shape of enormous wrongs- a commentary upon a life of arduous philane; and which bring the social thropy. The narrative of a twenty, or fivereme peril. A paternal gov-and-twenty years of prodigious public labour,, heartily wish that its subjects, carried on in Glasgow and in Edinburgh, to ould act their parts better, be itself fully intelligible, must incorporate ve it a world of trouble; but these treatises in their chronological order. so, and therefore, inasmuch The treatises and the laborious life are the ial evils must any way be re- warp and woof of a cloth of gold, which for smuch as civil government has firm coherence, and for moral splendour, has =of remedy at its command, scarcely a parallel in our religious history. enforced by the public arm, Thus thought of, these several treatises, lial statutes, and sees to it which in one sense may be said to have had of their effect. Meanwhile, their day, and to be superannuate, can never sters of religion that belongs fail to be inquired for and read while Scotcking these same social mis- land remembers this apostolic man. eir stand upon quite another The LECTURES ON ESTABLISHMENTS, which loying persuasions altogeth- were delivered with so much éclat in London order. Law may be super- in the spring of 1838, may seem to possess orals are perfect, not else- a claim to some notice as distinguished from bediency of a legal provision the Treatises on kindred subjects, above reand indigent is a question ferred to. Those treatises constitute, as we do not concern ourselves; have said, a running commentary upon a usion to found an argument course of extraordinary labour and of successactments upon an alleged ful enterprise. But the Lectures on Estabilable distinction between lishments came to be commented on in a umanity." The social sys- very remarkable manner five years after the ications, infinite as they are, time of their delivery, by Chalmers' own tances which are not to be course of conduct-a course open, no doubt, y such categorical and syl- to misapprehension, as well as to misinterJustice and charity often pretation. Long ago the wrongful allegations in a loud outcry for legis- of that period of agitation received their conf relief. futation; and they are forgotten. There on the Parochial System, may nevertheless be a residue of apparent I of the tracts included in inconsistency, if not a small remainder of e, and those of the eight- actual inconsistency, which seems to call for considered apart from the a word of comment. Sufficiently was the esiastical doctrines which more obvious imputation of inconsistency reound and illustrate, and of futed by Dr. Chalmers himself at the time in his day was the apostle, of the Disruption; as, for example, in pas, and will continue to be sages such as the following, (Correspondence ge in respect of the many with Sir George Sinclair, December 4, 1841.) llumine them, and which in their universal bear"I conclude with noticing as briefly as possible an morals and Christian your remarks on my consistency: 1st, You speak of my former avowed preference for a National ven a reader who should Establishment, reminding me of what you call my ; from Chalmers' doctrine, own theory. Now, in my London Lectures, in my w every article of his ec- Church Extension Addresses, in all my controverconomic creed, must yet sies with the Voluntaries, in my numerous writthese passages with, one ings for twenty years back, the spiritual indepenrential feeling. Was the dence of the Church has been ever brought prourer-the Professor-was minently forward as an indispensable part of that ist, stepping out from his theory, and I have uniformly stated, that the least violation of that independence in return for a State h and to defend paradoxes Endowment, was enough to convert a Church Eshe progeny of his mere tablishment into a moral nuisance. It is a little t so with Chalmers. This too much, that after the Conservatives had acceptand dogma was always ed with thankfulness my defence of National Es3 and in his labours-great- tablishments, they should now propose to take eficent performances, than away from me the benefit of their main vindication; or think that an advocacy given to a Naion and philosophy. The tional Church, solely for the sake of its religious tings now before us, cum- and moral benefits to the population, should still hem may be in form, and be continued after they shall have converted it le, should be regarded as from an engine of Christian usefulness into a mere congeries of offices, by which to uphold the in-mists throughout England, who, in our apprehenfluence of patrons, and subserve the politics or the sion, are so near in theology to the Establishment, views of a worthless partisanship."-Memoirs, that for ourselves we cannot make out a principle vol. iv. p. 242. in any of the differences on which they continue to stand without its pale."-Sixth Lecture. This is all very good; and it is valid if taken as Chalmers' plea for himself, when This would be right and pertinent too, if taunted by the Conservatives on the ground orthodox nonconforming communions in resthe lecturer had been addressing the several of inconsistency. But now let these same words be noted and brought into their bear-pect of their differences one among another. In ing upon some passages in the "London that case he might pointedly have asked Lectures." Lovers of justice as we profess and nearly one ecclesiastical model, why do them, "Why, seeing that you have one creed to be, we must cite them, and leave judgment with the equitable reader. The Lecturer is replying to the Noncon-alive on grounds so unimportant-three deforming sects, who urge their equal claim with the endowed Church-to be favoured you maintain your divisions? Why keep nominations, or seven, as the case may be ?" But any such line of argument as this is, we is addressed to the nonconforming sects at must say it, grievously out