on the plea of enforcing religious consistency, further than this point, and brought him Chalmers saw to be, in a high degree, dan- near sometimes to the making a protest not gerous, bringing with it, as it does, the most against certain peculiarities in the national fatal species of self-delusion. He knew, and theology, but in behalf of those counter he strongly felt, that Pharisaism, in every principles which it overlooks. age of the Church, has been the issue of sectarian heats, and of the eager pushing out of principles into scrupulosities. If he had made himself more conversant than he actually was with Church history in its original sources, and with sectarian history since the Reformation, it is conceivable that he might have resolved to come down upon this evil determinately, armed with his own thunder, and have followed it up to its

source.

Here again, there may be challenged for him, in the most ample terms, a loyal, a sincere, and a Churchman-like attachment to the "Confession;" for, if you ventured in his presence to indicate any repugnance toward the national creed, or toward any portions of it; his reply was prompt, and emphatically Johnsonian: "As to that, ŝir, we have no sympathy with you." We do not know that his writings contain so much as a single passage, conveying an explicit Though he has not done this with set pur- dissent from those copious and elaborate pose, he has done something toward it canons of belief-the Westminster Confesincidentally; and in what spirit has he done sion and the Larger Catechism. If, as to it? Not scoffingly not in a latudinarian some of these articles, he would have temper not as the lax pleader for ques- worded them otherwise than they are tionable laxities; not like one who, if worded, yet never did he hesitate to stand you recede an inch, will encroach upon you to, or to subscribe them. We should, in a foot. No man has shown a more reverent his behalf, resent the supposition, that this regard than he toward whatever is tradition-adhesion was perfunctory merely; or that ary, whatever is of good repute, and what-it was given with any mental reservation. ever is believed to be of wholesome ten- Nevertheless, Chalmers' genuine religious dency. The quaint word, which occurs so often in his writings - "sacredness," stood in his mind as the representative of a class of feelings, upon the domain of which he would have been the last to make hostile intrusion. It is certain then that this great Christian teacher is one who may well be trusted who may be confided in upon any question of Christian casuistry: we imagine that the most religious individuals of the most religious of all countries, might give themselves up, without caution, to his guidance when ancient observances are in debate.

instincts carried him forward at times where his theologic reason refused to go on; or where it stumbled in the path. There were doctrines to which, in all sincerity, he made a customary obeisance as he passed; but toward which when he chanced to look at them from a distance, he felt some involuntary misgiving. On a subject like this, where it is so easy to be misunderstood, and so difficult to convey a meaning that shall be at once distinct and inoffensive, we should speak with all care. Chalmers did not disallow (so far as we know) any one of the doctrinal elements of the Genevan Faith. To what extent, in fact, Chalmers' living But he felt, though he did not clearly appreinfluence, and his writings have had effect in hend the fact, that, as the articles which are breaking up, and in mellowing the religious the distinctions of that faith are worded soil of Scotland, we do not know, nor shall polemically, they are therefore, although we risk a conjectural answer to the question. true - true rather in a controversial sense But we may venture so far as to express of an age of eager and desperate contention, the opinion, that his Sermons, his Essays, than in a sense purely biblical. his Expositions, and his Institutes, might, to When Chalmers is contending with very good purpose, be looked into, and ex- "infidel" opponents, he thinks he can never plored by the younger ministers of religion say too much about the "Baconian Philoin Scotland, for the single purpose of gather-sophy;" and he strenuously insists upon ing into one the scattered indications which the application of its principles to the arguthey contain of his strong feeling and deep ment between himself and these "gainconviction on this subject—namely, the too sayers." "We," who profess to be the determinative character of the Christianity well-trained disciples of Bacon and Newton, of Scotland; or that exterior rigidity which ought to hold ourselves bound by the axioms gives it an aspect differing, by a shade or of Modern Science," in all cases to which so, from the breadth, and the moral beauty they may apply; and to abide by the issue, of the Christianity of the Gospels. be it what it may. Yes, indeed, so it ought But Chalmers' mind and soul if not to be! But if so in fact it were- if always his logical faculty, carried him forward even Bacon's initial rule were brought to bear

upon the systematic theologies of the Refor- inexplicable on any known th-what mation era, what havoc might it make do we do? do we turn aside 1.om those among them! Those theologies were com- obdurate facts, as if we had a quarrel with posed upon principles which then were them? Surely not. Rather than take so universally admitted as sound and unques- insane a course, we put a note of doubt tionable; but which, in our times, have upon the very best of our own, hitherto, acbeen (in matters of philosophy) universally cepted Philosophies. discarded as false and delusive.

