166 view which the sinner obtains of sin is under the form of actual opposition to of sin is neither selfishness alone, nor sensuousness alone, but both. Sin is We have thus passed in hasty review the principal ideas advanced in Schultz's "Dogmatik." There remain many incidental remarks of interest and value, and there are entire doctrines, which we have not treated, and which would reward an examination; but the limits of a review forbid. In endeavoring, in conclusion, to arrive at an estimate of the real value of the system, we find that there are three principal errors into which Schultz has fallen. The first of these is the separation between the historical and the ideal which pervades the entire system, and at times seems almost to be an absolute separation. What interests Schultz is the complex of ideas which Christianity conveys, and he fixes his eye so exclusively upon these that the historical facts which form the material channel through which they are conveyed, are first obscured to the attention, and then ignored, if not denied. A striking example of this is seen in his treatment of the resurrection and ascension of Christ. The ideal contents of these events, that God accepted the sacrifice of Jesus, Schultz firmly believes, but the facts themselves, "so far as they express different historical occurrences, are exposed historically and exegetically to great difficulties, and have for dogmatics no real interest." And this he says in spite of the fact that he quotes the passage of Paul's, “If Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." In this is manifest very clearly the fact that the system, though written by a distinguished representative of "biblical theology," is not biblical and not exegetical. In the same way, the treatment of miracles is exceedingly ambiguous and hazy. It is almost impossible to decide whether Schultz believes that objective miraTheir possibility, as a question relating to natural cles were wrought or not. science and metaphysics, "has no interest" for dogmatics. Their religious significance, that is, the fact that certain men were excited by remarkable events to fresh and living views of truth, is the all-important consideration. Hence, whether he denies them or not, he will lay no farther weight upon them. As a proof of inspiration, though God in Isaiah appeals to prophecy, The evidently human elements in and Jesus to his works, they can "never" be employed. The theory of inspiration, also, is a mere a priori structure. the books of the Bible are apparently assumed to prove that it is human in the sense that all other books are, except, possibly, that the revealed ideas there contained should be said to lift it out of all comparison with ordinary books. But the questions, What are the facts? What is the relation of the promised Spirit to the writers of the New Testament? are not discussed. Thus again the unbiblical character of the system is exposed. More import ant, if possible, is the influence of this error upon the conception which Schultz advances of the work of Christ. Christianity is designed to produce a holy life by means of correct ideas about sin, God, and duty. It brings men into fellowship with God; but this is a fellowship, not of personal communion, but of kindred aim, and this aim depends in the first instance upon right ideas. Hence the emphasis is upon the prophetic office of Christ, and hence there is no necessity for his deity, which is left out of the system'. And faith in him is substantially acceptance of him as a teacher, not choice of him as divine King. The second error lies in the conception adopted of the "kingdom of God." It is perfectly right to make the "kingdom" a leading theological idea. It is an invisible kingdom, and only in the light of this fact, can many doctrines of the system be studied. At this point Congregationalists, who have always laid emphasis upon the doctrine of the regenerate church, can only sympathize with Schultz. But the "kingdom" is substantially only a fellowship, and everything not immediately bearing upon the fellowship as an agreement of will is excluded, or tends to be excluded. Hence, as God is concerned with the kingdom only in his economical trinity, Schultz identifies that economical trinity with the entire trinity, and thus falls into Sabellianism; while at every subsequent point, the Christian system as a system of knowledge of divine realities is limited to those realities which bear immediately upon the practical establishment of the church. The system is therefore a curtailed one. The third error lies in what I think I must call the shallowness with which the whole system is conceived. It is enough to settle the case adversely against the ancient doctrine of the trinity that three persons are three gods and that there cannot be three gods. The treatment of this theme reminds one strongly of the early Massachusetts Unitarians. That was their argumentation, insisted upon and reiterated, and they deemed it absolutely co conclusive. But it could not convince the mass of Christian believers. Taylor said in reply substantially, that the fundamental Unitarian error consisted in pretending to be able to decide positively that the trinitarian conceptions are impossible a priori. Unitarians take, said he, the common phenomenal conception of being as the only and universal conception, and then affirm that it excludes tripersonality. So with Schultz. Reverence for the products of the thinking of the ages and careful effort to understand the deep thoughts of the leaders of the church are not characteristic of his work. It is a pleasanter task to dwell, as we now turn to do, upon some of his merits. Of these I shall mention first the great merit that he brings out in clear statement the proper conception of God as a truly moral being possessed of a character, and that essentially love. Here an immense advance is made upon all those former doctrinal definitions which either denied to God any character of which man could judge, or referred his actions to his-arbitrary will, as if that made right right. Yet the absolute clearness of our New England writers Schultz has not completely attained. For example, he says1 1 P. 30. 