The anonymous Author of a spirited volume nowon our table, has seemed to anticipate, though without distinct reference to any particular work, one leading deficiency in the present history, to which we adverted at the commencement of this article. It is a great misfortune,' he remarks, for the British army which served in the Peninsula, and for the 'Duke of Wellington himself, that no man possessed of the necessary information, and of the ability to work upon his materials, has been found to give a correct and valuable history of their campaigns. It is quite idle to send the ' official documents and papers required for such a work, to 'the most able writer and acknowledged historian of the day. Such a man, however great his talents, however nervous and rich his language, is, and must be, ill-qualified to write a military work, if he be a civilian, unacquainted with armies, ⚫ and has never served. He may, indeed, succeed in painting the noble struggles of a patriotic population; he may de'scribe in a glowing strain of manly eloquence such a defence 'as that of Saragossa, or the courageous exploits of moun'tain guerillas; but he can never impart to an account of the ' operations of regular armies, that charm and interest it is certainly capable of receiving. A man must, like a Xenophon or a Polybius, march with an army before he ventures to become the historian of its exploits. Would that some divisiongeneral with the pen of a Burgoyne or a Hutchinson, had marched and fought with the British troops in the Peninsula.* This is spoken in the spirit and with the enthusiasm of a soldier. Without participating in the warmth of the Writer's regret, we must allow the truth of his observation. The volume closes with the battle of Corunna.

Art. II. Institutes of Theology; or a concise System of Divinity. With a Reference under each Article to some of the principal Authors who have treated of the Subjects particularly and fully. By Alexander Ranken, D. D. One of the Ministers of Glasgow, 8vo. pp. xviii. 700. Price 14s. Glasgow. 1822.

THERE is certainly room for a good work of this descrip

tion. Dr. Ranken runs over the list of the Latin systems, and those of Ridgeley, Burnet, Pearson, Doddridge, Dwight, and Hill; and after finding some fault or other with every one of them, he adds:

There still seemed wanting an abridged system of divinity, with

particular references under every article to larger treatises on it, and so arranged as to enable the student to observe and compass the whole in its relative order.'

It does not, however, appear to us to have been necessary to produce any apology for undertaking such a work, at the expense of preceding writers. Dr. Ranken had simply to compose a better work, in point either of arrangement, compression, or bibliographical information, and the public would have been greatly indebted to him. The mere circumstance of his comprising within a single volume the substance of more bulky systems, would have sufficiently recommended his publication as one of obvious utility. It is the age of abridgements and compendiums, and a cheap article will always have the preference in the market. Had the execution of the work, therefore, been in all respects satisfactory, no one would have complained of it as an unnecessary addition to the theological library. We regret that we cannot award it such unqualified praise.

The Author claims for his arrangement, the merit of being simple, comprehensive, and philosophical.' Arrangement is an important feature of a divinity system. Our readers shall judge from the table of Contents, how far the present Writer has improved on the schemes of his predecessors.

Introduction. § 1. The superior Importance of Theology. 2. The right Disposition for studying Theology. 3. Use and Limits of Reason in Matters of Revelation. 4. Of Systems of Theology. Chapter I. Of Religion-Atheism-Superstition. II. Of Natural Religion-the Being and Perfections of God, the Immortality of the Soul, and Moral Obligation. III. Of the Necessity of a Divine Revelation. IV. Of the History of Revelation, or the Canon of Scripture. V. Of Inspiration. VI. Of the Evidences of Inspiration. VII. Of the Doctrines of Scripture. VIII. Of Redemption. IX. Of the Doctrines of Grace. X. Of the Ordinances of the Gospel.'

The

The distinguishing feature of this arrangement is, its remarkable deficiency of analytical clearness and order. Chapter I. would more properly have been included in the Introductory matter; but if not, it seems strange to separate from the subject of Atheism, the proof of the Divine Existence. necessity of a Divine Revelation is with no propriety made to follow the discussion of doctrines resting chiefly, if not entirely, on the discoveries of Revelation; such, for instance, as the Decrees of God, the Creation of the World, and the Immortality of the Soul. The history of Revelation, that is, of the progressive discoveries made under the Patriarchal, Mosaical, and Prophetical economies, is strangely mixed up with

a critical notice of Versions and Targums, in Chapter IV which occupies a hundred pages; while Chapter V. consists of only twelve pages broken off from the subject of the following chapter, to which they properly belong. Under the head of the doctrines of Scripture,' Chap. VII., we have given us, Angels and Original Sin;' as if these two were the leading topics of Revelation. Lastly, Justification by Faith, the cardinal article of the doctrines of Grace, is not found under that head, but in a preceding chapter; while among doctrines of grace, we find Repentance and the Holy Ghost. We must confess that we are at a loss to perceive the philosophical simplicity of this arrangement. And yet it is evident, that Dr. Ranken piques himself not a little on his systematic order. He has devoted a whole section to the subject of theological systems, zealously contending for their necessity, and condemning the methods of his predecessors. Order,' he gravely tells us, is the offspring of wisdom and power;' and in the original creation and the ordinary state and operations of nature, he finds the most perfect model of that order which' a sound divine will not fail to observe in his systematic arrangement. Wisdom and power would seem, however, to be, in Dr. Ranken's mind, very nearly identical; for immediately after making these two the father and mother of order, he adds:

• Wisdom devises the plan; but power is requisite to subject the materials under the proposed arrangement. Even in things of an intellectual nature, mental power is necessary to compass the whole, to view it in all its parts, to discern their agreements and discrepancies, their subserviency and counteraction, with all their other relations, in order to construct or to describe the system or science.'