How then should it be with our Biblical interpretations, if they were carried forward in good faith, and in fearless compliance with the guiding principle of our Modern Philosophy? We are not called upon to say how it would be; for we are not teaching Christian Theology;-but we say these two things, both of which are pertinent to our immediate subject ;-first, that Chalmers would have been less frequent than he was in his references to the "Baconian Philosophy," if he had understood what would be its bearing upon those Reformation Confessions which he still adhered to; and, secondly, that his genuine religious feeling, and his instinctive mistrust of dogmas which he saw to have an unchristian aspect, impelled him, on various occasions, to border upon an expression of his inward uneasiness. From certain doctrinal

We must acknowledge that, in reading those passages in Chalmers' writings which we have now in view, a misgiving has come over us. Quite right is he, as a Christian advocate, while contending with unbelievers; but, as a Christian theologian, is he not liable to be slain by his own weapon? When the time shall come-and it will come when the initial axiom of Novum Organum shall be applied to the interpretation of Scripture, as it has been applied to the interpretation of nature - then will Christianity return upon the world in its power. The creeds and the confessions of the Reforanation era were, indeed, with scrupulous care, based upon the authority of "Holy Scripture," and, looking at them simply as they stood related to the manifold corruptions of the twelve centuries preceding, they might neighbourhoods he always drew off:-at cerwell claim to be Scriptural. But in what nanner had they been framed? A certain class of texts having been assumed as the groundwork of Christian belief-then a scheme of theology is put together accordingly, whence, by the means of the deductive logic, all separate articles of faith are to be derived. As to any passages of Scripture which might seem to be of another class, or which do not easily fall into their places in this scheme, they were either ignored, or they were controlled, and this, to any extent that might be asked for by the stern necessities of the syllogistic method.

-

tain spots he stood back:-he excused himself from advancing where his predecessors had boldly rushed forward, and he did so on the plea of the inscrutable mysteriousness of the subject; and he thought it enough to say, that, at such points we are touching upon the boundaries between what is lawful and what is unlawful in religious speculation. This is true; and it is the proper course to be taken by ordinary Christian teachers, in their stated expositions of Scripture. But Chalmers stood before his country in a position which would have warranted his pursuing an exceptional course.

In what direction then might such a course have led him forward?

A Christianity which should indeed be INDUCTIVE - and not Deductive which should, in its methods of proof, be Baconian Not-and let us say it with emphasis-not -not Aristotelian, how unlike to any such in the direction which, to so little purpose, controversial canons of Faith would it ap- has of late been taken by distinguished men pear, and how unlike would it be ! If Holy who have largely influenced the religious Scripture is to be heartily accepted as true mind in England and America. Chalmers throughout-and as trustworthy, and if it was not the man either to lead or to follow is to be followed as our sufficient guide in in this track; for there was nothing, in the religious belief-system or no system-constitution of his mind, of the feeble and the then we shall take it just as we find it: petulant; there was nothing of vacillation, and we find it to be a specific testimony;-nothing inclining him to resort to subterfuge, we find it to be a Revelation " in part' we or which could have stooped to equivocafind it to be a conveyance of certain need- tion; and, need we say it ?-there was in ful, but disjoined elements of Heaven's him no want of religious humility, or of deentire truth: it is such a conveyance as vout conscientiousness. Chalmers therefore will never yield itself to our plastic hand, had no qualification fitting him for the task, to be moulded at our pleasure into form, or inciting him to undertake it, of labouring even as we deal with a humanly devised to win over the philosophic unbelief of these philosophic scheme. In the world of nature, times to Christianity by compromises and by as often as facts come before us which are large concessions. It was not in his moral D-3

VOL XXVI.

