This language shows very plainly that Chalmers was a strenuous advocate for the application of the Baconian logic to theology; he cherished in his latter years the liveliest gratitude towards Dr. Robison, to whom he was largely indebted for his views on this subject, and whose exposition of this method is still regarded as one of the very ablest in our language. Dr. Hanna informs us, (Memoir, I, p. 55,) that often as Chalmers had spoken of it, few knew how weighty the debt was which he owed to Dr. Robison, until within a year of his death, when he expressed it in a letter to a friend. We feel disposed to rest the reputation of Dr. Chalmers as a theologian, upon the clearness with which he has enunciated, and the steadiness with which he has applied the principles of the inductive philosophy to theology. We believe that nothing more is necessary than to carry out these principles intelligently and faithfully, in order to bless the Church of God with a stable faith, and a theological science, at once enlightened and progressive. The want of the Christian world remains substantially what Bacon described it to be in his own day, the want of a "sacred logic, which, like an opiate, might put to sleep the inane speculations upon which our schools are laboring, and mitigate not a little the violence of those controversies, which excite tumults within the Church." This sacred logic, Chalmers has done much to bring into use and favor among us, and its blessed fruits will be experienced, in proportion as the distinction is practically understood between the revelations of Scripture and the deductions of theologians, and as the two are made to bear to one another the relation of the facts of observation to the conclusions of science. He has done much to expose the error of those who confound theology with Scripture, making the sacred writers, systematic theologians, and also carrying over to their own deductions the authority belonging exclusively to the utterances of Inspiration. In the light of Bacon's logic we learn the true nature of the facts of Scripture, that they are the materials of science; and it gives us a theology which can vindicate to itself the name of science, in its strictest and fullest sense. We regard this principle, therefore, as casting a flood of light both ways,-upon the true interpretation of Scripture, and also upon the nature and relations of systematic theology.

It has been taken for granted by many theologians, that the Scriptures contain not only the materials of science, but a science, or at least the disjecta membra of a science, in downright affirmations and abstract terms, already squared and shaped to their place in a system. Hence many speak of the doctrinal and practical parts of Christianity, as if the Bible contained two sorts of instruction, altogether distinct, one scientific and abstract, the other moral and practical; just as some of the pulpit discourses of our Puritan fathers had, firstly, a use of knowledge, and secondly, a

1

use of wisdom. But we believe such a notion to be as untrue in regard to the Scriptures, as it obviously is in regard to nature. Just as the facts of the outward world embody principles, and stand for causes which are out of sight; so do the revelations of the Bible, the subject-matter of theology, involve principles, and lead up the mind to those abstract conceptions which belong to theological science. We think it can be shown that the Scriptures do not deal in abstractions or scientific statements. They were given for practical purposes, and they have always a practical form. The word doctrine, as it is employed in the New Testament, has a very different siguification from what it bears, as used by us, in these days of refined speculation; and it is a fact which many seem never to have learned, or which they habitually forget. The scriptural meaning is simply teaching, it is instruction, Sidaaxukla, the business, or the lesson of a didúoxados. The whole purport of Christian doctrine is wholesome or health-giving instruction, dyiαivoćσα didαoxada, translated sound doctrine, Tit. 2: 1. The doctrine of Christ as contained in his sermon on the mount, and his parables, the most formal and didactic of all his instructions, was a delineation of the nature of spiritual religion, in opposition to the prevailing errors of the day, and an inculcation of the duties devolving upon men as the subjects and members of his kingdom. Substantially the same was true of the preaching and writings of the Apostles. The discourses of Peter, of Stephen, and of Paul, all bear the same character. They insisted largely on facts. They preached Jesus and the resurrection. And what were the letters written by the Apostles? Just what the circumstances which called them forth would seem to warrant. They applied the law of Christianity to the disorders, the offenses and heart-burnings, which from time to time sprang up in the brotherhood, whom a common belief and love had brought together. No doubt can exist as to the doctrine taught by James, and John, and Peter, if we may judge by their catholic epistles to the churches of Christ.

But was not the great apostle to the Gentiles an exception? Did not the Holy Ghost inspire Paul to systematize the Gospel, and has he not given us its fundamental principles in terms as abstract and precise as the most rigid science requires? We know that this is often claimed; and we believe that this misconception has done more than any other cause to mystify and pervert the exposition of his epistles. Paul, properly speaking, systematized as little as did any of his brethren of the apostolic college. The most fervent of them all, his style is marked rather with the kindling eloquence of a preacher, than with the calm and discriminating statements of a theologue. The active and affectionate nature of Paul always gave him an immediate and practical end to accomplish, and as little can his arguments as his rhetoric be understood,

