Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

5

of the parallel passages of Scripture. This, according to Dr. R. is as if every man were to causeway his own road, build ⚫ his own house, plough his own field,-in a word, return to the practice of barbarous times, and never to proceed in the successive improvements of science. For the student to labour himself" in thus studying the Bible in the original, as Dr. Campbell recommends, would be a waste of his time, since he has only to take for granted the ready-made deductions which others, by their previous labour, have furnished in the form of convenient digests. To reject these, is, we are told, to return to the practice of barbarous times, when there were no professional system-makers. Will it be credited that such language as this can be seriously held by a Protestant divine in the nineteenth century, in reference to the study of the Bible? Aware that this statement savours a little of Papistry, the good Dr. endeavours, in a subsequent paragraph, to fight off the objection, that to make systems thus necessary, is to abandon the principle that the Scriptures are a sufficient rule. He shall be heard in his own defence.

The Scriptures certainly contain the words and the doctrines of I wisdom; but they must be gathered and applied. They are not intended to work as a charm, nor will they afford spiritual and moral nourishment without being digested. Now, in digestion, the whole contents of the stomach are not indiscriminately taken into the circulation of the blood; there is a selection, a secretion, an arrangement adapted to the different uses of nature. So it is the duty and the interest of the man of God, to occupy himself diligently with the Scriptures, not merely as they are, but in arranging them for the purposes of more ready application and practice; and if this shall be 7 found already done for him, thankfully to adopt the judicious plans of others, and to enjoy the fruits of their labours.'

At the risk of being ourselves thought very unthankful for the labours of Dr. Ranken, we must observe that his metaphor is a singularly unfortunate one. The Scriptures assuredly do not require such cooking to make them yield nourishment. If they did, he is not a spiritual Kitchiner. But, in fact, a system is the most indigestible form in which wholesome truths can be served up; and they require, in this state, a peculiarly strong appetite to extract from them the nourishment they are adapted to yield. In these made dishes, there is so strong a seasoning of foreign ingredients, that the real flavour of Scriptural truth is often overpowered, and the mind rejects the distasteful mixture. What parts of the Bible Dr. R. means to allude to, when he says that the whole contents are not to be indiscri'minately taken up,' we leave him to explain. We agree with

him, that the Scriptures are not intended to work as a charm; but he seems to think that systems may thus operate; and his words look too much like attributing to the hocus pocus of mere arrangement, a moral effect on the mind and heart, which he would readily admit, we are persuaded, can be secured only by the influence of the Spirit of God.

Had the Dr. succeeded, even to his own satisfaction, in proving systems to be necessary, it would not have been requisite for him to multiply arguments in their defence. But to silence all misgivings, he adds, fifthly: In spite of all that can be said against systems, they will be framed.' And let them be framed. What is this to the purpose of determining the question, whether to begin with the study of divinity systems, is the best method of theological study? We could not at first imagine what the Dr. was driving at, till we came to the following paragraph, in which the drift of the preceding argumentation is all at once disclosed.

'Finally, it seems agreeable to common sense, as well as fair dealing, that the system which forms the standard of the National Church, should be early laid before young men who propose to become candidates for the office of the ministry in it, in order that they may know what it is expected they are to believe, to teach, and to maintain, that, if they approve of them, their minds and habits may be trained and accustomed to these modes of thinking, and to the means of defending them, and that, contrary to their solemn profession and engagement, they may not indulge themselves in that loose and licentious mode of thinking, which seems liberty, but which is not less pernicious to their own mind and comfort, than dangerous to the true interests of the church and of society.'

Now, if the question to be determined, is, not what method of study is in itself best adapted to lead to a right knowledge of the Scriptures, and to train and discipline the mind of the young inquirer, but, what may most effectually secure an implicit and bigoted adherence to a certain human standard and certain arbitrary modes of thinking,-Dr. Ranken may be right in maintaining, in reference to this latter purpose, the indispensable necessity of systems. His zeal, though not according to knowledge, is at least not without an object. It is not in order to the digestion of the Bible, that the culinary arrangement he contends for is necessary, but to render palatable and nutritive the Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and, as an entremet, the solemn League and Covenant. Considered as a recipe for promoting an appetite for these formulas in the youth of Glasgow, the worthy Dr.'s prescription may have some reason in it; though, such is our respect for the Church

of Scotland, and for our particularly venerable fathers the Westminster Assembly of Divines more especially, that we should be sorry to think the independent' mode of studying the Scriptures, must necessarily lead to a rejection, in the main, of the theology imbodied in those documents. Dr. Ranken, however, trembles for the Ark if his method be given up. He has got it into his head, that the Scriptures are rather à sandy foundation for his Church to rest upon; and, so he is for driving in certain theological piles to form a sort of pier. Systems,' he says, will be framed,' say what we will; and then he goes off as follows:

Men of similar opinions will naturally coalesce; they will draw up a formula of doctrines in which they agree; it will become the bond of their union, and the rule of their faith; they will maintain it in opposition to other creeds and formulas, and it will be the badge of their distinction. The practice is agreeable to the nature of man, --is analogous to the principles and constitution of material as well as of animal nature, by which substances of the same kind cohere, and living creatures of the same kind associate. It is the founda. tion of human society, and it may be added, is the very basis of the Catholic church on earth, and of the kingdom of God in heaven.'

[ocr errors]

p. 38.

