Chalmers’s style of theological discussion was very unlike the common.
It was not fashioned on the anvil of the schoolmen. There was a
remarkable combination in it of the philosophical and the popular. His
mind was deeply philosophical, delighting in first principles, and eager
to concatenate truth, to establish comprehensive laws, to reconcile
apparently conflicting doctrines, and to bring what seemed unreasonable
into harmony with reason. But his style was so diffuse and flowing that
he appeared to want the exactness and correctness of a philosophic mind.
Moreover, he could not confine himself to the strictly intellectual
aspects of theology; he could not but include its moral and practical
aspects. In bringing out the practical bearings of doctrines, he was
liable to become somewhat declamatory.
Another peculiarity was his fondness of illustration, the product, as it
seemed, of the poetical rather than the philosophic faculty. The result
was that, as a philosophic theologian, Chalmers hardly got justice. And
since his day philosophic theology has passed into a quite different
groove. He was just beginning to know something of German philosophy
when he died. He was greatly interested in it, and had he survived, he
would in all likelihood have given much of his attention to it. But he
could only have known it at second hand, and any discussion of it in
these circumstances must have been of but secondary weight. And now
that the German standpoint has become so common, the theology of Dr.
Chalmers, as well as that of his successor, Principal Cunningham, has
fallen into the background. But it would not be easy to say how much is
missed by even philosophical students when they give the go-by to his
writings.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account