temperament-it was not within the range of of its manifold and multiform processes, and his intellectual faculties, to employ himself on such an implied acquaintance with the Inin the nice operation of chipping, and filing, finite and the Everlasting, that a great part and edging away Christian truths until they of our infidelity is based." This is quite shall square themselves to their places in true; but a thorough-going equity would modern philosophies. This man of deep con- demand that a counter-statement should be victions, and of high moral courage this attached to this allegation against infidelityTheologian, unfeignedly regardful as he was namely, that it has been upon a similar arroof the solemn obligations of a Christian teach-gance, and an arrogance less excusable, that er, could never have been induced to pay a "great part" of our Logical Theology court to Atheism, or to fawn upon antichris- has been based; and especially those articles tian Deism, by showing that Christianity in this theology which have given a handle when "liberally interpreted," means very to infidelity. little, or nothing more than this last, and that At page 26 of the same Prelection, Butit may (in the abstract) walk side by side ler's "meagre and moderate theology" is with the first. called in question, on the ground of his atNot so. What then is it which we might tributing too much to human ability in spihave wished Chalmers to do more than he ritual matters. An apologist for Butler in has done? What is it which one who had this instance might retort upon the lecturer, his ear might have suggested to him to and affirm that the ultra orthodox are wont undertake? It was this:-we could have to "keep out of sight," or to evade the force wished him to loosen by a little the tightness of those passages of Scripture to which their of those logical theologies which, framed as Arminian antagonists make their appeal. they were in a disputatious age, have now An exuberant or luscious orthodoxy is one the effect of debarring us from the free and extreme, of which the "meagre theology fearless enjoyment of Holy Scripture-even of the moderates is the other extreme: our if the entire sense of every verse of it-protest is for Christianity derived from a whether it be consistent, or inconsistent, whole Bible. with our foregone conclusions. What we In many places of these Prelections, as need is not that minimum of belief which also of the Institutes, Chalmers expresses some ill-judging writers are now inviting us his faith in the doctrine of Necessity, and to accept; but that maximum of belief which his unexceptive acquiescence in the "Essay an ingenuous submission to the entire mean- on the Freedom of the Will." It is but ing of Scripture would give us. justice to him to admit his high merit in This result Chalmers honestly and fervent- these instances-namely, that he renounces, ly desired, of which desire the indications and denounces too, all those inferences, are frequent throughout his writings; and to whether Atheistic or Antinomian, which a few of these we shall now make a reference. have been alleged to spring from that docBut he did not, as we think, clearly discern trine. Nothing can be more soundly pracwhat those hindrances are, connected with tical and wise than are the cautionary parasystematic, polemical, and logical theology, graphs which are appended to these avowals which stand in the way of our thus obtaining of his philosophic creed. This is enough, or possession of Christianity in its amplitude of meaning.

It is not needful to classify the references we are about to make. We note them just as they occur in the three volumes now before us-namely, the ninth of the POSTHUM OUS WORKS, which we first take up; and the first and second.

should be thought enough, to screen this sound-minded Calvinist from all criticism or remark. But if Chalmers had lived on to this present time, and if he had watched the course of religious opinion, he would have seen that a sophism so irrelevant as is that of Jonathan Edwards, has already had its day; and that it is now coming to be regarded simply as a signal instance of an ingenious and astute abstraction - parallel with the nihilism of Hegel, and which disappears, as a mist, when human nature comes to be treated of, not logically but. physically, and as a reality in the great world of life.

In the Prelection on Butler's Analogy, page 4, the lecturer affirms, as well he may, that "it is immensely arrogant in the crea tures of a day to pronounce of the Unseen and Everlasting God-that He never does, or can act in a particular way-that He never has adopted, and never would adopt, such or such a method of administration;" When Chalmers eulogizes Butler, as he and yet, as he affirms, "it is on an implied does so warmly, comparing the service acquaintance with the principles of the Di. which he has rendered to Christianity, with vine government, in all the vastness of its ex- the service rendered by Bacon to philosotent, and throughout all the endless varietyphy, as at page 76, he sets forth what we

are perfectly sure was his genuine feeling, (matter in hand; or perhaps, as proving the and what would have been his explicitly ex- very contrary?