168 that God's omniscience determined by his love is infinite goodness; but determined by his holiness is righteousness. Yet holiness and love are the same thing, as Schultz elsewhere sees. 1 A second merit, and a great one, is the broad way in which the problem We are at once reminded of Taylor's forms of statements of evil is treated. and general results. When Schultz speaks of God's creating the "world as a world," this means substantially the same as Taylor's "system," and "moral system." The strong evangelical character of these sections, preserving everything of the substance of the church theology which is good, ought also to be warmly acknowledged. The control of the government of God over the free will, the inability of men, the initiating operation of the grace of God making faith possible, the perseverance of the saints, the sov ereignty of divine election, the supernatural character of the new birth, are all clearly and unequivocally expressed. A third merit is the emphasis laid upon the freedom of the will; yet it will have been noticed by any one familiar with our own divines that the perfect clearness of statement to be found in them is not reached by Schultz. The terms, which in condescension to the historical usage of the church many have retained even when they rejected the ideas originally conveyed by them, In fact, the will is such as "inability" "bondage" etc., should have been discarded in so radical a statement of the doctrines as Schultz has attempted. free so that it has at every moment all the freedom and power which it has at any moment, so far as the metaphysical faculty, and strict power are concerned. Else man is not always and equally responsible. The question of the practical use which is and will be made of the freedom is another matter. This thought Schultz has either not perceived, or else has failed to make clear. A last merit which I will mention is the character of the definitions of sin. In them he avoids the Augustinian confusion as to guilt, and the errors upon sinful nature which have so long disfigured our Calvinistic systems, as well as the Lutheran, thereby emphasizing, rather than obscuring, the true guilt and heinousness of sin. In other words, upon all the topics of anthropology, Schultz has done exceedingly good work, in which every one who regards the work accomBut the failure at other points, plished upon these themes in New England as valuable, must rejoice. The rest of the system is, in our opinion, bad. however vital, should not lead us to deny the good done here. Such is the system which a low view of revelation, and the denial of inspiration have prodaced. It contains enough doubtless for the salvation of FRANK HUGH FOSTER. men; but how meagre has the rejection of these important principles left it! 1 P. 17, paragraph 7. WHAT IS REALITY? An Inquiry as to the Reasonableness of Natural Religion, and the Naturalness of Revealed Religion. By Francis Howe Johnson. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company. 1891. (Pp. xxvii, 510. 534×3%.) Every page of this volume bears marks of close thought and consecutive reasoning, and the whole shows a wide range of reading and study on the part of the author. A perusal of the volume cannot but be of great value in winning to Christian ways of thought such as have become entangled in many of the bald forms of materialism connected with much of the scientific research of the present day. In Mr. Johnson's definition, man himself, in his own conscious existence, is made "the reality from which all his knowledge takes its start." From his own consciousness of personal reality he looks both downwards to nature and upwards to the Supreme Being. Man himself is a microcosm. As a unity he "embraces within his physical organization countless myriads of beings that are somehow the constituents of his being and the servants of his will. Herein is the great mystery of personality" (p. 222). This doublefaced fact presents the two essential aspects of reality. The unity of the human consciousness amid the multiplicity of its subordinate elements is a great mystery, but only in its relation to other facts. "In itself it remains the essential fact of the world-the one thing that we are absolutely sure of. But the other facts remain also, The ego rests upon, and embraces within itself, a multitude of subordinate beings" (p. 224). In some respects Mr. Johnson's theory is akin to that of Leibnitz, who maintained that the world is an aggregate of atomic souls. In the beginning of one of his chapters, he pertinently says, “There are real things in the world that are more difficult to conceive of than atomic souls" (p. 193). By means of this view of nature the author thinks himself able to symbolize more nearly than can be done in any other way, the true relation to each other of the immanency and the transcendency of the Divine Being. The human ego in its relations to the bodily organism to which it is attached is both transcendent and immanent. All this helps the author to entertain a theistic view of evolution. In his treatment of the Bible, while confining the word "infallible" to acts of the Creator himself, Mr. Johnson still seems to give to Scripture all the qualities which are necessary in making it the ultimate appeal in matters of religious faith. The following is his comprehensive statement of the case: "The Bible is a collection of writings specially superintended by the Holy Spirit, and specially co-ordinated, by that superintendence, to the spiritual requirements of man in all ages. The forms in which it is presented are those best calculated to promote our spiritual growth, and, further, it will accomplish for mankind that which it was intended to accomplish in so far only as those to whom it comes are faithful in the study of its truths and in efforts to realize them through practice" (p. 424). To some of the author's statements in relation to the fall of man we should take exception; as, where he says, "What we have been in the habit of emphasizing as the fall was the result of the rise of man." Religion and The appearance of a second and revised edition of this important work is a favorable indication of the lines of progress in modern thought. Science and religion are now more than ever ready to lie down together. Professor Le Conte, while one of the most eminent geologists of the world, is also an earnest defender of the Christian revelation; so that in perusing his writings the reader may at the same time feel safe in accepting his statement of scientific facts (if not all the deductions drawn from them), and will not fear being shocked by any sinister assault upon the foundations of Christian faith and hope. The first 271 pages of the volume are taken up with a presentation of the scientific argument sustaining the theory of a derivative origin of species. In this part, pictorial illustrations abound and the case from the scientific point of view is stated with much fulness and with rare cogency. The special topic of the title is taken up in the third part, and occupies one At the outset the author makes it clear that evolution is not hundred pages. in itself necessarily materialistic in its philosophy. The evolution of modern science does not differ essentially from that with wh.ch common thought has all along been familiar. The development of the individual, from a germ almost infinitesimal in size and absolutely devoid of spiritual qualities, into a human form endowed with all human capabilities, is as strongly suggestive of materialism as would be the fact of the development of the human species from a lower order of animals, if that should ever be proved to the satisfaction of all. The question of materialism turns on the more fundamental question concerning the relation of God to nature. Professor Le Conte's views of the relation of God to nature are those incorporated in the word "immanent." According to this view, God does not stand aloof from nature, nor is nature a mere emanation of the divine As Professor Le Conte works out this conception, with all his essence. |