De Moor I:25: Systematic Revealed Theology

Theology Doctrinal, or considered systematically, is not taken here very strictly, as it is done in the writings of the Fathers, for the Doctrine of God and of the Holy Trinity, or of the divine nature of Christ, as over against Economy or doctrine of the dispensation of the Incarnation, the human nature of Christ, and the connected benefit of Redemption; just as we saw in § 2:  but Theology here comprehends under itself all revealed Doctrine concerning God and divine things.

It is divided again in a variety of ways, either with respect to Parts, or according to the diverse Mode of delivery.

With respect to Parts, it is either Exegetical, which is conversant with ἐξηγήσει/exegesis or the explication of the text of Sacred Scripture and argues concerning the sense of this or that passage:  or Didactic, which διδάσκει, teaches, passes on, and builds Theological truths and dogmas:  Elenctic or Polemical, which, taken strictly, is conversant with questions of a more Fundamental character with Adversaries, and takes pains with the refutation and vanquishing of their Errors, from ἐλέγχειν/ elenchein, to refute, and πόλεμος/polemos/war:  or again Casuistic, which sets forth Cases of Conscience, and answers them:  Patristic, which from the writing of the Fathers, who flourished in the first ages of Christianity, describes their opinions concerning whatever Theological dogmas:  Problematic, which reflects upon whatever Questions that do not so much touch the foundation, but concerning which it is able to be argued either way by a saved, orthodox believer:  Historical, which divides and describes the doctrine of religion, and its circumstances, according to the various ages of the Church, so that in this way one might be able to be certain concerning the perpetual preservation of the true doctrine and succession of the true Church; that is, this Theology relates the origin, propagation, perversion, and restoration of Theological doctrine by its individual heads from monuments worthy of credit.  Nevertheless, some of these parts of Theology are able to be comprehended under others, and the first place among them is held by Didactic and Elenctic Theology, which are not so aptly separated from one another; but it is optimally conducive to the implanting of the knowledge of the sacred Science, if, immediately after the solid confirmation of individual heads of doctrine, a succinct refutation of the opposite error is delivered.  Be that as it may, those various parts of Theology, just now enumerated, treated separately, are able to be considered in the writings of JOHANN HEINRICH ALSTED,[1] HEINRICH ALTING, etc.  Biblical observations upon the whole of Sacred Scripture, under the title of Theologiæ Exegeticæ, were published in two folio volumes by PHILIPP HEINRICH FRIEDLIEB,[2] in which he considers again and again the same seven Classes of Observations upon individual books of Sacred Scripture, or larger pericopes of them:  namely, the first, of Hebraisms in the Old and Hellenisms in the New Testament; the second, of contradictions resolved; the third, of exceptions; the fourth, of objections; the fifth, of proverbs; the sixth, of circumstances, persons, places, and times; the seventh, of questions.  JOHANN FRANZ BUDDEUS, in his Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, weaves together a most ample history of these various Parts of Theology, namely, of Dogmatic Theology, chapter I, tome I, pages 335-438; of Symbolic Theology, chapter II, tome I, pages 438-534; of Patristic Theology, chapter III, tome I, pages 534-610; of Moral Theology, chapter IV, tome I, pages 610-730; of Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence, chapter V, tome 2, pages 733-863; of Polemical Theology, chapter VII, tome 2, pages 963-1426; of Exegetical Theology, chapter VIII, tome 2, pages 1427-1796; and also Ecclesiastical History or Historical Theology, chapter VI, tome 2, pages 863-962.