pressed conviction, as to Biblical Interpre- Again, we have ventured to affirm of tation-namely, that it should pursue its Chalmers' doctrine of the Inspiration of the course-regardless of systematic theology Scriptures, that it is crude, inadmissible, unregardless of Confessions of Faith. This intelligible. This is not all; for it is such would have been his deliverance on the sub- that, if it be insisted upon, we must needs ject; and we give him credit for it, often give in to the frivolous cavils of writers like and again, where we do not find it, in words, F. Newman, and most admit them to be on his pages. conclusive against the Divine origination of the Bible. Let the reader consider the entire paragraph, page 174. If we misunder stand the lecturer, we shall gladly acknowledge the error. The affirmation that "Marcus was sister's son to Barnabas," is there allowed to be one which is wholly unimportant in itself, as related to our religious state of mind :-Nevertheless, a rejection of it (or hesitation in admitting it "the want" of this belief) may indicate another want of fearful magnitude and effect, for it may indicate "the want of a full and settled faith in Scripture." Herein comes out the dangerous consequence of an assumption which is unwarrantable in itself, and which is not only liable to be broken up in the course of a young man's critical studies, but which inevitably must be broken up at an early stage of his acquaintance with biblical criticism. It is painful to think of the case of a timid and conscientious student, who, having yielded himself without question to the guidance of such a teacher as Chalmers, meets with evi

In the Prelection on Paley's Evidences, we beg to direct the thoughtful reader to the Lecturer's cautious observations at pages 106, 107; they curiously exemplify the unconscious influence of a speculation, already authenticated on the side of orthodoxy, in checking the course of a speculation to which Scripture itself gives more than a shadowy support. We ask the reader, whom we are supposing ourselves just now to have at our call, to look at page 129, as an instance of mingled caution and honesty, in treating the subject of Reward; or, as we should say, the rewardableness of good works under the Christian economy. On this ground, where the polemic theology of the Reformation has made such awful havoc of the plainest Scripture teaching, Chalmers shows that he had a sense of the mischief; although he had no clear discernment, either of the source or of the extent of it. When we shall have wound up our controversy with Rome, we may feel ourselves free to listen to Bible evidence, as it stands, without abatement, dence-irresistible evidence-which must on this and other subjects. That this independence this freedom from the entanglements of by-gone polemics, was ardently desired by him, and that he looked forward to an era when it shall prevail, there are many bright evidences in the course of his writings. We have now before us page 169, to which a special reference ought here to be made; but which we need not cite.

lead to his coming to doubt the truth of a Biblical assertion, like the one above mentioned. 'Is it not high time that we should know what we mean when we affirm that the Bible is God's book? We think we do not misunderstand Chalmers; and, in support of our supposition as to his meaning, we refer to a passage on page 188, beginning, "There are articles of information in ScripTwo pages forward, a passage occurs turc." If once we yield ourselves to this which also claims a word of notice. We tremendous dogma, that a Christian man's have ventured to designate this great man's safety for eternity is put in peril by his enterorder of mind as unexplorative and non-cri- taining a doubt of the historical accuracy of tical. In the place now in view, he urges the canonical books in any single instance, his Class to the use of the Shorter Catechism, then, what is his position ?--what is his aland the Confession, and the Larger Cate-ternative? He must, with alarm, put far chism-as presented in those editions which from him every means and material of bihave the Scripture proofs at length. This ad- blical criticism; he must cease to read and vice cannot be found fault with; but, when to think, and then how is he to rebut the taunts given from the chair, it would seem to ask of the infidel who says-"You hold to your for an accompanying caution; for how can Bible in wilful blindness:--you dare not inthese Scripture proofs be now accepted, at form yourself concerning its contents." We large, as proofs of the doctrines stated at the do not know in what way Chalmers would top of each page, when-if the unquestion- have reconciled his own doctrine of Inspiraable methods of our modern criticism be ap- tion with his own often-repeated exhortations plied to them, very many of these citations to his class-to prosecute biblical criticism. must be rejected as utterly irrelevant to the We have looked through chap. ix. in the

It

Institutes, in which so much is said in com- | Christi in æternum sit duraturum?” mendation of critical proficiency-supposing might have been further to the credit of that that a paragraph might therein occur, throw- Church, if, in her "wisdom," she had, like ing some light upon this difficulty, but have her sister, and like the ancient Church, abnot found one. The question does not seem stained from any deliverance upon subjects to have presented itself to the mind of Chal- which are still less cognizable by the human mers in any distinct manner. mind!