This mental power' which is necessary to the viewing of a thing in all its parts, we must suppose to be what is sometimes familiarly styled clear-headedness; the very description of wisdom which is most requisite to the constructor of a system. A further measure of this mental power would have led the Author to perceive, that moral order' is something very different from scholastic arrangement. To restore moral order,' he remarks, is the great design of the Gospel of Christ. Ergo, it must be of importance to observe and maintain order and method in all things, especially in the ⚫ study of religion.' From which it may be clearly inferred, that one great design of Christ's coming was, to make divinity students methodical. And if the great example of the Creation, and the design of Redemption, be not sufficient to outweigh all the objections against the good old Scotch divinity, advanced by Dr. Campbell and the Independents,' it is added, that

the love of order seems a law of our nature, though we ' often violate it:' for instance, we have no confidence in un⚫ disciplined or mutinous troops.' Who does not perceive that we could have, in like manner, no confidence in the doctrines or evidences of Revelation, unless they were marshalled and disciplined in systematic array, by a Divinity professor? After this triumphant demonstration of the necessity of order, fortified as it is by the consideration of the disorderly and unmethodical character of Revelation itself, we little expected to find Dr. Ranken forgetting himself so far as to admit that, in some respects, it is perhaps of little importance what 'method we follow, provided we omit nothing material, and give every thing its due weight on the heart and practice.' But this dangerous concession is speedily retracted, and he proceeds to argue that it is of great importance what method we follow. The method of Independents,' he says, and of ⚫ those who reprobate all systems, seems a mere conceit.' The method of those who reprobate all method, we should have been led to suspect, was meant to describe the Methodists. But the worthy Dr. adds, to prevent such misconstruction of his words: It has been chiefly recommended by Mr. Glass and 'Dr. Campbell.' Those two eminent individuals were assuredly not Methodists in the usual acceptation of the phrase; and as little would they have known themselves under the designation of Independents. But Dr. Ranken chooses to call the method of study recommended by Dr. Campbell, the independent method of studying theology.' His readers are therefore to understand in future by Independents, the admirers of Dr. Campbell's plan of theological study. What name shall be found for the followers of Dr. Ranken?

But our readers may like to see, by what potent arguments this zealous advocate of system demolishes the objections of the acute and learned Author of the Lectures on Systematic Theology. The latter, it is well known, was far from wishing to lay aside systems altogether as useless or even dangerous. But I am not,' he says, for beginning with them.' Dr. Ranken contends that, in the first place, Dr. Campbell's method involves an inconsistency, because, while he admits the excellency and necessity of method in general, he does not approve of the dry systematic method which he, Dr. Ranken, approves of. Because he was not overfond of creeds and systems, therefore it was inconsistent in him to admit the utility of method! Admirable reasoner! Dr. C. remarks, that there is no such a thing as a methodical digest of doctrines in the Scripture, nor was there in the Church in the earliest and purest times. That is not true, replies Dr. R., for there is

the decalogue!! Not content with this annihilating blow, he

goes on.

What else can you call the Epistle to the Romans, and several of the other Epistles? Each contains the sum of the doctrines of the Gospel digested into that form or method which, to the Apostle who wrote it, seemed best suited to the circumstances of the times and of the people. And occasionally these are abridged in a few words, as by our Saviour himself,-" God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish," &c. or by the Apostle,-"Great is the mystery of godliness, God manifested in the flesh," &c. Thus the inconsistency of this scheme is very evident, and something more than inconsistency,-a want both of just observation and due consideration in reference to the sacred Scriptures, and, though certainly unintended, a sophistry, or, at least, a fallacy of argument scarcely to have been expected in so

acute a reasoner."

Most of our readers will recollect the anecdote of the great Lord Chatham, which states him to have overheard, as the door closed upon him on retiring one day from the House of Commons, a puny orator begin his speech with I rise to reply to the honourable gentleman,'-meaning Mr. Pitt, who had last spoken, and whom he had watched out before he ventured to rise. Mr Pitt turned round, and slowly marching back to his seat, fairly confounded and struck dumb his doughty antagonist, by simply exclaiming, Now let me hear what the honourable gentleman has to say to me.' Dr. Ranken's reply to Dr. Campbell has forcibly brought this anecdote to our recollection. But he is safe: Dr. Campbell cannot return to confront his grave reprover. Let us then examine this proof of his alleged inconsistency and sophistry. It is not true, says Dr. R., that there is no methodical digest of doctrines in the Scriptures, because they contain certain simple declarations, and certain trains of argument, in which the doctrines of the Gospel are virtually comprehended. Those declarations are digests, those argumentations are methodical systems. You object to my Institutes of Theology: what say you to the Epistle to the Romans? You find fault with the Assembly's Larger Catechism: what difference is there between that and a text of scripture, such as 1 Tim. iii. 16.? Both are summaries. What could Dr. Campbell have said to this?

Dr. Ranken, having thus, in the first place, shewn that the independent method' seems inconsistent,' proceeds, secondly, to shew its inconsistency. The study of system,' he remarks, is disapproved, and yet the art of system-making is recommended, and recommended to youth.' Dr. Campbell recommends a systematic study of the Scriptures, chiefly by means