Simon Episcopius

With respect to the Mode of delivery, Doctrinal Theology is called either Positive or Scholastic:  which are incorrectly distinguished from one another, in such a way that the former is said to be conversant in the exposition of Scripture, the latter in the deriving of Dogmas and common Places; see MARESIUS’ Systema Theologicum, locus I, § 8, note a:  for dogmas are also to be derived in the exposition of Scripture, and common Places and dogmas ought to depend upon the explication or sense and authority of sacred Scripture.  BUDDEUS from the writings of the Papists sets forth a sense of this distinction somewhat different still, Isagoge ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter I, tome I, pages 336b, 337a, and § 15, page 404b, chapter III, § 9, page 578b.  But Positive Theology is that which is not so bound by logical rules, but it more freely and in an oratorical manner handles and declares divine things as the circumstance arises, either in accordance with the texture of the whole of Scripture, or of a part of it, or otherwise.  On the other hand, Scholastic Theology, so called in a good sense, proceeds in a disciplined method, and exhibits divine truths reduced unto fixed heads according to the rules of Logic for the use of Christian schools.  Now, the use of this Scholastic Theology in Christian Schools Theologians uphold against various Anabaptists and Fanatics of that sort, who without a fixed order of doctrine in the passing on of Religion are themselves whirled about, and think it proper for others to be whirled about:  see DORESLAER and AUSTRO-SYLVIUS, contra Anabaptistas, chapter XVI, § I, pages 385, 386, 390-405.  Likewise against others, who too often inculcate the simple Reading and Explication of Scripture, having in contempt Locos communes, common Places, as Locos cum nugis, Places with frivolities:  just as Arminius and his followers in the century past led the way, rattling on about a Scriptural Theology, that is, purged of Scholastic dregs:  “I,” writes Arminius to Utenbogardus,[3] “meanwhile strive vigorously, that the reason be not missed why they are angry, in opening to hearers the true senses of the Scriptures to the best of my ability, and in this manner attracting them to my Readings.”  Episcopius likewise writes to Michael Schneider:  “The method of composing Theology I make my own and free to each.  Theology is not an art, not a ordering by art of common Places.  Substance makes a Theologian, not order….  Moreover, method varies according to the ability and mind of each….  Thus I have always believed that the best Theologian is one that makes the text of Scriptures so familiar to himself that he is able to discuss any matter proposed, even without art, without method.  The Textual Theologian is the best Theologian.”  In which place he then goes out against the abuse of methodical Theology, that it happens whenever anyone according to their own art or method judges the whole sense of Scripture, while on the other hand he ought to compare the observations of his mind and art to the norm of Scripture:  see præstantium Virorum Epistolas, pages 201, 738.

Jerome

However, as the abuse of a thing does not destroy its use; so, on the other hand, our Theologians observe that this Institution of passing on Theology by the Scholastic method is, 1.  Most Ancient:  inasmuch as the Fathers in a certain measure went before in the Expositions of the Symbols, which sort is that of Ruffinus,[4] for example, which is found also within the works of Cyprian, published by Jacobus Pamelius,[5] tome 3, pages 538 and following; and also of Jerome, published by Erasmus, tome 4, pages 101 and following:  in Enchiridia, of which sort is that of Augustine to Laurentius, delivering the sum and principal heads of the whole Christian Doctrine:  in Expositions, of which sort is the ἔκθεσις or Exposition of the correct faith, found in the works of Justin Martyr, but which nevertheless is judged to be spurious and of a later age; see GERHARD’S[6] Patrologiam, pages 83-85.  But it is also permissible to commend the example of God and Christ Himself, who delivered examples of an exact method in the Decalogue, in the summary of it in Matthew 22:37-40, in the Lord’s Prayer; and also of θεοπνεύστων/God-inspired[7] men, especially of Paul, who in the Epistle to the Romans delivered the doctrine of salvation in a most elegant method, and enumerated the elementary heads of the faith before the Hebrews, Hebrews 6:1, 2.  Hence it is allowable to be argued:  Whoever furnished and attested Examples of an exact method in divine things, he approves, and even requires, this in divine things.  But God furnished examples of this sort, as already seen.

Likewise:  Whoever in an order altogether free, but at the same time definite, and agreeing with Logical method, dictated the Sacred Scripture to the Prophets and Apostles, and commanded that the same be rightly divided; he is not opposed to order or method in the delivery of Theology:  But God did those things.  Therefore.  The former member of the Major, in addition to the things already observed previously, is proven from a Logical analysis, provided by learned men, of the Old and New Testaments in their entirety.  The latter member is proven from 2 Timothy 2:15.

