many passages in the older revelation, which indicate the belief of devout Israelites in the soul's immortality. Those who have died in faith are living, conscious, and blessed. If this truth does not gleam through such words as those of Naomi, what do they mean? It is a part of that essential theology which underlay the whole Levitical system of temporal rewards, and was to survive it. And the delightful thought grows out of it, and rests upon it, that we can still reach the dead through the living.'-P. 132.

6

Naomi's Error. But here our defence ceases, at least in respect to Naomi. While we vindicate her intentions, we are constrained to censure her measures; while we acquit her of designing evil, we must blame her for not "abstaining from all appearance of evil.” There was too much of cunning and stratagem about the appearance of the whole transaction. There was a forcing of providence when there should have been a trustful waiting on it; a cutting of a short way to a desired issue, instead of moving in the way which God might open for her. There was, indeed, the entire absence of such falsehood and cruel deception as stained with a crimson mark the conduct of Rebekah and Jacob when they stole the blessing from the dim-sighted and unsuspecting Isaac, but there was the using of

questionable means to compass a good end, and running the hazard of sacrificing a good name in the use of a too bold and perilous artifice. We may generally suspect the prudence, if not the virtue, of an act when it needs to be concealed; and in the trembling of Boaz, when he became aware of his position, as well as in the charge of secrecy which he gave to Ruth, we perceive that this was his judgment as well as ours. In the light of these explanations, we entirely concur in the sagacious remark of the excellent Bishop Hall: "If every act of an holy person should be our rule, we should have crooked lives. Every action that is reported is not straightways allowed. Our courses were very uncertain, if God had not given us rules whereby we may examine the examples of the best saints, and as well censure as follow them.”—Pp. 147, 148.

Gospel in Ruth.-Especially in the Goel or kinsman redeemer we may be vividly reminded of Christ, "that everlasting lover of our unworthy race,” who became "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh," wrought out our salvation, and, at the vast expense of His own death, redeemed for us the heavenly inheritance which by our sins we had forfeited into the hands of divine justice, and which, but for His interposition, must have remained forfeited for ever.'Pp. 211, 212.

Monthly Retrospect.

CLERICALISM.

AT a meeting held with our students by members of the Synod's Committee on Disestablishment, Dr. Ker used the word clericalism,' and pointed to France as an instance of the struggle which was going on against this terrible domination. Mr. Rogers, who so ably represented our English Dissenting brethren at the great meetings held in Edinburgh and Glasgow, took up the same thought, and pursued the same line of observation thus, as reported in the newspapers :

"Mr. Rogers went on to express the belief that they were on the eve, if they were not already in the midst, of one of the most terrible conflicts between clericalism and human liberty that the world had ever witnessed. In France, they saw a great and noble people-a people who had proved their right to be free by the patience with which they had endured the petty meanness and oppression to which they had been subjected-harassed and vexed at every point, their industry crippled, their commerce hindered, their political progress checked, for the purpose of gratifying priestly ambition. If they asked what was the cause of French evils, he did not find it in the subtle intrigue of the Duc de Broglie or the rough brutality of M. Fourtou, he did not find it in the ambitious speculations of pretenders to the throne, he did not find it in the dull-headed, dogged stupidity of the man who by a fluke won his presidency, as by a fluke he won his only battle. If he went into the Marshal's cabinet, he might find it in Madame; and if he found it in her, he

could trace it back to the inspiration of her confessor, acting under the direction of the Vatican. What, he asked, was the lesson they had to learn from what was to be seen in France, Belgium, and elsewhere? It was simply this,—that the only possible hope for human freedom was to teach the State to have nothing to do with the government of the Church. What was going on upon the Continent was going on to a very large extent, though in a different degree, in England.'

