Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nathan, this question is highly suggestive of an interesting fact -- while there are literally several dozen Systematic Theology works from the Continent in the late 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries, I can barely even account for a small handful of such works from the British Presbyterians of the same period. In truth, the only fully developed High Orthodox system I can account for off the top of my head from a Presbyterian is Edward Leigh's Body of Divinity. Dudley Fenner was an advocate of Presbyterianism and composed a systematic work modeled on Ramist logic, and Cartwright composed a treatise touching on all the principle points of Divinity, but I wouldn't call it a system of Theology. Among the Scotsmen, you have John Brown's lectures, which were mentioned above, and Samuel Rutherford's lectures which were later combined and published under the name Examen Arminianismi. The works of men such as Watson, Boston, Binning and Ridgely, who made expositions, sermons or lectures on the Catechisms approach the concept of a system (some more than others), and there were several such works. Can you think of any Presbyterian systems pre-1800s?
Edit
John Downame? I have not read his system, The Summe of Sacred Divinity. Was he Presbyterian; it seems likely that he was.
Nathan, this question is highly suggestive of an interesting fact -- while there are literally several dozen Systematic Theology works from the Continent in the late 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries, I can barely even account for a small handful of such works from the British Presbyterians of the same period. In truth, the only fully developed High Orthodox system I can account for off the top of my head from a Presbyterian is Edward Leigh's Body of Divinity. Dudley Fenner was an advocate of Presbyterianism and composed a systematic work modeled on Ramist logic, and Cartwright composed a treatise touching on all the principle points of Divinity, but I wouldn't call it a system of Theology. Among the Scotsmen, you have John Brown's lectures, which were mentioned above, and Samuel Rutherford's lectures which were later combined and published under the name Examen Arminianismi. The works of men such as Watson, Boston, Binning and Ridgely, who made expositions, sermons or lectures on the Catechisms approach the concept of a system (some more than others), and there were several such works. Can you think of any Presbyterian systems pre-1800s?
Edit
John Downame? I have not read his system, The Summe of Sacred Divinity. Was he Presbyterian; it seems likely that he was.
Let me add this: Of all of the Presbyterian Systematics... how many of the small handful have an ecclesiology in them? It seems to me that Presbyterians (who claim jus divinum of presbyterianism) only a handful of the handful have an ecclisiology!
No. I was asking if we couldn't amplify your statement about British Presbyterians producing few systems, to be simply a statement about the British in general.
Jeremy, no, they do not have the same purpose. A systematic theology is a private work representing the manner most agreeable to the individual as to the method and order of teaching the various loci of theology; whereas a Confession is a public, ecclesiastical statement (by no means designed to be comprehensive like a system of theology) whereby we jointly confess aspects of the faith.
Jeremy, no, they do not have the same purpose. A systematic theology is a private work representing the manner most agreeable to the individual as to the method and order of teaching the various loci of theology; whereas a Confession is a public, ecclesiastical statement (by no means designed to be comprehensive like a system of theology) whereby we jointly confess aspects of the faith.
Rev. Keister,
What is your opinion on W.G.T. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology?
If the Apostle Paul was a Presbyterian, I would have to say Romans .
If the Apostle Paul was a Presbyterian, I would have to say Romans .