it 
 but by revelation tif Jesus Christ." We take our stand on the 
 broad and unciualified declaration that the Hible, as originally 
 gi\en, is the word of (iod, divine .mil therefore authoritative 
 and infallible. l'"aith vieweil as compliance with divine au- 
 thority — the obedience of faith, can only rest on this, that the 
 word believed is (iod's, and faith receives it, and rests on it, just 
 because it is (iod's word. Theology thus finds its data in the 
 expressed will of God. The whole fabric of creeds and doc- 
 trines rests on this truth. It gives authority to our preaching, 
 ;ind is the only true ground of assur.mce to believers. The 
 Bible is no development of human sentiment, no series of 
 flashes of the intuitions, but a n;velation of God delivered to 
 us through the instrumentality of its inspired writers, and in- 
 vested with the attributes of its divine Author — unity, i)erfec- 
 tion and immutability. 
 
 2. The truths of the Bible are one in that organic and .structu- 
 ral unity which pervades it as a completed whole. There is a 
 unity of design, a completeness of structure in the Scriptures, 
 
30 
 
 SNSI'l'.MATIC 'I'lII-.ol.uCV 
 
 notwillistjimliii;^ the fact lli.it llicy ucic j^ivcii al siindi}- tiii'.LS, 
 aiiil in ilivcrsc niaiiiicrs, wliicli |)n)\i.'-; lliat ill'.')' li.Uf oiic 
 AulliDi- \\li()-,(j c;untr()llin;.j tlioiiL^ht and knowlcdijc nm tlnoii;;]! 
 them all. Sj'sti-niatic tiicoio^y, rcco^ni/in;;- this iinil)-, rciluccs 
 the sj.iltcncl truths of rcvclatii)n to the scieiUific form of a 
 connected s}-stcin. RecoLjnizinL; the fuiidaiiUMUal principle 
 that tlie on!)' ."itjiorltative rule is the uoid of iun\, anil that 
 the Scriptures are to be inter[>reted according; to the ordinary 
 laws by which the meaniiiLj of any olher book is to be ascer- 
 tained, it exhibits clearly the tloclriius tau!;hl by revelation 
 'dn{\ forms them into a sv^tem ; but the system is not arl^i- 
 trary ; it rests on the fact that th^'re is an actual setiuence and 
 coherence in tlie doctrines tlu-mselves — a connection so close 
 that ti)e omission or misconception of one tru'-h extends its 
 inlluence throutrh tlie whole s-cstem. 
 
 like (V 
 
 rum till' liiiriiii>ny ii :^iii 
 
 ■■li' t. 
 
 A siii^lr lint t;iki' t'rorii tln' Iris' \n,\\, 
 
 Aiiil In 1 wliiit Diii'i; was iill, is imtliiiiL, wlii 
 
 KiilLs ti) th'' lovi'lv \vli''!i' iiiii' liia iir lull;-." 
 
 The truths thus systematized rest maiiil\- on the positi\-e 
 and direct assertions of (iod's Word. We have first the texts 
 of Scripture — then the comparison of the texts with each 
 other — and then the result in the theoloLjical formula; but this 
 last is simply tiie assertit)n of the truth ascertaineil. We at 
 
 n)()d 
 di- 
 
 the same time acknowledge that what is pro\ ed by 
 and necessary inference is eciually binding;' wuh what is 
 rectly written ; but there nui)' be uncertainty about the pro- 
 cess of deduction, \vhich does not exist in the inductive 
 method, and hence theolotjy mainly procee Is b\' the latter 
 process. It may be said that, however each separate doc- 
 trine may be proved to be scriptural, yet the order in which 
 they are arranged in the system cannot claim this divine 
 authority. This is true only in so far as the order is not it- 
 self indicated in Scripture, but it is the duty of the theolo- 
 gian to seek not only for scriptural authority for the doctrines 
 themselves, but equally for the order in which he states them — 
 for the links by which he binds them; and he cannot claim au- 
 
 thority for his 
 
 ;xccpt in so far as he derives it from 
 
 reasonit 
 God's word. In connecting the doctrines together and cxhib- 
 
A i.ixrrKK. 
 
 31 
 
 itini; them as ;i sj'stcin, tiic ISihlr must still be our authority. 
 There ma)- here be retiuireil ,i iiumlnr of bilks and a sustained 
 course of reasoniu^f, but unless [hv coiuieclion is either directly 
 asserti.-(l or clearl)- deduced from direct assertions, it is of no 
 authoritati\e force. I'rom overlooking this Mr. Mansell, in 
 his Limits of Rcliifious Tliouifht, has \vho!'\ mistaken the 
 authority and province of dogmatic theoloLj)'. and has repre- 
 sent' 'd the method of theolo^)- as thout;h it were the same 
 with the methods of Ra.tionalistic speculation. 
 
