Con

Bishop to hold slaves in the mildest and least objectionable form, is entitled to more credit than it has received. sidering the circumstances and the times, this was a long step in the right direction; and the act by which it repudiated the vile slave code that disallowed colored persons testifying against white persons was another. Add to this its justification of Baltimore Conference in suspending Mr. Harding because he would not manumit his slaves, and we have a trinity of antislavery measures that had no equal in any denomination in the country at that time.

If our sad experience with this "great evil" shall teach us the sin and danger of letting down our moral standard to secure the patronage of rich and worldly men it will not be in vain. Such a policy may seem to be wise, and may secure temporary benefit, but it will be ruinous in the end. Slavery will never again demand our approval, but other popular evils will. And they will promise grand results of political and social influence and financial aid. Let us not be deceived. "Righteousness exalteth a nation," but "sin is a reproach to any people." Once admitted, it will eat as doth a canker, and sooner or later neutralize our religious power, and leave us to be the prey of our enemies, and another monument of God's displeasure at the worldly wisdom of his people.

ART V. THE MODERN THEOLOGY OF HOLLAND.

Die Moderne Theologie in den Niederlanden, nach den Hauptwerken ihrer berühmtesten Vertreter. Von P. HOFSTEDE DE GROOT, Dr. Theol., Professor in Groningen, Bonn: Adolph Marcus. 1870.

THE conflict between evangelical and skeptical theology is waged with no less spirit in Holland than in Germany, France, Switzerland, and most recently in the Scandinavian countries. Dutch theology is largely affected by that of Germany, and sooner or later passes through pretty much the same stages. We do not mean that it is not original. Some of the strongest thinkers on the Continent are connected with the Universities of Groningen, Utrecht, and Leyden, and their works are hardly from the press at home before they are translated into both German and French, and often into English, and their

field thus indefinitely amplified. The Dutchman, in the use of both his original and suggested material, has the advantage over his German neighbor of being more practical, more directin a word, more Anglo-Saxon. This we see especially in both the skeptical and apologetical literature of Holland during the last ten years. The appeals of the two great parties to the conflict are cast in such popular mold, and are so pointed and concise, that one is never in doubt as to the meaning; and, as might be expected, the effect upon the masses is immediate, albeit the Dutch are not celebrated for hasty conclusions.

The controversy between orthodox and skeptical theology that has been waged in Germany largely by ponderous volumes, has been conducted in Holland very much by pamphlets. Many of these are of local interest only, and, even when they are not, the chances are that their small size causes them either to be overlooked, or regarded as unprofitable investments for the foreign book-market. Dr. Hofstede de Groot has clearly made good use of this ephemeral class of works-and our obligation to him is therefore all the greater-though he claims to bring to view only the principal works of representative Dutch Rationalists, in order to present a picture of the most recent Dutch skeptical tendency, or, as its adherents take special pleasure in calling it, the Modern Theology. He had presented it in the first instance as a lecture before a conference of Dutch and German clergymen, which convened in Wesel on the 11th and 12th of October, 1869. It has been translated into German by Dr. Wolters, and edited by Dr. W. Krafft, of Bonn University. In its present shape, while preserving the form of a lecture, we suspect from the elaborate tell-tale foot-notes that it has undergone considerable emendation and enlargement. It may be regarded as in some sense a sequel to the same author's elaborate article on "The Modern Theology: its Importance, Nature, and Origin," (published in the Waarheid in Liefde, a Dutch theological Review, 1864, pages 291–391,) and the two as a complement to the much-lauded address of Professor Doedes, of Utrecht, delivered on the opening of the new scholastic year, 1861, entitled, "An Examination of the So-called Modern Theology." The Modern Theology of Holland falls naturally into the three departments of History, Philosophy, and Dogmatics. I. The first work emanating from the school of Dutch Modern

Theologians-in fact, the one that gave origin and organization to it was "Letters on the Bible," by Busken Huet, who was at the time, now eleven years ago, a Walloon pastor at Harlem. The book was not distinguished by its originality, but by its striking way of putting old and long-refuted skeptical objections. Its style was attractive, and its negative dealing with the historical features of the Bible uncompromising and unblushing. Uhlich, of Germany, and Heinrich Lang, of Switzerland, have written in quite the same vein, and with hardly less skill. Huet attempts to show that the Biblical history, from Genesis to the end of Acts, is inconsistent with itself, unworthy of God, and therefore unreliable. This position he undoubtedly adopted from Professor Kuenen, of Leyden University. The latter makes a distinction between the history and the historiography of Israel, and would have us believe that the historians often modified, amplified, ornamented, and even falsified events, that had transpired before their day, and that they did this especially in the interests of the priests.