2.  In addition, this institution is also Most Useful, both for the acquisition and the teaching of a distinct knowledge of Theological matters, in a manner suited to the very nature of the matters to be delivered, and therefore it is best adopted:  for, where are presented various, homogeneous doctrines, subordinated one to another, and arranged toward one and the same end; there logical method has place, and is best observed.  But, in Theology are presented various, homogeneous doctrines (for they all treat of divine things), indeed subordinated among themselves, as cause and effect, antecedent and consequent; and they are also arranged toward one and the same goal, which is the glory of God and the salvation of the Church.

3.  Indeed, this institution, with the extraordinary gifts passing away, on account of the weakness of our intellect and memory, is sufficiently Necessary for favorable progress:  for, if without a prop of this sort it would fall to each by reading to draw forth the principal heads from the Sacred Scripture; for the confirmation of the same matter one might not so easily have many passages in readiness:  and, if he should happen upon a passage in appearance favoring adversaries, being doubtful, he would be obliged to hesitate until he should discover another passage, by which the former should be explained.

Neither ought it to be Objected:  1.  That what exceeds the capacity and conception of human reason, also exceeds Logical method, which is built thereupon.  Theology exceeds the capacity and conception of human reason.  Therefore.

Response:  It is the fallacy à dicto secundum quid, from a qualified maxim, ad dictum simpliciter, unto a simple maxim:  for according to Scripture Theology exceeds the capacity of the animal man only, not of the spiritual man, at least not completely, who discerns spiritual things, and hence orders and arranges the same; see 1 Corinthians 2:9-15.

2.  That what transcends all sciences, also transcends Logical method.  Theology transcends all Sciences.  Therefore.

Response:  The Major is to be denied; for sciences treat of matters natural and knowable; but Logic treats not of things, but of the manner of teaching and explaining things, whether those things be designated natural in the Sciences, or supernatural in Theology; if indeed the same method of delivering each in notions simple and composite obtains.

3.  That what detracts from the simplicity of Theological doctrine, ought not to be employed concerning it.  Method detracts from the simplicity of Theological doctrine, inasmuch as it is obscured by the artifice and subtlety of method.  Therefore.

Response:  1.  The Minor is to be denied:  for method does not change the genus of Theological doctrine, but only arranges it in an appropriate order, so that it might be more easily understood.  2.  Or it shall be the fallacy of accident.  That happens, not by the fault of method, but by the ignorance of the artificer, bending doctrine unto the rules of method, not prudently adapting method to that doctrine:  consult HEINRICH ALTING’S Theologiam problematicam novam, locus I, problem II, pages 9-12.  These objections against us, as if erring in this part, moves also ECKHARDUS, in his Fasciculo Controversiarum cum Calvino, chapter I, question 3, pages 16-18.  For the right use of Systems of Theology read the disputation of Anonymous, de Nederlandse Bibliotheek, volume 4, n. 10, Mengelst, pages 289-316.

[1] Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588-1638) was a German Reformed Pastor, Theologian, and Encyclopedist.  He served as Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Herborn (1608-1629).

[2] Philipp Heinrich Friedlieb (1603-1663) was a Lutheran Pastor and Theologian.  He served as Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at Greifswald (1628-1630).

[3] Johannes Utenbogardus (1557-1644) was a Dutch minister, a follower of Arminius, and a leader of the Remonstrants after Arminius’ death.

[4] Ruffinus was a fourth century churchman, a friend of Jerome turned foe, a commentator, and a monastery builder.  He wrote Commentarius in symbolum apostolorum.

[5] Jacobus Pamelius (1536-1587) was a Flemish theologian.  He produced edited works, not only of Cyprian, but also of Tertullian and Rabanus Maurus.

[6] John Gerhard (1582-1637) was an eminent Lutheran divine.  He held the position of Professor of Divinity at Jena (1616), and he was four times the Rector of the same.  He wrote copiously in exegetical, polemical, and dogmatic theology.  His Loci communes theologici (1610-1622) was the largest Lutheran dogmatic text that had been produced to date.

[7] 2 Timothy 3:16:  “All scripture is given by inspiration of God (πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…”