These statements have given great offence in certain quarters, and it has been affirmed that they discover both ignorance and ill-feeling. Clericalism and Statechurchism mean, it is said, entirely different things. Let it be asked, however, what is meant by 'clericalism,' and it will be seen that the difference is one simply of accident or degree. 'Clericalism' means the domination of the clergy. In Roman Catholic countries, this domination is certainly more pronounced and mischievous than in Protestant countries; but it exists in Protestant countries where there is a Church by law established. This gives the clergy a power which without it they could never possess. Hence one of the great objects of Popish priests is always to get the civil power placed at their service or under their control. How this is often done, and how it works, is witheringly exposed by Michelet, in his book entitled, Priests, Women, and Families. The process described is something like the syllogism that used to improve and amuse youthful students of logic, beginning and ending with, 'My little son rules the world.'

It is certainly not pleasant to be placed in such company; but it is to be observed that in this connection it is a principle that is affirmed, not particular deeds that are charged; and the principle is, that wherever a religion is supported and enforced by legal enactment, you have in a greater or less degree the evil of clerical usurpation and domination.

THE POPE AND THE QUEEN.

FOR some time past, the people of this country have been called on to witness an unwonted and unexpected spectacle, the Pope rejoicing in the goodness of this country, and writing, it is said, an autograph letter to Her Majesty, expressive of gratitude for kindnesses past and expected. Those who believe that Her Majesty is 'Defender of the Faith,' and that the Church of England is the bulwark of Protestantism, are a little or not a little distressed at this, and think that a kind of favour is shown to Papists which they do not deserve, and which may be fruitful of evil results.

These fears, however, are groundless. It is true that Popery is a subtle system, and that Jesuits are not to be trusted, even when bearing gifts and speaking fair words. But still let justice be done to all; and if we treat Papists in a manner which excites their astonishment, and in which they would not, were they in our circumstances, treat us, this only shows that we are true followers of Him who has taught us not to bring our adversary to the flames, but, by returning good for evil, 'to heap coals of fire on his head.'

It seems that the Pontiff is very desirous, ere yet his work is done, to establish a Papal hierarchy in Britain. A quarter of a century ago, something of the kind now proposed was attempted. At that time meetings were held all over the country, and a strong 'No Popery' feeling excited. It was thought at the time that some good Voluntaries had almost lost their Voluntaryism, and in their horror of Rome were willing to call in the aid of Cæsar as a defence. Those, however, of clearer and cooler heads saw the folly of this, and, whilst as strongly anti-Popish as their brethren, were not thrown into a state of unnecessary alarm. Notably among these was the late sagacious Dr. Johnston of Limekilns. At a great meeting in the Music Hall, Edinburgh, he defined the situation admirably and calmly, and caused great and uproarious mirth by styling the proposed bishops Tulchan Bishops,' and explaining what that meant.

In these days there is little excitement. We do not hear now-a-days of precocious and apprehensive children looking into dark pools, and suggesting that they are 'fine places to drown Papists in,' as we did then.

And is this because we imagine that Popery has changed its nature? We know it has not. But many things have happened since then; and we see forces at work

against which Popery is striving in vain, and have learned to consider the decrees of the Vatican, however imposing, as possessed more largely of the shadow than the substance of power.

THE WAR.

Ir was supposed that if nothing else put an end, for a season, to this deplorable Russo-Turkish war, the rigour of winter would intervene and compel the combatants to rest for a while from their dreadful work. Such, however, has not been the case. The carnage has never stayed; and how great that has been, may be estimated from the fact that even before the fall of Plevna the Russians alone had lost upwards of 75,000 men. When that stronghold fell, it was supposed that the Turks must necessarily yield and terms of peace be proposed; but even amidst appalling and unparalleled sufferings, they refused to accept a fate that seemed inevitable.

It was evident, however, after this that all hopes of Turkey ultimately triumphing-a hope indulged and expressed by many in this country-was at an end, and preparations must be made for peace on Russian terms.

Whilst it is cause for thankfulness that our own country has been prevented from engaging in this terrible war, the action of a section of the people and of Government itself cannot be approved. It has in some quarters brought us into disgrace, and mayhap also into danger greater than we imagined. It now remains to be seen what honour is to be rendered us by the nations of Europe, and what part will be taken by us in the negotiations that must soon ensue.