In that chapter of the Institutes, as indeed Chalmers, as a wise ruler in the Churchthroughout the writings of this large-minded as a man of action, conversant with human champion of the truth-such unquestionably nature, and singularly gifted with tact for he was we are met, far too frequently, dealing with its weakness, has shown himwith those terms of reprobation and scorn, self ready enough to rid Scottish Christianity applied to "infidels," "heretics," "gain-of its scrupulosities and its formalities; and, sayers," which have come down from a fu- in several places that might be cited, he has rious and fanatical era, and which, so long proved himself to be master of an enlightenas they are indulged in by teachers and ed forbearance with each other in the cirwriters of repute, will not merely serve to cumstantials of worship; in contrast with foment the worst passions, and to indurate the "furious intolerance and zeal which chathe narrowest prejudices, but will effectively racterized, and, at the same time, disgraced shut out from the view of "the orthodox" a former age," p. 231. All that we would of "us, who are in the right," those inveterate have asked of him, as due to his own eninfatuations, those overweenings of personal largement of mind, would have been thisarrogance, which still stand in the way, as to lead the way in delivering his country at they have so long stood in the way, of an once from a false intensity of feeling in mathonest and ingenuous acceptance of the en-ters of worship and observance, and from tire sense of Scripture. In a page now be- the dogmatic arrogance of that same past fore us-215, of the notes on Hill's Lectures, age of "furious intolerance." These words there is an admission that the tendency to are his, not ours. We should refer to pp. indulge lawless speculation, whence have 394, et seq., as relating to the same subject. sprung heresies, has "misled even the Church We have alluded to the bearing of Chaland the orthodox into lamentable extrava-mers' writings upon the three Theologies, gances of speculation, and laid open the which now stand in view of our British whole subject of the Trinity, in particular, Christianity-namely, the superannuated with its cognate and correlative topics, to Logical, the modern Philosophical, and the the ridicule of the profane, to the merciless future Biblical. Toward the first, he exsatire and severity of the infidel." True, hibits himself as personally undergoing indeed, but it is a part only of the truth. the process of clearing himself of its tramExpressions such as the following-p. 217, do not suit our taste; they grate upon the ear:-"But while I prefer this charge against many of the heretics, I cannot acquit the Church altogether of blame in the matter either." Now we would venture to trans- times. As to the third, although we do not pose the terms of this admission in some such manner as this-"But while we prefer this charge against the Church (that of attempting to be wise above what is written) we cannot acquit the 'heretics' altogether of blame either." Chalmers' candour in this and similar instances resembles that of some modern Romanists, who, when alluding to the intolerance and the ferocities of past times, are generous enough to say, "While we prefer this charge of truculent intolerance against Lollards, Huguenots, Puritans, and the like of them, we cannot acquit the Church of Rome altogether of blame either." Very candid are such admissions!

mels. He is seen to be working himself forth from the slough. Toward the second, he shows a determined hostility, and he would have denounced it still more loudly than he did, if he had lived on to these

see that he had come to any determinate perception of those principles of interpretation whence it must spring, it is certain that his heart was right toward it. He would have hailed it with all his soul if it had been' fairly presented to him for his judgment and approval. As our warrant in so confidently saying this, we refer the reader to the closing paragraphs of book iii., pp. 232-3, and still more pointedly to the long paragraph which fills page 297, and again to page 312.

The scheme of doctrine which Chalmers describes and denounces, p. 257, et seq., under the designation of "the Middle System," agrees, to some extent, with the more P. 221.-"It is to the credit of the wis- recent development of the same tendencies dom of the Church of Scotland that, in its in England, and which we have referred to Confession of Faith, there is no deliverance above as-" Modern Thought.' This chapupon the subject-an regnum mediatorium ter therefore may be taken as containing,