What is? Creeds and formulas, divinity systems and institutes of theology; these are the rule of faith' on earth, and the basis of the kingdom of God in heaven!! If this be not what the good Dr. means, what, in the name of common sense, does he mean? We do not look for rank priestcraft and absurdity like this from a Scotch divine, and we hope that such language is not to be heard from many chairs. Indeed, we have no reason to believe that these sentiments prevail; and though Dr. Ranken has chosen, for reasons best known to himself, to couple with that of Dr. Campbell the obnoxious name of Mr. Glass, both of them being defunct, as the chief abettors of what he facetiously styles the independent' method of studying theology, he might have found in the recent able work of the Professor of Divinity at St. Andrew's, a recommendation of the same plan of study. It is obvious,' says Dr. Cook, how desirable it must be to enter upon the study of the Scriptures, with a mind as far as possible free from those opinions which it is the professed purpose of all dog⚫matical commentaries upon them and systems of theology to form. In every country where Christianity is professed, 'there are religious instructions conveyed to the infant mind by the affectionate counsels of the parent. Should these be regarded as obstacles to fair future inquiry, they are ob'stacles which must remain; which are inseparable from the

condition of man; and which, upon the whole, do far more good, and are more serviceable to the cause of truth, than the malignant, vicious sentiments and habits which, were not these communicated, would occupy their place. But we go out of our way in search of the most unnecessary and perti'nacious obstacles, when we begin the study of theology with the perusal of commentaries and systems. As helps where they may furnish the information of whatever kind necessary to just interpretations, they are to be resorted to for the same reason which makes us take any other intellectual help; but as guides they cannot be taken, for this would be to exalt ⚫ them above the Scriptures*."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The first principles, the great principles of religion,' remarks Mr. Howe, do lie in a very little compass..... Though it is true, that the variety of apprehensions and sentiments, ' and the great dissentions and manifold errors, that have in 'after-times sprung up in the Christian Church, have occa'sioned the enlargements of creeds and multiplying of articles of faith; varying them this way or that, to meet with this or that wrong sentiment as they have been apprehended; yet, 'the things that are in themselves necessary, must needs be but few. And if the Christian religion ever return to itself, and be what at first it was, simple, pure, plain, and unmixed, undoubtedly the sum and substance of it will be found to lie in very little compass. It hath sadly degenerated in point of efficacy, and vigour, and power, as it hath been increased and augmented in point of necessary doctrines,-men rendering 'such doctrines necessary, or bestowing that notion upon them arbitrarily as they have thought fit. And indeed the state of Christian religion hath never been flourishing, since (as one very accurately observes) it became res ingeniosa fore Chris'tianumt.'

Our recent notice of Principal Hill's Divinity Lectures (E. R. March, 1822) renders it unnecessary for us to say any thing further on the general subject of theological systems. They have undoubtedly their use, and there is still room for a work of the kind, that should be adapted to the present state of moral and theological science, and deserve the praise of being at once simple, comprehensive, and philosophical.' The present Compiler, it is evident, has not set about his task in the right way, or in the right spirit. We would by no means inti

"Inquiry into the Books of the Old Testament. By John Cook, D.D." p. 11. + Works. Vol. VI. P. 381.

mate that the work he has produced is of no value or utility. A person of the most moderate abilities could hardly fail to collect from the abundant materials which lay ready to his hand, a vast mass of important information; and Dr. R.'s references to the authors who have treated of the several topics, are commendably full and minute, indicating that they have been actually consulted. The pains which he has evidently taken in compiling the work, make us sincerely regret that we cannot bestow higher commendation on its arrangement and execution, than that the one may sufficiently answer the purpose of the reader, and that the other is generally respectable. The remarks which his dogmatism has provoked from us on the subject of the method of study, have left us no room to enter into a minute examination of the bulk of the work. We shall only advert to a few of the notes made in perusing it.

The chapter on Religion is extremely meagre and unsatisfactory. Religion, we are told, which is the knowledge and 'faith of God, is founded on the adaptation of the human mind to divine objects:' that is to say, religion is founded on man's being capable of religion. In a few sentences after this profound remark, we are informed, that it rests. mainly on the principle of self-preservation, called into operation by theological knowledge, as the effect of the fear inspired by the Divine perfections; but, in connexion with this fear, the contemplation of his goodness as naturally moves our gratitude and love.' The fear and love of God, according to this view of things, are not the essence, but the effect of religion, what religion is calculated to lead to; for religion is the knowledge of God,' which inspires us with fear, and the design of that fear is self-preservation! This is neither very scriptural nor very philosophical.

[ocr errors]

Superstition is described as the genus which comprehends under it the several species of fanaticism, enthusiasm, and mysticism. These, the worthy Dr. attempts to define; and, as might be expected, he miserably fails. Hooker has said more to the purpose in one sentence, than can be gathered from the whole section. A longing to be saved, without understanding the true way how, hath been the cause of all the superstiitions in the world.' As a specimen of the Author's powers of critical analysis, we extract the following comprehensive account of Jacob Bryant's theory of mythology.

Mr. Bryant's Theory, in which he discovers great ingenuity and learning, is founded on etymology, and ancient tradition and customs. He supposes, for example, that Noah was the ancient Dionusus so universally venerated, equally among the Greeks and Indians: and that the Cyclops with one eye was a light-house, &c.'

« ForrigeFortsett »