 It is aj^^ain uri^e'd that Theolo;^)' liavinij formed its s)'stcni, 
 views all religious truths in the liL;lU of that s)-stcm. This is 
 so far true, we cannot help usin;^ ascertained truths to aid us in 
 our stuil)- of (lod's Word, nor is it ilesirable that we should, 
 liut still v.e must come to (lod's WOid, not in the spirit of those 
 who seek to L;et their own preconceived notions stre:._^di- 
 ened, but simply that we may learn wliat is the mind of God. 
 IC.ve^etical theolo^)- is essenl .1 to s)-.-;tematic theology, in as 
 much as our theoloi;\- rests it.s authoritj- on what God says in 
 his word ; anil a creed or system is not to overrule the |^n-ani- 
 matical interj)retat.ion of the ascertained text. On the other 
 hand, no one is Cvimpeteiit to deal with the sacred writin<;s pro- 
 perly who is not familiar with the bearinj^s of the lines of 
 thouglit on the unity of the whole revealed will of God. We 
 need not dwell on the connection between systematic theology 
 and a])olegetics as this has alreaily occupied much of our at- 
 tention, but we would stat*. th;'t an exact antl thorough study 
 of the word of God is the best preparation for the defence of 
 the liible ; ever\- advance we make in the knowledge of God's 
 will, will fortify our faith, and enable us successfully to defend 
 it and to seek the conviction of t)tiiers. 
 
 Finall)', the evangelical system of religious truth is intense- 
 ly practical. Kvcn at the risk of going beyond the special of- 
 fice entrusted to me, and merging the argument of the lecture 
 into the message of the sermon, I must protest against a mere 
 blind acquiescence in a traditional belief, against substituting 
 the intellectual appreliension of a .system, and the perception 
 of its internal unity and coherence, for that living faith of which 
 Christ the Saviour is the true end and object, and of which 
 the Holy Ghost is the only efficient agent. Only by knowing 
 
 I 
 
 ■MwumiMimaHnMi 
 
22 SYSTEMATIC THEUI.OGV: 
 
 God in Christ can \vc slx- tlie harmony of God's revelation, 
 and how the parts of that rc\clation fit into one another. This 
 will enable us not only to state the leadin,!,^ doctrines of the 
 Gospel, but to sound their depths, to fix their relative positions, 
 and to trace their connection. W'e rccpn're the bold and healthy 
 treatment of Christian doctrine in opposition to that poetic 
 mj'sticism which \eilsthe c;"reatdoctrinesof revealed religion, and 
 if it does not hide at least confuses wliat we would like to see 
 set forth with all possible clearness. We need too that ten- 
 derness and love which is to be found only in communion with 
 (}od and Christ throut^h the Holy Spirit. This love will make 
 all our ministry, and especially our sermons, effective. It will 
 save us from the dry unreal generalities, the unmeaning repe- 
 tition of set phrases, and the wearying attempts at fine writing, 
 which make so many sermons intolerable. It will give a reality 
 to our message, that will carry the well aimed bolt straight to 
 the mark. We need in the Church men of learning, of might, 
 of energy, of practical wisdom, and above all of heavenly faith, 
 men who, not content with knowing of salvation, and witness- 
 ing about it, being taught of the Spirit, know it for themselves, 
 know what it is to have their sins washed away in Christ's 
 blood, their hope firm in His righteousness, their condemna- 
 tion nailed to His cross; who will speak not cold, heartless> 
 unreal words about religion, but plain, earnest, practical truths. 
 We must speak clearly and really of sin and of salvation, of 
 heaven and of hell, of corruption and of Chri.st. We would 
 desire to see a richly intellectual, but we must have a {pro- 
 foundly scriptural theology. Practical religion feeds not up- 
 on beautiful thoughts, but upon clearly defined certainties. 
 Its truths must come to us not as speculations, or pictures, or 
 views, or opinions, but as facts and doctrines of di\ ine author- 
 ity. The living Spirit works with these upon the living soul. 
 God who commanded light out of darkness, hath shined in our 
 hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God 
 in the face of Jesus Christ. This will give us the theology 
 which is at once the broadest, the truest and the most noble, 
 combined with a true sympathy with the Christian life, with 
 the heart of Christ, with the mind that was in Christ. 
 Gentlemen, hold fast the old truth in the love of it and in 
 
A I.KCIURK. 
 
 23 
 
 full sympathy with it, and bring to bear upon all your 
 studies a true breadth of mind and heart that will fit 
 you to reproduce in your niinistratit)ns not only the teachinLjs 
 of Scripture, but also their fervour, their holiness and theii 
 hcavenly-mindcdness. "Buy the truth and sell it not." Huy 
 it, make it )-our own, assign it to its place in >'our s)-stem of 
 thought, at whate\er cost of laborious study, or eltort at 
 discrimination, or pain of i)arting with long cherished prejudg- 
 ments. "Sell it not" — i)art with it for no consideration, not even 
 to acquire the credit in certain circles of being liberal and 
 broad-minded. 
 
 Hell, Darker i Co., Printers, 94 and iW Ywige .Street, T.jrolito 
 
i 
 
 A 
 
 mm 
 
^iiJW'-'x 
 
 RECENTLY PUBLISHED: 
 
 FREEDOM AND NECESSITY, 
 
 A. I^ECTURE, 
 
 X3:BIjI-VEI=I.EID IKT ISLKTOIXL' COHiXjEG-E 
 
 ON THE 6th APRIL, 1870, 
 
 AT THE CLOSE OF THE COLLEGE SESSION, 
 
 BY THK 
 
 Rev. George Paxton Young, M. A., 
 
 I'HOFKSSon OF MKSTAL AND MORAL PHILOSOMIT, KNOX' L'OLLKOE, TORONTO. 
 
 Price, 25 Cts. 
 
 ADAM. STEVENSON & CO, 
 
 Theological Booksellers and Publishers. 
 
I