requisite materials to be found where they are sought. Hence the fragmentary character of many so-called "Systems," which ingenious men have endeavoured to persuade themselves, and others, are sufficient for them to repose upon. As the book of nature is he source whence the constructors of physical science derive their facts, so the book of Revelation is the source from which the facts of theological science are to be obtained. There is no necessary collision between Biblical and Systematic theology. The former ascertains the truths of which the latter is to be composed. The students of Biblical theology are in some danger of conceiving an opposing difference to exist between these departments. This has in all probability arisen from the tendency of writers on Systematic theology to invest various parts of their respective systems with the authority of Scripture doctrine.

It may be well to make a distinction between doctrine and dogma, on the ground that only what the Scriptures unquestionably present as fact is to be regarded as doctrine, and the formulated definitions of confessional theology as dogma. The range of dogma is comparatively limited: the peculiarities of any system of theology cannot safely be considered such. They can only be considered obligatory when they are avowedly accompanied by the Divine record from which they profess to be derived. The mere authority of the Church is not sufficient to render their acceptance binding; but every Church has the undoubted right to impose the acceptance of its theological system when it is accompanied by the Word of God. Its acceptance is then properly held to be the result of personal investigation, and of conviction of its Scriptural character. Let the science of Biblical theology be pursued with all possible earnestness. We consider its prosecution one of the more hopeful features of our own times, being especially fitted to rescue theology from the reproach of being more human than Divine. It will secure to the separate truths of Scripture a more distinct presentation, and Systematic theology will receive its con, firmation or its re-adjustment.

For various reasons the work before us calls for more than ordinary notice. As an elaborate treatise on "Systematic Theology," it has its claims upon our attention. Its appearance just now is almost like a protest against the existing tendency to disparage dogmatic teaching which is so apparent, though we are apprehensive it will rather strengthen than diminish that tendency. Its dimensions are large, the three volumes containing upwards of two thousand octavo pages. We have carefully read a considerable portion of them. They evidence wide reading and earnest work on the part of their able author, though it is very obvious the Princeton Professor has paid small attention to Methodist theolo

gical literature; and its theology receives only a slight notice. In a studied vindication of Calvinism, or Augustinianism, as Dr. Hodge invariably designates his system, we must be allowed to regard this as a most serious defect. In the frank and uncompromising assertion of his views, he reminds us of the late Dr. Cunningham.

It is almost superfluous to say that we have here much that is really valuable; and we should have had pleasure, had our space permitted, in referring pointedly to many instructive portions of the work. Where the author treats the great questions on which all evangelical Christians are agreed, there is much to commend, and much that may be read by the theological student with great advantage, though it is true we have more of breadth than of depth. Dr. Hodge is obviously not a philosophical divine; and we judge he would object to be considered in that light. He probably deems the absence of any evidence of this one of the merits of his production, and claims that it shall be considered and judged as an exposition of Scriptural theology. In the maintenance of his peculiar views he manifests a considerable amount of dialectic skill, and of what we must term hardihood of assertion. In the portions which we propose to pass under review, we have met with much that has startled us. It is remarkable that a mind so capable of logical reasoning can express itself in the manner in which Dr. Hodge constantly does. His assumptions are something beyond what is generally met with, and his gratuitous interpretations of some important portions of Scripture have awakened our surprise. Instances of circular reasoning constantly occur, and what to us are contradictions abound. These portly volumes, in fact, present a striking instance of the power of a system to control the entire current of individual thought. We need not say Dr. Hodge's theology is thoroughly evangelical; but at the same time the whole is based upon and regulated by an intense Augustinianism.

We have no apprehension that this system will become influential in our time. Whatever may be taught in the schools, it is a very diluted form of Augustinian thought that is proclaimed from the pulpit. Its bolder utterances are rarely or never advanced. From all that we can learn, we conclude that its special characteristics are quietly ignored; and a large approach is made to the deliverances which are heard from the pulpits of Methodism. The points of difference will be found almost entirely in the degree of prominence respectively given to the agency of God, on the one hand, and to that of man, on the other, in the realization of personal salvation. Both these agencies are represented in Scripture as being necessary

in that realization. While man "works out his own salvation," it is God that works in Him "to will and to do of His good pleasure." The Christian is "kept by the power of God," but it is through the exercise and instrumentality of his faith.

In many respects, as already indicated, we are at one with the author of these volumes; but we confess to a strong recoil both of conviction and feeling from his peculiarities of doctrine. "The Decrees" of God are here stated and held in their broadest form. It is said, "The decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His own will, whereby for His own glory He foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." That the Divine will is the only source of Divine action and law is a ruling thought in the Augustinian system. The will of God is no doubt always perfect in its determinations; but at the same time we must hold that it always has reference to the principles of eternal right. Truth and law are not such in themselves because God wills that they should be so; but the Divine will ordains and announces them for man's acceptance because they are eternally true and right. Any other supposition is fatal to all the principles of sound morality. It is by eternal principle, and not by eternal "purpose," that the Divine action is regulated. The doctrine maintained by Dr. Hodge impugns the freedom of God, and binds Him in the fetters of an iron necessity. If this be the order of Divine procedure, then, from the nature of God, it is the only possible order. It is in vain to chafe under the doctrine of necessity, and yet to hold an immutability of purpose on the part of the Deity.