THEOLOGICAL LEARNING IN SCOTLAND.

PROFESSOR FLINT, in an address delivered to the students attending the Theological Society connected with the University of Edinburgh, took for his subject the state of theological learning in Scotland. He regarded that state as not at all satisfactory, affirmed that we were dependent on the men of other countries for really learned books, and that we had produced no worthy commentary on Scripture for 200 years.

6

Professor Blackie, in two lengthened and very characteristic epistles, directed attention to the utterances of the erudite divine,' and emphasized his remarks. Concerning this matter we have some reason for congratulating ourselves. Our Church in its early days had other work to do than to train learned divines, and yet it always honoured learning, and out of its poverty made most praiseworthy attempts to secure an intelligent ministry; and it succeeded to an extent that is cause for gratitude. Just look at the very kind of books in which Dr. Flint says we are so poor-learned commentaries. This is a branch of learning which some of our professors have cultivated with marked success. The commentaries of Dr. John Brown and Dr. Eadie are well known, and testify to an amount of learned and successful labour which would have been remarkable in any circumstances, but certainly is to be much admired when it is remembered that it formed only a part of the duties of these distinguished men.

Professor Flint observes that the fault of our ignorant condition lies not with the men who have occupied our theological chairs, but with the system,-neither time nor means having been given them worthily to pursue their studies. This may be brought as a reproach against our State-endowed Universities, but it cannot apply to us; for in the past we were constrained by circumstances to unite the duties of the pastor and the professor, but as soon as it was possible the separation, which had always been felt to be desirable, was made. And now we have reason to be grateful for a theological institution nobly equipped with truly able and learned men, by some of whom valuable contributions have been made to theological literature in the past, and from all of whom much may be expected in the future.

Printed by MURRAY AND GIBB, 11 Queen Street, and Published by WILLIAM OLIPHANT AND Co., 24 St. Giles Street, Edinburgh, on the 1st of January

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN MAGAZINE.

FEBRUARY 1, 1878.

Original Articles.

PROFESSOR FLINT AND THE LOGIC OF THEISM.

BY THE REV. JAMES WARDROP.

(Continued from page 15.)

How completely Dr. Flint binds himself to an inferential Theism is apparent from the following sentences:- No man can judge fairly as to whether or not there is a God, who makes the question turn on what is the significance of a few particular facts, who is incapable of gathering up into one general finding the results of innumerable indications." The entire argument for the divine existence, which is at present under consideration, can be no stronger than the strength of the proof which we can adduce in favour of its (the world's) having had a beginning; and the only valid proof of that which reason can hope to find must be derived from the examination of the universe itself.'+ It is unfortunate, I repeat, that Dr. Flint is an inferential Theist, otherwise Theism might have owed as much to him as some other subjects do. Final defeat is assuredly in store for all attempts at a speculative Theism made along the road of inference. Though inferential Theism has produced works of genius and stored the world with what shall be a possession for ever, it has hitherto been something like a logical disaster. Attempts from intuitional ground have not been numerous, systematic, or protracted enough to permit the same being said of them, even though their success may not yet be final. But that must be said of the inferential system, if a long and arduous past is to be allowed to speak on the point. The failure of that system seems confessed by the very course which it has more lately been fain to take. Once on a time the a-priorists and the a-posteriorists formed very much wo separate camps, as if either party were by itself competent for the task of theistic proof. The attempt now is in some way or other to amass all conceivable proofs into one vast and imposing cumulus of evidence.‡ Aposteriorist, a-priorist, and intuitionalist, are now sought to be amalgamated.

† P. 101.

* P. 63. Instead of several proofs of the existence of God, only one proof is possible, of which the different so-called proofs are portions.'-Christian Theism. (Burnett Prize Essay.) By R. A. Thompson, M.A. Rivingtons. 1855. Vol. i. pp. 292-3. The proof is given in one sentence, but a sentence a page and a half long, pp. 296-7. Dr. Flint speaks similarly, FP. 62-3.

NO. II. VOL. XXII. NEW SERIES.-FEBRUARY 1878.

D