The two works in which Kuenen has presented his views at length are his "Historical-Critical Inquiry into the Books of the Old Testament," and his "History of the Israelitish Religion." The former is written in a forcible style, and can compete in every respect with the chief products of rationalistic criticism. in Germany. In negation it goes far beyond De Wette, Ewald, and Hitzig. For instance, according to him, we have but one Psalm by David, and not a single Proverb by Solomon. And why not? Because the only reliable history there is of these two men teaches us that it was as impossible for them as for their contemporaries to compose such pious Psalms and wise Proverbs! Their own character was too far below the moral standard of their alleged writings to admit such a supposition. "It is inconceivable that Solomon or his contemporaries ever reached the stand-point of religious or moral development which the Book of Proverbs exhibits. . . . Even the songs which Ewald and Hitzig assume to be Davidic, display a stand-point of religious development which was never reached in the Davidic period; they cannot be much older than the time of 'Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, or Micah, and it is even probable that some are still later." *

*Historical-Critical Inquiry, vol. iii, pp. 83, 266.

As for really historical ground, according to Kuenen we cannot go farther back than the eighth century before Christ, or the time of Hosea and Amos. All the preceding times are enveloped in hopeless myth. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the founders of Israel, are not persons, but personifications. They are purely ideal figures, for modern historical inquiry teaches us that races are not derived from one progenitor, but many. The development and preservation of Israel-its whole history-were the result of purely national causes. The religion of the Jews was of divine origin, just as other religions and the best systems of philosophy are divine. Here Kuenen digs a pit into which he afterward falls himself. He says expressly on pages 7, 9, 11, 12 of his " Israelitish Religion":"Between the religion of Israel and all other religious forms there is no real difference. . . . We cannot admit of a specific difference between the Jewish religions and its sisters.

The religion of Israel, like every other form, is the fruit of man's spiritual activity." In an essay in the "Godgeleerde Bydragen," (October, 1860,) he says: "The supernatural would be the superdivine!" But in the latter part of his "Israelitish Religion," on pp. 228, 290, 372, he contradicts his first position, and concedes to the Israelites a higher form of religion than any other nation possessed. "The great service of Moses," he says, was to combine religion with morality. Jehovah appeared before this people with moral requirements and commandments, and here lay the starting-point of Israel's rich religious development, the germ of all the glorious truths that were destined to ripen in the coming age. . . . Jehovah is distinguished from other gods not only in allowing himself to be worshipped by offerings and fasts, but by the observance of moral prescriptions which constituted the main import of the Decalogue. . . To the prophets it was revealed [how could Professor Kuenen ever let such an orthodox word escape his pen?] that Israel's salvation rests alone in true faith in Jehovah, and in unqualified surrender to his law."

There was, then, after all some difference between the God of Israel and the Baal, Ashteroth, Moloch, Venus, and Bacchus of the pagans! This contradiction pervades Kuenen's whole work-nay, his whole system—and is another specimen of what the Rationalists offer as a substitute for what they toil to

destroy. We prefer to keep what we have until they give us something that is at least self-consistent.

Scholten is the only other writer in the historical department of the Dutch Modern Theology we shall mention. In 1856, while yet orthodox, he wrote an introduction to the Books of the New Testament, which he aimed directly at the negative criticism of the Tübingen school. His most important work since his somersault is his "Gospel of John, Criticohistorically Examined," (1864,) a book defending Baur's view that what has been alleged as John's Gospel is not by John at all, but dates from the middle of the second century. This work has been ably reviewed in the "Waarheid in Liebe" (1865) by Dr. Thoden van Belzen, who demonstrates from Scholten's own premises and proofs that John was the real author of the Gospel, and that Scholten only arrives at a different conclusion by doing violence to his own argument. The reply is exquisitely conceived and very trenchant, and leaves Dr. Scholten in a most unenviable plight.

II. The philosophical element of Dutch Modern Theology has been less elaborated than the other two. The works of Professor Opzoomer, of Utrecht University, comprise the most important contributions in this field. He is the founder and representative of the empirical philosophy prevailing in the Netherlands. His work on Religion, which appeared in installments in 1864-1868, contains his whole system of the philosophy of religion. He here professes great respect for Christianity that is, his Christianity, one without either miracles or doctrines. In the following words of his we are reminded of that class of German Rationalists who are so cautious and conservative in their concessions to the evangelical school that, if they said less than they do, they would say nothing at all: "God is Father, the almighty and wise love; and Jesus of Nazareth is, by his life and example, the noblest incarnation of the service of this Father." Opzoomer makes the sad confession that his Christianity is that of Lessing, Goethe, and Schiller. He talks much of irresistible and unchangeable natural causes, forces, laws, but never seems to bear in mind that these cannot operate without, first, One to establish them, and then One to execute them. Sin is in the world; hence God willed it so. With him there is no difference