if they be interpreted independently of the end to be secured. We think it can be shown of the Epistle to the Romans, and of the most elaborate portions of it, that it is as immediately practical in its whole drift, as is his letter to Philemon. But for the purposes we have now in view, it will be sufficient to refer to the letters of Paul to Timothy and Titus, in which he treats chiefly of the duties of preachers of the Gospel, and particularly to the last in which he occupies a whole chapter (the second) in mentioning the subjects which "become sound doctrine," all of them preeminently practical, and as far removed as possible from the abstract statements of scientific theology. To sum up all in a word, the doctrines of the Gospel are facts, historical narratives, and principles in application to actual cases. That this was the teaching of the Apostles and of the first ages may be clearly proved by the sacred records; and it derives no little confirmation, we think, from that simple and beautiful creed, which bears the name of the Apostles, and is in such perfect keeping with the spirit of the New Testament, and with apostolic teachings so far as we are acquainted with them. The skepticism, that would deny the early antiquity of this document, is bold enough to invade the sacred canon itself. We need no better proof of its early origin than its own internal evidence affords us. It is as free from contact with the subtleties of the Athanasian age, as with the controversies of the reformation, or the metaphysics of our New England theology. The uncertainty which hangs over its precise date, the mist from which it seems to emerge, and the fact that when first heard of it was in general use, this is the best evidence, and all the evidence of which the nature of the case admits, that it was the first common utterance of the churches, the earliest articulation of that faith which the Apostles preached, and in which the apostolic churches steadfastly continued. This document proves that the Christian faith was originally taught and confessed in historic forms,—that the churches were originally satisfied to hold as their common faith, the facts contained in the gospels, respecting the conception and birth of our Lord, his sufferings and death, his resurrection and ascension, and his second coming to judgment. Nor do we risk any thing in saying that there is more power in these evangelical facts to awaken in human hearts the sense of sin, and beget love to Christ, than in the most carefully considered and accurately stated propositions respecting the interior constitution of the Savior's person, and the efficacy of his mission in sustaining moral government. He who made the human mind has given it a quicker sensibility to facts than to arguments, a readier comprehension of things than of ideas, and a stronger love to persons than to principles; and accordingly he has given us the Gospel of our salvation in the shape of facts, and concentrated its saving influences in one glorious person, our divine and self-sacrificing Redeemer.

We might make our appeal to the experience of the church universally, and indeed to the observation of every intelligent man, for proof of the position that the doctrines we derive by analysis from the disclosures of God's word, are essentially different, as well in form, as in effect, from the doctrines taught by Christ and his Apostles. Take for instance the doctrine of free will, of predestination, and of trinity in unity. We do not presume to say that these doctrines, as they are defined in our confessions of faith, are not the scientific equivalents of those statements in the Scriptures from which they are derived. But we maintain that they are quite different things, and ought never to be confounded. Much less ought we, in the pride of reason, to imagine that our scientific forms are better for the purposes of enlightening and saving men, than the forms in which they appear in the Scriptures. The doctrine of free agency, which is that men are endowed with free-will, and have the power of contrary choice, is a doctrine of philosophy, and not the same thing with that doctrine of religion which teaches that men ought to repent, cease to do evil and learn to do well. The difference is, that one is an abstraction, wearing a form such as the speculative reason gives it, addressed to the understanding, and provoking inquiry; while the other is a practical doctrine, appealing to the heart, as well as the understanding, awakening conscience, and leading to obedience of life. A still further difference is, that not a few who stumble at the philosophical doctrine, and deny the power of contrary choice, do at the same time heartily and reverently obey what others suppose to be its scriptural equivalent, the doctrine of repentance and reformation of life. So likewise the doctrine of predestination, is in its connections with human freedom and the attributes of God, the grandest problem in philosophy, or theology, which is only another name for the sublimest philosophy. But this truth, as it is taught in the Bible, and connects itself with Christian experience, is simple and natural, and seems never to have occasioned difficulty, until it was thrown into a scientific form, and thus became a profound mystery, a perplexing problem. In religion this doctrine presents itself as a fact; it is taught in the duty of prayer; it underlies the duty of submission; it breathes in the ascription, "not unto us, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory!" It finds utterance in the hour of secret communion, and rejoices to use the words of Jesus, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight!" How many there are who can say Amen! to this, and do say it habitually through the light and shade of life, to whom it is not given to understand and receive that speculative dogma of universal foreordination, which to other minds is the necessary implication of this language.

The same remarks are applicable to the doctrine of the Trinity. As a truth respecting the mode of the divine existence, previous to the incarnation, it is of all things the most incomprehensible; but as such it is not a truth of revelation. It lies in the Gospel, like its other doctrines, in practical connections; and in these it is as simple as it is useful. The Gospel presents Christ to us as distinct from the Father and yet as so one with him, as to be worthy of equal honor and love and confidence; and there is nothing more vital to practical Christianity than supreme love to Christ, and unlimited confidence in Him. That the Apostles and first Christians did thus regard Him, we have the testimony of Scripture. Paul speaking in the name of Christians, says that they live to the Lord Jesus, and to the Lord Jesus they die; so that living or dying they are the Lord's. "For to this end, Christ both died and rose and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living." This is the practical doctrine of Scripture, teaching us to believe in the Lord Jesus with perfect confidence, with adoring love, and with unswerving obedience, persuaded that He is able to keep the souls we commit to him against the day of judgment. It is, when apprehended by a living faith, at once simple and necessary. The believer readily and naturally receives it; it inspires him with unfaltering hope through life, and gives him sweet peace in death.

Now the fact that these great, and in certain aspects most perplexing, doctrines have a practical dress and lie in practical connections in the Scriptures, is sufficient to show the advantage of approaching theology on its practical side, and ascending from the basis of admitted facts and simple declarations to those high and far-reaching generalizations, which embrace in their sweep the nature of God, the principles of his government, and the destiny of men. The advantage of proceeding from the plain to the obscure, from the simple to the more complex, is, that in this way we make sure at the outset of the most important truths, and thus escape the danger of making shipwreck of the faith: and furthermore, when we enter the regions of speculative theology, we have all the security and assistance to be derived from the fact that the conclusions we have thus far reached are fixed and settled truths; and when at length we are met by insuperable difficulties, the faith we have acquired receives no shock, and we rest as quietly before an acknowledged mystery, as the voyager, who drops his anchor in a secure harbor, waits till the light of heaven revisits him and the mists clear away. We claim, therefore, in behalf of this method, that it gives us a theology whose warrants are the premises of Scripture, and the deductions of reason; while it gives to the doctrines of revelation their sacred authority, discriminating accurately between God's work and man's, between the communications of heaven and the com