of place when it large, as they now stand related to the Established Church. Let us see how this is. "To the question by which it was thought they We must assume it as certain that Chalwould have gravelled us. When the difference is mers knew enough of the course of controso insignificant between the Church and the Sec-versy, and of the state of religious parties in tarians, why treat them so unequally? our reply England, to be aware of the fact that the time is-When the difference is so insignificant, why had long gone by when Nonconformists inkeep up that difference at all? why do sectaries sisted, with any lively zeal or persistence, keep aloof from the Church on considerations either one among another, or when they are which are confessedly insignificant and paltry? in debate with the Established Church, upon We hear of their common faith, that is, of their agreement with the Church, on all vital and essenany one of those matters of ritual or obsertial topics; and this, in opposition to the bigots Vance to which, with any fairness, the conwithin the Establishment, we heartily accord to temptuous phrases employed by him can be the great majority of Dissenters in both parts of applied; it is not the nuga triviales of a pothe island. But if they agree in all that is essen-lemical age that are now the points at issue. tial, what is the character of the topics on which The larger number in Dissenting Churches, they differ? There can be no other reply to this. the ministers and the laity, the well-informthan that they must be the non-essentials of ed and intelligent, have long ceased, in their Christianity-the nuga triviales, if not the nuga difficiles of doctrine or government the caprices controversy with the Church, to make much or whimsical peculiarities, in which, through the ado about nothing. The ground they takevery wantonness of freedom in this land of perfect toleration, men have chosen to besport themselves, and so broken forth into their parti-coloured varieties; each having a creed, or rather I would say, (for, substantially speaking, nine-tenths of the people in Britain have all the same creed.) each out? whether that ground be solid and defensible or not-which is not with us the question, is inclusive of PRINCIPLES; and within this circle there meet us some of the most arduous questions that can engage the attention of having a costume and a designation of their own. Christian men. Stated in as few words as To the remonstrance of the excluded possible, what are now (and what have been sects, Why, when we differ so little, do you not these thirty years past) the grounds of distake us in? it may well be replied, Why, when sent among the orthodox "sectaries," are as you differ so little, do you keep yourselves important as anything can be that is not esTruly, it is not for Government to sential to a Christian man's belief: dissentmake the adjustment here; nor is there another ters refuse to admit any sort of interference way of bringing the adjustment about, but by means of a larger intelligence and a larger charity religious holdings or doings of the people: on the part of the Civil Government with the both in the Church and among the sectaries them-religious selves. Government, after having made but then, even if so absolute a rejection of the preference, and so standing acquitted of the state interference as this were not maintaingreatest duty it owes to the commonwealth, leaves ed, Dissenters very generally regard the the whole charge of insignificance and folly to rest actual Church Established, in a manner to upon those who, for the sake of paltry and insigni- describe which correctly we could not do ficant differences, will thus quarrel and fall out better than avail ourselves of the language among themselves. It is true that we venerate the Church of England as a Christian above cited from Chalmers' letter to his Church; but so far therefore from laying a stigma friend. The English Dissenters believe on the sectaries, there are several, and these com- (rightly or wrongly) that the State has gone prising a very large majority of the Nonconfor, not "a little way," but a long way in "vio ependence of the Church;" and as they are exemplified in the life and labours at, in his opinion, the "least of the author-labours which will always be is independence" affords ground looked upon by self-denying, benevolent, stifying separation, inasmuch as and zealous men as pattern and as stimulus ce of any such sacrilege is to as the best guide, and as the inspiration Church Establishment into a of any course of Christian philanthropy. And e." The Dissenters of these then, whoever would duly turn to advantage y of them) are not vehement- such an example, must, in justice to himself, a moderated episcopacy; they read and study the Economic volumes in -posed to liturgical worship; this series. rofess to be deeply scandaliz-| Pursuing Chalmers' course as tending more es or other church decorums; and more toward his true position as the themselves compelled to pro- Christian Divine, and, if not the philosopher, e usages of Church Patronage; yet the philosophic theologian, and the bold ve themselves justified in de-champion of religious truth, we next take up congregations should have at that Essay on the CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES, g to do with the appointment which is not merely the earliest in date, but ters. The English Dissenters which first brought the writer into view be, or many of them, profess to fore the English public. It is unnecessary e ecclesiastical principles and here to recur to the circumstances under Established Church have had which it at the first appeared in 1813: we converting it from an engine now take it as it stands in the series of the to a mere congeries of offices, collected works, in which it takes its place hold the influence of Patrons, as the third and fourth volumes. The politics