On the question of the Divine foreknowledge there is no controversy. The difficulty arises when it is said, that foreknowledge involves foreordination. God, from the necessity of His infinite nature, sees the end from the beginning; but this in no sense affects or influences the action of moral agents like mankind. Moral agency implies moral freedom: otherwise it is a meaningless term and a delusion. If all that "comes to pass "be foreordained by an immutable decree, the idea of freedom utterly disappears: every thing is as it is, because it cannot be otherwise. If man sins because God has foreordained it, whether it be for His glory or not, where is the place for human guilt? No ingenuity of explanation can evade this painful difficulty. The notion is opposed to our moral consciousness: nothing is more patent to us than the reality of our moral freedom. It is impossible to save this teaching from the charge, which has been ever and again brought against it, of making the Almighty the responsible author of sin. If God foreordains, no manner of reasoning will convince men generally that He does not necessitate. The word "fatalism" is one which we are unwilling

to use; but the force of argument is with those who maintain that the doctrine here propounded by Dr. Hodge, when divested of the specious phraseology by which it is surrounded, inevitably projects us either into a state of indifference or a gulf of despair. We are not surprised, when this notion has been infused into the minds of young people, if they say, with an air of carelessness, "If I am to be saved, I shall be saved." What can be more perilous to the spiritual interests of men than a tenet which leads to such a condition of mind as the utterance of this sentiment indicates?

The doctrine of sin is discussed by Dr. Hodge at considerable length, and the chapter in which it is treated is worthy of a careful study. Most of the various theories which have been entertained on this important question are passed in review. The complex moral condition of man, as he appears to himself, was certain to occasion great diversity of opinion as soon as the subject came to be made one of special investigation. The Pelagian theory very naturally presents itself when the teachings of Scripture are not clearly apprehended, and the philosophical speculations of Augustine equally divert the mind from the truth. It is not surprising that sin should have been regarded as a mere negation or limitation of being. There is no doubt the entire theological system of Augustine was largely influenced by his philosophy: when the falseness of one notion is realized, even strong thinkers are in danger of passing to the opposite extreme. The deep conviction of the inherent and all-pervading character of sin which became a fact of experience to Augustine, blinded him to the fact of redemption in its influence on the race as sinners. Hence the form which his doctrine assumed, a form which not only involved mankind in guilt and condemnation, but also divested them of all moral freedom. The doctrine of Rome is essentially semi-Pelagian: its inculcation of work-righteousness makes this obvious beyond question. Sin is a positive evil, a transgression of the law of God; and includes a pollution of nature as well as an aberration of the will. As tho covenant representative of his race, the first man necessarily involved his descendants in the consequences of his violation of the law of God. However the reason of this great truth may be put, the teachings of Scripture are clear and decisive that guilt and impurity attach to every member of the race in his natural condition; that this guilt is a liability to the punitive consequences of the first transgression, and that this corruption is moral and entire.

As a certain result, had there been no act of redemption, and had the propagation of mankind been nevertheless allowed, every man would have been under the necessity of sinning; and without the

slightest power of self-deliverance. Moral freedom would have had no existence. The Augustinian theology is based on the supposition that this might have been the Divine procedure. Righteousness, in such a system, takes its course; and any subsequent interposition in the form of redemption leaves it perfectly open to God to select some members of the race, irrespectively of anything in them, and by an eternal "purpose," to be the objects of that redemptive interposition, the remainder being "righteously" left to experience the results of their sinful condition. The distinct revelation of Himself which God has been pleased to make, presents this to us as a course utterly opposed to the Divine character. Were this the manifest and certain teaching of revelation, we must either accept it, or reject the revelation entirely. We are reduced to no such alternative: we are sure that all the actions of God are in perfect accordance with His holy and infinitely benevolent nature. The question at once arises, Would the human family have been propagated, had there been no redemptive intention and provision in the order of God?-would not the sentence have taken immediate and absolute effect, had there been no such intention? The very announcement of such provision immediately upon the fall of Adam suggests that the perpetuation of mankind was the result of that provision. In this sense Christ was slain "from the foundation of the world." We shall not touch the inquiry, whether creation itself was or was not redemptive in principle; it is sufficient for us to believe that redemption was co-eval with sin.

THE PATRIARCH JACOB: HIS LIFE AND ITS LESSONS.

CHAPTER I.-EARLY DAYS.

"And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison; but Rebekah loved Jacob."-GENESIS Xxv. 27, 28.

HUMAN life cannot be fully represented. Words either exaggerate or diminish its appearances, since its unity, its motives, its profounder experiences, and interminable consequences, are rather supposed than discovered. The secrets of life are known only to God, and belong mainly to eternity.

The record of life is, however, always more or less attractive. It may be the story of humble existence, but its recitals are welcome Detailed human because read with a sympathetic interest. thoughts, activities, and experiences, are kindred to our own; hence their fascination. In truthful biography we may not always find the glitter and exciting variations of fiction, but this is more