or the views of a sanship." A considerable portion of this Essay consists of summary statements, or abridged recitals of the staple Christian argumentan argument which has never been refuted t happen that, if we were call ue the question with Dissenth reasonable and truth-loving such as it is found in the writings of I labour to convince them that Lardner, Paley, Blount, and others. These Established Church, although synopses, or condensed evidences, cail for of reality, is greatly distort- no other remark than this, that they are his time mainly wrong; but characteristic of Chalmers, both in mind and ng as Dissenters do so think, temper. As to temper, he had an openness o long as they demur on the and a candour which led him to admire, and of religious establishments, freely to avail himself of, the authenticated to taunt them with their se- products of other minds. There was in t were a nugatory and frivo-him a reverential feeling toward all those we should think it most in- who might be named as the "canonized" g to bear upon modern Dis- of philosophy and literature-the few who otuous allegation, that it con- have been unanimously voted to pedestals rices or whimsical peculiari- in the temple of fame. Free as he was rough the very wantonness from selfish ambition, and superior to the his land of perfect toleration, egotism of authorship, no sinister jealousies n to besport themselves, and stood in his way when, in the course of an faith into their parti-coloured argument, he found other men's labours be it from us thus to deal ready to his hand, which might be brought we believe to be as well in forward and commended, and perhaps inntelligent, and as conscien- corporated with his own train of reasoning. es. Thus far the Chalmers It need scarcely be said that, in any such m to be amenable to some instances, he would have abhorred to act the Chalmers of 1843; and the plagiarist. In frequent instances Chalit probable that if, at the mers followed the guidance of others; but g the London Lectures, the if, in any case, this sort of following was a ad been distinctly foreseen, fact of which himself was conscious, he made or three passages in the the reference and the acknowledgment in re us would have been qua- the most ample manner. But these legiti omitted. mate borrowings are also characteristic of tion of Chalmers' writings, Chalmer's order of intellect. Bold-large omic, the Political, and the in his grasp of subjects-statesmanlike ey may, as we have said, businesslike--prompt to seize the salient nted upon, otherwise than points of an argument, and singularly firm in his logical hold of whatever he held-he self specially qualified. It might be asked, was not a suggestive, explorative, penetra- Is the Christian world, even at this time, tive thinker. His intellectual habit was prepared for entertaining, intelligently and not that which impels, or which compels a reverentially, freely, boldly, and religiously, man to pass his entire material of cogitation, that great and arduous argument which has even every atom of it, through his own so long stood waiting its time, and which is mind, and in doing so to make it his own-to determine what we mean by the hackwhencesoever it may, in the first instance, neyed terms-Revelation, and the Inspirahave come to him. Whatever he believed tion of Holy Scripture? If an answer to to be sound, right, and logically available, this question were peremptorily demanded, Chalmers took up, and carried it to its it must be, we think, of this conditional sort place, in any discussion which for the mo--The Christian world is at this moment no ment engaged him. This he did, in part, as a practice, forcing itself upon a man so deeply occupied as he was in active life; but mainly (as we think) as the consequence of his individual structure of mind. able to command the respect and attention of the Christian community, and in presence of whom intemperate and ill-informed persons shall feel abashed, and shall hold their peace. When this cause shall come on for a hearing, there must be proclaimed "Silence" in the heaven of theological debate. But we return for a moment to the volumes on the Christian Evidences. better prepared to listen to a dispassionate discussion of this subject than it has been at any time heretofore: it is not so, because none have come forward to take it up, and to deal with it, in whom, as to their compeIn illustration of what we are here affirm- tency, as to their freedom from entangleing, it might be enough to refer the reader ments, and as to the thoroughness of their to the three concluding chapters of this religious principles, it has any well-groundEssay. It would be unfair to take these ed confidence. But further, it may confichapters in hand as if they had been recent dently be assumed, that such a state of ly composed, and were now put forth. We preparedness will ensue, as if instantaneousmust believe that, at this time, Chalmers ly and spontaneously, whenever the men, or would materially have qualified many the man, shall step forward who shall be passages which, as they stand, must give pain to those who, as zealous as himself for the genuine authority of Holy Scripture, have thought more upon the subject of inspiration than he had done, and who have taken pains to inform themselves better as to the condition of the argument as a question of fact. The chapters to which we refer are curious specimens of that logical style which has prevailed among a certain This Essay first appeared in 1813, fortyclass of theologians;-as thus-a position three years ago; and as to the core of the is assumed; it is, let us grant, mainly reasoning, it is as sound and as available good and valid; but it is reasoned from un- now as it was then. Chalmers' revision exceptively, and it is pursued as if the rea- and correction of the argument against soner were utterly unconscious of serious Hume stands entire; and as to his own difficulties standing in his path, and which mode of refuting the flimsy sophism of the should be met or removed, sooner or later" Essay on Miracles," it is clear and unexin the argument. These chapters of the ceptionable: it is so, because Hume's cob"Christian Evidences," if they came before web may be swept away by more brooms us from the pen of an inferior writer-a than one; it needs no such refined process dogmatizing theologue, would not seem to as Campbell and others had imagined to be merit any sort of notice in reply: we necessary for the purpose:-only bring it should leave them to be forgotten, and the to the test of facts; let us see, in some sooner the better. Coming as they do half-dozen instances, which might be easily from a mind such as that of Chalmers, they adduced, what becomes of the demonstragive weight and urgency to the demand of tion alleged to abate or destroy our confithis present moment-that the doctrine of dence in testimony. Chalmers well states inspiration should now at length be set the fact, that human testimony may be of clear of the many confusions which still such a kind, and it may be presented in attach to it; and that this work should be such a form of complicated and intimate so done as not to leave staggering difficulties coherence, as would not merely carry our unnoticed and unheeded; while a genuine assent, but must compel it, even to the exand untroubled faith in the authority of tent of its prevailing against our experience Scripture is brought to rest upon its true of the constancy of any natural phenomena grounds. This is a work for the undertaking whatever. All this is certain, and it is clear of which neither was the Christian world in enough. his time prepared, nor was Chalmers him If, then, the question were asked, Is y on the Christian Evidences | Scotland, and who, alas! had, some of o be now put into the hands them, comfortably lodged themselves withyoung man for the purpose in its enclosures. But as Atheism and unim in his Christian profes- belief are at all times reactions from the ld answer, Undoubtedly it Christianity in and about which they arise, read Chalmers and Paley, they take their semblance from it; they o other books that treat the are reflections of it; they are its counterely and forcibly, and he parts or complements; they are negative g. But if such a question photographs of the religion to which they more discreet meaning, and oppose themselves; they show blacks for ler of the question had in whites-whites for blacks-all over. a thoroughly informed read ose, to wit, who are fully the science and with the present time, then we must as to the Essay on two or ere favoured to have intermas Chalmers socially, can red that his personal dispoaly, cordial, generous, kind, but he was as strong in But we are all apt to be the most angered by that which, while it dares to contradict us, is yet, in some occult manner, a resemblance of ourselves. Hume, and the accomplished men of whom he was the leader and the idol, had formed no other conception of Christianity than that which, in their paternal homes, they had acquired in the course of their training, according to the religious fashion of an ill-conditioned bygone time; this fact should be considered s robust in understanding; in mitigation of the disapproval to which mistry; he was hotly impa- they may fairly be liable." ges and shams, and he was Chalmers found himself on the battle-field any reasonings or difficul- opposed to men with whom the rejection of with which, constitutionally, Christianity-such as it had always been pathy, and the solidity of offered to them-was, we may say, an inunderstand. Logic has to evitable consequence of the free development Cons-Yea and Nay: Philo- of thought in strong minds. But of this lo with things-with the fact he had himself no distinct consciousnature, and with the things ness;—we think he had no consciousness of dealings with these things it at all; his training and his professional wn than do those of logic. feeling as a clergyman and the non-discrete as the categorical logician quality of his own mind, stood in the way the philosopher; his intel- of his coming to a perception of it. Hence on was to the senate-to it is, therefore, that the tone of this Essay, 'ommons, or to courts of and so of many of his writings, and the cast in to those silent places of the epithets which he allows himself to n reason, and the human use, are too pugnacious, too arrogant-they with and explore the uni- are, in fact, offensive in their apparent and of mind. Therefore it meaning; and therefore it is, that the Essay 's' opponent, real or imag- before us is less adapted to the present ument, was a somebody time, and to England, than its substantial enuously fought with and merits would have made it. nd tumbled over the city e. And yet this is not all. During the years that have elapsed since this Essay appeared, loves the reader of this the Christian argument, as it was carried on ks at large, to keep in between Christian advocates, and the severay at almost every page, al classes of those who opposed themselves sition, and what was the thereto, has moved many steps in advance ad of that position, as the toward what must be the resting-place of of great, and then neglect the controversy - namely, a never-to-beScotland; or, to confine ended antagonism between Christianity and ubject now in view, Chal- Atheism in its simplest form. Historical in his time in defence of and literary criticism have undergone much of the truth of which he improvement of late, and these improveed himself, and of which ments-these more exact and more erudite time a minister. This modes of proceeding, have wrought a great hen assailed on all sides change in the feeling of well-informed men them Atheists, and some toward the books of the New Testament d around the Church of (and those of the Hebrew Scriptures also) |